Airbnb/Stayz Short Stay Notice from Owners Corporation Wanting to Ban Airbnb

Dear Forum,

What's your thoughts on this recent notice from Owners Corporation:

The following rule forms part of the caveat on title and reads as follows:
36 SHORT-TERM LEASE 36.1 A proprietor or occupier of a lot must not: (a) grant a lease, licence or other right to occupy that lot or any part of that lot for a period of less than three months, except where the occupier is overholding under the terms of a lease, licence or other right to occupy that had a term of at least three months.
With the support of the recent new State laws to be introduced, the Owners Corporation will be identifying all apartments within the building that are operating short term stays to issue a notice of breach and that all bookings are to cease, and the web link be removed from websites.
We strongly recommend that short term stay operators discontinue taking bookings immediately as you will not be allowed to honour any future bookings.
Under the reforms, for the first-time apartment owners could be liable for any damage, noise or loss of amenity caused by their guests.
VCAT would also be given new powers to award compensation of up to $2000 to neighbours and ban short stay apartments which are repeatedly used for unruly parties.
Guests could face fines of up to $1100 for a range of conduct breaches, including:
• creating unreasonable noise or behaving badly
• causing a health, safety or security hazard
• damaging common property
• obstructing a resident from the using their property.
Short stay apartment owners may be ordered to pay neighbours’ compensation and any damage caused by their guests to common property.

I am interested to get together with a group of residents, owners, tenants who perform Airbnb to have a class action against this and any future issues.

Thoughts?

Related Stores

Airbnb
Airbnb

Comments

  • +1

    I am interested to get together with a group of residents, owners, tenants who perform Airbnb to have a class action against this and any future issues.

    You'll need a lawyer for this - may as well start talking to one sooner rather than later if you're serious about it.

    Not being familiar with SA law (where your profile says you are) or Victorian law (since you mention VCAT), or the "reforms", I've no idea if these rules are even valid. I know that in the states I am familiar with, they're of arguable validity (Owners Corporations can't interfere in an owner's use of their property in a way that doesn't affect others to an unreasonable degree).

    Again, talk to a lawyer, but I feel like this is also/still the case here, as:

    VCAT would also be given new powers to […] ban short stay apartments which are repeatedly used for unruly parties.

    This would be redundant if Strata already had this power. Also, the clause is just really poorly drafted - not all short-term accommodation involves a lease or licence or any other "right to occupy". There's certainly nothing of that sort involved when you stay in a hotel, for example.

  • +1

    Good luck trying ban Airbnb.

  • Owners Corporation cant dictate how you use your unit, its like them telling you you cant rent it out.

  • +1
  • Aren't the owners corporation made up of owners? Can't you just vote on this proposed rule and overturn it?

    • +1

      I think OP is trying to get legal action by seeking the general public who has a interest stake in AirBnB because the owners of his own apartment are supporting it the ruling. I'm not a lawyer, but doesn't a Class Action suit have to be a group of people suing the 'same' people.

  • Hi all, thanks for the updates.

    To clarify, under precedents already set (also applicable to every other jurisdiction in AU) there was a differentiation between "Exclusive use" (i.e. renting out the entire place) and "non-exclusive use" (i.e. when the owner/tenant or another person lives there). I don't have the documents handy, but you can look up "Watergate" and "Salter vs OC", where the CEO of a short stay company took the OC to the Supreme Court and won.

    I now don't think I am looking for a class action now (either way, it may set a precedent), not sure - but maybe generate discussion and thoughts? But this similar thing happened to Uber when they first started to launch (Uber offered to pay legal expenses for drivers).

    Whilst there are a few (bad) cases of Airbnb guests ruining it for everyone (mainly with Entire Premise listings, due to parties and loud noise etc), it's completely different when it's a Private Room listing.

    I've asked the Strata person (ACE Brookvale) for their comments. I dont understand why OC would want to ban short stay (in fear of parties, as it's been mentioned alot).

    IMO - at the end of the day, apartments across AUS have owners/renters living in there minding their own business and if they do not cause any harm (i.e. no parties, noise, disruptions) then OC should not interfere. What's next… no noisy children? No barking dogs? No motorbikes over 1000CC?

  • +1

    https://www.theguardian.com/australia-news/2018/aug/09/victo…

    https://www.consumer.vic.gov.au/housing/owners-corporations/…

    https://www.nsw.gov.au/news-and-events/news/new-rules-for-sh…

    I would suggest you talk to a lawyer, if in doubt, but there have been legal changes made by various states and these appear to be different depending on which state you are renting out in. The main thrust is to deal with unruly renters but some states also have overall restrictions.

    If you are renting out a room that is different to renting out a whole apartment and that tends to be recognised in the relevant legislation. There needs to be a balance to enable people to have security and quiet enjoyment of their property as well as other owners making a living. I’ve used air bnb and have been respectful of the other apartment dwellers and we have an air bnb place across the road who we have no issues with, so I’m not anti air bnb but I could see how people would get annoyed, particularly if short term renters were disruptive, rude, dodgy, noisy or hogged communal areas.

