The RTB's own tenancy agreement template
The RTB publishes a sample tenancy agreement for new tenancies. The cover says it "reflects the law as of 14 September 2026". The footer says "V5 - 01.03.26". It also says the RTB "accepts no responsibility for inaccuracies, errors or omissions in the template".
Landlords get no such indulgence. In https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-outcomes-and-orders/adjudication-and-tribunal-orders/?_search=TR0001393 (TR0001393) the warning letter demanded EUR 913 when the arrears were EUR 903. Think about that: one digit wrong, a "1" where there should have been a "0", and the notice of termination that followed was invalid. Had the landlord acted on that notice, even just by telling the tenant he had to be out by the date on it, he could have been prosecuted under s.74:
That offence can carry a prison sentence. A single digit discrepancy turns a landlord following the process into a potential criminal.
Here is what a landlord relying on the RTB's template would get wrong.
1. Larger landlords lose two of their three grounds
Clause 38 lists the grounds: (i) to (iv) for all landlords, then (v) to (x) under the heading "Smaller Landlords", covering sale, family use, refurbishment and change of use. Under "Larger Landlords" it then says:
That sentence is inside clause 38, so it refers to itself. It should say 38(i) to (iv). You work out what it means from the headings, not from the words.
Then the note beside the break-clause options under clause 39 says larger landlords "may refer to clause 38 (iii)". That's one ground, the dwelling no longer suiting the tenant's needs. It leaves out rent arrears and breach of obligations, the two grounds a larger landlord actually uses.
Read that note again. Does the RTB now intend that a landlord with four or more tenancies can't serve a notice of termination on a tenant who stops paying rent or breaches their obligations? That's what it says. The Act says no such thing: arrears and breach are available to every landlord, and the RTB's own guidance page says so. But a landlord reading the template doesn't see the Act or the guidance page. He sees the RTB's lease telling him he has one ground, and it isn't the one he needs.
So the template gives a larger landlord two answers to the one question that matters: one that points at the whole clause, and one that points at a single ground. A landlord who reads the note and concludes he can't act on arrears has been misled by the RTB's own document.
2. It leaves out the 120-day cap
Clause 41(a) gives the minimum notice for a tenancy under six months as 90 days, and says nothing more. Since 14 September the maximum is 120 days (s.65(4), as amended by s.28 of the 2026 Act):
Think about who this catches. A landlord who wants to be decent and gives a short-term tenant six months to find somewhere new has given more notice than the Act allows. If the notice falls, the tenancy runs past six months and becomes a six-year tenancy of minimum duration. For a larger landlord, that is in practice a tenancy for life.
Is this a trap set for landlords being decent with their tenants? The template invites them to give more than the minimum, and the law then punishes them for doing it.
3. It narrows the definition of anti-social behaviour
s.17(1)(b) covers behaviour that:
The RTB's template lease version in clause 16 is narrower than the law in three ways:
The landlord owes the neighbours a duty to enforce. A landlord who reads clause 16, decides the behaviour doesn't qualify and holds off can end up paying the neighbours instead (https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-outcomes-and-orders/adjudication-and-tribunal-orders/?_search=TR0001197 (TR0001197), EUR 10,000). The tenant behaves badly, the RTB's template tells the landlord it doesn't count, and come the Tribunal, it's the landlord who pays.
4. Cross-references to clauses that don't exist
Clause 43(a)(ii), on service, refers to an address provided "at clause 43(c) or clause 43(d)". There is no clause 43(c) or 43(d), and nowhere in the template to give a service address.
Service is where landlords lose notices: wrong date, wrong method, RTB copy a day out. The RTB holds landlords to the letter on it, and the service clause in its own template points to clauses that were never written.
5. The new tenancy types are muddled
Part F calls it a "Tenancy of Unlimited Duration (TMD)". TMD is the abbreviation for a tenancy of MINIMUM duration, and the two are different things. The note to clause 39 merges them into "a Tenancy of Unlimited Duration with a minimum duration of six years".
