dwelling no longer suitable to the accommodation needs of the tenant

rawn

intheclouds wrote:

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

The LL already increased the rent knowing there was 4 occupants and not 2.

JustAThought

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.

Ever seen a restaurant floor after a toddlers been at it? Babies drop things, spill drinks, knock into things, ram their toys into walls, accidentally explore and break things, crayon on walls etc not to mention two sets of buggies alongside freshly painted walls & plaster, tryicycles on carpets etc etc. And thats before tals are let running or food dropped onto carpets or any adult damage regardless how accidental. This is why people with young babies renting find it hard to find somewhere to rent - the normal goes out the window and an ordinary deposit just dosn't begin to cover it. Not to mention the zelot washing of wooden floors/laminate causing it to warp or the babyvomit smell on hall & stairs carpet or the endless washingmachine cycles just erroding the life of your tumbledrier and the nerves of your neighbours.

rawn

rawn wrote: »

The LL already increased the rent knowing there was 4 occupants and not 2.

He still would have been able to exceed the market rate which would be much higher for a 2 bed than a 1 bed. If I bought and furnished a 1 bed I would be doing it with the use of one or at most two people in mind. I simply wouldn't rent it to a person with kids, my preference would be a single person if at all possible. How many times a week will the washing machine get used by a single person vs a family of 4 and how much sooner will it have to be replaced, same for the dishwater, cooker, electric shower etc. Kids destroy paint work, furniture, door, kitchen cabinets etc etc so again more repair costs for the LL for the same rent he can get from a single person or a couple with no kids.

To be honest if I had a place I wanted to rent out (regardless of size) I would be avoiding people with kids as it is guaranteed to be far more wear and tear than single professionals or professional couples with no kids. They will also be harder to get rid off and will have much more chance of digging their heels in and over holding etc.

You are also ignoring the fact the LL can't insure the property.

intheclouds

rawn wrote: »

The LL already increased the rent knowing there was 4 occupants and not 2.

Still only within 1 bed levels.

Turtle_

rawn wrote: »

The LL already increased the rent knowing there was 4 occupants and not 2.

But can't get insurance! No rent increase can compensate for that

irishmoss

Turtle_ wrote: »

But can't get insurance! No rent increase can compensate for that

I think the OP had multiple properties insured and could not get this one insured due the numbers in the apartment under that policy. However he possibly could get it separately, Quote Devil for example give quotes to Landlords for single properties, there is no mention on their online quote system of how many people are occupying the apartment there at all.

4ensic15

irishmoss wrote: »

I think the OP had multiple properties insured and could not get this one insured due the numbers in the apartment under that policy. However he possibly could get it separately, Quote Devil for example give quotes to Landlords for single properties, there is no mention on their online quote system of how many people are occupying the apartment there at all.

Their online quote does not operate if the proposer has had insurance declined or subject to special terms by any other insurer. It would be of no use to the o/p.

GGTrek

irishmoss wrote: »

Turtle_ wrote: »

But can't get insurance! No rent increase can compensate for that

I think the OP had multiple properties insured and could not get this one insured due the numbers in the apartment under that policy. However he possibly could get it separately, Quote Devil for example give quotes to Landlords for single properties, there is no mention on their online quote system of how many people are occupying the apartment there at all.

I stongly believe you have no idea of how a comprehensive landlord insurance policy is contracted unless it is a very basic content insurance for a single unit and I strongly believe you are just wildly speculating based on lack of knowledge. Quote devil is absolutely useless except for the most basic insurances, when I tried to quote with them in September they just referred me directly to their insurance brokers! So please stop speculating. I got some very good advice in this thread, but yours is definitely not useful and actually very detrimental to my case. I cannot get owner s liability insurance on this apartment, this is a fact, it is not up for speculation! The tenants in the apartment are not on social welfare, they both work, they just want/ed to save money on rent. My decision has already been taken to terminate based on section 34 and I have already instructed my agent. For me this is a business and an investment, I am not running a side-show like many small Irish landlord, I have 10 different tenancies/flats to deal with together with my agent and I cannot do special favours to any tenant and run the risk of being uninsured for civil liability even on a single unit. At the end it was my own fault for listening to bad/weak advice from my previous representative in Ireland that over the years I let the situation become as bad as it is now for this particular unit and the tenants feeling entitled to stay at the place (even though they were verbally warned a few times to look for alternative accommodation).

ted1

JustAThought wrote: »

Ever seen a restaurant floor after a toddlers been at it? Babies drop things, spill drinks, knock into things, ram their toys into walls, accidentally explore and break things, crayon on walls etc not to mention two sets of buggies alongside freshly painted walls & plaster, tryicycles on carpets etc etc. And thats before tals are let running or food dropped onto carpets or any adult damage regardless how accidental. This is why people with young babies renting find it hard to find somewhere to rent - the normal goes out the window and an ordinary deposit just dosn't begin to cover it. Not to mention the zelot washing of wooden floors/laminate causing it to warp or the babyvomit smell on hall & stairs carpet or the endless washingmachine cycles just erroding the life of your tumbledrier and the nerves of your neighbours.

