Who would be a landlord?
- Thread starter Greenbook
- Start date
Colleague told me this yesterday and he wasn’t happy with the minister or the RTB.
He reviewed rent last November, effective 01Feb26. The old rule was to update the register and send details to RTB within one month of the new rent kicking in. He did both in Feb. Received RTB letter two weeks later that he hadn’t complied with the procedure and they outlined the requirements for a rent review, ie 90 days notice to both tenant and RTB, use of the rent register, calculation details, documents to be sent to tenant and RTB at the same time etc. Also that he had a legal obligation as a landlord to comply with the regulations otherwise he would face fines and a possible criminal sanction.
He was very annoyed at the tone of the letter and their error because they were quoting the new March rules and didn’t seem to understand their own rules for anything pre-Mar. He wrote back and outlined when and how he did the rent review, the rules at the time, confirmed the register was updated and RTB were notified when required, the tenant had not raised a dispute. He objected to being accused of breaching his obligations and RTB rules, plus their threat of possible sanctions simply because they hadn’t checked the dates on the paperwork or their own database information. He also quoted their own web details proving he was fully compliant and demanded confirmation that his register account was fully up to date. He had another letter this week saying they received the update form (reason they wrote in the first place ) but said he should check the register details to confirm everything was in order. Not a mention of their mistake let alone an apology.
Colleague said he’s out, the minister was a disgrace when he said he ‘won’t stand for it’ about the Wexford case as those owners had a right to issue NoTs, and that the RTB is not remotely interested in assisting landlords, just trying to catch them out and fine them. He already contacted his solicitor to issue an NoT even though he had previously planned on staying until his tenant leaves.
That is exactly right. That he what the RTB sees its role as - catching out and fining landlords for mistakes in forms and misfilings.
It's other role is supporting the government's agenda on landlords. The manipulation of the Registers is a prime example of that.
Certain political parties in Ireland - we know who they are - like to play on the emotional aspects of the history of evictions in the famine times in Ireland, which we all read about in school. Obviously this is not relevant in a UK context. 30 years ago, landlords in Ireland were not vilified as "greedy swindlers" like they are now, and this has developed for purely political point-scoring reasons- browsing the rent register shows that the majority of rents in any area are mid-range (bell shaped graph) and not extortionate levels, which is what one would expect after 10 years of RPZs.
Incidentally, a deeper read into the famine history shows that Irish landlords at the time (meaning Anglo-Irish in most cases) were also despised by the English government and usually given little or no support to help their tenants.
Last edited:
Not hard to figure that one out since the foundation of the state only two main parties ever formed a government,
Over time they have drifted to the left and unlike other countries supporters of the two main parties have never pushed back on the drift to the left,
We get what we vote for, If landlords are unhappy with the drift to the left of FF/FG Landlords need to get involved in FF/FG and move them to the right a little,
They are so stupid. They dont even understand that them encouraging this is only going to make less and less people invest in property. They are the cause of exactly what they want to prevent. Make it harder to get control of your own property to exit the market leads to Less investment, less properties for rent, higher rent prices, making things far worse for people who need to leave their current property for whatever reason.
At the rate it's going the standard response to an NoT will be to overhold. With help from the RTB that can be dragged out for 2 or 3 years.
Another reason, along with all the other reasons, why you should not invest in a rental property
Thanks for flagging @Greenbook
I found the below quote amusing.
"As of this week, the RTB haven’t come back to the residents and their response seems slow."
Clearly no idea how things work - this is of a benefit to the tenants (and of course the accommodation provider suffers)
Based on current timelines at the RTB, if they dispute via adjudication today, they wont know the outcome until at least the end of this year (and of course they will be able to dispute it). Almost certainly with the pick up in disputes, this is going to take even longer. The RTB is truly not fit for purpose.
Politicians are fully aware of what they are doing, they understand the intricacies of the rental market..(as much as any of us, I mean it doesnt take a genius) I know in what they say, we think they dont, but they do..
They are looking for short term support
They couldnt care less about the housing crisis, they are doing nothing to fix it long term
They are playing a game
Anything they have implemented is making it worse
This is not specific to these political parties, unfortunately all, the world over, are like this.. So even if we vote in another party, it will be the same game, maybe slight better or worse, but they wont tackle the problem long term... We all know the solution, its actually very simple - more housing, but their not doing this, much easier and less expensive to blame and vilify the landlord... This is really all it boils down to...
If I had time I could add to the list...
They are looking for short term support
They couldnt care less about the housing crisis, they are doing nothing to fix it long term
They are playing a game
Anything they have implemented is making it worse
This is not specific to these political parties, unfortunately all, the world over, are like this.. So even if we vote in another party, it will be the same game, maybe slight better or worse, but they wont tackle the problem long term... We all know the solution, its actually very simple - more housing, but their not doing this, much easier and less expensive to blame and vilify the landlord... This is really all it boils down to...
If I had time I could add to the list...
There is a big divide on this between local and national government. You're unlikely to find a government TD or a minister publicly advising anyone to overhold. It's very different for a local councillor, even if they are members of FF or FG, as the councils have to deal directly with homelessness.
Hopefully these tenants have enough notice to find new accommodation that they can afford, but that may not be possible. If these 14 families are all displaced at once then you could have dozens of people requiring emergency accomodation. It's currently a story about how the Dáil is allowing this to happen but if they are left without housing it becomes a story of how the council has failed. All levels of government play a role but they do not share the blame equally.
