Sinn Fein - Eviction Ban to July 2026

[Purple]

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.

I agree but the burden of that social responsibility is not that of the landlord. Just as an employer doesn't have the social responsibility of providing an income for an employee beyond the economic value of the employees labour so a landlord doesn't have a responsibility to house their tenant. They have the responsibility to act in good faith and within the law and pay their taxes. That's it.

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.

I agree, but do you think that the same institutions and governments that broke the housing market are best placed to fix it?

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.

The critical problem is the transfer of wealth from young people to older people, as best seen in the devaluation of labour relative to capital over the last 17 years. We need to fix that if we want to fix anything else. Relatively, old people have too much wealth and young people don't have the ability to grow wealth through work. I don't know how we fix that but throwing landlords under the bus won't do it.

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.

Yes, it's an international problem and, unfortunately, way beyond the power of the Irish government to fix. I wish they'd be honest and say that. Instead we get this nonsense, messing with the demand side of the rental market as if it will make a blind bit of a difference.

Whatever screwing around they do here it won't house anyone extra. In fact it will probably house fewer people as I suspect that household sizes are larger in rental properties than in owner occupied properties.

Ironically a few years ago when Mary Lou McDonald said that the average house should be worth €300,000 instead of €430,000 she was correct. That's exactly what the government should be trying to do. Of course the policies of her party are diametrically opposed to that but so are all the other parties.

 

[Sister Sara]

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.

It's not your job per se, it is the job of a landlord.
I do not think anyone should get involved in rental market unless its for the long-term. The exception being where someone is prepared to rent out their own private principle residence, while abroad or living elsewhere in the country. The reason being is that in my view a landlord carries a social responsibility to provide long-term, safe, secure and affordable tenancies first and foremost. If that cannot be achieved then stay away from this market.

The German model would be more favourable as I understand rents are typically 50-60% the cost of taking out a mortgage on the same property? Unfortunately here, rents are often higher than the cost of taking out a mortgage on the same property, preventing prospective owner-occupiers saving for a deposit even though they could afford the cheaper mortgage monthly repayments.
The German model at least provides for those that cannot afford a property of their own or those who see value in paying rent that is significantly cheaper than the cost of owning a property.

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.

I agree, I do think the rules are being designed to force out a number of landlords.
I'm not suggesting its fair. It is not, but for tenants and prospective owner-occupiers there is a lot that is unfair.

It is unfortunately another symptom of a dysfunctional failing market.

 

[Sister Sara]

I'm curious, who are these private incorporate investors that will deliver this to the rental market?

Without specifics, generally they would be prepared to let properties out over the long-term i.e multi-generational.
In a period where housing supply meets the demand a functional market option of buy-to-occupy (more expensive but with capital appreciation) or long-term, lifetime renting (a lot cheaper, maybe 50% of a cost of a mortgage) could develop.

What percentage do you think it should be?

The % would be a balance of those that prefer cheaper rent to expensive ownership. I do not believe a significant potion of 30-35% of housing occupants that rent, want to do so if it is cheaper to buy? If rent was 50% of the cost of a mortgage then you could understand this figure.

 

[stormy]

Without specifics, generally they would be prepared to let properties out over the long-term i.e multi-generational.
In a period where

We do need specifics though. What rational actor is going to supply property if the law of the land means their real terms income reduces year after year? I would very much love to know who specifically you think will do this.

The % would be a balance of those that prefer cheaper rent to expensive ownership

Again no specifics. I would love to understand why these new will rules help in anyway way with what you seem to be arguing for.

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

There are 2.11million housing units in the country. There are 332k rental tenancies including cost-rentals, student specific accommodation and tenancies offered by approved housing bodies. 16% of the housing is in the rental market, not 30-35%. Normal private tenants (ex cost rentals) is just 11%. I hope you understand what you are wishing for by hoping this reduces further. I resent being pushed out, and my tenants do also. I don't think it's going to end well.

 

[Sister Sara]

There are 2.11million housing units in the country. There are 332k rental tenancies including cost-rentals, student specific accommodation and tenancies offered by approved housing bodies. 16% of the housing is in the rental market, not 30-35%. Normal private tenants (ex cost rentals) is just 11%. I hope you understand what you are wishing for by hoping this reduces further. I resent being pushed out, and my tenants do also. I don't think it's going to end well.

I'll start here, and thanks for the information. It does help if we are coming at this with the same information.

I sourced my figures from here Home ownership and rent and from 2.11million



1,871,522 actively occupied.





513,704/1,871,522 = 27%.

I did unwittingly take the 66% above and assumed the other 34% was therefore rental. So 27% is more realistic.

