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

Dav010

schmittel wrote: »

And the guest has the address of the property. So when the letter on official headed notepaper arrives saying:

Dear Dav010

We are writing to remind you that we have a confirmed booking for this property on such and such a date. Please ensure that you provide details of legal compliance prior to our arrive.

love from the Dept of Housing/LA/whoever

You would ignore this and bin it as well?

What is in that letter that Hosts don’t already know? If the Host is renting the property, that’s a handy bit of money from the LA.

How would you decrease it by 90%?

After nearly 1 yr, DCC has 1(one) prosecution and has recieved 20 planning applications.

Quote from DCC:

“Advertisements are not considered a planning breach of the short-term letting regulations regardless of whether or not any such advertisement relates to unauthorised use,” a Council spokesperson said. “Therefore our section does not record, for statistical purposes, data pertaining to advertisements.”

Jackaroe

We have been dealing with DCC for a bit trying to get an investigation going on a few units in our building, was early stages - few emails and phone conversations. In the past few weeks a few Roma families have moved into the units - it looks like its for Covid 19/isolation purposes. Not sure who is paying for this but worried now that if this is state funded in any way then they are mixed up with this sh1t show and our investigations will be dropped. Anyone know who is funding these stays?

hometruths

Dav010 wrote: »

What is in that letter that Hosts don’t already know?

How would you decrease it by 90%?

My thinking is that the vast majority will cancel the booking once they receive the email at which stage they will receive a letter saying we see you cancelled the booking, we will be keeping an eye on the future of this property.

There are those like you who ignore the email because they think it is a crackpot, but a good number of those will not ignore the subsequent letter, and they will cancel the booking. Repeat step 1.

If email and letter to property in question is ignored, property owner is identified, and letter sent to that address if it is different. If that is a landlord whose tenant is subletting on airbnb, the landlord will nip it in the bud.

Those like you, who would ignore the email and the letters, get red flagged. Two people would stay at the property as per the booking, which will provide first hand evidence of a short term let being operated.

They get prosecuted.

This is not rocket science.

Graham

Dav010 wrote: »

How would you do it?

Off the top of my head...

Mandatory registration of all STL bookings.
Introduce an offence of advertising an unregistered STL
Introduce an offence of carrying an advert for an unregistered STL
Introduce an offence for property owners of permitting any other to carry on STLs of an unregistered property.
Introduce an offence of renting an unregistered STL property with an on the spot fine and immediate removal from the property.
Add a zero to the fines, minimum fine to be not less than 2 years BTL revenue for the property or properties in the case of multiple properties.

One or two of the above should do the trick.

Dav010

Graham wrote: »

Off the top of my head...

Mandatory registration of all STL bookings.
Introduce an offence of advertising an unregistered STL
Introduce an offence of carrying an advert for an unregistered STL
Introduce an offence for property owners of permitting any other to carry on STLs of an unregistered property.
Introduce an offence of renting an unregistered STL property with an on the spot fine and immediate removal from the property.
Add a zero to the fines, minimum fine to be not less than 2 years BTL revenue for the property or properties in the case of multiple properties.

One or two of the above should do the trick.

So if you were given €2.5m and a job in DCC LA, you would be able do any of those? Crikey, the job comes with some juice.

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

Off the top of my head...

Mandatory registration of all STL bookings.
Introduce an offence of advertising an unregistered STL
Introduce an offence of carrying an advert for an unregistered STL
Introduce an offence for property owners of permitting any other to carry on STLs of an unregistered property.
Introduce an offence of renting an unregistered STL property with an on the spot fine and immediate removal from the property.
Add a zero to the fines, minimum fine to be not less than 2 years BTL revenue for the property or properties in the case of multiple properties.

One or two of the above should do the trick.

Exactly, there are any number of ways to solve this problem.

What is required is that the Government makes it a priority. FOr whatever reason the last government did not, but I suspect the next one will.

Dav010

schmittel wrote: »

My thinking is that the vast majority will cancel the booking once they receive the email at which stage they will receive a letter saying we see you cancelled the booking, we will be keeping an eye on the future of this property.

There are those like you who ignore the email because they think it is a crackpot, but a good number of those will not ignore the subsequent, and they will cancel the book. Repeat step 1.

If email and letter to property in question is ignored, property owner is identified, and letter sent to that address if different. If that is a landlord whose tenant is subletting on airbnb, the landlord will nip it in the bud.

