dwelling no longer suitable to the accommodation needs of the tenant

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

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.

A couple with one child a 2 bedroom apartment would be ok but anymore children and I cannot agree that its a suitable long term arrangement to bring up a family. It might be ok when they are small (leaving aside the lack of storage space for all the stuff you need with kids and lack of a garden etc) but once they get a little older and in particular if its a boy and a girl its totally unsuitable. Simply put don't have children if you can't house them in suitable accommodation.

LirW

Darius Green Guava wrote: »

A couple with one child a 2 bedroom apartment would be ok but anymore children and I cannot agree that its a suitable long term arrangement to bring up a family. It might be ok when they are small (leaving aside the lack of storage space for all the stuff you need with kids and lack of a garden etc) but once they get a little older and in particular if its a boy and a girl its totally unsuitable. Simply put don't have children if you can't house them in suitable accommodation.

Sorry, but that is a bit naive. What about unforeseen events like one of the parents has to deal with illness, is made redundant etc... and not able to afford the then suitable accommodation anymore? This happens a lot more than you might think.
Are you just "allowed" to start a family once you bought a house? Unfortunately couples and families in the future will be stuck in renting and since the prices are not going to be in decline anytime soon, you will find more and more families in smaller housing that they currently are.

Claw Hammer

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.

Not very funny. A tenant is usually under a duty not to prejudice the landlords insurance. Regarding non compliant bedsits, the council will order the bedsit closed or order work to be done. Either is grounds for termination. If substantial work has to be done it is a ground for termination. If the council orders it closed then that is the end of it.

LirW

LirW wrote: »

Are you just "allowed" to start a family once you bought a house?

It might not go down well to say it but yes I would be inclined to say that people should not start a family until they own a suitable property for the number of children they intend on having.

People need to take some personal responsibility and be sensible. Starting a family while renting a one bed apartments is not sensible imo same as for example people having children when they are long term unemployed and have the paw out for hand outs to raise them and house them.

Marcusm

Claw Hammer wrote: »

Not very funny. A tenant is usually under a duty not to prejudice the landlords insurance. Regarding non compliant bedsits, the council will order the bedsit closed or order work to be done. Either is grounds for termination. If substantial work has to be done it is a ground for termination. If the council orders it closed then that is the end of it.

Actually no; when DCC declared a large number of Grove Park and NCR properties non compliant, I understand that the landlords had significant difficulties in removing the tenants for the very simple reason that non compliance was not a ground for terminating the tenancy! DCC was of no assistance as it had no statutory role other than in the event of fire safety issues. Certain of the properties had upgraded fire safety systems and that could not be used as grounds.

It's actually quite common for a lack of joined uo thinking to result in circumstances such as this.

Marcusm

Darius Green Guava wrote: »

A couple with one child a 2 bedroom apartment would be ok but anymore children and I cannot agree that its a suitable long term arrangement to bring up a family. It might be ok when they are small (leaving aside the lack of storage space for all the stuff you need with kids and lack of a garden etc) but once they get a little older and in particular if its a boy and a girl its totally unsuitable. Simply put don't have children if you can't house them in suitable accommodation.

You might want to talk to families living all around Europe in apartments where children share bedrooms and there are no gardens. It might not form part of your philosophy, Horatio, but it is commonplace.

Michael D Not Higgins

Marcusm wrote: »

Actually no; when DCC declared a large number of Grove Park and NCR properties non compliant, I understand that the landlords had significant difficulties in removing the tenants for the very simple reason that non compliance was not a ground for terminating the tenancy! DCC was of no assistance as it had no statutory role other than in the event of fire safety issues. Certain of the properties had upgraded fire safety systems and that could not be used as grounds.

It's actually quite common for a lack of joined uo thinking to result in circumstances such as this.

However, overcrowding or "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" is one of the grounds for termination of a Part 4 tenancy, so no such problem exists.

Marcusm

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

However, overcrowding or "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" is one of the grounds for termination of a Part 4 tenancy, so no such problem exists.

But as is clear from the discussion here, reasonable people can differ as to what constitutes overcrowding and no evidence has been adduced as to whether the volume of air is insufficient in this case. Equally, I suspect that a landlord who has not seen fit to raise this issue until now might not be given the benefit of his assertions vis a vis what is overcrowding if he has to take it to RTB.

Graham

Marcusm wrote: »

I suspect that a landlord who has not seen fit to raise this issue until now might not be given the benefit of his assertions vis a vis what is overcrowding if he has to take it to RTB.

What's that suspicion based on given the RTB determinations to the contrary?

Marcusm

Graham wrote: »

What's that suspicion based on given the RTB determinations to the contrary?

Because they have to be fact specific; i.e. It might be a 6 month old and a 2 year old in a 650sq ft apartment and the RTB might very well not regard that as overcrowded whereas a 12 year old plus parents in a 400 sq ft might very well be.

Graham

Marcusm wrote: »

Because they have to be fact specific; i.e. It might be a 6 month old and a 2 year old in a 650sq ft apartment and the RTB might very well not regard that as overcrowded whereas a 12 year old plus parents in a 400 sq ft might very well be.

Sounds like both children are over 2.

GGTrek wrote: »

then came the first child and then a couple of years ago the second one

Marcusm

Marcusm wrote: »

You might want to talk to families living all around Europe in apartments where children share bedrooms and there are no gardens. It might not form part of your philosophy, Horatio, but it is commonplace.

Talk to them about what? Just because some people in other countries live in what many would consider unsuitable accommodation for rising children doesn't mean we should be ok with it here or even worse encouraging it.

Are you seriously claiming that, for instance, its perfectly ok to have a teenage girl and boy sharing a room?

The_Conductor

As the topic is straying significantly from the remit of the OP's query- which I believe has been addressed, closing thread. Thanks guys.