About 1,500 landlords lodged overholding cases with RTB in 2025

stormy said:
I don't know about this. Presumably a LL could still raise their own dispute.
Click to expand...

It sounds like it is critical to do that once the notice period ends irrespective if there is an ongoing dispute raised by the tenant.

The recommendation is that the landlord should raise a dispute to check the validity of their NoT early in the notice period. The same thing probably applies once the notice period expires and the tenant overholds.

In theory, a tenant could probably raise their own overholding dispute even if the NoT was deemed valid. That way they can cancel it at the last minute.
 
LarryScott said:
The recommendation is that the landlord should raise a dispute to check the validity of their NoT early in the notice period. The same thing probably applies once the notice period expires and the tenant overholds.
Click to expand...

This is what my sibling and I did, took cases against ourselves on the validity of the notices. It was an education. Especially to learn each RTB adjudicator had different opinions, questions and determination orders!
 
The RTB's main role is to delay tenant evictions, giving tenants maximum time possible.

Recommended Strategy
Take mediation first (over adjudication) not because the tenant will agree, but to offer a "carrot": promise their deposit back and 4 months to vacate (even if they owe €20k). This beats waiting 5+ months post-mediation for a tribunal hearing anyway.

Tribunal & Enforcement
If mediation fails, request a tribunal, its decision is final (risk and benefit). If you win, hire a solicitor (€3,500) for District Court enforcement, then pay the sheriff (€5k) for removal. Have the solicitor send a warning letter post-order first, hoping they leave voluntarily and you avoid the sheriff cost

So you're looking at minimum €8.5k in legal costs plus 6-12 months of lost rent just to remove a problem tenant. That's before counting the stress, time, and opportunity cost of dealing with all this drama. The "carrot" approach makes sense offering the deposit back plus time to leave is probably cheaper than the full legal war, even if they owe you €20k. Cut your losses, get the property back faster, and move on to better tenants
 
Thanks very much for this @Mullsafin

I would have thought ajudication better as then no need to offer the four months grace.

In your example above, isn't mediation only better if the ajudication hearing would take 3 months longer than a mediation hearing? If the ajudication hearing is favourable for LL, presumably a determination order would be issued for overholding tenant to vacate within 28 days? Is there really such a time difference between ajudication and mediation? Any idea why?
 
Is mediation binding if both sides agree? If you offer 4 months to vacate and deposit back, do they have to leave in 4 months?

I guess, would they count as overholding immediately after the 4 months ends?

Otherwise, you are just giving 4 months of grace before you start the next step.

It also depends on you assessment of the tenant. Assuming the worst may cause a tenant who would have cooperated to become non-cooperative.
 
LarryScott said:
Is mediation binding if both sides agree
Click to expand...
Yes, a determination order will be published but it will not be made public.

This is a major issue with this route, effectively the tenant has got away scott free with 9 months rent ( 28 days warning+ 28 days notice+ 3 months for mediation hearing+ 4 months of free rent carrot). With this approach using mediation, there is no public record of this non payment of rent. It's great for the tenant. In the example above, the 20k of rent in arrears is cleared, got their deposit back, and their name is as good and clean as anyone else on any register search. Is this why the RTB are pushing this approach of mediation so much? I wonder how many tenants are getting away with unrecorded rent arrears like this.


LarryScott said:
I guess, would they count as overholding immediately after the 4 months ends?
Click to expand...
Yes. At that point then you need to give them notice you are applying to the district court. The district court could take an age (see Terry Gorry example). And after that then go through the process of getting the sheriff.


As far as I can see, there is only merit to using this approach as the RTB has deliberately decided to deal with ajudication cases at a much slower pace than mediation. If ajudication cases were dealt with in a timely manner, no landlord would follow this route right? I'm curious to know if I'm missing something.
 
stormy said:
Thanks very much for this @Mullsafin

I would have thought ajudication better as then no need to offer the four months grace.

In your example above, isn't mediation only better if the ajudication hearing would take 3 months longer than a mediation hearing? If the ajudication hearing is favourable for LL, presumably a determination order would be issued for overholding tenant to vacate within 28 days? Is there really such a time difference between ajudication and mediation? Any idea why?
Click to expand...
A successful adjudication is a win in that you get a legally binding determination, but that does not mean the matter is over. The RTB will usually point out very clearly to the tenant that the decision can be appealed and will strongly encourage them to do so. A naïve tenant might not appeal, in which case you are fortunate; such tenants often leave because they do not know any better. However, if the tenant understands the rules, they are likely to appeal, and that can add another four to six months after the determination order is issued.

From the date you apply for adjudication to the date you receive the written determination is at least six months in total: roughly four months waiting for the hearing and then about two months to get the result, which is frustratingly slow. The point of going the mediation route is to try to speed things up:

1. Ideally, you get the tenant to agree to terms at mediation, and you obtain a binding determination order; if they agree, they usually leave.

2. If they do not agree or do not attend, you then have to wait four to five months for a tribunal hearing.

Getting a mediation date can take around six to eleven weeks, depending on workload, whereas adjudication alone will generally take at least four months in the best-case scenario. In essence, you are trying to get through the RTB process as quickly as possible, hoping a less sophisticated tenant accepts the RTB’s apparent authority and does not drag things out. If that does not happen, at least you will have your determination so you can move to court enforcement as soon as possible.
 
