New RAS Scheme 'Designed with Landlords in mind'

A lot of landlords don't get it all the new rules and regulation we are seeing at the present time has got nothing to do with Left-wing or Right-wing politics,
their is a reason why we see no pushback from the Independent TDs and Senators who support the last few government who are also Landlords,
I honestly dont get this point, I am not seeing ppl mentioning left wing or right wing or anything like that accross AAM, their might be the odd post but it is not a theme..

All ppl point out is how convoluted, questionable, biased the rules are?
Would you agree with ^^, or do you see any logic to the rules that you would like to share?
 
This has either been completey overlooked, or non-aligmed by design. Realistically, as it's not aligned, the 6-year rule should not apply.
Very hard to know whether they overlooked the 6 year rule or it is by design.

If they were carving out an exemption from the 6 year/permanent tenancy rule, that would require a change to the legislation which hasn't happened.

Another trap for the unwary landlord who could find himself with a 12 or 14 year tenancy depending on how the 8 year term is interpreted. Even worse that'll be with a tenant chosen by the Council and you can bet they'll be trying to hoof the worst ones into the private market.
 
As the tenancy is governed by the Residential Tenancy Acts the 6 year/permanent cycles would apply. I don't know how that fits in with the 8 year term.
I think your are right that this is a trap.

It is similar to having a 12 month fixed term tenancy in the lease. It doesn't make it a 1 year tenancy, it just means you can't evict within the first 6 months probationary period.

The council's plan could be that after 8 years of paying the rent for the tenant, they can just say to the landlord, well you're on your own now.

The landlord would be locked into the tenancy for at least 4 more years and possibly longer.
 
The council's plan could be that after 8 years of paying the rent for the tenant, they can just say to the landlord, well you're on your own now.
That wouldn't surprise me at all and if you are a large landlord, the Council have now sorted the tenant's housing situation forever.

This scheme should be described as 'Designed with the Council in mind'.

Landlords really can't trust the government at all, they are out to shaft us at every turn.
 
Another trap for the unwary landlord who could find himself with a 12 or 14 year tenancy
Unless the tenant moves out voluntarily or something else happens to get possession back, 24yrs is the first time the two tenancy terms align to allow an owner to exit under (current) rule..assuming they can issue a no fault eviction notice at all then.
 
Unless the tenant moves out voluntarily or something else happens to get possession back, 24yrs is the first time the two tenancy terms align to allow an owner to exit under (current) rule..assuming they can issue a no fault eviction notice at all then.
You do wonder what is going on from the Council's standpoint with this scheme.

Landlords should avoid it like the plague.
 
Assuming a very high chance of a tenant causing serious damage to a property and leaving after the first year, if the landlord is responsible for repairs and simply can’t afford to pay….I assume the contract is cancelled and all payments to the landlord cease immediately?
 
I have taken on quite a few homeless HAP tenants recently (committed to being a large Landlord now).
Coincidentally, I have one of the FINGAL housing officers from Placefinder coming over shortly to discuss this RAS scheme with me…. curious to get their perspective on it…..
 
I asked AI about the interaction between the 8 year RAS tenancy and the 6 year cycle.

It thinks that there are two leases here, one between the landlord and the Council for 8 years and a seperate lease between the landlord and the tenant. That sort of makes sense.

However, the Council can exit after 8 years and the landlord is now left with the tenant for a further 4 years or forever if they are a large landlord. The rent is no longer paid by the Council in those circumstances.

What AI says is below and it sounds correct. The whole thing is another complex mess for the landlord though

The 8-year contracts under the Enhanced Rental Accommodation Scheme (RAS) Dublin Pilot function as a commercial agreement between the landlord and the local authority, whereas the 6-year Tenancies of Minimum Duration (TMD) govern the legal relationship and statutory eviction protections between the landlord and the occupying tenant. [1, 2, 3]
Because statutory rental laws take precedence over commercial contracts, these two timelines interact through specific structural layers. [1]


Overlapping Statutory Protections
Under the Residential Tenancies (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 2026, any private tenancy created on or after 1 March 2026 automatically grants the tenant a 6-year TMD once they complete an initial 6-month probationary period. [1, 2]
If a landlord signs an 8-year RAS contract with a Dublin council (such as DCC, SDCC, Fingal, or DLR), the tenant’s first 6-year statutory cycle will expire two years before the council contract ends. [1, 2, 3]

Termination Rules During the 8-Year Contract
A landlord cannot use the end of a RAS contract to bypass statutory eviction laws. How a landlord can terminate a tenancy depends heavily on whether they are classified as a "small" or "large" landlord: [1]
  • Large Landlords (4+ tenancies): Corporate entities or landlords with four or more tenancies cannot issue a "no-fault" eviction (e.g., for sale or refurbishment) during the TMD. They can only terminate if the tenant breaches obligations or the property is no longer suitable. [1, 2]
  • Small Landlords (1–3 tenancies): Small landlords retain a few narrow exemptions during the 6-year cycle, such as severe financial hardship requiring a sale, or personal/immediate family use. [1, 2]

