Tenant and a baby

billyhead

Is there some regulation that if a tenant has a baby during the terms of the lease contract you cant evict or terminate a lease?

Heres Johnny

billyhead wrote: »

Is there some regulation that if a tenant has a baby during the terms of the lease contract you cant evict or terminate a lease?

Oh God.
I very much doubt it.

Gumbo

billyhead wrote: »

Is there some regulation that if a tenant has a baby during the terms of the lease contract you cant evict or terminate a lease?

Nope. You can be evicted under the normal rules and regulations and notice periods.

ted1

billyhead wrote: »

Is there some regulation that if a tenant has a baby during the terms of the lease contract you cant evict or terminate a lease?

Good God no, what kind of heartless ba5tard would even consider it

Grolschevik

I've seen some people argue on this very forum that, as the baby is not named or a party to the lease, having the baby live there constitutes a breach of the lease...

Mike3549

Actualy I heard some stories where the LL told the tennants to move cos place wasnt suitable for 1 extra person.

endacl

Mike3549 wrote: »

Actualy I heard some stories where the LL told the tennants to move cos place wasnt suitable for 1 extra person.

Which may be true, depending on the regulations.

Grolschevik wrote: »

I've seen some people argue on this very forum that, as the baby is not named or a party to the lease, having the baby live there constitutes a breach of the lease...

Which may be true, depending on the lease.

And before my neck is well and truly jumped down, I do agree than summarily evicting a tenant because a baby arrived would be a pretty heartless thing to do,

billyhead

But if the lease is up or there not paying the rent then whats the issue?

Pawwed Rig

It would be a tricky one to try and defend and you would want to be a horrible bastard to even think about doing it*.



*imho

Heres Johnny

billyhead wrote: »

But if the lease is up or there not paying the rent then whats the issue?

That's a completely different question than originally. Think you need to start a new thread you will get nowhere on this now.

ted1

billyhead wrote: »

But if the lease is up or there not paying the rent then whats the issue?

Leases don’t realky make a difference, after 6 months the tenant can stay for 6 years regardless of what the lease says

amtc

A friend of mine had three babies in three years. Two bedroom apartment. Was asked to leave on grounds that was rented to a single girl (as she was at the time of lease). In rent pressure zone and no increase in 5 years so was dirt cheap. Eventually they agreed between them to increase rent 'off the books'. Tbf my friend had babies settled and didn't want to move and knew she had it cheap. I know a two bedroom apartment seems small for 5 people but it has mezzanines etc. Bigger square footage than my house

HONKEY TONK

If they are not paying rent. you can start the normal process no matter the tenants circumstances.

spaceHopper

amtc wrote: »

A friend of mine had three babies in three years. Two bedroom apartment. Was asked to leave on grounds that was rented to a single girl (as she was at the time of lease). In rent pressure zone and no increase in 5 years so was dirt cheap. Eventually they agreed between them to increase rent 'off the books'. Tbf my friend had babies settled and didn't want to move and knew she had it cheap. I know a two bedroom apartment seems small for 5 people but it has mezzanines etc. Bigger square footage than my house

5 People? So she move in her partner too?

check_six

billyhead wrote: »

Is there some regulation that if a tenant has a baby during the terms of the lease contract you cant evict or terminate a lease?

ted1 wrote: »

Good God no, what kind of heartless ba5tard would even consider it

That 'heartless ba5tard' would be my ex-landlords. They even had a baby the same month as we did. There were 'congratulations' going back and forth and all was well.

Flash forward a couple of years and (after trying to increase the rent a second time in three months) they then switched to claiming our toddler was not named on the original lease, they 'didn't know' who this extra tenant was, and we were thrown out. Never mind that the child wasn't born when the lease was signed, or the fact it had lapsed into Part IV, or the fact this only became a problem when they couldn't squeeze extra money out of us as soon as they would have liked due to legal restrictions.

Vampires.

TheChizler

Are you asking "can you evict someone for having a baby", or the very different question: "does someone having a baby prevent you from evicting them for other reasons"?

murphaph

The definition of "overcrowding" should be laid down in statute.

It should be based on several factors such as maximum number of occupants per bathroom, minimum number of square metres per occupant etc.

The SAME definition should be referred to by a landlord when seeking eviction or by local authorities when they house tenants at taxpayers' expense. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

To be honest a 1 bed apartment is perfectly capable of being used to raise a child. A tenant should never be thrown out for having a child in a 1 bed flat but likewise, those with one child seeking social housing should be assigned a one bed.

Claw Hammer

murphaph wrote: »

The definition of "overcrowding" should be laid down in statute.

It should be based on several factors such as maximum number of occupants per bathroom, minimum number of square metres per occupant etc.

The SAME definition should be referred to by a landlord when seeking eviction or by local authorities when they house tenants at taxpayers' expense. What's good for the goose should be good for the gander.

To be honest a 1 bed apartment is perfectly capable of being used to raise a child. A tenant should never be thrown out for having a child in a 1 bed flat but likewise, those with one child seeking social housing should be assigned a one bed.

There is a definition of overcrowding in a statute. It is in the Housing Act 1966. It does not mention bathrooms.

murphaph

Claw Hammer wrote: »

There is a definition of overcrowding in a statute. It is in the Housing Act 1966. It does not mention bathrooms.

But it's not used by local authorities when determining how much space a family needs when allocating housing.

El Weirdo

murphaph wrote: »

But it's not used by local authorities when determining how much space a family needs when allocating housing.

Pretty sure it is.

Claw Hammer

murphaph wrote: »

But it's not used by local authorities when determining how much space a family needs when allocating housing.

How do you know?