The following article from the Irish Examiner is of interest:
Large landlords won’t be able to enact ‘no-fault’ evictions. They will be tied to rolling six-year leases
www.irishexaminer.com
Some of the remarks quoted raise serious questions about whether agents are genuinely acting in the best interests of property owner.
"People can budget for that figure and, a lot of the time, it’s less than 2% because inflation rates will often be less than that. The Rent Pressure calculator is very precise, and it has to be followed. A lot of the time, it’s coming in under 2%."
There’s no acknowledgment that the HICP — the index that was used to measure inflation — excludes key housing-related costs like mortgage interest, building materials, home insurance, and local property tax, among others. Despite this, it reported a 22% rise in inflation over the past five years (since October 2020), while landlords were restricted to a 10% rent increase (2% per year). That amounts to a 12% real-terms rent cut in the last 5 years alone. (And frankly, it’s baffling that the 2% cap isn’t even compounded if you’re not on top of annual increases).
Large landlords won’t be able to enact ‘no-fault’ evictions. They will be tied to rolling six-year leases...
This gives the misleading impression that large landlords can evict tenants after six years. In reality, the proposals make it explicit that tenants have a right to remain indefinitely — effectively for life — unless they choose to leave voluntarily or are found in breach of terms (which, in practice, can take years to enforce).
One critical detail that people aren’t realising is that current tenancies are not affected by the legislation,
That’s simply incorrect. The key issue is that rent caps — which we were repeatedly told were temporary — have now been made permanent for existing tenancies. These properties won’t benefit from any six-year reset. As a result, many rental units are now locked into rents well below market value, and in real terms, significantly lower than when the tenancy began. There’s no mechanism to adjust them. Over time, these properties will become economically unviable — just like the rent-controlled units from 1982. The IPOA recently highlighted a case where a landlord had to pay €100,000 to secure vacant possession of such a legacy rent-controlled property. The current framework is simply repeating the inequities of the past.
While some headlines have focused on the challenges this may pose, there are also clear positives for landlords who plan and put strong management in place. For new tenancies starting after March 2026, tenants will enjoy a six-year term of security. That means fewer interruptions, fewer early lease turnovers, and a framework designed to stabilise the rental market.”
She highlights supposed benefits for landlords, such as reduced lease turnover, yet the new rules make no mention of tenants being required to give extended notice. In reality, the legislation is structured to incentivize tenant turnover — since rents can reset to market levels when a property is vacated, but remain capped if the tenant stays, often falling behind inflation. This creates a perverse disincentive to rent to anyone on social welfare or any tenant likely to remain long-term.
And, she points out, flexibility remains: “Landlords retain the ability to sell their property with tenants in situ, thus safeguarding liquidity.”
Are property owners now expected to feel grateful simply because they’re allowed to sell their asset? Liquidity always exists — just at a lower price when value is suppressed. A property let at a below-market rent is already significantly devalued, a reality now cemented by this legislation. And even if an owner manages to secure vacant possession, the new buyer is still bound by the legacy of a “no-fault” termination, meaning they can’t re-let at market rates. The result is a structurally impaired asset with no viable path to recovery.
Equally important is the long-term ability to reset rents. Unlike older restrictions that could leave landlords permanently behind the market, the new legislation ensures rents can catch up at the start of each new term.”
It should be made far clearer that tenants under the previous system have already — not hypothetically — left many property owners locked into rents significantly below market value. These rents have eroded in real terms, and the properties themselves now carry reduced market worth. Even where vacant possession is achieved, the low rent history follows the asset, limiting its future potential. Crucially, the proposed six-year reset is years away, and precedent suggests that if the housing crisis persists, that reset mechanism will likely be withdrawn. When RPZs were introduced in 2016, they were explicitly temporary and set to expire after a defined period. Yet nine years on, they’ve effectively become permanent for sitting tenants
So I think that, come March 2026 and into 2027, you’re going to see an average increase in rental values again, but it should level out after that. It should all start to level out and make sense from 2028 onwards.”
It would be helpful if she explained the rationale behind this claim. In reality, any prospective investor — even in newly built apartments — must be questioning how long they’ll actually be permitted to increase rents in line with CPI before that mechanism is capped or withdrawn. Given recent policy shifts, the risk of future restrictions is far from hypothetical.
However, in its current form, the legislation seems more weighted towards the benefit of larger landlords than smaller ones.
What grounds does she have for claiming the policy favours larger landlords? Objectively, they seem to be disproportionately penalised — now unable to secure vacant possession to sell, move in, or carry out refurbishments, with these restrictions now indefinite.
but it’s the situation where someone comes along and tells them that that rent is locked in for a period of time going forward, that’s when landlords feel like getting out of it altogether.”
This comes somewhat closer to the reality, but it still overlooks a crucial point: rents are capped
indefinitely for sitting tenants who don’t vacate. Without turnover, there's no opportunity to reset to market rates, leaving landlords with long-term erosion in rental and property value.
Am I overlooking something fundamental here? If the Government is basing its understanding on feedback from agents rather than directly from property owners, it risks developing a skewed perspective. Agents may not fully represent the long-term concerns or financial realities faced by those who actually hold the assets.
