How to handle this.

Irishcrx

I'm not sure if this should be in accomadation or PI but i'll go ahead anyway. I recently bought a house and had to redecordate the whole thing from scratch re-wire, floors etc. I rented out two rooms, one to a guy I know which is fine and another to a couple who I didn't know, when I rented I offered at a slightly lower rent on the basis that I still will be working on it bit by bit doing a lick of paint here and there but all the big works are done.

They moved in the end of last week and I explained that the heating isn't on yet because I am waiting on bord gais to come out and turn it on which they are doing today and we had a small issue with the electricity tripping out all teething issues I have to expect with everything just being done , the girl came in last night and had a complete go at me about this and that she doesn't want me working on the house while they are there, wants the heating on now and then proceeds to tell me that she's pregnant, now she never mentioned this before she moved in and given the situation I have an issue with it, I mean i'm 22 and I don't know if I want to be living with someone who is going to be hormonel and constantly flying off the handle do you guy's think this is something she should have brought up before moving in?

loyatemu

if you're living there I think you're within your rights to turf them out immediately. If they're giving you grief after less than a week - get rid of them, not worth the hassle.

EKRIUQ

Sharing a house with a couple can be hard at the best of times but when you have someone as someone acting like this already, it's going to be trouble and only get worse!

Best to tell them that you've found out that you have to do major work and they would have to move out for a while.Nothing you can do about it.

astrofool

If they knew about the work before moving in, they have no right to expect any different, and can be liable to lose their deposit if they break the lease early.

Obviously with a pregnant woman, do the right thing by her, as it is a stressful time, but it should not be at your expense, and frankly, they were idiots to move in and then complain about it.

I bet they were just hoping to get their foot in the door with the reduced rent, and then start making demands for their tenants rights without realising that, a) if they agreed to the work before hand, they have no leg to stand on and b) in a rent the room, owner occupied, situation, you can turf them out at any stage.

AARRRGH

Kick them out now. Seriously, this is just going to get messy and headwrecking.

You are not responsible for her pregnancy - don't feel obliged to "do the right thing". I've done that myself a few times and have ALWAYS regretted it.

The_Conductor

As you are resident in the house yourself, they are living with you "under licence" and are not party to residential tenancy laws etc. You are within your rights to ask them to leave at any stage, without giving notice or reason. If you are being generous you might give them a week or two to find alternate accommodation- but you owe them nothing.

That said- it was cold for a few days (and is gone cold again) so if the house was totally unheated- perhaps she did have a point.

Your call.

Irishcrx

It was cold enough in the house so I agree she had a point, but we did have portable heaters that I gave , My problem is that she didn't mention she was pregnant and is now telling me this and saying there can't be any fumes from paint or dust in the house but I still have painting and little pieces to do which I mentioned beforehand and I can't just drop them now. She also asked me to start smoking outside, I told them before they moved in that I smoked.

seamus

Your house, your rules.

If she doesn't like there being paint and dust and noise while you do the work, then she can move out.

If she doesn't like you smoking, she can move out.

You're under no obligation to pander to her pregnancy. Because you're living in the house you can pretty much do anything you want, short of violating their privacy.

I would recommend asking them to move out. You don't want to be sharing a house with a couple *and* their baby. It would be far easier for them to move out and get settled elsewhere while she's in the early stages of pregnancy. Asking them to leave is doing what's best for them and for you.

zefer

Irishcrx wrote: »

It was cold enough in the house so I agree she had a point, but we did have portable heaters that I gave , My problem is that she didn't mention she was pregnant and is now telling me this and saying there can't be any fumes from paint or dust in the house but I still have painting and little pieces to do which I mentioned beforehand and I can't just drop them now. She also asked me to start smoking outside, I told them before they moved in that I smoked.

