Airbnb of dedicated rental properties subject to planning permission

Denny_Crane

I can see OMC's getting involved. I know we have a significant number of people who oppose airbnb use and a significant number that let using them. It's been a bone of contention for a while now. This will reopen the discussion, no doubt.

murphaph

testaccount123 wrote: »

This is more good news for Ireland's urban renters.

In addition to the news that will drive landlords out of the sector to be replaced by erm...

Be very careful what you wish for. Berlin is your poster child. Same kind of regulations and still a chronic shortage of rentals.

murphaph

_Jamie_ wrote: »

It's not standalone OR apartment. Semi-detached houses, terraces, standalones are that very close together - in all these scenarios, there is potential for disruption.

There's worse potential to get a long term anti social tenant.

Graham

murphaph wrote: »

In addition to the news that will drive landlords out of the sector to be replaced by erm...

Be very careful what you wish for. Berlin is your poster child. Same kind of regulations and still a chronic shortage of rentals.

The reversion of holiday lets back to residential accommodation can only be a good thing for most of the population.

murphaph

Graham wrote: »

If I were an Airbnb landlord now, I'd be starting to sweat. Imagine being kicked off Airbnb and subsequently discovering you had to revert to long-term residential lettings at the last rent you charged (potentially a couple of years ago)!

You'd just hold out until the 2 years are up though, then rent out at full market rate, or just use another channel like the numerous Facebook groups that exist in German cities to get around airbnb restrictions.

Graham

murphaph wrote: »

You'd just hold out until the 2 years are up though, then rent out at full market rate

Interested in how that would work given the most popular Airbnb areas are also likely to be RPZs subject to a 4% cap increase on previous rents.

murphaph wrote: »

or just use another channel like the numerous Facebook groups that exist in German cities to get around airbnb restrictions.

Without wishing to be rude, I really don't give a monkeys how the Germans flout planning/letting restrictions. There is no saying the same will happen or be allowed to happen here.

I understand there may be some parallels between the two markets which may warrant comparison, I don't think that stretches to every single tiny element of the Irish property market in general.

Carlos Orange

K.Flyer wrote: »

Its no different to landlords letting their properties, but only for shorter terms or home owners letting a room out.

A quick rule of thumb is that when things aren't different they don't require a but.

moleyv

seamus wrote:

Planning applications most certainly do not generate much revenue. If anything they're a massive cost to the exchequer.

Forgetting development contributions?

Tigger

Grawns wrote: »

There are no rates applicable to bed and breakfasts only on establishments with more than 6 rooms.

Apartment hotels according to that link
It's the full houses and apartments being rented out short term not people renting out a room

murphaph

Graham wrote: »

Interested in how that would work given the most popular Airbnb areas are also likely to be RPZs subject to a 4% cap increase on previous rents.



Without wishing to be rude, I really don't give a monkeys how the Germans flout planning/letting restrictions. There is no saying the same will happen or be allowed to happen here.

I understand there may be some parallels between the two markets which may warrant comparison, I don't think that stretches to every single tiny element of the Irish property market in general.

Once a property is outside the RTB's grip for 2 years it's able to go back on at current full market rate Graham. That's what the new rulez sayz.

I feel by the way that it's entirely appropriate to outline what ACTUALLY happens in a place where the restrictions being spoken about here already exist! And Germany is generally significantly better than Ireland at enforcement.

Tigger

Lumen wrote: »

Rates encourage economically productive uses of a scarce resource.

There are many ways to avoid making a profit and still come out ahead. That's why we have a diverse tax system (VAT, income tax, corp tax, CGT, CAT etc), to attempt to avoid distortions from people gaming the system.

Exactly
You pay even when you aren't making a profit

newacc2015

I dont buy Coveney's BS about Airbnbs at all. I imagine the hotel lobby is coming down hard on him for allowing Airbnb's. Hotels have rapidly being merged and acquired by a handful of companies. Datala alone have 16 hotels in Dublin. I imagine they are pissed that in November their occupancy rate dropped year on year despite record number of tourists. Airbnbs are competing with hotels and they arent happy.

If he is unhappy with the tax treatment, slap on VAT on Airbnbs. The hotel lobby has done a great job of keeping it at the ridiculously low 9%. But there is zero tax evasion on Airbnb as all the info goes to Revenue. I'm sure the same thing cant be said about B&Bs which are cash heavy

I know several landlords across the city on various boards of apartment management companies. From listening to residents and tenants, most are obvious to the fact Airbnbs are in their apartment blocks. Airbnb users are generally olders, well educated and wealthy. They arent your typical stag party that everyone seems to think they are.

What I have heard is a lot of tenants/residents are extremely concerned that DCC will allow a homeless shelter to open pretty much overnight without any consideration to residents in an area. I totally understand the homeless need somewhere to sleep. You can't be telling landlords not to change their apartments to Airbnb when DCC is allowing homeless shelters to open without asking residents for permission. I know someone who lives in Dublin 1 who couldn't get over the amount of addicts suddenly in the area. Turns out a homeless charity pretty much opened a 75 unit overnight without telling residents. They now have to deal with people drinking the entrance to their apartment block and people shouting non-stop during the night.

I would rather live in an apartment block with a few quiet 'illegal' Airbnb's than a 'legal' homeless shelter of 75 beds opening on my door step overnight without consultation.

_Kaiser_

I have to say, it's gas reading some of the landlords here complaining about this statement and its implications and looking for/advocating ways to "get around it", yet these very same posters are the most militant when it comes to insisting tenants should play by the rules in other threads.

