More persons in my rental property than I thought

Fly_Baby

Travelling_Man wrote: »

Of course these may turn out to be excellent tenants as some say, but I will only really know that when they move out, and I do not think things have got off to a great start.

You can have regular inspections - or your agent on your behalf - every three months or more often, if your tenants agree to that, which they might if the alternative would be having to move out. If they have done any damage it will be obvious - but if you find the property clean it might make you reconsider terminating the tenancy.

That is if all you are concerned about is potential damage - and seeing that you are a teacher certainly there wouldn't be any other reasons, like not tolerating children at all?

Fly_Baby

To add, I am amazed at such comments. Why, the tenants are foreigners! Oh my God they have children and didn't have a decency to buy their own house!

Of course they are foreigners - they are not entitled to council accommodation, not entitled to houseing allowance, don't have family to stay with so they are forced to rent privately. As for buying your own house - how many British people rent? And if the family are here for work reasons they might not need a house long-term. Or they might not - surprise, surprise - be able to afford one.

kford224

At the end of the the day, whether people agree with allowing/not allowing children in a house, something that the OP felt strongly about was neglected/missed. If it had been a case of "I don't want a convicted murderer renting my house" then people would have been "that's fair enough/well of course you have every right to complain to the agent...etc", but because it is children, the whole thing has been twisted and blown out of proportion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The fact is, the OP specifically specified something upfront that the agent should have taken seriously but then fudged up on.

Fly_Baby

kford224 wrote: »

At the end of the the day, whether people agree with allowing/not allowing children in a house, something that the OP felt strongly about was neglected/missed. If it had been a case of "I don't want a convicted murderer renting my house" then people would have been "that's fair enough/well of course you have every right to complain to the agent...etc", but because it is children, the whole thing has been twisted and blown out of proportion. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. The fact is, the OP specifically specified something upfront that the agent should have taken seriously but then fudged up on.

That's right but at this point it is too late arguing what should have been done. This is not the situation when OP can go back to the shop for a refund if he finds the purchase unsatisfactory.

The tenants are already there and they are human beings, even with this being business and all. The OP will be kicking out a whole family after 6 months, possibly forcing the children to change schools, not to mention the expense and trouble. If they are treating the property well what's really the problem, now that they are there?

With OP being a teacher, aren't teachers supposed to be humane - or is it only for job interviews and not for actual life?

kford224

Fly_Baby wrote: »

That's right but at this point it is too late arguing what should have been done. This is not the situation when OP can go back to the shop for a refund if he finds the purchase unsatisfactory.

The tenants are already there and they are human beings, even with this being business and all. The OP will be kicking out a whole family after 6 months, possibly forcing the children to change schools, not to mention the expense and trouble. If they are treating the property well what's really the problem, now that they are there?

With OP being a teacher, aren't teachers supposed to be humane - or is it only for job interviews and not for actual life?

I suppose it boils down to how much the OP didn't want children in there and whether they are willing to give them a chance. But, it has put the OP in a very difficult an unfair position which is not their fault. If being in the property was so important, the tenants should have been more honest on the forms (too much information is better than not enough) and the agent should have been more clear in what was expected. If I am filling out an important form, I never leave sections out because I 'assume' they aren't needed - they wouldn't be on there otherwise!

gingertips

My take on this is that you are prepared to rent your home while you are working away.

Provided that the tenant meets the usual checks your agent performs,
provided that they pay the rent on time,
provided that when you or the agent does regular checks of the property everything is in order (& I bet that they dont check regularly), provided that when they leave everything is left in same state as it was when they moved in (accepting some wear and tear)

Then I dont see what you have to complain about. I cant see anything in this thread that leaves me to believe this tenant is a bad tenant. And surely better that someone is in the home & paying for the privelage, rather than it appearing on one of those empty housing sites & ending up becoming a squatters commune???

rexmedorum

Potentially unreasonable restriction

Unfair term: [The tenant must not] allow children on the premises.

Way of revising term: [The tenant must not] allow children to live in the property without the landlord's consent which will not be unreasonably withheld.

Potentially unreasonable restriction
Unfair term: [The tenant must not] have any pet on the premises without the prior written permission of the landlord which may be withdrawn at any time.

