Who Owns You?
AHBs provide essential housing to those in need, but are there risks which underlie their benevolence?
Anthony Neville is the owner of a small-scale housing development company who has been struggling since the financial crisis to access credit from banks to build. Years on from the Celtic Tiger spending spree that befell us all, banks rightfully create credit lines with far more scrutiny and trepidation. Alan is sympathetic to this, yet also believes the banks must engage in funding the sector, without becoming “overly exposed.” The number of home completions fell this year by 6.7%, beset by snags in the planning system or with the acquisition of construction materials. Those who are seeking affordable, long-term housing are struggling from this lack of progress the most, especially if they are subject to the unpleasant miasma of awaiting their turn for a local authority allocation.
A strange but not altogether surprising phenomenon has emerged in the provision of social and affordable housing. Private developers and Approved Housing Bodies are providing either by building, or acquiring, homes at speed – utilizing funds from the Department of Housing to do so. Approved Housing Bodies access a variety of schemes that provide partial or full funding for the delivery, lease, or acquisition of property for utilization as social and affordable homes. These loans are funded through the Department of Housing, Heritage, and Local Government and either involve direct capital funding or debt that can be accessed in combination with bank loans.
Approved Housing Bodies currently hold €7 billion in liabilities, receive over €1.8 billion in government grants, and have about €8.3 billion in fixed assets. Many of the properties they control, some 61,500 homes, are often purchased as turnkey acquisitions or built, backed by a mixture of government grants and private credit. These activities appear on the State budget sheet and are described by Eurostat as purchases made in the “general government sector." These organizations provide necessary public good with a considerable proportion of public funds, but questions arise as to just how public that good is.
Approved Housing Bodies are building and acquiring at paces that far outstrip local authorities. Nationally, they provide for about 47% of social housing stock. As of 2025 there are some 46,200 AHB registered tenancies; a trend only pushing upwards. The amount of individuals and families exiting emergency accommodation, or prevented from entering emergency accommodation due to an AHB letting provides a glimmer of hope in the midst of the housing crisis.
But consideration should be given to the possible risks, not just the rewards, of Approved Housing Bodies providing such a sizable portion of social and affordable housing in the state.
By providing social and affordable housing and stepping in where the state does not have the resources to do so, Approved Housing Bodies are operating as a “non-profit institution serving households,” according to the Central Statistics Office. This classification could hinder AHB’s ability to access funding to provide future developments and secure purchases, limiting their social housing output.
“Growth in the sector is dominated by debt financing. Whilst the CALF funding mechanism is generally accompanied by funding in the form of Payment and Availability Agreements, which has the potential to reduce repayment risk, the impact on balance sheets, risk and treasury management is significant.” Approved Housing Bodies Regulatory Authority Report.
Elevated levels of debt; numerous valuable assets in the form of homes and apartments, and rapidly growing balance sheets. All factors for an impending disaster amidst the ongoing calamity of lack of supply and ballooning rent and purchase prices. In other countries, government grants fund the development or purchase social homes utilizing financial instruments which don’t hamper State balance sheets. Furthermore, these properties tend to remain within the state’s social housing stock.
In contrast, once the loan is repaid to Government, an AHB property can become an “unencumbered property.” In 2023 a working group was established by the Department of Housing to investigate the issue. There is potential for these properties, funded by government-backed debt and taxpayer monies, could be considered as no longer part of the social housing stock as they would no longer be subject to “rent setting, monitoring and reporting responsibilities and nominations from the local authority.”
If these organizations went bust, would they sell stock to pay bills? Or, charge rents that could possibly circumnavigate rent rules, as they are permitted to do in Section 19A of the Residential Tenancies Act? It is frowned upon to do this as a matter of policy - but there seems to be no statutory instruments to safeguard against it.
Reports and analysis from academics and housing practitioners alike expound on the risk of insolvency in these organizations if they do not secure new, varied forms of funding. Lorcan Sirr warned in a recent Irish Times opinion piece that Approved Housing Bodies are over-leveraged and overly exposed, arguing that social housing could be the next bubble to burst.
Approved Housing Bodies benefit from public funding while also retaining private autonomy, which permits them to divest properties from the social housing stock once mortgages are complete. At this stage they become unencumbered properties and therefore are under no obligation to accept local authority allocations.
“Once these units reach the end of their mortgage/charge period, the terms of the funding agreements no longer apply, including rent setting, monitoring and reporting responsibilities and nominations from the local authority.” Dáil Éireann, Committee of Public Accounts, October 2023.
Approved Housing Body tenancies are subject to the Residential Tenancies Act of 2004. This legislation circumscribes tenant and landlord obligations, as well as the requirements for service of a notice of termination and rent-setting. While occupiers of AHB tenancies are by-and-large individuals allocated through a local authority housing list, and may have backgrounds of instability and vulnerability, these tenancies are governed under the same legislation as a private rented tenancy. Some may argue this is beneficial due to the difficulties of removing problematic tenants from local authority tenancies. But it also poses risks as these tenants can be served notices of termination with oblique reasoning, but also may be charged rents at market rate “even though it is social housing.”
The regulatory framework established under the Housing (Regulation of Approved Housing Bodies) Act 2019 designates the AHBRA’s regulatory functions but does not change the fact that these bodies are private entities. Mary Lennon was allocated a Tuath property as her Council home was no longer suitable for her needs. A few months into the tenancy, Mary received verbal warnings about noise made in the property. Tuath then issued a notice of termination for breach of tenant obligations. That notice of termination was found invalid on appeal, where Barrister Eoin Coffey made an intriguing argument: As Tuath receives significant funding from the government to provide public goods, it should adhere to Article 8 of the European Convention of Human Rights and guarantee her right to respect and home. However, Tuath did not observe itself as a public body, but as a private limited company.
Mary Keatinge, managing solicitor at Mercy Law Resource Centre, posits the argument that Approved Housing Body tenants may be more vulnerable, despite them already exiting from precarious housing situations into what they think is a secure, forever home. However well-intentioned and regulated, can these bodies truly serve the public interest when they are private limited companies?
The provision of social and affordable housing during our current housing crisis is a key priority of the Government. Approved Housing Bodies are meeting this need more efficiently than local authorities thanks to their ingenuity in design and development. However, attention must be paid to the openly admitted challenges Approved Housing Bodies may face in relation to high levels of debt which may slow overall housing production, or necessitate rent rises in existing tenancies or possible (but hopefully unlikely) sale of encumbered units.
Notes from a meeting on the Public Accounts Committee on the matter of Approved Housing Bodies and touched on the issues surrounding unencumbered units and related risks in the sector. A fire sale of unencumbered units is not likely. However, there are questions as to what legal hold the State has on these units once agreements cease. There should be appropriate legislation to clearly elucidate state ownership of these often taxpayer funded properties. On the other hand, the rights of Approved Housing Body tenants should be strengthened in terms of rent-setting and notices of termination. Furthermore, debt issues in the sector could be addressed by funding them with financial instruments seen in other European countries, lessening risk of insolvency. Insolvency in Approved Housing Bodies puts tenants at risk as well as the housing model itself, perhaps resulting in the state stepping into the prop up the organizations – something we have seen play out already.
Great post Jasmine. There is very little scrutiny of AHBs despite the amount of public money invested. Overall I think they are great to be honest, but I do worry about the amount of new staff coming from the private sector or from the English social housing sector, which has a much more commercial ethos.