27%, or whatever the figure does not mean anything by itself. It does mean something if you consider the cost of rent v the cost of repaying a mortgage.

What rational actor is going to supply property if the law of the land means their real terms income reduces year after year?

I'm not disputing this, this is part of the problem. Similarly you could ask, what rational actor is going to pay rent when it is cheaper to pay a mortgage on the same property?

The difference maybe that it is possible to answer the 2nd question - people need somewhere to live, they pay high rents and effectively reduce any ability they may have to save for a deposit for a (cheaper) place of their own. I would suggest that given the high rents v mortgage costs that there is a very significant portion of the 27% that would prefer to pay a cheaper mortgage than a more expensive rent?

A rental market should provide accommodation and housing at levels competitive to mortgage market. In Germany I think its roughly 50/50 rental v ownership. However, as I understand it, rents are typically 50% the cost of a mortgage?

This offers a real alternative to a mortgage. It offers choice, competition.

In Ireland this does not occur, it is a market failure.

 

[stormy]

513,704/1,871,522 = 27%.

For tenancies, isn't that data now 3 years old? We know accommodation providers have been leaving the market. RTB data has also shown a rapid decrease in tenancies from 2022.

Why would houses that are left vacant be excluded from the denominator? Is it ok to leave them vacant, but not rent them out?

I used the latest data as of Q3 2025 for tenancies. The amount of housing stock is higher as my number was 3 years old, but we know there has been >70k housing supply since. So normal private tenants probably make up less than the 11% I mentioned.

Similarly you could ask, what rational actor is going to pay rent when it is cheaper to pay a mortgage on the same property?

I would have often done this myself (as a student), when I first started work in a new city, and even these days when I work away on projects. Many other situations also call for it (Greenbook already mentioned)

I would love to understand why these new will rules help in anyway way with what you seem to be arguing for.

I appreciate you would like rents to be half the cost of a mortgage. As asked before, how do the new proposals of hunting out all the private rental supply help achieve this?

rents are typically 50% the cost of a mortgage?

I'm curious on this assertion , do you have data to support it?

 

[Purple]

The difference maybe that it is possible to answer the 2nd question - people need somewhere to live, they pay high rents and effectively reduce any ability they may have to save for a deposit for a (cheaper) place of their own. I would suggest that given the high rents v mortgage costs that there is a very significant portion of the 27% that would prefer to pay a cheaper mortgage than a more expensive rent?

If we make mortgages more accessible, i.e. increase the amount of money they could borrow relative to their income, it would just drive up property prices further.

A rental market should provide accommodation and housing at levels competitive to mortgage market. In Germany I think its roughly 50/50 rental v ownership. However, as I understand it, rents are typically 50% the cost of a mortgage?

Germany's population is stagnant or dropping and they already had a large housing stock. Our population is increasing by 1.3% to 1.6% per annum. We also has a much more severe housing crash, have far lower levels of labour mobility (we're an island), have a much smaller domestic manufacturing base and have numerous other factors which make us different to Germany. That mean that legislative and legal structures here which are similar to Germanys will not produce similar market conditions.

 

[Sister Sara]

For tenancies, isn't that data now 3 years old? We know accommodation providers have been leaving the market. RTB data has also shown a rapid decrease in tenancies from 2022.

Why would houses that are left vacant be excluded from the denominator? Is it ok to leave them vacant, but not rent them out?

I used the latest data as of Q3 2025 for tenancies. The amount of housing stock is higher as my number was 3 years old, but we know there has been >70k housing supply since. So normal private tenants probably make up less than the 11% I mentioned.

It is 3yrs old, I'd imagine not an overall significant change in that period and by 2024 it being reported that there was an Increase in private landlords although happy to be proven wrong.

Your figures as I read are based on registered tenancies and landlords and does not include unregistered which may explain the increase that RTE reported on from 2022 to 2024

I appreciate you would like rents to be half the cost of a mortgage. As asked before, how do the new proposals of hunting out all the private rental supply help achieve this?

I'm not saying the new proposals will achieve this. I suspect at best the new proposals will flush out short-term landlords more concerned with ability to evict tenants than providing reasonable accommodation for them.
Long-term, multi-generational professional landlords will remain in the rental market and not be hunted out as you describe.

I'm curious on this assertion , do you have data to support it?

No, admittedly it is a perception I have that rents are significantly cheaper in Germany, and other Euro countries, relative to the cost of paying off a mortgage for a similar property. Again, happy to be proven incorrect on this.

 

[Greenbook]

It's not your job per se, it is the job of a landlord.

It is the job of a landlord to provide social housing?

I do not think anyone should get involved in rental market unless its for the long-term.

