Landlords solely using AirBnB for lettings now require planning permission

beauf

People wanted the small LL and accidental LL removed from the market in favor of larger commercial focused business as it was suggested they would be know how to make it profitable enough provide a supply.

Well this is how they will operate. They will switch to whatever makes the most money. If that is flipping property or airbnb that is what they will do.

Sharktopus

beauf wrote: »

People wanted the small LL and accidental LL removed from the market in favor of larger commercial focused business as it was suggested they would be know how to make it profitable enough provide a supply.

Well this is how they will operate. They will switch to whatever makes the most money. If that is flipping property or airbnb that is what they will do.

Agreed. That's why we need proper regulation of the rental market. It's painfully overdue at this stage.

gaffer91

newacc2015 wrote: »

You kept saying it is "market distorting", but having nothing to back it up. Nothing at all. Or that figures you have made up and constantly keep saying it "market distorting".

A Daft.ie Report discussing rising rents indicated 3600 rental properties nationwide in August. There are 2800 unoccupied dwellings on Airbnb in Dublin alone. You don't have to be a genius to see how these two things could be affecting each other.

newacc2015 wrote: »

You had an issue with around 500m worth of housing being used for Airbnb. Yet when I raise the fact tens of billions of Irish housing is being owned tax free by dodgy funds, you dont see it as relevant? Why is it unacceptable for an property to be used as an Airbnb paying around 50% plus VAT, but ok for a dodgy fund to own billions of property without paying tax?

That wasn't me who mentioned about the value of housing. I previously said that property owned by "dodgy funds" is irrelevant in the discussion about Airbnb. The "dodgy funds" may be having an impact but it doesn't matter at all to the Airbnb discussion.

newacc2015 wrote: »

My point about bedsits is that removing 5.3k units of housing is in fact "market distorting". Yet you are really going to say it is irrelevant? You are rattling on about how 2.5K airbnbs are distorting the market, yet the Government removed 5.3K housing units and you are really going to this is irrelevant to the housing shortage?!?!?! The Government themselves admitting banning bedsits contributed to the housing crisis.

Again, the bedsits are irrelevant in any discussion about the impact of the rental market by Airbnb. Just like the "dodgy funds" you try to distract us with. Stay on Airbnb.

newacc2015 wrote: »

Cities which are banning Airbnb all have housing shortages. The City authorities are not building enough housing like Dublin. They are banning Airbnb to pretend they are doing something about the housing crisis, when in fact they need to build housing. DCC could ban Airbnbs which in your opinion would be "fantastic". Now tell me where DCC are going to get the other 7.5k housing units Dublin City needs each year(Dublin needs around 10k units a year)?

Basically every person who is arguing against Airbnb has agreed that A. It is not a silver bullet to solve the rental crisis and other measures must be taken as well. And B. One of these measures should be increased construction. Do you even read the responses?

One thing DCC could do to increase the number of housing units is get rid of ridiculous building height restrictions.

newacc2015 wrote: »

I think any this of argue on banning Airbnbs is based on the facts. You dont seem to care about the quantity of Airbnbs in the city or that fact there are far less than the amount of housing units that were bedsits.

It's entirely based on facts. Some of the "facts" you have come out with include underestimating the amount of unoccupied rentals on Airbnb by half and referring to the nationwide figure of bedsits as if it was solely the Dublin one. You also have gone off on ridiculous tangents about "dodgy funds" which bear no impact on what we are discussing.

Please take the time to actually read and understand what people are actually saying to you before coming back with the exact same arguments again. They have been repeatedly debunked.

beauf

There is regulation and enforcement. No point one without the other. There's almost nothing that would encourage LL to get into the business. You'd have to make as much profit as possible to cover the risks and losses. That's why we are where we are.

foggy_lad

murphaph wrote: »

Sounds simple but hotel rooms are also at record low levels of availability. Now, remove the airbnb option and even fewer hotel rooms become available so the state has to rent more private dwellings for emergency accommodation, rather than hotels and b&bs, further reducing the housing supply to ordinary working punters.

