Have a new baby and the landlord wants us out

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Caranica

handlemaster wrote: »

The apt is now over occupied and in breach of agreement. Off to pay more or expect to be moving, you could take a case but it will come down to the same thing 1 contract you signed 2 how many are now living in the apartment

And you know this how? The op has not posted the terms of her lease on here.

Plenty of larger families ended up in 1 bedroom apartments in the recession. A one bedroom apartment is not necessarily a shoe box.

Op check your lease then talk to the rtb. I'd avoid Threshold, their advice isn't always accurate

jimmynokia

handlemaster wrote: »

So a contract means nothing if its the terms are broken by a tenant only if the landlord breaks it.

Dont give me that..We all know how things work aorund here and landlords are not saints either, Unless it specifially says 2 people in contract and you cant grow your family I would be telling him to go fcuk himslef..
Take note here its a baby NOT A FULLY GROWN ADULT.

emo72

when you think about it, theres labour laws to give women rights when they get pregnant while working, and maternity leave and so on. all nice things to facilitate women having a children and being able to keep their jobs.

but then a landlord can ask you to leave your home? seems extreme. unfollowing this.

KellyXX

The lease states that the property is to be occupied only by those named in the lease agreement.
This is very stressful now. First we find that prices have gone too high to buy, now they are too high to rent.
My other half is going to make some calls tomorrow.

I dont hold out much hope. I was talking to a fried who was in a 1 bed on social welfare and 6 months after her baby was born the social welfare told her she had they baby in a property that was too small for three people and they were cutting her off. She ended up staying for 9 months til she found somewhere and couldnt pay the landlord any rent as the social welfare stopped paying her the rent money. Maybe there will be better news tomorrow.

Graham

handlemaster wrote: »

So a contract means nothing if its the terms are broken by a tenant only if the landlord breaks it.

A contract cannot allow a tenant to opt-out of their rights.

The OP needs qualified advice as to their rights in this scenario.

Personally, I wouldn't be surprised to discover the landlords response puts him/her on the wrong side of the discrimination legislation.

Mrs OBumble

jimmynokia wrote: »

Your landlord is an A -HOLE your child will take years to grow up to consider it a third occupant or claim overcrowded unless its a box you are in.. He should wake up and even say give you three years then you need to worry.. Still he is what i said he is anyway..

It's not adequate to have a two or three year old forced to share a bedroom with its parents, or to have either of them regularly sleeping in the living area.

Just cos some people are doing it doesn't make it ok.

noodler

Get impartial advice OP.

There are other of landlords on this forum and you need to hear it from both sides.

Best of luck in the longer term though.

Graham

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

It's not adequate to have a two or three year old forced to share a bedroom with its parents, or to have either of them regularly sleeping in the living area.

Just cos some people are doing it doesn't make it ok.

I doubt the baby was born 2 or 3 years old, OP would be ok for a while.

FishOnABike

KellyXX wrote: »

The lease states that the property is to be occupied only by those named in the lease agreement.
This is very stressful now.

Don't panic, get some advice on the interpretation of this. The intent may be to prevent subletting or letting it out comercially under an air b+b type arrangement. You and your partner are still the occupants (a baby can't legally sign a contract).

It would probably be a stretch to say that you couldn't let a bona-fide friend or family stay over the odd time or if you were away on holiday and someone you knew would find it handy to stay somewhere overnight if they were in Dublin for a concert or something. The people on the lease are still the only occupants.

As others have pointed out, under the housing act it wouldn't seem to be overcrowded and terminating the lease because you have a young baby might fall foul of anti-discrimination legislation (on grounds of family status).

In the medium to long term you might well want to look for somewhere else, taking your growing family's needs into consideration, but that is easier to do without the potential threat of the immediate notice of termination of your current lease.

GGTrek

Eric Cartman wrote: »

The landlord is well within their rights and correct to do this. It is now overcrowded.

How anybody is recommending using the PRTB to delay being kicked out is beyond me. If we were talking about somebody getting a dog or a cat everyone would look at this logically, but because its a baby you're all thinking about it emotionally.

look for something further out of the city and commute. Don't oversold or make this landlords life even harder than I'm sure it already is.

