Landlords using 'constructive evictions' to reset rents to market

[Greenbook]

Indeed. By the RTB rules, if tenant A and B take the lease, after 2 years tenant C replaces B, then 10 years later, A moves out, then the landlord can also put out C who has been there 8 years and/or let them stay but with a new tenancy and significantly increased rent. If C complains to the RTB, I wonder what would happen...

I really want to avoid going down that rabbit hole again, but can the landlord just tell C to move out when A and B are both gone?

Doesn't C acquire tenancy rights after 6 months residence independently of the original lease?

We looked at this on some other thread previously. I think the conclusion was that on balance C could stay on. The rent would reset at year 6 based on the A/B tenancy and C could be evicted at that point if the landlord was small and never if large.

I may be misremembering this, but the overall correct conclusion I'm sure was that it was a morass for post-March leases and that house shares/tenant swaps are best avoided. I think that this is where landlords and these 'constructive evictions' are coming from.

 

[Greenbook]

A quote below from this article https://m10news.com/irish-home-prices-hit-e400000-as-landlords-find-ways-around-new-rules/ (here) on these 'constructive evictions

The legal gap at the heart of the problem is that Ireland’s new rules explicitly prohibit rent resets after no-fault terminations defined as a landlord actively ending a tenancy. They do not address what happens when a landlord’s refusal to permit a replacement housemate creates conditions that make the tenancy financially unviable. Whether that constitutes a constructive eviction in law has not yet been tested before the RTB or the courts.

Until it is, the gap remains open. And landlords who know it exists will keep using it.

It is described as a 'gap' in the legislation and gaps just have to be closed.

Threshold is in on the act as well, a sure sign that government action will be taken. I can see exactly where tenants are coming from, but on top of everything else we'll have to take replacement tenants while locked into the rent caps and eviction bans.

 

[LarryScott]

The RTB have stated that as long as at least one original tenant remains, the original lease remains in place. I'm assuming this has a legal basis, so in your scenario, the tenant would win hands down.

I would caution using the term "lease".

Legally, the lease is a contract between the landlord and tenant(s). It is not the tenancy.

The lease is binding on tenant and landlord, but any terms that violate the RTA are effectively unenforceable.

The tenancy comes into existence separately from any contract/lease.

When you give the keys to the tenant and they take possession of the house, the tenancy materializes. You might be able to argue that the lease says that happens on a specific date, but it happens due to the operation of law and not due to any signatures.

If you create a landlord/tenant relationship, then the tenancy appears automatically. For absolute safety, the best plan would be to have the lease state the handover date.

"The tenants agree to take possession of the dwelling at XYZ on the xth of month. Failure to take possession on that date shall terminate this agreement.".

Then the landlord meets them on the date in question and goes into the house with them. He then gets them to sign a statement that they accepted the keys on that date.

That way there is no disagreement about when the tenancy starts. The tenancy starts when the keys are handed over. Under no circumstances should the tenant be allowed to do anything tenant-like before that moment.

This may become more important as exact dates start to matter.

Though, if you did have that clause, you need to make sure to get them to sign a statement saying they took possession.

I would think that so long as one original tenant remains, the original lease remains.

I believe that is the case. You can't rent rooms in Ireland. Ironically, the "rent-a-room" scheme is not actually a scheme to rent out rooms (it is for paid lodgers).

Thinking about nightmare interpretations.

A landlord wants to rent a house with 4 rooms for 2000 a month. He decides to rent each room for 500 with shared use of the common areas.

Tenant A agrees and moves in to room 1 and pays 500 per month (lease A).

Tenant B agrees and moves in to room 2 3 months later and also pays 500 per month (lease B).

I think legally, a tenancy for the whole house materializes when tenant A moves in. There is no separate tenancy created for tenant B. Lease B is just an agreement between the landlord and tenant B. It doesn't create a tenancy.

Now, the question is what to do about rent setting.

I think the tenants could argue that the tenancy has an agreed rent of 500 per month. Adding the 2nd tenant doesn't allow any change to the rent. In any case, the landlord didn't go though the formal rent setting process.

Even if he did, an increase from 500 per month to 1000 per month for the whole house is clearly more than 2% per year (not to mind the inflation rate cap). They could demand he reduce the rent to 500 per month and they both pay 250.

The only thing the landlord could do is add more tenants to bring the house to 4, but he would still be capped at 500 per month (+2% per year). He can also block more tenants.

