dwelling no longer suitable to the accommodation needs of the tenant

davo10

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Housing Act 1966

Are the op's tenants kids over 10 years of age?

jon1981

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.

wow ... what rubbish!!

Kids have been sharing bedrooms with their parents for decades and centuries ... why oh why is this now considered neglect?!?!

Myself and my sister shared a bedroom with my parents until they could afford a bigger house. I don't understand why this would ever be considered as neglect or a case for social services!

I'm sure it was hard on my parents but I have absolutely no affects from this and I turned out well...

Working class problems eh...

ted1

jon1981 wrote: »

wow ... what rubbish!!

Kids have been sharing bedrooms with their parents for decades and centuries ... why oh why is now considered neglect?!?!

Myself and my sister shared a bedroom with my parents until they could afford a bigger house. I don't understand why this would ever be considered as neglect or a case for social services!

I'm sure it was hard on my parents but I have absolutely no affects from this and I turned out well...

I think food and clothes are more important than separate rooms.

irishgirl19

Maybe its all they can afford. I can't imagine any family living like this by choice. As someone else pointed out , it must be a strain on their relationship before you consider anything else.
Very sad I think

GGTrek

runawaybishop wrote: »

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

You are spot on. I do have a problem with my landlord insurance with this particular apartment. If something happens to this family my owner s liability will not cover. I have a quite sophisticated multi-unit insurance that I can only get through Irish brokers underwritten by UK insurers (sites like gocompare don t perform well when the insurance policy needs some degree of customization) and they do not accept 4 people in a 1 bed apartment (there are also other clauses that discriminate social welfare recipients as a percentage of total occupants or maximum time a unit can stay empty, ...). In any case in September I quoted with 7 brokers and I could not find an insurance company willing to insure the owner s liability for this apartment due to number of occupants. There is a very small chance of something bad happening, but if it happens I am going to be in deep trouble with this family. A lot of posts in this thread just don t realize the practical problems and risks of being a landlord. Some people come here blaming small landlords, but the big REITs would have given the notice of termination many years ago.

Graham

GGTrek wrote: »

A lot of posts in this thread just don t realize the practical problems and risks of being a landlord. Some people come here blaming small landlords

I wouldn't worry too much about the pitch fork brigade. They find it very easy to be charitable with other people's income and I've no doubt an article reporting "slumlords cramming entire families into 1 bed apartments" would be met with calls for you to be burnt at the stake. You can't win either way.

FWIW past determinations from the RTB suggest they don't have a problem with tenancies being terminated legally if the accommodation is no longer suitable.

davo10

GGTrek wrote: »

You are spot on. I do have a problem with my landlord insurance with this particular apartment. If something happens to this family my owner s liability will not cover. I have a quite sophisticated multi-unit insurance that I can only get through Irish brokers underwritten by UK insurers (sites like gocompare don t perform well when the insurance policy needs some degree of customization) and they do not accept 4 people in a 1 bed apartment (there are also other clauses that discriminate social welfare recipients as a percentage of total occupants or maximum time a unit can stay empty, ...). In any case in September I quoted with 7 brokers and I could not find an insurance company willing to insure the owner s liability for this apartment due to number of occupants. There is a very small chance of something bad happening, but if it happens I am going to be in deep trouble with this family. A lot of posts in this thread just don t realize the practical problems and risks of being a landlord. Some people come here blaming small landlords, but the big REITs would have given the notice of termination many years ago.

Op. I have 3 apartments, one is a one bedroom, two are two bedroom. None of them have "sophisticated" insurance. What's the story here? None of my insurance is underwritten by Irish companies.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

I wouldn't worry too much about the pitch fork brigade. They find it very easy to be charitable with other people's income and I've no doubt an article reporting "slumlords cramming entire families into 1 bed apartments" would be met with calls for you to be burnt at the stake. You can't win either way.

FWIW past determinations from the RTB suggest they don't have a problem with tenancies being terminated legally if the accommodation is no longer suitable.

