RTB Rent Register

[Greenbook]

And Micheal Martin doubles down again on the numbers of landlords and tenancies

The latest RTB data shows continued growth in quarter 1 of 2026, with 246,000 tenancies. That is the highest on record. There are more tenancies and properties available.
And again

The RTB data shows we have about 246,000 tenancies, the highest on record.

No politician challenges him on this.

 

[polecon]

The RTB data shows we have about 246,000 tenancies, the highest on record.

OK, the highest on record was literally 320,000 in 2016, the start of rent control.

But there are a few differences between the recently commenced data series (Profile of the Register) which this apparently confused or dishonest politician is cherry picking from, and the longer-term data available from RTB Annual Reports. They are set out in the post below:

RTB Rent Register

I started using this data as a project to learn Jupyter Notebooks with my AI assistant at my side. Here are a few graphs: 1) Boxplot for the 1-bed properties in Cork South Central. The box shows the 25th to 75th percentile, with the horizontal lines showing median, max, min. 2) Rent...

www.askaboutmoney.com

And after taking those differences into account, it appears the current number of 246,000 registered tenancies - "the highest on record" - is roughly 40,000 lower than the actual highest on record which occurred a decade ago.

 

[Greenbook]

And after taking those differences into account, it appears the current number of 246,000 registered tenancies - "the highest on record" - is roughly 40,000 lower than the actual highest on record which occurred a decade ago.

And that is despite building nearly 30k additional properties a year in recent year.

 

[stormy]

I also thought it was remarkable to hear the RTB's Head of Compliance and Investigations admit yesterday that she couldn't say whether Estate Agent valuations are acceptable evidence of market rent - particularly when there is years of Tribunal decisions already shown EA valuations being significantly discounted. The call itself struck a distinctly hostile note: highlighting the criminal liability for incorrect rent-setting, the RTB's reach into years of historical records, the prospect of rent refunds going back years. It did nothing to encourage participation / alleviate the fears in the sector.

If only 1 out of 6 is negative to the landlord I have to conclude in this the RTB are not being unfair, and I'd have to assume one landlord set the rent incorrectly.

It doesn't seem like a very large sample to draw that general conclusion (especially after reviewing pg 6). Also one of those 6 (Lee Vs Kennedy Wilson) was clearly a rent setting so I would suggest 2 of the 6 are negative to the landlord. (the Lee vs Kennedy Wilson case did not say "is valid" like the Murphy v O'Mahony case (from pg 6, details below))

4 rent increases invalid, rent to stay the same, Toni increase valid, Maria don't know, Colm case the notice was not served.

I see similar to you on page 6, there is 10 cases - 8 relating to rent review/setting. Of the 8 rent cases, 7 of them were invalidated on procedural grounds. Worth bearing in mind there is many more procedural traps now than in 2017 (needing to serve to RTB same day, regard to rent register, etc) and much more interventionist RTB.

Pg 6 cases summarised below

Ref	Tenant(s)	Landlord(s)	Outcome
DR0917-36889	Maria Meade, Sony Jose	John Dowling	€1,000 damages to tenants for breach of obligation to offer tenancy back
DR0717-35631	Davide Sotgiu	Gudmundur & Nuala Sigurdsson	Rent review notice (9 May 2017) invalid. Current rent stands
DR0817-36055	Bryan Drexler	Brady Letting Agents	Rent increase notice (16 Dec 2016) invalid. Current rent stands
DR0917-36874	Cathal Shine	Tony Winters	Rent increase notice served by text message (1 Aug 2017) invalid. Current rent stands
DR0617-35264	Toni Murphy	Graham Hall O Mahony	Market rent valid
DR0917-36994	Jayne O'Meara	Declan Carroll	Rent review notice (11 Jul 2017) invalid. Existing rent stands
DR0817-36215	Colm & Martina Fitzpatrick	Sean & Patricia Whyte	No notice of rent increase served. €200 arrears to landlord
DR0917-37136	Abdul Karim & Bibi Gul	Oliver & Mona Casey	No valid notice of rent increase served. €1,841.10 arrears to landlord (instalments)
DR0917-36982	Pamela Goodwin	Lakeside Holiday Homes	Two rent increase notices (24 May & 23 Aug 2017) invalid. Existing rent stands
DR0817-36211	Wioletta Brigida Barbus	Fergal O'Neill	Notice of termination (7 Jul 2017) invalid

