To wonder if my tenant should have told me..

[MatildaTheCat]

I'm a nice landlord, I promise. I have one very small flat local to where I live. It is 45m Sq. approx. one bedroom 10' 10' ( sorry to mix up metric and imperial) and another 7'x10' max. Living room again 11x11' max. No space to eat in the kitchen.My tenant is a young mum with two young dc aged approx 5 and 3 ish. One boy and one girl. They have bunks in the smaller bedroom. Her rent is covered by HB although she has refused to have them pay me direct and has on occasion paid late. Very late at the start of the tenancy.

She looks after my property well and I do regular inspections. I am aware that she has a cat although I've never seen it and it as against the agreement.

So, today I am due to go round to do an inspection and get a text putting me off because ' In April I discovered I was five months pregnant and the baby is now due in a month and I have to go for a check up.' I can't explain how much I cannot imagine how she will manage to live in such a cramped flat with three small dc. and all. The kit of a newborn.Perhaps I am naiave and this is normal. I'm thinking that with benefit caps now she won't get help to get a bigger place? It's a very expensive area and her dc are very lucky to be in a great school literally just over the road.

Should she have contacted me to explain her new situation? Is it none of my business? Am I right to feel concerned? I feel a heartsink situation coming on....

Thoughts much appreciated.

But the point is the OP has raised the fact that she has concerns. If she didn't have concerns there wouldn't be a problem. Four people possibly five living in a tiny flat is hardly ideal. I think she would be rehoused by the local authority as a priority. The OP could find herself being prosecuted for overcrowding. she should check the rules with her LA. In any case the LAl would provide a more suitable property for a family. I didn't suggest the woman should be thrown out on the street.

Chandler Landlords can't request access due to a suspicion their tenant is living with someone! If a LL has such a suspicion then they would need to inform the benefits office and let them do their job.

Vivien if the OP does not want the tenant in the flat any longer she will need to follow procedures and give proper notice.

Many landlords are reluctant to take in tenants in receipt of HB and it isn't because they think HB tenants are feckless scroungers who can't budget. A couple of reasons they don't like HB tenants are:
Delays in sorting out HB claims means a delay in the LL getting their rent.
Benefit sanctions means the LL might not get rent for periods of time.
HB might be delayed when benefit claims are renewed.
LHA might not cover the rent so it won't be possible to rent to a HB tenant.
The benefit cap might reduce a tenants benefits leaving then unable to pay all or some of their rent.

I'm sure landlords have very real concerns about those things. Of course a privately paying tenant can also default on their rent but benefit cock ups and delays can occur quite frequently.

Could be wrong but I think the landlord is only responsible for overcrowding if it's either shared tenancy like room lets or the landlord is overcrowding for financial gain/ taking advantage, so in ops case it wouldn't be something they saw as the landlords responsibility. And from a social housing point of view, provided op can fit a cot and a single bed in her room, it wouldn't be classed as overcrowding till the baby is 1, and even then if the cot fits in the kids room and later another bed, it's only overcrowding when the oldest child reaches 10 and is sharing with one of the opposite gender it's overcrowding from a rehousing point of view, and even then it can take years.

theHouse Chandler Landlords can't request access due to a suspicion their tenant is living with someone! If a LL has such a suspicion then they would need to inform the benefits office and let them do their job.

This landlord has quarterly checks written into the lease and is being denied access at present. That is a bit suspicious. In fact, its a standard clause in most leases that the landlord should be able to request access on 48 hours notice if he/she has concerns that there is a breach of contract occurring - often the grounds are specified.

Its also quite standard to name those who will be living in the property in the lease. For safety reasons in case of a fire if nothing else. It would most likely be a breach of contract though if a tenant had a lease in their name only and moved another adult into the property, even if they did not pay.

There is quite a lot of misinformation on just the first page and I have not read further.