And the government obviously thinks the same thing. I, as a private citizen, am to provide permanent accommodation to tenants at a cost to myself. I have decided, for very obvious reasons, that I am unwilling to do that and will be selling my properties and leaving the PRS. Many other landlords have made the same decision.

I agree, I do think the rules are being designed to force out a number of landlords.

It may just be stupidity on the part of the Department of Housing ie. Hanlon's razor. Whatever way you cut or analyse this, there is a massive shortage of rental accommodation at the moment. Driving more and more landlords out in the current situation will do nothing but harm.

 

[Sister Sara]

It is the job of a landlord to provide social housing?

The job of a landlord is to provide housing, which is a social provision.

It may just be stupidity on the part of the Department of Housing ie. Hanlon's razor. Whatever way you cut or analyse this, there is a massive shortage of rental accommodation at the moment. Driving more and more landlords out in the current situation will do nothing but harm.

It remains to see to what extent, over time. I dont doubt it will cause some pressure in the rental market in the short-term (12-24 months)

There is also a shortage of affordable properties for prospective owner-occupiers which I think you will acknowledge. More people are living with their parents for longer, families are being delayed, etc.

I do believe a more than significant cohort of the private rental market is occupied by people who would rather be paying a mortgage than rent. Increasing the supply of properties in this area, which is what exiting landlords do, will help to relieve in some part this choke-point.
It is by no means a panacea to the overall housing shortage, more of band aid.

 

[Greenbook]

The job of a landlord is to provide housing, which is a social provision.

That seems to be the thinking at Department of Housing alright, landlords as social housing providers. I have thought for some time that the push has been to make us like the local authorities- once you get the key you're in for life, the rent never increases (witness the recent hoo-ha over local authorities imposing the first rent increases in 18 years), all costs of maintenance, repair and improvement fall on the Council though the rent does not cover these costs and non-payment of rent/anti-social behaviour is tolerated. The new rules are making the PRS a mirror of the social housing sector. A societal cost is being imposed on private citizens. Any landlord who has any sense will get out.

There is also a shortage of affordable properties for prospective owner-occupiers which I think you will acknowledge. More people are living with their parents for longer, families are being delayed, etc.

Yes, it is. There is a shortage of houses for FTBs to buy. The new rules will certainly help there. Those who can afford mortgages and/or can get family help will have a much improved chance of buying a house. Hooke and McDonald are on record that they expect improved supply in 2026 due to the landlord exodus.

Of course, all the sales mean that there will less places to rent and many people for various reasons need to rent and don't want to or can't buy.

 

[Leo]

It is the job of a landlord to provide social housing?

It isn't though. Social housing in the Irish context is defined as 'affordable, subsidised housing provided by governments or non-profits for low-income individuals and families who can't afford market rents'.

The provision of Social Services here is primarily the responsibility of the relevant government department, they can choose to source some of those services from the private sector, but it remains their responsibility.

 

[Sister Sara]

Yes, it is. There is a shortage of houses for FTBs to buy. The new rules will certainly help there. Those who can afford mortgages and/or can get family help will have a much improved chance of buying a house. Hooke and McDonald are on record that they expect improved supply in 2026 due to the landlord exodus.

Of course, all the sales mean that there will less places to rent and many people for various reasons need to rent and don't want to or can't buy.

I'm not disputing this. Really what we are talking about is overall supply and why it cannot meet demand. In the end, government policy is trying to fit a three-pin plug into a two-pin socket. Political decisions are being made and those decisions, I agree, would tend to be pushing out small landlords in favour of owner-occupiers.
The alternative that I have heard is to build more houses to meet the demand for the rental market. A significant portion of that demand comes from prospective owner-occupiers squeezed out of buying because of higher and higher prices.

Relative to times past, there is now a €30bn (?) mortgage loan book every year for owner-occupiers to avail of to purchase homes. There simply is not the need for landlords to provide for this cohort of the population other than, by way of their participation in the bidding for housing they push prices up further and out of the affordability reach - often, i'd imagine its the 10% deposit and 4 times income limit that puts owning a home out of reach.

If I were a buy-to-let landlord today, I'd be thinking 20yrs minimum to let a property and I would not be overly concerned about these rules at this time. If I were14/15yrs into that plan I would consider exiting as I think the average tenancy term is 3/4yrs?

That seems to be the thinking at Department of Housing alright, landlords as social housing providers.

That is not what I said though, in fairness.

 

[Greenbook]

If I were a buy-to-let landlord today, I'd be thinking 20yrs minimum to let a property and I would not be overly concerned about these rules at this time. If I were14/15yrs into that plan I would consider exiting as I think the average tenancy term is 3/4yrs?

Do that - get a mortgage, buy an apartment or house and rent it out to a young tenant who needs permanent housing and will be there for life.

