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

Amirani · 25-10-2018 12:35pm

JPFabo wrote: »

Disgraceful....Private sector yet again paying for a public sector mess. Another sticky plaster by the minister who is trying to deflect from his and his governments inactions by making it look like they are doing something. Banning AirBNB Will not make a blind bit of difference, just as the rent pressure zones haven't either. People will continue to advertise their properties on the hundreds of other websites around the world that offer the same service, who is going to police all of these?.

The law isn't going to ban/limit AirBnB specifically, it's going to limit short term lets. So your point is moot.

Samuel T. Cogley · 25-10-2018 12:39pm

Well hopefully the market will have picked up a bit more by June 2019 and Mrs. Cogley will finally agree to sell!

Sheepdish1 · 25-10-2018 12:42pm

meeeeh wrote: »

The largest Air bnb host in Barcelona has potential daily rental income at peak season of over 37,000 Euro. They own over 200 flats. The whole holiday rental market has to be regulated, not just because it affects residential rentals but because it affects how communities function, the quality of life of residents and potentially even what amenities are needed.

Imagine saving for apartment to find out apartment next to you is short term let’s all year around. You’re right in how affects how communities function.

runawaybishop · 25-10-2018 12:42pm

gozunda wrote: »

I really doubt it tbh. The status quo at present favours the tennant over and above anything else. Anyone with a property to rent faces high taxation, a very real risk of the their property being trashed, rent paymenys being withheld or no rent being paid at all and being totally without any legal mechanism to fix any of this or even get rid of bad tennants.

Why in God's name would anyone choose to rent out anything under those conditions?

Airbnb provided those renting with a fairly straighforward means of earning a guanteed income and a means to manage short term tennancies.

In the UK ballifs are involved to help property owners where tennants break their rental agreements etc. In Ireland we have bodies advocating that even bad tennants should refuse to leave properties despite proper notice and even legal action taken.

The whole setup is crazy imo.

Agreed, landlords moved to Airbnb due to the issues with renting. I would expect many will not move back or if they do rent will be a hell of a lot higher.

Also rental properties have higher density so if they go for sale it will put even more pressure on the rental market.

More populist nonsense from the minister that will worsen the situation. People should be encouraged, not beaten with regulations.

nullzero · 25-10-2018 12:44pm

L1011 wrote: »

Realistically all that is happening is enforcement of pre-existing, long standing planning regulations.

Won't stop property owners who have been making money hand over fist crying over the death of their cash cow.

meeeeh · 25-10-2018 12:47pm

robp wrote: »

Sorry it doesn't. Regulation adds to costs and someone real pays a higher price for regulation. It is quite likely all parties pay a higher price down the line landlord, renter and tourist. BTW why is having a daily income of 37,00 relevant?

Regulation is needed if you want some sort of a sustainable residential development so that schools are built and other amenities can be planned and built. If half of estate are turists they won't need a school. As for turists they will be fine. Travel is not basic human need, housing is.

As 37,000 daily income, Air Bnb was intended as small time rentals not commercial enterprise. If locals are pushed out of cities because of short time lettings it will diminish the quality of life for everyone.

GingerLily · 25-10-2018 12:49pm

Amirani wrote: »

Depends on how short term lets are defined really. If you have a place and rent it out for 9 months a year to Dublin college students and then 3 months to foreign students on a working holiday then I can't see this being a problem under proposed legislation.

Anything over 2 weeks isn't considered short term for this legislation, so landlords can rent to college and summer students, provided all tenancies are over 2 weeks

JPFabo · 25-10-2018 12:56pm

Amirani wrote: »

The law isn't going to ban/limit AirBnB specifically, it's going to limit short term lets. So your point is moot.

Its a ban on landlords.....no landlord is going to be issued with a short term letting licence, so its a ban, no two ways about it. The government can spin it how they want.

Spanish Eyes · 25-10-2018 1:02pm

Perhaps if renting long term was safe and productive for LLs, you know equal rights for tenant and landlord and a contract between both, taxation measures, swift evictions under the law, no overholding, no illegal evictions etc. etc. well then LLs would not have opted for the safer choice of ABB in the first place.

