Sinn Fein - Eviction Ban to July 2026

[lff12]

Far more astonishing is that the Heads of the Bill with the new rules is not publicly available yet. More astonishingly, they'll have 7 Dail weeks (of three days each) to get this through between 13 January and 1 March. This is the most profound change to the PRS in a generation. It is also highly complex and it'll be rushed through in seven weeks at the most. Also, astonishingly, they've been working on this since March if not before that.

Which would indicate that there's a lot of discussion happening about what should and shouldn't be in it.
If it isn't ready it should be postphoned. It has the potential to do real damage if kneejerk reactions are shoved in to assuage political panic.

Seems they haven't tried rent controls in Northern Ireland either. Belfast rents are up 27% since 2023

As for housing completions, the Republic are boom time on completions if comparing to Northern Ireland - just 6,000 last year and 5400 in 2023 (lowest since 1959)

Having relatives living in NI, and they'd be of the nationalist colour, they abhor sf and how bad they are in stormont even with the low level power they have.

As for electricity prices. Those in Northern Ireland just wish they could pay the "high rates" of the republic. Best discounted rate they could get was over 30p

LOL
Then they'd be denying their own local landlord class (if you've read the papers lately, namely themselves) of much desired rental income.

Because they distribute a minimum of 85% of income as dividends, which is taxed at the relevant rate for the investors.

Which may well be your pension fund.

Which means that the REIT did its job and created an in-flow of capital to build housing. That's the big picture. We need far more of them.

See above - they at least finance new builds as well as buying them - that was the idea anyway. In reality the creation of REITS didn't really work for Ireland. We only developed 2 of significant size and one was bought out.

But wouldn't private landlords also if we were given the same tax treatment?

Smaller landlords don't build, they consume existing homes or new builds. Govt doesn't want to see them in competition with FTBs.

 

[Greenbook]

Smaller landlords don't build, they consume existing homes or new builds. Govt doesn't want to see them in competition with FTBs.

Very likely right especially as the government are the main competition to FTBs. They or publicly funded AHBs are the main buyer of new builds per David McWilliams (here)

Anyway, there will be lots of ex-rentals for FTBs over the next couple of years, which is probably the one upside of this mess.

If it isn't ready it should be postphoned. It has the potential to do real damage if kneejerk reactions are shoved in to assuage political panic.

Not a chance it'll be postponed. It'll come in in accordance with the Heads as drafted. Based on the Housing Committee hearings on the heads, the Act which be full of gaps and unanswered questions. Landlords will end up facing possibly criminal liability for guessing wrong.

 

[stormy]

Smaller landlords don't build, they consume existing homes or new builds. Govt doesn't want to see them in competition with FTBs.

I guess the question is, who does then? IRES REIT's units were mainly acquired from existing stock of properties. They didn't do much development at all. They are net selling down now - I just went back over the last 2.5 years of financial statements - they have received in €103.8 million in property sales (286 units sold), and they have not spent a single euro on new developments or acquisitions.

Which means that the REIT did its job and created an in-flow of capital to build housing. That's the big picture. We need far more of them.

No, we're talking about billions of investment in a low return sector.

Its for this reason these comments frustrated me. Taking IRES REIT as an example - there is no money at all coming in! Never mind billions. These institutional guys have been divesting for years now.


#56 Very well said @letitroll !


FYI

as regards trying to get diverse funding sources for domestic Irish property development the REIT structure with its tax profile was/is the correct structure, indeed its the only public equity structure that works for international public equity capital flows.

No gripe with this tax treatment for the REITs. I got too detailed, but did want to flag the fact that much much less tax flows to the Irish State's coffers if a REIT owns the property vs an Irish individual or corporate (its seems only about a quarter of the IRES shareholder based is Irish based). Just arguing that Irish based investors should be encouraged into the the market, and not pushed out (as some commentators alluded to).

 

[letitroll]

Just arguing that Irish based investors should be encouraged into the the market, and not pushed out (as some commentators alluded to).

Yep agree.....before the Irish REIT complex kinda collapsed I did suggest to DoF that Irish investors could be encouraged to invest in the space via a kind of qualified dividend scheme whereby dividend income from Irish residential REITs would be taxed at a preferable rate say a straight 20% versus their marginal rate with USC on top etc. etc.

The dream with the REIT's was that they would trade above NAV encouraging them to issue new equity raising incremental capital which would be put into new developments and you'd get a virtuous circle. It still could work - I mean the oft heard cry on AAM is how to get deposits out of inert bank current accounts and into the residential sector and this would be one way. Irish people investing in Irish residential and getting a 'vulture' fund level tax break to do so....

