Just to update on my previous post, the apartment we are currently selling is currently in a bidding war between an investor and an owner occupier, which has surprised me. I believe the investor plans to keep for own use short term and then rent at market rate post 1st March (which would then be a good return, assuming they are allowed to do so).
Changes to rent controls announced - discussion
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
- Status
The changes seem to be having the effect which was flagged here - lots of landlords selling up Irish Independent article - 22 September
Hi Guys - wondering peoples thoughts on this. I have rent review due with tenant( in property >6 year) and that usually lines up with me issuing a renewed 1yr lease. I'm not sure what I'm going to do with property and was waiting to see draft legislation etc . Do you think any benefit in holding off on review and rent increase ( ~2%) until after i know what the lie of the land is - or should i just do the review/rent increase regardless.
Also - am i right in saying technically as they long standing tenant the 1 year lease doesn't really mean anything as they have indefinite lease?
Thanks
Also - am i right in saying technically as they long standing tenant the 1 year lease doesn't really mean anything as they have indefinite lease?
Thanks
Yes, the one year lease means nothing, they have an indefinite tenancy after 6 months no matter what the lease says. This has been the situation since 2004.
In fact, with the current rules the one year lease is a positive disadvantage to a landlord, you can't evict to sell during the one year period. So if you decide between now and this time next year that you want to evict to sell you won't be able to do so. Keep in mind also that it may be that all tenancies are converting to 6 year ones in March, we don't know, so you might decide to issue the eviction notice before that to cover yourself. If you've granted a one year fixed term tenancy, you can't do that.
It works like this:
1. If a right is given in legislation, you can't take it away in a lease, which is why the one year lease doesn't affect the tenants' indefinite tenancy.
2. You can always grant extra rights yourself better than what is in the legislations in the lease if you want to. A one year lease does this - you're giving the tenant extra rights, they cannot be evicted for the year unless there is a breach by them because you have promised them they can stay for the year. The lease is a one year fixed term one.
I think you may as well do the review now, though. I don't think that affects anything else.
In fact, with the current rules the one year lease is a positive disadvantage to a landlord, you can't evict to sell during the one year period. So if you decide between now and this time next year that you want to evict to sell you won't be able to do so. Keep in mind also that it may be that all tenancies are converting to 6 year ones in March, we don't know, so you might decide to issue the eviction notice before that to cover yourself. If you've granted a one year fixed term tenancy, you can't do that.
It works like this:
1. If a right is given in legislation, you can't take it away in a lease, which is why the one year lease doesn't affect the tenants' indefinite tenancy.
2. You can always grant extra rights yourself better than what is in the legislations in the lease if you want to. A one year lease does this - you're giving the tenant extra rights, they cannot be evicted for the year unless there is a breach by them because you have promised them they can stay for the year. The lease is a one year fixed term one.
I think you may as well do the review now, though. I don't think that affects anything else.
Hi Greenbook, the above has me a bit worried. Have you seen something to suggest existing tenancies will change to the new rules in March as well?
We have a tenancy that started in early 2021, so falls under the old 6 year part 4 tenancy rules that lets us end the tenancy without selling etc. I'm really hoping we aren't going to be tied in to renting it for another 6 years!
I haven't seen anything definitive and I thought from the original press release (which is all we have to go on) that the new rules only apply to new tenancies created after 1 March 2026.
I've been increasingly hearing and know some landlords who have already issued NoTs on the basis that this will apply to all tenancies post March. Personally, I would have said the government could not make so fundamental a change to an existing tenancy, but they have done just that with the RPZs.
The short answer is that I haven't seen anything definitive, but this is what I am hearing and I think that anything could happen at this stage so I suppose it is best to act with this possibility in mind also.