So those in emergency accommodation get offered a choice of maybe 2 rental properties in areas outside the city area or away from Dublin altogether and if they refuse they are effectively taking themselves off the list for housing and the council can tell them to find their own housing. This leaves city hotels free for tourists and also leaves housing and apartments near the city centre for those working in the city.

appfry

Im gone off Airbnb as a customer, but I got an offer form a friend the other day.
We rent our 3 bed house out when we are away, which is most of the time, which has been going well.
My friend (ex - colleague of about 15 years) has been renting his house out on Airbnb for the last few years and says that he can get well over twice as much from Airbnb as we do in rent. He was showing us his airbnb account figures and his house id very similar to ours and not far away at all and his figures check out.

i dont really want to be dealing with Airbnb with all of the meeting and greeting etc that comes along with it as I wont even be in the country.

So, his proposal is that he rents out our house off of us for the time we are not using it and he puts it on AirBnb as the host. Hes already doing this with one other house he doesnt own too.
He will pay us 50% more than we currently get in rent anyway each month as the fixed rent and then pocket anything he makes from Airbnb himself. He will also look after maintenance etc.

I think I will give it some thought. I dont think there are any laws against such an arrangement, but I will check it out.

athtrasna

gaffer91 wrote: »

A Daft.ie Report discussing rising rents indicated 3600 rental properties nationwide in August. There are 2800 unoccupied dwellings on Airbnb in Dublin alone. You don't have to be a genius to see how these two things could be affecting each other.





That wasn't me who mentioned about the value of housing. I previously said that property owned by "dodgy funds" is irrelevant in the discussion about Airbnb. The "dodgy funds" may be having an impact but it doesn't matter at all to the Airbnb discussion.



Again, the bedsits are irrelevant in any discussion about the impact of the rental market by Airbnb. Just like the "dodgy funds" you try to distract us with. Stay on Airbnb.



Basically every person who is arguing against Airbnb has agreed that A. It is not a silver bullet to solve the rental crisis and other measures must be taken as well. And B. One of these measures should be increased construction. Do you even read the responses?

One thing DCC could do to increase the number of housing units is get rid of ridiculous building height restrictions.




It's entirely based on facts. Some of the "facts" you have come out with include underestimating the amount of unoccupied rentals on Airbnb by half and referring to the nationwide figure of bedsits as if it was solely the Dublin one. You also have gone off on ridiculous tangents about "dodgy funds" which bear no impact on what we are discussing.

Please take the time to actually read and understand what people are actually saying to you before coming back with the exact same arguments again. They have been repeatedly debunked.

Please leave the moderation to the mods, thanks

lawred2

seamus wrote: »

http://www.rte.ie/news/2016/1019/825318-airbnb-temple-bar/

TL;DR:

- Dublin City Council held the owners of an apartment in breach of planning regulations for using AirBnB for letting out their apartment
- Owners appealed to ABP
- ABP upheld the DCC ruling
- Owners must now apply for change-of-use permission from residential to short-term holiday letting

It's only a single case, but clearly now applies to any landlord whp is solely using AirBnB for their lettings. Which should be good news for people renting in the city centre.

Fair enough.

murphaph

foggy_lad wrote: »

So those in emergency accommodation get offered a choice of maybe 2 rental properties in areas outside the city area or away from Dublin altogether and if they refuse they are effectively taking themselves off the list for housing and the council can tell them to find their own housing. This leaves city hotels free for tourists and also leaves housing and apartments near the city centre for those working in the city.

I'd be fine with that but that isn't how it works presently and that won't be how it works after an airbnb ban starts to have an impact on hotel room availability. I'm merely stating that banning airbnbs is not going to free up all those units for private tenants, as has been suggested. The situation is more complicated because the date relies on hotels and b&bs for accommodation too.

