Yes. There were loud and clear warnings on the unwanted effects of rent controls.
Changes to rent controls announced - thread for clarifying
- Thread starter Brendan Burgess
- Start date
Any idea why the legislation is taking so long? I have a reasonably ok tenant but really concerned by the concept of not being able to sell for 6 years. The only thing keeping me from selling is the chance a close family member might want to use it in a few years (and it would be great to help them avoid the open rental market)... but that assumes the rules will still allow the tenant to be put out if a family member needs it.
It could be that all tenancies are becoming 6 year or forever in March 2026 and they want to bring that legislation in at the last minute to trap people like the RPZs.
Most likely it was delayed by Department of Housing staff holidays in July and August, the housing parts of the Budget being negotiated in September and that the legislation is going to be a lot more complicated than they originally thought.
Because its a considerable change and liable to legal challenges. So it would suggest that the changes are fairly drastic. Don't discount the fact that tenants now include a lot of higher earning middle class people who could afford to take a legal challenge so its not just a risk that IPOA uses its collective financial muscle to challenge a change in the law, but tenants collectively also.
Its really difficult to know what will change, but I wouldn't bank on it on being allowed to easily evict after March, nor would I presume that it will be easier to set rents on existing rented properties to current market rates either. Its hard to tell exactly what will happen, except that the market is too distorted by low supply and high demand for it to benefit anybody.
This is the right take.....slowly over time the rental market has been sucked into in the centre of the political system....it was such a huge mistake to start this RPZ game....the rental market is now subject IMO to extreme policy volatility.....impossible to forecast but it appears to me that as it pertains to rents they are only two viable policy positions for all political parties in the State.....either strong State directed rental controls or extreme State directed rent controls and it doesn't take a genius to foresee the extreme version in the form of SF/PBP getting control of the lever of power etc
Don’t understand this - why would tenants challenge the new legislation if the changes from March are to give them added protections?
The proposed changes ie. countrywide controlled rent, fewer reasons for termination, limited no-fault terminations, sales only with a sitting tenant and increased oversight from rtb sounds like less rights and more regulation for landlords.
May be connected to the new regulations coming. A change to the ARP scheme is also on the way according to Min O’Callaghan on Thursday.
“…I can, however, confirm that the Government agreed to a proposal brought jointly by the Minister for Housing and myself for the governing legislation to be amended to limit eligibility for the ARP to properties that are not rental properties with a view to safeguarding such accommodation for tenants.”
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2025-10-09/section/59/ (Ques 57)
Does that mean any non-ppr currently in the ARP scheme will finish ie., will those arrangements be changed to tenancies?
“…I can, however, confirm that the Government agreed to a proposal brought jointly by the Minister for Housing and myself for the governing legislation to be amended to limit eligibility for the ARP to properties that are not rental properties with a view to safeguarding such accommodation for tenants.”
https://www.oireachtas.ie/en/debates/question/2025-10-09/section/59/ (Ques 57)
Does that mean any non-ppr currently in the ARP scheme will finish ie., will those arrangements be changed to tenancies?
Last edited:
I suspect you're correct there. They will want to end ARP and very much limit AirBnB to push as many additional properties as they can into the PRS.
See the article relating to upcoming changes.
Looks like the Gov have started work on it last Tuesday.
www.rte.ie
Looks like the Gov have started work on it last Tuesday.
Controversial rent reforms are hurtling down the track
On Tuesday, the Cabinet approved an outline of new rental rules which are due to replace the current arrangements for tenants and landlords at the end of the year.
and a point made here earlier, from the article
"Between now and 2032 there will be a general election. Opposition parties could promise voters they would remove the ability of landlords to reset rents in 2032.
If that happens, it would be another major policy shift potentially discouraging investors already exasperated with years of chopping and changing."
I don't think it is a 'could', I think it is a 'will'. It's a sure vote getting along with a 'temporary' eviction ban in 2032 for a short period while they solve the housing crisis
Reading this just highlights how confusing the whole thing is going to be, and how easy it is for people to be misled.
Landlords with more than three properties will only be able to evict in limited circumstances. For smaller landlords they will only be able to ask a tenant to leave if the owner of the property must sell due to financial hardship or if the property is needed for a relative.
