Airbnb investing is illegal / no planning permission?

__..__

Pepe LeFrits wrote: »

Given the number of full-time, airbnb investor vehicles that were available on the site before any rent caps were brought in, I very much doubt that is true.

A lot of reflexive strawman arguments being offered - nobody is saying that banning investor airbnb lets will solve the housing crisis. No one thing is going to do that. It'll be a positive increment though.

It's not just rent caps, although they are majorly causing the flight now that are responsible for landlords leaving long term and going to short term.

You need toprepare people to move from short term.letting to long term and a stick won't do it.

mariaalice

__..__ wrote: »

Very easy to stop it. Make long term renting more attractive. Landlords don't actually want to be doing Airbnb. They have no choice if they are doing it.

Its not about stopping it though its about having a balance if long term renting is such a bad investment how come institutional investor are very strong in the Dublin market.

__..__

mariaalice wrote: »

Its not about stopping it though its about having a balance if long term renting is such a bad investment how come institutional investor are very strong in the Dublin market.

It's not a bad investment if you are allowed to do it fairly. One of the many problems is that different groups are treated differently.

Institutional investors are on a takeover bid. Let's see how that pans out in a few years. Not well for renters or buyers alike would be my guess.

mariaalice

__..__ wrote: »

It's not a bad investment if you are allowed to do it fairly. One of the many problems is that different groups are treated differently.

Institutional investors are on a takeover bid. Let's see how that pans out in a few years. Not well for renters or buyers alike would be my guess.

Curious how are institutional investors treated different that those who might have one investment property.

mariaalice

mariaalice wrote: »

Curious how are institutional investors treated different that those who might have one investment property.

They pay a fraction of the tax for a start which, outside of excessive tenants rights, is probably the most reason property investment is not as profitable as it should be for smaller investors.

GGTrek

mariaalice wrote: »

__..__ wrote: »

It's not a bad investment if you are allowed to do it fairly.  One of the many problems is that different groups are treated differently.

Institutional investors are on a takeover bid.  Let's see how that pans out in a few years.  Not well for renters or buyers alike would be my guess.

Curious how are institutional investors treated different that those who might have one investment property.

I do not know from which world this poster is coming from: if the big guys pay almost no tax and the small guys can pay up to 52% tax, then obviously the big guys have a massive advantage! Again I see a lot of posts without any clue about the market just posting whatever comes to their mind without a minimum level of information. They could simply go and post to the Indo comment section (similar level of knowledge).

rossmores

Airbnb is one of many social media platforms and in Dublin city center where the demand is coming from so many directions one can choose 1 week to a couple of months and if a company rents for staff working/studying then that the demand i am choosing to satisfy in this current climate while the minister is using agencies to beat the private rental sector because his department has done nothing.
For example look at them family hub launched with ministerial fanfare in may supposed to be ready by the summer drove by one 2 weeks ago and looked in one day not much happening i have a look again next year.

These clowns are start to make the ones who got us into the bail out look good lol

Browney7

GGTrek wrote: »

I do not know from which world this poster is coming from: if the big guys pay almost no tax and the small guys can pay up to 52% tax, then obviously the big guys have a massive advantage! Again I see a lot of posts without any clue about the market just posting whatever comes to their mind without a minimum level of information. They could simply go and post to the Indo comment section (similar level of knowledge).

If you as an individual investor buy shares in IRES do you not pay income tax on dividends at your marginal rate?

Granted, the likes of Kennedy Wilson and others are using all means of creative accounting and charitable status to pay little or no tax.

mariaalice

GGTrek wrote: »

I do not know from which world this poster is coming from: if the big guys pay almost no tax and the small guys can pay up to 52% tax, then obviously the big guys have a massive advantage! Again I see a lot of posts without any clue about the market just posting whatever comes to their mind without a minimum level of information. They could simply go and post to the Indo comment section (similar level of knowledge).

Its a discussion.

I am interested in the air bnb bit of it.

LuckyLloyd

wordofwarning wrote: »

Although based on previous posts your issue was with the fact Airbnb tended to be run by non-nationals?

...

That is completely incorrect, no idea how you reached that conclusion.

