Air BnB [and other platforms] to be effectively outlawed in high demand areas

Amirani

TSQ wrote: »

How could they stop him getting a new flatmate? I don’t think you can do that, so I am sceptical to say the least. Unless his tenancy was less than 6 months? Or was it an owner occupier who was renting to him, in which case the new law will make no difference.

If you have a tenancy agreement with 2 people, and one of them moves out, you have no legal obligation to allow a new tenant come in to replace the old one. Why would you be sceptical about this?

TSQ

Amirani wrote: »

If you have a tenancy agreement with 2 people, and one of them moves out, you have no legal obligation to allow a new tenant come in to replace the old one. Why would you be sceptical about this?

Well, I am pretty sure someone on another property/letting thread posted a link to legislation covering tenant's rights, and as far as I recall, an existing tenant with a part IV tenancy could transfer his tenancy to another tenant, who in turn gained part IV rights after 6 months. If anyone knows the link, pleas re-post it here. I distinctly remember it because I was shocked that a landlord who took the trouble to vet tenants could end up after a year with a tenant they had never even met and could not get rid of. And I imagine the PRTB would take a dim view of turning a joint tenancy into a single tenancy and forcing the remaining tenant to pay the full rent. There are so many tenant rights I am pretty sure no landlord would be able to get away with it if the tenant opened an dispute with the PRTB.

Dav010

TSQ wrote: »

Well, I am pretty sure someone on another property/letting thread posted a link to legislation covering tenant's rights, and as far as I recall, an existing tenant with a part IV tenancy could transfer his tenancy to another tenant, who in turn gained part IV rights after 6 months. If anyone knows the link, pleas re-post it here. I distinctly remember it because I was shocked that a landlord who took the trouble to vet tenants could end up after a year with a tenant they had never even met and could not get rid of. And I imagine the PRTB would take a dim view of turning a joint tenancy into a single tenancy and forcing the remaining tenant to pay the full rent. There are so many tenant rights I am pretty sure no landlord would be able to get away with it if the tenant opened an dispute with the PRTB.

A landlord has a right to refuse assignment of a lease, the tenant as a consequence has the right to terminate the tenamcy agreement. Where things get less clear is when the LL refuses and the existing tenant does not want to leave. If the lease was joint and both tenants named, the remaining tenant is severally liable for the whole rent, which hardly seems fair in this situation, but legally that may be the reality. I can’t see how there would be much of an RTB case as the LL is not actually evicting the tenant, he is just exercising his right not to allow assignment or sublet.

https://onestopshop.rtb.ie/beginning-a-tenancy/types-of-tenancies-and-agreements/subletting-and-assignment/

4ensic15

TSQ wrote: »

Well, I am pretty sure someone on another property/letting thread posted a link to legislation covering tenant's rights, and as far as I recall, an existing tenant with a part IV tenancy could transfer his tenancy to another tenant, who in turn gained part IV rights after 6 months. If anyone knows the link, pleas re-post it here. I distinctly remember it because I was shocked that a landlord who took the trouble to vet tenants could end up after a year with a tenant they had never even met and could not get rid of. And I imagine the PRTB would take a dim view of turning a joint tenancy into a single tenancy and forcing the remaining tenant to pay the full rent. There are so many tenant rights I am pretty sure no landlord would be able to get away with it if the tenant opened an dispute with the PRTB.

A tenant can only assign his tenancy with the consent of the landlord. Equally the consent of the landlord is needed to sublet. It is not the landlord turning a joint tenancy into a single tenancy, it is the tenants themselves. The RTB must follow the law, not make it up.

Tar.Aldarion

Thays what happened, think I even made a thread on here asking about it at the time. Seemed like a loophole to me that the persons part IV didn't really protect them in that scenario because of another tenants actions. It was the law but didn't seem in the spirit of the law.

The landlord basically said there's nothing you can do about this. All he had to do was refuse and make the remaining tenant pay everything, which in an apartment at Smithfield Square is not gonna be possible.

They could have even swapped tenants and the LL wouldn't have known, they were there years with no contact but wanted to do it by the book and got burned.

4ensic15

Tar.Aldarion wrote: »

Thays what happened, think I even made a thread on here asking about it at the time. Seemed like a loophole to me that the persons part IV didn't really protect them in that scenario because of another tenants actions. It was the law but didn't seem in the spirit of the law.

