Changes to rent controls announced - discussion

Sarenco said:
No, signing a lease is irrelevant.

It’s the establishment of a new tenancy post 1 March 2026 that will trigger the 6-year cycle.
Click to expand...
Hi Serenco
Thank you for your reply
But Im totally lost on this.

I have a lease renewal date 15/9/25.

So I thought I was ok to renew this last time and because I am renewing before 1/3/26 and would therefore be able to sell without restrictions in Sept 26.

I appreciate any advise Im just still confused and I want to get this right.
I want to be able to sell without restrictions.

Thank you in advance
 
Millie* said:
I have a lease renewal date 15/9/25.
Click to expand...
There is no such thing as a renewal date anymore (not since 2004 really). No matter what the lease says it is actually an indefinite one. For example, you sign a one year lease with a tenant. You tell the tenant at the end of the year that they have to leave because you are not renewing. That doesn't work (you'd have to compensate them if the case got to the RTB). The legislation overrides what the lease says and makes it an indefinite one which lasts until the tenant leaves or you evict to sell.

There is huge confusion over this and I've seen professional agents who should know better produce one year leases, but this is how it works. There is no 'renewal' on an annual basis. It is an indefinite lease.
 
Ah unintended consequences, who coulda seen this coming, if only there was some way to use ones grey matter to, I dont know....scenario plan. :(
 
Yep, that’s my understanding.

Again, that’s on the basis of a press release that had to be pulled and re-issued. Keep an eye on the draft legislation once published.
 
Pmc365 said:
The CGT is a separate matter. Approx 27% of the asset value would be handed to the state in CGT if I sold.
Click to expand...
Unless you have some reason to think that CGT rates are going to fall in the future (or that the value of the property is going to fall), that 27% figure is only going to rise, the longer you hold the property. If the potential CGT liablity is a problem for you, it's a problem that you are more likely to make worse than make better by deferring a sale.

(You may have other reasons for wanting to keep the property, in which case, fine. But a reluctance to accept that the CGT liability will be what it will be is not a good reason.)
 
Last edited:

‘We won’t build for the craic’ - Why Rick Larkin’s Twinlite is quitting residential building​


No nonsense perspective from the supply side.......suggest everybody read it.

"After the government announced the full changes to rent controls last week, Larkin spent the rest of that day talking to investors.

“They wanted to know if they can deploy capital in Ireland again,” Larkin said. Their conclusion was “ no, absolutely not”.

Obviously referring to Blackstone below:

"However, Larkin has noticed one particular large US investor, which has trillions of dollars of assets under management, hasn’t called since 2021, which was when the government made its last rent regulation changes.

Larkin said he remembers having “a very frank discussion” with this fund when the government reduced the rent cap from 4 per cent to either 2 per cent or the rate of inflation, whichever is lower.

“They were about to invest hundreds of millions of euros in Ireland into rental housing. Then the government reduced the cap and he described Ireland as uninvestable. He said, 'until that's gone, you needn't call me'. I haven't spoken to him since."
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Reading various articles and reports over the weekend it appears that the most damaging change to institutional capital coming into Ireland is actually something that appears quite innocent on the surface but is a major red flag for incremental institutional money.......and that is creation in Irish legalisation of a category of landlord called 'large'.

We all know the political math.....there are more renter than landlords.......so you play to the renters (even though your hurting them long term)......but then landlords & their families vote too.....and so the bulk of the votes are going to be small landlords........so you play to them a tiny bit......the final category is miniscule in voting terms and thats large landlords.....some votes there but a rounding error.

What institutional capital see's......to put bluntly is a TRAP........already lured in with promises of a business friendly country....they got burned twice now in RPZ 2016 and then RPZ v2.0 2021.....RPZ v3.0 2025 is a small rapprochement by a government desperate to turn housing supply numbers around quickly......but the writing on the wall is clear RPZ v4.0 when it comes will hammer large landlords only....its a hostage to fortune........institutional capital can see a knife behind the back of smiling Minister for Housing James Browne or future Minister Eoin O'Broin.....and they ain't going to get rolled over for a third time.

Very sad outcome for the country.
 
Last edited:
letitroll said:
Very sad outcome for the country.
Click to expand...

I'm sure the lack of a supply response to these measures is filtering its way back to Merrion St this week.......and so now with taxpayers money we are all going to pay cash money for the Governments cowardice......they are simply going to have to unleash a bazooka full of grants, incentives and tax breaks.....the country could have used OPM (other peoples money) to fix the housing crisis........instead we are going to use our own money......the problem is we don't have enough of our own money to fix this problem its got so big.....300,000 homes needed (program for government #'s) x ~300,000 avg build cost.....is €90bn euro.....we don't have the cash.....and even if we did it would be terribly poor risk management to commit that level of state, domestic capital to such an endeavor....when abundant OPM is available internationally.
 
Last edited:
The Govt were quite happy to cause outrage on the opposition benches defending lowry but utterly craven when it came to the rental market for fear Comrade O Broin would take them to task.
 
letitroll said:
‘We won’t build for the craic’ - Why Rick Larkin’s Twinlite is quitting residential building
Click to expand...

I wonder about this.

Given that our rents are amonmg the highest in the world, then surely there should be a queue of landlords willing to rent?

(in my opinion rents need to halve if they are to be sensible)

If landlords or potential landlords won't supply at among the highest rents in the world, then there is something wrong.
 
Protocol said:
If landlords or potential landlords won't supply at among the highest rents in the world, then there is something wrong.
Click to expand...
Well I won't because as a large landlord I would be handing over my property to somebody I probably met for 15 minutes possibly for life. If they never leave, I have two choices (1) put up with it and possibly be responsible for the person in their old age (2) sell out at a very steep discount.

Is that life long tenancy likely to happen - probably not, but it is such a disasterous situation to be in I would not expose myself and my family to the risk.

That is why I will exit and not return

High rents are irrelevant against a risk like that. They could be twice as high, I would still not go near being a landlord.
 
I don't understand why landlords have or are focussing on the 2% per annum change in rents, versus focussing on the level of rents.

Surley the level of rents is so high, that for any landlord not locked into below market rents for the past few years, the rental profits and capital gains have been and are huge?


1750102804826.png
 
Greenbook said:
Well I won't because as a large landlord I would be handing over my property to somebody I probably met for 15 minutes possibly for life. If they never leave, I have two choices (1) put up with it and possibly be responsible for the person in their old age (2) sell out at a very steep discount.
Click to expand...

A fair answer.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top