Air BnB to be effectively banned for non PPR

serfboard

ArrBee wrote: »

... so that society as a whole benefits and grows.

Society as whole? Where do you think you are? This is Mé-Féin-Land you're in, "society as a whole" can get stuffed!

BarryD2

Graham wrote: »

Why would the courts get involved in opposing legislation?

If an AirBnB host takes a case on the basis that such law/ regulations discriminate against their use of their property as opposed to someone likewise outside the geographic area.

GingerLily

BarryD2 wrote: »

If an AirBnB host takes a case on the basis that such law/ regulations discriminate against their use of their property as opposed to someone likewise outside the geographic area.

Planning permission and zoning regulations are a thing you know?

3DataModem

Idea for a business;

Rent your investment property to a tenant. Tenant has it as PPR. Tenant sub lets rooms via Airbnb.

GingerLily

3DataModem wrote: »

Idea for a business;

Rent your investment property to a tenant. Tenant has it as PPR. Tenant sub lets rooms via Airbnb.

Sounds very scalable!

awec

BarryD2 wrote: »

If an AirBnB host takes a case on the basis that such law/ regulations discriminate against their use of their property as opposed to someone likewise outside the geographic area.

They'd be laughed out of court.

bleary

Key difference between Ireland and Canada. In Canada they will actually enforce this through building inspectors. In Ireland they will enact the law and do nothing again

fergus1001

they will bring a few people to court to scare the féck out of the rest

relax carry on

3DataModem wrote: »

Idea for a business;

Rent your investment property to a tenant. Tenant has it as PPR. Tenant sub lets rooms via Airbnb.

You'd be liable for your case V rental income and the tenant would be liable for their case I or case IV income Airbnb income.

BarryD2

awec wrote: »

They'd be laughed out of court.

I'm not so sure. We have strong protection for property rights in our constitution. Can you bring in a law that discriminates between owners of non PPR properties in say Counties Dublin & Meath. That affects what use may be made of rental or investment property.

I'm more than sympathetic to the idea that AirBnB type letting should be greatly restricted in areas of housing shortage but not clear as to how you legally separate these from property owners elsewhere. Short term letting is not new, it's been around for a long time. The only difference with 'AirBnB' is how this is marketed, sold and paid for and that's not something you can just ban.

Rigorous enforcement of planning permission would appear to be the more fruitful route.

wally79

BarryD2 wrote: »

I'm not so sure. We have strong protection for property rights in our constitution. Can you bring in a law that discriminates between owners of non PPR properties in say Counties Dublin & Meath. That affects what use may be made of rental or investment property.

I'm more than sympathetic to the idea that AirBnB type letting should be greatly restricted in areas of housing shortage but not clear as to how you legally separate these from property owners elsewhere. Short term letting is not new, it's been around for a long time. The only difference with 'AirBnB' is how this is marketed, sold and paid for and that's not something you can just ban.

Rigorous enforcement of planning permission would appear to be the more fruitful route.

Rent control zones haven’t been challenged so would say not

4ensic15

3DataModem wrote: »

Idea for a business;

Rent your investment property to a tenant. Tenant has it as PPR. Tenant sub lets rooms via Airbnb.

Not much use with a one-bed apartment. A lot of the air bnb market want a full unit in any case.

4ensic15

Idbatterim wrote: »

More comedy. There are insane amounts of money out there seeking a return... better than the bear zero % you get from the banks

The people who put money on deposit and not going to lend it to the participants in the property development industry. Developers can't get finance. Apart from a few with foreign money such as vulture funds the funding is not there. The few with money are concentrating on very specific types of building such as student blocks, hotels and office developments. Pre 2007 developers funded building on credit; interest roll up on the site, long credit periods from builders providers, pay on sale arrangements with architects and solicitors and sub-contractors. None of those lines of credit are available now. Any finance is being charged at 15% and it has to be drawn down sooner than before and remains owing for longer.
The only thing that is insane is the thought that if the building height limits were changed all the credit situation would change overnight. Dream on.

wally79

3DataModem wrote: »

Idea for a business;

Rent your investment property to a tenant. Tenant has it as PPR. Tenant sub lets rooms via Airbnb.

Would the tenant absorb the cost when the air bnb room isn’t occupied?

A lot of risk on them.

wally79

wally79 wrote: »

Would the tenant absorb the cost when the air bnb room isn’t occupied?

A lot of risk on them.

I think a more likely possibility are sons/daughters of property owners "renting" the place an then airbnbimg it. Of course they will never live there and pay no rent.

It's an insane move interfering in how a property owner tries to make some money from his property and avoids the disaster that is bad tenants wrecking and overholding. The level of begrudgery in this thread for a property owner trying to actually profit from his business is absolutely disgusting.

I'd also agree that many places will just be left empty, rented on 5 month leases or just left on Airbnb. I think people are very foolish if they this these rules won't be largely ignored. Enforcing it is not going to be as easy as some appear to think.

Samuel T. Cogley

Jordy Muscular Pennon wrote: »

I think a more likely possibility are sons/daughters of property owners "renting" the place an then airbnbimg it. Of course they will never live there and pay no rent.

