I am glad you are not over your head. That seems to be the current trend with everyone thinking this is a get rich quick scheme. And you have a job so that is really great! So if worse comes to worse, you can sell and walk away, or rent long term. Or rent to traveling nurses, or other short term prospects.
Competition has driven rental prices way down over the past few years also.
1 Like
Yes Londonflat youāre right it was a loosening of the regulations. In the media itās been presented as a crackdown recently which has been irritating as the 90 day regulations were nothing of the sort at the time they came out.
@Zandra Well, if you think about it, it is a crackdown ā by Airbnb.
London itself loosened regulations a while back. But the mediaās right in calling Airbnbās recent actions a crackdown.
Airbnb is taking responsibility for its customersā (hostsā) behaviour and taking responsibility. Tech companies often try to claim they shouldnāt be the ones to police the people who use their platforms, but eventually many come around to the conclusion that itās better for them & for business if they do.
I understand the change is Airbnbās willingness to police the law. However do a quick search of commentary both in the media and in these forums and youāll see that people mistakenly think the 90 day regulation is a crack down.
Iāve said in a number of places in this forum; the 90 days was a loosening of regulations because before then planning permission had no way to accommodate STR activity; Airbnbās willingness to police compliance is the only thing thatās changed.
Any recent article in both the guardian and evening standard ā¦
I agree. If we had to get a license or pay taxes, I would do so. But in a lot of places the licensing regulations are either prohibitively expensive or almost impossible to obtain. The requirements from many places are designed purposely to prohibit home hosting, so getting the license simply becomes impossible for most hosts. Thatās why they donāt comply.
Locations requiring licensing shouldnāt treat Airbnb hosts the same as they treat large billion-dollar hotel companies. But many do. If they offer a licensing process that isnāt designed to in fact prohibit Airbnb type hosting, I think most hosts would gladly comply.
1 Like
@Zandra Sorry but I canāt find any. Here are the most recent articles from the Guardian and Evening Standard, all of which are completely accurate. My sense is that most media bias is actually perception bias from readers.
Guardian: Airbnb introduces 90-day annual limit for London hosts
A quarter of London homes listed on Airbnb were rented for more than 90 days last year, many illegally and in breach of an act intended to stop landlords turning badly needed housing into unofficial hotels.
ā¦
It was already against the law for property owners to let out their homes on short term, hotel-style lets without planning permission, if the total letting period was over 90 days per year. But, according to Copley, town halls did not have the resources or data to enforce it.
Guardian: Airbnb regulation deal with London and Amsterdam marks dramatic policy shift
Under the deal, Airbnb will be responsible for making sure their hosts stick to the local limits for short-term rentals unless the hosts have the proper licenses ā 90 days per year in London, 60 per year in Amsterdam.
Evening Standard: Airbnb to enforce 90-day limit
Airbnb is to ban landlords from renting out homes for more than three months a year to dampen fears that the home-sharing giant is fuelling Londonās housing crisis.
Although the law prohibits short-term rentals of more than 90 days over the course of a year without planning permission, Airbnb has not prevented users of its website from exceeding this limit.
Glad you quoted The guardian, as itās an example of what I mean. the article states (first para)
A quarter of holes listed on Airbnb were rented for more than 90 days last year, many illegally and in breach of an act intended to stop landlords turning badly needed housing into offical hotelsā
A very different spin on a previous article which celebrated the fact that many could now make additional income due to new legislation. The main thrust of the act wasnāt to stop illegal hotels it was to enable homeowners to take advantage of STRs by relaxing legislation- so even in the first example you can see the spin.
Technically nothing is incorrect but the tone would very much lead people to believe it was a crack down on illegal hotels rather than a relaxation of planning legislation.
I canāt be bothered with reading the rest, apologies.
@zandra Right. That seems perfectly reasonable and accurate to me. The hosts were renting out for more than the legally allowed limit.
The act itself is to stop people from being de facto hotels.
The loosening of the regulations (the previous article) was, as you say, to allow people to make additional incomeā¦ but within the confines of an act that was intended to prevent illegal hotels.
Thanks for engaging. I really appreciate your perspective, even though I disagree.
Itās about the manipulation of apparently factual information to a particular point of view.
A) London has introduced a 90 day legislation which will allow hosts to make thousands of pounds in extra income. The legislation represents a relaxation of previous planning permission which did not allow for this type of economic activity. (Broadly the way articles presented the legislation in 2015).