That's probably where the problem lies.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 25-10-2018 1:18pm

Spanish Eyes wrote: »

Perhaps if renting long-term was safe and productive for LLs, you know equal rights for tenant and landlord and a contract between both, taxation measures, swift evictions under the law, no overholding, no illegal evictions etc. etc. well then LLs would not have opted for the safer choice of ABB in the first place.

That's probably where the problem lies.

agree entirely. it's a 2-way street, or at least it should be.
small (mainly Irish) LLs have been treated very unfairly, much in the same way small local entrepreneurs/business have been vis a vis large online conglomerates.

if the playing field was even level it would be something, but it's a bit like asking Shamrock Rovers to compete against Man City after giving City a 3-0 headstart.

it's way past time to redress this imbalance.

BoneIdol · 25-10-2018 1:24pm

There is no equal rights because its not an equal playing field. If a landlord illegally evicts a tenant they might get a bit of a fine. They don't get evicted. I'm glad to see at least with this legislation noncompliance will come with a criminal conviction.

Any decent compliant landlord will not be bothered by this legislation.

Xterminator · 25-10-2018 1:31pm

JPFabo wrote: »

Its a ban on landlords.....no landlord is going to be issued with a short term letting licence, so its a ban, no two ways about it. The government can spin it how they want.

Its not a ban,. its enforcing existing rules that have been flouted.
Just because they got away with it doesnt make it right.

LuckyLloyd · 25-10-2018 1:31pm

JPFabo wrote: »

Disgraceful....Private sector yet again paying for a public sector mess. Another sticky plaster by the minister who is trying to deflect from his and his governments inactions by making it look like they are doing something. Banning AirBNB Will not make a blind bit of difference, just as the rent pressure zones haven't either. People will continue to advertise their properties on the hundreds of other websites around the world that offer the same service, who is going to police all of these? Nobody! Or more landlords will just sell up and leave the market, for some its a business, if your business isn't making a profit you close it down.

This will apply to all sites offering short term lets.

All that's happening is that existing planning permission rules are being enforced.

But good for you that as long as you're making money you can impose a hotel scenario on residential neighbours eh? Stopping that is communism, outright communism I tells ya!

Wheres Me Jumper? · 25-10-2018 1:32pm

BoneIdol wrote: »

There is no equal rights because its not an equal playing field. If a landlord illegally evicts a tenant they might get a bit of a fine. They don't get evicted. I'm glad to see at least with this legislation noncompliance will come with a criminal conviction.

Any decent compliant landlord will not be bothered by this legislation.

likewise, a tenant can overstay, refuse to pay rent, destroy a property, and if the LL is lucky the PRTB might issue a small fine against the said tenant.
said tenant refuses to pay up and gives the LL the middle finger.
what recourse if any does the LL have? sweet FA i reckon.

this could potentially cost the LL 10s of 1,000s.

GGTrek · 25-10-2018 1:33pm

JPFabo wrote: »

Amirani wrote: »

The law isn't going to ban/limit AirBnB specifically, it's going to limit short term lets. So your point is moot.

Its a ban on landlords.....no landlord is going to be issued with a short term letting licence, so its a ban, no two ways about it. The government can spin it how they want.

It is an unenforceable and probably uncostitutional ban for owner occupiers who are free to invite into their home whomever they want (paying or not paying). The limit of 14 days is left wing commie BS of the highest order! In the case of owner occupiers as long as there is no anti-social behaviour that would grant police presence, the govvie is screwed and it is just political posturing and appeasing the hard left political agenda (who are screaming very loud). Please tell me how the councils or any govvie agent will be able to enforce any of such BS against an owner occupier, council inspectors will not have right of entry and will have to go to a court to request entry with very solid evidence to get a warrant for entry (by which time any guest will be gone) and judge will likely refuse since it is not criminal activity. I know what I would do if a council inspector tried to get access to my own home for any of this BS, I would tell him/her to .... right off with great pleasure.

pixelburp · 25-10-2018 1:38pm

GGTrek wrote: »

It is an unenforceable and probably uncostitutional ban for owner occupiers who are free to invite into their home whomever they want (paying or not paying). The limit of 14 days is left wing commie BS of the highest order![...]