Probably depends, did tenant C sign the lease?
If not, then I expect the original lease is over after the original signees exit.

No, the tenancy and lease are completely separate things. The lease might slightly interact, but mostly the tenancy wins if there is disagreement.

You don't need a lease to be a tenant, it materializes automatically. Once you are given possession of the house in a tenancy-like context, it springs up.

There is a whole part of the RTA that handles adding new tenants.

Anyone who lives in a dwelling for more than 6 months is entitled to be added to the tenancy. The landlord can't block it if that would be "unreasonable". What counts as unreasonable is not defined.

So, C above would be entitled to be a tenant once he was there for 6 months. It is like the 6 months probationary period for tenancies.

Doesn't C acquire tenancy rights after 6 months residence independently of the original lease?

Exactly. Though he does need the landlord to formally add him, but the landlord has to do it (or argue that the refusal wasn't "unreasonable").

 

[patfert1]

@LarryScott great explanation, thanks. This is a killer for the historically common arrangement of young people coming and going from rented properties. No landlord aware of these rules will want to be exposed to this by renting to a group of individuals, because long after the original tenants have gone the replacements will have acquired tenancy rights and the rent can never be reset to market rates unless all current tenants happen to leave at the same time. It's rather sad because such young people are at the very bottom of the accomodation ladder. I refer to those who have insecure work arrangements, foreigners new to the country, etc.

What I am wondering is how those landlords - and we move into the unscruplous landlord territory here - who rent out individual beds in shared rooms and the like are going to manage all this.

 

[Greenbook]

Then the landlord meets them on the date in question and goes into the house with them. He then gets them to sign a statement that they accepted the keys on that date.

Excellent explanation @LarryScott

One thing I have worried about is the commencement date. Even if you specify a date, it tends to be a bit of a moveable feast and I don't think you can terminate the lease because the tenant turns up on Wednesday instead of Tuesday through no fault of their own. I believe that RTB acknowledgment letters to landlords are now specifying the lease commencement date. I can certainly see rent increases being denied and repaid because the landlord served and completed everything completely correctly on the 11th of July, but technically the tenancy didn't commence until the 12th.

No landlord aware of these rules will want to be exposed to this by renting to a group of individuals, because long after the original tenants have gone the replacements will have acquired tenancy rights and the rent can never be reset to market rates unless all current tenants happen to leave at the same time. It's rather sad because such young people are at the very bottom of the accomodation ladder. I refer to those who have insecure work arrangements, foreigners new to the country, etc.

This was spotted by posters on here back in June 2025 when the new rules were announced. The Department of Housing and the RTB are obviously completely unaware of how renting actually operates out in the real world.

It is not even rent resetting, it is getting a vacant house so that you can repaint and refurbish it. Shared houses after 4 or 5 years are invariably pretty scruffy and dirty. Also, you might want to sell. A house share even with detailed records of who came and went is, I'd imagine, impossible to sell to another landlord.

Absolutely crazy stuff, academics and civil servants who don't have the full picture at all making up the rules.

 

[bipped]

The tenancy starts when the keys are handed over.

Ok. Say two sets of keys are handed over on 01May26 to two people named on the lease / contract granting the tenancy. The tenancy term is to 30April32 for those two people and if one leaves mid-cycle, the tenancy term continues.

The remaining tenant then hands the second set of keys to anyone of their choice without reference to the landlord except the RTA requirement to notify him in writing, and that person can then request to join the tenancy after six months occupation and the landlord can’t reasonably refuse. That’s the RTA tenancy rules covered.

What about the lease/contract rules? The contract was with two specified individuals. If one leaves, the contract has changed. Is one side to a contract legally obliged to agree to an alteration requested by the other side to that contract?

Say the landlord agrees to a different party occupying their property during the tenancy term, should they not draw up a new or amended legal contract naming the new parties? Say for instance there was no amended contract and the remaining tenant plus the replacement stop paying rent, is the original joint tenant who left still liable for the rent?

Tbf it might be impossible to locate the departed tenant but I’m just using that example to try and understand where the overlap is between tenancy rules, swapping tenants, and the legal contract that grants possession by the owner of the property.

 

[Bronte]

The RTB have stated that as long as at least one original tenant remains, the original lease remains in place

How does this work in practice?

Tenant A, B, C

B& C leave

X & Y arrive, A remains

tenancy is the original lease?

If A leaves, but X & Y who are now part of the original lease, and X & Y decide to just pay the rent, the lease is the original?

