The regulations apply only to standard terms and not to individually negotiated terms.  Nor does they apply to a clause in a lease agreement that is prescribed by law.  If you are an owner or broker, we offer many types of leases, including ASTs, without unfair terms within it. You can find the documents here. Examples of potentially unfair rental conditions are those that: a term that compels the tenant to pay unnecessary and inappropriate fees is unfair. It is the owner who is responsible for the absence of unfair clauses in the agreement. Regardless of the date of the agreement, an abusive clause is not binding on a “consumer” (including a tenant) unless it is exempt from the duty of fairness. This does not prevent a tenant from relying on an abusive clause if he chooses, and the rest of the contract remains, if possible, effective. The law applies to municipalities and registered social housing providers, as well as private landlords.  Legislation on abusive contractual clauses depends on whether the contract began before or after October 1, 2015. The Consumer Rights Act 2015 applies to agreements reached on or after that date.
With respect to contracts concluded prior to that date, the unfair clauses of the 1999 Consumer Contracts Regulation (the “regulations”) continue to apply through the savings rules in derivative law.  The Consumer Rights Act maintains the key elements of the definition of an abusive concept contained in the regulations and consolidates many aspects of the previous act. Concepts that exclude or limit liability “to the extent permitted by law,” or “except as prohibited by law,” are also abusive. In addition to being disloyal, they are not clear – the average tenant will not understand the rental contract law under the Consumer Protection Act, the definition of an abusive clause remains the same as after the unfair clauses of the contracts made with consumers in 1999.