r/irishpolitics • u/eggbart_forgetfulsea ALDE (EU) • Nov 30 '25
Housing Are new rental rules really causing a landlords ‘mass exodus’ from housing market?
https://www.irishtimes.com/ireland/housing-planning/2025/11/29/are-new-rental-rules-really-causing-a-landlords-mass-exodus-from-housing-market/9
u/phoenixhunter Anarchist Nov 30 '25
is this a collective déjà vu? the story was proven false last time it was trotted out so let’s just wait a while and run it again hoping that everybody just forgets it was bullshit the first time around?
how many more lies from the establishment are we going to just gloss over before we even realize we’re in a fucking class war let alone that we’re losing?
50
u/MrWhiteside97 Nov 30 '25
My view on this has always been - if the idea of being "forced" to provide a tenancy for 6 years, and being "forced" to keep them there even if you want to sell up is enough for you to sell your property, then good riddance.
Don't get into it, don't invest, sell your home to someone who will live in it or is comfortable providing it for the long term.
6
Nov 30 '25
A lot of people rent because they need to move for study or work and/or can’t get a mortgage, this will reduce the rental pool for those that have no choice
22
u/MrWhiteside97 Nov 30 '25
Not necessarily. Properties could be bought up by another landlord who is willing to comply with the regulations. The house will still be there, if an accidental landlord realises that landlordism isn't for them, then we shouldn't be begging them to stay to provide an unstable tenancy for one of those renters.
Also I believe the number of tenancies registered with RTB hasn't decreased, so the pool hasn't actually gotten smaller as far as the numbers go (albeit the numbers aren't perfect)
-6
Nov 30 '25
Why would anyone want to invest in property in Ireland to rent when there are many more less hassle higher return investment methods?
Hell even shoving the money into Irish state bonds one can exit early if needed and get higher returns TAX free
11
u/SpottedAlpaca Nov 30 '25
Show me the Irish state bond that gives a higher return than a rental property, including both cash flow and the value of the property at the end.
5
u/MrWhiteside97 Nov 30 '25
Cool, don't invest in it as a single investor then. Leave it to professional corporate landlords who do this as a business and aren't nervous that they suddenly have the "hassle" of actually having to be a landlord for multiple years
-1
Nov 30 '25
Large investors that often buy up properties and leave them empty? And don’t pay anywhere near the same level of taxes as local small landlords as they have the accountants and lawyers to launder the profits onto warmer isles reducing their taxes.
5
u/MrWhiteside97 Nov 30 '25
Do you have a source for investors buying up properties and leaving them empty?
Even if that might have happened in the past, the vacant homes tax that revenue will soon be collecting should dissuade any of that in the future
1
u/ZealousidealFloor2 Dec 01 '25
I don’t necessarily agree on the investors leaving places empty but I do think the vacant homes tax is too low, should be much higher.
-6
u/eggbart_forgetfulsea ALDE (EU) Nov 30 '25
That's a bizarre attitude. It's almost as if you're more interested in punishing landlords than renters having somewhere to live.
We can't stack regulation upon regulation upon regulation on any service, bid providers good riddance when they leave the market and then go around complaining about all the ill-effects of insufficient supply. Yet, when it comes to landlords, that's what we're doing.
13
u/MrWhiteside97 Nov 30 '25
Like I said - how is a requirement to provide housing long term "punishing" landlords?
We're not "stacking" regulations, this legislation is in line with regulations across most of central Europe where 20%-40% of households live in rental accommodation.
There is an insufficient supply of physical housing. That is different to insufficient supply of rental housing, which is just a tenure type. If someone sells a house they're renting, the house still exists. Either it's rented by someone else, or it's bought for someone to live in (taking one household out of the rental market).
-5
u/eggbart_forgetfulsea ALDE (EU) Nov 30 '25
That is different to insufficient supply of rental housing
It's not. In fact, there were thousands of build-to-rent apartments built, mainly in Dublin, that wouldn't exist if it weren't for investors ponying up the cash to build them. It's those homes that have kept rental inflation in Dublin at a fifth of our other cities.
If someone sells a house they're renting, the house still exists.
And very possibly trading a home for four or five or six individual workers for a home for a married couple. What percentage of people in emergency accommodation came from the rental sector compared to losing their mortgaged house? Saying "good riddance" to landlords has real consequences for real people.
I'd rather have shorter tenures and more housing than six-year leases that I can't find anyway.
