This is one of the key issues - a purchaser will be buying based practically entirely on yield, but it will be baked in to the new system that the yield will be artificially deflated. This alone means low sale prices or no purchasers at all - what investor would buy a older property with a low rent and a permanent tenant which needed work?
Tenants evicted under Part 4, can I now rent again
- Thread starter smalltimetrader
- Start date
This is what I’ve been informed to do because some of the items the inspectors decide on are bonkers. Making up stuff, or someone not having a clue. I believe the likes of Thornton’s are getting around 300 a pop from the councils for each inspection. But the actual inspectors are getting a pittance in comparison. Someone should ask in the Dail how much the inspections are costing the state annually.
I’m confused, maybe I missed it. There is no legislation in place for the rules from March? And it’s now mid January.
Added to the figures just not adding up for continuing with a rental property, who on earth wants the amount of work now required to meet the demands of all of the new legislation when they are supposed to be retired. So if you are retired or a few years from retirement its time to just let it go and remove a huge slice of hassle from your life.
That is correct, the Bill hasn't even been drafted.
This is going to be rushed through at the last minute and will be some mess.
Exactly. If you are increasing the rent to 'market', this will be based on the rent register, the BER, the floor area and 'character' it seems. There is going to be some amount of documentation involved in all of that considering the current document is 20 or 30 pages long. Worse, if you get the rent wrong you're facing investigation by the RTB, possibilty criminal liability and a refund to your tenants.
Who would run that gauntlet. Fine for a Fund who'll have rent reports from Savills or Sherry Fitz, but your average landlord has the whole thing weighed against him.
Its funny how some people just dont get it, they think landlords are complaining for no reason, and are just money grabbing!!
Im referencing one poster in particular, they have made some highfalutin posts (in other threads as well) that others have rebuked convincingly..
This is coming from someone who is reading AAM, how about the poor landlords basing their decision on media information....
Im referencing one poster in particular, they have made some highfalutin posts (in other threads as well) that others have rebuked convincingly..
This is coming from someone who is reading AAM, how about the poor landlords basing their decision on media information....
It is a lot more than window restrictors, that is just what they are working on at the moment. Restrictors are cheap and if you're handy you can fit them yourself
Here are the actual standards that a property has to meet - 115 pages and all sorts of vague stuff like 'the property must be maintained in good decorative condition'
They were going easy so far as a landlord could evict and sell, expect much more stringent inspections once we can't. If you don't comply, it is a criminal prosecution
PRS Standards
Will have to build another jail for landlords
A special landlords' wing in Mountjoy should doWill have to build another jail for landlords
Does this change if there is a two-year period of non-letting? Presumably it does, as the tenant would have been issued a notice of termination as per the old rules, and the old rules indicated that after 2 years of non-letting, the property could be re-let at market value.
Whereas I am hearing that the property can't be re-let at market rates if the tenant was requested to leave under the new rules - but people seem to be not mentioning the two-year gap in any comments I've seen.
At this point we don't know if the 2 year gap will still apply post March 26.
The pre-legislative report mentions the two year period:
“All landlords will only be allowed to reset rent to market rent in respect of new tenancies created (first time tenancy between parties) on/after 1 March 2026 where the most recent tenancy (if any, in the past two years) was terminated by the tenant, or where the landlord terminated because of a breach of tenant obligations…”
Nothing about existing tenancy rules.
“All landlords will only be allowed to reset rent to market rent in respect of new tenancies created (first time tenancy between parties) on/after 1 March 2026 where the most recent tenancy (if any, in the past two years) was terminated by the tenant, or where the landlord terminated because of a breach of tenant obligations…”
Nothing about existing tenancy rules.
Can you clarify what you mean by this?
After March, if a tenant leaves of their own accord, you can, in theory at least, raise the rent to market.
That wasn't possible up to now as the original 2016 rent stayed with the property on change on tenant unless it had been left vacant for 2 years.
LarryScott
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 527
A situation could occur where a landlord evicts to sell and then the new owner wants to rent out the house after a while.
Without the two year rule (or similar), the new owner occupier would be limited by a baseline based on the original rent.
If the owner moves into a new home after 10 years and rents out the old one, with 2% per year, he could be limited to the original rent + 20%. Probably the new owner would just sell the house to a new owner occupier and not deal with tenants at all.
They want owner occupier houses to be converted into rented properties.
That may well be. These new rules are so complicated, they will throw up all sorts of odd results. Plus the new owner, renting in 10 years time, probably won't be aware of this rule and could find himself in hot water if he rents out the house.
LarryScott
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 527
Right. A nightmare situation would be where the tenancy agreement is considered valid but the rent is RTB limited.
The new owner though he was going to get (actual) market rent, and the RTB says actually the rent is 40% of market rent due to the baseline from 10 years ago that he didn't even know about.