Similarly, the rest of your post is whataboutery. Nobody on this forum who has advocated restriction of AirBnB has posited it as THE solution to the current housing crisis. It is however a positive step that is one of the steps that need to be taken.

It was also, as I've suggested recently, a logical step for a government who is seeing measures being sidestepped via AirBnB. Presumably FG believe in their approach to rental legislation, hence why they're making sure it has the intended effect.

Victor

__..__ wrote: »

Institutional investors are on a takeover bid.

They have no interest in owning individual properties - only larger developments where there are economies of scale.

Cristian Loud Bankroll wrote: »

They pay a fraction of the tax for a start

Not quite true - the fund holders have to pay tax on the dividends or other gains they make.

the most reason property investment is not as profitable as it should be for smaller investors.

Nothing to do with buying at the bottom of the market or economies of scale then.

__..__

Victor wrote: »

They have no interest in owning individual properties - only larger developments where there are economies of scale.

Not quite true - the fund holders have to pay tax on the dividends or other gains they make.

Nothing to do with buying at the bottom of the market or economies of scale then.

Run around the houses all you like, but
It's all to do with the rent you get paid and the tax you pay on it. If that's not enough to make it worthwhile it forces you out of the market and into one where you can make the numbers work.
Hence the flight of private landlords from long term to short term letting. Airbnb is an option, but there are plenty of other options too.

The stick is not working now and it cannot work. It's making the situation worse actually. Time to start with the carrots.

The_Conductor

The proposal is owners will have to register with the Department of Housing- for an Airbnb licence for each property they own- and they will be subject to numerous terms and conditions (such as:

Possible list:

1. C2 Tax clearance cert from all applicants
2. PPSN
3. Details of last rental under the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act- the level of rent, and when the tenant vacated the property.
4. Maximum number of lettings under the Airbnb/Lettings.com etc websites- per annum
5. No single letting to exceed 30 days duration
6. Surge pricing (aka increased pricing for specific events- such as concerts, festivals etc) not allowable
7. Property subject to local authority inspections- with a target to inspect each unit at least annually
8. All lettings to be declared- airbnb is used as an example of a short term holiday let website- we are aware of 3 other sites in common usage- its probably handier to highlight airbnb for simplicity sake
9. Owner must ensure they have the requisite local authority permission to let their property on short term lets
10. In the event of a property being vested in a management company (most apartments are) an owner must ensure they attain the requisite permission of the management company to conduct short term lets of the property.
11. The property owner is the responsible party for any incidents of antisocial behaviour and/or activities prohibited under Irish law, and must endeavour to ensure such breaches do not occur.

I.e. it looks like you are going to need property specific licenses- and in the case of apartments- the management company can veto such activities (they'd probably be vetoed as commercial activities?)

Anyhow- licenses appear to the chosen manner of policing airbnb (and other short term letting websites). Airbnb already liaise with Revenue and give them details of all lettings in this jurisdiction- it would appear other websites will be similarly forced to do likewise.

Licenses? Not the worst idea ever- implementation will be key.

Victor

Where is your quote from?

wordofwarning

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

Similarly, the rest of your post is whataboutery. Nobody on this forum who has advocated restriction of AirBnB has posited it as THE solution to the current housing crisis. It is however a positive step that is one of the steps that need to be taken.

Like the way rent control was a positive step to solving the housing crisis? Because we have built hardly any social housing this year. But this quick wins like rent control and banning Airbnb solve nothing, but appease the masses...

Anything other than building social housing is lip service. But hey, it keeps the ignorant masses happy... "a positive step"...

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It was also, as I've suggested recently, a logical step for a government who is seeing measures being sidestepped via AirBnB. Presumably FG believe in their approach to rental legislation, hence why they're making sure it has the intended effect.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here...

mrslancaster

that list looks like every short term let in the country would need a licence the same as a hotel or guest house.

What about house swaps? or say if someone wanted to rent out a mobile home or their holiday home for a few weeks..or b&b's

If a property owner was going abroad to work for a few months would they need a licence to rent their apartment or house while away.

and who would carry out inspections?

no short lets over 30 days? is this a wind up from Dept Housing

__..__

mrslancaster wrote: »

Conductor, that list looks like every short term let in the country would need a licence the same as a hotel or guest house.