That's what tenants tend to do in Ireland, first they f..k up terribly and then they complain about their responsibilities and try to get out of them. I shall write a post about this, since I actually terminated a tenancy at the RTB against a couple that did exactly what the OP did (although with two kids in a one bed apartment, at the second one I just said enough, they were taking the proverbial p..s!), same as the OP they just wanted to save money on rent.

JennyZ

I live in a lovely quiet complex of mostly one bed apartments. Very well run and the management company are on the ball immediately if anything goes wrong or anything untoward is going on. This sounds ridiculous to me, most of the occupants are single or single couples but some have babies (and a few dogs!) they usually move (as the apartments would be too small for an expanded family) but one baby - that is just ridiculous. let's all get on people. Unless the family or baby is causing an issue in the complex I think it's just very petty.

mikemac2

If you offered to pay 1300 instead of 900 all the landlords concerns about overcrowding would magically disappear, funny that

Eric Cartman

mikemac2 wrote: »

If you offered to pay 1300 instead of 900 all the landlords concerns about overcrowding would magically disappear, funny that

where does the OP say that ?
this view that all landlords are just money grabbing misers is quite the fallacy and just really hateful.

OldMrBrennan83

This post has been deleted.

Gumbo

mikemac2 wrote: »

If you offered to pay 1300 instead of 900 all the landlords concerns about overcrowding would magically disappear, funny that

Maybe it my landlord insurance specifically asks how many bedrooms are in the property and how many tenants I have.

Mrs OBumble

mikemac2 wrote: »

If you offered to pay 1300 instead of 900 all the landlords concerns about overcrowding would magically disappear, funny that

No, they wouldn't. Well maybe with some scummy LLs they would, but with most of us, they wouldn't.

Right now, when the LL has discovered the tenancy breach, is the time when the LL can act. If they left it be until the child was older, then the tenant can argue "it was OK last year, why not this year".

If you co-operate, then it's possible that the LL will be flexible about when you actually move: if you're lucky they will mutually agree a move out date once you've found somewhere else, irrespective of the legal notice periods, which means you aren't paying double rent. But to cover their own a*se, they will be issuing you official threatening-sounding legal letters as well, just in case you don't co-operate.

Get your child-benefit and FIS (if appropriate) payments in place, review your budget and figure out where you'll need to go to afford a place that's adequate for your family. If you're low income, also register with the council for housing assistance: it's unlikely you'll be offered anything for some time, but you never know unless you ask.

GGTrek

OP, I shall try to tell you the number of issues and breaches you committed and suggest a non confrontational way of dealing with your landlord, who in my opinion has a case for termination and I shall explain why in legal terms instead of just shouting moral judgments out of the blue like many posters above (particularly ridicolous mikemac2 comments they sound like a teenager). As I said I actually terminated a tenancy for a more serious case than yours (2 children instead of one).

These are the possible legal breaches:

1) You breached section 16(n) of the RTA 2004-2016: "(n) notify in writing the landlord of the identity of each person (other than a multiple tenant) who, for the time being, resides ordinarily in the dwelling." This is not too serious, but it will be if you don't provide name, surname and ID or birth certificate of the new occupant of the house after a simple written warning from the landlord. You should have done it without the landlord discovering it (it was not a suprise after all: you knew for months that you were expecting a baby).

2) If in your tenancy agreement it is written that the maximum number of people that can occupy the dwelling is TWO, then you are also in breach of a condition of the tenancy (a very important condition, no matter what the opinionated but legally ignorant commentators above are writing: "it is just a baby", a baby is legally considered a person and an occupant), now again if you received a written warning notice from the landlord that you have to reduce the number of occupants and you do not reduce the occupants, then the landlord is entitled to terminate your tenancy with just a 28 days notice period! Please read Section 34 table 1 of the RTA 2004-2016 (the otherwise means your tenancy agreement):
1. The tenant has failed to comply with any of his or her obligations in relation to the tenancy (whether arising under this Act or otherwise) and, unless the failure provides an excepted basis for termination—
(a) the tenant has been notified of the failure by the landlord and that notification states that the landlord is entitled to terminate the tenancy if the failure is not remedied within a reasonable time specified in that notification, and
(b) the tenant does not remedy the failure within that specified time.
Reasonable time by the RTB is considered a term of just 14 days.