Given the economic and social importance of rental accommodation, it's hard to understand how landlords have been so ineffective at organising and advocating for themselves over the years. Hospitality did a phenomenal job keeping the 9% VAT even though hotels are eye-wateringly expensive now. Horseracing getting billions in subsidies. How the vaping industry has shot up and avoided so much regulation is remarkable work. Taxis still blocking Uber. Landlords arguably play a much more important role than any of these groups and yet seem unable to lobby effectively.
Unfortunately they are masking this by blaming the landlord, and they seem to be getting away with it..
Vaping was heavily taxed last year
Dont these 3 have bodies that look out for them? Landlords dont have anything like this?
Not defending in any way... agree with your sentiment entirely
Have they tried?
Edit
It's a classic example of a section of society being "othered". It is then 'wrong' to attempt to see things from their perspective.
Last edited:
And how would such a diverse group do this, easier said than done?
In all the 3 cases mentioned by arbitron above, they are all businesses as such, and they have bodies that help protect them, It is their livelihood.
Whereas a small landlord it is a sideline / investment, how would a small landlord with 1 or 2 properties go about starting this?
Last edited:
I back up this assertation with data in the Rent Register thread...
RTB Rent Register
I think people are forgetting that market rent in a rising market is always going to be higher than the previous rent set in that market. BY what percentage. Well thats what a any person company is willing to pay for the property to secure it. If you advertise above what the market dictates...
www.askaboutmoney.com
The rents are so reasonable that Mark Keenan in the Irish Independent accused us of lying to the RTB about the rents we charge.
The narrative is ingrained at this point that we are all charging our tenants thousands per month for tiny hovels.
Again, who would be a landlord. We are always bad actors.
A 'story' from Threshold
Case Study: Niall’s Story
Niall was contacted by his landlord at the beginning of 2026, who said they were unsure whether they would continue renting out the property after the new rules came into effect from 1 March 2026. The conversation came as a shock, particularly as Niall believed he had a good relationship with his landlord.
Niall got in touch with Threshold and spoke to Threshold advisor Jasmine*, who reassured Niall that the landlord had not issued a valid Notice of Termination (NoT) under the Residential Tenancies Act, as all communication had taken place verbally. Jasmine also clarified that the new legislation did not apply to his tenancy, as it had begun before 1 March 2026.
Despite this, Niall felt under pressure and ultimately chose to leave the property, finding alternative accommodation for his family.
Jasmine says this reflects a broader trend, with some renters accepting unlawful or unfair treatment because they do not want to risk losing their tenancy or damaging a future reference.
All that seems to have happened here (if this actually happened at all) is that the landlord was genuinely confused as to whether the new rules applied to existing tenancies or not. That's not surprising. We have many posters here who are very knowledgeable about this area and they were confused. The Minister released a vague press statement in June and vanished.
So, all the landlord was doing here was giving the tenant the heads up. If the new legislation did apply to existing tenancies, he would be might selling.
The tenant, despite a good relationship with his landlord, felt under pressure because of this and left his tenancy (a bit questionable as this was presumably a rent capped tenancy with a nice landlord and considering the lack of supply especially for families).
This apparently "reflects a broader trend, with some renters accepting unlawful or unfair treatment" - the implication that the landlord acted unlawfully and/or unfairly here and this is part of a broader trend of misbehaviour by landlords.
A 'story' from Threshold
Case Study: Niall’s Story
Niall was contacted by his landlord at the beginning of 2026, who said they were unsure whether they would continue renting out the property after the new rules came into effect from 1 March 2026. The conversation came as a shock, particularly as Niall believed he had a good relationship with his landlord.
Niall got in touch with Threshold and spoke to Threshold advisor Jasmine*, who reassured Niall that the landlord had not issued a valid Notice of Termination (NoT) under the Residential Tenancies Act, as all communication had taken place verbally. Jasmine also clarified that the new legislation did not apply to his tenancy, as it had begun before 1 March 2026.
Despite this, Niall felt under pressure and ultimately chose to leave the property, finding alternative accommodation for his family.
Jasmine says this reflects a broader trend, with some renters accepting unlawful or unfair treatment because they do not want to risk losing their tenancy or damaging a future reference.
All that seems to have happened here (if this actually happened at all) is that the landlord was genuinely confused as to whether the new rules applied to existing tenancies or not. That's not surprising. We have many posters here who are very knowledgeable about this area and they were confused. The Minister released a vague press statement in June and vanished.
So, all the landlord was doing here was giving the tenant the heads up. If the new legislation did apply to existing tenancies, he would be might selling.
The tenant, despite a good relationship with his landlord, felt under pressure because of this and left his tenancy (a bit questionable as this was presumably a rent capped tenancy with a nice landlord and considering the lack of supply especially for families).
This apparently "reflects a broader trend, with some renters accepting unlawful or unfair treatment" - the implication that the landlord acted unlawfully and/or unfairly here and this is part of a broader trend of misbehaviour by landlords.
Imagine being the bad guy for giving someone a heads up that you would be quitting the business when the goal posts are moved again. Nobody was sure that they would be renting their property after the March rules. Many still arent sure. I would think it would actually be a good thing to give your tenant the heads up.
It is incredible alright and classified by Threshold as an example of unlawful or unfair treatment!
I'm not a landlord but could become an accidental one in future and have possibly a naive question: If a tenant stops paying rent is there not a landlord's insurance or rental guarantee insurance that would cover it so there would be no loss of earning?
Thanks
Thanks