I agree entirely however with a ban on the permanent usage of an apartment as an airbnb but not because it removes the property from the rental stock (you should be able to let your property as you see fit IMO) but because it's a massive nuisance for the residents in such a block when several apartments become permanent airbnbs and the foyer becomes a hotel lobby.

TSQ

foggy_lad wrote: »

The bedsits being banned was more a European direction because even the most salubrious of bedsits is still only suitable for short term emergency accommodation of up to 3 months. Any longer than that and the tenant(s) must be considered and counted as being homeless.

Well, actually no - north of the city centre now there are several blocks of tiny student "apartments" and actual bedsits with shared facilities - in some cases even shared bedrooms. Last time I heard, most student terms are 6 months and most courses last 3 years, so where you get this idea of them being only for emergency accommodation of "up to 3 months" from is beyond me. Having lived in grotty bedsits in the 70's, it was not the fact of sharing facilities that was the problem, it was the standard of the facilities and, lets be honest about it, the dirty Irish single men you may have ended up sharing with who didn't know what a toilet brush was and never heard of bleach. Properly regulated and maintained there is nothing wrong with the bedsit for single people - students or otherwise - moving out of the family home for the first time. I draw the line at sharing a room with a stranger, but getting together with a friend to share a bedsit if you have to, well, that's life. You have to start somewhere. Unless you think that every single person moving to Dublin has an absolute right to their own 1 bedroom apartment. Whatever chance we have now, we'd never solve the accommodation shortage at that rate.

Elliott S

maximum12 wrote: »

This also benefits other owners or lessees in developments who didn't sign up to live in a guest house.

Graham wrote: »

1) other long-term residents didn't sign-up to live in a holiday village.

This is my main issue with AirBnB moving from its original ethos to properties solely being let out on AirBnB. AirBnB users are on holiday, so more likely to be staying up later, playing loud music and generally being in a party mood. It could be incredibly disruptive living next to a property with a constant stream of holidaymakers.

4ensic15

foggy_lad wrote: »

The bedsits being banned was more a European direction because even the most salubrious of bedsits is still only suitable for short term emergency accommodation of up to 3 months. Any longer than that and the tenant(s) must be considered and counted as being homeless.

Here in Ireland people were living in poky dog-box bedsits with mouldy walls and damp dirty toilets and the poorest cooking facilities for 10years+.

What European direction?

athtrasna

4ensic15 wrote: »

What European direction?

That's off topic so can we move on please

TSQ

foggy_lad wrote: »

So those in emergency accommodation get offered a choice of maybe 2 rental properties in areas outside the city area or away from Dublin altogether and if they refuse they are effectively taking themselves off the list for housing and the council can tell them to find their own housing. This leaves city hotels free for tourists and also leaves housing and apartments near the city centre for those working in the city.

Excuse me, but I don't know where Dubs - on welfare or otherwise - get the notion that they are entitled to a home near their mammy. For generations country folk have had to leave family and friends far behind in order to find work in the city. I don't see why people who make a sacrifice in order to be self-supporting should in addition have to pay the high city rents of people on welfare who aren't prepared to move to affordable, available, out of Dublin homes.(and before I get accused of anti-Dub bias, I am a Dub, but I and my siblings traveled the world in search of work, and some of them still live and work overseas).

Graham

Looks like AirBnB are facing obstacles in many cities across the globe.

Berlin have banned most short-term rentals with 6 figure fines for violations.
Barcelona is imposing 5 figure fines for listings without proper licenses.
Amsterdam is collecting data to pursue illegal hosts.
New York and San Francisco have ongoing legal battles.

Many other cities are watching the outcome of the current legal battles before deciding what action to take.

Public officials need to prioritize the rights of full-time residents over landlords and visitors, said Rosenthal, the New York Assemblywoman.