3) Finally I believe that your flat would not be considered overcrowded following the definition of The Housing Act, 1966 in section 63 (underlined the paragraph that would apply to the OP case):
“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),”
Your bedroom would have to be tiny to be considered overcrowded in order for section 34 table 2 apply "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." In the case I took to the RTB instead I had case law supporting my case of overcrowding with two children inside a one bedroom apartment. In particular this case: https://www.rtb.ie/archive/2012%20Disputes/2012%20Tribunals/TR212.2011.DR643.2011/Report.pdf

Now I believe the most damaging thing the OP can do is to continue avoiding communication with the landlord about the baby occupant issue as she had done before it was discovered by the landlord and continue to think it is a non-issue. In my opinion the OP should take the initiative and negotiate with the landlord an exit within a reasonable timeframe (6 months to a year) unless the landlord is available to change the tenancy agreement condition on the number of occupants and accept the new baby occupant (as a landlord I would not do it, since I have done it once and the tenants took the proverbial p..s and had another baby). If the landlord is not willing to change the condition and the OP takes a principled moral stand like some opinionated and legally ignorant posters in this thread, things will get ugly and the OP with a young baby will suffer stress (after all the opinionated commentators in this thread are not risking anything while the OP is risking the tenancy!). With the preventive negotiation the OP could avoid receiving a written warning notice of the point (2) above, since receiving it would almost be the sure death knell of the OP tenancy. Even going to the RTB (only after receveing a termination notice, not now with just a verbal warning like some ignorant posters are suggesting) will just delay the eviction if the lanldord hires proper legal advice and the formality of the termination notice that follows the warning notice(s) is correct: the only thing the adjudicator will be able to do in such clear cut case of breach of tenancy agreement is to propose a longer period to vacate (like she did in my case) and explain to the tenant that if he/she does not accept such agreement the period to vacate will be less (usually 28-56 days from determination order published).

Another suggestion for the OP, if she does receive the written warning: avoid going to Threshold, their front line staff are so ignorant they cannot distinguish between a warning notice and a termination notice. OP should in such case get proper legal advice from a solicitor specializing in tenancy law and evaluate if it is worth fighting (of course the solicitor will cost money). Even if the OP reaches an agreement with the landlord in the medium term (1-2 years) the OP should look for better accommodation for the baby that when growing will need a larger space than in the one provided by a small one bedroom apartment and remember that children cost money (even rent money).

I shall stop here and as I said in other threads: I could not care less about the morally opinionated but legally ignorant posters (there are way too many in this forum lately) and I am not running a popularity contest. With this post I am just providing the OP a clear point of view of the landlord side and the legal consequences the OP is likely to face. Good luck.

Delphinium

Can’t fault the above. You need to negotiate a plan to vacate with your landlord. Seems a fair person as rent must have been kept reasonable so try to work with him or her. You do need a larger place soon.

Tigger

georgewickstaff wrote: »

You cannot be serious? contracts saying you cannot have a baby? Are you renting in China?

Get onto the RTB first thing in morning and speak to someone who can help you properly.

Be careful on this forum. Some of the advice will border on the insane. "Can anyone mind your baby..." etc

had a tough day today and this genuinly made me laughboutvloud thanks

op tell them to cop on

Teyla Emmagan

Tigger wrote:

op tell them to cop on

You haven't a clue what you're on about.

CruelCoin

FishOnABike wrote: »

Don't panic, get some advice on the interpretation of this. The intent may be to prevent subletting or letting it out comercially under an air b+b type arrangement. You and your partner are still the occupants (a baby can't legally sign a contract).
.

Occupier means to be those living in it surely.

Unless the baby exists in another dimension and is occupying nothing?

Occupying something is not the same as leasing it.

Macha

As someone renting as part of a couple in Belgium and who recently had a child, I cannot get over this thread.

I thank the universe every day that I'm not renting in Ireland. It's completely insane that having a baby can be used as justification to terminate a lease. Absolutely insane.

Mrs OBumble

Macha wrote: »

It's completely insane that having a baby can be used as justification to terminate a lease. Absolutely insane.

No, having a baby is not the justification for terminating the lease.

Introducing a third person into the household is the problem. Doesn't matter whether it's a baby created by the tenants, a relative of theirs come to stay long term, or a random-er off the street.

Anyone who's lived with small children knows how difficult it is to manage unless you have one private sleeping space for each adult couple, and one for children (of each gender). It can be do-able for the first six-ish months (depending on you views about bed-sharing and room-sharing), but you really do need private spaces to teach children good sleep habits.

