New rental law changes and RTB powers 14 September 2026

LarryScott said:
There was no way they would encourage any kind of civil disobedience, or anything that could even be spun in that direction.
Click to expand...
What landlords need is an effective voice which explains our side of things and where we are coming from.

We are not getting this from the IPOA. How they dealt with the new rental rules was pathetic. The difficulties were, per the IPOA, in order of importance, pre-63 properties and fair deal rentals (all 200 of them) and that was it. Nothing about the devaluation, the inability to sell with a tenant in situ, how treating a four property landlord as a Reit is ridiculous, how 6 year tenancies don't work for the elderly small landlord (the majority of small landlords) etc. etc. and how this will ultimately backfire on tenants.

We've been steamrolled over the last 10 years and you can see why. The AirBnB people and their lobby groups have managed to hold off the short letting rules for years. Why, because they haven't been afraid to challenge the government.

This recent post of the IPOA's is a new low though. Instead of explaining the difficulties faced by a landlord dealing with an anti-social tenant, it is all the landlord fault's. All would have been well if he had a written policy and set of procedures and if he monitored the situation! Try doing that with the knife robbery/assaults/dangerous dogs tenant.

stormy said:
That's for sure. No push back at all. Seems like a vassal of the RTB at this stage.
Click to expand...
That is 100% correct, that is all they are at this stage. We may as well ask the RTB for support.

JoeRoberts said:
I wonder if AHBs are members, i.e. the govt. Or purchase training
Click to expand...
I wonder about that too. It would explain the lack of any push back.
 
Greenbook said:
Why, because they haven't been afraid to challenge the government
Click to expand...
Maybe the IPOA don’t have enough staff or people with legal expertise to challenge politicians. Just looking at their website, it seems to be a small organisation, few employees and not a lot of detail on how committee members are involved in the business, background, experience, qualifications etc or who does what. It’s around since 1993, started by auctioneers SFaughnan & John Dolan. The PRS was a very different market in those days.

Is it run on a shoestring? Maybe they just don’t have enough members to be viable or provide lobbying services. Not like Threshold who don’t need member fees because they’re funded by a combination of government departments, state bodies, local authorities, and public plus private donations. Threshold has 74 staff. RTB has 125.

Seems like a very uneven playing field for private landlords.

Edit: not forgetting the numerous other publicly funded tenant associations, eg CATU, Simon, Focus, PMcV Trust, Mercy Law.
 
Last edited:
bipped said:
Seems like a very uneven playing field for private landlords.
Click to expand...
That is right across the board - the number of anti-landlord government funded bodies like CATU, Simon etc. is huge.

If they are small and short of money, they should concentrate their fire power. Highlighting that the new rules would make landlords sell up due to the elderly profile of most small landlords and that there is zero market for tenant in situ sale would have been far more effective than going on and on about pre-63s and fair deal rentals.

Likewise a bit of backbone every now and then costs nothing. They basically said it was all the landlord's fault in the €10k compensation case. That case could be a disagreement between two neighbours that got completely out of hand. How and why a landlord is to police incidents like that is beyond me and these types of incidents are common in apartment blocks.
 
An article here showing how anti-private landlord the system is.

Council apartments. The lift is constantly not working. Elderly residents trapped for weeks on end because they can't use the stairs.

Another tenant and her grand daughter got in the lift to go up to their flat. It went to the basement instead, a common occurence it seems. They went to open the basement door to get to the stairwell to find that it had been bolted shut. They couldn't get the lift to take them back up. They eventually managed to contact the fire brigade who got them out. A terrifying ordeal for both of them. It took a while to contact the fire brigade due to poor phone coverage in the basement.

The lift problem has been on going for years. The Council have done zero to fix the lift. They then nailed shut the basement door without telling the residents.

Yet private sector landlords have inspections by the same Council which nick picks about weedy gardens and cracks in bathroom tiles. We are also under threat of fines and jail for minor flaws in forms.
 
Warning here from REA that the RTB is about to become inundated with overholding disputes.

Tenants with NoTs can't find a new place to rent, they overhold and the landlord's only option is to take them to the RTB if the tenants aren't already challenging the validity of the NoT.

A disaster for tenants and a mess for landlords.
 
Nordkapp said:
@Greenbook , depending upon what the budget brings on the 6 October for small landlords I will be issuing a NOT, the rules are very messy.
I have a new tenancy since January 2025 and another from 2012/13 that I know is a part 4 but not sure if considered now a part 4
Click to expand...
I think most landlords feel the same. Its just too messy and risky to continue.
 