A landlord signing this can't tell from the RTB's own document whether he is granting six years or forever. That is the single most important thing he needs to know before he signs.
And the housekeeping, it's not good
In fairness
Not every error favours tenants. Clause 29(d) sets out when a landlord must reimburse a tenant for repairs. s.12(1)(g) has two conditions: the landlord refused or failed to do the repair, and putting it off would have been unreasonable. The template adds a third, that the landlord "could not be contacted after all reasonable attempts", and joins it with "and". That condition isn't in the Act, and it makes the tenant's claim harder than the law does. Nobody designed that.
The difference is who pays for the mistakes. A tenant who relies on clause 29(d) may not claim money he's owed. A landlord who relies on clause 38 or clause 41 can lose his notice, months or years of time and possibly damages, and in the worst case be left with a tenancy he can never end. Meanwhile the RTB, which wrote the template, accepts no responsibility for it.
So, is this another example of anti-landlord sentiment at the RTB, or just carelessness? Either way, it's landlords who carry the risk, up to and including 12 months in Mountjoy.
If I've got anything wrong above, say so and I'll correct it (that's more than the template offers)
The RTB publishes a sample tenancy agreement for new tenancies. The cover says it "reflects the law as of 14 September 2026". The footer says "V5 - 01.03.26". It also says the RTB "accepts no responsibility for inaccuracies, errors or omissions in the template".
Landlords get no such indulgence. In https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-outcomes-and-orders/adjudication-and-tribunal-orders/?_search=TR0001393 (TR0001393) the warning letter demanded EUR 913 when the arrears were EUR 903. Think about that: one digit wrong, a "1" where there should have been a "0", and the notice of termination that followed was invalid. Had the landlord acted on that notice, even just by telling the tenant he had to be out by the date on it, he could have been prosecuted under s.74:
"A person is guilty of an offence if (a) a notice of termination that is invalid purports to be served by the person (or on his or her behalf) in respect of a tenancy, and (b) the person does any act, in reliance on the notice, that affects adversely, or is calculated to affect adversely, any interest of the person on whom the notice is served."
That offence can carry a prison sentence. A single digit discrepancy turns a landlord following the process into a potential criminal.
Here is what a landlord relying on the RTB's template would get wrong.
1. Larger landlords lose two of their three grounds
Clause 38 lists the grounds: (i) to (iv) for all landlords, then (v) to (x) under the heading "Smaller Landlords", covering sale, family use, refurbishment and change of use. Under "Larger Landlords" it then says:
"A 'larger landlord' may only terminate a tenancy under the grounds at clause 38. For the avoidance of doubt this the case both during and at the end of a 6 year TMD."
That sentence is inside clause 38, so it refers to itself. It should say 38(i) to (iv). You work out what it means from the headings, not from the words.
Then the note beside the break-clause options under clause 39 says larger landlords "may refer to clause 38 (iii)". That's one ground, the dwelling no longer suiting the tenant's needs. It leaves out rent arrears and breach of obligations, the two grounds a larger landlord actually uses.
Read that note again. Does the RTB now intend that a landlord with four or more tenancies can't serve a notice of termination on a tenant who stops paying rent or breaches their obligations? That's what it says. The Act says no such thing: arrears and breach are available to every landlord, and the RTB's own guidance page says so. But a landlord reading the template doesn't see the Act or the guidance page. He sees the RTB's lease telling him he has one ground, and it isn't the one he needs.
So the template gives a larger landlord two answers to the one question that matters: one that points at the whole clause, and one that points at a single ground. A landlord who reads the note and concludes he can't act on arrears has been misled by the RTB's own document.
2. It leaves out the 120-day cap
Clause 41(a) gives the minimum notice for a tenancy under six months as 90 days, and says nothing more. Since 14 September the maximum is 120 days (s.65(4), as amended by s.28 of the 2026 Act):
"If the duration of the tenancy concerned is less than 6 months, a period of notice of more than 120 days may not be given in respect of it."
