This paper examines the extent to which law and regulation protects students renting from private individuals or private companies, as opposed to universities, in both of the main types of student accommodation, the private rented sector (PRS) and purpose-built student accommodation (PBSA). It first examines the different problems faced by students in both tenure types, notably issues of repair and the failure of PBSA providers to complete accommodation in time for the beginning of term. Secondly, it considers consumerisation of private renting and the extent to which a consumer protection law approach can assist tenants generally, and students specifically. Thirdly, the paper explains how power relationships between students and landlords and issues with access to legal advice restrict access to justice for student as tenants. It is argued that whilst consumer contract law and consumer protection law have something to offer student tenants (particularly in PBSA) a generic consumer approach to the rights of tenants is insufficient because the nature of the landlord and tenant relationship inhibits access to legal redress. It is concluded that in addition to improved consumer protections, a proactive approach by both local authorities and universities could significantly improve the experiences of students.

The paper discusses the many reasons why housing policy can appear to be both incoherent and ineffective - with too many Departments involved each with different objectives and a plethora of policies pulling in different directions. Drawing on earlier research findings the paper discusses three examples which have impacted on tenure mix – the growth in the private rented sector where policy initiatives – except for unintended side effects – have been limited and market and macroeconomic pressures have dominated; a range of tax anomalies which provide inconsistent incentives and generate considerable costs to the economy; and the impact of specific policies which concentrate on supporting owner-occupation through new build initiatives. The paper concludes by asking whether housing policy is inherently unable to withstand the pressures placed on it by both politics and macroeconomic realities.

While the majority of households in England have become homeowners at the turn of the 21st century, some older people still struggle on low incomes in the less privileged sector of private renting. This article first explores the intertwining of the history of housing policy and provision with the lifecourse histories of individuals, seeking to describe the reasons why some older people are in the private rented sector. It then presents research findings that revealed how some older private tenants experienced different types and degrees of harassment and abuse by their landlords, from verbal and financial abuse to disrepair of property and illegal evictions. Both strands are brought together in looking beyond individual responsibility or culpability to the structural and lifecourse causes of the problems. People's housing choices and destinations are often shaped by a combination of their lifecourse circumstances and external (both economic and institutional) barriers. Where abuse is concerned, a two-tier tenancy system has made ‘regulated tenants’ vulnerable to their landlords; the legal remedies are endemically inappropriate; the housing benefit system is a major source of tension between landlords and tenants; and the modernised private rented sector has allowed no place for those who want secure long-term homes. In summary, this article examines how the law, housing policy and the housing market combine to produce particular problems for older private tenants.