Key Post What are the additional restrictions for individuals with a few properties but 4 or more?

Landlord
I would like to think the 5,10, 15 year time frame would be upheld for contracts signed before March 2026 but doubt very much this will be the case.
After all our 1 year contracts changed to once tenants were over 6 months in accommodation they could stay 4 years then 6 years and there was no longer such a thing ad a 1 year contract.

Personally I am happier if tenants stay mo longer that 3 to 4 years because I then can arrange to refurbish and repaint etc which is almost impossible with tenants in situ.

GREENBOOK
I also agree that once tenants permanently in situ the government will change the rules around standards and BER ratings etc and whilst in the long run this is not a bad thing it's again the fact that Landlords control is completely diminished whilst Local Authorites and some Housing Agencies are not required to meet similar standards.

Silversurfer: Perhshs now is the time for Landlords to take on the challenge again.
 
Meath Lady said:
After all our 1 year contracts changed to once tenants were over 6 months in accommodation they could stay 4 years then 6 years and there was no longer such a thing ad a 1 year contract.
Click to expand...
It didn't happen quite like that. If you had granted a four year contract, if you didn't end it before the four years, it became a six year contract then. The same thing happened with 6 year contracts. If you didn't end it before the 6 years were up, at year 6 it became indefinite. I think they had to do it that way because of legal issues.

I would think based on this that any current contracts will have to stay as they are, but obviously I'm not 100% sure. We will have to wait for the legislation. Based on the chaos so far, they may not have entirely thought this through themselves.
 
Last edited:

We currently have 4 properties rented out, so we will be classed as a 'large' landlord until one of the tenancies end and we can either sell or take off the rental market.

One of our existing leases (which happens to be on the largest property and lowest in rent) was taken out in May 2021 (previous tenant left then and new tenant moved in on this date, with a new tenancy). Am I right in thinking this lease would therefore still fall under the previous Part 4 Tenancy, which means we can still end the lease without a specific reason after 6 years (which would be May 2027)?

It is quite a worrying situation now that these new changes have been brought in for landlords, especially if there is a possibility that our right to terminate an existing lease is somehow taken away. All our properties are significantly below market rent, however this has never concerned us as we knew we had the right to sell or use for one of our children down the line if we needed to. We had hoped to be able to do this when the market calmed down and there were more options available for tenants (ie. we wouldn't like to evict a good tenant into the current market knowing there is very little else out there). As it stands, there is absolutely nothing available to rent on DAFT in my town or neighbouring towns. It is very difficult knowing we might have to choose between the very real possibility of making someone homeless and protecting our right to access or sell our property in future!
 
I would think so, I don't think they can unilaterally and fundamentally change an existing lease. That said, we'll only know when we see the legislation and that will change as it goes through the legislative process.
 
Im wondering if you have 2 leases that commenced before 1/3/26 and 2 leases that commenced after 1/3/26 are you classed as a small landlord?
 
Millie* said:
Im wondering if you have 2 leases that commenced before 1/3/26 and 2 leases that commenced after 1/3/26 are you classed as a small landlord?
Click to expand...
I strongly suspect that you are. I don't think it matters when the leases start, that you have four rental properties is sufficient. Usual caveat though, we won't know for certain until we see the legislation.
 
When I read the various statements issued it said somewhere that extra rights were being sought for tenants in exchange for market rent for landlords.

If you have 2 property leases that are already existing and you are not on market rent rates
and 2 new leases at market rent then I think it would be unfair to count these 2 earlier leases in your portfolio as that would bring all 4 into the net classing you as large landlord that allows tenants to stay indefinitely and where one can only sell all of them with the tenants in situ.
 
I think you are correct that it would be unfair alright, but I doubt that fairness comes into this at all at this stage. How is it fair to treat a landlord with 4 properties the same as a fund with thousands? In an effort to solve the mess which the politicians largely caused themselves any notion of fairness to landlords has long gone out the window.

Don't expect that bad things won't happen to you because they are unfair. No politician is on your side, you're cannon fodder.
 
I wouldn't be surprised if the big corporate investors are not happy with the tenant in situ either.
Everyone wants the maximum sale price when they sell a property.
If you have a tenant in situ you are possibly looking at a very reduced selling price and also a greatly reduced amount of potential buyers.
 
Folks

Please read the thread titles.

If the title is clearly about trying to understand these vague and complex proposals, please avoid letting off steam as it just takes the thread down a rabbit hole.

This includes making a good explanatory post and then having a throwaway line at the end which lets off steam, because that is what people will respond to.

Thanks

Brendan
 
Can anyone provide a link to a full and comprehensive list of Tenant Breaches that can legally be added to all future leases.
Will definitely be required to protect Landlords into the future should they proceed under the new rules.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register