New rental law changes and RTB powers 14 September 2026

There are now different rules on serving the notice to a tenant:

  • Rent setting and rent review notices: Can be served to a tenant by email, post or hand-delivered to their address.
  • Termination notices should not be sent to a tenant by post: A tenant must still receive a notice of termination on the date of service listed in the notice. The RTB recommends that landlords email the notice to their tenant to ensure they receive it on the correct date. If a landlord cannot send a notice by email, they can hand-deliver it to the tenant or leave it at the tenant’s address.
 
Millie* said:
The RTB recommends that landlords email the notice to their tenant to ensure they receive it on the correct date. If a landlord cannot send a notice by email, they can hand-deliver it to the tenant or leave it at the tenant’s address.
Click to expand...
Try fighting that in court. ‘I never got the notice, I swear your honour’
 
Yet another set of confusing rules which have no logic. No landlord without legal advice or very carefully reading of the RTB website etc. would figure out this because there is no rhyme or reason to it.

Rent setting notices can be posted, emailed or handed to the tenant.

But, if it is a termination notice, it can only be emailed or hand delivered.
 
"New RTB powers to issue fixed payment notices for six breaches of rental law."

I assume this ONLY applies to the landlord, if tenant breaches rental law their is no consequence... I suppose their is no explicit law (or is enforced) that a tenant must pay their rent, keep the property in good order, leave when they are asked to leave within the terms of a valid NoT?
 
Nordkapp said:
Now it’s too easy to get fined for any misdemeanour, but not if you’re a tenant it would appear.
Click to expand...

Fully agree. We had been covering these new rules here. I'm still amazed at the lack of coverage. No media outlet picked up on the further vilification of accommodation providers. I'm also at a loss as to why the IPOA remains stayed silent on this further onslaught of fines, longer prison sentences, longer look back periods, higher RTB fees etc. It's all very much anti accommodation provider.

Colin4444 said:
I assume this ONLY applies to the landlord, if tenant breaches rental law their is no consequence
Click to expand...
Correct, only applies to accommodation provider.


Colin4444 said:
I suppose their is no explicit law (or is enforced) that a tenant must pay their rent, keep the property in good order, leave when they are asked to leave within the terms of a valid NoT?
Click to expand...
There is a law saying it's an obligation, but no consequence. Not an effective law at all.


Greenbook said:
Rent setting notices can be posted, emailed or handed to the tenant.

But, if it is a termination notice, it can only be emailed or hand delivered.
Click to expand...

It gets worse, the warning letters must still be served same day. No seven day grace for those. While the 7 day period for some notices is better than it was, it is again much more complex than it was with the introduction of different service dates / periods with the various ways of service for the ever growing list of notices. We know from prior cases that NOTs are invalidated due to not serving the warning letter at the right time to the RTB.

There's another change from 14 September that makes the warning letter even more important. When a landlord copies the arrears warning letter to the RTB, the RTB writes to the tenant with information on their rights and advice to contact MABS.

Under the new rules, whoever decides the dispute must now take that RTB letter into account. I.e. the adjudicator / tribunal must now have regard to the MABS advice.
 
stormy said:
Under the new rules, whoever decides the dispute must now take that RTB letter into account. I.e. the adjudicator / tribunal must now have regard to the MABS advice.
Click to expand...
So presumably if MABs says that the rent is too high for the tenant, and the tenant can only afford the rent if it is dropped by €300 per month, the Tribunal can act on that?

Now I'm not saying that tenants should be forced to pay unaffordable rents and evicted for not doing so, but this is another avenue for those tenants who can afford the rent, but are looking to screw over the landlord.

Presumably, it will delay arrears cases as MABs will have to come up with a plan, inform the landlord, produce a report for the Tribunal etc. etc.

It will also be impossible for the landlord to argue against MABs advice as he won't have the ins and outs of the tenant's finances.

It is flashing red now that this is no longer a viable business unless you are Cluid or IRES Reit.
 
stormy said:
Fully agree. We had been covering these new rules here. I'm still amazed at the lack of coverage. No media outlet picked up on the further vilification of accommodation providers. I'm also at a loss as to why the IPOA remains stayed silent on this further onslaught of fines, longer prison sentences, longer look back periods, higher RTB fees etc. It's all very much anti accommodation provider.
Click to expand...
lol no wonder we have a housing crisis... did we elect politicians to make it worse?
 
