I'm curious, how would it add to the discussion? I'd happily put it together, but I think its just off thread. Houses should rise in line with inflation - the new proposals are going to stop that happening for houses that are rented out. The person holding the can will be the house owner.
The Four Core Problems with the New Rental Rules
- Thread starter Greenbook
- Start date
Michael Houghton: ‘For many years, I carried a quiet guilt about being a landlord. Now my attitude has started to shift’
He says:
And then goes on to say:
Is he not also betting on property values rising?
An odd article.
I haven't read it (behind a paywall), but it does sound odd
Is he taking into account the new rules and that as a large landlord he won't sell for full price with a tenant in situ, for example, and, in fact, may have trouble off loading it at all, that his rent increases at 2% max are not keeping up with inflation and he is highly unlikely to get a market increase at year 6, that he might end up with a criminal record if he makes a mistake in a form etc. etc.
I think he's talking more about the mortgage being cleared by the rent and the leveraged nature of the investment. You put down €100k for a €300k investment and the rent clears the mortgage over the term of the loan so there's a big net gain. As a former landlord that was by view of it.
He says
"Let’s assume that in year one the property’s value keeps pace with inflation and rises 3pc from €300,000 to €309,000. We originally put down about €100,000 between the deposit, stamp duty and legal fees. Our €100,000 is now worth €109,000."
But he doesn't seem to have spotted that, with the new rules, if he has to sell with a tenant in situ (entirely possible as he is a large landlord), the €300k may have declined to €200k, using IPAVs 30% reduction rule of thumb. His €100k will also be down to about €70k
That is a major risk he's taking on top of all the other ones - tenants who don't pay the rent, tenants who damage the property, fall in house prices, more anti-landlord rules, increasing costs and standards, increased interest rates, problems with the economy etc. etc.
"Let’s assume that in year one the property’s value keeps pace with inflation and rises 3pc from €300,000 to €309,000. We originally put down about €100,000 between the deposit, stamp duty and legal fees. Our €100,000 is now worth €109,000."
But he doesn't seem to have spotted that, with the new rules, if he has to sell with a tenant in situ (entirely possible as he is a large landlord), the €300k may have declined to €200k, using IPAVs 30% reduction rule of thumb. His €100k will also be down to about €70k
That is a major risk he's taking on top of all the other ones - tenants who don't pay the rent, tenants who damage the property, fall in house prices, more anti-landlord rules, increasing costs and standards, increased interest rates, problems with the economy etc. etc.
In that case, surely he should hope for property values to fall and then his rental yield will automatically increase?
That chap was on Newstalk earlier. Had to turn it off as the virtue signalling was off the scale.
Instead of talking about the insane regulatory environment he spent most of what I heard talking about his guilt of being a landlord and what a great guy he is and how hes open to selling his rentals to his tenants.
Wished I lived in his parallel universe.
Michael Houghton? Is that the FIRE podcast chap?
Instead of talking about the insane regulatory environment he spent most of what I heard talking about his guilt of being a landlord and what a great guy he is and how hes open to selling his rentals to his tenants.
Wished I lived in his parallel universe.
Michael Houghton? Is that the FIRE podcast chap?
I think he may be completely unaware of the insane regulatory environment.
Should we have a rent register?
Maurice Deverell, spokesperson from the Irish Property Owners Association and Paul Murphy, People Before Profit TD for Dublin South West and member of the Dail’s Public Account committee.
A discussion on should we have a rent register? Maurice Deverell, spokesperson from the Irish Property Owners Association and Paul Murphy, People Before Profit TD for Dublin South West and member of the Dail’s Public Account committee.
Point 1 is devastating: Creating a phantom market where properties can only be sold to the tiny pool of cash landlords willing to buy tenant-occupied properties at 30% discounts. Rural properties become completely worthless - who's buying a tenant-in-situ farm cottage for cash?
Point 2 is the death spiral: Properties with 2016 below-market rents are mathematical liabilities. When your €950 rent can only increase 2% while costs inflate 4-5%, you're bleeding money forever. The property becomes a financial albatross you can't escape.
