AIBU to ask tenants to move before or after new baby?

then landlords need more right and faster help to deal with bad tenants.

Security of tenure might work well with landlords like the Duke of Westminster, but it's just impossible for non-wealthy people. Not everybody can afford to keep properties and tenants, life happens, people need to sell.

No landlord protection, and no way to get rid of bad payers/ bad tenants is a terrible idea, and everybody loses out in the long term.

If the market was more flexible, tenants would find it easier to rent right now for a start.

Jealousy? What a crass pont of view.

The whole housing market is a mess. Years ago people could get Council housing. You could privately rent. And lenders would lend without overbearing scrutiny. They overlent once before and got their fingers burnt.
Now you have people refused a mortgage but paying a shed load ( sometimes more than a mortgage ) having to be in private rental. Because lenders won’t lend.
You have hardly any council housing as it has been sold off. A very stupid idea.
And people turfed out of private rentals put into one room in a hotel and hostels.
Builders build very few social housing properties.
And you have people who own rental properties galore. Whole streets of them.
We should do better for ourselves.

Ignore the jealousy people who are trying to put you down.
Why would you not want to help your own child?!
Say to your tenants exactly what you've said to us.
When we planned to move into our rented property we told our tenants we want to move within the next 6 months. Anytime during that period was fine and they told me it took a lot of the pressure off them to find somewhere.

'Security of tenure' and 'home ownership' are different concepts, though. Owning a property gives you the asset. Security of tenure simply means not being forced to move frequently through no fault of your own. Many European countries have much stronger tenant protections than the UK while still having functioning rental markets...so it's clearly not true that the only options are either full ownership or precarious renting.

How would that solve the housing crisis?

you can't have it both ways and all transactions cannot be one-sided

You can't expect freedom and flexibility when it suits BUT long-term security depending on your mood.

Buy, rent, do what you want but each option has positive and negatives. Expecting to have basically home ownership and all the rights as a tenant, but none of the financial burden and commitments is not realistic, to stay polite.

OP is obviously well within her rights, and is being as considerate as she can be. A good landlord, obviously.

But it does illustrate that this is not a great system. We have a country where many need / prefer to rent, but that shouldn't deny them long-term security in a home. It being an private investment option doesn't feel right at all.

Its not though

Do seek legal advice before you sign over the house to your son. A trust may possibly be a better option.

Assets then. People are telling her what to do with her assets.

And if they have another 5 babies, the house is tied up for 10 years, and someone will be along to argue that as the last one is still a toddler, they still get to stay.

as the OP sounds more than kind and compassionate, sounds like they are from a hard working family with good values.

And my experience is different from yours, the most kind and generous people I've ever met come from a different world than mine, very wealthy but nothing to prove. Generous in cash (that they have) and more importantly time, which they could have spent selfishly.

I moved with a 3.5 month old and it was hell. I'd much rather have moved while pregnant.

No I have seen it

many times. People
who have to work hard for what they have are normally a lot more kinder and compassionate then people who have everything handed to them on a platter.

HOW can you possibly know who is entitled, and how "privileged" they are?

there is another thing giving your child a house they didn’t have to work at all for
the only difference is cash you know. And I think it's usually safer to buy a property than keeping cash in the bank doing nothing, personal choice.

You only sound jealous .You have no idea if they had family money, what kind of job and work and sacrifice they made to buy a property for their child, you have no idea if they lost a relative and got some money instead of having a parent. Or if they own 25 houses and just picked that for the son.

You know absolutely nothing. Neither do I , I only know they were savy and careful about their children to prepare for their future, which is good parenting.

Stop seeing tenant as victims and rentals as favours being done. It's just business.

I did the same. I referred to 'couples' because the houses here aren't big enough to houseshare. They're tiny old terraces, straight onto the street, one small double room, one single, small living room and teeny kitchen usually. And they still rent for £950 a month. The larger houses are modern executive style homes that would be prohibitively expensive even for sharing. So they suit a couple or at a pinch two people sharing and that's still going to be difficult to raise deposits whilst paying living costs and earning minimum wage. Most the work locally is factory, retail/hospitality or childcare. Commuting would require the extra costs of a car or an expensive rail ticket.
One of the reasons it's gone up so much here is because of people moving from London because the north was so cheap!

I’m also in the south east.

the amount of houses that had either professionals only of even ideal for students was massive. We frequently got turned down and I think the biggest reason was because we had young children as we met every other bit of the croteria

That seems to be exactly what some posters think should happen.

I agree with most of your post but where I live in the South East, we have the opposite problem re renting demographic.

The market is so competitive that landlords can and frequently do rent out properties to single people. Many houses are listed as "professionals only" which has become code for childless applicants.

These smaller, younger families are competing for the same properties (small 2 beds) as these people who are saving lots of money by renting outside of but very close to London. Many family sized homes here have also been turned into HMOs for local workers and for London commuters.

I know it's not like this everywhere, but it really hurts to see people (not you! other posters on this thread) be so oblivious to how hard it is in some areas of the UK. And asking everyone to move to cheaper areas isn't realistic as people rely on family ties for support, and demand would shift elsewhere anyway.

Keep us posted

Because it is creates entitled, privileged people.

there is one things helping a child out (deposit etc) and there is another thing giving your child a house they didn’t have to work at all for and teaching them
it is ok to get that even at the expense of another family.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? It's not affordable for many before having children.

Not true: We are landlords and have a property that our son would like to move into at some point in the next year.

At some point in the next year.

The landlords son wants to move in THIS year not in a year