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

Claw Hammer · 06-10-2025 03:05PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123869042#Comment_123869042

The banks won't lend unless the property comes with vacant possession. Commercial properties have covenants with the tenants and the banks can evaluate the quality of the covenants. In fact, it is almost the opposite in commercial property, investors and banks often avoid vacant property, whereas with residential they avoid sitting tenants.

daithi7 · 06-10-2025 06:18PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123883159#Comment_123883159

And Banks know alot about risk. So the reason that banks like existing tenants in commercial properties is that it reduces the landlord's & hence their, risk.

And the reason they don't like sitting tenants in residential properties is that it significantly increases risk.

I.e. the risks of non payment of rents & other financial risks to the purchaser, hence a risk to the ability to pay the mortgage to the bank.

So all told a complete mess. A reduced asset value, increased risk, with costlier finance if you can even get it on such properties. So crazy stuff by the government & Rtb. Like numpty, loony nutbag kind of nuts!!!

Emblematic · 07-10-2025 12:14AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123883744#Comment_123883744

Why nutty? It is fairly standard in the EU that you can't be evicted mid-lease simply because the owner wants to sell. Germany has the expression "Kauf bricht nicht Miete" (purchase cannot break the lease), and Germany generally is considered a good country for renters' rights.

daithi7 · 07-10-2025 07:51AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123884622#Comment_123884622

Because reducing the number of landlords, & hence rental properties available to rent in a country where rents have been massively inflating for several years, is like trying to out a fire by reducing the firemen, firebrigrades & the water that are actually helping to keep the flames & inferno down!?

P.s. The primary issue is the supply of serviced land. The central bank have reiterated warnings on this repeatedly over many years.

Also, the lack of speed, & the fitness for purpose, of the planning processes in Ireland. These are the 2 gigantic elephants in the room in the slow supply of residential rental property in Ireland. Increase this supply & you reduce the price.

Economics 1.01 = Simples !!

Red Silurian · 07-10-2025 10:06AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123874784#Comment_123874784

It could be, yes because anything within the boundaries of the constitution could effectively be written into law. The real question, is it likely to be?

It's a matter of opinion but FF and FG are likely to feel that this legislation is in line with their mandate of protecting renters and so are unlikely to change it. They also generally don't retrospectively apply new legislation that alters their previous legislation

The earliest a non-FF/FG government will be formed is 2030, in theory, it's likely that the average tenancy will have lapsed by then and there will be very few tenancies that will have started before 1/3/26 that are still in play. So by the time it could be an issue for voters it will likely be a non-issue

Claw Hammer · 07-10-2025 11:41AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123884622#Comment_123884622

Even in Germany, rents are increasing. If it is not attractive to be a landlord, there will be fewer of them and thus higher rent.
The messing around that goes on here with trying to recover possession from a recalcitrant tenant doesn't happen in Germany either.

Emblematic · 07-10-2025 10:54PM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123885478#Comment_123885478

Not just Germany, though. Most EU countries, it seems, don't allow eviction solely on the basis that the house is to be sold mid-lease. We're the nutty ones by EU standards. This measure is simply bringing us into line with the rest of Europe.

Bass Reeves · 08-10-2025 07:59AM

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123887395#Comment_123887395

I am not sure if they are comparable. In Europe AFAIK leases are a two way agreement. Both the LL and the tenant are on the hook for the length of the agreement, whether it's 12 month's, 5 years or 20 years. This is not what happens here. At any stage the tenant can renegade on the lease ( except for the first lease term) give the minimum required notice and get there deposit back. Many will stop the last month's rent to cover the deposit as government has mandated that maximum deposit is a month's rent.

https://www.boards.ie/discussion/comment/123870838#Comment_123870838

It's probably a bit worse than that.

Bidder A Investor 100k max

Bidder B investor Max 110 ( planning on 70% mortgage)

Bidder C owner occupier Max 120K mortgage needed.

Bidder C is not in the running as he cannot pay mortgage and rent while getting vacant possession even if he will get a mortgage.

Bidder B will have issues with accessing mortgage, getting engineer an⁹d valuation report as access to house will be limited so may decide not to bother.

As Bidder A a cash buyer is really only available option there is no onus on him to go to his max bid. He gives an 80k take it or leave it bid.

Selling houses with tenant in situ will result in a 25-40% discount on its value.

In general what will happen is LL may see out a tenancy and after 6 years lease is up get vacant possession and sell up then.

Claw Hammer · 08-10-2025 10:41AM

The conveyancing and mortgage system and tenancy laws are completely different in Ireland than other countries. There is no reason in law why sitting tenants can't remain in a property being sold. It is because of the dysfunctional nature of the tenancy laws that vacant possession is demanded. Imposing a sitting tenant requirement without curing the underlying problems is just a recipe for an even bigger mess.

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

Comments