And what of those who are clearly NOT owner-occupiers? It's not hard to find them on AirBnB you know, the folks who are not just letting out the spare room, but have bought up a slew of properties so they can play landlord without any of regulation, taxation or responsibility towards the broader community or housing market. The people you're describing won't be affected, and are not the target of the legislation.

Graham · 25-10-2018 1:48pm

Mod Note

Off topic posts moved or deleted.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 25-10-2018 1:51pm

like too many laws in this country it has to properly ENFORCED.

personally i think there are too many tourists in Dublin, so if this leads to a drop in numbers, then i wont be bothered.

seamus · 25-10-2018 1:55pm

GGTrek wrote: »

It is an unenforceable and probably uncostitutional ban for owner occupiers who are free to invite into their home whomever they want (paying or not paying).

You see, this is a fundamental misunderstanding not only of the constitution, but also the basics of how money changes everything.

For a start, the constitution does allow the government to regulate the home.

But "paying or not paying", is completely wrong. For example, "I can sleep with whoever I want (paying or not paying)", is clearly an incorrect statement, since if they're paying, you're now a prostitute.

Likewise, if someone is paying you to stay in your home, there is now a legal contract between you, and they are a paying guest and you are a host.

This means that all kinds of regulations can kick in.

If they're not paying you, they are just a guest at your pleasure and no contract exists, no regulations apply.

it is just political posturing and appeasing the hard left political agenda (who are screaming very loud).

Which is funny, because two weeks ago the government were accused by the hard left of being landlords' stooges, lining their pockets.

It seems like they're doing their best to piss off everyone, which is probably what any government should do, really.

Bob24 · 25-10-2018 1:57pm

GGTrek wrote: »

It is an unenforceable and probably uncostitutional ban for owner occupiers who are free to invite into their home whomever they want (paying or not paying). The limit of 14 days is left wing commie BS of the highest order! In the case of owner occupiers as long as there is no anti-social behaviour that would grant police presence,

Are you sure of your understanding of the new rules?

As far as I understand, it doesn’t affect owner-occupiers very much (that 14 days limit only being for people renting a whole property). As far as I can tell someone who is offering short term lets for a room in the property where they reside can keep doing so all year round with pretty much no change besides the requirement to register with the council, so there is no problem to shout about as far is owner occupiers are concerned.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 25-10-2018 2:07pm

i think we need to house our own citizens first before we house tourists/backpackers.
i say this as a LL (longterm only) and someone who regularly uses AirBnB while on family holidays, business trips etc.

Samuel T. Cogley · 25-10-2018 2:10pm

Sorry but I simply can't see a Constitutional issue here and I'm the first to cite that when it comes to RPZ's. Proper planning enforcement has always been accepted as part of the 'for the common good' qualifier in the protections on private property. That's all these new laws are doing.

Bob24 · 25-10-2018 2:30pm

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

Sorry but I simply can't see a Constitutional issue here and I'm the first to cite that when it comes to RPZ's. Proper planning enforcement has always been accepted as part of the 'for the common good' qualifier in the protections on private property. That's all these new laws are doing.

Agree, and to be honest I think most of the people shouting against those new rules either don’t understand what’s being done here, or are driven by personal/ideological bias towards the status quo of not enforcing planning permissions. The very title of this thread “Air BnB to be effectively outlawed in high demand areas” is a perfect illustration of this misunderstandings/misrepresentation: Airbnb is actually not being outlawed at all and people who are renting a room in their primary residence will be able to keep doing so with no significant restriction.

I think at the end of the day it’s a bit like people who were not paying their due taxes on Airbnb rentals: when the government made a move to force them to pay they felt persecuted, but in truth the situation was more that they had (intentionally or not) been acting illegally for a while with a wrong expectation that it would be tolerated forever, so they were shocked when that tolerance ended. There was bit of tension at the time but today no one would come back and argue that not paying tax on Airbnb rentals should be tolerated. I think the same will happen with enforcement of planning permission.

andekwarhola · 25-10-2018 2:35pm

Don't see the issue. You can still do AirBnB as a room offering as orginally intended. You can also let out your whole house for 90 days of the year if you want. All that's changed is that planning has finally caught up with the widespread abuse of the service

aloooof · 25-10-2018 2:37pm

Bob24 wrote: »

Airbnb is actually not being outlawed at all and people who are renting a room in their primary residence will be able to keep doing so with no significant restriction.