For the most part I'm partial toward landlords, simply because I am one. But where a tenant is performing and there isn't a valid reason for a gribe I'm stumped as to why there is an issue. It isn't a pitchfork, it's a family with kids in the room. If the op said they weren't paying rent or wrecking the place I'd be inclined to polish the pitchfork and practice my thrust but that is not the case.

Graham

davo10 wrote: »

I'm stumped as to why there is an issue. It isn't a pitchfork, it's a family with kids in the room.

I'm not sure there's a definite right/wrong answer. For every poster that thinks it's inappropriate for a growing family, there's another waiting to regale us with tales of growing up with 27 siblings sharing a straw mattress.

The OP is fully within his rights to decide the property is no longer suitable accommodation and it appears the law would support that decision.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

I'm not sure there's a definite right/wrong answer. For every poster that thinks it's inappropriate for a growing family, there's another waiting to regale us with tales of growing up with 27 siblings sharing a straw mattress.

The OP is fully within his rights to decide the property is no longer suitable accommodation and it appears the law would support that decision.

Which law? Are the kids over 10 years of age?

Graham

davo10 wrote: »

Which law?

I thought it has been mentioned already:

Section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act; Grounds for termination

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.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

I thought it has been mentioned already:

Section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act; Grounds for termination

Does that reflect the op's situation? Which part of that law references young kids sleeping in the room with their presents?

athtrasna

Mod note

You guys have already been asked by a mod to stop the to and fro arguing. Please take it to pm.

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

Are the op's tenants kids over 10 years of age?

You'd have to be a bit of a muppet to apply that law you referenced to parents of two young kids sharing a room because they have to to make ends meet.

I'm not advocating one way or the other, just quoting the definition of overcrowding in Irish law.

4ensic15

Housing Act, 1966

3.—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.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

Housing Act, 1966

3.—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.

Do you understand what the bolded type means? It sets out the minimum size of room which can be used as a bedroom.

It means that a room must be greater than 400 cubic feet in area. In case maths isn't one of your strong points, if the ceiling is 8 ft high the floor area would be 50 ft2, say 10 ft X 5ft or 7ft X 7.14ft. Are you suggesting that the room is this small or do you think it is 400ft3 per person?

Lumen

I think the regulation may be interpreted as 400 cubic feet per person.

Reference to this here:
https://books.google.ie/books?id=GiMUxjd2cw4C&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=bedroom+%22free+air+space%22+per+person&source=bl&ots=7UMlZJ_nOx&sig=XD403EyFROU--3hWDpoBYtQOJgY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo65jatpHQAhVHCsAKHcmVCwEQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&q=bedroom%20%22free%20air%20space%22%20per%20person&f=false

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

Op. I have 3 apartments, one is a one bedroom, two are two bedroom. None of them have "sophisticated" insurance. What's the story here? None of my insurance is underwritten by Irish companies.

You're an amateur landlord (nothing wrong with that - so am I).

The poster is semi-professional: I'd guess that s/he has enough properties for it to be worth having a pooled insurance cover over a set of properties. The cheaper premium is obtained by doing some risk management over the portfolio.

I don't know where anyone got the idea that the tenants cannot afford to rent a more suitable property. Maybe they can but are choosing not to. Maybe they can't - in which case they need to re-organise their lives. We simply do not know. But this problem did not appear overnight: if there are two kids involved, then it grew over an absolute minimum of 18 months - and more likely several years by this stage. There has been plenty of time for them to have got their s*it together and found more suitable accommodation.

If you don't have the balls to evict tenants with young children who are breaking their lease - as these folks most surely are - then landlord is not a business you should be in. You don't have to be harsh about it - plenty of notice, give a good reference etc. But some folks just need someone else to make them behave like adults.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Do you understand what the bolded type means? It sets out the minimum size of room which can be used as a bedroom.

It means that a room must be greater than 400 cubic feet in area. In case maths isn't one of your strong points, if the ceiling is 8 ft high the floor area would be 50 ft2, say 10 ft X 5ft or 7ft X 7.14ft. Are you suggesting that the room is this small or do you think it is 400ft3 per person?