Fast forward to 2045, and, under the current rules you will find that:

1. The rent you are receiving hasn't kept up with inflation but your costs most definitely have - you will be taking money out of your own pocket to keep the rental in place

2. Standards will be higher in 20 years time. Your property will be getting old. Upgrades will be a legal requirement via the inspection regime. You will have to pay for these out of your own pocket.

3. If you want to get out, your tenant is permanent and still in place. You will only be able to sell to an investor with cash - none of these will want to buy due to 1. and 2 above. You'll have to sell to your tenant at a steep discount or pay them a significant sum to leave

4. You may have messed up on completing a form or two or you misinterpreted some complex rule - you will have a criminal record which you will have to disclose on job applications, insurance applications etc.

Re-reading your posts, you are saying that rental housing is a social provision which landlords should provide. The officials in the Department of Housing who created the new rules are definitely of the same view. The above is the result.

 

[Purple]

Becoming a landlord now insane. It is predicated solely on the assumption of future capital growth as there is no realistic prospect of a long term rate of return greater than inflation. The new rules only worsen that situation.
The argument that it is a leveraged investment will be made but that's like borrowing to invest in Shares, knowing that the dividend won't pay the cost of borrowing but hoping that they will go up in value.

 

[Greenbook]

The argument that it is a leveraged investment will be made but that's like borrowing to invest in Shares, knowing that the dividend won't pay the cost of borrowing but hoping that they will go up in value.

Agreed, and if you end up having to sell with a tenant in situ (possible even if you do your best to avoid long term tenants) you'll have a loss in real terms if not in nominal terms also on the capital side.

Becoming a landlord now is only for the insane or those who have a yen to provide social housing (without the peacock enclosures and private lifts though)

 

[lff12]

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.

And there you have hit the nail right on the head. Last I spoke to a developer about financing things like mezzanine finance had eye watering interest rates, as much as 12-17% for higher risk projects, and time spans of 12-24 months which is crazy in Judicial Review happy Ireland.

 

[lff12]

It is predicated solely on the assumption of future capital growth as there is no realistic prospect of a long term rate of return greater than inflation

With all due respect, has this not already been the case for a very long time? The only time there was a constant profit for landlords was in the days of section 23 and Section 50 reliefs?

 

[Sister Sara]

Do that - get a mortgage, buy an apartment or house and rent it out to a young tenant who needs permanent housing and will be there for life.

Fast forward to 2045, and, under the current rules you will find that:

If by 2045 the rules are expected to be the same then I would not do so. The rules will only be the same if the conditions of the housing market are the same, or similar.

1. The rent you are receiving hasn't kept up with inflation but your costs most definitely have - you will be taking money out of your own pocket to keep the rental in place

What costs? I have rented before and my longest tenancy was 6yrs. I'm trying to recall what costs the landlord had? The house was furbished, but that would be factored into the rental price surely?

2. Standards will be higher in 20 years time. Your property will be getting old. Upgrades will be a legal requirement via the inspection regime. You will have to pay for these out of your own pocket.

Don't you factor this into the rent you charge? How much do you spend on refurbishments, fixtures and fittings on one property each year?

3. If you want to get out, your tenant is permanent and still in place.

Most tenancies are on average are 3 to 4yrs?

4. You may have messed up on completing a form or two or you misinterpreted some complex rule - you will have a criminal record which you will have to disclose on job applications, insurance applications etc.

Only if sucessfully prosecuted. If you have misinterpreted you will have plenty of opportunity to rectify.

 

[Greenbook]

What costs? I have rented before and my longest tenancy was 6yrs. I'm trying to recall what costs the landlord had? The house was furbished, but that would be factored into the rental price surely?

Frequent costs - mortgage, insurance, furniture, white goods, repairs, maintenance, repainting, accounting and tax, agents fees . Long term costs - new kitchens, bathrooms, floors, replacement front doors, new windows. These are just the things I can quickly think of which I have incurred this year (frequent costs). There are probably more if I looked at my records. The long term cost are items I spent money on in the past couple of years or, if I had been staying, would do so over the next couple. If you know a way of renting out a property without incurring any costs at all, I would be delighted to know.

Don't you factor this into the rent you charge?

I would factor this into the rent I charge if I was allowed to. That is my point. Any business would factor in costs such as these when it determines how much should be charged for its goods or services. Landlords are being prevented from doing this meaning that the business just isn't viable.

Only if sucessfully prosecuted.

That is a huge comfort - I will be criminally prosecuted with guards and the Director of Public Prosecutions involved, but the jury might not find me guilty. Rectification might reduce the sentence but it doesn't mean that I will be found not guilty.