Way of revising term: [The tenant must not] allow others to keep any birds or animals at the property (other than in secure cages or container) without the consent of the landlord such consent not to be unreasonably withheld, delayed or withdrawn.

But how about the OFT recommendations? Not allowing children or pets period is an unreasonable term, though we see it all the time, what's up with that? And to the LL it doesn't matter: you have the deposit: dame = deduction no damage = no problem!

Fly_Baby

kford224 wrote: »

I suppose it boils down to how much the OP didn't want children in there and whether they are willing to give them a chance. But, it has put the OP in a very difficult an unfair position which is not their fault. If being in the property was so important, the tenants should have been more honest on the forms (too much information is better than not enough) and the agent should have been more clear in what was expected. If I am filling out an important form, I never leave sections out because I 'assume' they aren't needed - they wouldn't be on there otherwise!

I agree with you - but still as I said the situation cannot be - and should not be - easily reversed now that the tenants are settled in the house.

I don't know where they came from but I wouldn't be surprised if they genuinely thought they needn't state children in the tenancy application (however the application forms usually have special fields for dependants).

Or, being a foreign family, maybe the children didn't live with them at the time (stayed with grandparents back home) and they were not even sure if they would be coming at all (maybe the job is temporary and they didn't want to uproot the kids, schools etc). So it made no sense telling the LA about the kids at that point.

Now, when we rented with a baby in the past some EAs wouldn't rent us a 1-bed property claiming that the baby needed its own room, whereas we felt it was not necessary for a newborn and didn't want to spend even more money on a rental. So maybe the OP's tenants were turned down for a 2-bed place with 2 children before and were being careful.

At last, maybe that particular area is not family friendly and LLs generally prefer to avoid kids. I once viewed a 3-bed house in a residential area miles away from the town centre and train station and the LA said that actually the LL wanted "two professionals with no children". As if two professionals would want to spend over £1100 on a three bed house with a veg patch in the garden in an area packed with families with young children and no entertainment nearby.

I am not justifying what the tenants did but after all they had to live somewhere.

chewmylegoff

rexmedorum wrote: »

But how about the OFT recommendations? Not allowing children or pets period is an unreasonable term, though we see it all the time, what's up with that? And to the LL it doesn't matter: you have the deposit: dame = deduction no damage = no problem!

i don't think this has much to do with unfair contract clauses, as the LL had no intention of entering into a contract with a family with children in the first place. the only reason there is a tenancy is because the tenant did not disclose the true position to the LL. whether that was a deliberately dishonest act on the part of the tenant or not we do not know.

this is only really the same as a LL not wanting to rent a 2 bedroom flat to two couples because they do not want 4 people living in the property due to the additional wear and tear it will cause. if that is not reasonable, then the logical extension of some of the arguments being made here is that the LL should not be able to vet a tenant beyond establishing that they can pay the rent.

lazer

Eton_Rifle wrote: »

There's such a double standard about this issue. It comes up on this forum all the time.

People say, as the poster does above, that it's none of the landlord's business what they do in their rented home ...

but the second the tenants next door make a noise or do anything remotely irritating, people demand their neighbour's landlord takes action and does something about the behaviour of the tenants, like a parent with a naughty child.

What people actually mean is that it's OK for me personally to do whatever I like in my rented house and it's no-one else's business as it's my home and my human rights yada yada but I insist that the tenant next door has to account for his behaviour to his landlord.

Actually - When I said this, i don't mean its only OK for me to do what i want, It should be OK for all tenents. If I had a problem with my neighbours, I would not demand their landlord takes action, I would treat the neighbour the same as I would treat the neighbour if they were an owner occupier - they are responsible for their own actions, if I felt the noise was unreasonable I would first talk to them about it, and if I didn't get a satisfactory response I would then take it to council, police etc, but not their landlord.

Obviously there should be restrictions to what Tenents can do - they can't knock down walls, replace kitchens etc, or generally keep the house in really bad repair. I have no objections to Landlord inspectig their properties, but It should be infrequent, ie: once every 6 months, and with reasonable notice given to the tenent and at a time convenient to both tenents and landlord etc.

I think it is a case of give and take between tenents and landlords

I have just given notice to vacate my rental property, and I wanted to give it up on the 3rd of the month, however lease says end of a calender month, Landlord said this was fine as long as I allow viewings of the property in the last few weeks. Compromise!