My focus to date has been the Tribunal Reports. The problem with these Determination Orders is that the detail just isn't there - we can't tell, for example, whether a rent review even featured in some of these cases. They may well be challenges to initial rent-setting, which is a much easier position to defend than a rent review, since the accommodation provider can produce expressions of interest from competing parties at the point of letting (assuming that is acceptable to the RTB)

My concern is on the 6-year reset, and after yesterday's call I'm increasingly convinced the powers that be intend to ensure it never genuinely operates. Every conceivable obstacle will be placed in the accommodation provider's way: EA valuations dismissed as too general, wear and tear discounts applied without quantification, comparators rejected for not sharing the same complex or estate. We've seen the Tribunal at work - it isn't a pretty sight.

this seems to mean the rental amount stated on a lease is effectively little more than a suggestion by the landlord

This is exactly where we are at it seems.

 

[Greenbook]

The call itself struck a distinctly hostile note: highlighting the criminal liability for incorrect rent-setting, the RTB's reach into years of historical records, the prospect of rent refunds going back years. It did nothing to encourage participation / alleviate the fears in the sector.

Yes, very worrying. What small landlord can cope with the prospect of crimininal liability and an investigation stretching back years.

Worth bearing in mind there is many more procedural traps now than in 2017 (needing to serve to RTB same day, regard to rent register, etc) and much more interventionist RTB.

100% correct as well. The rent may be market, but a mistake in the documentation makes the increase completely invalid.

My concern is on the 6-year reset, and after yesterday's call I'm increasingly convinced the powers that be intend to ensure it never genuinely operates.

From memory that was one of the first opinions expressed by posters on here back last June.

I am also getting the impression that the powers that be want to ensure that the current reset to market never genuinely operates either.

One of my properties, now being prepared for sale, is a nice 2 bed house in Cork City centre. Due to the RPZs it was rented at just under €1,000. If I was re-renting it, I would be looking for at least €1,800, an 80% increase. That would very likely pop up for investigation and I wonder how successful I would be in defending that. Similar on Daft is higher, but the Rent Register shows a lot of much lower rents.

 

[JamieB_]

Greenbook, you probably wouldnt even want to try to defend that because the deck is already stacked against you. Imagine you have put lots of work each year into setting the rent at €1800pm and then all the hassle and work involved in 2% increases each year. 4 or 5 years down the line the tenant is encouraged to query any of the rent settings with the RTB and you spelled a word incorrectly or maybe even they are all perfectly executed. They then go back to today and set the rent to €1000 plus 2% per year and now you have to give back all of the rent. Add to that SF are in government and you cannot even evict to sell at that point. You wouldnt want to have any plans for the rent you collected or the equity in the property.
Its an unfair game and the only way to win is not to play anymore.

 

[Gerard0]

Under the new rules since March, selling an existing investment property and reinvesting in a new property where construction commenced after June 2025 seems to be the way to go. New properties in that category will "guarantee"(?) landlords can always increase rent in line with inflation! Hoping to discuss this in more detail in tomorrow's zoom talk.

 

[Greenbook]

Under the new rules since March, selling an existing investment property and reinvesting in a new property where construction commenced after June 2025 seems to be the way to go. New properties in that category will "guarantee"(?) landlords can always increase rent in line with inflation! Hoping to discuss this in more detail in tomorrow's zoom talk.

But do you have the same initial rent setting problem? You will be tied to 10 comparables in the LEA. EAs valuations etc. will be discounted.

 

[Greenbook]

Greenbook, you probably wouldnt even want to try to defend that because the deck is already stacked against you.

That is it, the 80% increase would trigger the RTB spyware, I'd be investigated and I'd lose.