Do you understand what the words the bolded type mean? It sets out the minimum size every occupant of a bedroom is entitled to. In case maths isn't one of your strong points, if the ceiling is 8ft height the area would be 200 sq feet, say 13ft by 15ft. That would be a much bigger bedroom than is found in the typical one bedroom apartment. Are you suggesting that once a room is 50sq ft, it can accommodate an infinite number and would not be overcrowded under the law?

irishmoss

I really don't get why you would ask these to leave, it's heartless. You have got a rent increase from them. Surely how they live is their business. These kids sounds like they are toddlers.

Would you have an issue if they let the kids sleep in the bedroom and they bought a sofa bed to use in the sitting room?

If you are so concerned about overcrowding the bedroom then maybe have a quiet word and suggest the above.

handlemaster

THe OP should chilled the beans. If they are paying the rent and te place is been looked after. Leave them alone I say. Only thing is insurance...If OP cant get cover that is a big issue

irishmoss

irishmoss wrote: »

I really don't get why you would ask these to leave, it's heartless. You have got a rent increase from them. Surely how they live is their business. These kids sounds like they are toddlers.

Would you have an issue if they let the kids sleep in the bedroom and they bought a sofa bed to use in the sitting room?

If you are so concerned about overcrowding the bedroom then maybe have a quiet word and suggest the above.

A family of 4 living in a 1 bed apartment is going to drastically increase the wear and tear on the apartment itself and on all utilities such as washing machine, dishwasher, shower etc etc.

A lot of people appear to be totally ignoring the fact his insurance is currently void also, this is a massive massive deal!!

It should really never have gotten this far once there was talk of the first kid they should have moved out themselves or have had it suggested to them as a one bed apartment is just about ok for a two people but no more.

The Muppet

I really couldn't see social services getting involved here . The are many owner occupiers in exactly this position with no prospect of selling to buy bigger.

I'm puzzled as to what the issue is here too I would suspect there is some other reason to look to evict .

Turtle_

The Muppet wrote: »

I'm puzzled as to what the issue is here too I would suspect there is some other reason to look to evict .

OP has an investment designed for 1 to 2 people to live in. Currently 4 people, with the wear and tear of 2 adults and 2 kids, are living there. He has no insurance, because there are too many people living there.

He's legally exposed, and his investment is being worn out faster than it should be. And as the kids get older, that wear and tear will increase.

Another point to consider is that once the kids start school it will be so much harder for the family to move. Sounds like the kids are still small, so the op is right to move them on before it becomes a bigger problem. He's been good to them - kept the rent well below market for a long time - yet is portrayed as heartless because he's having to do what they should have done years ago and say "hey, this isn't making sense"

mille100piedi

I guess their kids are still toddlers, if you don't ask them to move, for sure the kids will ask their parents to do so in a few years time. Can you imagine living with two teenagers in one bedroom apartment?what a nightmare.

JustAThought

As someone who's been at the pointy endnof renting with tenants who just refuse to pay and think they can live for free, and nightmare tenants who wreck the place including flooded bathrooms and BURNT floors and leave huge bills I am vagluey jealous of the OP who has quiet committed to each other tenants who do small jobs themselves and pay on time. Beyond the annoyance of having 4 in a room & wishing it was otherwise, and the very vague worry of insurance issues ( twould be great for the PTRB thou) I would be looking at the BIG upside of having reliable regular well behaved tenants who help out on the small things and are regular payers. You run the real risk of getting a basket full of other problems if you move them on & the new tenant could be a total noise nightmare/unreliable financially/get in multiple flatmates/only stay for a few
months & leave etc. You wil probably get more money if they move on & find something more suitable but when you consider the huge range of problems that can (and often do ) occur with tenants having two toddlers in cots/bunk bed in a parents room & the oarents not complaining is FAR from the worst. If the kids are only small no doubt it is not a problem for the parents now, but as their ages increase so will probably the problems - I'd say not for another year . The parents are probably prepared to put up with this for the while.<mod snip>

Naturally you don't want a family growing up 4 to a room with 5/8/12 yr old kids sharing with parents.

