dwelling no longer suitable to the accommodation needs of the tenant

GGTrek

I have two long term tenants (a couple) with two children renting a one bedroom apartment, when they first rented it was only the two of them, then came the first child and then a couple of years ago the second one. The children are growing and the bedroom has no space left with four beds (they added the beds for the children and in the lease it is stated that the apartment is for only 2 people) and the apartment is not fit anymore for a family with children growing and the situation is worsening each year that is passing. I spoke with the tenants several months ago and explained that the apartment is not fit for their family anymore and be careful if social services visits them, they just ignored my warning, probably because rent for a one bedroom apartment is cheaper than for a two or three bedroom apartments and since they are good tenants (they are clean, they perform small repairs/replacements and always paid the rent on time) I always kept the rent below market (substantially so until a couple of months ago when I increased the rent to see if they had more incentive to look for appropriate accommodation). I am seriously thinking now of starting termination proceedings by providing them the statement of facts with photographic evidence that the apartment is no longer suitable to the family and a written warning providing them 4-5 months to look for alternative accommodation before a 28 days section 34 notice of termination.

I have never experienced a case like this. I shall try to keep things as civil as possible, provide them additional months in the notice of termination if necessary and provide them a brilliant reference, but I am thinking about the worst case scenario: if they don t want to move out and I have to take the case to the RTB, what kind of evidence should I take? I am thinking that photographic evidence with a witness statement would be good enough but any suggestion is well accepted.

Ms Doubtfire1

I think the apartment not being fit for the use of the tenant anymore is a valid reason to terminate under Part 4.

I do wonder however why you would wish to terminate - I can not really lay my finger on any real complaint?

godtabh

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

I think the apartment not being fit for the use of the tenant anymore is a valid reason to terminate under Part 4.

I do wonder however why you would wish to terminate - I can not really lay my finger on any real complaint?

4 people in a one bed apartment and you cant put your finger on a real complaint? Seriously?

godtabh

OP When I first rented out my apartment I had a couple there. They got married and as couples do they had kids.

But they had cop on. They realized very quickly after finding out that they were having twins that the apartment wasn't going to be suitable (one bed like you). They asked to terminate the lease early. I had no problem with that as the apartment wasn't suitable for them.

Simple things like wear and tear would be massively increased

Ms Doubtfire1

godtabh wrote: »

4 people in a one bed apartment and you cant put your finger on a real complaint? Seriously?

actually yes I AM serious. As there did not seem a complaint about the tenant doing any damage etc.

I do agree with the fact that 4 are too many for a one bedroom apartment - and, as such, that is an acceptable reason to terminate under part 4.

But, as we all know. the RTB never favors the LL - so I could imagine they will want all kinds of reasons.

Ms Doubtfire1

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

I think the apartment not being fit for the use of the tenant anymore is a valid reason to terminate under Part 4.

I do wonder however why you would wish to terminate - I can not really lay my finger on any real complaint?

I wonder did you read the post? Even a couple with a small baby is probably too much for a onebed never mind two kids who are presumably not that small any more. It's totally and utter unsuitable and should never have even gotten this far if they had any bit of sense at all.

Ms Doubtfire1 wrote: »

But, as we all know. the RTB never favors the LL - so I could imagine they will want all kinds of reasons.

It's a very clear cut case especially as no longer fit for the purposes alone is a reason for termination under part 4. If you terminate because you are moving in or because you are selling you don't have to give reasons why and 4 people in a one bed is a very clear case of not fit for purpose. It's most likely against the apartment complex rules also along with being a fire hazard and increasing wear and tear etc.

Michael D Not Higgins

See below the clauses required to issue notice of termination in respect to overcrowding.

RTA 2004 (amended 2015)

Section 34.
...
TABLE
...
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 and the notice of termination is accompanied by a
statement referred to in section 35.

Section 35.
...
(7) The statement to accompany a notice of termination in respect of a
termination referred to in paragraph 2 of the Table shall specify—
(a) the bed spaces in the dwelling, and
(b) the grounds on which the dwelling is no longer suitable having
regard to the bed spaces referred to in paragraph (a) and the size
and composition of the occupying household.

intheclouds

Wow - the wear and tear on the apartment must be really substantial if there are 4 people living in a one person apartment!!