The article incorrectly suggests a larger landlord is someone owning more than three properties. Under the current proposals, the threshold is based on the number of tenancies—not properties. This distinction is critical. For example, an individual who owns a single four-bedroom house and rents each room under separate tenancy agreements would be classified as a larger landlord. The public should be aware that it's the number of tenancies that matters, not the number of properties.
"Another huge change will come in 2032, when landlords will be able to reset rent to the market rate.
This is going to be enormously controversial. If a tenant is renting a property for €1,500 monthly and the market rate is €3,000 the landlord will now be able to reset to the higher rate for an existing renter."
Under the current proposals, a landlord may only reset rent to market levels for an "existing" tenant if that tenancy began after 1 March 2026. For all tenancies that commenced prior to that date, market rent resets will never apply. Instead, any future rent reviews will be strictly capped at the lower of inflation or 2%. In effect ensuring existing tenants (as of now) are more or less guaranteed to have lower real-terms rent. James Browne made it unequivocally clear that tenancies already in place cannot be adjusted to market rate under these rules. "I need to make it absolutely clear that those who have tenancies at the moment will not be subject to the proposed six-year resettings."
This may come across as a bit of a rant, but nearly everyone I speak to seems to interpret the proposals differently—and I feel few seem to grasp just how damaging they could be for both tenants and landlords.
"Opposition parties will promise voters everything under the sun........rent freezes, moratoriums on evictions, landlords banned from selling units into the owner-occupied sector etc."
These promises will start not in early 2029 in advance of an election......these promises will start after the publishing of the revised rent regulations.....international investors those ready, willing and able to activate development of sites with existing apartment planning will look at the various party polls when assessing PRS capital allocation across European cities and they'll get out their calenders and realize that when you think of timelines to construct and then lease up a new build development such that the asset is deemed stabilized & cashflowing and NAV can be assigned.....you'll be getting to that point just as the spectre of an SF led coalition is coming into power.........PRS yields in Dublin will expand (again) and tonne of your equity will be incinerated in the move. PRS works as a highly levered asset class....thin sliver's of equity capital sitting on top of debt....seemingly small moves in the market multiple one can transact a building at say in response to the policy environment or expected policy environment can incinerate the equity capital in a project very very easily.
Put it this way......if your portfolio manager in a large international PRS asset manager sitting in London, Frankfurt, New York, Zurich who cares about their job, keeping it and progressing in it.......greenlighting a Dublin PRS project in 2026 might be a pretty fabulous way to lose your job in around 2028/2029 (if not sooner, coalition governments as everyone knows are inherently unstable and this one is long in the tooth).
Anyway you dont get to torch international capital numerous times in a decade.....we did it with the growing expansion of RPZ in the late 2010's.......did it again around COVID with the dranconian 2% rent increase cap while inflation was printing nearly double digits and financing costs went through the roof........and while some good elements are in the revised rent regulations it is not a come to This post will be deleted if not edited immediately moment from this coalition holding its hand up and admitting that all the rent controls and rent regulations they've instituted have royally messed up delivery......I think they think that they've made some tough choices....but its all too little, too late and too close to 2029......I mean look what theyve done with this bill - the creation of a large landlord class with different rules/regs is really a red herring to an international fund manager because what you've effectively done is conveniently segmented for SF the exact international capital your trying to attract so they can get torched by Mary Lou in 2029.
I would not be surprised at all if this is the next thing they try.
Seems to me that the plan for this new register for rent amounts will have the effect of dropping rents in the long run.
I think the plan is to legislate that you get the market rent only form the RTB register. So what happens after 6 years of this coming legislation change?
For the next 6 years after March the vast majority of rents will only rise at 2% or less. When it comes to being allowed to reset to market rents you will have to get the market price from the register, which only really contains rents that have been going up at 2% or less for the last 6 years. So now theres your new market rent. Its not an open market rent. Its an RTB generated market rent, based only on rises of 2% per year.
I think the plan is to legislate that you get the market rent only form the RTB register. So what happens after 6 years of this coming legislation change?
For the next 6 years after March the vast majority of rents will only rise at 2% or less. When it comes to being allowed to reset to market rents you will have to get the market price from the register, which only really contains rents that have been going up at 2% or less for the last 6 years. So now theres your new market rent. Its not an open market rent. Its an RTB generated market rent, based only on rises of 2% per year.