Firstly all that stuff about whose name is on the tenancy agreement. If a lease is only in one tenant's name it is no business legally of the landlord who shares with the tenant as long as:-
(a)the house does not become over-crowded- which is a statutorily defined term; and
(b) it is not breaking the limits where an HMO licence is needed.

Neither apply here.

This flat with one extra baby will not become statutorily over- crowded. It has 2 bedrooms and a living room. If push comes to shove a living room can count towards sleeping accommodation.

The small bedroom might be on the small side but should be OK for children that age. Even in a worst case scenario as the children get older 2 children of same sex can share the larger bedroom , one has the smaller bedroom and mother is in living room. That is not over-crowded.

As the flat will not be statutorily over-crowded you don't need to know.

.It would most likely be a breach of contract though if a tenant had a lease in their name only and moved another adult into the property, even if they did not pay

No it isn't. Landlords can try to write in whatever ridiculous clauses they want but a clause like that which attempted to interfere with a tenant's private life would not be a valid ground for terminating a lease.

Lass No it isn't. Landlords can try to write in whatever ridiculous clauses they want but a clause like that which attempted to interfere with a tenant's private life would not be a valid ground for terminating a lease.

You are inaccurate. Its nothing to do with interfering with a tenant's private life - a tenant can still have as much of a private life as they wish, but that doesn't give them the right to move people into a property belonging to someone else that they lease. It would be a clear breach of contract at common law to move additional people into a property.

It is invariably a contract delectus personae - dependent on the identity of the individual specified. Specifying those entitled to reside in the property is usually done at the beginning of the lease, along with the rights and responsibilities that go along with it.

Theres nothing "ridiculous" about this. Owners of property have the right to state in the lease who may live there. Otherwise, what would be the point in referencing? Referencing doesn't just deal with ability to pay.

You are not correct. Having a partner or someone living with a tenant is not a ground to terminate a lease. That is not what delectus personae in the context of a lease means.

A now you are being rather disingenuous LassUnparalled. It is not of the statutory grounds of termination, but it is a breach of contract at common law. And a very clear one at that.

Are you seriously suggesting that a tenant could move their entire extended family into a property leased by them, as long as it wasn't overcrowded? Wheres your legal basis for that?

To remove a tenant from a residential property requires the establishment of grounds under housing legislation.

Having someone living with you which does not result in the house being over-crowded and if that person is not causing any problems like anti - social behaviour is not a valid ground.

You do realise that it's not that long ago that landlords only gave leases to the man if the tenant was a couple?

And essentially any term or clause in a contract that's deemed unreasonable, or that you agreed to under duress or that is considered inconsequential wouldn't be held up in court as a breach anyway, whether common or statutory

I am not a lawyer but a landlord and it seems to me that Chandler is talking a lot of bhllshit.

Completely none of your business, why should she tell you she's pregnant? Newborns usually sleep alongside their mother and don't have much "kit" so space won't be any more of a problem for at least a year.

When my husband and I were on HB we asked an advisor if it could be paid directly to our landlord because we thought it would be more convenient all round but they told us it couldn't unless there were any extenuating circumstances that stopped us managing the money properly, such as drug addiction. Then they stopped our benefits for a while just to consider the question TBH I can understand why some landlords are reluctant to let to tenants on HB because the tenants are mucked around so much by the system, with long delays in their claim being processed and administrative errors etc, which can mean delays in the landlord getting their money. But your tenant has no control over whether the benefit is paid directly to you, that's not their decision and would not be allowed in their circumstances.

I sympathise with the landlord's anxieties.
It seems to me deeply irresponsible for a single woman with two small children, living in cramped conditions and relying on benefits for support, to enter into a third pregnancy.
Her circumstances will then become part of statistics concerning child poverty, when this is a situation which could so easily have been avoided.