As other psoters have said, as its your house and you are living there, they have no rights. Tell them its not working out and they have a week to find other accomodation. Otherwise, you could find yourself living like a tenant in your own home..

seamus

In addition, you're only 22 so standing up and telling them to feck off is probably a bit foreign to you, and they may be counting on that. You need to nip this one in the bud - procrastinating will make it worse.

As someone else said, they probably got their foot in the door and may start quoting a whole pile of things at you which they claim that you have to do.

THERE ARE NO LEGAL STATUTES OR REQUIREMENTS ON YOUR PART TOWARDS YOUR TENANTS (Just making that point clear). Pretty much the only right they have within your home is the right to privacy. Any other demands they may make are not backed up by any legislation.

Read this page, and memorise it:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/housing/renting-a-home/sharing-accommodation-with-your-landlord

Give them a week's notice and don't take no for an answer.

Ste.phen

I'd be inclined to give them slightly more notice than a week, bu otherwise all that seamus said is bang on, be gone with them!

seamus

Indeed, a week may be a little short. If they've paid you till the end of the month, then no reason not to let them stay till then.

thetyreman

Igy wrote: »

I'd be inclined to give them slightly more notice than a week, bu otherwise all that seamus said is bang on, be gone with them!

I agree with all above,and dont 4get about the change that will come when the baby arrives.Your house wont be your own,get rid ASAP..

radioactiveman

Defo agree with the above posts having rented myself to tenants in the past, seen behaviour like this in the beginning, let it go, and seen it continue and get worse as time went on.
Best to make an excuse now about the house not being ready than having it continue and escalate into a few months of trouble for just a few hundred quid.

anonymousjunkie

dude, you need to get her out

Fatloss08

you rented the room to a couple yeah ???

well baby is number 3 and u didnt agree that so out she goes

longer you leave it the harder it will be when she has bills etc all in her name and her own bank statements

now she may not have anything , get them out fast

The_Conductor

Fatloss08 wrote: »

you leave it the harder it will be when she has bills etc all in her name and her own bank statements

The OP is renting a room in his own house. There are no bills etc in anyone else's name, nor should there be. Irrespective of how long they stay there, they never gain any rights whatsover- unless the OP no longer lives in the property him/herself. Its up to the OP to tell them they are moving- and give them a date- and stick to it, irrespective of what excuses they give. They have *no* rights whatsoever.......

ZYX

Irishcrx wrote: »

I'm not sure if this should be in accomadation or PI but i'll go ahead anyway. I recently bought a house and had to redecordate the whole thing from scratch re-wire, floors etc. I rented out two rooms, one to a guy I know which is fine and another to a couple who I didn't know, when I rented I offered at a slightly lower rent on the basis that I still will be working on it bit by bit doing a lick of paint here and there but all the big works are done.

Am I the only one to feel sorry for this couple. I mean you say "all the big works are done" but then say there is no gas and the electricity doesn't really work as it should. I would epect rent to be more than "slightly lower" in this situation. As everyone has said you are within your rights to get rid of them but you cannot really blame them looking for adequate light and heat.

seamus

ZYX wrote: »

As everyone has said you are within your rights to get rid of them but you cannot really blame them looking for adequate light and heat.

They were told of the situation before they moved in. That removes any semblence of pity that I could possibly have had for them. They knew exactly what they were getting into, they have no right (legal or moral) to complain.

ZYX

seamus wrote: »

They were told of the situation before they moved in. That removes any semblence of pity that I could possibly have had for them. They knew exactly what they were getting into, they have no right (legal or moral) to complain.

Sorry were they? OP never said. He said all the big works were done.

subway

ask them to leave - they have no rights.
forget about the bleeding hearts, this is your home.
give them till the end of the month, or whatever rent they have paid.

there will not be a happy ending to this if you let it drag it out.
it probably wont be pretty now, but at least they will have a chance to find a place without telling the next landlord she is pregnant :rolleyes:

subway

ZYX wrote: »

Sorry were they? OP never said. He said all the big works were done.