Point 3 shows the trap: They've kept the world's strictest rent controls AND added new ones. It's not reform - it's doubling down on what already broke the system.
Point 4 is maybe the worst: The complexity isn't accidental. Criminal prosecution for paperwork errors when the rules are deliberately incomprehensible? That's not regulation - it's entrapment.
I've used AI to help me make sense of my thoughts and was wondering if you think the below might worth sending ??
Draft integrated letter for TD or Minister
Subject: Balancing tenant protections with a viable private rental sector
Dear [Minister/Deputy Name],
As a taxpayer and small private landlord who has followed the recent Oireachtas hearings and public commentary on the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill 2025, I wanted to share a perspective that aims to balance the legitimate interests of tenants with the practical realities for landlords like me. The goal is not to roll back protections, but to make the system sustainable for everyone.
If we want strong security of tenure and low eviction risk for vulnerable households, that responsibility should rest primarily with the State through an expanded social and cost‑rental sector, not through ever‑tightening obligations on small private providers.
This erodes what most people regard as a basic incident of ownership — the ability, after due notice and fair process, to recover the property and sell on the open market. I accept that tenants need genuine security, but removing this right entirely is neither fair nor proportionate.
Today, there is no functioning market for tenants‑in‑situ sales. Once the keys are handed over, values drop by an estimated 30%. Banks rarely lend for buy‑to‑let, and with new restrictions, even fewer buyers will qualify. This means sellers are confined to a tiny number of cash investors, rendering many properties — especially rural ones — unsaleable.
Ireland’s rent control framework is already among the world’s most restrictive. The introduction of a second reference‑rent system between tenancies further discourages investment and stifles supply.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss them in more detail or to share real‑world examples from the sector.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Information]
Point 2 is the death spiral: Properties with 2016 below-market rents are mathematical liabilities. When your €950 rent can only increase 2% while costs inflate 4-5%, you're bleeding money forever. The property becomes a financial albatross you can't escape.
Point 3 shows the trap: They've kept the world's strictest rent controls AND added new ones. It's not reform - it's doubling down on what already broke the system.
Point 4 is maybe the worst: The complexity isn't accidental. Criminal prosecution for paperwork errors when the rules are deliberately incomprehensible? That's not regulation - it's entrapment.
I've used AI to help me make sense of my thoughts and was wondering if you think the below might worth sending ??
Draft integrated letter for TD or Minister
Subject: Balancing tenant protections with a viable private rental sector
Dear [Minister/Deputy Name],
As a taxpayer and small private landlord who has followed the recent Oireachtas hearings and public commentary on the Residential Tenancies (Amendment) Bill 2025, I wanted to share a perspective that aims to balance the legitimate interests of tenants with the practical realities for landlords like me. The goal is not to roll back protections, but to make the system sustainable for everyone.
1. Clarify the State’s role versus the private sector
Ireland has leaned heavily on small private landlords to house households who, in other countries, would be in social or cost‑rental housing. Over time, the private rental sector has become a de‑facto extension of the social housing system—without equivalent funding or support.If we want strong security of tenure and low eviction risk for vulnerable households, that responsibility should rest primarily with the State through an expanded social and cost‑rental sector, not through ever‑tightening obligations on small private providers.
2. Vacant possession as a core ownership right
Current and proposed reforms significantly restrict owners’ ability to sell with vacant possession, especially for those counted as “large” landlords. Even for smaller landlords, the mix of extended six‑year tenancies and narrow termination grounds leaves few practical routes to sell unencumbered.This erodes what most people regard as a basic incident of ownership — the ability, after due notice and fair process, to recover the property and sell on the open market. I accept that tenants need genuine security, but removing this right entirely is neither fair nor proportionate.
Today, there is no functioning market for tenants‑in‑situ sales. Once the keys are handed over, values drop by an estimated 30%. Banks rarely lend for buy‑to‑let, and with new restrictions, even fewer buyers will qualify. This means sellers are confined to a tiny number of cash investors, rendering many properties — especially rural ones — unsaleable.
