"18,000 houses to rent on Airbnb vs 2,000 on Daft"

I don't like banning things, but Airbnb was always a "sharing economy" concept.

i.e. you rent our your spare room or rent your own place when you were away yourself.

It is hard to imagine it has not had a big impact on the availability of rental accommodation for the residential market.

So in this case, I would ban Airbnb for those using it to advertise entire properties on a rollover basis.

However, at the same time I would look into relaxing some of the existing landlord regulations and rental income tax rates.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
It is certainly less regulated in practice.

I have never heard of an airbnb customer complaining to the RTB or refusing to leave and they pay in advance.

Brendan
Click to expand...

They pay Airbnb in advance not the landlord. It is obviously a factor but I think it is remiss to say insinuate it is the only reason.

Airbnb is not some magic risk free money machine for landlords. You could argue long term rentals are like passive investing and short term lets are like picking individual stocks and trying to time the market. The return might be higher but the risk is higher.
 
Calico said:
So in this case, I would ban Airbnb for those using it to advertise entire properties on a rollover basis.
Click to expand...
Bear in mind that if you do that, you are effectively making it impossible for families especially with older children to take domestic holidays or breaks. Especially now that so many hotels have been turned into migrant accommodation.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I have never heard of an airbnb customer complaining to the RTB or refusing to leave and they pay in advance.
Click to expand...
An Airbnb near me had a bad experience a few years ago with a group of visitors overholding without permission and had their hands full evicting them.
 
DublinHead54 said:
You could argue long term rentals are like passive investing and short term lets are like picking individual stocks and trying to time the market. The return might be higher but the risk is higher.
Click to expand...

Did you mean to say it the other way around?

If you take on one tenant, you are picking one stock and hoping that it goes well.

If you take on 30 tenants a year via airbnb, you have great diversification and little risk.

Brendan
 
T McGibney said:
An Airbnb near me had a bad experience a few years ago with a group of visitors overholding without permission and had their hands full evicting them.
Click to expand...
Lots of people use Airbnb to avoid interacting with the State. Lots of people would rent their properties to those refugees or rent them long term on the open market except they know that if anything goes wrong they will have to interact with the RTB and will be met with delays and incompetence.
There is an expectation from many people, me included, that organs of the State will be inefficient and incompetent. That holds from the RTB to the Health Service to the probate office to government departments etc. My experience over the last 25 years bears that out. If I had a holiday home now and I could trust the State to be competent and efficient then I would make it available for refugees because I think it is the right thing to do. If I inherited a house and wanted to keep it and I could trust the State to be competent and efficient then I would rent it out. Given my experience of dealing with the State there's no way I would do either. I'd leave the inherited house vacant and I'd use the holiday home myself.
If I needed the cash I'd let them out for short term stays through Airbnb.
More regulation = more State = more incompetence and waste. That's the last thing we need.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Did you mean to say it the other way around?

If you take on one tenant, you are picking one stock and hoping that it goes well.

If you take on 30 tenants a year via airbnb, you have great diversification and little risk.

Brendan
Click to expand...
Airbnb requires a serious amount of work. Long term tenants don't expect you to change their sheets each week. In that sense long term rentals are passive.
 
I don't necessarily disagree but there is always an element of apples and oranges when comparing Airbnb to residential letting, as you correctly note here:
Purple said:
Airbnb requires a serious amount of work. Long term tenants don't expect you to change their sheets each week. In that sense long term rentals are passive.
Click to expand...
 
Brendan Burgess said:
Agree fully that it's more like a business than a passive investment, but it's a lot less risky.

Brendan
Click to expand...
That's kind of the point; the biggest risk is that the State won't do it's job in a timely and efficient manner if your tenant won't leave or won't pay the rent or wrecks the place or that the State will move the goalposts and you will effectively lose control of your asset.

The less you have to interact with the State the less risk you have.
The more regulation there is the more you have to interact with the State and so the more risk you have.

I'd sooner Airbnb a place out a week of two at a time for a 20% of the year and avoid all that risk.
 
T McGibney said:
Bear in mind that if you do that, you are effectively making it impossible for families especially with older children to take domestic holidays or breaks. Especially now that so many hotels have been turned into migrant accommodation.
Click to expand...
I was thinking more about cities and urban areas where there is severe rental squeeze, but it's a fair point.
 
Dr Strangelove said:
Almost.

I can see good reasons for regulating it on the basis of noise or other direct nuisance toward neighbours.

But that’s about it.
Click to expand...
But we don't have any effective regulation now with private houses. Here's what Citizens Information advise. The same rules apply to Airbnb's. More regulation would achieve absolutely nothing other than more cost for owners and renters.
 
Brendan Burgess said:
I have made a presentations on mortgage arrears to Sinn Féin TDs and advisors. Does that make me a Shinner?

I have also presented to a group of FG and Labour TDs.

It's important to present expert evidence to all sides.

Brendan
Click to expand...
Listen to his presentation, 30 from the start he tells them "You can kinda join the dots to match your own agenda" and talks about how different groups have interpreted his data differently.
 
I've just read the article and frankly it's total balderdash and obvious the writer has no understanding of the subject.

I've had a property on Airbnb and also had the exact same property on daft as I found Airbnb was not as great as it is made out to be.

For a period of 18 months my property was on Airbnb every day, even though it had 90% occupancy from May to September.

When I decided to rent on a long term basis I put it on daft - after 3 hours I had dozens of enquiries and withdrew the listing that afternoon and had a short list of strong tenants.


It's simply not a comparable situation.


You could say that the average listing on daft is 7 days ( probably much shorter), so theoretically they have 8,500 properties a month and 100,000 a year.

But that would not make a good headline
 
DublinHead54 said:
if those 18,000 homes became long term lets
Click to expand...
The assumption being made is that the property owners would want to go into long term letting. They are two completely different businesses.

That's rather like suggesting a hairdresser would convert to a take away if only we passed enough leglislation against hairdressers.
 

I agree, hence why I said there have always been short term lets and they are part of a functioning housing market.

The article is insinuating that those 18k properties would have been long term lets if it wasn't for AirBnb.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register