Court decides: AirBnB illegal in Thailand for daily and weekly rental

[brucec64]

He made barely 4%  rental returns by renting it out to u for long term 
Honestly that seems like a unit that would make  much better returns  by airbnb.. And since as u said most units are empty then whats the problem..Hey people who rent out their units by airbnb are not some kind of criminals.

Actually, according to Thai law, they are.

Sent from my SM-N950U1 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[sam neuts]

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/featured/2018/06/25/airbnb-teases-major-partnership-with-thai-govt/

Sent from my SM-G925F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[marcusmarsh]

http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/business/2018/07/06/in-a-first-govt-official-stands-by-airbnb-legality/

 

BANGKOK — A state agency has confirmed that homeowners who offer their rooms on Airbnb won’t face legal repercussion as long as they notify local authorities, an official said Friday.

In a first recognition of the global vacation home rental platform, the Department of Provincial Authority told Airbnb reps in a Tuesday meeting that existing laws allow private properties to operate as small tourist accommodations – or homestays – interior affairs official Suttipong Juljarern said.

“People who enforce the law, the Department of Provincial Authority, said clearly: if it’s your own home, it’s not a hotel,” Suttipong said at Friday news conference. “There’s no legal burden on rural homeowners as long as they register themselves as homestays.”

Read: Airbnb Teases Major ‘Partnership’ With Thai Gov’t

 

To qualify for such legal protection, homeowners who wish to rent out their spare rooms on Airbnb must register with the Department of Local Administration, or DLA, officials in their areas, said Suttipong, who heads the agency.

Officials will then inspect the properties to ensure that they are clean and safe for tourists. There is no registration fee, Suttipong said, adding that his department is also training its officials to work with Airbnb and urge homeowners in beautiful rural areas to offer their places as homestays via the website.

“We are like cupids,” Suttipong said. “Our role is to make people meet and fall in love. In this case, it’s tourists meeting beautiful nature and friendly way of life.” 

The first workshop between Airbnb and the department officials was also launched Tuesday, per an earlier statement from Airbnb that they would unveil its first cooperation with a Thai state agency, according to company spokeswoman Mich Goh.

“Today we are very proud and happy to announce a partnership with the DLA to promote local entrepreneurship,” Goh said. “This is the first official Airbnb partnership with Thai authorities.”

The legal exemption only applies to owners of private homes, and not condominium rooms. The Tuesday meeting did not discuss the legality of the latter, Suttipong said. 

Data provided by Airbnb says Thailand is home to more than 60,000 of its listings, generating a total of more than 4 billion baht in yearly revenue for the homeowners.

But its operation is frowned upon by some law enforcement officials, hotel owners and condominium juristic offices, who see them as a violation of a hotel law that bans private properties from offering daily and weekly rentals.

In January, a court in the southern resort town of Hua Hin found owners of two condominium guilty of violating the hotel law for leasing their rooms to tourists.

Although it was widely reported that the verdict was the first legal blowback to Airbnb, Goh said today that her firm was not mentioned anywhere in the court documents of that case.

In Friday’s news conference, Suttipong said he hopes Airbnb will introduce more foreign tourists to hidden gems of the Thai countryside and its cultures.

“I’m unashamed to say I am exploiting Airbnb to promote our local businesses,” he said. “We see that platforms such as Airbnb will be important in publicizing what’s good in rural areas that people around the world don’t know about yet.”

[sam neuts]

http://thailandproperty.news/airbnb-partnership-with-thai-govt

Sent from my SM-G925F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Athens]

On 5/16/2018 at 12:18 PM, SS1 said:

These headlines are always so misleading, and tiring to see such as "AirBnB is illegal" , "UBER is illegal" - no, they are not illegal, just platforms used to provide certain services. What is illegal is the actual illegal activities done using these platforms, such as breaking the Hotel Act or driving a taxi without appropriate licences. 

