Landlords cannot request "vacancy" before selling their property now, is this correct?

The same way you'd view a house with an owner occupier, they leave for an hour or so a few times to facilitate viewings.

A house with tenants in situ are more likely to be on below market rent could be bad tenants with arrears have a history with the landlord of noncompliance are just an unknown risk unlike a new tenant with refs & on market rent

Buying the house on discount and paying off tenant could work but risky

Interested to hear why you think they would be more likely to be bad tenants with arrears or a history of non-compliance with a landlord?

Pure nonsense again from you - on a number of levels.

By limiting what any acquirer can do with a property you are limiting demand, that reduces price. That's Economics 1.01, 'Supply & Demand', go look it up as I don't have the time, or patience to explain it to someone like you.

Dealing with any tenant you didn't choose is fraught with real risk & jeopardy. That's Contract Common Sense 1.01 , if you can't understand this, I neither have the time or patience to engage with you further.

The net result of these two basic rules of commerce is that selling a property with a tenant in situ reduces it's value by 10-20% minimum.

This will reduce government tax take on inheritance taxes & hence there will be less money to spend on social services.

That maybe scary, but it's not scare mongering, it's just simple cause & effect.

QED

On the limited information tenant sitting out a sale viewings accepting a new owner, can have reasons for staying in situ, not all nefarious.

But my main point is would rather choose new tenants on market rent if I was tempted to invest.

Where exactly do similar laws exist in other parts of the world?

The UK, France, Spain etc etc

What proof do you have exactly, that this resultant price reduction for tenant in situ properties did not happen in those countries!?

Property prices in these countries, similar to Ireland, have been on a massively upward trajectory despite these laws.

A quick google sometimes is all it takes

The reason nobody is buying houses with tenants in situ is because nobody is selling houses with tenants in situ. This is down to a number of reasons……………….the main two being 1) that it will knock 10s of thousands off the retail price and 2) the banks will not give you a mortgage without vacant possession. This means that the only people looking to buy such properties are investors who are also cash buyers. This is a much reduced pool of potential buyers and it also means the seller is competing with other properties that don't come with the same restrictions. So they need to knock a few quid off to make it more appealable.

If you had half a mill in your back pocket and you were going to splash out on an investment property and there are two houses next door to each other for sale……………….identical in every way except property A has tenants and property B does not. Why would you buy A, when you've no idea how good/bad the tenants are, you have no avenue to get rid during the bedding in period (like you would with a brand new tenancy), and the rent is already set at a certain amount, which may be well below market value?

If it's the same price for house B and you can set the rent at €1600 instead of €1350 for house A, nobody in their right mind would buy it. So you need to knock 20k or whatever off the price in order to sell it.

interesting to know that someone is investing in property despite new norms.. can I PM to ask a query about taxation on rent?

Duplicate

Even more nonsense again from you.

For instance , Here are the average UK house prices since 2022 FYI ( source https://www.cladco.co.uk/blog/post/history-of-uk-house-prices#average)

2022 £267,388

2023 £259,862

2024 £265,240

2025 £271,809

So that's a paltry increase of less than 0.4% p.a over 4 years. That's actually a total stagnation in property prices, & a huge drop in prices in real terms versus inflation (& CPI), while they introduced similar landlord & property rights restriction legislation there.

QED comrade !!!

P.s. over & out.

The reason nobody is buying houses with tenants in situ is because nobody is selling houses with tenants in situ.

And if this proposed legislation goes ahead that will simply have to change. Banks will either have to change their own borrowing rules to allow the owner-occupier time to get the tenant out or the legislation might clarify that the seller can evict after sale agreed and before the mortgage gets drawn down

In the last 3 months the vast majority of evictions were for a landlord looking to put the property on the market, mostly they sell them to other landlords who are still tied in to the existing cap under RPZ rules. So for the vast majority of these sales, nothing will change

And if this proposed legislation goes ahead that will simply have to change.

Good luck with that. You can't force the free market to do your bidding.

Banks will either have to change their own borrowing rules to allow the owner-occupier time to get the tenant out

LOL, and good luck with that too. I mean, everyone knows that banks are very agreeable to doing hat they're told and behaving in an altruistic manner without serving their own needs first.

or the legislation might clarify that the seller can evict after sale agreed and before the mortgage gets drawn down

Now you're just pulling stuff out of your arse. Bottom line is the banks will do whatever suits the banks. Telling them "you have to give mortgages to anyone who wants to buy a house with tenants already in place" is a massive over-simplification of a very complex issue. Like I said, there are loads of factors, they were just the two big ones.

To take your lead, and pull something out of my own arse…….If someone gets a mortgage with the plan to turf out the tenants and move their own family in, and the tenant says no, refuses to move, drags the heels, demands payment etc… ……what happens then? The possibility of paying a mortgage for 18 months on a house that you can't legally enter will scare the bejaysus out of anyone and you'll be back to square one. All it will take is a couple of high profile cases and folks will refuse to buy a property with a sitting tenant.

In the last 3 months the vast majority of evictions were for a landlord looking to put the property on the market, mostly they sell them to other landlords who are still tied in to the existing cap under RPZ rules.

Says who? Where are you pulling these stats from?

You are ignoring pretty much everything I've already said. I wont be responding much further.

Keeping property prices high is what they need.

Banks don't give a single flying fcuk about property prices. What they need is people paying their mortgages. Someone defaulting because they can't afford both a mortgage and rent while a bogey tenant refuses to budge is exactly the opposite of what they need. Multiple people doing this will bring them to their knees.

In any case it won't affect the vast majority of sales of rented property because they are predominantly inter-landlords anyway. 

So you keep saying and failing to back up. Neither of your links backs up your claim. In fact, the second one claims the exact opposite:

"Of particular concern is the high number of Landlords reporting that they are selling up, with those homes most likely leaving the private rental system," Wayne Stanley said.

I'd ask where you got your figures again, but we both know there's zero point in me doing so.

You also stated that the 'vast majority' of them were evicting because they were selling up. 57-58% is barely a simple majority, never mind a vast one. Plus, this is simply the reason given, it doesn't mean every single one of them went through with the sale; there are plenty out there who give the reason, bump the tenant, then increase the rent. When giving a reason is mandatory, and there are only a few possible reasons, and one of those reasons can only proven to be demonstrably false months later by a very determined ex-tenant, then of course that reason is going to be high on the hit-list. Doesn't make it true.

Your links also refer to the three months up to June, and 'the final three months of 2024' not 'the last three months', while we're at it. Did you even bother to read them at all? In summary, pretty much everything in the sentence "in the last 3 months the vast majority of evictions were for a landlord looking to put the property on the market, mostly they sell them to other landlords" is not true. Or, you have failed to show that they are true, if you want to be technical about it.

You're making outlandish, unfounded and downright incorrect statements and accusing me of scaremongering…………?

LOL…………You're the one posting misinformation and refusing to back up your claims. I haven't made any claims, so what exactly do you want proof of?

I went through your claim sentence by sentence and showed how you failed to prove anything and your response is to call that ranting and raving and say……….."ohhhhhhhhh no you didn't!!!!"

We are most definitely done here.