We have issued notice to 4 good tenants due to the uncertainty of it all. We are in our 60’s and the inability to get vacant possession should we wish/need to sell has decided us. It has caused us to look more critically at the other expenses a landlord incurs - insurance renewal quote just received yesterday €518 up from €330 last year. Properties aging and needing more repairs. Local council private rental props inspection which can throw up ridiculous requirements- they wanted us to put in wired fire alarm and paint the garden shed! Our agent advised that they were not necessary and argued the case but it has made us realise what may be coming. All in all we feel the time has come for us to get out. I’m sure many other private landlords - particularly at our stage in life feel the same. 6 years is a long time.. and we are not prepared to accept the reduction in value that selling with a tenant-in -situ would mean.
On this specific point, you really need to shop around every year for insurance and other services in order to get the best deal for your needs and not just stick with the same service provider. This applies to all insurance cover, utilities, etc.
Their requirements often border on the ridiculous and can be unrealistic when compared to your own PPR and are often items that the tenant has no issue with. Tenants in turn can often have unrealistic expectations when an issue needs resolving as they expect immediate resolution whereas in a similar situation yourself you are prepared to wait until the plumber, electrician etc becomes available to attend (within reason). I'm so glad that I bailed out of the Landlord game last year.
A long video but interesting discussion from July. According to the retiring CEO of the IPAV (1.08-1.11 in video) after March a rental property will only sell at investment values and will not sell at market values any longer. Also the guy from IPOA mentioned the constitution and that rented property will be the only asset where the owner is restricted in who they can sell to. Don’t have the video timestamp for that.
www.youtube.com
(Apologies if this video was linked before)
- YouTube
Enjoy the videos and music that you love, upload original content and share it all with friends, family and the world on YouTube.
www.youtube.com
(Apologies if this video was linked before)
Last edited:
Under the current rules, I’m managing an indefinite tenancy in a pre-’63 building where the rent is now roughly 60% of market value. The tenant, now in their 50s, shows no signs of moving on. Meanwhile, I’m taxed at over 50% on income that’s already heavily suppressed and expenses growing well in excess of the 2% cap—while the tenant has enjoyed wage increases and generous tax breaks over the years. It’s hard to see how this setup is either fair or remotely sustainable.
Looking ahead, I’m genuinely alarmed by the historical precedent: rent controls from the old controlled tenancies led to rents beings just 10–15% of market value by the end of the inflationary 1970s. The IPOA meeting of property owners in Cork last week heard of a property owner who recently paid €100k to a legacy rent-controlled tenant to vacate the property so that it could be sold. Imagine that – having to receive a paltry rent for your own property for decades, and then having to pay the tenant to leave!
I’m now seriously considering converting the property back into a single residence (or trying to convert it to commercial if I can). If I re-let any unit after 1 March 2026, I may lose that option entirely—just one tenant not leaving under the new rules means I might not get the chance again (as there will be no way to terminate the tenancy for a "large" property owner). As misguided as the ban on bedsits was, this feels like that policy on steroids.
I’d be keen to hear what others with pre-’63 buildings are thinking. They will be a nightmare to run if you end up with difficult tenants who can't be evicted. Do rent controls and the new rent rules effectively spell the end of them?
legalguide.ie/old-controlled-tenancies/
Looking ahead, I’m genuinely alarmed by the historical precedent: rent controls from the old controlled tenancies led to rents beings just 10–15% of market value by the end of the inflationary 1970s. The IPOA meeting of property owners in Cork last week heard of a property owner who recently paid €100k to a legacy rent-controlled tenant to vacate the property so that it could be sold. Imagine that – having to receive a paltry rent for your own property for decades, and then having to pay the tenant to leave!
I’m now seriously considering converting the property back into a single residence (or trying to convert it to commercial if I can). If I re-let any unit after 1 March 2026, I may lose that option entirely—just one tenant not leaving under the new rules means I might not get the chance again (as there will be no way to terminate the tenancy for a "large" property owner). As misguided as the ban on bedsits was, this feels like that policy on steroids.
I’d be keen to hear what others with pre-’63 buildings are thinking. They will be a nightmare to run if you end up with difficult tenants who can't be evicted. Do rent controls and the new rent rules effectively spell the end of them?
legalguide.ie/old-controlled-tenancies/
You can't evict to sell in the Netherlands either. My daughter's friend and her husband got paid in excess of €20,000 to leave their rental property. The landlord wanted to sell and over there the system is now that as a tenant you don't leave unless you get cash. Expect the same system to come in here.