@JamieB_ agree entirely. It is really odd that they are bringing in a rent register now, when rents are moving to market. It would have made sense with the old system so that a new tenant could see what the old rent was and when it was raised last, and would know if the RPZ was being complied with.
It must therefore have an ulterior motive and that must be to allow the RTB determine and police what 'market' rents are based on the register.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that they think that PRS landlords should be the same as the Councils; rents never really increase, tenancies are permanent once you get the keys, non-payment of rent and poor behaviour are tolerated and the owner is 100% responsible for all maintance, repairs and improvements.
It must therefore have an ulterior motive and that must be to allow the RTB determine and police what 'market' rents are based on the register.
I'm becoming increasingly convinced that they think that PRS landlords should be the same as the Councils; rents never really increase, tenancies are permanent once you get the keys, non-payment of rent and poor behaviour are tolerated and the owner is 100% responsible for all maintance, repairs and improvements.
I suspect the Funds are seeing that. IRES Reit share price is dropping the whole time.
Presumably AHB tenancies and cost rental homes will be included in the register. CRs and AHBs are 25% below market rates and AHBs also have units on the differential rent scheme for council tenants.
Yep IRES is the canary in the coalmine....you bet your bottom dollar private funds go look at the public market performance of Ireland's largest landlord that also happens to be a publicly listed REIT to see what the market is saying.
IRES's portfolio is trading at an implied gross yield of ~8% (~6.4% net yield)
The general math of a PRS development such that a property developer can actually make a margin on Irish build cost is that new construction apartments need to be changing hands at a gross yield of about ~6.5% or lower. (or net yield of ~4.5% or lower).
The difference between these numbers is the perceived risk premium - regulatory, rates, Irish economy, Irish Gov.....lower yields equal less risk....higher yields equal more risk....
The ~6.4% to 4.5% delta seems small on paper but this isnt the way multiples of rental income work in valuations...they have outsized effects see below back of the envelope and you can see the issue. The perception of Ireland as a risky place to put capital to work in the rental sector has seen yields blow out way in excess of the normal spread that occured over 10yr sovereigns and the recent interest rate increases....yes interest rates matter but the spread over sovereign 10yr paper is an idiosyncratic reflection of the perceived risk in that country's rental market.
Ireland's spread over its 10yr paper is screaming signficant concerns > and thats killing new apartment construction > cause the math breaksdown >
a 100 unit apartment building at €2000 p/m per unit.....under 6.4% scenario (x15.6 multiple) is worth just ~€37m (100 x €24,000 x 15.63 ).......but costs €45m to build add a developer margin of 15% and a developer need to have a PRS buyer lined up willing to pay ~€52m or what's the point (100 x €400,000 x 1.15)....the current scenario where international PRS doesn't want to hold stuff in ireland unless they are getting a big spread on it versus Birmingham, London, Milan etc means Dublin apartment just arent worth that much......the Irish Government did THIS with their tomfoolery
Now a 100 unit apartment building at €2000 p/m per unit.....under the 4.5% scenario (x22.2 multple) is worth ~€53m (100 x €24,000 x 22.2).....and costs €45m to build & €52m needed to make the whole thing worthwhile for a developer......the issue is those yields need to come down and the yield spread is a measure of confidence that international capital isnt going to get hurt (as it was already)......
Based on this thread alone - and the anxiety and foreboding folks feel around what the 10yr trajectory for the rental sector is in Ireland....I have a simple question......should international capital be more or less worried and so should they demand a higher or lower yield on rental income?
IRES's investors are clearly more worried.....and if this math but really a confidence problem persists.....nothing is getting built outside the State directed stuff which is immune to market realities........the issue is Ireland hasnt the balance sheet to fund all the homes we need to build.....we need outside capital....and as the math above shows outside capital cant invest in apartment building that dont exist....and the apartment buildings dont exist because developers aren't in the business of building something that costs them €45m and they can only sell for €37m!
People keep saying that outside foreign capital is required to build apts.
Yet every CU and bank in the country is flooded with deposits.
Can anybody reconcile these two statements?