If there's additional wear and tear them take it out of the deposit. Dishwasher couches etc can be deprecated over 8 years.a family of four should get more than 8 years out of an appliance.

Realistically there's not much floor space to an apartment and you could replace the carpet / laminate floors for less than a 1,000.

Cheshire Cat

I would terminate the tenancy as well. The OP can't get insurance on the apartment and this means he is leaving himself wide open should anything happen. Why should he put his livelihood in jeopardy?

Lux23

Would you go and visit the tenants and have an open, honest chat about your concerns? Clearly they shouldn't be still there with two kids but maybe they don't realise that their tenancy is in jeopardy because of this and it may come as a massive shock if you do try and get them out. A two bedroom place shouldn't be that much more expensive and maybe you could help them find somewhere?

Its just a pity you can't talk to the PRTB about this.

Mrs OBumble

Lux23 wrote: »

Would you go and visit the tenants and have an open, honest chat about your concerns? Clearly they shouldn't be still there with two kids but maybe they don't realise that their tenancy is in jeopardy because of this and it may come as a massive shock if you do try and get them out.

Read the OP's posts: s/he has been there and done that.

Both of the tenants are working. They can afford a place which has capacity for four people, they are choosing not to.

Musketeer4

jon1981 wrote: »

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...

It's a really inappropriate arrangement. It's not quite at the level of neglect but if the parents have the ability to provide a proper home and they choose to stay here then I feel it borders on neglect.

Lux23

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Read the OP's posts: s/he has been there and done that.

Both of the tenants are working. They can afford a place which has capacity for four people, they are choosing not to.

Me and my partner both work and we couldn't afford a two bedroom flat in the city even without two kids.

Lux23

Lux23 wrote: »

Me and my partner both work and we couldn't afford a two bedroom flat in the city even without two kids.

Then you don't live in the city, you have to live somewhere suitable for your needs and a 1 bedroom apartment was unsuitable for when they had one baby never mind now with a second baby and toddler (at best, worse again if they are older) its gone way way beyond that.

While not quite as bad its similar to having kids in the back of a van with their seats tied rather than buying a suitable car.

rawn

Leah Rotten Washcloth wrote:

While not quite as bad its similar to having kids in the back of a van with their seats tied rather than buying a suitable car.

It is not similar! OP, the insurance is the issue here. If you can't get insurance based on the ratio and of people:bedrooms that is a perfectly fine reason to evict. All of this nonsense about wear and tear is not.

TheDoc

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Read the OP's posts: s/he has been there and done that.

Both of the tenants are working. They can afford a place which has capacity for four people, they are choosing not to.

Speculative

Edups

Darius Green Guava wrote: »

Then you don't live in the city, you have to live somewhere suitable for your needs and a 1 bedroom apartment was unsuitable for when they had one baby never mind now with a second baby and toddler (at best, worse again if they are older) its gone way way beyond that.

While not quite as bad its similar to having kids in the back of a van with their seats tied rather than buying a suitable car.

Very easy to say don't live in the city, but if you work in the city and you don't drive, like a lot of city dwellers moving elsewhere is not an option. Personally if I could I'd live outside the town and rent nothing short of a mansion for tuppence compared to a townhouse, but I don't drive so I need to be in the town to live any kind of comfortable life. Please don't comment on individual situations when you have no idea what you're talking about, sir

The current rental market is nothing short of a shambles, rent is over inflated and there is no where near enough properties to go around. It may not be a case of desire to live in a 1 bed apt with a family of 4, but circumstances may be the deciding factor. For reference the cheapest 2 bed apt in Dublin City is 1200p/m and it's a kip. Very easy to type these kinds of things while you're secure and happy in your home, presumably.

LirW

With the current demand of 2-bedroom apartments, as a family with 2 kids you are not the most desired tenants on the market. It's a bit of a catch 22.

looksee

The last few points may well be true, but they are not the landlord's problem. He is running a business, he cannot get the insurance that he needs because of the circumstances, he needs the tenants to move on.