Those like you, who would ignore the email and the letters, get red flagged. Two people would stay at the property as per the booking, which will provide first hand evidence of a short term let being operated.

They get prosecuted.

This is not rocket science.

Wishing it don’t make it so.

Do you not think that if it was that easy, LAs would just send those letters to everyone who advertises on Airbnb? They have the name and addresses after all.

Please tell me that this is not the limit of how you would reduce Host numbers by 90%, sending out letters and emails. Hosts already know this.

Dav010

schmittel wrote: »

Exactly, there are any number of ways to solve this problem.

What is required is that the Government makes it a priority. FOr whatever reason the last government did not, but I suspect the next one will.

You would be able to do these things from your office in DCC?

hometruths

Dav010 wrote: »

Wishing it don’t make it so.

Do you not think that if it was that easy, LAs would just send those letters to everyone who advertises on Airbnb? They have the name and addresses after all.

Please tell me that this is not the limit of how you would reduce Host numbers by 90%, sending out letters and emails. Hosts already know this.

I think you're missing something. The point of the emails and letters is not to remind the hosts of something they already know, i.e that they should be in compliance with the law.

It is to ask them to produce evidence that they are in compliance of the law.

hometruths

Dav010 wrote: »

You would be able to do these things from your office in DCC?

No, from my office in the Dept of Housing.

Dav010

schmittel wrote: »

I think you're missing something. The point of the emails and letters is not to remind the hosts of something they already know, i.e that they should be in compliance with the law.

It is to ask them to produce evidence that they are in compliance of the law.

So you want the LA to pay €500, then turn up on the day and ask for proof of compliance? If the Host is renting, the reply would be “Don’t have it, thanks for the €500”. The LA can’t prosecute the Host as they are not the property owner, so it’s a hit-or-miss policy that could cost anything from €500 to thousands each time. Bit silly.

hometruths

schmittel wrote: »

I think you're missing something. The point of the emails and letters is not to remind the hosts of something they already know, i.e that they should be in compliance with the law.

It is to ask them to produce evidence that they are in compliance of the law.

Think of it like when a guard asks you to produce your insurance within 10 days.

It's not because he want's to tell you something you already know.
It's because they want to see proof you have the insurance.

Most people produce their insurance.

Those who don't, because they think, "I don't have insurance, but sure I already knew I needed it" get prosecuted.

hometruths

Dav010 wrote: »

So you want the LA to pay €500, then turn up on the day and ask for proof of compliance? If the Host is renting, the reply would be “Don’t have it, thanks for the €500”. The LA can’t prosecute the Host as they are not the property owner, so it’s a hit-or-miss policy that could cost anything from €500 to thousands each time. Bit silly.

No offence, but I can see you have grasped the proposals in my posts about as well as you have grasped the forthcoming threats to your stl income!

Graham

DCC should pick 10 cases, five multiple-property operators, five single property operators.

Pour whatever resources necessary into those 10 cases and make an enormous song and dance about prosecution/enforcement.

Do it as soon as the STL market re-opens while there are less moles-to-whack.

Dav010

schmittel wrote: »

No offence, but I can see you have grasped the proposals in my posts about as well as you have grasped the forthcoming threats to your stl income!

They are both given the consideration they deserve.

hometruths

Dav010 wrote: »

They are both given the consideration they deserve.

Fair enough, as I said time will tell.

Graham

To be honest, I think any talk of an STL market for the remainder of this year is almost purely academic.

Dav010

Graham wrote: »

To be honest, I think any talk of an STL market for the remainder of this year is almost purely academic.

Yip, got to wait and see in relation to legislation, enforcement, bookings etc. Profits of course will be decimated, but the rental and sales market are no more appealing at the moment. So it’s a wait and see.

But wishing STLs go away won’t make it so, hopefully the new year and all those rearranged events will make 2021 a much more profitable year with plenty of domestic guests looking for good value in good locations.

Ozark707

Dav010 wrote: »

Yip, got to wait and see in relation to legislation, enforcement, bookings etc. Profits of course will be decimated, but the rental and sales market are no more appealing at the moment. So it’s a wait and see.

But at least if the STL’s were put on rental market the hosts would have some income? Why have it sitting there getting hardly anything?

Dav010

Ozark707 wrote: »

But at least if the STL’s were put on rental market the hosts would have some income? Why have it sitting there getting hardly anything?

For the reasons owners left the market in the first place. You have to remember, owners were leaving the rental markets when rents were at historical highs. It is worth waiting, STLs prices are set by the Host independent of caps. And if Graham is right, there will be less competition in the STL sector if some have left, good for those who stay.