B) Airbnb is cracking down on hosts that host for over 90 days. The legislation was introduced in order to prevent illegal hotels. (Broadly how itās been presented in 2016).
Two completely different angles. This is what I take issue with. Same thing presented completely different ways and frankly misleading to the ill informed.
And I should add why this particularly gets my goat: by saying its legislation to prevent illegal hotels it suggests our government had the foresight to see Airbnb could have an effect on the housing market. Not on your nelly. We have a housing market so horribly heated and yet the government have consistently failed to do anything about it.
I hate to get all political but politics has everything to do with the history of this legislation.
The legislation was introduced on the back of George Osbourne trying to encourage entrepreneurial activity as a way to deflect attention from his austerity programme. He backed it up with) Ā£2000 tax free earnings on Airbnb/eBay and also a massive increase the allowance for rent a room. (From Ā£4K tax free to 8k tax free). Why? So people had something to feel good about in the context of cuts and more cuts after the financial crisis. And of course Boris has no issue with this. Illegal hotels were not a major part of the concern at the timeā¦nor was there any thought about how relaxing the legislation could affect an already heated housing market.
Roll forward a year and we now have a labour London Mayor and of course very different priorities. Suddenly a very different emphasis is being placed on the same legislation; itās no longer about being entrepreneurial itās about illegal hotels.
And yes this is the nature of politics, (spin) repeated everywhere, in governments the world over so I should just let it slide like water off a ducks back. Sadly I have a memory and Iām not going to let someone try to pull the wool over my eyes.
Changing the slant on this legislation is an easy way for the government to pretend they care about housing. Itās an easy win ā¦ far easier than actually building more houses or preventing foreigners from investing in London property. And itās a bandwagon all governments are getting on because it looks good. Easy win that doesnāt involve doing TOO much .
@Zandra Youāre totally that Osborne and others relaxed regulations and the London laws to allow for people to earn more money this way.
But you have to look at the bigger picture ā Thereās a reason why there are housing regulations in the first place. Thereās a reason why the rules & regulations were tight. This has nothing to do with government foresight about Airbnb, but rather the very typical way in which cities regulate hotels.
The āspinā you see is entirely due to the actual news:
- (from 2015) Rules are relaxed to 90 days. Why? Because of the reasons you cited above, but the fact remains that the limits on home rentals were part of an effort to control housing supply/hotels. You may be right that the government has failed in this area, but you must agree that thatās the point of the limit in the first place.
- Airbnb enforces those rules.
In the recent stories (part 2), the news is that Airbnb is making sure that hosts stick to the law. This has nothing to do with who is mayor. The new labour mayor didnāt make any announcement. It was part of a larger change made by Airbnb in both London and Amsterdam. So itās totally logical for someone to say āAirbnb is cracking down and making sure hosts stick to a law that limits short-term home rentals.ā And if you want to extrapolate from that, itās appropriate to say what the law is for. The law is so that people donāt turn homes into hotels.
Personally I donāt see how a city concerned with a dire housing situation, rising rents and rising house prices, let alone illegal hotels should ever get the idea to relax legislation but there we goā¦
Living in London has made me exceptionally cynical and Iām afraid I canāt take anything at face value anymore. Thereās always a hidden agenda and itās rarely for the benefit of the little guy ā¦
This new law wonāt affect us since we rent our guest room when we are in residenceā¦i.e. a REAL Bed and Breakfast, not just real estate rental. But I would LOVE to get 90 days a year at the price we charge! That would give us DOUBLE the annualincome we now make on standard B and B guest room rental!. As for people who want to rent whole apartments or houses, you still have the option of foregoing AirBnB and subletting for a month or two months or more, with a regular signed lease, which is legal (unless there are cities that prohibit subleasing, which I doubt). You can use craigslist or
local brokers or community newspapers or online blogs to advertise the sublet). Of course the reason there is this whole flap about whole house long term rental is because renters get a monthās rental at SINGLE DAILY PRICES, so they rake in the bucks. This is precisely why many real estate owners in NYC have been raking in literally hundreds of thousands of dollars each year: with a large apartment with several bedrooms whose market rent is $4000 a month, if you rent it BY THE DAY for $200 or $300 a night, you will make a LOT MORE MONEY. A LOT. This has been against the NYC law for years and it is only now because of AirBNB that the city is trying to clamp down and enforce the law that prohibits full apartment/house rentals for less than 30 days. Now longer rentals will be required to be sublets, with leases. Of course resident B and B hosts like us are not affected.