It's an insane move interfering in how a property owner tries to make some money from his property and avoids the disaster that is bad tenants wrecking and overholding. The level of begrudgery in this thread for a property owner trying to actually profit from his business is absolutely disgusting.

I'd also agree that many places will just be left empty, rented on 5 month leases or just left on Airbnb. I think people are very foolish if they this these rules won't be largely ignored. Enforcing it is not going to be as easy as some appear to think.

While I won't go as far as to say it's disgusting it's certainly strong in this thread, amusingly so.

AlmightyCushion

Jordy Muscular Pennon wrote: »

I think a more likely possibility are sons/daughters of property owners "renting" the place an then airbnbimg it. Of course they will never live there and pay no rent.

It still works out pretty tax inefficient. Son/Daughter pays tax on the Airbnb income. The parent will then pay tax on the rental income they receive from the son/daughter. Any extra you'd make from Airbnbing it would be lost to taxes. It'd probably even cost you money Airbnbing it over just standard letting.

It's an insane move interfering in how a property owner tries to make some money from his property and avoids the disaster that is bad tenants wrecking and overholding.

Ok, so if someone owns the property next door to you and decides to turn it into a nightclub that plays loud music until 5am and has drunk people littered outside it, you would be ok with that. It's just a property owner trying to make money from their property.

Samuel T. Cogley

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Ok, so if someone owns the property next door to you and decides to turn it into a nightclub that plays loud music until 5am and has drunk people littered outside it, you would be ok with that. It's just a property owner trying to make money from their property.

People keep tring to equate AirBnB with welding shops and pubs. The majority of AirBnB guests are perfect guests, not making noise or disturbing other people. I'm all for planning laws to be enforced, this was coming down the pipe for ages, but other than some anecdotal evidence here, is there any hard stats to prove that AirBnB guests are more disruptive than a long term tenant. I've lived next door to AirBnB, deadbeat tenants and the only one we had trouble with was the lon term tenants (not all of them, but one set). Constant smell of weed, call of Duty until 3am during the week and parties at the weekend, it took 6 months to get them out and that was applying a fair amount of pressure from the OMC. Complaints re AirBnB on the other hand - one about the paint work with cases bveing dragged up and down - easily solved by charging the AirBnBer for the painting.

AlmightyCushion

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

It still works out pretty tax inefficient. Son/Daughter pays tax on the Airbnb income. The parent will then pay tax on the rental income they receive from the son/daughter. Any extra you'd make from Airbnbing it would be lost to taxes. It'd probably even cost you money Airbnbing it over just standard letting.

I'd imagine both above board tax efficient methods and under the table methods of transferring money from the son/daughter to the parents would be employed

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Ok, so if someone owns the property next door to you and decides to turn it into a nightclub that plays loud music until 5am and has drunk people littered outside it, you would be ok with that. It's just a property owner trying to make money from their property.

Id prefer it than living permanently next door to a council tenant thats for sure, have lived beside one before in a houseshare and they were a total pain. Airbnb guests are gone in a day or two and while you might get an odd bad one most will be good and respectful guests.

AlmightyCushion

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

People keep tring to equate AirBnB with welding shops and pubs. The majority of AirBnB guests are perfect guests, not making noise or disturbing other people. I'm all for planning laws to be enforced, this was coming down the pipe for ages, but other than some anecdotal evidence here, is there any hard stats to prove that AirBnB guests are more disruptive than a long term tenant. I've lived next door to AirBnB, deadbeat tenants and the only one we had trouble with was the lon term tenants (not all of them, but one set). Constant smell of weed, call of Duty until 3am during the week and parties at the weekend, it took 6 months to get them out and that was applying a fair amount of pressure from the OMC. Complaints re AirBnB on the other hand - one about the paint work with cases bveing dragged up and down - easily solved by charging the AirBnBer for the painting.

That's not the point. The point is that most of these airbnbs are in breech of the planning for that property. People's arguments there are that we shouldn't be able to limit them and how they make money out of their property. Well, if they ignore planning to turn it into an airbnb and we shouldn't be able to limit them then they same should apply for someone to turn it into a pub or whatever.

Why should we allow people to break planning laws to turn a property into an airbnb?

AlmightyCushion

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Why should we allow people to break planning laws to turn a property into an airbnb?

The question I would ask it why planning laws are preventing it in the first place. I think its well within reason to allow someone run airbnb without a change in planning. It can't be compared to not having planning for opening a nightclub or putting a wind turbine next door to a person (the type of thing people throw out there when talking about planning). People whould be allowed to what they want with their property within reason.

There is even an exemption on planning for B&Bs with 4 rooms or less as things stand and I think airbnb should definitely fit into a similar system as there is very little difference between a small airbnb and small B&B.

LuckyLloyd

Jordy Muscular Pennon wrote: »

Id prefer it than living permanently next door to a council tenant thats for sure, have lived beside one before in a houseshare and they were a total pain. Airbnb guests are gone in a day or two and while you might get an odd bad one most will be good and respectful guests.

