The instalment order is the most underused tool in Irish landlord-tenant practice. For low-income tenants who can't pay a lump sum, structured monthly payments tracked against actual income beat a lump-sum order they can never satisfy.
This case was not handled by shelter.ie. Facts below are sourced from Irish Times RTB tribunal coverage. Maree Egan is named in the public determination order. The "What shelter.ie's playbook would have been" section is our analysis.
A Dublin tenant, Maree Egan, was ordered by an RTB tribunal to pay her landlord €4,307 in rent arrears. The tribunal heard she had not paid her monthly rent of €633 for nine months, from July 2023 until she vacated the property in April 2024. Total arrears: €5,697 in unpaid rent (€633 × 9), reduced by €1,390 (likely a partial deposit retention or earlier payment) to the €4,307 figure ordered.
The award was structured as four monthly instalments of €1,000 followed by a final payment of €307. Total recovery period: 5 months from determination order.
This is a structurally typical low-income tenant case: modest rent, modest arrears, no realistic ability to pay a lump sum, no property to attach via judgment mortgage. The instalment order was the realistic recovery mechanism — tracking the tenant's actual ability to pay rather than ordering a lump sum that could never be satisfied.
Source: Irish Times RTB tribunal coverage. (Direct article URL: TBC at content build — citation pending re-check.)
The RTB tribunal can order arrears to be paid by instalment under section 115 and the broader determinations framework of the Residential Tenancies Act 2004. The instalment structure is set with reference to:
For low-income tenants, the instalment order is often the only realistic recovery mechanism. A lump-sum order against a tenant who lives on social welfare or low wages will never be satisfied; the tenant defaults, the landlord has paper, and the relationship between paper and money never closes. An instalment order tracks against the tenant's actual cashflow and converts an unrecoverable theoretical figure into a recoverable real one — slowly, but reliably.
The downside: a partial recovery over time, not a full recovery upfront.
The Egan case is also instructive on the upside of voluntary tenant departure. The tenancy ended in April 2024 by the tenant vacating; the determination order followed, focusing on arrears recovery from a tenant who had already left. Cases where the tenant has voluntarily exited are operationally much simpler — you're not also fighting an overholding battle. The recovery focus is the only focus.
What the instalment order delivered:
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Total ordered | €4,307 |
| Instalment 1 (Month 1) | €1,000 |
| Instalment 2 (Month 2) | €1,000 |
| Instalment 3 (Month 3) | €1,000 |
| Instalment 4 (Month 4) | €1,000 |
| Final payment (Month 5) | €307 |
| Total recovery period | 5 months |
What a lump-sum order on the same tenant would likely have delivered:
| Item | Amount |
|---|---|
| Notional order | €4,307 |
| Realistic recovery from tenant with no property to attach | €0 |
| Possible recovery via partial instalment-of-default route | Lower than the structured instalment order |
The instalment order is the more landlord-favourable outcome in this category — counterintuitively. A €4,307 lump sum the tenant can never pay is worth less than €4,307 paid out at €1,000/month. Bird in the hand, etc.
The Egan case fits straightforwardly into the RTB Acceleration Pack, with the specific tactical decision being to argue for an instalment order rather than a lump-sum determination.
Step 1 — Income assessment. During the case prep, identify the tenant's likely income profile (employed / social welfare / mixed). Use this to calibrate the realistic instalment proposal.
Step 2 — Notice and application drafted. Standard arrears Notice of Termination (the tenant has already left in this case, so the operative claim is purely the arrears recovery, but the notice is still drafted and served as the formal predicate to the RTB application).
Step 3 — Instalment proposal in the application. Our default RTB application template includes a "preferred outcome" section. For low-income tenant cases, the preferred outcome includes a structured instalment order with a specific monthly figure proposed. The adjudicator may adjust, but the framing matters — we're proposing a workable solution, not demanding a lump sum the tenant can't satisfy.
Step 4 — Default-acceleration clause built into the instalment terms. A missed payment triggers the full balance owing, registered as a judgment debt, with judgment mortgage rights against any property the tenant subsequently acquires. This protects the landlord against the tenant defaulting partway through.
Step 5 — Standing order set up. The cleanest collection mechanism is a standing order from the tenant's bank account, set up at the time of the determination as part of the agreed terms. This reduces the friction of monthly collection.
Step 6 — Quarterly compliance check-in. Our retainer continues monitoring instalment compliance. If a payment is missed, we trigger the default-acceleration clause and pursue the full balance via the appropriate enforcement route.
Total Shelter cost: RTB Acceleration Pack €2,000. No retainer needed for this category of case (the post-determination work is brief, billable as needed).
The instalment order is one of the structural answers to the recovery-math problem we keep coming back to: most Irish renters don't own property to lien, wages can't be attached for civil debt, deposits are statutorily capped at 1 month. None of those facts go away in a low-income tenant case. What the instalment order does is track the actual recovery possibility — what the tenant can pay over time, given their income — and convert it into a structured order rather than a notional lump sum.
This is the right outcome for the right tenant category. It is NOT the right outcome for tenants who can pay a lump sum but won't (use judgment mortgage if they have property; instalment order with default-acceleration if you want the recovery faster). The strategic decision is: who is this tenant, what's their actual cashflow, what's the realistic recovery?
DIY landlords often miss this. They demand the lump sum. The tribunal awards it. The tenant defaults. The lump-sum award becomes worthless paper. The structured-instalment award would have actually been paid.
Productisation captures the strategic decision. It also captures the standing-order-setup, the default-acceleration clause, the quarterly compliance check-in. None of which are visible to the prospective client at the consult stage — but all of which are why the recovery actually closes.
If your tenant has limited means but you still want to recover what's owed, the instalment order is your tool. Most landlords don't know it exists or don't realise it's the better outcome for low-income tenant cases.
We do.
Free 15-minute consult. We'll tell you which pack fits — or that none of them does.
Book your consult →