They moved in the end of last week and I explained that the heating isn't on yet because I am waiting on bord gais to come out and turn it on which they are doing today and we had a small issue with the electricity tripping out all teething issues I have to expect with everything just being done

he didnt know the electricity was going to trip it, its a teeting issue.
he told them the gas wasnt on.
what more should he have done?

plasmaguy

Is there any way to compromise?

electric heaters, etc.

I don't think its an ideal situation for tennants to be in anyways, you probbably should have held back until the house is completed before bringing in tennants.

I'm with the tennants on this one I'm afraid.

ZYX

subway wrote: »

he didnt know the electricity was going to trip it, its a teeting issue.
he told them the gas wasnt on.
what more should he have done?

I think we are reading it in different ways and perhaps the OP will come back to explain. My reading is, they moved in and then were told heating wasn't working which is a little too late. I see you are reading it that they knew there was no heating and moved in anyway. I think OP would have phrased it that way, if that is what he meant but perhaps he will explain more.

subway

plasmaguy wrote: »

Is there any way to compromise?

electric heaters, etc.

I don't think its an ideal situation for tennants to be in anyways, you probbably should have held back until the house is completed before bringing in tennants.

I'm with the tennants on this one I'm afraid.

point is, there not tenants, they're lodgers.
maybe the situation isnt ideal, but they went in "eyes open" and if they arent geting on with the OP, whose house they are lodging in, he has the right to ask them to leave without notice.

Pat Mustard

seamus wrote: »

In addition, you're only 22 so standing up and telling them to feck off is probably a bit foreign to you, and they may be counting on that. You need to nip this one in the bud - procrastinating will make it worse.

As someone else said, they probably got their foot in the door and may start quoting a whole pile of things at you which they claim that you have to do.

THERE ARE NO LEGAL STATUTES OR REQUIREMENTS ON YOUR PART TOWARDS YOUR TENANTS (Just making that point clear). Pretty much the only right they have within your home is the right to privacy. Any other demands they may make are not backed up by any legislation.

Read this page, and memorise it:
http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/housing/renting-a-home/sharing-accommodation-with-your-landlord

Give them a week's notice and don't take no for an answer.

I have often heard people say that a tenant has no rights under the law just because that tenant is staying under the same roof as the landlord. It is true to say that the Private Residential Tenancies Board doesn't have jurisdiction - it says so in that legislation. That said, I don't know why people are so sure that the tenant has no rights. Okay, it does say that on the Citizen's Information website, but I think that there is no reason to believe that all of the previous law relating to tenants cannot apply. (I am prepared to be shot down in flames if I can be shown to be wrong). I am not saying the tenants DEFINITELY HAVE the rights, I just don't see why they wouldn't have them, and I think people should be very careful about throwing a tenant out on the street, because they might end up looking down the business end of a court injunction - especially in a case where you have a pregnant woman.

So, give your tenants until the end of the month for sure, if they have paid that far, but be very careful, and see if you can get them to leave amicably.

subway

The Mustard wrote: »

(I am prepared to be shot down in flames if I can be shown to be wrong).

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/housing/renting-a-home/sharing-accommodation-with-your-landlord

Sharing accommodation with your landlord

Tenants in Ireland who share accommodation with landlords are not covered by landlord and tenant legislation. Many tenants are not aware of this so this document aims to sets out the differences between this living arrangement and other types of rented accommodation

• Your landlord is not obliged to provide you with a rent book or a statement of rent paid
• They do not have to ensure that your accommodation meets any minimum physical standards
• Any notice you may get of the termination of the tenancy is at the discretion of your landlord (although they are obliged to give reasonable notice, the specifics of this notice may vary)
• Your landlord is not obliged to register with the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB)
• You cannot use the dispute resolution service of the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB) if a disagreement arises between you and your landlord
• You are not protected by the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 which prohibit discrimination on grounds of age, sex, religion, race and disability.

