Landlords solely using AirBnB for lettings now require planning permission

pilly

wordofwarning wrote: »

It has already started in Dublin. There are a few Aparthotel style developments with planning waiting to be built. Banning Airbnb will just penalise the small person with an Airbnb. The State will allow a massive company with tens of millions to build blocks of short term let apartments, that could be residential apartments. Airbnb exists as there is a demand for it. It would not be as popular if our hotels were not over 90% full midweek during low season.

Banning Airbnb will just shift the profits of short term lets to other players in the market. Like changing residential accommodation has benefited institutional investors at the expense of small landlords.

But part of the shortage of hotel rooms is to do with homeless families having permanent rooms in them. Freeing up residential property for sale or rent will help relieve this problem.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

You're obsessed with punishment. Most people just want to see it curtailed.

I'm trying to tell you that there is nothing that can be done to owners who Airbnb their properties. There is nothing to fear for them.
You are trying to make out there is.
And once they start figuring this out they will be back. Actually most of them have figured it out and go through other avenues for short term.
There are numerous agents now in Dublin that will look after it for you and the MC won't even know that your property is back being let again.

So what you see when the MC warn people off it is then just moving out of view. Some may stop out of fear. Most just get cuter about it and continue.

dubdev

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I'm trying to tell you that there is nothing that can be done to owners who Airbnb their properties. There is nothing to fear for them.
You are trying to make out there is.
And once they start figuring this out they will be back. Actually most of them have figured it out and go through other avenues for short term.
There are numerous agents now in Dublin that will look after it for you and the MC won't even know that your property is back being let again.

So what you see when the MC warn people off it is then just moving out of view. Some may stop out of fear. Most just get cuter about it and continue.

You underestimate other residents, estate security, and the property management company. We have a list of every apartment that's being used for short-term letting, and who is using AirBnB, who is using The Key Collection etc.
The folks who live where I live long-term are paying top dollar for the privilege, so their pain threshold for nuisance noise is going be a lot lower than in other places. They are going to report it.

We have an apartment directly above us being used for STLs and I managed to find out who is letting it by chatting to the guests in the lift. There's no being cute, it's not rocket science in fairness, when you hear cases being wheeled around at 2am it's fairly obvious what's going on.

As regards there being nothing to fear, a lot of the AirBnB landlords stopped when they started being fined €200 per incident of reported nuisance behaviour in their management fees.

dubdev

dubdev wrote: »

You underestimate other residents, estate security, and the property management company. We have a list of every apartment that's being used for short-term letting, and who is using AirBnB, who is using The Key Collection etc.
The folks who live where I live long-term are paying top dollar for the privilege, so their pain threshold for nuisance noise is going be a lot lower than in other places. They are going to report it.

We have an apartment directly above us being used for STLs and I managed to find out who is letting it by chatting to the guests in the lift. There's no being cute, it's not rocket science in fairness, when you hear cases being wheeled around at 2am it's fairly obvious what's going on.

As regards there being nothing to fear, a lot of the AirBnB landlords stopped when they started being fined €200 per incident of reported nuisance behaviour in their management fees.

I'd imagine what he means is you can't really stop it. Fines will be ignored, you can't lock someone out a property they own etc.

I'd be surprised if it was even legal to increase the managment fee or add fines like this.

murphaph

dubdev wrote: »

Two different cases entirely. In an apartment block, short-term subletting of entire apartments on an industrial scale turns it into a badly run hotel where you have randomers coming and going at all hours of the night and day with little to no oversight as to who they are.

The anti-social behaviour of it is just one aspect of it. If you've bought an apartment to live in as your home, then you have a right to to do so in peace and quiet.

As regards the state taking too much of an interest in citizens' private property, owning a property doesn't give someone the right to be a d**k. They are still subject to planning legislation and civil and criminal law. They will have neighbours, common areas and local amenities which they are expected to interact with legally and respectfully.

Read my post again.

I agreed that tourist lettings in an apartment block are likely to be a nuisance to the residents.

I do not agree that these lettings are likely to be a nuisance where the property is a stand alone house with own front door access and no common areas etc.

You can get anti-social behaviour from residents too and then you're lumped with them for months at least.

Graham

jamesthepeach wrote: »

I'm trying to tell you that there is nothing that can be done to owners who Airbnb their properties. There is nothing to fear for them.

You're confusing 'nothing has been done in my development' with 'nothing can be done'.

jamesthepeach

dubdev wrote: »

You underestimate other residents, estate security, and the property management company. We have a list of every apartment that's being used for short-term letting, and who is using AirBnB, who is using The Key Collection etc.
The folks who live where I live long-term are paying top dollar for the privilege, so their pain threshold for nuisance noise is going be a lot lower than in other places. They are going to report it.

We have an apartment directly above us being used for STLs and I managed to find out who is letting it by chatting to the guests in the lift. There's no being cute, it's not rocket science in fairness, when you hear cases being wheeled around at 2am it's fairly obvious what's going on.

