Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Air BnB [and other platforms] to be effectively outlawed in high demand areas

Options
1…4546485051…54

Comments

  • Options
    #1412
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Carlos Slow Traitor wrote: »
    If you do a 15 day let in a house that is not your PPR it is legally allowed within the new rules and there is no obligation to register with the RTB.

    If the letting is for the purposes of a holiday there is no need to register with the RTB. However, there is a need to get planning permission. Planning permission will likely be refused.


  • Options
    #1413
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Graham wrote: »
    That's not how I read it....



    and later in the article

    Hard to imagine the title would be "Fact Check" without first checking the facts before publishing an article 7 hours ago, but not beyond the realms of possibility. The articles says they have contacted LAs and though money has been assigned for staffing, it does not say they have been hired.

    I could be going out on a limb here Graham, but maybe Dublin is the 1 of 18 which has hired staff.


  • Options
    #1414
    mrslancaster
    Registered Users Posts: 1,813 ✭✭✭mrslancaster


    Graham wrote: »
    :confused:

    You're trying to avoid the obligations of the residential tenancies act by registering tenancies?

    Not trying to do anything actually, just asking a question that occurred to me when reading this thread.


  • Options
    #1415
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Hard to imagine the title would be "Fact Check" without first checking the facts before publishing an article 7 hours ago


    I'd read the result of the fact check and discover the verdict.


    Our verdict:

    Fianna Fáil’s core claim was that “Fine Gael has not [made available] actual resources for local authorities to enforce new regulations”.
    Therefore we find that the Fianna Fáil claim is untrue.


  • Options
    #1416
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    If the letting is for the purposes of a holiday there is no need to register with the RTB. However, there is a need to get planning permission. Planning permission will likely be refused.

    The Airbnb ban only applies to let’s shorter than 14 days so no need for planning.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1417
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Graham wrote: »
    I'd read the result of the fact check and discover the verdict.

    The resources have been made available when they checked the claims in the manifesto, they outline the money being made available for 2020 & 2021, what they don’t say is that the staff have been hired with the exception of Dublin, 1 of the 18 RPZs. This follows on from other articles which you will find links to on earlier posts on this thread which refer to also state that staff have yet to be hired.

    Don’t you think it would have contradicted FFs manifesto more strongly if they had found that staff had actually been hired in more RPZs? That “verdict” would have packed more of a punch.


  • Options
    #1418
    Graham
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 17,642 Mod ✭✭✭✭Graham


    I'll summarise the article for you
    In its election manifesto, Fianna Fáil claimed that Fine Gael “has not backed up its press release politics with actual resources for Local Authorities to enforce new regulations.
    Our verdict:

    we find that the Fianna Fáil claim is untrue.

    If it makes you feel better there hasn't been much reported in the way of enforcement actions.

    Yet


  • Options
    #1419
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Carlos Slow Traitor wrote: »
    The Airbnb ban only applies to let’s shorter than 14 days so no need for planning.

    It is still holiday letting which is a different use than the planning allows for.


  • Options
    #1420
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Graham wrote: »
    I'll summarise the article for you





    If it makes you feel better there hasn't been much reported in the way of enforcement actions.

    Yet

    I know people who have stopped doing AirBnb as a result of pressure from the planning inspectors. There is no publicity because it hasn't gone to court.


  • Options
    #1421
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    It is still holiday letting which is a different use than the planning allows for.

    Very much open to interpretation? Where do you draw the line, 3 weeks, a month, 2 months? Once its over 14 days it fair game imo.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1422
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Carlos Slow Traitor wrote: »
    Very much open to interpretation? Where do you draw the line, 3 weeks, a month, 2 months? Once its over 14 days it fair game imo.

    Either the letting is for the purpose of a holiday or it is not. The length of the letting is irrelevant.


  • Options
    #1423
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    Either the letting is for the purpose of a holiday or it is not. The length of the letting is irrelevant.

    Strange post.

    The length of the let is absolutely relevant, and not everyone who require a short let is on holiday, many people require accommodation for short term employment contracts etc.


  • Options
    #1424
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Strange post.

    The length of the let is absolutely relevant, and not everyone who require a short let is on holiday, many people require accommodation for short term employment contracts etc.

    If it is not for a holiday and longer than 14 days,RTB.
    If it is less than 14 days, Air BNb.
    If it is for a holiday longer than 14 days, there is a requirement for planning permission.

