How much extra should be charged if gf and kid moves in?

beya2009

Hi anyone have any idea how much more in rent should be charged if gf and little kid decides to move in with bf in owner occupied house?


For example say bf is paying €100 a week (€80 for rent and €20 for bills) and gf wants to move in with their son (about 4-5 years old), how much extra in rent should be charged?


Thanks in advance.

Eric Cartman

almost no owner occupier would accept that, if they did through some madness id imagine they'd want 100 a week extra at least.

mr_cochise

I think letting them move in at all, no matter the rent charged, is a really bad idea for the owner occupier.
I know it's hard for families to get suitable accommodation but the owner occupier will have a seriously diminished quality of life, more wear and tear on the property and the family will effectively take over.
It will be extremely difficult to get them out when the time for that comes.

Dr Turk Turkelton

Don't think there is any amount of money that would be able to compensate the owner in that situation.

beya2009

Okay interesting responses...so it seems it would be too messy. Even though both bf and gf work full time and would be leaving kid with a child minder during working hours.

And how about if gf rents a separate room in the house? (it's a big house).

Or is it a case that situations like this simply don't work. It's a country house so big and spacious.

I have told owner that airbnb would be a much better option than long term rent.

Eric Cartman

beya2009 wrote: »

Okay interesting responses...so it seems it would be too messy. Even though both bf and gf work full time and would be leaving kid with a child minder during working hours.

And how about if gf rents a separate room in the house? (it's a big house).

Or is it a case that situations like this simply don't work. It's a country house so big and spacious.

I have told owner that airbnb would be a much better option than long term rent.

way too messy, theres no way an owner occupier could feel like they still owned the house with a whole family in there.

also , you were intending to have a 5 year old live in the same room as the two of you, thats complete madness.

this just isnt feasible in any way.

GingerLily

OP, I'm guessing your the boyfriend in this scenario?

A landlord would only allow this as a favour to the couple, so the price wouldn't really match what it should cost.

beya2009

GingerLily wrote: »

OP, I'm guessing your the boyfriend in this scenario?

A landlord would only allow this as a favour to the couple, so the price wouldn't really match what it should cost.

Yes. Explains why it has been next to impossible to get a place like that. I will see what happens as that one would be perfect. I've also been looking for studio apartment but their very pricey and nothing like this place.

GarIT

You cant confine a child to bedroom which is often where people renting a room in a house would stay.




Personally I'd need another €100 for the gf and probably €300-500 per week for the child.

Dav010

Op, if you are sharing a house with the owner, you are a licensee rather than a tenant. If the owner quickly tires of the situation where a family with a small child has moved into the house (highly likely), you can be asked to leave with little notice.

Caranica

The gf and kid can never "decide to move in" to an owner occupied property. It 's not the boyfriend's property. If my lodger approached me with that news he'd get his marching orders. At the very least you'd ask the ll if it were at all possible and ask how much extra they wanted in rent etc but any owner occupier who was OK with this would need their head examined.

Mrs OBumble

Caranica wrote: »

The gf and kid can never "decide to move in" to an owner occupied property. It 's not the boyfriend's property. If my lodger approached me with that news he'd get his marching orders. At the very least you'd ask the ll if it were at all possible and ask how much extra they wanted in rent etc but any owner occupier who was OK with this would need their head examined.

Only scenario where it should be accepted is if the OO is a relative. Even then no amount of cash would pay the OO for the risk of being falsely accused of child abuse.

Mod edit
One and only warning not to post in this tone again.
Next is ban.

knucklehead6

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Only scenario where it should be accepted is if the OO is a relative. Even then no amount of cash would pay the OO for the risk of being falsely accused of child abuse.

Wow

Just wow

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

Even then no amount of cash would pay the OO for the risk of being falsely accused of child abuse.

That escalated quickly!

OP, the owner occupier will get tax free income from extra lodgers and might be very happy for the extra income.