All the appeals to sympathy etc are irrelevant; it is not the landlord's fault that there is a legal requirement for insurance and appropriate accommodation sizes, he is just running a business. As someone else said, you could just as easily make a 'landlord cramming family of four into one room' headline out of it.

Edups

Edups wrote: »

Very easy to say don't live in the city, but if you work in the city and you don't drive, like a lot of city dwellers moving elsewhere is not an option. Personally if I could I'd live outside the town and rent nothing short of a mansion for tuppence compared to a townhouse, but I don't drive so I need to be in the town to live any kind of comfortable life. Please don't comment on individual situations when you have no idea what you're talking about, sir

The current rental market is nothing short of a shambles, rent is over inflated and there is no where near enough properties to go around. It may not be a case of desire to live in a 1 bed apt with a family of 4, but circumstances may be the deciding factor. For reference the cheapest 2 bed apt in Dublin City is 1200p/m and it's a kip.

its not the LLs fault that many people nowadays are foolish enough not to learn a vital life skill such as driving. I am hearing about this issue from many sources, for example employers struggling to fill vacancies due to most of those applying not being able to drive and the job requiring mobility.

Edups wrote: »

Very easy to type these kinds of things while you're secure and happy in your home, presumably.

There is no way I'd have a child if I lived in a one bed apartment never mind have a second child. They made that choice and others are entitled to comment on their choice regardless of their own circumstances.

LirW wrote: »

With the current demand of 2-bedroom apartments, as a family with 2 kids you are not the most desired tenants on the market. It's a bit of a catch 22.

A 2 bedroom apartment is not where they should be moving, it would be a bit more appropriate but still not a suitable place for a family of 4 to live going forward. They need to find a house in a suitable location for schools etc that will do them for a few years as they don't want to have to keep moving when the kids start school etc.

Unless they are preparing to buy then a temporary stay in a 2 bed apartment would be ok if they have plans to buy in the next year or two.

Ms Doubtfire1

Edups wrote: »

Very easy to say don't live in the city, but if you work in the city and you don't drive, like a lot of city dwellers moving elsewhere is not an option. Personally if I could I'd live outside the town and rent nothing short of a mansion for tuppence compared to a townhouse, but I don't drive so I need to be in the town to live any kind of comfortable life. Please don't comment on individual situations when you have no idea what you're talking about, sir

The current rental market is nothing short of a shambles, rent is over inflated and there is no where near enough properties to go around. It may not be a case of desire to live in a 1 bed apt with a family of 4, but circumstances may be the deciding factor. For reference the cheapest 2 bed apt in Dublin City is 1200p/m and it's a kip. Very easy to type these kinds of things while you're secure and happy in your home, presumably.

..uhm...get a drivers license? In all fairness, that one of the easiest things in Ireland to accomplish.The tests are laughable...I'ma always in awe why people feel the need they MUST stay in dublin...I left 8 years ago and it's the best thing I ever did.

LirW

Darius Green Guava wrote: »

its not the LLs fault that many people nowadays are foolish enough not to learn a vital life skill such as driving. I am hearing about this issue from many sources, for example employers struggling to fill vacancies due to most of those applying not being able to drive and the job requiring mobility.

Its absolutely mind boggling that everyone doesn't learn to drive as soon as they turn 17 its absolutely essential.



A 2 bedroom apartment is not where they should be moving, it would be a bit more appropriate but still not a suitable place for a family of 4 to live going forward. They need to find a house in a suitable location for schools etc that will do them for a few years as they don't want to have to keep moving when the kids start school etc.

Unless they are preparing to buy then a temporary stay in a 2 bed apartment would be ok if they have plans to buy in the next year or two.

First thing: A license is not going to take you anywhere when you do not have the practice at all. My partner does have the problem: acquired his License, had no need for an own car, now we do have one (I'm driving but got my license abroad) and he has absolutely no driving experience. Contrary to the belief of getting your license just to have it, I do think it's pointless just having the thing but you practically can't operate a car because you didn't continue driving after getting it.
But I agree with the point of mobility, it does make sense once you'd depend on it.
Then there is just the thing with insurance left. Getting a car insurance now with no NCB is mental.