What about house swaps? or say if someone wanted to rent out a mobile home or their holiday home for a few weeks..or b&b's

If a propert owner was going abroad to work for a few months would they need a licence to rent their apartment or house while away.

and who would carry out inspections?

no short lets over 30 days? is this a wind up

Its to bury you in red tape so that you donate your investment property to long term letting.

In reality it will just push long term letting underground (there are so many ways they cant possibly think of even a fraction of them), because long term letting is just not viable for a lot of people.

They would be better off making long term more attractive to landlords than poking them with a big stick every time they want some press.

LuckyLloyd

wordofwarning wrote: »

Like the way rent control was a positive step to solving the housing crisis? Because we have built hardly any social housing this year. But this quick wins like rent control and banning Airbnb solve nothing, but appease the masses...

Anything other than building social housing is lip service. But hey, it keeps the ignorant masses happy... "a positive step"...

People supporting this measure should also keep pushing for more social housing provision.

I have no idea what point you are trying to make here...

Ah you do.

- FG bring in enhanced tenancy legislation and rental price controls
- landlords use airbnb to sidestep those measures
- FG presumably still believe in their legislation
- it was inevitable therefore that FG would close the loop on airbnb letting through regulation

TSQ

gizmo81 wrote: »

As always there is conflicting information

Dec 2016 Coveney said


Landlords are not allowed to use Airbnb for the short-term letting of their properties unless they get planning permission for bed and breakfast or hotel status, Minister for Housing Simon Coveney has confirmed.

As far as I understand it, you don't need planning permission for B&B if you have 4 guest rooms or less. Lots of B&B, both those under and over 4 bedrooms, already advertise on Airbnb. One guest house I used to stay in regularly is now doing airbnb with a "help yourself" breakfast instead of the traditional Irish breakfast they used to serve. Don't know how Government will be able to discriminate against people letting rooms on Airbnb who are compliant with the planning laws relating to B&Bs.

The_Conductor

mrslancaster wrote: »

that list looks like every short term let in the country would need a licence the same as a hotel or guest house.

What about house swaps? or say if someone wanted to rent out a mobile home or their holiday home for a few weeks..or b&b's

If a property owner was going abroad to work for a few months would they need a licence to rent their apartment or house while away.

and who would carry out inspections?

no short lets over 30 days? is this a wind up from Dept Housing

Its no wind up.
The proposal is that absolutely every property that people propose to let on a secondary market- other than those subject to the Residential Tenancies Act- would have to be licensed. I.e. one license per property.

It would, presumably, be a Local Authority inspection (B&Bs etc are HSE inspected- which I don't believe would be applicable).

The manner in which the proposal is currently phrased- would lead one to believe that house swaps would also be included- i.e. money does not necessarily have to change hands........

Keep in mind- Airbnb and Booking.com have already supplied the address details of all properties in this jurisdiction- to the Revenue Commissioners.

__..__

I know someone who plans to crash in his one bed apartment on the couch and rent the bedroom.
He will inform the person who takes the room that he will probably be away a lot though, as he has other crash pads to lay his head
Basically the person renting the room understands that they will have the place to themselves for all intents and purposes.
I'm sure it gets wilder than that too.

LuckyLloyd

The_Conductor wrote: »

The proposal is owners will have to register with the Department of Housing- for an Airbnb licence for each property they own- and they will be subject to numerous terms and conditions (such as:

Possible list:

1. C2 Tax clearance cert from all applicants
2. PPSN
3. Details of last rental under the terms of the Residential Tenancies Act- the level of rent, and when the tenant vacated the property.
4. Maximum number of lettings under the Airbnb/Lettings.com etc websites- per annum
5. No single letting to exceed 30 days duration
6. Surge pricing (aka increased pricing for specific events- such as concerts, festivals etc) not allowable
7. Property subject to local authority inspections- with a target to inspect each unit at least annually
8. All lettings to be declared- airbnb is used as an example of a short term holiday let website- we are aware of 3 other sites in common usage- its probably handier to highlight airbnb for simplicity sake
9. Owner must ensure they have the requisite local authority permission to let their property on short term lets
10. In the event of a property being vested in a management company (most apartments are) an owner must ensure they attain the requisite permission of the management company to conduct short term lets of the property.
11. The property owner is the responsible party for any incidents of antisocial behaviour and/or activities prohibited under Irish law, and must endeavour to ensure such breaches do not occur.