“I represent New Yorkers,” she said. “I don’t represent tourists, and my responsibility is not to protect their cheap deal at the expense of New Yorkers.”

Source: http://venturebeat.com/2016/10/22/latest-new-york-and-san-francisco-lawsuits-highlight-global-risks-for-airbnb/

While I don't think AirBnB's existence is in jeopardy, the rapid growth certainly could be.

daithi7

Quote: seamus
http://www.rte.ie/news...8-airbnb-temple-bar/

TL;DR:

- Dublin City Council held the owners of an apartment in breach of planning regulations for using AirBnB for letting out their apartment
- Owners appealed to ABP
- ABP upheld the DCC ruling
- Owners must now apply for change-of-use permission from residential to short-term holiday letting

It's only a single case, but clearly now applies to any landlord whp is solely using AirBnB for their lettings. Which should be good news for people renting in the city centre.
End quote.

if it's only a single case, by a single local authority taking account of case specific issues, why does it 'clearly now apply to any landlord whp is solely using AirBnB for their lettings.' As you contend!?

Fwiw, I think it's far from clear.

Also what happens fit instance if the landlord only get some of their rentals via Airbnb? Rent a part of their property this way? Or whatever??

There's very little difference to daft.ie (except the short term nature) which is pretty much used by everyone already imho.

Graham

daithi7 wrote: »

There's very little difference to daft.ie (except the short term nature) which is pretty much used by everyone imho.

There's every difference. You said it yourself 'the short term nature'.

beauf

TSQ wrote: »

Excuse me, but I don't know where Dubs - on welfare or otherwise - get the notion that they are entitled to a home near their mammy. ....

The logical conclusion to that would be moving everyone on welfare no matter where they in the country to all move to the cheapest county regardless of where it is. Which is obviously unworkable. Also has nothing to do with AirBnB.

daithi7

Graham wrote: »

There's every difference. You said it yourself 'the short term nature'.

Well assuming it is being used for short term rentals that is' A Difference', but far from 'Every Difference' imho as you're trying to suggest.

I mean if a property and it's tenants are well managed & looked after, big bloody deal if it is being used for short term lettings via Airbnb, that's surely the property owner's right?!

I mean when someone bought a house say, did the local authority stipulate then that they could not use it for short term rentals!?! Most probably not. So why should they be allowed make that restrictive stipulation now in retrospect!?

So, provided tenants are not making a nuisance of themselves (which they were in the one Dublin city council case apparently) it's not really anyone's bloody business, except the property owner & the mostly tourists who are being facilitated by having access to more affordable accommodation all over the country which they could not access previously. That's a great tourist resource btw.

I think Airbnb is a great innovation tbh, most particularly in a city like Dublin that is short on hotel beds. Also there are a lot of private properties in negative equity, etc, etc, with property owners really struggling pay their mortgage, and Airbnb & it's ilk is allowing some of them access new income streams from mostly overseas visitors. Well managed this is a clear win win, good for the much beleaguered property owner, the visitor, the banks, tourism, tax receipts and the country in general. it's really only the luny lefties and regressive stuck in the muds who'll moan about such a useful innovation for Ireland......... Well done lads..

sondagefaux

I mean when someone bought a house say, did the local authority stipulate then that they could not use it for short term rentals!?! Most probably not. So why should they be allowed make that restrictive stipulation now in retrospect!?

Most residential houses and residential apartments were built with planning permission requiring them to be used primarily as residences, not for business use.

Buying an apartment, with no intention of living there, and renting it out on a short-term basis to tourists (whether via Airbnb or otherwise), is not a residential use, it is a business use.

If you want to change the use of a property with pre-existing planning permission for residential use to business use, you need planning permission. This has always been the case.

The An Bord Plean la ruling, which upheld a Dublin City Council decision, makes this clear.

You cannot simply do what you want with your property just because you bought it.

You are required to put it to uses that are covered by its planning permissions and you are required to obey any other relevant laws pertaining to its use or development.

