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

The only place where a landlord declares to government that they are the landlord is on the RTB form.
Who/How will they police the small landlord/big landlord situation?

To be completely fair, even if the husband and wife own 8 properties between them and tried to argue that 2 lettings on the same land were the same property, they'd still be fairly small scale by comparison to the big landlords the govt wants to target.

Below article is from 2022 so it wouldn't surprise me if Ires Reit haven't surpassed the 4,000 properties mark. Did they ever get away with their "common area fee" anti-RPZ sneakiness does anybody know?

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/revealed-ten-biggest-landlords-now-own-17000-homes/41339550.html

Didn't Airbnb pass a load of data on to revenue a few years ago for taxation purposes? There is no reason the RTB wouldn't be able to do the exact same. I should add that I highly doubt they will do anything of the sorts as you are likely going after very small time landlords without much financial gain for the state

Seriously do you think the bank rules will have to change. In case you have not realised banks are in business to make money. If the bank can't enforce its security on a property in cases of default in mortgage payments do you think they will just "suck it up"!

If you want the above then you have to change the eviction process to be more efficient and balanced. If you want a professional rental sector it needs balance. Giving one side priority over the other.

I find your "the most important thing is the tenants are protected" very odd. Just out of curiosity who do you think should "protect" the tenants?

This isn't the same at all, fyi………Tenants are under no obligation to vacate anyone's property to facilitate viewings. A home owner will do so willingly, as its in their own best interests for the viewings to take place, but a tenant is well within their rights to say "no, you can wait until the lease is up and I've left". The landlord can request access (for pretty much any reason) but the tenant can refuse (also for pretty much any reason).

Can you honestly see that a new rule will not come in within the six years restricting the ability for landlords to reset the rent. How many changes have we seen just in the last couple of years.

Landlords have lost trust in the Govt, the Govt is continually changing the "rules of the game" to suit themselves and their agenda. All the Govt is doing is "kicking the can down the road" trying to buy themselves time. Most likely some existing senior ministers will have retired before the six years have elapsed so wont have to worry/care about it.

Landlords have been vilified in the media. Remember the vast majority of landlords are your ordinary PAYE/Self employed person. Some are accidental landlords etc. Don't get me wrong there are a small number of bad participants on both sides be they rogue landlords/tenants.

The banks are banks not landlords. A mortgage to whomever be it a home owner or a landlord is a business trans nothing more nothing less. From a business perspective a landlord selling will look to achieve the highest sale price and in these times thats to owner occupiers and with this the bank requires vacant possession to give a mortgage.

To counter your point of how should a tenant be made homeless because of the landlord becoming insolvent you could then argue why should a person be made homeless if a commerical landlord becomes insolvent!

You have to draw the line at some point, we can't give everyone what they want, life is not fair.

I'm guessing they mean 3 open viewings, not 3 at a time. Every house we went to view had 2 or 3 open sessions for viewing the house.

There seems to be no comeback for lying to the RTB. We've a dodgy landlord near us - we reported him (to the RTB) for not being on the RTB list. Something must have been done as his properties appeared on the list. Then another neighbour noticed that the number of units listed was far less than were in the building i.e. just 1 per property - even the number of bells gave that away - and reported that - nothing has been done on that front. Apparently his tenants pay cash.

The issue for landlords is that as partIV tenancy overrides everything the only way to get vacancy is to remove tenants. Offering to rent a property for X number of years isn't really possible. Historically it was ok for both landlords and tenants as people rented for a short period of time before buying. People rent medium to long term now which I doubt was envisaged when the original law was put in place.

The current laws are not good enough as it doesn't give any certainty to tenants or give landlords/investors a time horizon to recover/liquidate their investment. Giving tenants infinite contracts in rental accomodation is not good, but neither is the situation where they can be hold to move out with relatively short notice. If they had a defined lease period it would at least allow tenants and landlords to plan.

I have a question maybe it has been covered.

You are a small landlord now, and can sell with vacant possession.

If after 28th Feb can same landlord still sell with vacant possession or can they only sell with tenants in situ.

Appreciate this may have been covered before.