The RTB have updated their website based on the new Residential Tenancies Act here

All about ways that you can report your landlord to the RTB. They obviously can't wait to use their new fining and criminal powers.

Even though the majority of disputes are arrears and overholding and there is a huge amount of anti-social behaviour in the Tribunal Reports as well, there is practically zero about misbehaving tenants.

A sample of what it on the website

Should I report a landlord or bring a dispute​


On this page​

 
I was going to say "incredible" but that would imply that I was incredulous. I'm not.. No surprise here!

The gov, between the single minded housing ministers, the RTB (which I firmly believe is populated by activists and "empire builders" at this point and with zero landlord representation) and the RTA laws have completely ruined the sector.

Short of dismantling and rebuilding the RTB, things will just continue to get worse.
(following your link above and traversing around the "compliance" section yields at least 5 page not found 404" links"). What a waste of taxpayer money...

I "got out" a few years ago but keep an eye on these forums and the like just to keep abreast of things.
(the last straw for me at the time was the new inspection regime).

For what it's worth I re-invested the proceeds in the stock market and haven't looked back. At least if that completely fails, the loss will "just" be monetary - no risk of legalities, getting hauled before kangaroo hearings and a possible criminal record over innocent mistakes.

Good luck to all who remain and pity the new entrants who likely don't realise yet how the system is stacked against them.
 
Pauley said:
The gov, between the single minded housing ministers, the RTB (which I firmly believe is populated by activists and "empire builders" at this point and with zero landlord representation) and the RTA laws have completely ruined the sector.
Click to expand...
I think that is the case. There seems to be empire building going on in the RTB alright. Lots of heads of this and heads of that who of course must show results (thousands in fines this quarter etc. etc.) if the empire is going to increase in size.

I hear as well from an estate agent I know well enough to have the occassional pint with that alot of RTB staff come from Threshold, Simon and the Dubin City Council homeless services. So plenty of anti-landlord activists there.

Pauley said:
For what it's worth I re-invested the proceeds in the stock market and haven't looked back. At least if that completely fails, the loss will "just" be monetary - no risk of legalities, getting hauled before kangaroo hearings and a possible criminal record over innocent mistakes.
Click to expand...
Exactly. These are all huge risks in the PRS these days. Based on @stormy's analysis of Tribunal decisions in the other thread, it's an anti-landlord kangaroo court.

Pauley said:
Good luck to all who remain and pity the new entrants who likely don't realise yet how the system is stacked against them.
Click to expand...
Indeed and these, I hear again from my estate agent friend, are being encouraged by less scrupulous agents who are only interested in the juicy monthly fee and will abandon the landlord to their own devices at the first sign of trouble.
 
Pauley said:
The gov, between the single minded housing ministers, the RTB (which I firmly believe is populated by activists and "empire builders" at this point and with zero landlord representation) and the RTA laws have completely ruined the sector.
Click to expand...
RTB at the Ploughing today per their Facebook page, the Director and the Team are there apparently. A bit of a day out?
 
Summary of the lastest set of rules in the second 2026 Act here from Arthur Cox Solicitors

Is what they are saying correct or am I misreading it?

For rent setting at the start of a tenancy, the form must be copied to the RTB within 28 days of the start of the lease. If it is rent setting during the currency of the lease, the form must be copied to the RTB within 7 days of service on the tenant. So different deadlines depending on when the rent is reset?
 
Not misreading — two different documents, two different clocks.

The rent-setting notice is the s.19 statement (inserted by the March changes) given to the tenant at commencement, showing how the rent was arrived at: one calendar month to copy it to the RTB.

A rent increase later is a rent review under s.22: seven days. I believe Arthur Cox has it right.

That it takes a top-tier law firm to explain which RTB copy has which deadline tells you something. Even the RTB can't get method of service / day counts right either. Its guidance told landlords for years that arrears warning notices had to be copied "the same day" — a rule that isn't in s.67(3) and never was — and a tribunal applied it anyway. Its rent review guide since 1 March told landlords to "send" the notice "by post or email" and copy the RTB "at the same time" — the exact posting-date trap the High Court said was wrong on 12 March.


https://web.archive.org/web/20260313023533/https://rtb.ie/renting/guide-to-rent-review-notices/

1789737494585.webp


By June it had been rewritten to replace "send" with "serve" and say the notice "will be invalid if the post is not delivered to the RTB on the same day that your tenant receives the notice":
https://web.archive.org/web/20260611105402/https://rtb.ie/renting/guide-to-rent-review-notices/

1789737475231.webp


No announcement, no date, no word to anyone who had followed the earlier version. Every rent review posted on the March advice is defective on the RTB's own June reading. There is no slip rule or remedial notice allowed for invalid rent reviews.