And you are correct, one bad tenant in a pre-63 means the entire building is unsaleable and that would include any commercial element too.
Something that occurred to me. Unlikely situation in the real world but not impossible.
Say an owner agreed to a sub-letting, the head tenant technically becomes the landlord for that new tenancy. If the owner had four tenancies, does the sub-letting change that to three or does it stay at four?
Owners could let units to family members who could sub-let for example. Is it possible to have more than one landlord for a tenancy of the same unit? It could become very messy if the sub-tenant were to sub-let again, then there could be three tenancies and three landlords for the same unit. Does the owner then have six tenancies?
How would that work if the landlord classification is to be based on the number of tenancies? Ban all sub-lets? Would that affect any company renting a dwelling for their employees?
Say an owner agreed to a sub-letting, the head tenant technically becomes the landlord for that new tenancy. If the owner had four tenancies, does the sub-letting change that to three or does it stay at four?
Owners could let units to family members who could sub-let for example. Is it possible to have more than one landlord for a tenancy of the same unit? It could become very messy if the sub-tenant were to sub-let again, then there could be three tenancies and three landlords for the same unit. Does the owner then have six tenancies?
How would that work if the landlord classification is to be based on the number of tenancies? Ban all sub-lets? Would that affect any company renting a dwelling for their employees?
Last edited:
@bipped I honestly think when they get into the detail of landlords moving from big to small and vice versa and tenants in situ moving between the different types of landlords, the rules will be a complicated morass. Also, grouping spouses, connected companies etc. together. Plus, are they looking at how many properties you have or how many tenancies? Are unlet properties included ie. ex rental now occupied by a child or being renovated.
Same thing with the six year rule. If you have tenants coming and going, plus sub-letting which you might not even be aware of, how do you work out when the 6 year period beings and ends?
This is going to make particle physics look easy and expect landlords to get heavily fined for mistakes made. Plus it will be pointless asking the RTB for advise - you'll be on your own.
Same thing with the six year rule. If you have tenants coming and going, plus sub-letting which you might not even be aware of, how do you work out when the 6 year period beings and ends?
This is going to make particle physics look easy and expect landlords to get heavily fined for mistakes made. Plus it will be pointless asking the RTB for advise - you'll be on your own.
In fact, if you combine these two situations; within a 6 year period you have tenants coming and going and landlords changing between small and big all involving the same property, how do you work whether and when you can evict to sell and when you can raise the rent. Also, who'd buy such a property, they'd just be taken over these questions.
This is a real eye opener, thank you. You are right, in fact it's already the case where it makes sense for me to pay a tenant to leave (but at least with current rules I have choice to move in there myself for 12 months).
I imagine that if someone owns a pre-’63 property with four or five units, they’d likely leave units 4 and 5 vacant. Fine they might get market rate (with government taking up to 55% tax + LPT etc) but the landlord takes the full hit not being able to sell the whole house with vacant possession.
Do people think those in government are aware of the chaos this will cause? It seems designed to deter investment into property if anything. For those with existing properties there are several cases when they are incentivised to leave them vacant (including over the long term).
But we're no idea how a large landlord is classified - is it someone who rents out 4 properties or is it someone who owns 4 properties but only rents out 3?
Two weeks ago, the IPOA hosted a webinar for its members featuring two representatives from the Department of Housing, Local Government and Heritage. During the session, it was confirmed that classifications will be determined by the number of active RTB registrations. While the legislation hasn't been enacted yet, it's reasonable to assume they have access to more insights than we do.
charlie007
Registered User
- Messages
- 564
Pearse criticises the minister for refusing to introduce a rent ban
Still begs the question as to what happens if you have 4 properties (large landlord) and then sell one - now you only have 3 active registrations; are your tenants now on 6 year tenancies. What if you increase your registrations from 3 to 4. Huge temptation also to find reasons not to register the additional properties ie. set up licences
Did anything else of interest come from the webinar?
- Status