A Dublin landlord has been ordered to pay almost €20,000 after the Residential Tenancies Board found that a former tenant should have been offered his apartment back when the landlord’s plans changed. The case highlights the obligations landlords face when ending a tenancy because they say they intend to occupy a property themselves.
Landlord must pay €19,522 after Dublin eviction
The RTB tribunal ruled that Gerda McLoughney should have offered the Dublin 2 apartment back to Fernando Lima after she no longer intended to move into it. The property, located at Drury Hall on Stephen Street Lower, was subsequently used for short-term lettings.
The tribunal awarded Lima €19,522.50. The sum reflected the additional rent he had paid and was expected to pay through to 2027, compared with the rent at his former home. It also included €2,500 for the worsening of an existing stress disorder.
What happened to the tenant?
Lima had been paying €1,200 a month for the apartment before leaving in January 2025. He later moved to a two-bedroom property in Grand Canal Harbour, initially paying €2,650 per month for a year. After another tenant rented the second room, his share fell to €1,550 a month.
He told the tribunal that he learned several months after moving out that another person appeared to be staying in the Dublin apartment. A video submitted during the proceedings showed someone occupying the property, and Lima said that person confirmed the stay was arranged on a short-term basis.
- Property: Apartment in Dublin 2
- Former rent: €1,200 per month
- RTB award: €19,522.50
- Additional damages for stress: €2,500
- Issue: Property used for short-term letting after an owner-occupation notice
Why the eviction notice became the central issue
McLoughney issued the notice of termination in July 2024, stating that she planned to move into the apartment with her husband. Her representative told the tribunal that the intention was genuine at the time.
However, McLoughney’s husband died in May 2025. Her representative said the death caused a significant change in circumstances and delayed the plan to move into the property. The apartment was instead used for short-term accommodation so it would not remain empty.
The tribunal accepted that the death may have changed McLoughney’s circumstances. It nevertheless found that this did not remove the obligation to contact Lima and offer him the apartment again.
Tribunal says tenant should have been contacted
The RTB determined that the apartment should have been offered back to Lima on May 18th, 2025, the date of McLoughney’s husband’s death. From that point, the tribunal found that Lima was “unjustly deprived of possession” of the property.
The decision is significant for landlords and renters because it underlines that a change in circumstances after an eviction may create further responsibilities. A landlord who ends a tenancy on the basis of personal occupation cannot simply change course without considering the former tenant’s position.
For more housing and public services updates, visit DailyDigest.ie.
How the compensation was calculated
Lima sought more than €30,000 in total compensation. His claim included more than €10,584 for increased rent, €10,000 linked to stress and anxiety, and a further €9,500 in aggravated damages.
The tribunal did not have jurisdiction to award aggravated damages. It instead calculated compensation based on the difference between the rent Lima had paid at Drury Hall and the higher rent associated with his replacement accommodation through the period the original tenancy would have continued.
The RTB also awarded €2,500 for the impact on Lima’s existing stress disorder. He told the tribunal that he had already been receiving treatment for anxiety and that the urgent relocation and financial pressure significantly worsened his condition.
What the RTB decision means for landlords and tenants
The case provides a practical reminder that eviction grounds must be treated seriously after a tenancy ends. While the facts relate to one Dublin property, the principle is relevant across Ireland’s rental sector.
- Landlords should retain evidence supporting the reason given for a notice of termination.
- A genuine change in circumstances does not necessarily end all obligations to the former tenant.
- Former tenants may have grounds to seek compensation where a property is used in a way that conflicts with the stated reason for ending the tenancy.
- Financial losses can include the difference between the former rent and the cost of replacement accommodation.
The decision does not mean every change of plan will produce the same result. The outcome will depend on the evidence, the wording and validity of the notice, the landlord’s conduct, and the losses established by the tenant.
What happens next in this Irish housing case?
The available decision records the tribunal’s compensation ruling. It also reinforces the role of the Residential Tenancies Board in resolving disputes involving notices of termination, rent-related losses and tenant rights.
For renters who believe a landlord has not followed the stated reason for an eviction, keeping records is important. Relevant documents may include the notice of termination, tenancy agreements, rent payment details, messages with the landlord, photographs, videos and evidence of replacement housing costs.
Frequently asked questions
How much was the landlord ordered to pay?
The RTB awarded Fernando Lima €19,522.50, including €2,500 for the exacerbation of an existing stress disorder.
Why was the tenant evicted?
The notice said the landlord intended to move into the Dublin 2 apartment with her husband.
Why did the tribunal find against the landlord?
The tribunal found that, after the landlord’s circumstances changed, the apartment should have been offered back to Lima rather than used for short-term lettings.
Does this decision affect every landlord who changes plans?
Not automatically. Each dispute depends on its facts and evidence, but the ruling shows that landlords should carefully consider their continuing obligations when the reason for ending a tenancy no longer applies.
Conclusion
This Breaking News Ireland case sends a clear message about owner-occupation notices and tenant protections. The RTB accepted that a bereavement changed the landlord’s circumstances, but it still found that the former tenant should have been given the opportunity to return to the apartment. For landlords, the key lesson is to review their obligations when plans change; for tenants, the decision shows why evidence of rent increases, relocation costs and the later use of a property can matter in an RTB claim.