    Holiday use is a different class of planning use than normal residential use as has been confirmed by the High Court in 1996.

    You can't give a 15 day lease and avoid, one of Air bnb, RTB or planning permission.


  • Options
    #1425
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    If it is not for a holiday and longer than 14 days,RTB.
    If it is less than 14 days, Air BNb.
    If it is for a holiday longer than 14 days, there is a requirement for planning permission.

    Holiday use is a different class of planning use than normal residential use as has been confirmed by the High Court in 1996.

    You can't give a 15 day lease and avoid, one of Air bnb, RTB or planning permission.

    Mad stuff


  • Options
    #1426
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    If it is not for a holiday and longer than 14 days,RTB.
    If it is less than 14 days, Air BNb.
    If it is for a holiday longer than 14 days, there is a requirement for planning permission.

    Holiday use is a different class of planning use than normal residential use as has been confirmed by the High Court in 1996.

    You can't give a 15 day lease and avoid, one of Air bnb, RTB or planning permission.

    To put it simply, you are wrong.

    No requirement for planning on a short term let once it’s longer than 14days and no requirement for rtb on a short term let. No need to turn yourself inside out trying to find ways to disallow things.


  • Options
    #1427
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Carlos Slow Traitor wrote: »
    To put it simply, you are wrong.

    No requirement for planning on a short term let once it’s longer than 14days and no requirement for rtb on a short term let. No need to turn yourself inside out trying to find ways to disallow things.

    To put it simply, you are wrong.

    section 3 of the Residential Tenancies Act
    "3.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act applies to every dwelling, the subject of a tenancy (including a tenancy created before the passing of this Act)."

    There is no minimum term specified. A lease of one day is sufficient.

    You are turning yourself inside out trying to find a loophole where there is none.


  • Options
    #1428
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,714 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    To put it simply, you are wrong.

    section 3 of the Residential Tenancies Act
    "3.—(1) Subject to subsection (2), this Act applies to every dwelling, the subject of a tenancy (including a tenancy created before the passing of this Act)."

    There is no minimum term specified. A lease of one day is sufficient.

    You are turning yourself inside out trying to find a loophole where there is none.

    There is no tenancy on a short term let so no requirement to register.


  • Options
    #1429
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Carlos Slow Traitor wrote: »
    There is no tenancy on a short term let so no requirement to register.

    If it is let there is a lease by implication. What is the purpose of the short term let? Are you giving short licences to the occupiers.
    A series of short term licences is a material change of use of the dwelling whether longer than 14 days or not.


  • Options
    #1430
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Great to see the new regulations being enforced.

    https://www.rte.ie/news/dublin/2020/0219/1116267-airbnb-dublin-lettings/

    “ There have been 395 investigations under laws restricting Airbnb and other short-term lettings in the Dublin city rent pressure zone, according to a new report.

    A new report states that the city council has a target to make 1,000 investigations a year. Its Short Term Lettings Unit is examining online platforms, following up complaints from members of the public and making inspections.

    Of the cases investigated so far 87 are classified as "resolved" which is understood to mean the property has been taken off the short-term market.

    The latest data from the monitoring website Inside Airbnb suggests there are currently 9,437 such listings in Dublin with just under half being the letting of an entire house or apartment.

    The report, which follows the introduction of the laws last June, states there are 11 staff in the council's Short Term Lettings Unit whose cost is funded by the Department of Housing.

    The unit is enforcing regulations that ban the short-term letting out of an entire property in a rent pressure zone that is not a principal private residence. This requires planning permission which is unlikely to be granted.

    The report to the council's Planning Committee states that there were just 16 planning applications lodged with 13 either refused, withdrawn or declared invalid, while three await a decision.

    The new laws allow the short-term letting of rooms in a private residence or the letting of the entire residence for a maximum of 90 days a year.

    These require a formal notification to the council known as a Form 15.

    There were just 246 such notifications last year and 69 received so far this year.

    These include both short term lettings and homesharing which involves renting out a room on a longer term basis.

    The short-term letting regulations allow for criminal prosecution with a maximum penalty of €5,000 and/or six months imprisonment.”


  • Options
    #1431
    LuckyLloyd
    Registered Users Posts: 36,341 ✭✭✭✭LuckyLloyd


    Plenty of warnings out there now. And seems there will be plenty of warnings provided for individual owners violating their planning permission. No excuses to end up in court.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1432
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    LuckyLloyd wrote: »
    Plenty of warnings out there now. And seems there will be plenty of warnings provided for individual owners violating their planning permission. No excuses to end up in court.