Anyone who's worked in social housing knows that this is the minimum required for a house to be considered suitable for a family.

Graham

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Anyone who's worked in social housing knows that this is the minimum required for a house to be considered suitable for a family.

This thread isn't about social housing and the OP's accommodation doesn't appear to meet the definition of overcrowding.

Tigger

Teyla Emmagan wrote: »

You haven't a clue what you're on about.

the op is paying under the odds and the is now a cap on increasing rent so the ll has decided a baby should be grounds for termination.

the op should simply ring the prtb and ask for advice
pretty sure this is discrimination against a family
in the constitution there is thisbannoying bit

"The right to consort together, to enjoy each other's company and to procreate"

but hey this is a thread when a landlord wants to evict a family at christmas for having a baby

i can see the media picking up on this btw

Graham

Mod Note: at best there are some very unhelpful, at worst potentially illegal suggestions being made. No more please.

Mrs OBumble

Graham wrote: »

This thread isn't about social housing and the OP's accommodation doesn't appear to meet the definition of overcrowding.

“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

It appears that the act says that it's OK for nine year old children to be sharing a bedroom with their parents!

I'd be pretty sure that it wasn't how it's intended, or is applied. But no, I cannot quote any case-law.

And I'm certain that wouldn't be considered OK in the real world, either.

The_Conductor

Graham wrote: »

I doubt the baby was born 2 or 3 years old, OP would be ok for a while.

Its in Dublin and is a 1 bed apartment.
It now has 3 occupants (including the baby).
If the OP is on social welfare or local authority housing benefit (including HAP)- they are instantly out of the scheme- under scheme rules- as the property is not considered suitable by either DSP or local authority rules (which are dictated by Eoghan Murphy's department).

If the property is a leasehold property (highly likely- most apartments built in Ireland since 1995 legally have to be)- the maximum number of occupants ordinarily resident in the unit will also most probably be defined in the landlord's lease (ordinarily resident- as opposed to occasionally resident).

Honestly- I think the OP should intensify their search for a 2 bed apartment, within their budget, either elsewhere- or seek assistance (possibly HAP) in their current location- for a larger unit (if/when one comes available).

The landlord could have handled this better- but the OP was a little deluded if they imagined this wasn't come up at some stage- and what the issue was going to be.

It is not relevant how old the child is- the fact of the matter is- there are now 3 people living in a 1 bed apartment- and according to two different government departments and all local authority rules- this is classified as overcrowded (wholly aside from what the landlord's lease with the Management Company states).

Its a baby, its Christmas, the baby is only small, we don't mind sharing, we can't afford to move, etc etc etc- while all are indisputable- and indeed emotive, unfortunately, and quite simply, the property is now overcrowded.

Lodging an appeal with the RTB- may delay the inevitable- however, regardless of whether the OP chooses to go down this road, or not, the fact of the matter is- they are going to have to move- whether its immediately or in the nearterm- and what these timelines are- is up for discussion.

The fact that the OP is paying below market rates- while very relevant for the OP- isn't really relevant for the situation and has no bearing on the fact that the unit is overcrowded.

I feel for the OP- genuinely, I do- however, I honestly think they need to do whatever it takes to procure alternate accommodation- and I would argue that they should make an immediate appointment with their local housing officer to see what they can do to assist.

Macha

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

No, having a baby is not the justification for terminating the lease.

Introducing a third person into the household is the problem. Doesn't matter whether it's a baby created by the tenants, a relative of theirs come to stay long term, or a random-er off the street.

Anyone who's lived with small children knows how difficult it is to manage unless you have one private sleeping space for each adult couple, and one for children (of each gender). It can be do-able for the first six-ish months (depending on you views about bed-sharing and room-sharing), but you really do need private spaces to teach children good sleep habits.

Anyone who's worked in social housing knows that this is the minimum required for a house to be considered suitable for a family.

As far as I can tell, the problem isn't that it's a 1-bed but that it's an extra person. So in theory, they could be renting a 2-bed apartment and having a baby still grounds for terminating a lease.

All of the things you talk about needing private spaces should be entirely none of the landlord's business. Belgian landlords don't waste their time thinking about these ridiculous things.

Edit: I know none of my contributions are directly helpful but dear God, the Irish rental market debate sometimes needs some perspective from other countries where things are managed in a far more sensible manner.