I.e. it looks like you are going to need property specific licenses- and in the case of apartments- the management company can veto such activities (they'd probably be vetoed as commercial activities?)

Anyhow- licenses appear to the chosen manner of policing airbnb (and other short term letting websites). Airbnb already liaise with Revenue and give them details of all lettings in this jurisdiction- it would appear other websites will be similarly forced to do likewise.

Licenses? Not the worst idea ever- implementation will be key.

Thanks for posting that by the way, where did you get it?

Mrs Shuttleworth

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its no wind up.
The proposal is that absolutely every property that people propose to let on a secondary market- other than those subject to the Residential Tenancies Act- would have to be licensed. I.e. one license per property.

It would, presumably, be a Local Authority inspection (B&Bs etc are HSE inspected- which I don't believe would be applicable).

The manner in which the proposal is currently phrased- would lead one to believe that house swaps would also be included- i.e. money does not necessarily have to change hands........

Keep in mind- Airbnb and Booking.com have already supplied the address details of all properties in this jurisdiction- to the Revenue Commissioners.

This will be impossible to police. In a perverse way I hope they go ahead with it as the man hours involved to keep tabs on everyone will eventually crash regulation of the rental sector.

For my own newly available unit I held three viewings today, all short term. All good candidates would be happy with any.

One of them told me that approx 75% of lettings in Swords have now gone Airbnb. And a friend of his is renting a room in a one bed apartment for €1000 plus another €200 for parking. This is the inevitable outcome of rent caps and logistically impossible HAP requirements.

mrslancaster

The_Conductor wrote: »

Its no wind up.
The proposal is that absolutely every property that people propose to let on a secondary market- other than those subject to the Residential Tenancies Act- would have to be licensed. I.e. one license per property. .

Rent a Room scheme is not included in RTA, will they need a licence now too? how will that help to increase supply

and student accommodation?

The_Conductor

mrslancaster wrote: »

Rent a Room scheme is not included in RTA, will they need a licence now too? how will that help to increase supply

and student accommodation?

Honestly- I have no idea.........
As for student accommodation- its actually on the immediate agenda (given the number of objections received to the application for planning that UCD lobbed in earlier this year.

What is happening- is Airbnb and Booking.com are actively handing Revenue and the RTB (and doubtless the Housing Department)- details of all listings which feature property in this jurisdiction- as per the agreement they came to last year. Airbnb and Booking.com are seen as the two biggest sites- though there are a few very active alternate listing sites- which will doubtless hit their radar in time.

I don't see how it'll be possible to monitor or manage the proposed system- and suspect its only going to result in a whack-a-mole situation- where people simply migrate to the next website, in the knowledge they'll get 4-6 months before it gets shut down- and then they move to the next one- ad infinitum.

This game- and it is a game- only suits the politicians as they can point to stats and show they've closed down Airbnb, or booking.com (or whatever the next link in the chain is)- i.e. its a smoke screen to distract from the abject failure to increase supply in the market.

Its all a game for them.............

Mrs Shuttleworth

The_Conductor wrote: »

Honestly- I have no idea.........
As for student accommodation- its actually on the immediate agenda (given the number of objections received to the application for planning that UCD lobbed in earlier this year.

What is happening- is Airbnb and Booking.com are actively handing Revenue and the RTB (and doubtless the Housing Department)- details of all listings which feature property in this jurisdiction- as per the agreement they came to last year. Airbnb and Booking.com are seen as the two biggest sites- though there are a few very active alternate listing sites- which will doubtless hit their radar in time.

I don't see how it'll be possible to monitor or manage the proposed system- and suspect its only going to result in a whack-a-mole situation- where people simply migrate to the next website, in the knowledge they'll get 4-6 months before it gets shut down- and then they move to the next one- ad infinitum.