 

Is anyone stopping a residence with the appropriate hotel licences using AirBnB as a platform to find customers? Is UBER illegal if the driver has the appropriate taxi licences? The answers is most likely NO in all cases. 

I totally understand the hassles caused by AirBnB in condominiums though, with tourists going to reception asking for towels to the pool and where is the best elephant trip.. 

They calls for crime actions thats all

[Athens]

On 5/16/2018 at 12:18 PM, SS1 said:

These headlines are always so misleading, and tiring to see such as "AirBnB is illegal" , "UBER is illegal" - no, they are not illegal, just platforms used to provide certain services. What is illegal is the actual illegal activities done using these platforms, such as breaking the Hotel Act or driving a taxi without appropriate licences. 

 

Is anyone stopping a residence with the appropriate hotel licences using AirBnB as a platform to find customers? Is UBER illegal if the driver has the appropriate taxi licences? The answers is most likely NO in all cases. 

I totally understand the hassles caused by AirBnB in condominiums though, with tourists going to reception asking for towels to the pool and where is the best elephant trip.. 

I do not agree, thy call the user to illegal actions.  Follow the law, hotel license and taxi license no problem using platforms, but why pay Uber and airbnb this are not charity companies only smart US companies.

 

[PAWNEESE]

On 5/16/2018 at 10:31 PM, happy chappie said:

The way around this one is to rent out the property every time for a month,then when they leave charge them for how long they've stayed.thatll have them scratching their heads for a while.

I'm confused.

 

A possibility if the property is isolated. Errrr but the problem is short term let people seriously p-off permanent residents .. who should be allowed a quiet civilised home without noisy partys, drunken behaviour, loud TV and music and loutish ignorance around the pool and other common areas. They are on holiday to have fun .. no work next day like normal and dont care about upsetting very short term neighbours.

 

Neighbours will now be able to show this ruling to condo management and Police if they operate as short let so no head scratching if people come and go whatever the original bogus rental time is.

 

Paying mllions for a good condo in a nice complex spoilt ... if partying holiday makers occupy next door .. with more short let holiday makers replacing them. Its not just families .. its sometimes large groups of single men.

[KhaoYai]

Whilst I don't doubt that some renters may cause noise and nuisance, I think this is being overstated.  My daughter rented a villa in Samui a couple of years ago - 50,000 for a week!!  I doub't many trouble-causing types would be prepared to pay that amount.

 

Also, a responsible owner would leave his or her contact details with neighbours so they could act on any reported nuisance.  Thousands of condos and villas are rented out every day; all over the world - I'd guess only a small proportion of the tenants are troublesome.

 

I live in a small village in Nakhon Ratchsima province, close to Khao Yai National Park which is popular with (mainly) Thai tourists. Why shouldn't I be able to rent my house out to tourists if I so wish?  I doubt any prospective renters would be as noisy as my Thai neighbours who often play 'Morlam' music at all times of day and night.  Thai's are not all 'quiet, peace loving people'.

 

But I'm confused with all the different posts on this subject - is renting you house out illegal or not?

[huberthammer]

14 hours ago, KhaoYai said:

Whilst I don't doubt that some renters may cause noise and nuisance, I think this is being overstated.  My daughter rented a villa in Samui a couple of years ago - 50,000 for a week!!  I doub't many trouble-causing types would be prepared to pay that amount.

 

let me assure you, just because somebody pays 50k per week does not eliminate the nuisance factor, quite the opposite,  they often are bigger lager louts than many cheap Charlie tourists.

 

In addition, often AirBnB bookings misstate the number of people staying. Quite common that all the sudden you have 8 people staying in a place with capacity for 4-6 (or extended Chinese family with 10+). 

 

As nice as it is to use AirBnb while travelling I fully understand the complaints from house/condo owners who have to put up with AirBnb neighbours. 

[metisdead]

Some off topic posts and the replies have been removed. 

[mikebell]

On 5/16/2018 at 3:29 PM, Mattd said:

Most others there are working (myself included) and have to get up around 6 am, the last thing you need or want is this!