The landlord basically said there's nothing you can do about this. All he had to do was refuse and make the remaining tenant pay everything, which in an apartment at Smithfield Square is not gonna be possible.

They could have even swapped tenants and the LL wouldn't have known, they were there years with no contact but wanted to do it by the book and got burned.

When two people enter a joint tenancy each is vulnerable to the actions of the other. Why are you blaming the landlord?

davindub

TSQ wrote: »

Amirani wrote: »

If you have a tenancy agreement with 2 people, and one of them moves out, you have no legal obligation to allow a new tenant come in to replace the old one. Why would you be sceptical about this?

Well, I am pretty sure someone on another property/letting thread posted a link to legislation covering tenant's rights, and as far as I recall, an existing tenant with a part IV tenancy could transfer his tenancy to another tenant, who in turn gained part IV rights after 6 months. If anyone knows the link, pleas re-post it here. I distinctly remember it because I was shocked that a landlord who took the trouble to vet tenants could end up after a year with a tenant they had never even met and could not get rid of. And I imagine the PRTB would take a dim view of turning a joint tenancy into a single tenancy and forcing the remaining tenant to pay the full rent. There are so many tenant rights I am pretty sure no landlord would be able to get away with it if the tenant opened an dispute with the PRTB.

You are correct, the terms sublet and assign do not apply in this situation. I posted the flac link long ago, but any solicitor will be able to explain the same.

Oooops. Neighbors not happy campers! https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-6942383/Manchester-partygoers-attack-police-try-shut-rowdy-AirBnB-house-party.html

arctictree

Thinking of getting one of those shepherds huts and renting it out to tourists on Airbnb for the summer season. Anything in the new rules that would prevent me from doing this?

Bluefoam

arctictree wrote: »

Thinking of getting one of those shepherds huts and renting it out to tourists on Airbnb for the summer season. Anything in the new rules that would prevent me from doing this?

You would need to have planning permission to run it as a hotel. Does it have a suitable commercial kitchen and housekeeping facilities?

arctictree

Bluefoam wrote: »

You would need to have planning permission to run it as a hotel. Does it have a suitable commercial kitchen and housekeeping facilities?

There's a kitchenette in the unit and will probably go with a compost toilet. Since its mobile, I doubt if planning permission would be needed?

L1011

arctictree wrote: »

There's a kitchenette in the unit and will probably go with a compost toilet. Since its mobile, I doubt if planning permission would be needed?

It will still need planning permission.

arctictree

L1011 wrote: »

It will still need planning permission.

Knowing the council around here, that would be a waste of time!

Bluefoam

You are changing the purpose of the land from residential (I assume) to hotel. You'll also be liable for tax on your income and be open to inspection.

Bluefoam

Bluefoam wrote: »

You are changing the purpose of the land from residential (I assume) to hotel. You'll also be liable for tax on your income and be open to inspection.

Not to mention rates, water charges etc.

Kloe_Kat

arctictree wrote: »

Thinking of getting one of those shepherds huts and renting it out to tourists on Airbnb for the summer season. Anything in the new rules that would prevent me from doing this?

The new rules only appply in rent pressure zones, not nationally.

Bluefoam

Kloe_Kat wrote: »

The new rules only appply in rent pressure zones, not nationally.

That is kind of correct. However, the existing planning laws (which the new regulation are designed to serve) do apply nationally.

Samuel T. Cogley

Kloe_Kat wrote: »

The new rules only appply in rent pressure zones, not nationally.

That's not the case at all. What's been said is planning permission, which is required nationally for airbnb will not be granted in RPZs.

CoffeeBean2

Are these new rules official yet? Was the required law passed? I have only heard various stories in the news that the new laws are coming, but not that they are officially in place.

Also, what happens to the bookings already made for this summer? Surely that will cause a bit of disruption to tourists that have already booked flights. People arriving to find no accommodation, and probably hotels fully booked won't help the country's image as a tourist destination.

Would it not make more sense to bring in the laws first and grant a six month grace period for bookings already made?

Bluefoam

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

Are these new rules official yet? Was the required law passed? I have only heard various stories in the news that the new laws are coming, but not that they are officially in place.

Also, what happens to the bookings already made for this summer? Surely that will cause a bit of disruption to tourists that have already booked flights. People arriving to find no accommodation, and probably hotels fully booked won't help the country's image as a tourist destination.

Would it not make more sense to bring in the laws first and grant a six month grace period for bookings already made?

