Thai Law: Case Closed On Airbnb. Here’s Why It Won’t Matter.

[webfact]

Thai Law: Case Closed On Airbnb. Here’s Why It Won’t Matter.

By Wirot Poonsuwan, Attorney-at-Law

 

 

After panic erupted among thousands of Airbnb providers worried the days of sweet, tax-free income were over, the company told them Saturday that yes, they are breaking the law.

 

“Travel is evolving rapidly, and existing rules in Thailand do not reflect how millions of Thais travel or want to use their homes,” read the email, which went on to say the company was “sharing best practices, case studies and our experiences” with the Thai government.

 

Full story: http://www.khaosodenglish.com/featured/2018/06/24/thai-law-case-closed-on-airbnb-heres-why-it-wont-matter/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2018-06-25

[Thaiwrath]

"For them, the question is no longer its legality, but whether the law will be diligently enforced, and how light or severe the punishment will be meted out."

 

 

 

I imagine it will depend on the wealth and connectivity of those committing the offence.

[ukrules]

This could make it much harder to sell condos.

[Samui Bodoh]

Interesting article exploring the 'ins' and 'outs' of the practice; it is unfamiliar to me, so it is nice to learn about it.

 

I think the convenience of AirBnB is wonderful and it is almost certainly the way of the future. Further, given the explosion of the App and the company, it is very clear that it has been meeting customer's demands. Finally, it often provides the service and price that people want; if it didn't work effectively, then no one would use it.

 

The downside to me is that the owners don't pay the tax that is used (in theory at least) to fund the roads, the traffic lights, the electricity grid, and all the required infrastructure required to make an area function; why shouldn't the property owners pay their share for that? They directly benefit from it financially. Further, while eventually there would be feedback on a bad place, the first couple of users in a bad rental would likely not have any method of complaining and/or getting refunds for bad service, unlike a hotel where a complaint can be easily made. Finally, it seems to be a 'wild-west' business and I am always wary of that as the potential for abuse is strong in a completely unregulated industry; do the rentals meet basic safety standards for example? And if not, how would you know in advance?

 

As much as I dislike government interference in the marketplace, especially here in Thailand, it seems to me that there is a need for regulation in general and for safety measures in particular. I guess that I would simply hope that any regulations are done well and fairly (yes, I know, but...). 

 

Clean up the App and the business so that it is done fairly, safely and properly, however that may be.

 

Edited June 24, 2018 by Samui Bodoh
Lack of coffee

[ezzra]

While AirBnB works fine in many countries around the world, Thailand is one of the very few who throws a spanner in the works,

Simply put, the Thai government want to collect due taxes on any such transactions and also to protect the hospitality industry from so called unfair competition, Thailand should evolve with the time and leave something well alone... 

 

[Get Real]

1 hour ago, ukrules said:

This could make it much harder to sell condos.

And why would that be? This regards renting out livingspace for the short time of days and weeks.

How can that make it harder to sell condos?

[bluesofa]

Will this affect the sex trade too - what about the rental of short-time rooms. Does it mean punters will have to do with a knee-trembler up a back passage somewhere?

 

[Darcula]

1 hour ago, webfact said:

our experiences” with the Thai government

The world looks different when you use this sunshade.

 

[mikebell]

1 hour ago, Thaiwrath said:

"For them, the question is no longer its legality, but whether the law will be diligently enforced, and how light or severe the punishment will be meted out."

The law will only be enforced if Thai cops see the possibility of an illegal 'fine'.

[Peterw42]

1 hour ago, Get Real said:

And why would that be? This regards renting out livingspace for the short time of days and weeks.

How can that make it harder to sell condos?

I think he means people buying condos based on a great ST rental return, they wont be buying them anymore.

[Anak Nakal]

If police friend, no problem.

If police not friend, problem.

Same Same but Same Same

[TGIR]

We live in a 38 unit condo, all units are at least 180 sq meters with most over 250.  A few months ago we noticed an unusual amount of activity around the pool (we are on the pool deck level), in the garage and elevators.  We soon learned we had two owners renting out their condos on a daily basis using AirB&B. 

 

For us, a complete disaster.  Our normal experience is light use of the other units except for holidays and family vacations.  Generally we would have but a few people here, mostly older adults.  There were, of course, times when small children and teenagers would have a full day or weekend of screaming and running around, but it was tolerable with just 38 units.