Or say A is replaced by Z, so we have X, Y & Z, is that a new lease?

 

[patfert1]

@bipped, well mine is not a legal opinion about the scenario you describe, but it appears that the Tenancy in the eyes of the RTB is not the same as the Lease Agreement, the latter may well be irrelevant to the RTB - so in this case, the landlord would be well advised to make sure they are consistent, and sign a new lease agreement - or perhaps an addendum would suffice - to be consistent with the new/updated tenancy.

@Bronte, Earlier in this thread it was suggested not to mix the terms lease and tenancy.

No, the tenancy and lease are completely separate things.

 

[Bronte]

No, the tenancy and lease are completely separate things. The lease might slightly interact, but mostly the tenancy wins if there is disagreement.

Until coming back into the business recently with an agent I never ever had a lease. Did not see the need for one as the law is there on the rules of the tenancy.

 

[Greenbook]

@bipped

tenancy is the original lease?

Yes, and its cycle ends at A' year 6 which will very likely surprise X and Y who will head to the RTB

Or say A is replaced by Z, so we have X, Y & Z, is that a new lease?

I think we tried to work out that question on a previous thread and couldn't. The issue is:

1. Lease to A and B on 1 May 2026
2. On 1 May 2027, B leaves and is replaced by X.
3. The original 1 May lease continues with A and X. It's cycle will end on 30 April 2032
4. But if A leaves on 1 May 2028 and is replaced by Z, what that is turned out to be impossible to work out. The 6 year cycle hasn't ended but both original tenants have departed.

So landlords, to avoid fines and penalties if nothing else, are going to have to ensure, if they are allowed, that the only tenants can be A and B. That keeps things clear.

 

[Bronte]

@Bronte, I think earlier in this thread it was suggested not to mix the terms lease and tenancy.

It matters not, once you have a tenant you have a lease. A tenant is leasing the property off you.

My question wasn't about that in any case. I only care about RTB rules. Not anything else as it's irrelevant. You can write what you like into a lease, worthless is what it is.

 

[Greenbook]

@bipped I think we tried to work this out on an earlier thread and couldn't.

In general law, landlords can specify no replacements and that the originally tenants are the only allowable tenants and jointly and severally liable for the lease

The RT Act 2004 says that a licensee can be moved in if the landlord is informed and can become a tenant after 6 months subject to the landlords right of reasonable refusal

How those two interact and which takes priority wasn't possible to work out. The IRES Reit case with the RTB on tenant replacements will hopefully tell us when it eventually reaches the High Court

 

[Bronte]

Yes, and its cycle ends at A' year 6 which will very likely surprise X and Y who will head to the RTB

So you're talking about the 6 year cycles. Is this for pre March tenancies? I'm post March only.

1. Lease to A and B on 1 May 2026
2. On 1 May 2027, B leaves and is replaced by X.
3. The original 1 May lease continues with A and X. It's cycle will end on 30 April 2032
4. But if A leaves on 1 May 2028 and is replaced by Z, what that is turned out to be impossible to work out. The 6 year cycle hasn't ended but both original tenants have departed.

Doesn't X start a new 6 year cycle from 1 May 2027? Which is different to the 6 year cycle of A which ended in 2032? Can you have 2 different 6 year cycles? Surely not.

 

[Bronte]

In general law, landlords can specify no replacements and that the originally tenants are the only allowable tenants and jointly and severally liable for the lease

Surely all or most landlords always had tenants jointly and severally liable for the rent payment. This madness only goes crazy in house shares where you have people not interrelated, unlike a family renting.

Lesson learnt today. Do not rent a 3 bed to a family. Always rent it to a group who are not related. You've an excellent chance one will leave (new job/boyfriend/move abroad/go home). 2 remaining liable for the rent, can't afford it, so they either leave or you can serve notice.

But really if we have market rent, then it doesn't matter so much going forward.

 

[Greenbook]

So you're talking about the 6 year cycles. Is this for pre March tenancies? I'm post March only.

Post March, the new rules

Doesn't X start a new 6 year cycle from 1 May 2027? Which is different to the 6 year cycle of A which ended in 2032? Can you have 2 different 6 year cycles? Surely not.

Apparently not. X replaces B, so takes over what remains of B's 6 year cycle (this might surprise X, however). It seems to back into the RT Act position that you can only have one lease per property. What happens when A leaves is an open question.

I'm not saying any of this makes sense. It is what I remember of our conclusions on an earlier thread or perhaps threads.