I'd start with a meeting & humane conversation with them - praising them for doing their best & being regular payers, helpful, nice happy family etc & to ask what their plans or timeline is as you do not want to force them to move but that in the long term they have to have a better plan as the one bedroom appartment is unsuited for a four person family & will be sustainable for their childrens developing growth & space needs . Don't point out issues of why - they know! It will just turn into a defensive I'm not a bad parent fight. They sound like a nice family & They might be saving for a house or have plans to emigrate and this sacrifice they are making is part of a long term plan they are working towards. Perhaps if you had visibility on that, you might be able to work with them towards their goal and they would know to start looking and mKing plans seriously but not be in a panic over Christmas/Jan/Feb. I would imagine that a financially struggling family would go into protective mode if they knew they had an ultimatum deadline and in this situation where they have been so good you probably don't want that & not to put that kind of pressure on already struggling & hardworking reliable people. You can always serve them if the conversation does not pannout they way you think it might in that they want to stay 4 yeas or whatever madness. In relation to the insurance can you split/remove the appartment from the main lease & put them in under a seperate policy & get the family to lay for that as an needed extra due to them breaking the terms of their lease & being 4? Although I agree you migh struggle getting a broker to cover 4 in a room - perhaps if they knew they were toddlers this might help?

They may not know about the schools registration area thing - perhaps knowing his might focus them on the emerging educational problem they will hit in a year or two unless they make plans now.

I've let things in terms of lease & contract slide when tenants were reliable & good - Ifound that by being reasonable & openly talking both sides were able to be honest & share intentions & sutuations that allowed us all to live & breathe a bit easier & to have an idea of what was going on & how we both might react - and for me where there was open conversation ( face to face over coffee) & honesty there were the greatest gains and the best tenants and outcomes.

However, I would also be mightily ticked off at whatever agent allowed this sutuation and problem to develope and if they were an estate agent would be putting something firmly in writing to them about their deriliction of duty & knowing lack of enforcement of contract that has lead to this situation/mess and making it clear that they will liable for any loss of revenue, costs, expenses and legal fees that you will incur in cleaning up the mess they caused by allowing the breach of Contract.

rawn

I don't understand how the wear and tear on washing, dishwasher or shower has anything to do with the number of bedrooms. Would it be less wear and tear if the family of 4 had 2 bedrooms rather than one? Would they wash less if they had more space or something?

4ensic15

rawn wrote: »

I don't understand how the wear and tear on washing, dishwasher or shower has anything to do with the number of bedrooms. Would it be less wear and tear of the family of 4 had 2 bedrooms rather than one? Would they wash less if they had more space or something?

It has to do with the number of occupants, not bedrooms. 1 or 2 people will cause less wear and tear than 4. It would be anticipated in letting a 1 bed that wear and tear would be based on use by 1 or 2. The rent for a 2 bedroom unit would be higher which would compensate for the higher wear and tear.

rawn

4ensic15 wrote:

It has to do with the number of occupants, not bedrooms. 1 or 2 people will cause less wear and tear than 4. It would be anticipated in letting a 1 bed that wear and tear would be based on use by 1 or 2. The rent for a 2 bedroom unit would be higher which would compensate for the higher wear and tear.

Landlords love throwing out the phrase wear and tear like it means something but in this case I don't see how it would be an issue important enough to warrant eviction. 2 of the occupants are young kids. The wear and tear would be exactly the same of there were 2 bedrooms. If the family are happy, looking after the place and playing rent on time leave them be! OP could let to a single occupant whose 'wear and tear' could be much worse.

intheclouds

rawn wrote: »

Landlords love throwing out the phrase wear and tear like it means something but in this case I don't see how it would be an issue important enough to warrant eviction. 2 of the occupants are young kids. The wear and tear would be exactly the same of there were 2 bedrooms. If the family are happy, looking after the place and playing rent on time leave them be! OP could let to a single occupant whose 'wear and tear' could be much worse.

Rent for a 2 bed would be considerably higher than a 1 bed. Which would cover the extra wear and tear.