Possibly tangential to this thread, so apologies, but are there reasons why someone would chose this route over the Rent A Room scheme? Or does using AirBNB for you spare room come under the RAR?

Bob24 · 25-10-2018 2:42pm

aloooof wrote: »

Possibly tangential to this thread, so apologies, but are there reasons why someone would chose this route over the Rent A Room scheme? Or does using AirBNB for you spare room come under the RAR?

Short term rentals to tourists would be a lot more expensive than renting a room longer term, and some people might have a personal preference for that arrangement for whatever reason (they might like socialising with foreign visitors, they might prefer tourists who are out the whole day to a tenant who is sitting in the living room the whole day on the weekend, etc).

anotherfinemess · 25-10-2018 2:43pm

Borderfox wrote: »

Airbnb was originally used as a rent your spare room but now its used for entire properties, does this not fall foul of planning laws?

One guy on the Moan to Joe programme said he'd been doing Air BnB with 20 properties in Dublin. It's a shame that what began as a people helping people scheme has been ended by the usual greedy pig brigade

aloooof · 25-10-2018 2:45pm

Bob24 wrote: »

Short term rentals to tourists would be a lot more expensive than renting a room longer term, and some people might have a personal preference for that arrangement for whatever reason (they might like socialising with foreign visitors, they might prefer tourists who are out the whole day to a tenant who is sitting in the living room the whole day on the weekend, etc).

Makes sense. But am I correct that it doesn't qualify as tax-free under RAR? And also may have CGT implications down the line?

(And apologies, I'll stop the derailing now).

TheChizler · 25-10-2018 2:46pm

anotherfinemess wrote: »

It's a shame that what began as a people helping people scheme has been ended by the usual greedy pig brigade

It hasn't ended. The purpose that AirBnB was originally set up for is perfectly allowable.

Amirani · 25-10-2018 2:52pm

aloooof wrote: »

Makes sense. But am I correct that it doesn't qualify as tax-free under RAR? And also may have CGT implications down the line?

(And apologies, I'll stop the derailing now).

Yeah, doesn't qualify for RAR. Not sure what CGT implications it could have, could you elaborate?

Personally, I can see the value. For example; if you and your partner have a 2 bed apartment and want to allow AirBnB guests on weekends but don't want guests staying during the week when you have work etc. Renting out a room is a much more permanent arrangement that temporarily letting people stay with you.

Bob24 · 25-10-2018 2:53pm

aloooof wrote: »

Makes sense. But am I correct that it doesn't qualify as tax-free under RAR? And also may have CGT implications down the line?

(And apologies, I'll stop the derailing now).

As far as I know yes you are correct, it doesn’t qualify for tax free letting (no idea about CGT). But I’d say a room in a high demand area which would rent for 1000 euros a month under the rent a room scheme is probably going to easily get you 80 euros per night on Airbnb.

handlemaster · 25-10-2018 3:02pm

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

like too many laws in this country it has to properly ENFORCED.

personally i think there are too many tourists in Dublin, so if this leads to a drop in numbers, then i wont be bothered.

If it wasnt written I wouldnt believe there are people out there with this attitude. How many jobs are support by tourism in ireland ?

aloooof · 25-10-2018 3:04pm

Amirani wrote: »

Yeah, doesn't qualify for RAR. Not sure what CGT implications it could have, could you elaborate?

Bob24 wrote: »

As far as I know yes you are correct, it doesn’t qualify for tax free letting (no idea about CGT). But I’d say a room in a high demand area which would could rent for 1000 euros a month under the rent a room scheme is probably going to easily get you 80 euros per night on Airbnb.

I'm not sure myself, I'd be speculating, just something I heard during conversation, but I must look into it further.

