3 Comments

Excellent article, very thought provoking and incisive. You are entirely correct on two points, I see this now from the article and I think very few people have spotted this - tenants would be better of with a 100% secure tenancy of fixed at 6/8/10 years rather than the current indefinite but, as you say, insecure tenancy model. You are also correct when you say a stock of PRS must remain. Its flexibility suits some tenants, plus the State should not waste money providing accommodation to those who can well afford to rent if that is what they want to do.

Expand full comment

Thanks Rose. On the nature of tenancies, as you know we had four year tenancies up until around 2016 (when they were expanded to 6 year tenancies). Now we have indefinite tenancies. If we couldn't make the four year ones work for tenants than what is the rationale for expanding them? I've never understood that aspect of housing policy!

Expand full comment

Fair points. The actual limits are less meaningful if the tenant can be evicted for reasons other than the tenant not complying with the tenancy agreement. And of course new tenants get almost no benefits.

Expand full comment