dwelling no longer suitable to the accommodation needs of the tenant

GGTrek

I have two long term tenants (a couple) with two children renting a one bedroom apartment, when they first rented it was only the two of them, then came the first child and then a couple of years ago the second one. The children are growing and the bedroom has no space left with four beds (they added the beds for the children and in the lease it is stated that the apartment is for only 2 people) and the apartment is not fit anymore for a family with children growing and the situation is worsening each year that is passing. I spoke with the tenants several months ago and explained that the apartment is not fit for their family anymore and be careful if social services visits them, they just ignored my warning, probably because rent for a one bedroom apartment is cheaper than for a two or three bedroom apartments and since they are good tenants (they are clean, they perform small repairs/replacements and always paid the rent on time) I always kept the rent below market (substantially so until a couple of months ago when I increased the rent to see if they had more incentive to look for appropriate accommodation). I am seriously thinking now of starting termination proceedings by providing them the statement of facts with photographic evidence that the apartment is no longer suitable to the family and a written warning providing them 4-5 months to look for alternative accommodation before a 28 days section 34 notice of termination.

I have never experienced a case like this. I shall try to keep things as civil as possible, provide them additional months in the notice of termination if necessary and provide them a brilliant reference, but I am thinking about the worst case scenario: if they don t want to move out and I have to take the case to the RTB, what kind of evidence should I take? I am thinking that photographic evidence with a witness statement would be good enough but any suggestion is well accepted.

Ms Doubtfire1

I think the apartment not being fit for the use of the tenant anymore is a valid reason to terminate under Part 4.

I do wonder however why you would wish to terminate - I can not really lay my finger on any real complaint?

godtabh

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

I think the apartment not being fit for the use of the tenant anymore is a valid reason to terminate under Part 4.

I do wonder however why you would wish to terminate - I can not really lay my finger on any real complaint?

4 people in a one bed apartment and you cant put your finger on a real complaint? Seriously?

godtabh

OP When I first rented out my apartment I had a couple there. They got married and as couples do they had kids.

But they had cop on. They realized very quickly after finding out that they were having twins that the apartment wasn't going to be suitable (one bed like you). They asked to terminate the lease early. I had no problem with that as the apartment wasn't suitable for them.

Simple things like wear and tear would be massively increased

Ms Doubtfire1

godtabh wrote: »

4 people in a one bed apartment and you cant put your finger on a real complaint? Seriously?

actually yes I AM serious. As there did not seem a complaint about the tenant doing any damage etc.

I do agree with the fact that 4 are too many for a one bedroom apartment - and, as such, that is an acceptable reason to terminate under part 4.

But, as we all know. the RTB never favors the LL - so I could imagine they will want all kinds of reasons.

Ms Doubtfire1

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

I think the apartment not being fit for the use of the tenant anymore is a valid reason to terminate under Part 4.

I do wonder however why you would wish to terminate - I can not really lay my finger on any real complaint?

I wonder did you read the post? Even a couple with a small baby is probably too much for a onebed never mind two kids who are presumably not that small any more. It's totally and utter unsuitable and should never have even gotten this far if they had any bit of sense at all.

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

But, as we all know. the RTB never favors the LL - so I could imagine they will want all kinds of reasons.

It's a very clear cut case especially as no longer fit for the purposes alone is a reason for termination under part 4. If you terminate because you are moving in or because you are selling you don't have to give reasons why and 4 people in a one bed is a very clear case of not fit for purpose. It's most likely against the apartment complex rules also along with being a fire hazard and increasing wear and tear etc.

Michael D Not Higgins

See below the clauses required to issue notice of termination in respect to overcrowding.

RTA 2004 (amended 2015)

Section 34.
...
TABLE
...
2. The dwelling is no longer suitable to the accommodation needs of the tenant and of any persons residing with him or her having regard to the number of bed spaces contained in the dwelling and the size and composition of the occupying household and the notice of termination is accompanied by a
statement referred to in section 35.