As regards there being nothing to fear, a lot of the AirBnB landlords stopped when they started being fined €200 per incident of reported nuisance behaviour in their management fees.

Oh I'd love to live there and have you "fine" me.
You wouldn't be long finding out that you can't actually do that to individuals.

Graham

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Oh I'd love to live there and have you "fine" me.
You wouldn't be long finding out that you can't actually do that to individuals.

It's entirely plausible the management company is just passing on the additional costs attributed to a particular apartment.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

You're confusing 'nothing has been done in my development' with 'nothing can be done'.

So can we stop talking about everything like it's a done deal then.
You can short term let your property all.you want and people and MCs can bark and growl all they want but they can't do anything.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

It's entirely plausible the management company is just passing on the additional costs attributed to a particular apartment.

They can't do that either. If they are then the victim plus do well to get a solicitor involved.

Graham

jamesthepeach wrote: »

So can we stop talking about everything like it's a done deal then.
You can short term let your property all.you want and people and MCs can bark and growl all they want but they can't do anything.

Nobody suggested it was a done deal, most people are following the developments with interest.

Then there's 1 or 2 who metaphorically stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la you can't touch me" while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

Nobody suggested it was a done deal, most people are following the developments with interest.

Then there's 1 or 2 who metaphorically stick their fingers in their ears and sing "la la la you can't touch me" while ignoring any evidence to the contrary.

Again. What evidence are you talking about. Show me what happened to the people singing la la la you can't touch me.

Yourself isit

Odin Thousands Flapjack wrote: »

I'd imagine what he means is you can't really stop it. Fines will be ignored, you can't lock someone out a property they own etc.

I'd be surprised if it was even legal to increase the managment fee or add fines like this.

Management fees change year by year. The original lease will probably have a penalty clause in there re nuisance.

Graham

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Again. What evidence are you talking about. Show me what happened to the people singing la la la you can't touch me.

For the most part they're still singing convinced that because nothing has happened yet, that nothing will.

On the other side of the coin, dubdev has already pointed out that efforts from their local management company has already reduced short-term lettings by 75%.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

For the most part they're still singing convinced that because nothing has happened yet, that nothing will.

On the other side of the coin, dubdev has already pointed out that efforts from their local management company has already reduced short-term lettings by 75%.

Good. So we are agreed then that there is nothing apart from scare tactics stopping people from doing short term letting. And I can't wait for all of the people who dubdev "fined" to realise that if they were stupid enough to pay that they can get their money back.

Graham

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Good. So we are agreed then that there is nothing apart from scare tactics stopping people from doing short term letting.

Yeah, court injunctions are fairly toothless :rolleyes:

Graham

Yourself isit wrote: »

Management fees change year by year. The original lease will probably have a penalty clause in there re nuisance.

Or maybe something along the lines of; expenses incurred due to the action/inaction of a specific apartment owner in contravention of the head lease can be recovered from said owner.

Said owner may ignore such charges right up until they want to sell.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

Or maybe something along the lines of; expenses incurred due to the action/inaction of a specific apartment owner in contravention of the head lease can be recovered from said owner.

Said owner may ignore such charges right up until they want to sell.

What expenses were incurred?

Duncanwooly

hytrogen wrote: »

I think this all sets a very bad precedence legally, especially for home owners who take lodgers and use airbnb to advertise their availabilities.

If you're looking for a lodger, why would you advertise on Airbnb?

Graham

jamesthepeach wrote: »

What expenses were incurred?

You'd have to speak to the management companies directly. My guess would be additional security, intervention by security, damage, replacement of keys. Time spent handling complaints from other residents/homeowners. Additional wear and tear.

Take your pick.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

You'd have to speak to the management companies directly. My guess would be additional security, intervention by security, damage, replacement of keys. Time spent handling complaints from other residents/homeowners. Additional wear and tear.

Take your pick.

So nothing but makey uppy stuff again.
When you come up with something demonstrable do let us know though.

Graham

jamesthepeach wrote: »

So nothing but makey uppy stuff again.
When you come up with something demonstrable do let us know though.

ok, I think we're just back to the start of your argument now ignoring any evidence to the contrary. There's clearly nothing that's going to convince you anything can ever be done to restrict AirBnB type rentals.

I guess that's understandable as you're hoping to AirBnB your own apartment so best of luck with that.

jamesthepeach

Graham wrote: »

ok, I think we're just back to the start of your argument now ignoring any evidence to the contrary. There's clearly nothing that's going to convince you anything can ever be done to restrict AirBnB type rentals.

I guess that's understandable as you're hoping to AirBnB your own apartment so best of luck with that.

You have no evidence.
Evidence will convince me and everyone else.
What is it? Show us something demonstrable that has been done to people doing airbnb to punish them for it. As it is anyone wishing to Airbnb their property can ignored all warnings to them to stop and suffer no I'll effects.

And quoting an internet randomer who CLAIMS to be fining people €200 for doing it isn't evidence.