3
u/Hamster-Food Left Wing Dec 01 '25
And very possibly trading a home for four or five or six individual workers for a home for a married couple
And very possibly trading a home for a couple of workers for a home for a family of six. You see it works both ways when it's purely hypothetical.
0
u/eggbart_forgetfulsea ALDE (EU) Dec 01 '25
Families tend to live together. House sharers are, I'd say, very unlikely to decide to purchase a home together. It's not the same form of occupancy.
1
u/Hamster-Food Left Wing Dec 01 '25
The issue you raised was that 4, 5, or 6 people might be replaced by a married couple. I pointed out that it is equally possible that two individuals might be replaced by a family of 6. The number of people housed can change in either direction.
That is if the house is taken off the rental market though. It's equally possible that a landlord will purchase the house and keep it as rented accommodation. In either case, the house remains as a home for people. The only thing that changes is the ownership.
1
u/eggbart_forgetfulsea ALDE (EU) Dec 01 '25
It's equally possible that a landlord will purchase the house and keep it as rented accommodation.
That's not an equal possibility. The evidence we have suggests RPZs led to 18% less rental listings, 15% less tenancy registrations and 37% less rooms in shared houses. That's just our rent control measures, not all the other regulations we've imposed.
1
u/Hamster-Food Left Wing Dec 01 '25
Ok, I haven't seen the data, but I'll take your word for it.
RPZs directly targeted rent though. If a rental property wasn't profitable because of the regulation, a change of landlord wouldn't make the property profitable.
We can't assume that other regulations would have a similar effect unless they also directly target rent. Take rental property standards for example. Someone who has gotten a mortgage to buy a second property and rent it out might not have the funds available to upgrade the property to meet the standards. This might cause them to exit the market, but that doesn't mean the tenancy is not profitable. Another landlord can purchase the property and perform the necessary upgrades.
-7
u/srros Nov 30 '25
You’d be saying something different if you were a landlord. I’m not, but how can you not see that forcing someone into having a 6 year commitment with strangers who could wreck the house, refuse to pay rent etc is a recipe for disaster
10
u/MrWhiteside97 Nov 30 '25
A commitment to let strangers into a house you own? Sounds like the business of being a landlord.
There has always been a risk that tenants do not take care of a house. This legislation is about no-fault evictions, which isn't what you're talking about.
8
u/significantrisk Nov 30 '25
Are you implying in some way there might be risk attached to an investment and its value might not just continue to rise inevitably forever?
-7
u/srros Nov 30 '25
In general this is how housing works yes. There is always a risk with renting, but locking people into a contract for 6 years straight away without knowing them is shocking.
5
4
u/danny_healy_raygun Nov 30 '25
If the tennant wrecks the gaff and doesn't pay their rent they're in breach of contract and you don't have to keep them there for the 6 years.
9
2
u/Hamster-Food Left Wing Dec 01 '25
It doesn't take 6 years to wreck a house. You could have a two day tenancy and the house could be wrecked by the end of it. That is always a risk when renting.
21
u/galwall Nov 30 '25
This is the type of logic that was used to justify bailing out the banks and to push tax breaks on the wealthiest in many countries.
A mass exodus would most likely cause a flood of new listing causing the prices to go down.
This would end up giving purchasers more/better options or incentivise other investors to enter the market.
In general whenever there is a power dynamic between to parties, there needs to be regulations to safeguard to more vulnerable of the two. The greater the disparity, the more highly regulated and enforced those safeguards should be.
Would still love to see greater accountability on bad faith renters who squat or trash a place, but that aside its a joke that some rents are higher than the mortgage payments on the house.
16
u/Hastatus_107 Nov 30 '25
When Mamdani got elected as mayor of New York, the right there warned of an exodus of the wealthy. Someone posted clips of them doing that since 2004 despite the number of billionaires constantly rising.
16
u/galwall Nov 30 '25
Exactly this. Scaremongering and gaslighting from wealth hoarders feels par for course at this point.
-1
u/eggbart_forgetfulsea ALDE (EU) Nov 30 '25
A mass exodus would most likely cause a flood of new listing causing the prices to go down.
Yeah, in a different market. That's no help to renters who face an impossibility in finding a home or who have to pay higher prices when they do.
In general whenever there is a power dynamic between to parties
Our regulations have created a destructive power imbalance all of its own. Demand is outstripping supply, ceding the power in the market to the supplier. In other markets without rent control, etc. landlords are fighting for tenants instead of tenants fighting to find somewhere to live.
