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

Dav010

Apparently they don’t know which dept has responsibility for it. Priceless.


https://www.google.ie/amp/s/amp.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/murphy-pushed-airbnb-crackdown-on-ross-who-is-being-blamed-for-softer-regulation-38373992.html

michealkc

Carlos Slow Traitor wrote: »

Sure who doesn’t do things this way (in general not property issues as such), I know for me rules and regulations are (to a certain extent) judged on what can be got away with vs. what cannot rather than the fact they are rules.

If you are not in a rent pressure zone there is no change to the rules.

mkdon

michealkc wrote: »

If you are not in a rent pressure zone there is no change to the rules.

what is penalty if caught renting over 90 days

does this apply to one room in your house or what specifically

Graham

My understanding; if it's a room in your own home (that you live in) there are no limits unless you are renting out the entire house.

You can download an FAQ here:
https://www.housing.gov.ie/sites/default/files/publications/files/30.07.19_short-term_lettings_faqs_0.pdf

From the FAQ.

42 What offences will apply?
Serious breaches of the planning code incur significant fines (€10m) and imprisonment (2yrs) or both. Generally, less serious offences under the Planning Acts (which will apply in the case non-compliance with the short term letting arrangements) carry a maximum penalty of €5,000 or 6 months imprisonment or both. Where the person continues the offence after conviction, they are guilty of a further offence for each day it continues and this carries a maximum fine of €1,500.

Gumbo

mkdon wrote: »

what is penalty if caught renting over 90 days

does this apply to one room in your house or what specifically

Answers in your other thread in the same matter.

Bluefoam

Dublin City Council have registered only 8 change of use applications since implementation...

Gumbo

Bluefoam wrote: »

Dublin City Council have registered only 8 change of use applications since implementation...

Be interesting to see the decisions on these.
Where are you getting your figures from?

Bluefoam

kceire wrote: »

Be interesting to see the decisions on these.
Where are you getting your figures from?

The Internet:
https://www.thejournal.ie/short-term-let-laws-applications-to-council-4759642-Aug2019/

Gumbo

Bluefoam wrote: »

The Internet:
https://www.thejournal.ie/short-term-let-laws-applications-to-council-4759642-Aug2019/

Cheers. I thought you may have been keeping track through the DCC Online planning system.

Dav010

It is fair to say that it is unlikely that any applications for change of use will be granted in RPZs. No one will be surprised at that, considering the legislation is designed to reduce the number of short lets and increase long term let property numbers.

But I think the most interesting line in the article is what Minister Murphy stated.

“In the same committee meeting, the minister said that enforcement action would not be taken against a property owner while there is a live application.”

As anyone who has applied for planning knows, the process can take a lengthy period, particularly if the decision is appealed to ABP. The property owner can legally continue to short let until the process concludes.

Dav010

Dav010 wrote: »

It is fair to say that it is unlikely that any applications for change of use will be granted in RPZs. No one will be surprised at that, considering the legislation is designed to reduce the number of short lets and increase long term let property numbers.

But I think the most interesting line in the article is what Minister Murphy stated.

“In the same committee meeting, the minister said that enforcement action would not be taken against a property owner while there is a live application.”

As anyone who has applied for planning knows, the process can take a lengthy period, particularly if the decision is appealed to ABP. The property owner can legally continue to short let until the process concludes.

You are showing your hand though by applying for planning so when it most likely fails you are going to be very high on the list of people to investigate.

Dav010

Carlos Slow Traitor wrote: »

You are showing your hand though by applying for planning so when it most likely fails you are going to be very high on the list of people to investigate.

The reality is you are showing your hand the moment you advertise an entire house for rent on Airbnb. As/if the enforcement teams become more focused and efficient, you will have no choice but to apply for planning. But according to Minister Murphy, it will be business as usual until the planning process is exhausted. My guess is there will be a lot of errors in planning applications which will be communicated to the applicant, and then resubmitted.

tvjunki

What happens if you rent for say 4months at a time? Sone people may be getting work done and do not want a 12months lease.

Dav010

tvjunki wrote: »

What happens if you rent for say 4months at a time? Sone people may be getting work done and do not want a 12months lease.