 

To have just the two units renting daily,  (most rentals were in groups of six or more people, almost always with children) the increase in noise, pool usage, and a constant flow of people in and out of the condo became unbearable very quickly.  

 

The change to only allow 30 days minimum rentals has been a Godsend.   

 

[Cadbury]

Just now, TGIR said:

We live in a 38 unit condo, all units are at least 180 sq meters with most over 250.  A few months ago we noticed an unusual amount of activity around the pool (we are on the pool deck level), in the garage and elevators.  We soon learned we had two owners renting out their condos on a daily basis using AirB&B. 

 

For us, a complete disaster.  Our normal experience is light use of the other units except for holidays and family vacations.  Generally we would have but a few people here, mostly older adults.  There were, of course, times when small children and teenagers would have a full day or weekend of screaming and running around, but it was tolerable with just 38 units.

 

To have just the two units renting daily,  (most rentals were in groups of six or more people, almost always with children) the increase in noise, pool usage, and a constant flow of people in and out of the condo became unbearable very quickly.  

 

The change to only allow 30 days minimum rentals has been a Godsend.   

 

Note to Get Real. Try and join the dots between TGIR and Peterw42. Good luck.

[Hockeybik]

It isn't only Thailand. Many countries don't know how to deal with the protections they have in place for existing traditional businesses. Grab, Uber, AirBnB, Fiver and all the others conflict with local laws almost everywhere they operate. Governments must evolve as these new ways of conducting business have evolved. Embrace them, tax them, regulate them if you must but in the long term these App businesses are not going away. Sort of ... "if you can't beat 'em, join 'em".

[kingstonkid]

There is also one other area that has sort of been skipped over.  The condo manager or board.  As a condo owner and manager, I have seen it from both sides.  The issue is do you let the owner have the freedom to do as he/she pleases no matter the effect on the other owners.  

 

We have read on this board about people complaining about neighbors,  as well as worried about the safety of their children.  The condo owner agrees in most contracts to ensure the safety and security of the condo but when you are handing out keys indiscriminately to people you do not know and giving the world almost access to your condo building are you, in fact, abiding by the contract.

 

Also if a neighbor complains to the board about an Airbnb and the board does nothing then they are also liable.  

 

I can quickly see condo's having owners meetings and establishing rules that will state that owners are not to engage in any rental activity other than 6 months or 1 year and that if they do the board will have no choice but to report them to the police as well as demand they sell their condo to the board and vacate.

 

The fact as to whether a condo allows or does not allow Airbnb would be one that as an owner looking to buy my next condo to rent or live in would be extremely important and could raise or lower my bid.

[meinphuket]

The law clearly states that responsible is the home owner, NOT the condo management or its committee. This was also made clear in the judgement whereby only the owners were held accountable.

 

If the condo management is not complicit in soliciting and driving short term rentals, and are not aware of the practice because they are focusing on what is essentially their job (mostly maintenance and ider issues) then they are not accountable.

 

it is also not within the purview of the committee, or indeed co owners to decide who can stay and who not. It smacks of outright dictatorial behaviour. Apropos the  rules and regulations: they should only set out behavioural rules, NOT who can stay and who can not. It is for the same reason that fingerprint equipment is unacceptable. It violates privacy rights and freedom of access. If I were the owner of a a condo and wanted my parents or friends to stay they couldn't. Does that not violate the principal of  home-ownership freedom of enjoyment of your property and who you allow to stay ?

 

Issues contained in the  3rd paragraph related to access can be legally challenged in my opinion with a class action initiated by condo owners.

 

I am not a condominium owner.

[NanLaew]

4 hours ago, ukrules said:

This could make it much harder to sell condos.

Or pay for the ones that have been bought already.

[kingstonkid]

8 minutes ago, meinphuket said:

The law clearly states that responsible is the home owner, NOT the condo management or its committee. This was also made clear in the judgement whereby only the owners were held accountable.

 

If the condo management is not complicit in soliciting and driving short term rentals, and are not aware of the practice because they are focusing on what is essentially their job (mostly maintenance and ider issues) then they are not accountable.

 

it is also not within the purview of the committee, or indeed co owners to decide who can stay and who not. It smacks of outright dictatorial behaviour. Apropos the  rules and regulations: they should only set out behavioural rules, NOT who can stay and who can not. It is for the same reason that fingerprint equipment is unacceptable. It violates privacy rights and freedom of access. If I were the owner of a a condo and wanted my parents or friends to stay they couldn't. Does that not violate the principal of  home-ownership freedom of enjoyment of your property and who you allow to stay ?

