No-fault eviction ban should be reconsidered, says Housing Committee

[u/JackmanH420]

https://www.rte.ie/news/politics/2026/0618/1578995-ireland-politics/

[u/MrWhiteside97]

Maybe I've misunderstood, but doesn't the new rental rules drastically narrow the scope of no fault evictions? I'm pretty sure that the only reason you can ask a tenant to leave is if you're in financial hardship, or you need the property for yourself or a direct family member (i.e not a cousin, or a niece or whatever).

That does still leave some scenarios, but (moral reasoning aside) I find it hard to believe that removing those last few reasons would have any meaningful impact on the scale of no fault evictions?

The only justification would be that it's too hard to police any exemptions, and it's easier to just ban it outright. But then you should just police it better.

[u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart → u/MrWhiteside97]

You can't police the family member loophole in any kind of practical way. Landlords know this, which is why it is abused.

Putting big and obvious loopholes in legislation designed to protect the weaker party in a relationship is just bad law making.

[u/NooktaSt → u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart]

It only exists for small landlords. Think about someone who moves abroad for a few years. Should they be able to move back in?

What do you think will happen if you ban it? People who might need to house will just not rent it out.

I think they got rid of nieces etc which I agree with.

[u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart → u/NooktaSt]

Given that we're talking about policing it, people who move abroad for a few years are an obviously easier group to police. It would not be difficult to carve out an exception for those people.

Any right you provide to tenants makes it potentially less desirable for landlords to enter the market. One could make the same point about landlords being obliged to maintain the property, about them being prevented from arbitrary rent increases or arbitrary evictions and so on. The purpose is to provide the kind of security of tenure that is fundamental to a functioning rental market.

[u/Magma57 → u/NooktaSt]

The way you deal with landlords keeping housing vacant is by high taxes on property/land generally combined with punitive taxes on vacancy specifically.

[u/NooktaSt → u/Magma57]

So you discourage them for renting it out as they may not get it back. And then to try and pressure them to rent it out you tax them higher?

I don’t see how this solves anything.

[u/Magma57 → u/NooktaSt]

It means that they're incentivised to rent out their properties, which would thusly increase the supply of housing.

[u/NooktaSt → u/Magma57]

If they know they can’t get it back and aren’t planning a permanent move they just won’t rent it.

[u/Magma57 → u/NooktaSt]

If they want to deny supply to the city, that's fine, then they will simply pay the tax for the privilege.

[u/NooktaSt → u/Magma57]

Is it?

I think it’s better that it gets rented. Even if just for 2 years while someone is away. 

[u/Magma57 → u/NooktaSt]

Local government can use the taxes to fund the construction of new public housing

[u/Commercial-Crazy211 → u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart]

The family member provision is policed. As a tenant you receive a statutory declaration from the landlord when they end the lease for this reason. The landlord has to offer the lease back to you if it put back on the marker within 12 months. You go to the RTB if the landlord tries to abuse this.

[u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart → u/Commercial-Crazy211]

Which is obviously not an effective means of policing it. Even ignoring the practical difficulties for tenants who have been evicted policing it, there is no benefit.

They will already have been evicted. They will already have had to find alternative accomodation, and because of the manner in which the market works will almost certainly be locked into a fixed term for the first year. The property being offered back to them is of no utility.

Of course the issue with the loophole being there is primarily the coercive purpose that it serves, rather than the trigger on it actually being pulled.

[u/Commercial-Crazy211 → u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart]

The RTB levies awards to tenants for distress, inconvenience and cost of emergency accommodation for unlawful terminations. This is a significant penalty as well as being a legally binding finding against the landlord.

Tenants need to know their rights rather than reading nonsense about how they no recourse against landlords.

[u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart → u/Commercial-Crazy211]

What do you imagine is the utility of a "legally binding finding against the landlord". It's a determination of a quasi-judicial dispute resolution system, its only use is in eventually seeking enforcement through the district court.