I’ve had people contacting me through Airbnb asking if they can rent the house for a couple of months, off platform. When I pointed out that they would have to pay the Airbnb nightly rate, and up front for the duration of their stay as per Airbnb rules, they of course declined. Like most Airbnb property owners, I want short lets of no more than 2 weeks, preferably weekends only.

Jet Black

https://www.rte.ie/amp/1081332/

So unsurprisingly the government's genius plan didn't work. Maybe this show of force will show them people just won't roll over and take any ridiculous ideas they come up with? Or maybe they need a bigger stick?

TheChizler

It's not even 3 months in, bit early to say the legislation has failed. They haven't even picked up the the stick yet never mind need a bigger one.

is_that_so

Jet Black wrote: »

https://www.rte.ie/amp/1081332/

So unsurprisingly the government's genius plan didn't work. Maybe this show of force will show them people just won't roll over and take any ridiculous ideas they come up with? Or maybe they need a bigger stick?

It was always going to be a challenge as its implementation and enforcement is down to DCC. Early days but maybe next step is to find a way to tie Revenue into it!

The_Conductor

Jet Black wrote: »

just won't roll over and take any ridiculous ideas they come up with? Or maybe they need a bigger stick?

Maybe they should abolish all the 'housing associations' bring them all under the local authorities- and inform the local authorities they are to build 20k units per annum for the foreseeable future.

This whole outsourcing solutions to our problems lark- has not worked.
Sure it gives you a scapegoat you can blame when it all goes to hell on a broomstick- but we don't need scapegoats- we need solutions.

1874

The_Conductor wrote: »

Maybe they should abolish all the 'housing associations' bring them all under the local authorities- and inform the local authorities they are to build 20k units per annum for the foreseeable future.

This whole outsourcing solutions to our problems lark- has not worked.
Sure it gives you a scapegoat you can blame when it all goes to hell on a broomstick- but we don't need scapegoats- we need solutions.

That wouldnt happen for a number of reasons (probably way more than I can think of), mainly it would remove the scapegoat and point clearly where the problem is, which in my opinion is the State (not just the local authorities), even the councils might not like being blamed if they are being stymied by the Govt of the day, by not being funded for it.
I dont even think the Councils could handle it, mostly they seem ineffective themselves.

It would foist the cost squarely onto the State (govt of the day would be to blame, and they would not want that kind of attention), basically which ever incarnation of slightly left of center, kick the ball down the road into the future, ineffectual, stay on the gravy train political party we have at that moment. I dont think any of the major parties would want that and any party that tried to do anything about it would be lucky to ever get voted in again, I dont even think they would get in on a first attempt.


The profits being made by private entities to piecemeal build small numbers of private properties for sale would drop.


IMO the cost of property is too high, way out of proportion to the cost to build, the State is giving away land to private entities to build on. An Agency should be set up that tenders/farms out and awards contracts for different aspects of a nationwide build process, no one company should have complete control over any aspect nationally.


There needs to be a regional and a national plan that works together, in terms of housing, energy efficiency, transport.
e.g. have a private HR company for Dublin, should be one company, let them bid for it and have them compete against other similar companies to renew contracts/and compare them for efficiency/effectiveness, allow them manage the personnel details, same for civil engineering, building, ensure workers are paid whether directly on a private contract or brought in as a self employed contractor, ensure standards are met and maintained.
Maybe I just dont get it, but whats happening now and how it arrived at this situation proves what has and is going on is not working. I believe housing should be accessible for all, that doesnt mean everyone will be able to afford to buy themselves, and I dont believe lumping in social housing with private works either, I just think the same kind of services need to be available to all and I think more help needs to be available for some people as they cant/wont help themselves.
Mainly, my opinion is that driving costs up (in the main housing) was the push to have 2 parents out working, I dont believe that is susutainable in terms of raising children and forcing parents (in this country to A, pay a lot of money for childcare, B not pay for childcare because they cant afford it and have unqualified people or their own or other children mind and raise them).


I still believe there is room for private rented housing, housing associations, council managed property, maybe even REITs, but I belive the low taxation rate needs to be eliminated for them, no REIT should be able to hoover up property and avail of low or zero tax, and IMO any landlord who provides accomodation privately should be able to avail of the same rates as a big business in rental (but standards should be met by all).