In any case, thanks for replies.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 25-10-2018 3:10pm

handlemaster wrote: »

If it wasnt written I wouldnt believe there are people out there with this attitude. How many jobs are support by tourism in ireland ?

which confirms my point that there are too many tourists.
try getting a hotel in Dublin any weekend and you'll see.

maybe it's time we stopped trying to be a leprechaun theme park for them.

robp · 25-10-2018 3:25pm

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

i think we need to house our own citizens first before we house tourists/backpackers.
i say this as a LL (longterm only) and someone who regularly uses AirBnB while on family holidays, business trips etc.

Private home owners have no social responsibly to house people. They just don't.

Pelvis · 25-10-2018 3:29pm

robp wrote: »

Private home owners have no social responsibly to house people. They just don't.

No one is forcing them to, but if they want to rent out their house, they have to follow the rules.

Nermal · 25-10-2018 3:29pm

Wheres Me Jumper? wrote: »

which confirms my point that there are too many tourists. try getting a hotel in Dublin any weekend and you'll see.

Too few rooms, not 'too many tourists'. A problem which is caused by over-regulation, and won't be solved by further regulation.

TheChizler wrote: »

It hasn't ended. The purpose that AirBnB was originally set up for is perfectly allowable.

Who cares what the original purpose was? I like the new purpose: allowing people to stay on a short term basis in an entire apartment or house, at a reasonable price, in any location in the world. If there are not enough buildings, remove the obstacles to building more of them.

AlmightyCushion · 25-10-2018 3:33pm

Nermal wrote: »

Who cares what the original purpose was? I like the new purpose: allowing people to stay on a short term basis in an entire apartment or house, at a reasonable price, in any location in the world. If there are not enough buildings, remove the obstacles to building more of them.

And that new purpose still exists, as long as the apartment or house is planned for that and allows for tourism/short stay usage.

TheChizler · 25-10-2018 3:51pm

Nermal wrote: »

Who cares what the original purpose was?

The poster I was responding to, perhaps?

dionsiseire · 25-10-2018 3:55pm

We banned Uber because it would interfere with the whole market of taxi drivers and undermine the license plate system. Which makes sense

We're now blocking AirBnB for a similar reason, to ensure landlords have to have registered tenants which ensures the tenancy laws and protections apply. It opens more options back onto the market, which in turn will be swept up by the current bunch of home needy folk who can't even get a viewing.

Landlords won't lose out in terms of occupancy but might lose a little in volume sales. However it solves a bigger economic issue so really it's a necessity.

If thousands of people now have homes before Christmas, I'm all for this.

Thestones · 25-10-2018 4:02pm

robp wrote: »

Private home owners have no social responsibly to house people. They just don't.

No they don't however Airbnb doesn't just impact renters looking for a place to live it affects anyone living next door to an Airbnb property. No one wants to live next door to a house or apartment that has different people every week making noise, having parties or whatever. I feel sorry for people living in apartment blocks that have this issue. It's a social responsibility to get these regulations in place. For those that say 'my home, I'll do what I like' well sorry but regulations are put in place for good reason and unless you live in a detached house with its own land you can't really just do what you want without consequences, if your property is an apartment complex or housing estate then regulations need to be there to protect everyone.

mdebets · 25-10-2018 4:09pm

handlemaster wrote: »

so true. I expect this to add a few percentages to the cost of renting in those areas affected.

Scaremongering. Why would it? Even in the worst case, if all former Air B&B properties remain empty, there will be no rent increases, because supply and demand stay the same. If only one former Air B&B property will be rented out to long-term tenants or sold to an owner-occupier, the rents will decrease, as supply increases and demand stays the same.

KevinCavan · 25-10-2018 4:15pm

Anything but build houses or develop sites. Rental prices won’t go down now anyway, so what’s the point really. If anything it will just hurt tourists and Irish people going away for a weekend in Ireland. What does Murphy think that a flat that was €1800 a month in Dublin, will now be €1600, because a few Airbnb are shut down?! The rents will stay the same ffs, or they’ll continue to rise. Token bullsh1t gestures like these do nothing to affect the market. 10,000 new homes in Dublin or Cork would do something.