Ask them first and see what happens.

el Fenomeno

It would be rather unfair in my opinion to put a baby in a position where the owner occupier can make the family homeless whenever they want with little-to-no notice.

For the sake of the child, look for something more secure.

The_Conductor

beya2009 wrote: »

I have told owner that airbnb would be a much better option than long term rent.

I believe from the 30th June- the maximum stay under Airbnb rules in Ireland will be 30 days.

You *need* to bite the bullet and accept that you need to rent your own place.
Staying with an owner occupier- in any context- is a licensee not a tenancy arrangement- and you can be asked to leave with little/no notice- at the discretion of the owner- you have no rights of residency and you are not covered under the Residential Tenancy Act.

Yes- renting your own place costs more- because *its your own place*.
Any landlord who seriously considered your proposal- would be completely and utterly nuts to do so. Its impossible to financially compensate them for the arrangement- unless they agreed to move out altogether and let you rent the property as a whole- which would give you the tenancy rights that you need when you're bringing up a young child.

You need to look harder for alternate accommodation- and accept that yes, it is going to cost you.

Mrs OBumble

el Fenomeno wrote: »

It would be rather unfair in my opinion to put a baby in a position where the owner occupier can make the family homeless whenever they want with little-to-no notice.

A child of 4-5 is not a baby.

el Fenomeno

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

A child of 4-5 is not a baby.

Dont know why I had it in my head, thought the OP said it was a baby.

Regardless, point still stands for a 4-5 year old.

volchitsa

el Fenomeno wrote: »

Dont know why I had it in my head, thought the OP said it was a baby.

Regardless, point still stands for a 4-5 year old.

IMO it's a lot more important for a 4/5 year old not to be constantly at risk of being uprooted than for a baby - at that age they're starting to have friends and also they need to feel they're entitled to be there, chatting and taking part in what's going on, not to have to be hiding away in a bedroom or whatever to avoid getting on someone else's nerves (and TBF other people's 4 year olds are not as entertaining as you might think, so I'm not blaming the landlord either.)

But IMO for the sake of the child, never mind the landlord, I think the OP needs to find a place of their own to rent.

Lantus

A 5 year old fills a house with noise and smells and at all times night and day. It's a huge undertaking for a lodger arrangement.

Car99

Lantus wrote: »

A 5 year old fills a house with noise and smells and at all times night and day. It's a huge undertaking for a lodger arrangement.

Noise and smells , 24/7 ?

bertsmom

There is no amount of money that could persuade me to allow a lodger iny home move in his other half and a child.
Children can be noisy and disruptive ina home and bring smells from nappies etc which are all well and good if they are from your own child that you love and cherish but a lodgers child not in a million years!

Tefral

Car99 wrote: »

Noise and smells , 24/7 ?

my 6 month old farts more than me after a weekend on the beer.. everyday!

Arse on him like a broken chainsaw.

Lantus

Car99 wrote: »

Noise and smells , 24/7 ?

Feels like it someday. Arses like muck spreaders, makes their father very proud and brings a tear to my eye, literally.

Washing machine goes every day with a kid. They like to draw on walls and the general wear and tear is quite high.

If it's a very large house it might work.....

Marcusm

The_Conductor wrote: »

I believe from the 30th June- the maximum stay under Airbnb rules in Ireland will be 30 days.

You *need* to bite the bullet and accept that you need to rent your own place.
Staying with an owner occupier- in any context- is a licensee not a tenancy arrangement- and you can be asked to leave with little/no notice- at the discretion of the owner- you have no rights of residency and you are not covered under the Residential Tenancy Act.

Yes- renting your own place costs more- because *its your own place*.
Any landlord who seriously considered your proposal- would be completely and utterly nuts to do so. Its impossible to financially compensate them for the arrangement- unless they agreed to move out altogether and let you rent the property as a whole- which would give you the tenancy rights that you need when you're bringing up a young child.