The 6-Year Expiry Milestone (Year 6)
When the tenant's first 6-year TMD finishes, a small landlord legally regains broader statutory termination grounds, including the intent to sell with vacant possession or to perform substantial renovations. [1, 2]
However, if a small landlord chooses to execute a no-fault eviction at Year 6, they will breach their 8-year commercial RAS contract, which guarantees council-backed rental placement and income for the full 8 years. If neither party terminates the tenancy at Year 6, a second 6-year TMD cycle automatically begins, locking in security of tenure through Year 12. [1, 2, 3, 4]

The RAS Contract Expiry Milestone (Year 8)
When the 8-year commercial RAS contract expires, the landlord can choose not to renew the council agreement. However, the tenant is already two years into their second 6-year TMD. [1, 2]
  • Because the tenant is protected by a rolling statutory cycle, the landlord cannot evict them simply because the RAS contract has ended.
  • The tenancy transitions from a local authority social housing scheme into a standard private rental arrangement. The landlord must continue to honor the tenant's right to remain until the second 6-year TMD expires (at Year 12), unless a valid, size-appropriate statutory ground for termination arises. [1, 2, 3, 4
 
Brochure from Fingal County Council here on the new RAS scheme

Seems to confirm what AI says, the Council can leave at the end of the 8 years and you are left with the tenant. The tenant will be yours forever if you are a large landlord.
 
I have taken on quite a few homeless HAP tenants recently (committed to being a large Landlord now).
Coincidentally, I have one of the FINGAL housing officers from Placefinder coming over shortly to discuss this RAS scheme with me…. curious to get their perspective on it…..
I would not let myself fall into this trap if I were you. Do not let them pass their responsibility for the behavior of the tenant to you.

Offer them the LTL or nothing. That way it is their tenant. Any agreement is between you and the council only. And most importantly, the lease has a defined end date where you actually get your property back.

And, as you probably know at this point, dealing with Fingal housing, they will say anything to get your property and then ignore any issues with their tenants. This scheme is to make the their tenant 100% your problem if things go wrong.
 
Boards.ie has come to the same conclusion as we have on this scheme - run a mile

"I just read about that new RAS now. Wouldnt someone be an utter fool to take that. They get a council tenant that they dont choose. They are responsible for everything and can never get rid of the tenant if they are anti social. Then the council runs away after 8 years and the landlord is stuck with a delinquent tenant who doesnt even have to pay rent and without rent from the council. And they cant remove them for another 6 years.

Yiou would want your head examined to sign up to that scheme. I already know a couple of landlords with council tenants who describe them as the tenants from hell. Im sure there are lots of lovely council tenants on these schemes, but if you get one bad one thats going to cost you hundreds of thousands with this scheme. Pure madness"
 
This scheme is being touted again here

It's being touted as low-risk for landlords. The government would say anything. It is not low risk when you can't choose your tenant. Neither is it low risk due to the interaction of the Council's 8 year lease with the 6 year/permanent leases in the PRS.

These as the type of tenants you could end up with, article here Evicted from a council estate due to anti-social behaviour and the Council sends them to you.
 
These as the type of tenants you could end up with, article here Evicted from a council estate due to anti-social behaviour and the Council sends them to you.
Thats what ended up in my property let to Fingal coco on the LTL. Nightmare for all involved and not one bit of notice taken by the council.
 
Thats what ended up in my property let to Fingal coco on the LTL. Nightmare for all involved and not one bit of notice taken by the council.
I think that may be the real purpose behind this scheme. A handy way of getting troublesome tenants off the Council's hands. Per the scheme, the tenant is solely the landlord's responsibility.
 
Rent is guaranteed and can be up to market rent. It is paid even if the property is vacant. Both of these are attractive
I’m not seeing anything attractive there. You should be getting market rent and why would you be vacant. I cannot believe that the council picks the tenant and all problems are on the landlord.
 
One part that caught by eye - there will be enhanced damage and compensation arrangements for the landlord ie. danger money.
I’ve read that, would like to understand what that’s about? Ostensibly sounds like if the tenant does damage the council will pay. So sounds good, BUT conversely it means the council has a policy of putting in people no sane landlord would take on.

Also the upfront rent sounds interesting, but the devil is in the details.
 
I’m not seeing anything attractive there. You should be getting market rent and why would you be vacant.
Handovers between tenants are not often seamless.

Also I wonder if you were in position where your property was empty (there were lots of stories of this in the run up to the new legislation) but now are willing to let again but are unable to let the property at a market rent due to the various restrictions on rent setting: is the new scheme a way to achieve that?
 
Thats what ended up in my property let to Fingal coco on the LTL. Nightmare for all involved and not one bit of notice taken by the council.
Based on your posts and experience I’d like to thank you for your insights. I googled LTL and got this


It doesn’t state how it’s of benefit to landlords. Did you do a post on your experience ? If yes can you link please. You’re giving me palpitations already just on this thread. I’ve very good experiences of HAP tenants but we selected the tenants. Had a bad experience signing up as a landlord for HAP and currently trying to get my renovation grant off the council. So I’ve zero faith in what councils do.
 
Back
Top