 

Issues contained in the  3rd paragraph related to access can be legally challenged in my opinion with a class action initiated by condo owners.

 

I am not a condominium owner.

You are mistaken.  It is the duty of the condo management to protect and maintain the safety of the condo.  Also, you are in most places not allowed to run a business without the consent of the board.

 

Here is an example  I own a condo, I rent it out as Airbnb.  The person that rents it for 5 days decides that they are going to have a party in the condo every night.  They have an open door policy and eventually, your teenage daughter or son goes in to see what is happening.   Who are you going to scream at you have no way of knowing who I am and I do not live in Thailand?  

 

Scenario 2 I rent it out to 3 lovely young ladies from Canada that seem to be nice even headed students  (on paper)  Turns out that they decide that the way to fund their vacation is by entertaining men and women at all hours.

 

Scenario 3 I buy and live in the condo and have a business selling porn and have of course many men and women entering and leaving my condo after they have made purchases.  First, the company is legal as it is in my wife's name,  we pay our taxes and VAT.  The hours are reasonable.

 

You go to the condo committee to complain and they tell you sorry nothing we can do.

 

Scenario 1 is a noise complaint police come to tell them to keep it quiet after 10 they agree.  Parties still go on.

 

Scenario 2 Police come and check it out but because the girls only invite Farang and do not go near cops no sting is going to touch them.  Also they get more discreet.

 

Scenario 3 I am not as I said breaking any laws.  Cops can't touch me Immigration can't no one can.  

 

Who do youblame for letting me do this?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[janclaes47]

5 hours ago, ukrules said:

This could make it much harder to sell condos.

 

This will not only affect condo's, but villa's as well, since there are plenty of them on airbnb.

 

Ad to that the new guest house laws, that put many converted large houses out of business, and watch the mayhem on the property markets

 

 

 

[chatette]

Home sharing isn’t new in Thailand or elsewhere. Its just become more widespread with the advent of AirBNB. I’ve rented my holiday apartment for many years via various platforms without complaints and screen prospective tenants and limit their size to families that match my facilities. The vast majority of co-owners in my building favor home-sharing to help cover their costs and the topic has been debated at AGMs several times (where I ‘ve variously been on the board and in the assembly). I cover my costs and allow others to enjoy my place when I can’t be there. I pay my common charge, as do other co-owners, so my guests are using facilities I’d use if I lived there full time. I’d readily pay tax if Thailand updated its archaic laws and regulations to allow me to. A wholesale ban on holiday rentals is only beneficial to the oligarchs who control Thailand’s policy and economy (including vested interests in the Thai Hotels Association) .  Recognition of the business model, and some regulation to prevent abuses – including curbs on commercial back-to-back short-term rentals - would be beneficial to the economy and holiday makers. But I’m sure there won’t be changes anytime soon thanks to vested interests.

[Brigante7]

Having looked at airbnb many times, I’ve yet to find a rental that provides as good value as a hotel, alway expensive. 

 

 

 

Brigante7.

[Peterw42]

38 minutes ago, chatette said:

Home sharing isn’t new in Thailand or elsewhere. Its just become more widespread with the advent of AirBNB. I’ve rented my holiday apartment for many years via various platforms without complaints and screen prospective tenants and limit their size to families that match my facilities. The vast majority of co-owners in my building favor home-sharing to help cover their costs and the topic has been debated at AGMs several times (where I ‘ve variously been on the board and in the assembly). I cover my costs and allow others to enjoy my place when I can’t be there. I pay my common charge, as do other co-owners, so my guests are using facilities I’d use if I lived there full time. I’d readily pay tax if Thailand updated its archaic laws and regulations to allow me to. A wholesale ban on holiday rentals is only beneficial to the oligarchs who control Thailand’s policy and economy (including vested interests in the Thai Hotels Association) .  Recognition of the business model, and some regulation to prevent abuses – including curbs on commercial back-to-back short-term rentals - would be beneficial to the economy and holiday makers. But I’m sure there won’t be changes anytime soon thanks to vested interests.

Home sharing would be renting out the spare room while you also live there,  a lot different to running your condo like a hotel room.

Calling it home sharing doesn't lessen the impact of more people moving in and out more often, more people monopolising securities time. More people who dont care about the common property, noise, disruption etc.