Nordkapp said:
Try fighting that in court. ‘I never got the notice, I swear your honour’
Click to expand...
Many email applications allow you the sender to set a delivered-to-addressee confirmation setting and a read-by-addressee notification setting. It may not be proof positive for his/her honour, but its cheaper than registered post.
 
mathepac said:
Many email applications allow you the sender to set a delivered-to-addressee confirmation setting and a read-by-addressee notification setting. It may not be proof positive for his/her honour, but its cheaper than registered post.
Click to expand...
I actually asked my tenants to confirm by the email they had received the last rent increased I sent them.
 
mathepac said:
Many email applications allow you the sender to set a delivered-to-addressee confirmation setting and a read-by-addressee notification setting. It may not be proof positive for his/her honour, but its cheaper than registered post.
Click to expand...
Read receipts are voluntary. The tenant's email app asks them whether to send one and they can just say no. Ordinary Gmail doesn't support them at all. Delivery receipts only confirm the message reached the receiving mail server, not the tenant. Many email providers don't generate them either.




Greenbook said:
It is flashing red now that this is no longer a viable business unless you are Cluid or IRES Reit.
Click to expand...
IRES continues to trade below liquidation value. It's literally worth more liquidated. (IFRS NAV 138.8c per share Vs current share price of around 108c)


Greenbook said:
So presumably if MABs says that the rent is too high for the tenant, and the tenant can only afford the rent if it is dropped by €300 per month, the Tribunal can act on that?
Click to expand...
My understand is just that it must have regard for it. New s.97(4A) and s.104(8) of the RTA.


Colin4444 said:
Yeah, thats why I said (or is enforced)... if not enforced then effectively its not really a law!
Click to expand...
Indeed, but I'm making a stronger point - there isn't any law to enforce! E.g. accomodation providers can have criminal convictions, tenants cannot (no provision under the Act for that).


Colin4444 said:
lol no wonder we have a housing crisis... did we elect politicians to make it worse?
Click to expand...
One does wonder.
 
stormy said:
Indeed, but I'm making a stronger point - there isn't any law to enforce! E.g. accomodation providers can have criminal convictions, tenants cannot (no provision under the Act for that).
Click to expand...
Is this not against the constitution or something, how can someone providing a necessary service be vilified so much...

Do other service providers have such stringent rules, and if not, are landlords then not being bullied / discriminated against by the government?
 
I watched the RTB Webinar just now.

I'm not sure I heard this correctly, but apparently under this new Act a tenant will have to an NoT on a sub tenant in certain situations? Does anything know anything about this. It seems really strange and of course, more complications for the landlord. Perhaps I misheard.
 
mathepac said:
Many email applications allow you the sender to set a delivered-to-addressee confirmation setting and a read-by-addressee notification setting. It may not be proof positive for his/her honour, but its cheaper than registered post.
Click to expand...
First thing I turn off in any email or messaging app is delivery and read receipts. I imagine most people do that too.
 
DannyBoyD said:
Given the recent reporting on Cluid properties, I'm not sure that holds.
Click to expand...
Yes, I think you might be correct.

The thing private landlords were vilified for - taking eviction proceedings against tenants for not paying rent, is now being carried out by Cluid and the other AHBs in spades. If you type in Cluid or Tuath to the search box for RTB Tribunal decisions literally hundreds of decisions are thrown up. Most of these involve anti-social behaviour, NoTs, non payment of rent.

Looks like the AHBs are experiencing the same issues we have without the name calling though
 
stormy said:
E.g. accomodation providers can have criminal convictions, tenants cannot (no provision under the Act for that).
Click to expand...
Colin4444 said:
Do other service providers have such stringent rules, and if not, are landlords then not being bullied / discriminated against by the government?
Click to expand...
This is standard in regulatory schemes. It's the providers of goods and services who are regulated, not the consumers. Think of all the obligations imposed on publicans, or bookmakers, or the sellers of goods by retail, versus the obligations those regulatory regimes impose on customers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top