All the workers should give them an early morning breakfast call by hammering on their door.

[rexall]

On 11/5/2018 at 6:04 PM, PAWNEESE said:

I'm confused.

 

A possibility if the property is isolated. Errrr but the problem is short term let people seriously p-off permanent residents .. who should be allowed a quiet civilised home without noisy partys, drunken behaviour, loud TV and music and loutish ignorance around the pool and other common areas. They are on holiday to have fun .. no work next day like normal and dont care about upsetting very short term neighbours.

 

 <snip> 

Poppycock! Condos have condo associations which are free to be as draconian as they prefer (or can get away with). If a majority don't want Airbnb, then ban it. What's the big deal?  Why get the government involved telling people how to use their own property?

[newnative]

1 hour ago, rexall said:

Poppycock! Condos have condo associations which are free to be as draconian as they prefer (or can get away with). If a majority don't want Airbnb, then ban it. What's the big deal?  Why get the government involved telling people how to use their own property?

     Indeed!  But let's not stop there. I think everyone would agree that I, myself, am my OWN PROPERTY.  So, why get the government 'involved' in telling me how I can use myself?  If I want to use myself to steal from someone with money, or murder someone who bothers me, why on earth should the government be 'involved'?  Mark my words and mark them well.  Once you get government 'involved'  you'll end up with all sorts of horrible things like zoning laws, and noise laws, and safety laws, and, yes, even your cherished right to steal and murder goes right out the window.

[rexall]

Pardon my naivete. I was under the impression that theft and murder were already illegal.

A law isn't just a law, it is the entire complicated, nasty, expensive bureaucracy that comes with it, police to enforce it, courts to prosecute, prisons to punish. Why impose the government apparatus banning Airbnb country-wide when Condo associations are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves if they prefer a building to be non-Airbnb or not.  Again--assuming the real issue is maintaining peace for all the residents--what's the big deal?  Building A is Airbnb, Building B down the road ain't.  Everybody is happy.

 

 

[newnative]

8 minutes ago, rexall said:

Pardon my naivete. I was under the impression that theft and murder were already illegal.

A law isn't just a law, it is the entire complicated, nasty, expensive bureaucracy that comes with it, police to enforce it, courts to prosecute, prisons to punish. Why impose the government apparatus banning Airbnb country-wide when Condo associations are perfectly capable of deciding for themselves if they prefer a building to be non-Airbnb or not.  Again--assuming the real issue is maintaining peace for all the residents--what's the big deal?  Building A is Airbnb, Building B down the road ain't.  Everybody is happy.

 

 

     Umm, no.  Everyone is not happy.  Building A and Building B will both have unhappy owners, possibly 49% in each case.  But, the point is irrelevant because the government has determined that short-term rentals are, rightly, not appropriate for residential condominiums.  A majority of condo owners might like to vote to allow themselves the right to steal but, as you said, that's already against the law--as is short-term condo rentals.

[rexall]

28 minutes ago, newnative said:

     Umm, no.  Everyone is not happy.  Building A and Building B will both have unhappy owners, possibly 49% in each case.  But, the point is irrelevant because the government has determined that short-term rentals are, rightly, not appropriate for residential condominiums.  A majority of condo owners might like to vote to allow themselves the right to steal but, as you said, that's already against the law--as is short-term condo rentals.

In new construction, buyers understand and agree to the Airbnb policy before closing the deal, so you have virtually 100% happy campers.  In existing buildings there is the "potential" of 49% vs. 51%, but no guarantee it would break that way.  However, that's democracy for you, ain't it? It is the least bad alternative of a bunch of bad alternatives. However, ultimately, the unhappy campers in Building A can move to Building B and vice versa.  See, everyone is happy.  Happy, happy, happy!  Sanook, mak mak!