Curlypinkie

I can't believe a couple who have just found out they're going to have a baby still want to live under someone else's roof!
I would be all for trying to get our own apartment. They're not that difficult to come by nowadays and the rents are going down as well. I say, give them two weeks or a month. If you don't feel like you want to say it to them alone, get a friend or a parent who will be on your side. I have lived with a pregnant woman (my sister) and it was no fun to the point that we hated each other. And that was family mind you.
So get rid as soon as possible. Hormones are for the OH to deal with... you will find a new lodger no rpoblem. Especially if yo're saying you don't charge too much.

seamus

The Mustard wrote: »

Okay, it does say that on the Citizen's Information website, but I think that there is no reason to believe that all of the previous law relating to tenants cannot apply. (I am prepared to be shot down in flames if I can be shown to be wrong).

The vast bulk of tenants rights such as notice periods, minimum standards, Part 4 tenancy and so forth, come from the Residential Tenancies Act of 2004, which states:

3 - (2) Subject to section 4 (2), this Act does not apply to any of the following dwellings—

(g) a dwelling within which the landlord also resides

Citizens Information generally doesn't list incorrect advice

Where a contract (written or implied) exists between the landlord and tenant, it's best to stick to those terms. Which is why I revised my recommendation of notice from a week.

AARRRGH

I remember researching this stuff in the past. If someone is living with the landlord or the lease holder, they are a licensee (?) and only need to be given "reasonable notice" to leave.

Moonbeam

Are they extremely hard up financially?
Maybe that would explain why they are renting a room off you and the stress of that and the pregnancy are getting to her which is why is gave out to you?

I think you need to tell them that it isn't going to work out and maybe work out a temporary solution with them.

Irishcrx

I'll clear this as best i can. When they viewed the room they saw what the house was like (Construction site really) I said I'd be getting all the major thing's done IE re-wiring the house, new bathroom, door, floors , etc etc. Which are all now done, the electricity tripped out cause of a touching copper wire, the electrician was coming later that day and I explained it would be sorted in 8 hours max, he came and did it in time but before that she had a go at me and that's when she says she is pregnant which she NEVER even brought up with me.

The gas needs to be turned on by Bord Gais and they are slow at coming out, I provided electric heaters while they wait and when the electricity went it was only in one room the rest was fine. They asked me to get them a bigger wardrope as they had a mountain of stuff, I provided it, then they asked me to smoke outside, I didn't really want to agree to this as I've spend a fortune on this house and enjoy sitting down and watching TV and being able to have the option of having one, they knew I smoked before they moved in. All major works are done i do need to paint covings, skirting in parts and a few door frames that's all but they are things I want to get finished and anyone could see this could go on a while when viewing but they were entuisastic at first and wanted to take the room.

Ste.phen

plasmaguy wrote: »

Is there any way to compromise?

electric heaters, etc.

See post #7, he gave them portable heaters

Pat Mustard

subway wrote: »

http://www.citizensinformation.ie/categories/housing/renting-a-home/sharing-accommodation-with-your-landlord

Sharing accommodation with your landlord

Tenants in Ireland who share accommodation with landlords are not covered by landlord and tenant legislation. Many tenants are not aware of this so this document aims to sets out the differences between this living arrangement and other types of rented accommodation

• Your landlord is not obliged to provide you with a rent book or a statement of rent paid
• They do not have to ensure that your accommodation meets any minimum physical standards
• Any notice you may get of the termination of the tenancy is at the discretion of your landlord (although they are obliged to give reasonable notice, the specifics of this notice may vary)
• Your landlord is not obliged to register with the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB)
• You cannot use the dispute resolution service of the Private Residential Tenancies Board (PRTB) if a disagreement arises between you and your landlord
• You are not protected by the Equal Status Acts 2000-2004 which prohibit discrimination on grounds of age, sex, religion, race and disability.