3. Rent controls and uneconomic tenancies
Long‑term rent pressure zone caps have locked many landlords into sub‑market rents. Costs for insurance, maintenance, compliance and interest have risen sharply, but rents for sitting tenants can only grow by 2% a year. Without a realistic path to recover costs, properties eventually become loss‑making.Ireland’s rent control framework is already among the world’s most restrictive. The introduction of a second reference‑rent system between tenancies further discourages investment and stifles supply.
4. Complexity, compliance and disproportionate risk
Layering new rules on top of the old has created a system so complex that even careful landlords can fall foul of technicalities. A missed form or incorrect date can expose an individual to criminal prosecution, a wholly disproportionate consequence for what is often an honest procedural mistake.5. Practical, balanced reforms
A balanced approach could include:- Maintaining six‑year tenancies, but guaranteeing one clear, time‑bounded route to vacant possession at the end of each cycle.
- Using tax and planning incentives—for instance, CGT reliefs for tenant‑in‑situ or cost‑rental sales—rather than outright bans, to make tenant‑friendly exits attractive.
- Introducing a one‑off “catch‑up” mechanism for long‑standing under‑rented tenancies, combined with ongoing caps to avoid large shocks.
- Investing in RTB capacity to ensure faster mediation and adjudication, protecting both tenants and landlords from drawn‑out disputes.
- Scaling up social and cost‑rental supply so that vulnerable households are housed primarily through public, not private, tenancies.
Thank you for your attention to these concerns. I would welcome the opportunity to discuss them in more detail or to share real‑world examples from the sector.
Yours sincerely,
[Your Name]
[Your Address]
[Your Contact Information]
Forgive me if this question has already been answered and it's this: in the case of a part 4 tenancy where the 6 year tenancy ends in February before March1 proposed changes or afterwards in let's April 2026,Will a landlord be able to sell property without the tenant remaining in situ.I have so far not been able to get a Yes or No answer to this question.Any help greatly appreciated.
JoeRoberts
Registered User
- Messages
- 1,233
What makes you believe you wont be able to do so ?
LarryScott
Frequent Poster
- Messages
- 544
In theory, if you have a pre-22 tenancy, then it auto-renews with whatever the new rules are when it expires.
The current rules are unlimited duration tenancies (until March 1 2026).
In theory, you can evict at the end of a pre-22 tenancy (6 years after it started) and you don't have to give a reason. The idea is that you have the right to opt-out of the auto-renewal.
The NoT has to be sent before the end date and the termination date has to happen on or after the end date.
You have to give the appropriate notice depending on the length of the tenancy so far.
If you mess up the (complex) procedure, then the NoT will be invalid, and it is my understanding that messing up the NoT counts as not opting out.
Alternatively, you could decide not to opt-out. This means that the tenancy will auto-renew in February with the current rules.
This means that you will be able to evict under the current rules. Also the tenancy will have no new end date. There is no six year cycle for current tenancies. In theory, that means the tenancy will be permanently locked into the current rules. Ofc, who knows if future governments will respect that.
The current rules allow evicting for various reasons.. The thing you will lose is the right to evict for no reason at the end of the cycle. This is because current tenancies have no 6 year cycle anymore. Critically, you can evict to sell as long as you sell within 9 months of evicting, or evict because you want to move into the property.
Though, this is with a grain of salt. The government haven't even published the new legislation yet, not to mind passed it.
Exactly, unfortunately.
What @LarryScott has worked out is what should happen based on the current rules. Aside from a few basic FAQs we've no idea what the new rules actually are in situations like this. We won't know until the draft legislation is published after Christmas at this point.
If you are worried and were planning on selling in the future, you're as well off issuing an NoT at this stage. You can always withdraw it later if it turns out not to be necessary.
My thoughts exactly. You just dont know what trap is being sprung here, so protective NoT is required. IMO all landlords who can, should be issuing NoT, just to cover themselves, whether they have fully decided they want out or not. You cant be too careful with the sticks they are only too eager to make and use.