[newnative]

2 hours ago, rexall said:

In new construction, buyers understand and agree to the Airbnb policy before closing the deal, so you have virtually 100% happy campers.  In existing buildings there is the "potential" of 49% vs. 51%, but no guarantee it would break that way.  However, that's democracy for you, ain't it? It is the least bad alternative of a bunch of bad alternatives. However, ultimately, the unhappy campers in Building A can move to Building B and vice versa.  See, everyone is happy.  Happy, happy, happy!  Sanook, mak mak!

    You keep forgetting that short-term rentals are illegal in condominiums.  Condo buyers can't 'agree' to something that is illegal.  

[Peterw42]

2 hours ago, rexall said:

In new construction, buyers understand and agree to the Airbnb policy before closing the deal, so you have virtually 100% happy campers.  In existing buildings there is the "potential" of 49% vs. 51%, but no guarantee it would break that way.  However, that's democracy for you, ain't it? It is the least bad alternative of a bunch of bad alternatives. However, ultimately, the unhappy campers in Building A can move to Building B and vice versa.  See, everyone is happy.  Happy, happy, happy!  Sanook, mak mak!

What does the 49%/51% quota have to do with doing airbnb rentals ? Nobody can agree or elect to do airbnd short rentals, its against the law. Not getting what the ownership quota has to do with it, Thai or foriegn owners are subject to the same laws.

[rexall]

Newnative introduced the 49%/51% issue as a distraction. However, you are correct, it doesn't really have anything to do with Airbnb rentals.

I am proposing that the condo association is a perfectly adequate instrument to deal with the issue of  short-term rentals without layers of government bureaucracy. Considering the encroaching nasty, nanny state over the past couple of years, avoiding more government regulations is hardly some radical plan!

[dcnx]

Zero enforcement, like everything else. Nothing will change for 99% of those with rentals. 

[newnative]

On 11/11/2018 at 4:40 PM, rexall said:

Newnative introduced the 49%/51% issue as a distraction. However, you are correct, it doesn't really have anything to do with Airbnb rentals.

I am proposing that the condo association is a perfectly adequate instrument to deal with the issue of  short-term rentals without layers of government bureaucracy. Considering the encroaching nasty, nanny state over the past couple of years, avoiding more government regulations is hardly some radical plan!

      Umm, no.  I did not introduce the 49/51% issue as a distraction.  You made the statement that Building A and Building B, one condo association voting to 'allow' short-term rentals and one not, would result in all the owners of Building A and Building B being happy.  To quote you, "Everybody is happy".  I simply pointed out that there could and likely would be large minorities of unhappy owners, as high as 49% (the losing vote) in each building. The 49%, obviously, has nothing to do with foreign quota; its simply the potential number of unhappy owners you could have in each building.  

     It's easy to throw out a dismissive term like 'nanny state' when one doesn't like this regulation or that regulation but usually they are in place for good reasons.  And, that is especially the case with short-term rentals in residential condominiums, where there are plenty of reasons (enumerated many times in this forum) why it's a bad idea and why the regulations are in place.  

[ozmeldo]

Given the immigration drama of reporting foreigners youd have to be an idiot at this point to rent your flat out.

 

I've no idea how they'd get the data but if they did Thai govt could fine the hell out of these junior rentier numbnutz. Perhaps require banks to report income from abnb or it's whatever corporate holding company

 

Thailand could block the IP address.

 

[KittenKong]

2 hours ago, ozmeldo said:

Given the immigration drama of reporting foreigners youd have to be an idiot at this point to rent your flat out.

 

I've no idea how they'd get the data but if they did Thai govt could fine the hell out of these junior rentier numbnutz.

They could but they dont. Currently if anyone gets fined it's the unfortunate tenant who probably has no idea that a report needed to made, nor how to do it. Little or no attempt is made to find and punish the property owner or his agent who are the real culprits.

This is utterly reprehensible and immigration should be ashamed of taking this easy way out.

