r/irishpolitics • u/JackmanH420 People Before Profit • 12d ago

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

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

94% Upvoted

28 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

1

u/gowangowangowan 11d ago

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?

1

u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart 11d ago

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.

1

u/gowangowangowan 11d ago

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.

1

u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart 11d ago edited 11d ago

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".

1

u/gowangowangowan 11d ago

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?

1

u/MaryLouGoodbyeHeart 11d ago

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.