Why... If you are running a house as a hotel, then you are operating illegally & your bookings are not legitimate. Granting grace in this scenario would be unusual from a legal standpoint... It's like telling everyone you're going to take their guns away, so if they want to shoot someone, do it now...

Samuel T. Cogley

Not in force yet. Reports are 1st of July.

In fairness there's been plenty of warning.

CoffeeBean2

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Not in force yet. Reports are 1st of July.

In fairness there's been plenty of warning.

It was Dublin only, then all RPZs
It was 1st of June, then 1st of July

Government decisions change all of the time depending on the direction of the wind, making it impossible to plan on rumors or conjectures. The government has had plenty of time to come forward with the new laws. I can't understand why they are stalling.

Samuel T. Cogley

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

It was Dublin only, then all RPZs
It was 1st of June, then 1st of July

Government decisions change all of the time depending on the direction of the wind, making it impossible to plan on rumors or conjectures. The government has had plenty of time to come forward with the new laws. I can't understand why they are stalling.

I'm not sure where people are getting the idea this wasn't nationwide from the start. Happy to be corrected.

serfboard

CoffeeBean2 wrote: »

The government has had plenty of time to come forward with the new laws. I can't understand why they are stalling.

Because it will negatively affect the earnings of the only people they care about - themselves (check out the number of landlords in the Dail), their donors, their party members and their voters.

serfboard

serfboard wrote: »

Because it will negatively affect the earnings of the only people they care about - themselves (check out the number of landlords in the Dail), their donors, their party members and their voters.

Are they all AirBnBing their houses?

serfboard

Deleted User wrote: »

Are they all AirBnBing their houses?

Good point - they're not. Which makes the foot-dragging even less excusable.

But you can't have missed the findings about the number of full houses/apartments being put into AirBnB - which will affect a significant number of significant people. Significant, that is, to the government.

serfboard

serfboard wrote: »

Good point - they're not. Which makes the foot-dragging even less excusable.

But you can't have missed the findings about the number of full houses/apartments being put into AirBnB - which will affect a significant number of significant people. Significant, that is, to the government.

I don’t get what point you’re trying to make. Are you against AirBnB or the government?

I’ve been posting for some time about the crazy situation of buildings built as homes being let out as a business via AirBnB.

serfboard

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t get what point you’re trying to make.

The point I'm trying to make is not just about AirBnB, but a general political one, which this is. Whenever you're trying to figure out why something happens or doesn't happen in (any) society, ask what powerful vested interests want and you'll get your answer.

In the case of housing, there are powerful vested interests (landlords) making obscene amounts of money from AirBnBing full apartments/houses all-year round. And these landlords tend to donate to/be members of/vote for FFG (AKA the permanent government), so they don't want any change to the existing arrangement.

Remember that when AirBnB started, the founders:

Wikipedia wrote:

came up with the idea of putting an air mattress in their living room and turning it into a bed and breakfast

In other words, a hosted arrangement. And that's the way it should have stayed.

However, a perfect storm followed - full apartments on AirBnB, a recession meaning a lack of new housing being built, governments at first unable and then unwilling to build social housing - which lead to the housing crisis we have not just here, but around the world.

In Ireland, if we keep voting FFG this is not going to change anytime soon.

serfboard

serfboard wrote: »

The point I'm trying to make is not just about AirBnB, but a general political one, which this is. Whenever you're trying to figure out why something happens or doesn't happen in (any) society, ask what powerful vested interests want and you'll get your answer.

In the case of housing, there are powerful vested interests (landlords) making obscene amounts of money from AirBnBing full apartments/houses all-year round. And these landlords tend to donate to/be members of/vote for FFG (AKA the permanent government), so they don't want any change to the existing arrangement.

Remember that when AirBnB started, the founders:
In other words, a hosted arrangement. And that's the way it should have stayed.

However, a perfect storm followed - full apartments on AirBnB, a recession meaning a lack of new housing being built, governments at first unable and then unwilling to build social housing - which lead to the housing crisis we have not just here, but around the world.

In Ireland, if we keep voting FFG this is not going to change anytime soon.

In my opinion, anyone using the “word” FFG have already lost the argument.

serfboard

Deleted User wrote: »

In my opinion, anyone using the “word” FFG have already lost the argument.

OK.

Deleted User wrote: »

I don’t get what point you’re trying to make.

I think my arguement was lost on you anyway ...