The Private Residential Tenancies Act does not apply - that is clear. Particular parts of other landlord and tenant legislation does not apply, fair enough. However, there is a lot of case law out there relating to tenants rights, and I still haven't seen any law (as opposed to a website) that says that these rights should not apply. So what law says that someone cannot complain to a judge that his landlord has kicked him out of his accommodation, that he pays rent to live in that house, that he must therefore have a tenancy, and that he has all the rights of a tenant?

subway

The Mustard wrote: »

The Private Residential Tenancies Act does not apply - that is clear. Particular parts of other landlord and tenant legislation does not apply, fair enough. However, there is a lot of case law out there relating to tenants rights, and I still haven't seen any law (as opposed to a website) that says that these rights should not apply. So what law says that someone cannot complain to a judge that his landlord has kicked him out of his accommodation, that he pays rent to live in that house, that he must therefore have a tenancy, and that he has all the rights of a tenant?

see post #29 by Seamus.

anyway, if you would take the risk of visiting citizensinformation you would see that they are not a tenant, they are a licensee.
they can take a complaint to the SCC
Common claims that are heard by the Small Claims Court include:

Disputes about the retention of a tenant's deposit for what they consider unfair reasons
Disputes about the amount of notice you have received, in the case of termination of tenancy
Disputes about deductions from rent for damage to property that is over and above normal 'wear and tear

if you disagree with what i am saying post something to refute it, rather than saying you think i am wrong. if you dont post anything other than your opinion on the matter i wont be replying to you again as i have backed up what i am saying with trusted sources.
maybe you should ring threshold yourself and confirm what i am saying.

Fatloss08

Irishcrx wrote: »

I'll clear this as best i can. When they viewed the room they saw what the house was like (Construction site really) I said I'd be getting all the major thing's done IE re-wiring the house, new bathroom, door, floors , etc etc. Which are all now done, the electricity tripped out cause of a touching copper wire, the electrician was coming later that day and I explained it would be sorted in 8 hours max, he came and did it in time but before that she had a go at me and that's when she says she is pregnant which she NEVER even brought up with me.

The gas needs to be turned on by Bord Gais and they are slow at coming out, I provided electric heaters while they wait and when the electricity went it was only in one room the rest was fine. They asked me to get them a bigger wardrope as they had a mountain of stuff, I provided it, then they asked me to smoke outside, I didn't really want to agree to this as I've spend a fortune on this house and enjoy sitting down and watching TV and being able to have the option of having one, they knew I smoked before they moved in. All major works are done i do need to paint covings, skirting in parts and a few door frames that's all but they are things I want to get finished and anyone could see this could go on a while when viewing but they were entuisastic at first and wanted to take the room.

Them requests right there id just say a plain " **** OFF "

i bet there polish or something

i had this trouble before , but the point is people he explained all details to them and they neglected to state she was pregnant , that in itself i think makes any agreement null and void

OP , seriously just tell them they have 2 weeks , theres ****loads of places to rent , not as if they wont find anywhere and anyway its not ur problem

i have a couple moving in next month and they now the details etc and if they try squeeze a wardrobe or tell my other tenants to stop smoking , sorry its " listen you have 2 weeks notice " and believe me if they didnt wanna leave after that time , i would use brute force , no problems , nobody is gonna f up my house that ive gone through a lot of Shiite to get , no way

the_syco

Leave a few strong smelling paint cans in the hall where they can see them, and then tell them as it's not working out, so they'll have to leave.

Pat Mustard

subway wrote: »

see post #29 by Seamus.

anyway, if you would take the risk of visiting citizensinformation you would see that they are not a tenant, they are a licensee.
they can take a complaint to the SCC
Common claims that are heard by the Small Claims Court include:

Disputes about the retention of a tenant's deposit for what they consider unfair reasons
Disputes about the amount of notice you have received, in the case of termination of tenancy
Disputes about deductions from rent for damage to property that is over and above normal 'wear and tear

if you disagree with what i am saying post something to refute it, rather than saying you think i am wrong. if you dont post anything other than your opinion on the matter i wont be replying to you again as i have backed up what i am saying with trusted sources.
maybe you should ring threshold yourself and confirm what i am saying.