Does it even meet with minimum rental standards?

You really should have gotten on top of this after they had the first child.

Its difficult to understand why you have waited this long to terminate?

You can expect them to dig their heels in now as its going to be very difficult for them to find somewhere suitable for their family size without a massive increase in rent.

Michael D Not Higgins

GGTrek wrote: »

...and a written warning providing them 4-5 months to look for alternative accommodation before a 28 days section 34 notice of termination.

Section 34 only has 28 days notice when the tenancy is less than 6 months.

jon1981

intheclouds wrote: »

You can expect them to dig their heels in now as its going to be very difficult for them to find somewhere suitable for their family size without a massive increase in rent.

+1

Also with 1000 families in emergency accommodation and many living in 1 room hotel rooms, I'd wonder if the PRTB will side with you. They might consider the current situation and see this as normal... (madness I know)

How about increasing the rent to cover the wear and tear?

EDIT: I saw you already increased it, ignore my comment.

kidneyfan

GGTrek wrote: »

I always kept the rent below market (substantially so until a couple of months ago when I increased the rent to see if they had more incentive to look for appropriate accommodation).

How thoughtful of you.

jon1981

kidneyfan wrote: »

How thoughtful of you.

The OP is not a charity, perfectly reasonable thing to do.

kidneyfan

jon1981 wrote: »

The OP is not a charity, perfectly reasonable thing to do.

His motives were charitable and thoughtful in the extreme. Very kindhearted to raise the rent. We must be cruel to be kind.

Graham

kidneyfan wrote: »

His motives were charitable and thoughtful in the extreme. Very kindhearted to raise the rent. We must be cruel to be kind.

Perhaps you'd be happy to take over subsidising the OPs tenants in larger accommodation for the next few years. Sounds like the OP has already done his bit.

GGTrek

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

GGTrek wrote: »

...and a written warning providing them 4-5 months to look for alternative accommodation before a 28 days section 34 notice of termination.

Section 34 only has 28 days notice when the tenancy is less than 6 months.

Of course, I confused it with a termination according to section 67(1) , since in theory there is a breach of the initial lease that allowed occupation for only 2 people, but they might well argue that I knew that the family increased to three and then to four people and I provided them no warning in such cases, so I implicitly agreed to a change of the lease. It will be 196 days of notice then.
With respect to the people who said why I did not provide notices sooner, this is what happens sometimes when you don t manage directly the property and one of your agents has got a weak heart :angel:. The situation deteriorates very slowly until it becomes a very visible big sore.

Mrs OBumble

Would you call the SPCA if your tenants were neglecting a dog? If you would, then why not call social services yourself?

jon1981

I don't recall anyone accusing the tenants of neglect here

Paulw

Mod Note: Please keep on track guys. Less of the back and forth sniping.

quadrifoglio verde

To be honest if the tenants are good tenants as you say they are, once they're happy with the conditions then I'd leave it as it is.
At the end of the day, if they're not happy, they'll leave. If they owned the apartment, no one would really have an issue.
Is it suitable, nope but again if they're happy, it doesn't really matter.
You can be great parents and raise your children in small spaces, how many 10 member families were raised in two up two downs until 30 years ago or so
Are they Irish? My experience is that foreign nationals are much more happier to share small spaces

davo10

To be fair to the parents, they are putting a roof over their kids head and that is all they may be able to afford. I don't think any parents would choose to live in those conditions unless they had to. Op if they are paying rent and aren't causing problems I'd say live and let live. If you are concerned about the condition of your property then arrange for two monthly inspections to ensure the place is kept well. You could have a single occupant who parties all the time and wrecks the place so if they keep it well, what's the problem?

4ensic15

Children are not going to develop normally in over-crowded conditions. Years ago children could be left to go out and play on the road. I am not saying the children are going to grow up into axe-wielding maniacs who will cut the throat of an old age pensioner, after raping her but if the parents are irresponsible, you have to out your foot down.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

Children are not going to develop normally in over-crowded conditions. Years ago children could be left to go out and play on the road. I am not saying the children are going to grow up into axe-wielding maniacs who will cut the throat of an old age pensioner, after raping her but if the parents are irresponsible, you have to out your foot down.