That's not loony leftism - it's simply demonstrating respect for other people and obeying the law, virtues which presumably a right-winger like yourself should support...

Graham

daithi7 wrote: »

I mean when someone bought a house say, did the local authority stipulate then that they could not use it for short term rentals!?!

Yes by nature of the planning permission being residential use, as the recent ruling from ABP appears to confirm.

gaffer91

daithi7 wrote: »

Well assuming it is being used for short term rentals that is' A Difference', but far from 'Every Difference' imho as you're trying to suggest.

I mean if a property and it's tenants are well managed & looked after, big bloody deal if it is being used for short term lettings via Airbnb, that's surely the property owner's right?!

I mean when someone bought a house say, did the local authority stipulate then that they could not use it for short term rentals!?! Most probably not. So why should they be allowed make that restrictive stipulation now in retrospect!?

It shouldn't be the property owners right. This isn't some libertarian utopia. Properties are being used for Airbnb instead of allowing locals to rent. This is restricting supply and driving up rents. This is what's called an externality- people leasing on Airbnb are adversely affecting third parties i.e. renters by causing their rent to rise. They should be forced to either stop this negative activity or compensate renters. The latter isn't really practical so it's just easier to go with the first.

Anyway, as others have pointed out, if a property is being used for short term rentals then this strays from it's original use as residential property. It should instead be viewed as commercial property. This is unfair from another perspective as well- airbnb hosts don't have to comply with the mountain of regulations their direct competitors (i.e. hotels) face which gives them a massive advantage.

daithi7 wrote: »

So, provided tenants are not making a nuisance of themselves (which they were in the one Dublin city council case apparently) it's not really anyone's bloody business, except the property owner & the mostly tourists who are being facilitated by having access to more affordable accommodation all over the country which they could not access previously.

It's everyone who has an interest in affordable accommodation's business.

daithi7 wrote: »

That's a great tourist resource btw.

Nobody has ever disputed this. It's terrible for local renters though.

daithi7 wrote: »

I think Airbnb is a great innovation tbh, most particularly in a city like Dublin that is short on hotel beds. Also there are a lot of private properties in negative equity, etc, etc, with property owners really struggling pay their mortgage, and Airbnb & it's ilk is allowing some of them access new income streams from mostly overseas visitors. Well managed this is a clear win win, good for the much beleaguered property owner, the visitor, the banks, tourism, tax receipts and the country in general. it's really only the luny lefties and regressive stuck in the muds who'll moan about such a useful innovation for Ireland......... Well done lads..

Yeah all those "luny" lefts in New York, Barcelona, Amsterdam and Berlin haven't a clue. Useful for tourists, disastrous for locals. That's the key point which you should try to take on board.

sondagefaux

Here's a prime example of how Airbnb has been used in a manner which causes a shortage of properties available for long-term rental:

[font=Georgia, serif]A man renting 40 properties in the Drumcondra area and letting them out through Airbnb was confronted by one of his former landlords on Liveline today.
[/font]
[font=Georgia, serif]Seamus Murphy, a lecturer living in Dublin, rents properties in the Drumcondra area and lets them out to Airbnb customers during the summer months.

One of his former landlords, Angela Black, spoke to Liveline last Friday to complain that a property she rented in Drumcondra was being used for Airbnb without her knowledge.

My neighbour got in touch and said my Airbnb guests were causing trouble and that was the first I had heard of it, Ms Black told Liveline last Friday.

Her tenant today defended his actions, and the conversation quickly turned into an argument when Ms Black was brought back onto the programme to confront him.

Mr Murphy said that he tended to double the rent on a property for Airbnb, but that he was paying Ms Black a good rent: I was paying enough rent for her to be happy, but some people can t be happy.

There was a fight on the street after a concert in Croke Park; it had nothing to do with us. I was contacted by her after the complaint and told to vacate the property by the following night, Mr Murphy told Liveline.

