Thanks for this analysis Mick - insightful as always. I’m curious if this changes your view of the arguments you presented here some years ago from that JRF paper on shrinking the PRS? Does this make you more optimistic that a reformed PRS, with robust and properly enforced security of tenure provisions (perhaps themselves underpinning a powerful renters movement) can be a useful tenure type in Ireland? Or would you still favour policy directed towards reducing the size of the PRS by supporting home ownership?
Hi Ryan, thanks for your question. To be honest I'm not sure, I'd need to consider that. I think the security of tenure arrangements will certainly have a big impact on that question. On the other hand, we'll have to see the implementation/compliance side of things in practice. And of course the affordability issue will be relevant. If we could get rents within the institutional landlord sector to something reasonable, then certainly we could see a pathway to long term, professional, secure rental homes.
Relatedly, the demographic side of things points towards needing a reasonably large PRS, e.g. growing population, immigration, people spending longer in education etc.
Thanks Mick! Couldn't agree more that implementation is everything, but I am optimistic that this could make a real difference - the security point is just so important. On affortability, I am sure we will hear the usual arguments about stronger tenant protections making things less attractive for landlords, and so reducing supply and making affordability worse, but I tend to believe it works the other way - that more secure tenants have more power, so can act as brake on price increases. I'm not sure what research there is either way on that mechasm though (do you know of any work on this?)
I do find the question about the role of the PRS really interesting, which is why your commentary on that JRF paper stuck in my mind. There are the demographic arguments for it - but I do wonder could those same needs one day be met by non-market alternatives?
I also remember that one point the authors of that paper made was that increasing homeownership gives more people access to the wealth-building effects of owning property. I think the fact that homes are seen as (and even depended upon) as vehicles for wealth generation is a big problem, so wonder whether having a really high-quality PRS could help challenge that (of course, large amounts of social rental would be much better for that purpose). It's a tricky one though - I really don't know what I think the optimum tenure mix is. If you can remove the downsides of the PRS (poor quality, insecure, and expensive) using regulation and price controls, is it really so bad? I don't know!
Hi Mick. Thanks for this and agree on your call for tenants to join tenants union CATU.
Ive been thinking about the new rules in terms of house shares which many tenancies are and trying to think what could arise with people coming and going within these tenancies.
In terms of post March 26 tenancies where the new rule will apply which allows landlords to reset the rent after each tenancy which tenants leave voluntarily, is it possible this could create some vulnerability for tenants in house shares where an existing lease is present?
Example original tenants A & B are in a post March 2026 house share and tenant A leaves in March 2027. New tenant C moves in and is either unaware there is a lease and doesn't follow up properly or landlord dragging heals in regards to adding them, as if tenant A is only person on lease and leaves then they could potentially claim new tenancy to reset rent to market rate leaving tenant C facing huge rent hike?
Correct me if im wrong but as far as I understand if you renting somewhere you can bring landlord to RTB regarding not being added to the lease after 6 months? I know many might not have bothered before but with the financial benefit that will exist for landlords when tenants voluntarily leave, I think this could potentially be a blind spot for individual tenant to note when moving in to a new house share where there is an existing lease?
Thanks for that.
A significant change all right.
Thanks for this analysis Mick - insightful as always. I’m curious if this changes your view of the arguments you presented here some years ago from that JRF paper on shrinking the PRS? Does this make you more optimistic that a reformed PRS, with robust and properly enforced security of tenure provisions (perhaps themselves underpinning a powerful renters movement) can be a useful tenure type in Ireland? Or would you still favour policy directed towards reducing the size of the PRS by supporting home ownership?
Hi Ryan, thanks for your question. To be honest I'm not sure, I'd need to consider that. I think the security of tenure arrangements will certainly have a big impact on that question. On the other hand, we'll have to see the implementation/compliance side of things in practice. And of course the affordability issue will be relevant. If we could get rents within the institutional landlord sector to something reasonable, then certainly we could see a pathway to long term, professional, secure rental homes.
Relatedly, the demographic side of things points towards needing a reasonably large PRS, e.g. growing population, immigration, people spending longer in education etc.
Would you have any thoughts on this yourself?
Thanks Mick! Couldn't agree more that implementation is everything, but I am optimistic that this could make a real difference - the security point is just so important. On affortability, I am sure we will hear the usual arguments about stronger tenant protections making things less attractive for landlords, and so reducing supply and making affordability worse, but I tend to believe it works the other way - that more secure tenants have more power, so can act as brake on price increases. I'm not sure what research there is either way on that mechasm though (do you know of any work on this?)
I do find the question about the role of the PRS really interesting, which is why your commentary on that JRF paper stuck in my mind. There are the demographic arguments for it - but I do wonder could those same needs one day be met by non-market alternatives?
I also remember that one point the authors of that paper made was that increasing homeownership gives more people access to the wealth-building effects of owning property. I think the fact that homes are seen as (and even depended upon) as vehicles for wealth generation is a big problem, so wonder whether having a really high-quality PRS could help challenge that (of course, large amounts of social rental would be much better for that purpose). It's a tricky one though - I really don't know what I think the optimum tenure mix is. If you can remove the downsides of the PRS (poor quality, insecure, and expensive) using regulation and price controls, is it really so bad? I don't know!
Hi Mick. Thanks for this and agree on your call for tenants to join tenants union CATU.
Ive been thinking about the new rules in terms of house shares which many tenancies are and trying to think what could arise with people coming and going within these tenancies.
In terms of post March 26 tenancies where the new rule will apply which allows landlords to reset the rent after each tenancy which tenants leave voluntarily, is it possible this could create some vulnerability for tenants in house shares where an existing lease is present?
Example original tenants A & B are in a post March 2026 house share and tenant A leaves in March 2027. New tenant C moves in and is either unaware there is a lease and doesn't follow up properly or landlord dragging heals in regards to adding them, as if tenant A is only person on lease and leaves then they could potentially claim new tenancy to reset rent to market rate leaving tenant C facing huge rent hike?
Correct me if im wrong but as far as I understand if you renting somewhere you can bring landlord to RTB regarding not being added to the lease after 6 months? I know many might not have bothered before but with the financial benefit that will exist for landlords when tenants voluntarily leave, I think this could potentially be a blind spot for individual tenant to note when moving in to a new house share where there is an existing lease?
What do you think about this?