Okay. I think Citizens Information may very well be wrong. At the risk of boring people with law talk, all tenancies are founded on contract (whether written or not). This is set out in Deasy's Act, otherwise known as the Landlord & Tenant Law Amendment Act 1860 - see section 3. Deasy's Act cannot be contracted out of so a tenant's rights remain, despite what a lease may set out. Deasys Act specifies that the relationship of landlord and tenant is deemed to subsist where there is an agreement by one party to hold land from or under another in consideration of any form of rent. The Private Residential Tenancies Act does not say that Deasys Act does not apply in the case of a tenant living with their landlord.

I have also seen the argument that a person living under the same roof of the landlord is there as a licensee, not a tenant. I know that Citizen's Information also agrees with that. People make that argument on the basis that the 'licensee' does not 'hold land' (per Deasys Act), but I have yet to see that tested out by a court to see how solid that argument is.

So you may be right, but you may be wrong. I'm not so sure.

seamus

The Mustard wrote: »

People make that argument on the basis that the 'licensee' does not 'hold land' (per Deasys Act), but I have yet to see that tested out by a court to see how solid that argument is.

Tbh, I can see it being very solid. The primary factor being that the landlord occupies the land at all times, therefore how can a tenant be seen to hold or occupy even a part of that land exclusively without some form of documentation?

Yes, there is a contract formed. If both parties have actually signed something, then that takes precendence (generally). If one party has paid rent in advance, say for a month, then there's a contract there which allows the tenant to remain for the rest of that month.

Jo King

The Mustard wrote: »

d.

I have also seen the argument that a person living under the same roof of the landlord is there as a licensee, not a tenant. I know that Citizen's Information also agrees with that. People make that argument on the basis that the 'licensee' does not 'hold land' (per Deasys Act), but I have yet to see that tested out by a court to see how solid that argument is.

So you may be right, but you may be wrong. I'm not so sure.

There are numerous English cases dealing with the lease licence distinction in residential lettings. The Irish cases are all related to business lettings.
Abbeyfield (Harpenden) Society Ltd, v. Woods [1968] 1
W.L.R. 374 the occupier of a room in an old peoples home was
held to be a licensee and not a tenant.

It is clear to me that anyone renting from an owner and sharing the services of the rest of the house is a lodger and therefore a licencee as held by the English authorities.

The PRTB will not deal with someone who is residing in the house with the landlord. The chances of someone renting a room in a house going to court for an injunction and/or seeking damages for wrongful eviction are minuscule. The chances of them winning eventually are even smaller. If they have the money for the legal expenses involved they would not be renting a room.
The o/p would be well advised to oust them as soon as possible and not be worried about remote fanciful legal challenges.

beertons

Not allowed smoke in your own home! 3 words, Do It Now.

Pat Mustard

Jo King wrote: »

There are numerous English cases dealing with the lease licence distinction in residential lettings. The Irish cases are all related to business lettings.
Abbeyfield (Harpenden) Society Ltd, v. Woods [1968] 1
W.L.R. 374 the occupier of a room in an old peoples home was
held to be a licensee and not a tenant.

It is clear to me that anyone renting from an owner and sharing the services of the rest of the house is a lodger and therefore a licencee as held by the English authorities.

The PRTB will not deal with someone who is residing in the house with the landlord. The chances of someone renting a room in a house going to court for an injunction and/or seeking damages for wrongful eviction are minuscule. The chances of them winning eventually are even smaller. If they have the money for the legal expenses involved they would not be renting a room.
The o/p would be well advised to oust them as soon as possible and not be worried about remote fanciful legal challenges.

I think we are all in agreement the PRTB will not deal with the matter.