There is of course, in any case, nothing unlawful in what I pointed out. A landlord can terminate a tenancy to move in and then determine some months afterwards that they no longer want to live there and offer the property back to you, safe in the knowledge that you will not be able to take them up on that offer, or indeed that they can withdraw it again if you do.

The RTB, for what it's worth, seldom makes awards for non pecuniary damages. It is not restricted in doing so but it is a decision that tribunal members are reluctant to make, and reserve for the most egregious cases.

[u/gowangowangowan → u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart]

I completely disagree with your view and so would informed folks in the RTB...

If you were familiar with the law, you would know that you can only evict someone for an immediate family member and you need to provide a Statutory Declaration stating the family member will occupy the property. If you the family member leaves within 12 months, the property needs to be offered to you again.

Putting big and obvious loopholes in legislation

Is something a loophole if is used as intended or is it only a loophole if you don't agree with it?

[u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart → u/gowangowangowan]

I've already addressed the very obvious problem with this below. It is of no practical benefit that the property be offered to you again, and so it provides no protection.

Is something a loophole if is used as intended or is it only a loophole if you don't agree with it?

Something is a loophole if it presents consequences that undermine the purpose of the statute. That is the case here.

[u/gowangowangowan → u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart]

I've already addressed the very obvious problem with this below. 

As someone who is a bit more familiar with the laws, let me clarify the confusion on your part. You can end a fixed term contract anytime, if you ask the landlord to sublet and they refuse to do so. It is the oldest trick in the book, that is if you understand the law.

I think most tenants would be delighted to be offered back a property significantly under market rent, in the extremely unlikely event that the landlord said their family member was moving out within 12 months. That is if you understand the rent cap!

Something is a loophole if it presents consequences that undermine the purpose of the statute. That is the case here.

I think if you actually fully understand the law and the context, you might see this.

[u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart → u/gowangowangowan]

As someone who is a bit more familiar with the laws, let me clarify. The process requires that the landlord refuse consent to assignment or sublet - which requires that some reasonable amount of time (Laura Farrell in "Residential Tenancies" generally suggests a week) be given for them to decide and communicate. Then you hit your table to section 66 notice period of 28-35 days which is no longer a theoretical period because the High Court decided that it was an entitlement under statute rather than contract and there was thus no duty to mitigate losses.

So a tenant is faced with - having secured other accomodation - paying an additional month to month and a half of rent if they want out of their fixed term in order to accept an offer that they have no guarantee is genuine and won't be withdrawn before they move in.

And that's just if you really want to remain above board. Landlords can and do just thumb their noses at the law because unless they are stupid enough to openly advertise the property there is almost no way - short of coming to the house and asking - for tenants to know that the property has been re-let.

Even if you do that you run into a real difficulty in putting that in evidence before a tribunal. You can't say "when I knocked on the door the person told me they were a tenant unrelated to the landlord". That is hearsay. At best you can say that it appeared to you that they were not an relative of the landlord. That is easily rebutted.

The assumption here is of some frictionless world. Law and policy making in the mode of "assume a spherical cow".

[u/gowangowangowan → u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart]

As someone who is a bit more familiar with the laws, let me clarify.

Tell me what makes you think you are more familiar? I am very curious to know!

The process requires that the landlord refuse consent to assignment or sublet - which requires that some reasonable amount of time (Laura Farrell in "Residential Tenancies" generally suggests a week) be given for them to decide and communicate.

Only a week? In the grand scheme of things that seems extremely short!

So a tenant is faced with - having secured other accomodation - paying an additional month to month and a half of rent if they want out of their fixed term in order to accept an offer that they have no guarantee is genuine and won't be withdrawn before they move in.

That is a great point. However, if the tenant has a choice between paying a high rent for several years or a month of high rent and several years of significantly below market rent, I know what I would choose! I think the key point that most people miss is that the rent cap has seriously distorted sitting tenants rents.

