I am an, owner and rental agent of many non owned, properties in Portugal and have property in Thailand that is about to be rented out. There are a number of properties for holiday rental in that neighborhood and I totally agree that long term residents of a complex or neighborhood should not be subject to 'unruly' behavior of holiday makers. It is the responsibility of the owner - or his/her agent on their behalf - to ensure that the terms and conditions of such a rental include non detrimental/unsocial behavior clauses. And to enforce that if necessary. Only once in 12 years have I had to this by eviction. I fail to understand however why 30 days could be deemed as the cut off for such behavior. A group or family stay 29 days and potentially a disturbance? 30 days +, ok. I suspect this is being driven by lobbying of the hotel industry in Thailand. Occupancy rates are down despite the increase in tourist numbers so reliably reported by TAT. Those tourists paying the vast majority of their accommodation costs outside the Kingdom. Such tourists without a lot of interest in 'in-hotel' spending, which even in the largest and most high profile establishments, can make the difference between profit and loss. The better course of action in Thailand to be to regulate the privately rented sector. In terms of financial probity with the client, tax payments etc. With the dominance of sites such as Air BNB, Trip Advisor etc where anyone can stick their property up on line, without any upfront cost, and without any regard for quality, safety or tax compliance
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Phuket condo owners warned 'holiday rentals' less than 30 days risks fines, jail time
in Phuket News
Posted
I am an, owner and rental agent of many non owned, properties in Portugal and have property in Thailand that is about to be rented out. There are a number of properties for holiday rental in that neighborhood and I totally agree that long term residents of a complex or neighborhood should not be subject to 'unruly' behavior of holiday makers. It is the responsibility of the owner - or his/her agent on their behalf - to ensure that the terms and conditions of such a rental include non detrimental/unsocial behavior clauses. And to enforce that if necessary. Only once in 12 years have I had to this by eviction. I fail to understand however why 30 days could be deemed as the cut off for such behavior. A group or family stay 29 days and potentially a disturbance? 30 days +, ok. I suspect this is being driven by lobbying of the hotel industry in Thailand. Occupancy rates are down despite the increase in tourist numbers so reliably reported by TAT. Those tourists paying the vast majority of their accommodation costs outside the Kingdom. Such tourists without a lot of interest in 'in-hotel' spending, which even in the largest and most high profile establishments, can make the difference between profit and loss. The better course of action in Thailand to be to regulate the privately rented sector. In terms of financial probity with the client, tax payments etc. With the dominance of sites such as Air BNB, Trip Advisor etc where anyone can stick their property up on line, without any upfront cost, and without any regard for quality, safety or tax compliance