[KittenKong]

On 11/11/2018 at 4:40 PM, rexall said:

I am proposing that the condo association is a perfectly adequate instrument to deal with the issue of  short-term rentals without layers of government bureaucracy. Considering the encroaching nasty, nanny state over the past couple of years, avoiding more government regulations is hardly some radical plan!

The condo association still needs a law to lean on. The "nanny state" should provide this. Personally I'm all in favour of more rules and regulations in this respect, and particularly in favour of the laws being applied without exception. At the same time, lets have more laws penalising theft, bad driving, violence, noise, smoking, littering and all the other anti-social things that ruin Thailand and many other countries.

[direction BANGKOK]

It amazes me how we all started out as these beings who traded goods or services with other individuals. It was so pure and beautiful in my opinion. The powers that be don't want us to do that anymore though. There is so much BS involved with every transaction anywhere in the world now, as the Apocalypse Now saying goes, "you need wings to stay above it". 

[bkk6060]

Airbnb is such a small part of this.

All the hotel broker sites have many many condos for rent ST. Many in Pattaya and BKK.

There are several laws it seems to me are being broken:

 

1. Rental less then one month.

2. Conducting a business/making a profit w/o a work permit.

3. Non reporting of income in Thailand.

4. Non paying of taxes

5. Not reporting the temporary resident to immigration.

 

Maybe there are more.

I have questioned management of several the larger condos in Pattaya.

I get:  We cannot control what is happening and what the owners do. 

I see security and the management facilitate it.

I just do no see any of it changing.

[newnative]

17 minutes ago, bkk6060 said:

Airbnb is such a small part of this.

All the hotel broker sites have many many condos for rent ST. Many in Pattaya and BKK.

There are several laws it seems to me are being broken:

 

1. Rental less then one month.

2. Conducting a business/making a profit w/o a work permit.

3. Non reporting of income in Thailand.

4. Non paying of taxes

5. Not reporting the temporary resident to immigration.

 

Maybe there are more.

I have questioned management of several the larger condos in Pattaya.

I get:  We cannot control what is happening and what the owners do. 

I see security and the management facilitate it.

I just do no see any of it changing.

Unfortunately, everything you wrote is on the mark.

[bkk6060]

1 hour ago, newnative said:

Unfortunately, everything you wrote is on the mark.

My buddy had what he thought was a good idea.

He left his condo and rented a house.  Nice place 2 bedroom off Sukhumvit but on what appeared to be a quiet Soi.

But now he is always complaining about the kids playing, dogs barking, and loud vehicles that use the soi as a short cut.

So, who knows I guess it is all give and take no perfect place especially in a major tourist city.

 

[rexall]

14 hours ago, KittenKong said:

The condo association still needs a law to lean on. The "nanny state" should provide this. Personally I'm all in favour of more rules and regulations in this respect, and particularly in favour of the laws being applied without exception. At the same time, lets have more laws penalising theft, bad driving, violence, noise, smoking, littering and all the other anti-social things that ruin Thailand and many other countries.

Why does the condo association need a law to lean on?  They make up all sorts of rules all the time (regarding pets, renovations, noise, all kinds of stuff). If an owner does not comply and if the dispute cannot be resolved amicably, there is a legal process. But the process involves breach of contract not breaking a law.   At least that is the way it is in the U.S. with neighborhood associations and such who can be pretty draconian, so much so, some choose not to live in those types of developments. I assume it is at least similar in LOS.

[Peterw42]

4 minutes ago, rexall said:

Why does the condo association need a law to lean on?  They make up all sorts of rules all the time (regarding pets, renovations, noise, all kinds of stuff). If an owner does not comply and if the dispute cannot be resolved amicably, there is a legal process. But the process involves breach of contract not breaking a law.   At least that is the way it is in the U.S. with neighborhood associations and such who can be pretty draconian, so much so, some choose not to live in those types of developments. I assume it is at least similar in LOS.

All condo blocks will have broad encompassing by-laws like no illegal activity etc. Yes, things like pets etc are not defined in common law etc but manufacturing and selling methamphetamines is.