You need to look harder for alternate accommodation- and accept that yes, it is going to cost you.

Airbnb limits will not apply wherethe owner also occupies the property. Restrictions will only apply to whole property let’s.

Mrs OBumble

knucklehead6 wrote: »

Wow

Just wow

A basic guideline taught in child-protection training is that an adult should never allow them-self to be alone with someone else's child, precisely to protect the adult from false claims.

In the scenario presented, it will be very, very difficult for the owner occupier (OO) to avoid ever being alone with the child: eg OO is alone in the kitchen washing the dishes, kid wanders in - choices are for the OO to leave the room, or to tell the kid to leave.

If the OO is willing to take that risk - what happens when the kid starts drawing on the walls and the parent doesn't stop it. The OO needs to either watch their property defaced, or to say something fairly firm to get the kid to stop. In which case, the kid complains to the parent "he yelled at me".

I absolutely believe that the OO will be at a major risk of false accusations and that no amount of cash could compensate for that.

This is nothing to do with child-abuse. It's everything to do with reputation management for the owner-occupier.

LimeFruitGum

I rented a room out to couples in a previous house to help with bills and the monthly mortgage. Doesn’t matter how nice they are, they do tend to take over the house and I often felt excluded in my own home. Couldn’t cook because they were using all the pots, monopolizing the shared spaces, and you’re the landlady bitch from hell if you ask them to help with chores.
Renting out the room got me over a financial hump, but I would rather take a lower rent from one person than put up with that again.

Couples and families simply need their own space. I know that’s hard to find, but it is a bit cheeky of the GF to think she can just move into a ‘stranger’s’ house like that, IMO.

Mrs OBumble

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

A basic guideline taught in child-protection training is that an adult should never allow them-self to be alone with someone else's child, precisely to protect the adult from false claims.

In the scenario presented, it will be very, very difficult for the owner occupier (OO) to avoid ever being alone with the child: eg OO is alone in the kitchen washing the dishes, kid wanders in - choices are for the OO to leave the room, or to tell the kid to leave.

If the OO is willing to take that risk - what happens when the kid starts drawing on the walls and the parent doesn't stop it. The OO needs to either watch their property defaced, or to say something fairly firm to get the kid to stop. In which case, the kid complains to the parent "he yelled at me".

I absolutely believe that the OO will be at a major risk of false accusations and that no amount of cash could compensate for that.

This is nothing to do with child-abuse. It's everything to do with reputation management for the owner-occupier.

It’s no wonder things are gone the way we are when people are promoting nonsense like “you can’t be alone with someone else’s child”. We need to be discouraging this thinking not adding fuel to the fire, it’s not a normal way to think.

That being said the scenario presented by the op is totally unworkable and no one in the right right would take in a family in a house share scenario but for “fear the big bad man” reasons.

Bob24

Gracelynn Magnificent Glasses wrote: »

It’s no wonder things are gone the way we are when people are promoting nonsense like “you can’t be alone with someone else’s child”. We need to be discouraging this thinking not adding fuel to the fire, it’s not a normal way to think.

Agree something has gone wrong when someone starts thinking “you can’t be alone with someone else’s child”.

But on the other hand, the exemple given by Mrs OBumble about finding yourself witnessing the kid damaging your property and being legally exposed if you take action and try to stop it isn’t unrealistic at all. So I can see how people would get to think that way.

the_syco

Gracelynn Magnificent Glasses wrote: »

It’s no wonder things are gone the way we are when people are promoting nonsense like “you can’t be alone with someone else’s child”. We need to be discouraging this thinking not adding fuel to the fire, it’s not a normal way to think.

Yes it's fcuked up, but it'd also be a reason that the LL could never evict them if the tenants were of the type to blackmail.

the_syco

the_syco wrote: »

Yes it's fcuked up, but it'd also be a reason that the LL could never evict them if the tenants were of the type to blackmail.

Let them try it, bowing to this crap is why people keep trying it.