Section 35.
...
(7) The statement to accompany a notice of termination in respect of a
termination referred to in paragraph 2 of the Table shall specify—
(a) the bed spaces in the dwelling, and
(b) the grounds on which the dwelling is no longer suitable having
regard to the bed spaces referred to in paragraph (a) and the size
and composition of the occupying household.

intheclouds

Wow - the wear and tear on the apartment must be really substantial if there are 4 people living in a one person apartment!!

Does it even meet with minimum rental standards?

You really should have gotten on top of this after they had the first child.

Its difficult to understand why you have waited this long to terminate?

You can expect them to dig their heels in now as its going to be very difficult for them to find somewhere suitable for their family size without a massive increase in rent.

Michael D Not Higgins

GGTrek wrote: »

...and a written warning providing them 4-5 months to look for alternative accommodation before a 28 days section 34 notice of termination.

Section 34 only has 28 days notice when the tenancy is less than 6 months.

jon1981

intheclouds wrote: »

You can expect them to dig their heels in now as its going to be very difficult for them to find somewhere suitable for their family size without a massive increase in rent.

+1

Also with 1000 families in emergency accommodation and many living in 1 room hotel rooms, I'd wonder if the PRTB will side with you. They might consider the current situation and see this as normal... (madness I know)

How about increasing the rent to cover the wear and tear?

EDIT: I saw you already increased it, ignore my comment.

kidneyfan

GGTrek wrote: »

I always kept the rent below market (substantially so until a couple of months ago when I increased the rent to see if they had more incentive to look for appropriate accommodation).

How thoughtful of you.

jon1981

kidneyfan wrote: »

How thoughtful of you.

The OP is not a charity, perfectly reasonable thing to do.

kidneyfan

jon1981 wrote: »

The OP is not a charity, perfectly reasonable thing to do.

His motives were charitable and thoughtful in the extreme. Very kindhearted to raise the rent. We must be cruel to be kind.

Graham

kidneyfan wrote: »

His motives were charitable and thoughtful in the extreme. Very kindhearted to raise the rent. We must be cruel to be kind.

Perhaps you'd be happy to take over subsidising the OPs tenants in larger accommodation for the next few years. Sounds like the OP has already done his bit.

GGTrek

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

...and a written warning providing them 4-5 months to look for alternative accommodation before a 28 days section 34 notice of termination.

Section 34 only has 28 days notice when the tenancy is less than 6 months.

Of course, I confused it with a termination according to section 67(1) , since in theory there is a breach of the initial lease that allowed occupation for only 2 people, but they might well argue that I knew that the family increased to three and then to four people and I provided them no warning in such cases, so I implicitly agreed to a change of the lease. It will be 196 days of notice then.
With respect to the people who said why I did not provide notices sooner, this is what happens sometimes when you don t manage directly the property and one of your agents has got a weak heart :angel:. The situation deteriorates very slowly until it becomes a very visible big sore.

Mrs OBumble

Would you call the SPCA if your tenants were neglecting a dog? If you would, then why not call social services yourself?

jon1981

I don't recall anyone accusing the tenants of neglect here

Paulw

Mod Note: Please keep on track guys. Less of the back and forth sniping.

quadrifoglio verde

To be honest if the tenants are good tenants as you say they are, once they're happy with the conditions then I'd leave it as it is.
At the end of the day, if they're not happy, they'll leave. If they owned the apartment, no one would really have an issue.
Is it suitable, nope but again if they're happy, it doesn't really matter.
You can be great parents and raise your children in small spaces, how many 10 member families were raised in two up two downs until 30 years ago or so
Are they Irish? My experience is that foreign nationals are much more happier to share small spaces

davo10

To be fair to the parents, they are putting a roof over their kids head and that is all they may be able to afford. I don't think any parents would choose to live in those conditions unless they had to. Op if they are paying rent and aren't causing problems I'd say live and let live. If you are concerned about the condition of your property then arrange for two monthly inspections to ensure the place is kept well. You could have a single occupant who parties all the time and wrecks the place so if they keep it well, what's the problem?

4ensic15

Children are not going to develop normally in over-crowded conditions. Years ago children could be left to go out and play on the road. I am not saying the children are going to grow up into axe-wielding maniacs who will cut the throat of an old age pensioner, after raping her but if the parents are irresponsible, you have to out your foot down.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

Children are not going to develop normally in over-crowded conditions. Years ago children could be left to go out and play on the road. I am not saying the children are going to grow up into axe-wielding maniacs who will cut the throat of an old age pensioner, after raping her but if the parents are irresponsible, you have to out your foot down.