For all my defence of hb I agree she doesn't sound like she makes the best decisions, or improves anyones opinion of hb tenants. But we have no idea whether she's a 20yr old product of a care system that's failed her, desperate for a family of her own and stability, or if she's just a lazy scrounger, so without knowing her circumstances it's best not to be too hasty just from what we know.
Also hb can be delayed as a new claim, but if you're already receiving it then moving property with the usual notice it shouldn't be interrupted. For the rental on houses hb tenants would go for, they are as financially as safe, if not more so, than low paid workers not on hb. And while I understand concerns the initial claim can take too long, it doesn't take much imagination that same as any other form of tenancy you can include a guarantor, and that in some cases of new claims, the tenant might be able to borrow/ cover it themselves till it comes through. ( thinking recent salary loss or disability). So no logical reason for blanket bans on hb tenants at all, they're all individual

Goblin, yes, especially if the young pregnant mother of 2 is evicted just because the landlord is "anxious".

The trouble if you aren't a qualified lawyer and simply read housing legislation is that it leaves you with no knowledge of the law of contract which underpins it. A lease is a contract, and any breach of contract by either party rescinds the contract. The statutory ground which in Scots leases is Ground 13 states as a ground for Notice to Quit: "Any obligation of the tenancy (other than one related to the payment of rent) has been broken or not performed." I would be very surprised if there were not an equivalent ground in English law.

In reality, if any letting agent lands you with a lease where you cannot remove a tenant for breach of contract, they are very incompetent. Even Ground 1 for many landlords is very practical.

It is ridiculous to suggest that if you rent a property to one person, they could then move in say 5 other adults, and as long as it is not overcrowded, force the landlord to take on these additional people who do not appear on the lease. Clearly the price will have been calculated at least partly on the wear and tear caused by one person, not six.

There may be landlords who allow this to happen, and badly written leases, but its certainly possible to write a good lease which sets out clearly who is permitted to live there and what the obligations of both landlord and tenant are.

Is OP in Scotland or in England?

I am in England. When I was drawing up the lease for some past tenants (single mum with two kids), the tenant wanted her mother named on the lease. I took legal advice, and was told that it was a bad idea, as anybody named on the lease could have their immediate family, like children and parents move in. It was safer for me to just have her.

In the end, I did not have a leg to stand on, when she moved her partner, her mother, and brother into the house. It was not overcrowded as it was a 3 bed terrace, and they were all immediate family of the tenant.

Thanks to everyone who has commented on this. I am returning just to clarify a couple of points which may have been unclear.

Firstly, I think I have said there is no difficulty with accessing the property for inspections, my tenant has no issue with a five minute visit every three months. Indeed, it gives her a chance to mention any issues I need to deal with. She simply delayed my visit due to needing an antenatal check, hence me learning about her iminent birth.

Secondly, there have been many comments about the lease as if I wrote it myself incorporating a lot of daft conditions. I use a local and reputable letting agency to find tenants so they write what I have always supposed to be a standard lease. The childrens names are mentioned, obviously not as in having any legal obligations just as being resident at the address. Three monthly inspections seem to be a standard requirement. Until this tenancy I didn't do this but my last tenant left the property in such a state I am now more vigilent.

My concern was overcrowding. I take the point that for the time being this won't be an issue. In the longer term it will probably mean her moving further away because there wouldn't be any three bedroom accommodation which would be affordable nearby.

Actually chandler you're incorrect, not adhering to a clause of a contract, whether tenancy or not, doesn't automatically result in a court finding it a breach. Contract law even at a very basic level allows a court to make exceptions for a range of reasons. I'm too lazy to bother googling and I'm sure you're capable of doing it yourself if you don't believe me, but I bet the information is easily found to prove it.
Nor do landlords, or letting agents offer different rent prices based on how many tenants live in the property. Granted as a ll, legalities aside you are going to get more damage from 10 adults in a 2 bed than a single person, but nobody advertises or rents with the stipulation 'if it's you and your partner it's £x per month, dropping to £x minus £100 if you split up, but £x plus £100 if you have a child. It's up to the ll at the start to decide if he wants 6 kids in a 3 bed, or whether to hold out for a single person way past childbearing age. Otherwise you accept within reason that moving in with a partner, or having a baby are within the range of 'normal'.