Again, posters here spotted from the very start that the post March 6 year cycle doesn't fit with house or apartment shares.

 

[Greenbook]

Surely all or most landlords always had tenants jointly and severally liable for the rent payment. This madness only goes crazy in house shares where you have people not interrelated, unlike a family renting.

Yes, I think they did, but would have been casual enough about replacement tenants. It made no difference to the rent because of the old rent control rules. If you wanted to sell, you just issued an eviction notice to all tenants giving everyone the oldest tenant's notice period.

All that has changed is that allowing replacements is disadvantageous and messy now.

But really if we have market rent, then it doesn't matter so much going forward.

Again, it depends on how confident you are that we will be allowed re-set to market at year 6. Personally, I think that is unlikely. The real advantages though are that it gives you a vacant house to carry out repairs and maintenance and you get a chance to sell with vacant possession every couple of years.

Lesson learnt today. Do not rent a 3 bed to a family.

Estate agents have predicted that that is one of the many unforeseen consequences of the new rules. A family, if they can't buy, once the children are in schools etc. will stay forever.

Another unforeseen consequence is that landlords will only hold and rent one and two bedroom houses or apartments and rent to singles or couples. Replacement tenants should be much less of an issue there.

What a pity the Department of Housing and the left wing academics didn't sit down and fully think through their cunning plan.

 

[patfert1]

It matters not, once you have a tenant you have a lease. A tenant is leasing the property off you.

Terminology matters a lot. Tenancy is the term apparently used by the RTB. A lease agreement is a legal document describing the contract between landlord and tenant. Two quite different things. I think you are using the term lease to refer to tenancy.

 

[Bronte]

Again, it depends on how confident you are that we will be allowed re-set to market at year 6. Personally, I think that is unlikely.

Yep I know this is your view. Right now I don't care. I'm allowed the 2% per year, which in the past I would not have bother with. And my tenants are not a family, so I think in a few years they'll move on, as normally happens with people other than families or singletons who are not buying.

Actually I prefer long term steady tenants. But the constantly changing rules have made me too hard. Must do rent increases for example. No to everything. Being very strict.

You've forgotten one thing, rents could come down !! They have never been so high. I cannot see them going up constnatly.....

 

[Greenbook]

You've forgotten one thing, rents could come down !! They have never been so high. I cannot see them going up constnatly.....

Of course they could and I would not be at all surprised if they do.

Again, covered on another thread; rents increase by 10%, the landlord with the sitting tenants is confined to 2%, rents decrease by 10%, tenant is off to the RTB for a 10% plus decrease which he will get. Nothing wrong with that except that it is completely unbalanced.

You, I think, rent out a one bed apartment, which is perfect because there is little question of a replacement. Your tenant or tenants will go and you can re-let or sell or whatever. If you had a three bed house, it is a completely different story. This is a point that Mary Conway of the IPOA made recently - the new rules mean that the PRS is now 'inoperable' (I think that was her phrase) for a lot of small landlords.

I think we are seeing here from this thread that that is correct.

 

[bipped]

the landlord would be well advised to make sure they are consistent, and sign a new lease agreement - or perhaps an addendum would suffice - to be consistent with the new/updated tenancy.

Yes. I asked an EA about this recently and he agreed. His opinion was when any joint-tenant leaves mid-cycle and the landlord agrees to a replacement, the new person joining into the tenancy should sign a new or amended lease that clearly shows the start and end dates of the existing tenancy. The leaver should get written confirmation that their rights and obligations cease from X date.

That doesn’t conflict with any RTA rules to allow a replacement, it just makes it transparent when the 6 year joint-tenancy to occupy the property will end. It might not suit some replacement tenants if there’s only X months left to run but the RTB insist on One Tenancy in the dwelling.

Everything will get more formal from now on imo, every change or swap in tenants that is agreed will need to be fully documented.

Anecdotal story but I heard last year about a tenant who left a house-share after four years to travel. They arrived back after eight or nine months and claimed they had tenancy rights so the replacement had to leave. They insisted they were jointly named on the lease and it didn’t prevent extended non-residency only sub-lets and assignments. The other house-sharers hadn’t provided the replacement’s information in writing to the owner, the licensee hadn’t requested to become a tenant, the RTB details weren’t changed. OFC the original tenant was still legally liable for their share of the rent while absent but the licensee had covered it so no arrears had arisen. A mess that the landlord sorted eventually but nobody needs that headache.