Thanks very much for this Mullsafin. It had not clicked with me previously that there are probably 100's of tenants who default on rent annually and will never show on any register once they move out before the district court hearing. This is good example of how biased the RTB is. By delaying adjudications to a snails pace (> 6 months), they are forcing LLs into mediation and thus avoiding any public record of determination orders against defaulting tenants.
 
To provide a rough estimate, there were approximately 1,500 overholding disputes raised in 2025 (estimate as Q4 data is still pending). However, the public register shows only 448 adjudication orders for the same period.

This significant gap suggests that as many as 1,000 tenants per year may be vacating properties while in rent arrears without leaving a public record. This discrepancy appears to be a direct result of the RTB’s slow adjudication process, which effectively favors tenants by allowing cases to be drawn out for years.



https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-out...ication_and_tribunal_dispute_type=overholding
 
stormy said:
This significant gap suggests that as many as 1,000 tenants per year may be vacating properties while in rent arrears without leaving a public record.
Click to expand...
I'd say that there is even more. Many landlords if they can get the tenant out at all (bribery, tenant gets a Council house, tenant gets a glowing reference) will do so without going anywhere near the RTB. The landlord will just write off the unpaid rent as lost money.
 
Mullsafin said:
A successful adjudication is a win in that you get a legally binding determination
Click to expand...
That's not true. Terry Gorry had a Determination Order but when he went to court to get it enforced the judge said it wasn't valid as there was a typo in it. Then when Gorry went back to the RTB to fix the document the RTB said they had no powers to fix it.

On the face of it a Determination Order is legally binding. But the problem is it is worthless to you legally as you cannot enforce it unless you go to court. And after you get your court order you will still have to do another court procedure to get the bailiffs.

In relation to arrears, they are next to impossible to recover.
 
bipped said:
Is it unusual for landlords with rent arrears to make a debt claim after they get vacant possession?
Click to expand...
Yes, I believe it is highly unusual as it is a waste of time and money.

The Court will order the tenant to repay at a rate of €20 per week and you'll be chasing them for years.

It can be impossible to track down the tenant as well. They move on and don't leave forwarding addresses (for obvious reasons)

Landlords just write it off.
 
Bronte said:
That's not true. Terry Gorry had a Determination Order but when he went to court to get it enforced the judge said it wasn't valid as there was a typo in it. Then when Gorry went back to the RTB to fix the document the RTB said they had no powers to fix it.

On the face of it a Determination Order is legally binding. But the problem is it is worthless to you legally as you cannot enforce it unless you go to court. And after you get your court order you will still have to do another court procedure to get the bailiffs.

In relation to arrears, they are next to impossible to recover.
Click to expand...
That situation was a complete outlier and wouldn't normally happen
 
How sure are you that this is an outlier?
I was looking at the register yesterday after reading this thread. The very first determination order I looked at almost certainly has a typo in it. You'll see it yourself - go to the register, click 2026 and search. The first case is: DR0125-1023237


When you open it up, you will see the date of the notice of termination is almost certainly incorrect. The notice of termination (2Dec25) is dated after the determination order (28Oct25).

As it happened I only looked at two entries. But one of the two I'm almost certain has a typo. Presumably the district court will not be able to enforce this either right?

I wonder at this point if the RTB do things like this on purpose. I wouldn't be surprised.


Link to register
rtb.ie

Adjudication and Tribunal orders - Residential Tenancies Board

rtb.ie rtb.ie


Determination Order
 
Last edited:
stormy said:
How sure are you that this is an outlier?
I was looking at the register yesterday after reading this thread. The very first determination order I looked at almost certainly has a typo in it. You'll see it yourself - go to the register, click 2026 and search. The first case is: DR0125-1023237


When you open it up, you will see the date of the notice of termination is almost certainly incorrect. The notice of termination (2Dec25) is dated after the determination order (28Oct25).

As it happened I only looked at two entries. But one of the two I'm almost certain has a typo. Presumably the district court will not be able to enforce this either right?

I wonder at this point if the RTB do things like this on purpose. I wouldn't be surprised.
Click to expand...

That's remarkably unusual! In all the cases I've reviewed since the PRTB was established in 2004 I've never seen anything like it. I've encountered name misspellings before, but determination dates have always been spot-on. That kind of error is outrageous no matter what. It's astonishing that a simple random search uncovered it for you!

On your point about deliberate actions, I completely agree that's plausible. For instance, I've secretly recorded hearings (illegal, I know), and while the reports get most details right, they often omit critical facts or twist what was actually said. You'd have to wonder why don't they allow recording? I've personally dealt with chairperson Dervla Quinn several times, which raises serious questions about how much power rests in so few hands. She even told my tenant during a hearing that "she had done very well", they don't even pretend to be impartial. On another occasion, a mediator (seemingly a barrister from the Law Library, based on their email) ignored my repeated calls and voicemails despite timestamps and email trails to derail a naive tenant's agreement. The RTB's potential for intentional bias feels all too real
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top