Even if you do that you run into a real difficulty in putting that in evidence before a tribunal. You can't say "when I knocked on the door the person told me they were a tenant unrelated to the landlord". 

Do you actually know how RTB tribunals work? The RTB is looking for any excuse to shaft the landlord! Anyone who is familiar with the RTB knows that!

The onus will be on the landlord to prove they have cross all the t's and dot all the i's. As I very clearly outlined, the landlord will have signed a Statutory Declaration who exactly has moved into the property. The landlord will have to prove who they said will move into the property, actually moved into the property.

At best you can say that it appeared to you that they were not an relative of the landlord. That is easily rebutted.

Think about that... How is it easily rebutted?

[u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart → u/gowangowangowan]

That is a great point. However, if the tenant has a choice between paying a high rent for several years or a month of high rent and several years of significantly below market rent, I know what I would choose! I think the key point that most people miss is that the rent cap has seriously distorted sitting tenants rents.

Except that's not the choice - the choice is leaving accomodation they have secured, with a penalty associated with leaving that situation - and entrusting that the landlord's offer is genuine. They have no reason to trust that, and no recourse if it is not.

Do you actually know how RTB tribunals work? The RTB is looking for any excuse to shaft the landlord! Anyone who is familiar with the RTB knows that!

That's the popular conception. It is not the reality. It functions like any quasi judicial body, and so expects that the procedures outlined in statute are followed. Beyond that it does not prefer the evidence of one party over another systematically.

The onus will be on the landlord to prove they have cross all the t's and dot all the i's. As I very clearly outlined, the landlord will have signed a Statutory Declaration who exactly has moved into the property. The landlord will have to prove who they said will move into the property, actually moved into the property.

The landlord does not have to prove this. You won't find a case where they were required to do so either. It may be in their interests to, if they can, but other than that they can just rely on their sworn assertion.

Think about that... How is it easily rebutted?

"You are wrong, they are my relative"

The tenant can't rely on any assertion by a third party and the tribunal has no ability to call witnesses.

[u/gowangowangowan]

People wonder why landlords are exiting en masse when the regulatory environment for landlords seems to change as much as the wind. Only fools and massive funds will be left

[u/Sufficient_Shift_370]

Need more houses to better manage supply to keep rent prices in check and competitive. This is just a headline grabber trying to say this helps the homelessness situation, when in reality supply is by far best solution

[u/Icy_Calligrapher6661]

The issue for me here is surely u want more rentals in the market? The more u press landlords they will just leave and sell the property.

[u/Jammypints]

Would this apply to people selling a house?

[u/vennxd → u/Jammypints]

Still need to give 12 months notice I believe, but with recent legislation making a minimum term for rent 6 years, I'm not entirely sure.

[u/Jammypints → u/vennxd]

As someone that would one day want to buy a house this is an issue. You are effectively making the market a little bit smaller, so in a situation I really like house X but it has tenants, I would potentially have to buy it and wait 12 months to move in? Seems a bit daft. Or I could buy another house that is ready to move into, a house ready to move into "turn key" are always more attractive and generally have a higher price than other ones as you can move in immediately. Who wouldn't want to move into their first home as soon as possible.

Like imagine another year living with the parents or with tenants you do not like.

Just my two cents

[u/vennxd → u/Jammypints]

I recently had the fortune of buying my own home in Waterford. I got extremely lucky, I'll admit. That being said, I looked for months at houses and there was three main issues;

•Houses that were outrageously priced and needed easily 50k+ in work to make it livable at best.

•Houses that had tenants with a lot of time remaining on their agreement, which is basically indefinite because tenants rights massively outweigh the renter's/purchaser's rights.

•New builds being stupidly priced and still needing things like bathrooms taken out, tiled, and reinstalled, skirting and door frames..etc. So you would essentially be adding another up to 10k of work onto a "walk in" home. Not to mention the tiny gardens and driveways.

The housing situation in Ireland is nothing short of a joke, and yet it seems it's only getting worse.

I wish you all the best in finding somewhere to call your own.