You'd rather live beside a nightclub than a council tenant? :rolleyes:

It doesn't matter if they're perfectly respectful guests in the majority of cases. A constant flow of changing short term tenants into and out of a residential space is different to longer term residential occupants. This is inarguable, and why Planning Permission and Licensing regulations are in place for the accommodation sector (it's also why build / dwelling minimum standards and legislation are different for residential / commercial dwellings).

The suggestion of 'oh well people will subvert the legislation' also doesn't matter. Some will no doubt. There will be reporting / enforcement mechanisms however underfunded initially and they'll start bringing sanctions against people flouting the law in due course. A couple of high profile cases through the courts is all it ever takes. And, as always is the case, most people are law abiding and want no potential exposures and will either sell or convert to long term residential. If they choose to leave idle for most of the year that's their choice, but that type of thing is on track to be tackled eventually too. Baby steps, we'll get there.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

You'd rather live beside a nightclub than a council tenant? :rolleyes:

That's not what I said and you very well know it you can't compare an airbnb to a night club. That being said there is no doubt that the nightclub would be better than living next door to some people.

3DataModem

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

And, as always is the case, most people are law abiding and want no potential exposures and will either sell or convert to long term residential.

I think we might see a counterintuitive result; with the high-end properties fetching a big airbnb premium switching to long-term residential, and the more standard properties currently being airbnb'd via agents to avoid tenant 'hassle' / overholding risk / etc will be sold.

AlmightyCushion

Jordy Muscular Pennon wrote: »

The question I would ask it why planning laws are preventing it in the first place. I think its well within reason to allow someone run airbnb without a change in planning. It can't be compared to not having planning for opening a nightclub or putting a wind turbine next door to a person (the type of thing people throw out there when talking about planning). People whould be allowed to what they want with their property within reason.

There is even an exemption on planning for B&Bs with 4 rooms or less as things stand and I think airbnb should definitely fit into a similar system as there is very little difference between a small airbnb and small B&B.

My understanding is a b&b is exempt because there is someone living there, it is their PPR. The proposed legislation doesn't change this.
If you want to go away on holiday for a few weeks and airbnb, that will be fine. If you want to airbnb the spare room in your house that you live in all year round, that is fine.
If you want to put a whole house/apartment up on airbnb which you don't live in all year round and it is zoned for residential use only, that is not fine.

LuckyLloyd

Jordy Muscular Pennon wrote: »

That's not what I said and you very well know it you can't compare an airbnb to a night club. That being said there is no doubt that the nightclub would be better than living next door to some people.

It's exactly what you said:

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

Ok, so if someone owns the property next door to you and decides to turn it into a nightclub that plays loud music until 5am and has drunk people littered outside it, you would be ok with that. It's just a property owner trying to make money from their property.

Jordy Muscular Pennon wrote: »

Id prefer it than living permanently next door to a council tenant thats for sure, have lived beside one before in a houseshare and they were a total pain.

LuckyLloyd

LuckyLloyd wrote: »

It's exactly what you said:

Ok you are correct, I only half read the post I was replying to and I assumed it said live next to an Airbnb with roudy guests making noise didn't actually notice it said night club.

So my point was I'd rather live next to an Airbnb with the risk of an odd noisy guest for day to two than risk long term next to a council tenant.

I'd also point out again that you can't in anyway compare the planning requirements of a night club to that of using a house for Airbnb.

Samuel T. Cogley

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

That's not the point. The point is that most of these airbnbs are in breech of the planning for that property. People's arguments there are that we shouldn't be able to limit them and how they make money out of their property. Well, if they ignore planning to turn it into an airbnb and we shouldn't be able to limit them then they same should apply for someone to turn it into a pub or whatever.

Why should we allow people to break planning laws to turn a property into an airbnb?

It's entirely the point. What should have happened is proper enforcement and sensible grants of planning where appropriate. A whole sale ban on AirBnB in non-PPRs is cracking a wallnut with a sledge hammer for the sake of vote grabbing.

AlmightyCushion

Jordy Muscular Pennon wrote: »

Ok you are correct, I only half read the post I was replying to and I assumed it said live next to an Airbnb with roudy guests making noise didn't actually notice it said night club.

So my point was I'd rather live next to an Airbnb with the risk of an odd noisy guest for day to two than risk long term next to a council tenant.

I'd also point out again that you can't in anyway compare the planning requirements of a night club to that of using a house for Airbnb.

To quote you "It's an insane move interfering in how a property owner tries to make some money from his property" so by that logic, they should be able to open a nightclub beside you.

Samuel T. Cogley wrote: »

It's entirely the point. What should have happened is proper enforcement and sensible grants of planning where appropriate. A whole sale ban on AirBnB in non-PPRs is cracking a wallnut with a sledge hammer for the sake of vote grabbing.

This is proper enforcement of existing planning permissions. If an apartment/house has planning for short term lets they can still be used for it, regardless of if it is a PPR or not, that will stay the same.

Samuel T. Cogley

AlmightyCushion wrote: »

This is proper enforcement of existing planning permissions. If an apartment/house has planning for short term lets they can still be used for it, regardless of if it is a PPR or not, that will stay the same.

That must be the Irish definition of enforcement.