Hacker News Reader

Licenses/contracts are quite popular in place of ASTs in student/shared/bed sit accommodation.

Even in housing association properties, you can have a 2 year "trial" period.

You only have to lightly scratch below the surface these days to find rights eroded left and right.

EDIT: I said "in place of ASTs", but ASTs aren't always appropriate.

My understanding was that, roughly, if you pay a regular payment as rent for a property then you have an AST - whether the contract says so or not.

This is mainly in the context of house/flat rentals though; I realise that perhaps per-room rentals may have special cases.

Do such contracts actually make a difference, though? You can put anything you want into a contract, but that doesn't mean it's enforceable. An apartment lease can say, "Tenant waives all renters' rights under the law," but the tenant will still have all rights granted him by law. Is the problem simply that people believe the enforceability of their contracts beyond what is actually true?

I understand your point about other laws overruling contract law, but for housing (and I admit I haven't read the Housing Act(s)), I believe your rights under those acts are dependent on what kind of agreement is in place and the housing situation.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com