Landlords selling 2026

It is however a simple fact in this instance that existing tenancies are not covered by the new rules. Maybe in this case he had some issues with how he is percieved, or has debts or whatever as you suggest. I don't know. But the way he sent around an agent to scare tenants with evictions on a false pretext is, I think you will agree, a bit scummy. He gives a bad name to landlords. I have never heard landlords being called evil, dodgy or gougers on this thread, these are entirely your words as far as I can see. I certainly have never called them that, but to the extent they are called that, landlords like him must take some of the blame.

Again, we will go by what is said in the video, he is issuing the notices of termination because he does not know what's coming down the line with the then unreleased, now current rules. The government have issued many changes overnight to the rental market, none of them benefit the landlord. Here you have an agent acting on behalf of a landlord to protect themselves, for what it's worth.

If you go on Reddit, or boards, or any other forum, it's riddled with landlord bashing. Do you really not see this? or are you playing dumb? or have you been living under a stone?

https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/landlords-housing-crisis-2827843-Jun2016/#:~:text=MINISTER%20OF%20STATE%20John%20Halligan,the%20bastards%E2%80%9D%2C%20referring%20to%20landlords.

https://share.google/4ZAf9a6OHpBm1vgNu

https://www.facebook.com/reel/697512440096174

https://www.facebook.com/reel/697512440096174

Have you heard of Sinn Fein? have you seen them talk about how bad landlords are? even though they are the wealthiest party by property portfolio.

The rules change so easily and so often & the changes always favour the tenant and not the landlords.

Existing tenancies are not subject to the new rules today though that does not mean they wont be subject to the new rules tomorrow.

Landlords with existing tenancies can see this and the writing is on the wall, especially if small landlords continue to leave in their droves and their rental stock is not replaced quickly enough.

Its obvious what the govt will do if that chain of events unfolds as expected & thats why many landlords are leaving or planning to leave, including those with pre March 1st tenancies.

There is an irony in complaining about the uncertainty due to the rules constantly changing while at the same advocating for the rules to be constantly changed. It's hypocritical.

Does the health of landlords matter when the govt makes it's latest brain fart.

They were warned a zillion times the impact of creating uncertainty and high risk for landlords. They insisted on doing this anyway. They wanted landlords to leave.

It's the Govt creating rental shortages for tenants no one else. The Govt and tenants wanted these large landlords. They've got what they asked for.

That does not make sense. What deadline? You are aware that the new rules only apply to new tenancies?

He may have been annoyed that if he wanted to expand his property portfolio, he would have to abide by the new rules. That is fine. He is entitled to not be happy with the new rules.

And of course, he's also entitled to sell up and get out of the business for whatever reason.

Where I think his actions might be considered scummy (and I'm not painting all landlords with this brush), is his treatment of his existing tenants, dragging them in to his problems with rules that would only apply to new tenancies. Those issues he has concerning new tenancies are between him and the government.

Those rules have nothing to do with those tenants, and he, via his agent, were making out that if he did not get his way in an upcoming debate, he would be issuing eviction notices. What were they supposed to do with this information? Perhaps he wanted them to phone in to radio shows to try and get the rules reversed. Who knows. But it is very scummy behaviour.

I have said fairly consistently that if landlords don't like the rules they should do society a favour and get out of the business, and if there's one positive thing about the new rules, it is that people like him won't be involved in the future.

I don't think anyone is suggesting he did anything illegal, first warning that evictions may be carried out depending on how the debate goes in the media, then issuing NoTs when things did not go his way, then withdrawing those NoTs after negative publicity in the media.

Bit scummy though, in my opinion. He should take responsibility. Fight his own fights, not drag others into it who have nothing to do with his dispute.

2010 was the height of the last crash, an era of ghost estates and when landlords were struggling to rent out property(very strange looking back at that era now). 2010 rents were unnaturally low due to the banking crash and the economic down turn associated. It's not a fair comparison.

It would be interesting to see how they calculated the current rent cost. Re RPZ, they have only impacted existing tenants/properties and not any new property brought to the market. Also due to RPZs landlords are incentivised to charge the most they can on any new properties coming to the market as after that are locked into 2% increases. Falling out from that long term tenants have little incentive to move unless buying as they will likely face very large increases if they move. So we don't know the average rent paid by tenant's, only what's advertised. As tenants are less likely to move around, a lot of properties advertised will be new and as already mentioned will charge very large amounts.

Also we know the number of recorded tenancies are dropping. If tenants were being ripped off why are landlords leaving the market? From the sound of things both landlords and tenants feel they are being ripped off. That's a massive market and political failure.

Edit - just to clarify I agree that rental asking prices are high, but that makes the regulations (not just the recent changes) around the residential market even worse when for a decade now landlords have been leaving despite ever increasing rent prices.

The issue is that long term social housing has been forced on the private market and is starting to devour it as follows:

Most house sales are to local authorities and AHBs.

The various rules imposed on the private rental market have their origins in how social housing tenants were traditionally treated by local authoritie i.e artificially low rents, impossible to evict, forever homes rather than a short number of years.

What have the risen by since 2007?

"…The population grew from roughly 4.5 million in 2010 to over 5.38 million by 2024…"

That's 7 times the EU average.

Peak housing completions in 2006 were 90k. It was 30k in 2024 and 14k in 2010.

Peak social housing completions was 1975 and 2023, the Government built 8,110 units of social housing, the highest number since 1975.

But yes landlords…

Right about what - that landlords are responsible for homelessness? Afaik, it’s the state that’s responsible for housing citizens who can’t afford to buy or rent privately, that’s why we have social housing. Unless you believe that one group of citizens have a duty or an obligation to take on that role instead of the state?

And now fast forward to the compulsary purchase order act which is obvious solution to be presented. People are so short sighted that they cannot see this coming.

Social housing is now provided by private citizens. They take on all the risk and all the expense now.