So, all I've achieved is new tenants with a permanent tenancy at much the same rent forever. Once the lower rate is established as the market rent, I can never seriously uplift from that.

This is not an investment any longer, it is social housing!

 

[Greenbook]

Its an unfair game and the only way to win is not to play anymore.

Exactly.

Myself and my wife's reaction back last June was we're out.

Nothing has even slightly changed our minds in the meantime.

 

[JamieB_]

Under the new rules since March, selling an existing investment property and reinvesting in a new property where construction commenced after June 2025 seems to be the way to go. New properties in that category will "guarantee"(?) landlords can always increase rent in line with inflation! Hoping to discuss this in more detail in tomorrow's zoom talk.

Nothing is "guaranteed" only that they will change the rules so often it is impossible to plan. You cant plan your ongoing investment or even your exit.

 

[Greenbook]

IPOA webinar with RTB today, a few points which seemed to come up:

I wonder should this be in a separate thread as well?

It contains vitally important information for landlords who are resetting rents.

The IPOA should be screaming from the rooftops about this. Many landlords honestly using EA valuations could end up in enormous trouble.

 

[Peony_R]

I was listening to the IPOA talk with the RTB compliance lady yesterday, and she mentioned that she 'thinks' the tenant has 90 days to contest the rent setting. But when I was doing a deep dive on the new rules in early March, I was pretty sure I read somewhere that it was 6 months. Maybe I am misremembering though with all the information overload and confusion.

 

[JamieB_]

I wonder should this be in a separate thread as well?

It contains vitally important information for landlords who are resetting rents.

The IPOA should be screaming from the rooftops about this. Many landlords honestly using EA valuations could end up in enormous trouble.

Its almost like the IPOA are afraid to ask the real questions and make challenges. I cant figure them out at all.

 

[JoeRoberts]

Its almost like the IPOA are afraid to ask the real questions and make challenges. I cant figure them out at all.

Ibec equivalent....

 

[Greenbook]

Ibec equivalent....

They should have done alot more to challenge and highlight the problems with the new rules before they came in. Instead they bleated about pre-63s and Fair Deal.

AirBnB operators have done a much better job for example. The new rules there keep being pushed back.

 

[Gerard0]

I was listening to the IPOA talk with the RTB compliance lady yesterday, and she mentioned that she 'thinks' the tenant has 90 days to contest the rent setting. But when I was doing a deep dive on the new rules in early March, I was pretty sure I read somewhere that it was 6 months. Maybe I am misremembering though with all the information overload and confusion

There is no time limit to challenge the initial rent setting as far as I know!

The tenant has 90 days to dispute the Notice of Rent Review, but this can be extended if appropriate.

 

[Greenbook]

The tenant has 90 days to dispute the Notice of Rent Review, but this can be extended if appropriate.

So, as another poster said, the rent in the lease is really just an indication of the maximum rent a landlord is hoping for!

 

[Greenbook]

All this goes to show that for the risks you're taking, the inbuilt Eviction Ban, inflation exceeding the 2% cap, further restrictions etc., you would need to be getting a very high yield.

There is huge risk you won't due to RTB activity. After costs and tax, you may do little better than the yield on cash.

You could argue that the low yield is compensated for by the increase on the capital side. But that is far from guaranteed. Also, if you have a tenant on a low rent, he'll never leave. Your only exit will be to sell to him and as the only buyer he'll be laughing.

 

[Luternau]

RTB can go back to 2019 to reset rent if necessary

This is unbelievable/can't be right and if it is the case, hopefully will be challenged by some fund. For MM to say rent controls choke supply etc and then introduce a barmy concept of market rent, a register of historic rent to lower market rent and the power to go back 7yrs to scrutinise the rent is FUBAR. Rents are more controlled now than ever before.

For a private rental, say above example of a reset from €1000 to €1800 in which profit after expenses is declared to Revenue each year, tax paid. Then five years down the line, RTB rule its not market and it's reset, with an order for tenant to be refunded.

Revenue only allow you go back four. If outside that the landlord also has to swallow a higher tax paid on lower profit or maybe even a loss they could otherwise offset on future profits.