You've added child pshychology to your infinite fountain of knowledge? Bravo.

To counter that argument, I put it to you that parents first priority is to put a safe and warm roof over their head, even if it means sharing a room. I can't think of any greater sacrifice to a couples personal relationship than this.

Mrs OBumble

4ensic15 wrote: »

Children are not going to develop normally in over-crowded conditions. Years ago children could be left to go out and play on the road. I am not saying the children are going to grow up into axe-wielding maniacs who will cut the throat of an old age pensioner, after raping her but if the parents are irresponsible, you have to out your foot down.

The kids are sharing a bedroom with their parents. Only a qualified social worker can make a judgement about whether that's neglect or not.

The LL's role is not to judge, it's to report the situation to the professionals who can assess and get the welfare system to provide extra support if the parents can't afford to provide adequate housing thmselves.

runawaybishop

Op, check your insurance policy as it may be invalid if you haven't notified them of a change in tenants. Not sure if they would cover that many people in a one bed though.

Your insurer must be notified every time a tenancy change take place. If not, claims may be voided
Read more at http://www.gocompare.com/landlord-insurance/beginners-guide/#4thG4e4xo2KYmays.99

davo10

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The kids are sharing a bedroom with their parents. Only a qualified social worker can make a judgement about whether that's neglect or not.

The LL's role is not to judge, it's to report the situation to the professionals who can assess and get the welfare system to provide extra support if the parents can't afford to provide adequate housing thmselves.

Are you serious?

Social welfare are paying to rent shard hotel rooms for families who can't afford accomodation and you are advocating contacting SW about a family who are paying for private accomadation, where the op states they are keeping the property well and paying rent on time?

4ensic15

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The kids are sharing a bedroom with their parents. Only a qualified social worker can make a judgement about whether that's neglect or not.

The LL's role is not to judge, it's to report the situation to the professionals who can assess and get the welfare system to provide extra support if the parents can't afford to provide adequate housing thmselves.

The Dept of Environment provide a definition of overcrowding. It doesn't take a social worker or psychologist to advise on overcrowding.

Terrlock

If it was me personally, I would not turn a family out of accommodation that would possibly make them homeless.


It's a terrible state this country has come too, with so many families with no homes, and no means to get one.

A family living in a one bedroom, is a terrible thing, but if they are good people, then you might not be doing them any favors evicting them with the current state of our economy.

My heart goes out to them it really does.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

The Dept of Environment provide a definition of overcrowding. It doesn't take a social worker or psychologist to advise on overcrowding.

Ya, it really does.

What is the department of social welfare's definition of overcrowding?

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

Ya, it really does.

What is the department of social welfare's definition of overcrowding?

Housing Act 1966

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),


and “overcrowding” shall be construed accordingly.

ted1

As a landlord I'm sitting on the fence on this one.

Increased wear and tear, raise the rent.

Evicting a family with two young kids who can't afford to go elsewhere , as a parent with three young kids I couldn't bring myself to do it.

Talk to them and express your concerns , suggest that they look elsewhere but let them stay till they find some where

ted1

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The kids are sharing a bedroom with their parents. Only a qualified social worker can make a judgement about whether that's neglect or not.

The LL's role is not to judge, it's to report the situation to the professionals who can assess and get the welfare system to provide extra support if the parents can't afford to provide adequate housing thmselves.

Sure in every city in Ireland you had families of 6 or more sharing 2 room dwellings. No harm there

davo10

Michael D Not Higgins wrote: »

Housing Act 1966

Are the op's tenants kids over 10 years of age?

jon1981

Mrs OBumble wrote: »

The kids are sharing a bedroom with their parents. Only a qualified social worker can make a judgement about whether that's neglect or not.

The LL's role is not to judge, it's to report the situation to the professionals who can assess and get the welfare system to provide extra support if the parents can't afford to provide adequate housing thmselves.

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...

ted1

jon1981 wrote: »

wow ... what rubbish!!

Kids have been sharing bedrooms with their parents for decades and centuries ... why oh why is 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...