This game- and it is a game- only suits the politicians as they can point to stats and show they've closed down Airbnb, or booking.com (or whatever the next link in the chain is)- i.e. its a smoke screen to distract from the abject failure to increase supply in the market.

Its all a game for them.............

That's very interesting what you say about Booking.com. I travel to London quite a lot. Usually stay with a friend but for a fast trip I'll use a small hotel. I tend to use Booking but the management when I'm there always ask me to book direct with them or phone direct the next time and not use Booking.

__..__

Mrs Shuttleworth wrote: »

That's very interesting what you say about Booking.com. I travel to London quite a lot. Usually stay with a friend but for a fast trip I'll use a small hotel. I tend to use Booking but the management when I'm there always ask me to book direct with them or phone direct the next time and not use Booking.

Exactly the same happens to me.
Once I am making a repeat booking or I make contact in advance they ask me to book direct.
Same for Airbnb when you book the same place again.

Also if you book an Airbnb in certain cities, you are expected look up the hosts number or Facebook and book privately instead of through Airbnb. Maybe I'm telling too much on that particular procedure

wordofwarning

[/QUOTE]People supporting this measure should also keep pushing for more social housing provision. [/QUOTE]

Berlin banned Airbnb and the City council praised themselves for solving the housing crisis. We people are under the impression, that every second apartment in Dublin 1/2 is an Airbnb. Sure isn't the housing crisis now resolved with Airbnb being banned?

[/QUOTE]
- FG bring in enhanced tenancy legislation and rental price controls
- landlords use airbnb to sidestep those measures
- FG presumably still believe in their legislation
- it was inevitable therefore that FG would close the loop on airbnb letting through regulation[/QUOTE]

A lot of people letting on Airbnb was nothing to do with rent controls. But the fact there is little recourse when you have a non-paying tenant. FG has not made evicting non-paying tenants easier. Until that is resolved, people will not want to take extra unnecessary risks.

People will not want to be landlords, if you can someone not paying rent for months in your property

Eric Cartman

AirBnB being banned / restricted / licenced won't do a tap to put any properties back on the dublin rental market, firstly because it tends to be higher end rentals that were 2000+ a month for a 2 bed - which were never going to go to social / homeless / low income people anyway. Secondly - the reason landlords are investing in AirBnB is purely because the government have made it so hard to make any money as a landlord, with excess costs and regulation , banning AirBnB will just cause landlords to withdraw properties completely. I'm working with a few AirBnB landlords now and they have no interest in engaging in the standard rental market within the RPZ's .

Realistically building houses is the only solution, however I do not believe we should be building any social housing inside the M50 and I most certainly will not support any increase in tax to fund the building of houses, it must come from a reallocation of funds.

Sharktopus

Eric Cartman wrote: »

AirBnB being banned / restricted / licenced won't do a tap to put any properties back on the dublin rental market, firstly because it tends to be higher end rentals that were 2000+ a month for a 2 bed - which were never going to go to social / homeless / low income people anyway. Secondly - the reason landlords are investing in AirBnB is purely because the government have made it so hard to make any money as a landlord, with excess costs and regulation , banning AirBnB will just cause landlords to withdraw properties completely. I'm working with a few AirBnB landlords now and they have no interest in engaging in the standard rental market within the RPZ's .

Realistically building houses is the only solution, however I do not believe we should be building any social housing inside the M50 and I most certainly will not support any increase in tax to fund the building of houses, it must come from a reallocation of funds.

Out of genuine interest, what will these landlords do with their properties if they are no longer on Airbnb and if they choose not to engage in residential letting?

If these high end apartments were made to go back on the market, then that would free up units where those displaced by Airbnb have moved. Airbnb have removed a rung on the ladder, so people have to go elsewhere. More social housing is absolutely necessary, I see this as yet another factor causing the downward pressure on that end of the market.

As a landlord I really don't buy the 'not being able to make money' off rentals line. Unless that is cute hoor talk for 'not being able to make a fast buck off the market'. Property traditionally is supposed to be a long game, I think the expectation that all costs can be covered by rent up front is ludicrous. We need more long term players in the market.