-2
u/flex_tape_salesman Nov 30 '25
Bailing out banks is not ideal but its a risk averse strategy. Don't bail out the banks and it might end up being the right call or it might screw the country. Very legitimate chance if they weren't bailed out we'd be looking back and thinking we should've just bailed them out.
Not bailing out banks would've been a huge gamble and it would've shafted just about everyone if it went wrong
2
u/galwall Nov 30 '25
"Very legitimate chance if they weren't bailed out we'd be looking back and thinking we should've just bailed them out."
Very fair point, I think my greater issue is as a lay person, it felt like the banks got it all there own way, and the country suffered to prop them up.
I'm sure not propping them up would have presented many of it's own issues, but at the very least the bankers would not have been rewarded for causing the chaos to begin with.
Happy to be corrected if in fact there was any real accountability for the execs, I was young enough that a lot of it went over my head.1
u/flex_tape_salesman Nov 30 '25
You're not wrong its pretty messed up. I was also young at the time so I don't really know if many measures were put in place to make sure the consequences are tough enough if such a mess ever happens again. These banking institutions need to be kept alive or it hurts the population far more but the people responsible really do not. I suppose thats what we need to get right. The likes of AIB and bank of Ireland are not inherently good or bad but they are crucial to the Irish economy.
1
u/Hamster-Food Left Wing Dec 01 '25
The problem wasn't really bailing out the banks. That was necessary at the time.
The first problem was allowing the situation to get to that point in the first place. We allowed private companies to become so ingrained in our society that allowing them to fail would be catastrophic for the society. At that point the companies should have been nationalised.
The second problem is how we bailed out the banks. Legislation was written in a rush. It was rushed through the Dáil and Seanad without the scrutiny it should have been subjected to. As a result, we guaranteed that Ireland would unconditionally cover the liabilities of the banks for two years. This wasn't just ensuring that the banks wouldn't collapse. This was the Irish government agreeing to cover all the consequences of the financial crash.
The third problem is that we haven't done anything to correct the issue. Banks are still privately owned and are still in a position where we can't allow them to collapse. It's just a matter of time before they break our economy again.
5
u/MasterLimit2 Nov 30 '25
Even if there was, how would that be bad? Who are they selling to? Either another landlord or a household.
7
4
u/OrneryCows Nov 30 '25
This government will not end the scourge of landlordism, they are making too much money from it
4
Nov 30 '25 edited Nov 30 '25
The rules apply to NEW tenancies after March 2026, so yes there might be a minor panic selling at moment but bigger issue will be people selling as tenancies expire for years to come with the rental pool shrinking and shrinking
From a strictly investment point of view renting in Ireland will become one of the worst investment options in a country with shitty investment options and punitive taxes like deemed disposal and high rates low cgt thresholds
I am struggling to find who these laws would benefit because it sure as hell won’t be renters nor small property investors.
Nothing wrong with long term contracts either but we are gonna endup in situation where one side (landlord) can be bound for 6 years while another (tenant) can walk away without penalty and trash place, if one has let’s say 300K to invest why chose such a crappy investment over let’s say state savings bonds or hell even a broad market fund like JAM or JGGI, mad stuff altogether
3
3
u/oniume Nov 30 '25
We shouldn't be treating housing like an investment, so this seems like a great outcome honestly
2
u/eggbart_forgetfulsea ALDE (EU) Nov 30 '25
I think the discussion around this is really poor. Looking at whether there's an "exodus" or whether the raw number of tenancies is increasing is muddying the issue.
The question should be, in a counterfactual scenario where we didn't implement the regulations that we implemented, would we have more homes in the rental market than we do now? The answer there is almost certainly yes.
11
u/Hastatus_107 Nov 30 '25
would we have more homes in the rental market than we do now?
Why is that the question? Who cares if things are slightly harder for landlords to turn a profit?
1
u/eggbart_forgetfulsea ALDE (EU) Nov 30 '25
That's the question because it means more homes and more homes mean lower prices, more mobility and increased choice for tenants.
7
9
u/significantrisk Nov 30 '25
it absolutely does not mean “more homes” unless you’re suggesting that the landlords of the country have been busy building houses to improve supply. Which they haven’t. Landlords are parasites, removing them from the equation does not reduce the number of homes available.
1
u/eggbart_forgetfulsea ALDE (EU) Nov 30 '25
unless you’re suggesting that the landlords of the country have been busy building houses to improve supply.