Second: Depending on the kids age, 2 bedrooms can be fine. What is wrong with it having two young children sharing a bedroom when there is simply not enough money to go for more? We do see how drastic the housing situation is in towns, how difficult it is for families finding suitable accommodation. Plenty of people in this thread stated they wouldn't rent out to families because other tenants are a lot more convenient. (No judging from my side, people can do whatever they want with their property)

Also telling people to move to the midlands because there is suitable accommodation is a bit naive. Driving people with less money out of towns can't be the solution to that.

Where I come from, loads of families live in apartments with 2 or 3 bedrooms, because that's the way towns are planned. (and I'm not particularly from a poor country)

pilly

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Housing Act 1966

And yet the DOSP is putting families in hotel rooms where they have to share? They can't really uphold these standards on one hand and wilfully ignore on the other?

irishmoss

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Both of the tenants are working. They can afford a place which has capacity for four people, they are choosing not to.

And maybe they are saving for a house, trying to do the best for their family.

As for two young tots living with their parents, these people have no problem

http://www.independent.ie/life/family/family-features/meet-the-irish-couple-who-share-an-18ft-bed-with-their-four-children-we-are-there-for-our-children-24-hours-a-day-and-night-35194786.html

Michael D Not Higgins

pilly wrote: »

And yet the DOSP is putting families in hotel rooms where they have to share? They can't really uphold these standards on one hand and wilfully ignore on the other?

I'd say emergency accommodation doesn't fall under the remit of the Housing Act. They can't say, "We don't have accommodation that meets the Act so you're going to have to sleep on the street."

Anyway, there's nothing here about the DSP upholding these standards. It's a private landlord protecting his investment from overcrowding, which he is entitled to do by law. The landlord is running a private market business and is under no obligation to consider the social needs of the tenants in his properties.

The OP is more than willing to be fair with notice to allow the tenants to find suitable accommodation but that shouldn't extend to letting them stay indefinitely, particularly with a risk of no insurance cover.

Marcusm

looksee wrote: »

The last few points may well be true, but they are not the landlord's problem. He is running a business, he cannot get the insurance that he needs because of the circumstances, he needs the tenants to move on.

All the appeals to sympathy etc are irrelevant; it is not the landlord's fault that there is a legal requirement for insurance and appropriate accommodation sizes, he is just running a business. As someone else said, you could just as easily make a 'landlord cramming family of four into one room' headline out of it.

Funnily enough, I doubt that the inability to get insurance is itself acceptable grounds for termination of the tenancy. Likewise, if the parents chose to sleep in the living space, I doubt that overcrowding could be justified. It's a funny one but analogous to the position of landlords of non compliant bedsits; they have been unable to use that as grounds for termination as I understand it.

Graham

Marcusm wrote: »

Funnily enough, I doubt that the inability to get insurance is itself acceptable grounds for termination of the tenancy. Likewise, if the parents chose to sleep in the living space, I doubt that overcrowding could be justified. It's a funny one but analogous to the position of landlords of non compliant bedsits; they have been unable to use that as grounds for termination as I understand it.

There is precedent in previous RTB determinations where a 1 bed apartment was agreed unsuitable for 2 adults and 2 children. I doubt that's binding on future decisions but it is indicative.

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

Funnily enough, I doubt that the inability to get insurance is itself acceptable grounds for termination of the tenancy. Likewise, if the parents chose to sleep in the living space, I doubt that overcrowding could be justified. It's a funny one but analogous to the position of landlords of non compliant bedsits; they have been unable to use that as grounds for termination as I understand it.

This is a clear a case of over crowding as you will see I don't know why people are trying to muddy the waters. A living space is not a bedroom and no matter where the parents sleep a one bedroom apartment is significantly over crowded with 2 adults, 2 children and all their stuff.

Do people not realise how much stuff there is with kids, I've seen good side 3 bedroom houses look packed and hard to get around with two kids or even one.

Marcusm

Darius Green Guava wrote: »

This is a clear a case of over crowding as you will see I don't know why people are trying to muddy the waters. A living space is not a bedroom and no matter where the parents sleep a one bedroom apartment is significantly over crowded with 2 adults, 2 children and all their stuff.

Do people not realise how much stuff there is with kids, I've seen good side 3 bedroom houses look packed and hard to get around with two kids or even one.

It would not be a manner in which I would choose to live. It is not uncommon in Dublin City for couples to occupy studios; adding on a double bedroom and two kids would likely not phase any of those couples. As for a 2 bed being unsuitable for a couple with 2 kids, I have to laugh. Other than commuting long distances, that is precisely the future which awaits many young families in Dublin whether or not you consider it appropriate.