People who pay their own maintenance fees will always be more conscious of what they do to common property, leave rubbish by the pool, walk through the foyer with muddy feet etc, as they are paying the fees to clean that up later, ST renters dont care less, why should they it doesn't cost them anything.

I rent a car sometimes when on holidays, never heard it referred to as "car sharing"

Edited June 25, 2018 by Peterw42

[Get Real]

3 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

I think he means people buying condos based on a great ST rental return, they wont be buying them anymore.

Ok, that might be true. Has nothing to do with AirBnB, though. That due to daily and weekly rentals is no longer a possibility for private persons without a license for hotel business.

[BobbyL]

Completely unenforceable by the authorities. A quick search on AirBnb still comes up with 12 condos to rent in our building just off Sukhumvit. 

 

The opposite two bedroom condo to ours (on AirBnb listing right now) continues to have different people going in and out through what I can only assume is AirBnb. There was a group of Chinese couples there over the weekend. We are far enough away from that room to not be disrupted by it, but it certainly shouldn't be like a hotel in a residential apartment complex.

 

Rightly or wrongly, there is not a chance in hell the authorities or police will be able to stop this.  

[HooHaa]

5 hours ago, Get Real said:

And why would that be? This regards renting out livingspace for the short time of days and weeks.

How can that make it harder to sell condos?

I really dislike people who ask argumentative question the answer is obvious to.

[Get Real]

21 minutes ago, HooHaa said:

I really dislike people who ask argumentative question the answer is obvious to.

Yep, and I really dislike people who deviate from the question just because they have no answer.

[HooHaa]

38 minutes ago, Get Real said:

Yep, and I really dislike people who deviate from the question just because they have no answer.

pedantry.

 the answer is many people have purchased condos hoping to get into the airbnb rental with renting the places full time or monthly. those people will indeed be discouraged.

that SHOULD have been obvious.

i have a place, thankfully not a condo, that can make more money off 2 x 1 or 1.5  week rentals than it could for a monthly rental.

less wear and tear, and people tend to respect  a property more when their stay is brief. 

its after 1 month or 2 they start to think of the place as their own and start to take unwanted liberties.

 

your place is then also more likely to available when you want for yourself.

Edited June 25, 2018 by HooHaa

[Get Real]

9 minutes ago, HooHaa said:

pedantry.

 the answer is many people have purchased condos hoping to get into the airbnb rental with renting the places full time or monthly. those people will indeed be discouraged.

that SHOULD have been obvious.

i have a place, thankfully not a condo, that can make more money off 2 x 1 or 1.5  week rentals than it could for a monthly rental.

less wear and tear, and people tend to respect  a property more when their stay is brief. 

its after 1 month or 2 they start to think of the place as their own and start to take unwanted liberties.

 

your place is then also more likely to available when you want for yourself.

Ok, what should have been obvious, as you state it, you do not have a clue about.
That has nothing to do with AirBnB. Before that became illegal, you still did an illegal act by privately renting out your condo daily or weekly.
As I suppose you are well aware of, you ar not allowed to rent out daily or weekly with a "place" either.
Everbody renting daily or weekly must be doing that with a hotel license today to abide the law.

Therefore, you didn´t have an answer on my comment, and it´s not me you dislike. You just dislike the pure fact that you ,as I said, were totally clueless.

[HooHaa]

4 minutes ago, Get Real said:

Ok, what should have been obvious, as you state it, you do not have a clue about.

That has nothing to do with AirBnB. Before that became illegal, you still did an illegal act by privately renting out your condo daily or weekly.
As I suppose you are well aware of, you ar not allowed to rent out daily or weekly with a "place" either.
Everbody renting daily or weekly must be doing that with a hotel license today to abide the law.

Therefore, you didn´t have an answer on my comment, and it´s not me you dislike. You just dislike the pure fact that you ,as I said, were totally clueless.

i dont think you read the entire OP, or even my brief post.

i specifically stated i do not have a condo.

secondarily an excess of 4 rooms holding up to 25 guests is required before a hotel licences is necessary.

finally if i choose to rent my home and pay the appropriate HLT levy (local not federal), then i am breaking no laws.

im not even certain you recall the context of the discussion,  it seems to me more likely you are just arguing for argument sake.

[tanner89]

6 hours ago, bluesofa said:

Will this affect the sex trade too - what about the rental of short-time rooms. Does it mean punters will have to do with a knee-trembler up a back passage somewhere?

 

I think some people prefer a back passage!.