You've added child pshychology to your infinite fountain of knowledge? Bravo.

To counter that argument, I put it to you that parents first priority is to put a safe and warm roof over their head, even if it means sharing a room. I can't think of any greater sacrifice to a couples personal relationship than this.

Mrs OBumble

4ensic15 wrote: »

Children are not going to develop normally in over-crowded conditions. Years ago children could be left to go out and play on the road. I am not saying the children are going to grow up into axe-wielding maniacs who will cut the throat of an old age pensioner, after raping her but if the parents are irresponsible, you have to out your foot down.

The kids are sharing a bedroom with their parents. Only a qualified social worker can make a judgement about whether that's neglect or not.

The LL's role is not to judge, it's to report the situation to the professionals who can assess and get the welfare system to provide extra support if the parents can't afford to provide adequate housing thmselves.

runawaybishop

Op, check your insurance policy as it may be invalid if you haven't notified them of a change in tenants. Not sure if they would cover that many people in a one bed though.

Your insurer must be notified every time a tenancy change take place. If not, claims may be voided
Read more at http://www.gocompare.com/landlord-insurance/beginners-guide/#4thG4e4xo2KYmays.99

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The kids are sharing a bedroom with their parents. Only a qualified social worker can make a judgement about whether that's neglect or not.

The LL's role is not to judge, it's to report the situation to the professionals who can assess and get the welfare system to provide extra support if the parents can't afford to provide adequate housing thmselves.

Are you serious?

Social welfare are paying to rent shard hotel rooms for families who can't afford accomodation and you are advocating contacting SW about a family who are paying for private accomadation, where the op states they are keeping the property well and paying rent on time?

4ensic15

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The kids are sharing a bedroom with their parents. Only a qualified social worker can make a judgement about whether that's neglect or not.

The LL's role is not to judge, it's to report the situation to the professionals who can assess and get the welfare system to provide extra support if the parents can't afford to provide adequate housing thmselves.

The Dept of Environment provide a definition of overcrowding. It doesn't take a social worker or psychologist to advise on overcrowding.

Terrlock

If it was me personally, I would not turn a family out of accommodation that would possibly make them homeless.


It's a terrible state this country has come too, with so many families with no homes, and no means to get one.

A family living in a one bedroom, is a terrible thing, but if they are good people, then you might not be doing them any favors evicting them with the current state of our economy.

My heart goes out to them it really does.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

The Dept of Environment provide a definition of overcrowding. It doesn't take a social worker or psychologist to advise on overcrowding.

Ya, it really does.

What is the department of social welfare's definition of overcrowding?

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

Ya, it really does.

What is the department of social welfare's definition of overcrowding?

Housing Act 1966

A house shall for the purposes of this Act be deemed to be overcrowded at any time when the number of persons ordinarily sleeping in the house and the number of rooms therein either—


(a) are such that any two of those persons, being persons of ten years of age or more of opposite sexes and not being persons living together as husband and wife, must sleep in the same room, or


(b) are such that the free air space in any room used as a sleeping apartment, for any person is less than four hundred cubic feet (the height of the room, if it exceeds eight feet, being taken to be eight feet, for the purpose of calculating free air space),


and “overcrowding” shall be construed accordingly.

ted1

As a landlord I'm sitting on the fence on this one.

Increased wear and tear, raise the rent.

Evicting a family with two young kids who can't afford to go elsewhere , as a parent with three young kids I couldn't bring myself to do it.

Talk to them and express your concerns , suggest that they look elsewhere but let them stay till they find some where

ted1

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The kids are sharing a bedroom with their parents. Only a qualified social worker can make a judgement about whether that's neglect or not.

The LL's role is not to judge, it's to report the situation to the professionals who can assess and get the welfare system to provide extra support if the parents can't afford to provide adequate housing thmselves.

Sure in every city in Ireland you had families of 6 or more sharing 2 room dwellings. No harm there