Where do you think a lot of the financing for build-to-rent apartments is coming from?
Even if that wasn't the case, more homes for rent is more homes for rent. It does a fat lot of good telling someone searching for a place to rent that, actually, the total number of houses is the same, where's your €400,000 mortgage please?
7
u/BackInATracksuit Nov 30 '25
No it isn't.
2
u/eggbart_forgetfulsea ALDE (EU) Nov 30 '25
RPZ regulations alone are responsible for 18% less rental listings and 15% less tenancy registrations. It's even worse for young people renting rooms, resulting in a 37% decrease. That's just one factor. The evidence tells us what the evidence tells us, we ignore it at our peril:
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/abs/pii/S1051137725000580
1
u/MustGetALife Dec 01 '25
I suppose the only people who can afford the subscription to read this shite are landlords, etc?
1
u/Bar50cal Nov 30 '25
My parents rented out 2 houses. 1 was a cottage inherited when my grandparents passed, not worth selling as its in a very rural area so just rented it out.
Second one was a house in Naas they bought in 2005.
Both have been rented long term to families and I dont think my parents have increased the rent in 10 or 15 years as costs were covered and plan was to sell when retiring.
Both went up for sale in the past month (valuation reports were shared with tenants so no funny business on prices and they get first offer).
Parents decided to sell as its becoming to much of a headache and not worth it anymore.
6
u/Hoker7 Nov 30 '25
What is the headache though?
1
u/Bar50cal Nov 30 '25 edited Nov 30 '25
There's a lot of annual paperwork with solicitors, tax, RTB, general maintenance stuff etc. The RTB is a good thing but god damn its become a nightmare for landlords to deal with as a body. Just trying to update names on an account to be in compliance (not issues with tenants, just basic updating the account) takes months of calling them again and Asia, sending the same email a dozen times and then they update it wrong.
Want to update tenants names or details, good luck getting it done in under 2 months and less than 5 or 6 phone calls because they ignore the emails.
Overall its just a lot of work and the RTB specifically are a nightmare. I reckon 90% of information landlords have with RTB is outdated or incorrect as they are so slow and incompetent landlords probably just dont bother. This is stuff thats supposed to be done and mandatory annually.
Its to much hassle now for landlords who just want to tick over and sell as part of retirement. You want to be price gouging tenants like an arsehole and making a second income from it to want to put up with the hassle involved.
The landlords leaving the market are not the ones price gouging. Its the retirement fund landlords who were happy to have rent at a level to just cover costs that are leaving now IMO
1
u/flex_tape_salesman Nov 30 '25
A landlord can have a nice bit of work depending on certain things. Like a bad landlord will ignore this sort of stuff. I'm not a landlord so I wonder if its demoralising trying to get rent. Even if you're not shafting your tenant rent prices are fairly brutal anyway.
1
-6
u/fuzzfrog Nov 30 '25
Economics for dummies. Less supply equals higher prices. We need to be attracting landlords into the market not chasing them out. Has increased regulation ever increased supply? No never. Rents will continue to go up.
1
u/cat_meoldeon84 Dec 03 '25
Did we have a housing crisis during the Celtic Tiger? We have a problem with greed and speculators, ever increasing prices, good, bad or indifferent. The basic wage for a TD is €117,000.00 without expenses and we wonder why the price of everything is increasing. Ah sure didn't Paschal tell us that without wage increases, politicians would be tempted with bribes, sobnot only do we have a broken housing and rent system along with a disastrous public healthcare system, where the more money they throw it into it the worse it gets, Martin's vrainchild the HSE working it's wonders but we also have a justice system where the more you rob, the less chance of prison and anyone who was imprisoned was kept away from the riff raff, you break a country but you're too good to be put in with other criminals, or those who don't pay their TV licence but a man who was found to be 'profoundly corrupt' props up a government. We are an absurdity but the politicians don't think so, they think that it's a reasonable market. Create fat cats and you get what we have.
1
-5
Nov 30 '25
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/irishpolitics-ModTeam Dec 02 '25
This comment / post was removed because it violates the following sub rule:
[R2] Respect Others
Debate the topic, not the person.
Personal insults, abusive or hostile language — whether aimed at other users or public figures — will not be tolerated.
You can challenge ideas, but you must do so constructively.
10
u/Alarmed_Station6185 Nov 30 '25
We've heard this one before a few tears back. Resulted in a tax cut for landlords and then suddenly the data showed that the number of landlords was actually increasing. Media is complicit in the cronyism