The other policy I've spoken about before and maintain it would be a real needle mover in terms of development finance (more so than these HBFI diversions ) would be the Irish government effectively providing SRT's (synthetic risk transfers) on development loan made by the domestic pillar banks. Bank regulation post-GFC more or less put the banks out of business in this space ( high RWA penalty leading to low RoEs) and SRT's from the Irish Government would be the only way to bring an obvious funding source back online and would truly 'unlock' deposits at the banks.

 

[Greenbook]

Can't read this in full because of the paywall, but I bet that Focus Ireland are saying that landlords are selling because we think that our tenancies will convert to 6 year or permanent in March. We know now that that is not the case - we are leaving because the new rules mean that the PRS is simply uninvestable.

 

[Purple]

Its for this reason these comments frustrated me. Taking IRES REIT as an example - there is no money at all coming in! Never mind billions. These institutional guys have been divesting for years now.

REITS were and are a great idea. We, the public at large and the media, screwed it up by calling them vulture funds and misrepresenting the amount of tax they pay and then making the rental and construction sectors so dysfunctional that it is became an unattractive investment. I suspect that the improvement in Bond Yields over the last few years has also attracted international capital away from property.

 

[bipped]

The government faqs page was updated last week. Are these new or maybe I missed them before:


Q. If one tenant leaves the property and 2 others remain, is this tenancy under the ‘old’ or ‘new’ rules?
A. The ‘new’ rules only apply to new tenancies that begin after 1 March 2026. If some tenants change but others remain, this is not a new tenancy, so continues to follow the rules that are in place until 28 February 2026.

That’s not really very clear. What happens after 28 Feb - do they switch to the ‘new’ rules from 01March.


Q. Will landlords be able to sell their properties?

• All landlords will be able to sell their rented property with the tenant still living in the dwelling at any time.
• All landlords may choose to sell their property with vacant possession when a tenant has left of their own choice.
• Smaller landlords may choose to sell their property with vacant possession at the end of each 6-year TMD, for a limited time before the property rolls into a further 6-year tenancy.
• Smaller landlords may choose to sell their property with vacant possession in limited circumstances due to financial hardship

All landlords. This appears to be different to the advice in the letters from the Dept that were posted on another thread.

 

[Greenbook]

@bipped I didn't realise these had been updated. I must take a look.

From memory, the first one was there previously. You're correct though, it doesn't tell us much. It doesn't answer the question of what happens if you have tenants coming and going for example.

The second set of answers doesn't appear to me to be different to the letter. That said, I found the letter a bit all over the place, so I must have missed something.

 

[bipped]

The second set of answers doesn't appear to me to be different to the letter.

You’re right, I re-read the post with the letter and it says no changes to existing leases.
It’s the landlord categories that’s confusing me as some landlords could have both old and new leases after March. I don’t get how they can be ‘existing rules landlords’ plus ‘small or large rules landlords’ at the same time.

 

[Greenbook]

It’s the landlord categories that’s confusing me as some landlords could have both old and new leases after March. I don’t get how they can be ‘existing rules landlords’ plus ‘small or large rules landlords’ at the same time.

It's very confusing alright. Hopefully the legislation will clarify, but seeing as they have 20 days to go through all the legislative stages in the Dail and Seanad, I doubt it.

 

[letitroll]

I suspect that the improvement in Bond Yields over the last few years has also attracted international capital away from property.

Yes for sure bond yields (now that they had a yield again) became a mechanism by which pension funds could get near their needed 7 or 8% yield...and so all things being equal they could dial down their property exposure.

The unique stupidity of Irish Government policy around this time was to take institutionally held residential property which when you get down to it is really just a bond-like instrument whose main unique selling point or point of differentiation versus bonds is its inflation protection (rents reset yearly) and completely strip the inflation protection element from them with RPZ & then they wonder why international funds headed for the hills!!!!

 

[Sister Sara]

If you are a small landlord, you'll be under a 6 year no-fault eviction ban after March. If you are a large landlord, it'll be a permanent no-fault eviction ban.

I don't understand this sentiment. Why wouldn't anyone want to become a landlord in first instance if the tenant, through no-fault of their own, cannot be evicted?
What is the point of being a landlord if not to provide rental accommodation to tenants? Yet, the emphasis in Browne's speech is “Nobody is going to deliver additional properties into this State where there’s an eviction ban in place,” Mr Browne said.

Some 30-35% of housing stock is in the rental market, how many no-fault tenants are evicted each year?

The peculiar thing is the belief system that landlords deliver additional properties to the State. They no more construct new homes than owner-occupiers do. Its the combined demand that drives development and in a market where there is excess demand over supply measures to cool that demand are to be welcomed insofar that those measures will provide greater supply for owner-occupiers that need it. I reckon most landlords already have a home and very few probably find the option of renting desirable themselves.