Graham

In other related new this week it appears Fingal CoCo are taking enforcement proceedings against a property owner in Malahide following complaints the house was being used exclusively for short-term lettings on Airbnb.

The case is one of three live cases before the local authority at the moment and the property owner involved is known to own several other properties.

https://www.irishtimes.com/news/ireland/irish-news/action-against-dublin-landlord-over-airbnb-after-neighbours-complain-1.3124316

Yourself isit

jamesthepeach wrote: »

You have no evidence.
Evidence will convince me and everyone else.
What is it? Show us something demonstrable that has been done to people doing airbnb to punish them for it. As it is anyone wishing to Airbnb their property can ignored all warnings to them to stop and suffer no I'll effects.

And quoting an internet randomer who CLAIMS to be fining people €200 for doing it isn't evidence.

We are all internet randomers here. Surely it's up to you to prove that management companies or local councils can't take action. Clearly they can and have.

davindub

jamesthepeach wrote: »

Again. What evidence are you talking about. Show me what happened to the people singing la la la you can't touch me.

156.—(1) A person who is guilty of an offence under sections 58 (4), 63 , 151 , 154 , 205 , 230 (3), 239 and 247 shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000,000, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to both, or

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both.

(2) Where a person is convicted of an offence referred to in subsection (1) and there is a continuation by him or her of the offence after his or her conviction, he or she shall be guilty of a further offence on every day on which the contravention continues and for each such offence shall be liable—

(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine not exceeding £10,000 for each day on which the offence is so continued, or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 2 years, or to both, provided that if a person is convicted in the same proceedings of 2 or more such further offences the aggregate term of imprisonment to which he or she shall be liable shall not exceed 2 years, or

(b) on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £400 for each day on which the offence is so continued or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months, or to both, provided that if a person is convicted in the same proceedings of 2 or more such further offences the aggregate term of imprisonment to which he or she shall be liable shall not exceed 6 months.

(3) Where a person is convicted of an offence referred to in subsection (1) involving the construction of an unauthorised structure, the minimum fine shall be—

(a) on conviction on indictment, the estimated cost of the construction of the structure or £10,000, whichever is less, or

(b) on summary conviction, the estimated cost of the construction of the structure or £500, whichever is less,

except where the person convicted can show to the court's satisfaction that he or she does not have the necessary financial means to pay the minimum fine.

(4) Any person who is guilty of an offence under this Act other than an offence referred to in subsection (1) (or a further offence under subsection (2)) shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding £1,500 or, at the discretion of the court, to imprisonment for a term not exceeding 6 months or to both.

(5) If the contravention in respect of which a person is convicted under section 46 (11), 208 (2)(b) or 252 (9) is continued after the conviction, that person shall be guilty of a further offence on every day on which the contravention continues and for each such offence he or she shall be liable on summary conviction to a fine not exceeding £400.

(6) In a prosecution for an offence under sections 151 and 154 it shall not be necessary for the prosecution to show, and it shall be assumed until the contrary is shown by the defendant, that the subject matter of the prosecution was development and was not exempted development.

(7) Where an enforcement notice has been served under section 154 , it shall be a defence to a prosecution under section 151 or 154 if the defendant proves that he or she took all reasonable steps to secure compliance with the enforcement notice.

(8) On conviction of an offence under section 154 , the court may, in addition to imposing the penalties specified in subsections (1) and (2), order the person convicted to take the steps specified in the enforcement order to be taken.

andekwarhola

Was socializing with a group a few weeks back and two of the people owned multiple properties (not in the Republic) and they were both quite open in saying that they were just waiting for their current tenant leases to run down so they could 'get them out' and go completely AirBnB.

Was a bit shocked.

andekwarhola

andekwarhola wrote: »

Was socializing with a group a few weeks back and two of the people owned multiple properties (not in the Republic) and they were both quite open in saying that they were just waiting for their current tenant leases to run down so they could 'get them out' and go completely AirBnB.

Was a bit shocked.

Its hardly shocking, people invest in property to make money and in popular areas where you will have a high occupancy rate on airbnb there is much more money to be made than in a traditional letting while also keeping total control of the property

wordofwarning

dubdev wrote: »

As regards there being nothing to fear, a lot of the AirBnB landlords stopped when they started being fined €200 per incident of reported nuisance behaviour in their management fees.

I am going to hazard a guess you did not take that hardline approach on problematic long term tenants?

Murrisk

Would a mass exodus to Airbnb just cause saturation of the short-term rentals market? Like, I understand Airbnb is very popular but the more people who go the short term rentals route, the more spread thin the customer base will be, especially if you don't have accommodation in a prime location. I'd imagine there isn't an endless stream of people to fill all available Airbnb accommodations. It seems the more people take the plunge, the less money there will be to be made in it unless your property is in a highly convenient or stunning location. And a lot of Irish rental accommodation would not cut it as holiday lets, people don't like tatty accommodation and will mark an accommodation down based on that, meaning that the owner might have to either lower the price to get in punters or refurbish to a higher standard. I don't know if what I say will be the case, just typing out loud here!