I think food and clothes are more important than separate rooms.

irishgirl19

Maybe its all they can afford. I can't imagine any family living like this by choice. As someone else pointed out , it must be a strain on their relationship before you consider anything else.
Very sad I think

GGTrek

runawaybishop wrote: »

Op, check your insurance policy as it may be invalid if you haven't notified them of a change in tenants. Not sure if they would cover that many people in a one bed though.

Your insurer must be notified every time a tenancy change take place. If not, claims may be voided
Read more at http://www.gocompare.com/landlord-insurance/beginners-guide/#4thG4e4xo2KYmays.99

You are spot on. I do have a problem with my landlord insurance with this particular apartment. If something happens to this family my owner s liability will not cover. I have a quite sophisticated multi-unit insurance that I can only get through Irish brokers underwritten by UK insurers (sites like gocompare don t perform well when the insurance policy needs some degree of customization) and they do not accept 4 people in a 1 bed apartment (there are also other clauses that discriminate social welfare recipients as a percentage of total occupants or maximum time a unit can stay empty, ...). In any case in September I quoted with 7 brokers and I could not find an insurance company willing to insure the owner s liability for this apartment due to number of occupants. There is a very small chance of something bad happening, but if it happens I am going to be in deep trouble with this family. A lot of posts in this thread just don t realize the practical problems and risks of being a landlord. Some people come here blaming small landlords, but the big REITs would have given the notice of termination many years ago.

Graham

GGTrek wrote: »

A lot of posts in this thread just don t realize the practical problems and risks of being a landlord. Some people come here blaming small landlords

I wouldn't worry too much about the pitch fork brigade. They find it very easy to be charitable with other people's income and I've no doubt an article reporting "slumlords cramming entire families into 1 bed apartments" would be met with calls for you to be burnt at the stake. You can't win either way.

FWIW past determinations from the RTB suggest they don't have a problem with tenancies being terminated legally if the accommodation is no longer suitable.

davo10

GGTrek wrote: »

You are spot on. I do have a problem with my landlord insurance with this particular apartment. If something happens to this family my owner s liability will not cover. I have a quite sophisticated multi-unit insurance that I can only get through Irish brokers underwritten by UK insurers (sites like gocompare don t perform well when the insurance policy needs some degree of customization) and they do not accept 4 people in a 1 bed apartment (there are also other clauses that discriminate social welfare recipients as a percentage of total occupants or maximum time a unit can stay empty, ...). In any case in September I quoted with 7 brokers and I could not find an insurance company willing to insure the owner s liability for this apartment due to number of occupants. There is a very small chance of something bad happening, but if it happens I am going to be in deep trouble with this family. A lot of posts in this thread just don t realize the practical problems and risks of being a landlord. Some people come here blaming small landlords, but the big REITs would have given the notice of termination many years ago.

Op. I have 3 apartments, one is a one bedroom, two are two bedroom. None of them have "sophisticated" insurance. What's the story here? None of my insurance is underwritten by Irish companies.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

I wouldn't worry too much about the pitch fork brigade. They find it very easy to be charitable with other people's income and I've no doubt an article reporting "slumlords cramming entire families into 1 bed apartments" would be met with calls for you to be burnt at the stake. You can't win either way.

FWIW past determinations from the RTB suggest they don't have a problem with tenancies being terminated legally if the accommodation is no longer suitable.

For the most part I'm partial toward landlords, simply because I am one. But where a tenant is performing and there isn't a valid reason for a gribe I'm stumped as to why there is an issue. It isn't a pitchfork, it's a family with kids in the room. If the op said they weren't paying rent or wrecking the place I'd be inclined to polish the pitchfork and practice my thrust but that is not the case.

Graham

davo10 wrote: »

I'm stumped as to why there is an issue. It isn't a pitchfork, it's a family with kids in the room.

I'm not sure there's a definite right/wrong answer. For every poster that thinks it's inappropriate for a growing family, there's another waiting to regale us with tales of growing up with 27 siblings sharing a straw mattress.

The OP is fully within his rights to decide the property is no longer suitable accommodation and it appears the law would support that decision.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

I'm not sure there's a definite right/wrong answer. For every poster that thinks it's inappropriate for a growing family, there's another waiting to regale us with tales of growing up with 27 siblings sharing a straw mattress.

The OP is fully within his rights to decide the property is no longer suitable accommodation and it appears the law would support that decision.

