Landlords selling 2026

Everything in this video applies to Ireland. The tragedy is that we have the resources to fix it, instead we are using our resources to make it worse

Apparently one of his companies, Percolt, was trying to lease properties to Dublin City Council for social housing but fell through due to being below the standard acceptable to the council.

At the meeting, Mulhern said, “When we got to the point about inspecting the property and looking at what was actually constructed, it was felt that actually it wasn't at the right standard than what we needed to be able to put our tenants into.”

“Unfortunately, we had to make a difficult decision to say, well, we can't take a property on, that isn't going to meet the necessary building standards, etc,” he said.

With the offer removed, the landlord would now have to either sell up, or rent privately under the new rules. I admit I am speculating here a bit, but possibly this is why he is so bothered about the new rules and hoping they would be scrapped, and ultimately ended up doing what he did.

It looks like they were delayed by the bad weather leading up to DCC's deadline, so although DCC may not have said anything formally, the landlord would have known that they would not be meeting the standard and that DCC would be pulling out.

“Like many construction projects across the country over the past number of months, progress has been affected by a sustained periods of inclement weather which have impacted elements of the construction programme,” they said.

This, as I have mentioned, would have meant that he would have to either let out the flats under the new rules (which he doesn't like) or sell on the open market.

I think rentals are still viable under the new rules from a financial perspective. In fact viability improved in some respects. What goes is political rent-seeking leverage, as the ability to evict at will when selling is greatly reduced. Landlords big and small can use this leverage to prevent regulatory change if they feel it is detrimental to them. My speculation is that this particular landlord was attempting to exercise this leverage in this case in the recent Wexford eviction attempts.

Assuming you are talking to me, where did I say that?

The landlord was blaming weather on delays and therefore failing to meet the required standards in time. It makes sense, weather does delay construction projects, but whether you believe him in this case is another matter.

If you don't mind me asking, might you quote the bits you are querying rather than have people wonder what you are talking about? I'm assuming you are talking about the landlord in Wexford who tried to evict those people and the same who had a lease deal withdrawn in with DCC.

All we know is that according to the landlord, delays due to weather were the cause of their failure to meet the required standards. It is not me that is saying that. Have you considered asking him? I would not expect more specific detail to be published in this kind of report.

Can I ask the purpose of this query? If your point is that his statements are not credible, I'm inclined to agree with you based on earlier things he has said.

Also, when you said "10k of large landlords do not have the voting influence of 330k tenants.", can I ask what post you are referring to where this was said? I asked this already but you have made several posts since without addressing it.

Might I ask if you read the article? According to the landlord

“We are progressing through the normal stages of completion and certification, which must be satisfied before any homes can be made available for occupation,” they said.

“We continue to engage with relevant stakeholders as the development advances toward completion,” they said.

So at the time of writing, the landlord was still in the process of completion, i.e., not complete. If DCC required the property to be complete at a certain point in time prior to, or up to, the time of writing then by the landlord's own admission, the properties were not complete and so the deal could not go ahead.

My speculation, and I admit it is speculation, is that the landlord would have known he was behind schedule a good while before DCC's deadline, and therefore would probably end up needing either sell the units or rent them under the new rules, thus his protest evictions in Wexford.

I'm afraid I'm having to spell everything out for you, that a simple read of the article would sort out. Yes there's a difference. It is possible for something to be complete, but to have been completed to a lower standard than required and so the deal could be rejected on that basis, in this case, the development wasn't even complete, and what is more, the landlord is not disputing this but rather blaming the inclement weather on this lack of completion.

According to DCC:

At the meeting, Mulhern said, “When we got to the point about inspecting the property and looking at what was actually constructed, it was felt that actually it wasn't at the right standard than what we needed to be able to put our tenants into.”

“Unfortunately, we had to make a difficult decision to say, well, we can't take a property on, that isn't going to meet the necessary building standards, etc,” he said.

So it wasn't liveable. There were obviously other options for the tenants and they have all been rehoused according to the article. Some of them are in areas they might not have chosen but possibly lucky given what we know of the landlord who's building the council would have leased.

I wonder would you have had a chance to find the post you were responding to when you said:

It is not clear what you are talking about here.

There's been a couple of threads about it on boards and a surprising number of people thought it was OK. I will try to find one of them.

The cynic in me thinks that the council were out of money and looking for a way out of this. They could have easily waited a few weeks/months for the properties to be finished up to an acceptable standard.

They seem to imply it wasn't to do with the delay. But I agree the council wanted out for some reason.

You are probably right they decided to cut costs.

"...For years, the council sometimes took long-term leases on apartments instead of buying them. But the last government’s housing plan, Housing for All, said the plan was to phase that out by 2025.

It’s just not good value for money, the department decided. After paying all that cash over decades, the council doesn’t end up with the property..."

I mean that's the point of the article asking what the council is at.

In fairness to the council, they did say that the that the properties were not yet up to the required standard, and even the developer admits that there were delays and that the properties were not yet ready, blaming it on inclement weather.

I'm not sure the money aspect holds up either as all the tenants were housed elsewhere in finished properties.

Yet another large landlord wanting out in Limerick. I love the way the article mentions asking for the landlord to withdraw and look for another solution but the government have blocked all other routes for the landlord by saying 2pc cap is permanent and the only way to realise value is by selling. If some of these tenants are there 15 years. I’d wager their rent is 50-60pc below market rent.

I expect we will continue to see this to happen

http://www.rte.ie/news/2026/0313/1563306-eviction-limerick/

I dunno what you mean it only happens with small landlords never large landlords. Large landlords are perfect in every way.