    A lot of units have gone back, or are going back, to long term letting. That is likely behind the fall in rents.


  • Options
    #1433
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    A lot of units have gone back, or are going back, to long term letting. That is likely behind the fall in rents.

    What are you basing your opinion on that a lot of units are back in long term lets?

    The piece doesn’t say what constitutes an “investigation”, is it recording a complaint about a property being used for short lets, or just copying Airbnb ads onto a spread sheet for investigation?


  • Options
    #1434
    Yellow_Fern
    Registered Users Posts: 2,600 ✭✭✭Yellow_Fern


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    A lot of units have gone back, or are going back, to long term letting. That is likely behind the fall in rents.

    Or the huge numbers of stock brought by the institutional landlords.


  • Options
    #1435
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Or the huge numbers of stock brought by the institutional landlords.

    And rented out to families, couples, etc.


  • Options
    #1436
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Dav010 wrote: »
    What are you basing your opinion on that a lot of units are back in long term lets?

    The piece doesn’t say what constitutes an “investigation”, is it recording a complaint about a property being used for short lets, or just copying Airbnb ads onto a spread sheet for investigation?

    I have met 2 owners who have received letters from the Council in the last few weeks. Both have decided to give up the AirBnB if they get any more pressure. They are clearly not isolated cases.


  • Options
    #1437
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Yellow_Fern wrote: »
    Or the huge numbers of stock brought by the institutional landlords.

    Newly built units are also having some effect. The calibre of prospective tenant for vacant older units seems to have gone down. The upper end f the market appears to e satiated.


  • Options
    #1438
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    Claw Hammer wrote: »
    I have met 2 owners who have received letters from the Council in the last few weeks. Both have decided to give up the AirBnB if they get any more pressure. They are clearly not isolated cases.

    2 is not “a lot”, considering many owners changed to Airbnb specifically because they do not want to rent to tenants, the verifiable reduction in the numbers of LLs, and the possibility of a rent freeze, I would think your assumption doesn’t hold up.


  • Options
    #1439
    Claw Hammer
    Registered Users Posts: 6,236 ✭✭✭Claw Hammer


    Dav010 wrote: »
    2 is not “a lot”, considering many owners changed to Airbnb specifically because they do not want to rent to tenants, the verifiable reduction in the numbers of LLs, and the possibility of a rent freeze, I would think your assumption doesn’t hold up.

    They are only 2 I have met in the last week. i did meet another 1 a few months ago who had to stop due to pressure from neighbours. Given that the council have announced they are cracking down i would think it reasonable that they are not the only ones on a target list. Even if the 1 Council staff only generate 10 computer letters a week and only chase up on 1 or 2 they will soon have contacted 1000s. A few will stop immediately and others will try and brazen it out and force it to court, but i have little doubt that units are drifting back to the long term market.


  • Options
    #1440
    hometruths
    Registered Users, Subscribers Posts: 5,982 ✭✭✭hometruths


    Dav010 wrote: »
    Graham, in that sense, most industries have imploded. It’s what happens when restrictions are lifted that will be telling, just like all other industries. As I said on another thread, STLs are open for bookings right now, hotels aren’t. I’ve gotten bookings during the lockdown for the last quarter of the year and into next year, many hotels can’t do that at the moment.

    I really don’t get this fixation with STLs, it’s a minuscule percentage of the rental/sales market and gets a disproportionate amount of importance in conversations about both. It’s not a broken part, it’s just a part.

    Fair point that what is most important is what happens when restrictions are lifted that will be telling.

    And whilst STLs are open for bookings now they may end up having to cancel those booking when lockdown is lifted.

    Will you have to compensate people who have booked or airbnb if you are forced to cancel the reservations?


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #1441
    Dav010
    Registered Users Posts: 14,523 ✭✭✭✭Dav010


    schmittel wrote: »
    Fair point that what is most important is what happens when restrictions are lifted that will be telling.

    And whilst STLs are open for bookings now they may end up having to cancel those booking when lockdown is lifted.

    Will you have to compensate people who have booked or airbnb if you are forced to cancel the reservations?

    No compensation, with Airbnb if a Host cancels a booking, the dates are blocked from being booked again. Why would Hosts have to cancel when restrictions are lifted? If you are talking about guests cancelling, it depends on the Hosts cancellation policy, you can set that as you wish.


Advertisement