What we are down to is: is it a lease or a licence (licensee or tenant)? There is plenty of caselaw that a guest in a hotel is not a tenant, but holds under a licence, so we can agree on that too. However, an old folks home is in the business of taking in guests under very specific conditions, not a million miles away from a hotel situation, and quite a bit different from the OP's situation.

Quote me a (decent) Irish or English case where a lodger, paying rent in a residential house in which the owner lived, was found to be a licensee and not a tenant in circumstances like the OP's, and I will shut the hell up. I promise!

radioactiveman

To be honest it's not really relevant unless it ends up in court which neither party is likely to want

Jo King

The Mustard wrote: »

I think we are all in agreement the PRTB will not deal with the matter.



Quote me a (decent) Irish or English case where a lodger, paying rent in a residential house in which the owner lived, was found to be a licensee and not a tenant in circumstances like the OP's, and I will shut the hell up. I promise!

In order to quote a case someone must have taken a case. All of the decided case have been where the owner was non resident. Some of them were held to be licences. A fortiori the situations where the owner is resident are infinitely more likely to be licences. Nobody has been stupid enough to go to court and argue that they were a tenant whilst living in the owner's house.
To paraphrase your point
"Quote me a (decent) Irish or English case where a lodger, paying rent in a residential house in which the owner lived, was found to be a tenant and not a Licencee in circumstances like the OP's"

taram

The smoke issue is going become a big wedge once the nights get colder and all you want is a fag and it's freezing out. I know it's horrible, but it wasn't declared or your issue that she's pregnant, soon it might be 'turn the tv off, the baby is sleeping' etc, it'll quickly become you versus them and the baby. Sorry it's turned out like this, but it's better to suffer a little problem now that a lot of hassle and ill will a few months after the baby comes.

Irishcrx

True, I can't imagine they'd be considering staying when the baby is born but then again they did say they rented to rent a year, there is no way I am having a baby in the house no offence but i'm only 22 and it would completely take over my house and I'm not having it totally unacceptable.

spockety

You are right. Bringing a baby into the house would not be good for you, for the parents, or for the baby itself. It's lose lose all around. The rental market is wide open, they will have no problem finding somewhere very quickly, feel no guilt.

seamus

Irishcrx wrote: »

True, I can't imagine they'd be considering staying when the baby is born but then again they did say they rented to rent a year, there is no way I am having a baby in the house no offence but i'm only 22 and it would completely take over my house and I'm not having it totally unacceptable.

You would find it completely taking over your life, not just your house.

Aside from the crying and screaming, before you knew it they'd be giving out to you for waking the baby when you came in drunk and turned the TV on too loud, or started complaining when you took the drill out at lunchtime on a Saturday to do some work.

You'd actually find yourself getting out of your own house to find solitude.

Pat Mustard

Jo King wrote: »

A fortiori the situations where the owner is resident are infinitely more likely to be licences.

Well, perhaps we will agree to disagree.

You are sure that they will be found to be licensees and therefore will have no rights. I have doubts about whether that is the case, because it has not been conclusively decided, to my knowledge.

You say that no-one has been stupid enough to take such a case. In many cases, lodgers like that don't have as much to lose as the house owner. If legal costs are awarded against a lodger, they can sometimes disappear without a forwarding address. Also, if you get a pregnant woman saying that she has a lease of a room in a house, with rights of way over hall, stairs and landing and use of the kitchen/dining/living rooms, I would be concerned that a judge will look on her case sympathetically. I don't think that it is 'fanciful' to take account of these possibilities at all, even if they may be less than probable. Hard cases make bad law, etc.

In any case, I think that most of us would agree that the OP should get that couple out, one way or another. You say kick her out, I say encourage her to leave when the month is up, to be on the safe side. Anyways, I don't have anything else to add on this.

Good luck OP.

The_Conductor

I'm closing this thread on that note.

S.