 

[Greenbook]

Why wouldn't anyone want to become a landlord in first instance if the tenant, through no-fault of their own, cannot be evicted?

I personally don't want to be a landlord in a situation where I am providing lifetime accommodation to tenants at a rent which declines in real terms and where I am responsible for all costs relating to the property (the costs increase over time). I also don't want to incur the risk of a criminal record because I don't fill in a form correctly or misinterpret some very complicated rule.

I'm leaving for these reasons as I am, at least currently, entitled to do. The situation post March means that I am no longer running a business. Instead there is a real risk that I will become a species of social housing provider.

 

[Sister Sara]

The situation post March means that I am no longer running a business. Instead there is a real risk that I will become a species of social housing provider.

I understand where you are coming from but the provision of housing is first and foremost a critical social provision. It is from safe, secure tenancy that almost all else flows, health, family and community, education etc.
Applying a business for profit model in a market that is functioning is all well and good. But the housing market here has been broken , since the crash in 2008 at least. Arguably even longer as too many houses were being built.
That is half a working-lifetime that provision of new housing, and housing for younger generation has been dysfunctional at best and a failure at worst.
The critical problem now is failure of supply to meet demand at affordable purchase/rental prices. This is having a negative impact not only on younger generation wanting to start families but investment in jobs as suitable accommodation for workers becomes scarce to the point that skilled workers are also emigrating - albeit, as I understand they face a similar problem abroad also.

EU to present measures on tackling Europe housing crisis

 

[Purple]

Why wouldn't anyone want to become a landlord in first instance if the tenant, through no-fault of their own, cannot be evicted?

Because the value of their capital asset, the property, will be negatively affected by the fact that there is a sitting tenant that cannot be removed.

 

[Sister Sara]

Because the value of their capital asset, the property, will be negatively affected by the fact that there is a sitting tenant that cannot be removed.

Then why let-it out in the first instance?

 

[Greenbook]

I understand where you are coming from but the provision of housing is first and foremost a critical social provision. It is from safe, secure tenancy that almost all else flows, health, family and community, education etc.

Agreed, but how is it my job to provide social housing?

You'll have seen the other threads on this and all the issues for landlords. I'm all for a fair system for tenants, but the new rules are completely one sided. I'd have no issue with a life long tenancy if we had the German system where the tenant has the house for life, a market rent is set at the start and this increases at a reasonable rate to keep up with inflation, the tenant is responsible for furnishing, white goods, repairs and maintenance and misbehaving tenants are dealt with swiftly.

As I've said countless times before we now have a system where I have to rent to a tenant for their life, their children can takeover the tenancy, my rent will decrease in real terms while my costs will increase (and undoubtedly my responsibilities for energy efficient etc. will increase as well), I am in danger of a criminal record for not filling in a form correctly but getting the tenants out for destroying the property or not paying rent is a multi-year process with huge legal fees and I can expect further unfavourable changes in the future. Why on earth would any sane person sign up for this? Why on earth also would any sane current landlord not get out.

 

[Purple]

Then why let-it out in the first instance?

Because until recently the landlord had access to their capital whenever they wanted, talking into account the illiquid nature of property as an asset. Now if they find themselves in a situation where they need to sell their property they can only sell it to another landlord, thus greatly reducing it's market value.

 

[stormy]

The State is in the best position over generations, along with private incorporated investors to deliver a rental market that competes price wise with the option to rent v cost of house ownership.

@Sister Sara You mentioned the state along with private incorporated investors are best delivered to deliver a rental market. I'm curious, who are these private incorporate investors that will deliver this to the rental market?

Some 30-35% of housing stock is in the rental market,

What percentage do you think it should be?

 

[Greenbook]

Then why let-it out in the first instance?

Because that is what landlords do?

Because of the housing crisis, there are many people renting long term who shouldn't be and don't want to be - that is the core problem here.

I started off as a landlord 30 years ago renting to people who wanted to rent. It suits the young, the mobile, those whose relationships have broken up, couples starting out in a relationship etc. etc. Renting genuinely makes sense for a lot of people. Even if houses were very cheap, not everybody wants to or should buy a house. That is why landlords buy houses and rent them out. They are providing a needed service and hope to make money out of it, just like any other business.

As I keep stressing, I am now being coralled into becomng a social housing provider at a cost, which will increase significant overtime, to myself.

Keep in mind also, landlords haven't caused the housing crisis - bad government policy which means that it is impossible to build sufficient housing for the current population has.