Ms Black responded: We gave you seven days notice to leave and during that week, I had more complaints from my neighbour.

I ll agree with you there; you have a very complaining neighbour, Mr Murphy laughed.

Mr Murphy pointed out that he had lost the deposit on the property, but said: I don t care about it; it s only 500. She s from Mayo so she could give it to the Mayo football team, or the Vincent de Paul.

When Joe Duffy raised the question of how the Airbnb trend is affecting the homelessness crisis, Mr Murphy said: There s plenty of empty houses in Longford and Westmeath.

The role of Airbnb in the renting market has been the subject of much debate since the ruling by An Bord Plean la that the owners of an apartment in Temple Bar had breached planning laws by consistently using the property for short-term letting on Airbnb.

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/man-who-rents-40-properties-and-leases-them-through-airbnb-confronted-by-landlord-35157078.html[/font]

So that's 40 houses off the long-term rental market being used for Airbnb instead. Are people still trying to claim that Airbnb isn't having a distorting effect on long-term rental prices in Dublin?

Graham

sondagefaux wrote: »

So that's 40 houses off the long-term rental market being used for Airbnb instead. Are people still trying to claim that Airbnb isn't having a distorting effect on long-term rental prices in Dublin?

I would bet there are quite a few more examples of owners that don't yet know their 'tenants' are really commercial scale AirBnB hosts.

listermint

Graham wrote: »

I would bet there are quite a few more examples of owners that don't yet know their 'tenants' are really commercial scale AirBnB hosts.

Well tbh i hope Revenue go after him and others like him with Gusto.

The lad sounds like a arrogant creep.

beauf

I think it illustrates how little protection there is for the LL where the tenant decides to sublet as AirBnB in this case but it similar if they weren't using AirBnB.

Long term, multiple property lettings, will distort the market. But they are easily regulated through AirBNB. if some get the finger out and does it.

The short term will effect hotels, etc. But they are at capacity anyway.

Then a related but seperate issue is the problems is causes for other residents.

Graham

beauf wrote: »

I think it illustrates how little protection there is for the LL where the tenant decides to sublet as AirBnB in this case but it similar if they weren't using AirBnB.

Long term, multiple property lettings, will distort the market. But they are easily regulated through AirBNB. if some get the finger out and does it.

I suspect this is one of the reasons AirBnB have booted the 'hosts' with multiple properties first when other cities have started to complain.

It would be interesting to see how Mr Murphy intends to pay the rent on 40 properties from his lecturers salary if his AirBnB account is revoked.

sondagefaux

Graham wrote: »

sondagefaux wrote: »

So that's 40 houses off the long-term rental market being used for Airbnb instead. Are people still trying to claim that Airbnb isn't having a distorting effect on long-term rental prices in Dublin?

I would bet there are quite a few more examples of owners that don't yet know their 'tenants' are really commercial scale AirBnB hosts.

Quite probably. Most tenancy agreements contain clauses that prohibit sub-letting (which would include Airbnb rentals) without the express permission of the landlord. If I was renting to this lecturer, I'd check to ensure that he wasn't in breach of any tenancy agreement we had both agreed to.

seamus

Graham wrote: »

It would be interesting to see how Mr Murphy intends to pay the rent on 40 properties from his lecturers salary if his AirBnB account is revoked.

He won't. He'll just stop paying it and tell the landlords he's gone.

There's no such thing as a class action in Ireland and the odds of any of the landlords suing him for insufficient notice are minimal when they can take his deposit and rent out the property again very quickly.

His case is another example of why a voluntary database would be a useful idea for both landlords and tenants to be able to vet eachother before renting.

gaffer91

beauf wrote: »

I think it illustrates how little protection there is for the LL where the tenant decides to sublet as AirBnB in this case but it similar if they weren't using AirBnB.

Is that really all you took from it?