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

[CatWithAPetDog]

We are landlords and have a property that our son would like to move into at some point in the next year. Our current tenants have a toddler and have just told me that they are expecting another baby in November.

If you were the tenant, would you prefer to have to move out whilst pregnant or with a young baby. I know it’s not great timing for them either way, but which would you say would be easier? We can wait a while as long as my son is moved in this time next year, but then they would have a toddler and six month old baby, so it may be easier to do it sooner with just a toddler?

They’ve been good tenants so I would like to cause them the least stress possible.

Sorry forgot to make boring make sense

YABU - Get them to move before the new baby arrives

YANBU - Get them to move after the new baby arrives

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

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

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!

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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

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

Its not though

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.

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.

How would that solve the housing crisis?

'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.

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.

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.

Jealousy? What a crass pont of view.

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.

Once lovely houses are turned into houses of multiple occupancy. All for money.
People convince themselves they are some sort of social saviours if landlords.
They are not. They do it for profit.
I wish there were more council houses. Or cheaper houses to buy.

But these concerns have been addressed?

I dont know why people are pretending like the end of no fault evictions means it's impossible to get your property back.

Section 8 evictions are still an option and the same law that has strengthened tenants rights have streamlined the section 8 process.

The existence of bad tenants doesn't really explain why someone who's paid on time and looked after the property for years should have little security. That's more an argument for a system that can deal with bad tenants properly than an argument against giving good tenants greater security.

In answer to the question which I am amazed the OP has to ask, is to give them as much notice as you possibly can. Not the least amount of time.
Be very sure as someone else said that your son is going to be moving in.
Give them a good reference.

WHY should they have security? You have a yearly lease, you commit for a year. Should tenants be stuck in the property equally, or should they keep the right to move out when they want/ need?

Freedom and flexibility must work both ways. Both tenants and landlords need to be able to come out of the agreement legally but without months and months of fight.

If you want a permanent home, buy one? Then accept to pay all the costs that go with it.

Yearly leases do not exist anymore they are now rolling contracts