    Understand the relevant legislation but also try to be empathetic with your neighbours issues, you might be able to strike common ground rather than be adversarial. There are a lot of ways they could make it unpleasant for your renters, especially if you aren’t there.

    • but I could see how people would get annoyed, particularly if short term renters were disruptive, rude, dodgy, noisy or hogged communal areas.

      Being annoyed is not a good basis for rule-making. And disruptive, rude, dodgy, noisy or improper use of common areas is already able to be policed and enforced by strata against owners, whether against long-term or AirBnB stayers. There's no need for new rules here unless they're heavy-handed blanket ones that deliberately remove nuance.

      • Obviously the Air BnB is considered more of a problem or the legislation would not have been passed. In Victoria’s the Libs were complaining it didn’t go far enough so don’t expect a change anytime soon no matter who gets in. You can complain about “nanny state” or you can work out what is legal now and work within it. Good luck getting it repealed.

        • Obviously the Air BnB is considered more of a problem or the legislation would not have been passed

          This is literally reverse logic - we're debating whether these rules are good. If you take their mere existence as proof that they're good rules…

          or you can work out what is legal now and work within it.

          Yes, never agitate to change what we think are bad laws. Or you know, you can do both. They're not mutually exclusive.

          • @HighAndDry: I often agitate to change bad laws. I’m pointing out there was sufficient buy in from the community for both sides of parliament to say it was a good idea. You don’t think it is a good law but that is, merely, your opinion because it doesn’t align with your views. Many other people, obviously, think differently. The OP needs a practical solution now, working within the law is the best way to achieve this.

            My view is the OP should
            a) read the actual relevant laws in their state.
            b) understand how these laws apply to their situation
            c) see if what they have been given by the body corporate aligns with the relevant laws.
            d) if they consider this ambiguous then ring the relevant authority to get clarification.
            e) work out what they want to achieve
            f) negotiate with the body corporate to see if a mutually beneficial position can be achieved.
            g) then if you are still at stalemate consider the legal alternatives.

            There are many ways the people in the flats could make things uncomfortable for your Air BnB guests and your rating for the property go down. Confrontation is not a good first option here.

    • +1

      There is no distinguishing renting out an Entire Premise (like a hotel) or renting out a room (like a boarder)… it's ambiguous

      • Plus - easy way to get around this?

        "I'm renting you only the bedroom. The living room is common property that I will still have rights to access during your stay. The fact that I'm in another city/state/country altogether and can't practically access it? Well… guess it's your good luck then."

        • +1

          No i mean, in all references there is nothing to distinguish between Entire Premise or Private Room, and in addition case law shows that there is a differentiation between "Exclusive Use". But you provide a valid point …

          At the end of the day, what happens behind the closed doors can't be easily policed, and nor should it … as it's not relevant (IMO).

    • -2

      Also just in relation to the death of Laa Chol:

      Last month, following the death of 19-year-old Laa Chol in a CBD apartment,

      Yeah, this is obviously a problem with AirBnB, and not, you know, Sudanese gangs which have been causing deaths, injuries, and property damage elsewhere too. This is the very definition of a nanny-state, where the government uses near-irrelevant events to push through laws giving themselves more power.

      • Sudanese gangs

        Were the two accused Sudanese migrants?
        https://www.news.com.au/national/victoria/courts-law/accused…

        Commander Stuart Bateson earlier told 3AW Ms Chol’s death had nothing to do with Sudanese gang violence

        • -1

          Of course the police would toe the politically-correct government line.

          https://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-07-23/melbourne-womans-deat…

          On Saturday investigators said they believed everyone at the apartment was of African heritage, reigniting debate around the issue of violence and crime.

          The quote you pulled out? It only says this isn't related to feuding between rival gangs, not that gangs weren't involved at all. Funny that the ABC might want to obfuscate this fact. This is the direct, word-for-word, quote:

          But a member of Victoria Police's African-Australian community taskforce, which was set up in response to a series of high-profile crimes, denied it was related to feuding gangs.

          "This is not to do with warring factions," Commander Stuart Bateson told 3AW.

          "A suggestion that Laa Chol, the victim, was a member of a gang is just not true."


          It's a little ridiculous that their "community" is less worried that one of their best and brightest has just been killed, and more worried about public sentiment.

          • +1

            @HighAndDry: So not related to gang wars but related to Sudanese migrants. What are the chances that the two accused are gang members and that they murdered another person of the same minority group? May we assume that it's probably high.

            • -1

              @whooah1979: The chances are basically sky-high. Left-wing people always minimise "black-on-white" violence because they (rightfully) argue that most violence is intra-racial. This I have no problem with, because it's mostly true.

              But then they make a HUGE deal about white-on-black racism, while completely ignoring the actual attacks and crimes committed by minorities against their own.

          • +1

            @HighAndDry: Crap like this gives the states a reason to introduce bills that negatively impact law-abiding Australians.

Login or Join to leave a comment