Which law? Are the kids over 10 years of age?

Graham

davo10 wrote: »

Which law?

I thought it has been mentioned already:

Section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act; Grounds for termination

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.

davo10

Graham wrote: »

I thought it has been mentioned already:

Section 34 of the Residential Tenancies Act; Grounds for termination

Does that reflect the op's situation? Which part of that law references young kids sleeping in the room with their presents?

athtrasna

Mod note

You guys have already been asked by a mod to stop the to and fro arguing. Please take it to pm.

Michael D Not Higgins

davo10 wrote: »

Are the op's tenants kids over 10 years of age?

You'd have to be a bit of a muppet to apply that law you referenced to parents of two young kids sharing a room because they have to to make ends meet.

I'm not advocating one way or the other, just quoting the definition of overcrowding in Irish law.

4ensic15

Housing Act, 1966

3.—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),

and “overcrowding” shall be construed accordingly.

davo10

4ensic15 wrote: »

Housing Act, 1966

3.—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),

and “overcrowding” shall be construed accordingly.

Do you understand what the bolded type means? It sets out the minimum size of room which can be used as a bedroom.

It means that a room must be greater than 400 cubic feet in area. In case maths isn't one of your strong points, if the ceiling is 8 ft high the floor area would be 50 ft2, say 10 ft X 5ft or 7ft X 7.14ft. Are you suggesting that the room is this small or do you think it is 400ft3 per person?

Lumen

I think the regulation may be interpreted as 400 cubic feet per person.

Reference to this here:
https://books.google.ie/books?id=GiMUxjd2cw4C&pg=PA60&lpg=PA60&dq=bedroom+%22free+air+space%22+per+person&source=bl&ots=7UMlZJ_nOx&sig=XD403EyFROU--3hWDpoBYtQOJgY&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo65jatpHQAhVHCsAKHcmVCwEQ6AEIJTAC#v=onepage&q=bedroom%20%22free%20air%20space%22%20per%20person&f=false

Mrs OBumble

davo10 wrote: »

Op. I have 3 apartments, one is a one bedroom, two are two bedroom. None of them have "sophisticated" insurance. What's the story here? None of my insurance is underwritten by Irish companies.

You're an amateur landlord (nothing wrong with that - so am I).

The poster is semi-professional: I'd guess that s/he has enough properties for it to be worth having a pooled insurance cover over a set of properties. The cheaper premium is obtained by doing some risk management over the portfolio.

I don't know where anyone got the idea that the tenants cannot afford to rent a more suitable property. Maybe they can but are choosing not to. Maybe they can't - in which case they need to re-organise their lives. We simply do not know. But this problem did not appear overnight: if there are two kids involved, then it grew over an absolute minimum of 18 months - and more likely several years by this stage. There has been plenty of time for them to have got their s*it together and found more suitable accommodation.

If you don't have the balls to evict tenants with young children who are breaking their lease - as these folks most surely are - then landlord is not a business you should be in. You don't have to be harsh about it - plenty of notice, give a good reference etc. But some folks just need someone else to make them behave like adults.

4ensic15

davo10 wrote: »

Do you understand what the bolded type means? It sets out the minimum size of room which can be used as a bedroom.

It means that a room must be greater than 400 cubic feet in area. In case maths isn't one of your strong points, if the ceiling is 8 ft high the floor area would be 50 ft2, say 10 ft X 5ft or 7ft X 7.14ft. Are you suggesting that the room is this small or do you think it is 400ft3 per person?

Do you understand what the words the bolded type mean? It sets out the minimum size every occupant of a bedroom is entitled to. In case maths isn't one of your strong points, if the ceiling is 8ft height the area would be 200 sq feet, say 13ft by 15ft. That would be a much bigger bedroom than is found in the typical one bedroom apartment. Are you suggesting that once a room is 50sq ft, it can accommodate an infinite number and would not be overcrowded under the law?

irishmoss

I really don't get why you would ask these to leave, it's heartless. You have got a rent increase from them. Surely how they live is their business. These kids sounds like they are toddlers.

Would you have an issue if they let the kids sleep in the bedroom and they bought a sofa bed to use in the sitting room?

If you are so concerned about overcrowding the bedroom then maybe have a quiet word and suggest the above.