Wheres Me Jumper? · 25-10-2018 4:22pm

this measure on it's own will not solve the housing crisis, but surely it is better to light a candle as it were.
by freeing up these short-term lets, it will mean more available houses for families and long-term tenants.

and as a bonus the neighbours of these units will not have to endure tourists, stags, hens, etc. coming & going at all hours.
double bonus! we might get less frickin tourists blocking up our airports, streets, and pubs!

Samuel T. Cogley · 25-10-2018 4:28pm

dionsiseire wrote: »

If thousands of people now have homes before Christmas, I'm all for this.

Xmas 2019 maybe, the new legislation won't take effect until June '19 and gives 90 days which will take us through the summer - although planning will be required I expect that part will effectively be ignored as it is at the moment. There might be a crack down after that, but even that I doubt. They'll be one or two high profile cases and then sod all enforcement. At some point AirBnB may co-operate with handing over details but I expect it'll still go on, on a much smaller scale through other websites.

Spanish Eyes · 25-10-2018 4:30pm

I think it is Air BnB going back to basics. You know.... host visitors in your own home for an agreed fee.

Not someone with twenty apartments or more letting them out constantly in high demand areas under ABB.

Anyway, the ordinary Joe or Josie who is letting out a room or rooms in their house say every weekend or when there is a big gig on will get a reasonable price per night. They are not being restricted. Halve that though and add on USC and PRSI for the bottom line.

They can also let their entire property out in blocks of 14 days to a max of 90 days per annum.

Apart from the tax implications mentioned above, sounds like a good deal within the original spirit of ABB.

RAR is a better bet taxwise, but ABB suits others who have a spare room too.

l5auim2pjnt8qx · 25-10-2018 4:47pm

Effectively it's not coming in until June 2019 and Landlords will still be able to
airbnb until 90 days , Councils will not be able to enforce Landlords to register 3 month tenancies or less as they don't have the capacity or time to deal with this - it will be all threats and blowing smoke from housing bodies alike!
.

Eoghan Murphy again lacking leadership qualities as a Minister and pandering to
Threshold and other nanny state agencies.I know of many Landlords that would rather leave there properties vacant than be told by the state who they can put into there properties.

Criminal convictions for non paying tenants is long overdue and I've said this before a Landlord national Boycott of Threshold as this agency is becoming a rogue state agency causing unbelievable damage to the lettings market and the families it is suppose to be looking after.( threshold CEO salary on over 100K)
It's no wonder we have a crisis.

25-10-2018 4:48pm

GGTrek wrote: »

It is an unenforceable and probably uncostitutional ban for owner occupiers who are free to invite into their home whomever they want (paying or not paying). The limit of 14 days is left wing commie BS of the highest order! In the case of owner occupiers as long as there is no anti-social behaviour that would grant police presence, the govvie is screwed and it is just political posturing and appeasing the hard left political agenda (who are screaming very loud). Please tell me how the councils or any govvie agent will be able to enforce any of such BS against an owner occupier, council inspectors will not have right of entry and will have to go to a court to request entry with very solid evidence to get a warrant for entry (by which time any guest will be gone) and judge will likely refuse since it is not criminal activity. I know what I would do if a council inspector tried to get access to my own home for any of this BS, I would tell him/her to .... right off with great pleasure.

It’s not aimed at owner occupiers. It’s aimed at those who let out whole houses/apartments on short term lets. Those properties that were built as private dwellings, not commercial properties.

Graham · 25-10-2018 4:58pm

Marie Narrow Custodian wrote: »

Councils will not be able to enforce Landlords to register 3 month tenancies or less as they don't have the capacity or time to deal with this

"owners will have to tell the local authority that they intend to avail of an exemption allowing them to 'homeshare'"

Hold the letting platforms responsible for checking.

Marie Narrow Custodian wrote: »

I know of many Landlords that would rather leave there properties vacant than be told by the state who they can put into there properties.

In a market where capital appreciation has slowed to a crawl, you would have to be a fairly daft investor to think this was a good idea while monthly costs/insurance issues stack up.

Amirani · 25-10-2018 4:59pm

Marie Narrow Custodian wrote: »

Criminal convictions for non paying tenants is long overdue

We should absolutely not be giving criminal convictions for civil matters.

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

Comments