Think about who this catches. A landlord who wants to be decent and gives a short-term tenant six months to find somewhere new has given more notice than the Act allows. If the notice falls, the tenancy runs past six months and becomes a six-year tenancy of minimum duration. For a larger landlord, that is in practice a tenancy for life.
Is this a trap set for landlords being decent with their tenants? The template invites them to give more than the minimum, and the law then punishes them for doing it.
3. It narrows the definition of anti-social behaviour
s.17(1)(b) covers behaviour that:
"causes or could cause fear, danger, injury, damage or loss to any person living, working or otherwise lawfully in the dwelling concerned or its vicinity"
The RTB's template lease version in clause 16 is narrower than the law in three ways:
- The Act covers behaviour that "could cause" harm. The template only covers behaviour that actually "causes" it. A tenant who stores petrol in the hall or wedges the fire door open hasn't hurt anyone yet, so under the template it may not count.
- The Act protects anyone living, working or lawfully present in or near the property. The template only protects people in the dwelling and the neighbours. A contractor working in the common hall, or someone passing on the street, isn't covered.
- For ongoing nuisance behaviour, the Act covers a tenant who persistently disturbs anyone in the dwelling, anyone else in the building, or the neighbours. The template says the behaviour must interfere with "other tenants' peaceful occupation of the Dwelling and the peaceful occupation by neighbours of their properties". On its face that's both, not either, and a landlord with a single tenant in a house has no "other tenants" at all.
The landlord owes the neighbours a duty to enforce. A landlord who reads clause 16, decides the behaviour doesn't qualify and holds off can end up paying the neighbours instead (https://rtb.ie/disputes/dispute-outcomes-and-orders/adjudication-and-tribunal-orders/?_search=TR0001197 (TR0001197), EUR 10,000). The tenant behaves badly, the RTB's template tells the landlord it doesn't count, and come the Tribunal, it's the landlord who pays.
4. Cross-references to clauses that don't exist
Clause 43(a)(ii), on service, refers to an address provided "at clause 43(c) or clause 43(d)". There is no clause 43(c) or 43(d), and nowhere in the template to give a service address.
Service is where landlords lose notices: wrong date, wrong method, RTB copy a day out. The RTB holds landlords to the letter on it, and the service clause in its own template points to clauses that were never written.
5. The new tenancy types are muddled
Part F calls it a "Tenancy of Unlimited Duration (TMD)". TMD is the abbreviation for a tenancy of MINIMUM duration, and the two are different things. The note to clause 39 merges them into "a Tenancy of Unlimited Duration with a minimum duration of six years".
A landlord signing this can't tell from the RTB's own document whether he is granting six years or forever. That is the single most important thing he needs to know before he signs.
And the housekeeping, it's not good
- Clause 25 says the notice of rent setting goes to the tenant and the RTB "at the commencement of the tenancy". That was the rule until 14 September, when the RTB's deadline became one month. The note at clause 2 has the new rule, so the template gives both.
- The contents page says "Part J - Signatures"; the heading in the body says "Part I".
- Clause 27 has two paragraphs lettered (a).
- "expressively provided for" should be "expressly".
- "For the avoidance of doubt this the case" is missing a word.
In fairness
Not every error favours tenants. Clause 29(d) sets out when a landlord must reimburse a tenant for repairs. s.12(1)(g) has two conditions: the landlord refused or failed to do the repair, and putting it off would have been unreasonable. The template adds a third, that the landlord "could not be contacted after all reasonable attempts", and joins it with "and". That condition isn't in the Act, and it makes the tenant's claim harder than the law does. Nobody designed that.
The difference is who pays for the mistakes. A tenant who relies on clause 29(d) may not claim money he's owed. A landlord who relies on clause 38 or clause 41 can lose his notice, months or years of time and possibly damages, and in the worst case be left with a tenancy he can never end. Meanwhile the RTB, which wrote the template, accepts no responsibility for it.
So, is this another example of anti-landlord sentiment at the RTB, or just carelessness? Either way, it's landlords who carry the risk, up to and including 12 months in Mountjoy.
If I've got anything wrong above, say so and I'll correct it (that's more than the template offers)