This Country while not the worst by a long shot is a complete fcuk up, I wonder how it teeters from one day to the next, mainly because the State and its arms are ineffective and dont deal with real issues.
Just heard on the radio how DCC which had blocked a drug use centre in Dublin (I think its now to open on a trial basis), Councils outright ban high rise, having recently driven on the quays,whats in place does nothing for asthetics and seems to be a phenomenally poor use of land (Im referring to buildings supported by steel structures to apparently hold them in place/low usage of the footprint, I dont know why if need be, old buildings arent torn down and rebuilt in a style thats trying to be held onto, we could still have high rise around that and modern, clean efficient cities (that applies to any city or urban area that needs it, not just Dublin, we seem to be stuck in something that does not work. I think mixed old and new can work so long as what is old is valuable and worthwhile, my opinion that is possible was formed on a visit less than 2 decades ago, when I was in Boston seeing an old church standing between 2 skyscrapers, Id rather see that than Dublin with Old valuable buildings but get rid of the old decrepid buildings that serve a purpose less well.

handlemaster

https://m.independent.ie/business/personal-finance/property-mortgages/rise-in-new-airbnb-lets-as-landlords-flout-rules-despite-housing-crisis-38828598.html


The government haven't learned yet that it's not landlords that are the issue it's their inability to provide social housing to those s who really need it is the issue. We will continue to see the vote pleasing laws against landlords been introduced including this one in the report but this will just push landlords out of the business and refrain new comers which it requires to be a normal property market.

timmyntc

yes

_Brian

We were just talking about this earlier.

This will just force houses onto the market and into private home ownership, lost to rental of any type.

Landlords moved to Airbnb because it ditches the shackles of permanent tenants with their excessive rights.

The government are demonising landlords to cover for their failure to provide enough housing, same old tune.

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

We were just talking about this earlier.

This will just force houses onto the market and into private home ownership, lost to rental of any type.

Landlords moved to Airbnb because it ditches the shackles of permanent tenants with their excessive rights.

The government are demonising landlords to cover for their failure to provide enough housing, same old tune.

What’s wrong with that? It means another home available for a family, which, I think, is the idea?

_Brian

Deleted User wrote: »

What’s wrong with that? It means another home available for a family, which, I think, is the idea?

So if someone living at home with their parents buys the home it is lost to the rental market completely and the whole debacle has solved nothing.

This is nothing but a distraction technique by government to detract from their failure to have proper policy or enforce the existing policy.

The current problems in the rental market are 100% a problem created by government and not landlords.

wally79

_Brian wrote: »

So if someone living at home with their parents buys the home it is lost to the rental market completely and the whole debacle has solved nothing.
.

It has brought the property from the tourist market into the housing market

BIGT4464

_Brian wrote: »

We were just talking about this earlier.

This will just force houses onto the market and into private home ownership, lost to rental of any type.

Landlords moved to Airbnb because it ditches the shackles of permanent tenants with their excessive rights.

The government are demonising landlords to cover for their failure to provide enough housing, same old tune.

Houses are for living in and not to be a quasi hotel setup.

_Brian

BIGT4464 wrote: »

Houses are for living in and not to be a quasi hotel setup.

No, houses are private property and are to be used however the owner wishes.

DrumSteve

_Brian wrote: »

We were just talking about this earlier.

This will just force houses onto the market and into private home ownership, lost to rental of any type.

Landlords moved to Airbnb because it ditches the shackles of permanent tenants with their excessive rights.

The government are demonising landlords to cover for their failure to provide enough housing, same old tune.

Genuinely, which ones do you believe are excessive?

BIGT4464

_Brian wrote: »

No, houses are private property and are to be used however the owner wishes.

Planning permission says a dwelling and not a hotel.

_Brian

_Brian wrote: »

So if someone living at home with their parents buys the home it is lost to the rental market completely and the whole debacle has solved nothing.

This is nothing but a distraction technique by government to detract from their failure to have proper policy or enforce the existing policy.

The current problems in the rental market are 100% a problem created by government and not landlords.

Or maybe, just maybe Johnny and Annie move out of their rented two bed apartment into a lovely three bed family home. One they’ve saved up for by getting up early and working.