(Not that I disagree with the latter sentiment, but the sense of "entitlement" is interesting, as is the point that Germany may not be "the way" after all, after years of banging on about how much better it is!)

Anyway, all that's happened here is clarification and closing of a possible loophole that some landlords were taking advantage of (and pocketing a tidy sum from at the expense of the right to peace and quiet of their neighbours). There's also nothing stopping them from continuing to use AirB&B (or whatever equivalent takes its place) as long as they apply for and are granted the appropriate planning permission.

goat2

what are the basic rules they have to follow to be open for airbnb,

_Jamie_

murphaph wrote: »

There's worse potential to get a long term anti social tenant.

Overall, the amount of problem tenants is quite low, I'd imagine. So not really. AirBnB renters are holidaymakers who don't care if they keep the neighbours awake. They'll never see them again.

murphaph

_Jamie_ wrote: »

Overall, the amount of problem tenants is quite low, I'd imagine. So not really. AirBnB renters are holidaymakers who don't care if they keep the neighbours awake. They'll never see them again.

Well there's a sweeping generalisation! When you go on holiday is that how you behave? I don't.

_Jamie_

murphaph wrote: »

Well there's a sweeping generalisation! When you go on holiday is that how you behave? I don't.

Did I say all holidaymakers misbehave? Or even most? Would you like to point out where I did? Obviously, I wasn't saying all holidaymakers misbehave. The fact remains though that holidaymakers have no loyalties to the person next door and if they cause havoc, they'll soon not be there so won't care.

Bring on the regulations.

Denny_Crane

On holiday makers we've had a number of issues as mundane as simply greater wear and tear on communal areas (for example suitcases going up and down stairs) to more annoying issues such as parties. We've also had the caretaker called at all hours with people (presumably too stupid to read the host's joining instructions) looking for 'reception'.

Personally I'm supportive of AirBnB owners, the vast majority of guests obey the house rules and frankly one week-end of dickheads is better than a potential 4 years of same. However I am of the opinion that planning permission should have to be sought. It would allow for residents to air their objections and have closure one way or another and for numbers of units to be limited in high demand residential areas.

athtrasna

Mod note

As per the forum charter, posters are asked to be civil and stay on topic. Thank you

pasquale83

Don't agree with a amateur short therm letting as airbnb provides has to be treated as a professional service.

If the problem is taxation, why don't they just taxing it at a flat rate, something like 20%?

If you make something easy to people they'll all pay taxes. if you prohibit it or make it difficult there will be a lot illegal activities.

Sleeper12

murphaph wrote:

Anyway...Doing 55 in a 50 zone is illegal too but enforcement is the problem. Councils have astonishingly few planning enforcement officers. It would take them decades to get around to everyone and then new ones would spring up. It'd be like painting the Forth rail bridge.

Air b&b give details of all Irish properties to the revenue. I'm not sure if revenue can share this information under data protection but if they can all you would need is one or two dedicated planning staff to enforce I'm guessing.

newacc2015

_Kaiser_ wrote: »

Anyway, all that's happened here is clarification and closing of a possible loophole that some landlords were taking advantage of (and pocketing a tidy sum from at the expense of the right to peace and quiet of their neighbours).

If the Government were so concerned about the peace and quiet of neighbours they should have made evictions for anti-social tenants quicker. But it still takes well over a year to evict an anti-social tenant. For most people it seems noise and anti-social behaviour is only a problem when a landlord is "pocketing a tidy sum".

The law only is concerned with landlords and not rogue tenants. I think most landlords would be happy with an Airbnb ban if rogue and non-paying tenants were evicted within a few months. A lot of landlords only do short term lets as they cant afford to have a non-paying tenant for several months in their property

Graham

newacc2015 wrote: »

A lot of landlords only do short term lets as they cant afford to have a non-paying tenant for several months in their property

A lot more do it for the money.

newacc2015

Graham wrote: »

A lot more do it for the money.

A lot do it for the security of a regular payment though. When you have a mortgage that states you can't miss more than 2 months payment without having a receiver appointed. Can you really take the risk of having a tenant who decides not to pay and you have to wait a year for them to evicted?

Graham

newacc2015 wrote: »

A lot do it for the security of a regular payment though. When you have a mortgage that states you can't miss more than 2 months payment without having a receiver appointed. Can you really take the risk of having a tenant who decides not to pay and you have to wait a year for them to evicted?

Any landlord sailing that close to the wind really should look at exiting the business. If it's in an area that's doing well for Airbnb, negative equity is unlikely to be an issue.

Non-paying tenants have always been a risk for landlords, nothing has changed since Airbnb came along.

Denny_Crane

Possibly slightly OT but in the interest of applying both the carrot and the stick, it's about time landlords providing long term lettings at market rate where given a bit of a break on tax, even if it was just 100% interest relief on mortgages - which would have positive knock on effects for varible rates IMHO by removing people from trackers - AirBnB should remain on the current scheme, albeit with property being one of the least attractive investments there are, but while the demand is there the government should try and take advantage of it.

quadrifoglio verde

Graham wrote: »

Any landlord sailing that close to the wind really should look at exiting the business. If it's in an area that's doing well for Airbnb, negative equity is unlikely to be an issue.

Non-paying tenants have always been a risk for landlords, nothing has changed since Airbnb came along.

It should be possible to throw a non paying tenant out after a month.
Steal 1000 Euro from a shop and the gardai will be quite quick to deal with it if they have any hope of catching the thief

Steal 1000 Euro from a landlord by refusing to pay him his rent and you can continue to do it for a number of months while enjoying his property

Paulw

Mod Note: Thread going all over the place. Enough is enough. Thread closed.