Ozark707

Right on cue...One of the headlines in SBP is that the new gov plan a ‘crackdown on Airbnb’...

Gael23

I don’t see Airbnb surviving Covid 19 so this discussion may soon nit be relevant

Dav010

Gael23 wrote: »

I don’t see Airbnb surviving Covid 19 so this discussion may soon nit be relevant

There are other platforms.

Graham

Gael23 wrote: »

I don’t see Airbnb surviving Covid 19 so this discussion may soon nit be relevant

STLs will survive but I suspect the regulatory environment across many countries will be very different.

This enforced reset is a great opportunity for governments/local authorities everywhere to prevent things going back to the way they were. That's assuming finances/market-forces don't do the job.

hometruths

Graham wrote: »

STLs will survive but I suspect the regulatory environment across many countries will be very different.

This enforced reset is a great opportunity for governments/local authorities everywhere to prevent things going back to the way they were. That's assuming finances/market-forces don't do the job.

Agreed. Airbnb hosts are fighting a war on two fronts, and I suspect Covid19 will knock out a whole chunk of them before the govt get their crackdown in order.

Dav010

schmittel wrote: »

Agreed. Airbnb hosts are fighting a war on two fronts, and I suspect Covid19 will knock out a whole chunk of them before the govt get their crackdown in order.

Did an Airbnb owner pee in your cornflakes? I don’t get why some people have this dislike for a tiny sector who don’t want to rent, yet want to make money off their property.

Yours and Graham’s posts are almost inspiring.

One of the benefits of Airbnb for the Government is that all payment are electronic and details of all payments are sent to Revenue. Other platforms do not do this, cash is often preferred and no link to Revenue. If you make planning a requirement to advertise, owners will just use other platforms which do not check Hosts/Guests as thoroughly.

Graham

Dav010 wrote: »

I don’t get why some people have this dislike for a tiny sector who don’t want to rent, yet want to make money off their property.

No issue with anyone making money off their property. I'd fully support strengthening protection for landlords.

They're largely contrary to planning legislation.
They're often contrary to being good neighbours.
They're often contrary to good balance within the communities.
I strongly believe in the concept of town/city planning (it's not perfect but it's better than a free-for-all driven purely by money).
I don't want our cities to turn into theme parks.
You might say STLs are parasitic on the housing market.


For clarity, I have absolutely no issue with homeowners renting out spare rooms within their own homes. The original 'sharing economy' purpose of AirBnB.

Gael23

Gael23 wrote: »

I don’t see Airbnb surviving Covid 19 so this discussion may soon nit be relevant

Whatever about hosts losing out, 25% of AirBnB workforce being made redundant. Similar for Uber. Worldwide.

Dav010

Graham wrote: »

No issue with anyone making money off their property. I'd fully support strengthening protection for landlords.

STLs however are parasitic on the housing market.
They're largely contrary to planning legislation.
They're often contrary to being good neighbours.
They're often contrary to good balance within the communities.
I strongly believe in the concept of town/city planning (it's not perfect but it's better than a free-for-all driven purely by money).
I don't want our cities to turn into theme parks.


For clarity, I have absolutely no issue with homeowners renting out spare rooms within their own homes. The original 'sharing economy' purpose of AirBnB.

Thank God, I thought there was good reasons why you were against it.

Parasitic? Seriously. You’ve been watching too many box sets.

Contrary to planning, hard to argue that, Hosts are completely ignoring it.

Good neighbours. There is no doubt some guests cause trouble, but the beauty is that the few that do are gone Monday morning. A bad tenant is for keeps, being a mod here you will have read plenty of posts from both owners and neighbours about nightmare tenants who can’t be moved. There is one you are posting on about a Romanian family. So saying STL is any worse than renting, is without merit.

Good balance in community. What is this? Perhaps a form of discrimination, only those who can live there are allowed stay? No visitors allowed.

There are 6k properties, you think they will turn cities into theme parks? Seriously? Bit of Hyperbole there.

You know Graham, I wonder if there is a hint of degrudgery and even discrimination in your posts. Not all guests are noisy troublemaking community wreckers, not all areas are for the benefit only of those who live there.

Ozark707

Dav010 wrote: »

Contrary to planning, hard to argue that, Hosts are completely ignoring it.

This is why I think the carrot has not worked and the stick needs to be taken out to hosts who won't comply.