THE RENTAL REGULATOR has heard that gardaí were twice called to resolve disputes between Ireland’s biggest landlord and a tenant who previously worked for the firm, including in a row over whether the company had taken the man’s Christmas tree and cushions crafted by his grandmother. 

At a tribunal hearing for the Residential Tenancies Board, the rental sector’s watchdog, details were laid out about a souring of relations at Ires Reit as both parties traded allegations about each other’s behaviour.

Ires Reit has approximately 3,600 tenancies in the state, the vast majority of which are apartments in Dublin.

The tribunal also heard that the tenant, when he was employed by Ires Reit, was left “visibly shocked” when he was “struck” in the face by a senior colleague who worked for the company.

The tenant is resisting an eviction order handed down to him by Ires Reit, who claim that he was in arrears and has wrongly had his partner staying at the Dublin apartment.

The couple have argued that the partner was also a tenant who had permission from the landlord to live in the one-bed apartment.

The male tenant worked at the landlord firm for almost six years. 

In its case, Ires Reit has alleged “antisocial” and “threatening” behaviour by the tenant, and claimed he had fallen into arrears on his rent. 

The tenant, however, alleged that he was faced with “ever-changing and contrasting statements” about how much he owed to Ires, and that he was subjected to “confusing” penalty fees for late payments, including when he had allegedly already paid. 

He further alleges that he was “penalised” as a tenant for making a protective disclosure while in his position as an Ires Reit employee. 

The tenant’s representative claimed that there had been “concerns around the handling of a workplace complaint”.

He added that a senior colleague had allegedly “struck” the tenant, and that another senior Ires Reit figure had “accepted it had happened”.

The tenant’s representative said his client was a “gentle person” who was subjected to poor and confusing treatment.

“When an Ires manager struck him, he did not hit back,” the representative alleged, adding that a witness statement recalled the employee was “visibly shocked” following the alleged incident.

This week’s hearing was the opening of the case, mainly focusing on the tenant’s side of the dispute. The landlord is to present its evidence at a subsequent hearing in the near future. 

Rent payments 

The tenant began renting the apartment in June 2021 for €1,204.83 per month, but had already been working with Ires Reit for around two years prior to that. He resigned from the company in April 2025.

He himself paid €412 per month while the remaining €792 was paid to his landlord and employer via the Housing Assistance Payment (Hap), the state-funded scheme to cover tenants who are unable to afford rents.

Throughout the summer of 2025 the tenant was alleged to have failed to keep up with monthly rent payments, including a payment plan later set up with the landlord.

The tenant contested these details, arguing that the landlord was ”applying fees to my account”, which he thought was “quite out of the ordinary”. 

Later, in November 2025, Ires Reit carried out a review of the apartment’s rent and informed the tenant that the company would raise his monthly payment to €1,227. The tenant queried this, telling the tribunal that he had “no way of knowing” what the company used as a comparable property when deciding to increase his monthly rent. 

Detailing this dispute, the tenant’s representative told the tribunal that attempts had been made to pay arrears at €100 a month, but there was confusion as to why these “didn’t go through”. 

Gardaí called to building

Members of An Garda Síochána were called twice to the building to help resolve disputes between Ires Reit managers and the tenant, who by now was a former employee. 

This included one call over complaints that belongings were “missing” from the apartment shared by the tenant and his partner.

The tenant told the tribunal that a dispute arose over Christmas trees, sentimental handmade cushions and other belongings.

He told the tribunal that Ires had maintained that all belongings had been returned to the apartment amid a dispute last year, but he read out the contents of an email from a garda saying that he attended the Ires building and retrieved items from its store room.

Ronan Killeen, counsel for Ires Reit, told the tribunal that he was “not disputing” that the tenant didn’t receive back items, before criticising how the tenant’s representative was handling evidence.

‘Threatening’ allegations

Killeen, counsel for Ires Reit, said that the company would stand over allegations of antisocial behaviour against the tenant.

The tribunal heard that some of these included claims that a dog owned by the tenant had been involved in two “biting” incidents, with a later report recommending the removal of the dog.

The tenant’s representative rejected these findings, arguing that there was no CCTV of the alleged incidents. 

He also pointed to how the decision to remove the pet was taken by the management company which oversees the building. The representative told the tribunal that the management company’s two directors had “overlapping roles”, as they were also managers at Ires Reit, who were in dispute with the tenant and former employee.

The tribunal further heard that Ires had described as threatening material found around the Ires office in the days after the tenant left the company’s employment in 2025. 

These included a joker card, a drawing of Spider-Man villain Venom and laptop stickers, which the tenant argues were wrongly presented as “threatening material”, and instead had been in the office for several months beforehand. 

The tenant and his representative claimed Ires Reit was claiming these items were threatening “while leaving out their origins”. 

The RTB also heard how an attempt by the tenant to remove his belongings from his old office after resigning in April 2025 was alleged as “trespassing” and potential intimidation by Ires Reit. The claims were strongly disputed by the tenant and his representative. 

They argued that he had entered the office on a Bank holiday Monday with the permission of the property’s security guard, and that he had done so as a way to “avoid” old work colleagues.

Tribunal chair Finian Matthews told the hearing that the RTB was aware that the dispute is highly contentious, as he paused evidence until both parties return to the coming weeks.