Two becomes Four

Two becomes Four

9:59 AM, 13th September 2022, About 2 years ago 8

Text Size

Hi, When my tenants moved into my one bedroom flat there were just two of them, husband and wife.

Now there are four because they have had two babies.

The flat is far too small for four.

They are good tenants, and pay on time, but I’m worried that the council will find out and declare that I have broken some law or other.

They are on a rolling assured shorthold tenancy agreement.

I don’t really want to issue a section 21, but in this case would I be wise to do so?

Thank you.


Share This Article



11:49 AM, 13th September 2022, About 2 years ago

How dare you allow your tenants to have babies! Surely when a couple move in, it is always a possibility that they may multiply. Even a single individual could have babies.

If it's not a HMO, which it isn't, and they are not subletting to their babies, then you haven't broken any law, nor have the tenants. Obviously it may be better for your tenants to find a larger place, but that may not be affordable for them.

Don't see why you are panicking and wanting to needlessly issue a section 21. Have a chat with your tenants and if they are wanting to stay, that is their choice.


13:08 PM, 13th September 2022, About 2 years ago

As long as your flat is not subject to Selective licensing then you need not bother for as long as the tenants are happy to manage somehow, I am sure in time they will feel they have no choice other than to move to a bigger property as the kids grow older.


13:08 PM, 13th September 2022, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Smartermind at 13/09/2022 - 11:49
We had similar happen in a one-bed flat - twins were born. It was fine while they were babies but when they grew into toddlers the neighbours started complaining to the freeholder about bored, confined toddlers causing noise and drawing on the communal walls (They also broke a window and other items inside the flat). The space was just too small for it to be humane on the children but they couldn't afford a two-bedder.
There were also concerns raised by the freeholder about the buildings insurance because the freeholder felt the flat would meet their definition of 'over-occupied'.
In the end the freeholder asked us to issue a S21 which the tenants themselves welcomed because it was the only way they were going to get re-housed by the Council.
We cannot comment on your individual case but it might be worth checking with the freeholder that no lease terms or insurance covenants are being breached.

Reluctant Landlord

13:18 PM, 13th September 2022, About 2 years ago

leave everything as is. As long as they are not causing issues that are going to attract the freeholder to contact you about them, then leave well alone.

IF they come to you saying they want to move but can't afford to then you can always suggest they get in touch with the council to see if they can help in any way.

That's as far as I would go, unless you have another bigger property you could offer to them (on the basis they could afford that instead of course?)

Unfortunately because of the nature of the anti LL PR, you are now (like us all) worried that everything regarding tenants is down to the LL responsibility to sort. It honestly isn't!

The government brainwashing will not prevail! 😉

Mick Roberts

15:08 PM, 13th September 2022, About 2 years ago

I've had this hundreds of times over the years.

I've had woman with 7 kids one bed flat.
Woman with 10 kids 3 bed house.

I've even used these examples to Licensing & said they overcrowding, tell me to tell them I must evict so I can sell house. Council Selective Licensing only send letter to tenant & say if we don't hear from u in 7 days, we will drop this matter. They han't got no ruddy houses for 'em , so on this occasion rare common sense prevails.

Reluctant Landlord

9:23 AM, 14th September 2022, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by Mick Roberts at 13/09/2022 - 15:08Makes you laugh. Enough reports of councils themselves being taken to court for overcrowding when a couple decide off their own back to have 6 or 7 kids in a one bed flat. The families take them to court saying the council should house them in bigger accommodation, but when one council tried to by offering them something bigger but outside the area the couple accused them of not being fair as the kids went to local schools.
They then put them back on the housing list but lower than their original spot as they refused bigger accommodation and were not deemed 'urgent'.
The family took the decision to court and did get their spot back on the list as judge said dropping them down was unjustified.
The result after all this. The family still living in a one bed, but at the same spot as before with no chance ever of getting anything inside the area as THERE IS NOTHING and very unlikely there will ever be anything to offer them.
Total waste of court time, legal fees (all backed by Legal Aid and probably Shelter) to achieve nothing. All the council could was they will continue to offer to support to the family while they wait!
Too much focus on having your cake an eating it culture. Everything is everyone else's fault even when people decide to take their own actions.

Mick Roberts

12:54 PM, 14th September 2022, About 2 years ago

Reply to the comment left by DSR at 14/09/2022 - 09:23
Yes good point, more legal fees wasted for no outcome.

Pete England - PaTMa Property Management

13:45 PM, 14th September 2022, About 2 years ago

I’m sure your tenants will move on when they are able to and/or when they realise the flat is too small for them. If they moved their parents in as well, then I would be concerned. I would keep the communication channels open and if necessary help them find a suitable property for the future. Like you say they are Good tenants and Pay on Time, so what more do you want from within the boundary of your AST.

Leave Comments

In order to post comments you will need to Sign In or Sign Up for a FREE Membership


Don't have an account? Sign Up

Landlord Tax Planning Book Now