If the regulator can't get its own notices right, what chance do landlords have?
 
stormy said:
That it takes a top-tier law firm to explain which RTB copy has which deadline tells you something. Even the RTB can't get method of service / day counts right either. Its guidance told landlords for years that arrears warning notices had to be copied "the same day" — a rule that isn't in s.67(3) and never was — and a tribunal applied it anyway. Its rent review guide since 1 March told landlords to "send" the notice "by post or email" and copy the RTB "at the same time" — the exact posting-date trap the High Court said was wrong on 12 March.
Click to expand...
I'm pretty sure as well that while you can give (to use a neutral word) the tenant the Rent Setting Notice by email, it cannot be emailed to the RTB, only uploading to the service centre or post will suffice.

So to add to the 28 day/7 day confusion, you now have a situation where the tenant can be emailed with the Notice, but the RTB can't. Yet again, there is no obvious reason or logic for this and I don't think there is anything in the legislation expressly saying this.

If a landlord copies the RTB by email, the rent set is invalid, must be repaid to the tenant and a criminal offence it seems has also been committed, even though everything else, including the rent level, is correct.

We are well through the looking glass at this stage.
 
Greenbook said:
Summary of the lastest set of rules in the second 2026 Act here from Arthur Cox Solicitors
Click to expand...
Landlords must provide RTB a copy of the rent setting notice within one month of the tenancy commencement. So the number of days a landlord has to comply with that rule depends on the start date?
 
Last edited:
It depends on the calendar month in which it starts.

"Month" here means a calendar month. So suppose a tenancy commences on 15 January. An obligation to provide a notice within one month of that day requires the notice to be provided, at latest, on 14 February, which is the 30th day after 15 January.

But if the tenancy commences on 15 February, the notice must be provided, at latest, on 14 March, which is the 30th day after 15 January, which (if it's not a leap year) is the 27th day after 15 February.

So, starting your tenancy in a 31-day month give you one day more to provide that notice than starting it in a 30-day month, and three days more than starting it in a 28-day month.
 
Tom is right.

Additionally, upload it on the new service portal, don't post it. A posted document is delivered when it would arrive in the ordinary course of post, not when you post it.

(And proof of posting won't save you. In TR0523-006263 the agent gave evidence that his office always posted the RTB copy on the same day as the tenant's, and had done so on 17 January. The RTB's acknowledgement said it was received on 3 February — seventeen days later. The Tribunal accepted his evidence about office practice and held it made no difference: it "cannot disregard the content of the RTB acknowledgement." The 28 days ran from 3 February, the notice of termination served on 15 February was premature, and the notice was invalid. He couldn't find a certificate of postage, but it wouldn't have helped — it proves when you posted, not when the RTB received it, and the section runs on receipt.

The Tribunal's own suggestion, put mildly: email "might be helpful in ensuring that the notice is received by the RTB on or before it is served on a tenant."

So the clock stops when the RTB has it. Only the Service Centre upload gives you proof of when that was.)
 
TomEdison said:
It depends on the calendar month in which it starts.

"Month" here means a calendar month. So suppose a tenancy commences on 15 January. An obligation to provide a notice within one month of that day requires the notice to be provided, at latest, on 14 February, which is the 30th day after 15 January.

But if the tenancy commences on 15 February, the notice must be provided, at latest, on 14 March, which is the 30th day after 15 January, which (if it's not a leap year) is the 27th day after 15 February.

So, starting your tenancy in a 31-day month give you one day more to provide that notice than starting it in a 30-day month, and three days more than starting it in a 28-day month.
Click to expand...

I cant navigate this mess. And Im pretty sure there is nobody who I could pay to do it, who could actually do it properly.
Its all bad news for me.

So I know how i'll be handling this :)
I wont be posting or delivering any notices at all. As soon as I have my property back it will be up for sale.
This is an impossible business now and all roads lead to ruin as far as I can tell. You would want to be one very lucky landlord to survive in this game without loss.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top