Breached lease renting on Air B n B

AdrianC

gomer wrote: »

Doesn't bode for a good future relationship though to be seen to not be that particularly bothered by the complaint.

Bothered enough to immediately stop marketing and say "Sorry, you're right. I will not take any more bookings, effective immediately."

peterbaker

Davesnave wrote: »

It's taking a measured, middle course with a view to what's fairest for everyone.

Unfortunately it rides roughshod over one of the principal reasons for having covenants in leases, that is, to safeguard the quiet enjoyment by your neighbours of their flats, without unnecessary interruption or fears about security caused in this case by a business which contravenes the lease. Extra traffic on stairs and littering by strangers who do not know where to dispose of waste all causes extra costs to be levied on all leaseholders via service charges

A number of you are assuming that the neighbours are ok with it. They may or they may not be, but to condone it is to condone a race to the bottom with this type of development. Air-BnB has been known to be abused to facilitate pop-up brothels.

Those that use Air-BnB same as those who use Uber should realise they are taking a risk that they are using a service which may well not be strictly kosher due to shortcuts taken and deliberate breaches of duty glossed over by the end provider. There's always a loser somewhere with deals like this which obviously include an element of misrepresentation, and it should be better understood. What Uber driver understands the intricacies of his own insurance for example well enough to explain it to his passengers, especially if he is one like those that Sadq Khan has complained about who flouts Uber's own rules? Does the OP explain to his customers that he actually isn't allowed by his lease ownership to advertise the property for rent on Air-BnB? We all should know that this is a common problem with renting flats in UK, so I have little sympathy with the customers if their bookings have to be cancelled.

I have a flat I am sometimes not using and a side income would be useful, but my legal duty to my neighbours overrides my temptation to try it, even though I believe one or two of them may be doing it themselves. The coded key safe outside the door is sometimes a bit of a giveaway.

Sounds like the OP has got himself into a bit of a pickle. Don't forget that the managing agent is probably employed via a fee levied on them as part of the service charge. How is it fair that neighbours should be funding or losing managing agent time with the distraction of having to "negotiate" with a miscreant leaseholder?

carrotland

On the flipside, alot of innocent people, bought their flats in good faith that they were safe, and have been left dumped in this steaming pile of poo, by the Govt and developers, and left holding the proverbial baby.
Left in financial trouble due to numerous reason sas as a result, so even though this owner hasn't been strictly following the rules, then again, no one else did either, and they've gotten away with it scott free and left the owners in this mess- so i don't blame him for doing whatever he could possibly to meet his obligation to the bank!
I would write to the management as someone suggested, admitting nothing, but stating the apartment is not listed on Airbnb, and you will be doing your utmost to ensure its resolved by x date,
Afterall, some landlords have rented to tenants ,that are letting it out on airbnb, and you cant just take back possession of the flat immediately and evict- it often takes a little time, but an assurance that there will be no activity past x date might be enough to get you out of a sticky situation!

Davesnave

peterbaker wrote: »

Sounds like the OP has got himself into a bit of a pickle.

Yes, some of it not of their own making, but they asked for advice about extricating themselves from the current situation, which looked very serious, not a 'pickle' and various people here supplied what looks like a workable way forward for them.

The management and the residents they represent didn't come here, so we have no brief to assist them, or any duty to somehow weigh fairness and pass moral judgement.

brianposter

NeilCr wrote: »

There are most likely have been complaints about this letting so there is no way other residents would be content with that arrangement

This may well be correct and any waiver would presumably require unanimous approval from the other residents.
However the inadequate insulation is a serious problem for both the leaseholders and the freeholder so it is probably not appropriate to start by making unsupported assumptions.
In fact, I have always been surprised how helpful the neighbours were when I have stayed in Airbnbs.

NeilCr

brianposter wrote: »

This may well be correct and any waiver would presumably require unanimous approval from the other residents.
However the inadequate insulation is a serious problem for both the leaseholders and the freeholder so it is probably not appropriate to start by making unsupported assumptions.
In fact, I have always been surprised how helpful the neighbours were when I have stayed in Airbnbs.

Well, someone had drawn it to the MA's attention. It's doubtful that the MA has been investigating off their own bat so it quite possibly is from the neighbours. As has been said it could be the concierges. Not sure there are many other reasonable possibilities

As you suggest it would need all the owners to agree the waiver - given that it is about someone breaking a covenant that's going to be highly unlikely. All that would take quite a lot of time so that won't solve the OP's immediate problems anyway. And AirBnB in flats is becoming something folks are becoming more and more aware of since a couple of recent judgements


I think neighbours can be helpful with AirBnB. The ones on our estate were but they complained about it to us afterwards. They realised that the guests were not the ones to blame. They had been given inadequate information from the host

And we have keypad access etc. Other blocks may have different arrangements which mean the guests do not have to bother the "locals" so much. And, they may also have better organised hosts! ;)

ETA

Again I think the arrangement the OP is proposing (honouring bookings till the end of December) is a reasonable compromise

peterbaker

NeilCr wrote: »

Again I think the arrangement the OP is proposing (honouring bookings till the end of December) is a reasonable compromise

On what basis? Why is a compromise needed - because you want to offer an MSE'er with a problem the benefit of his neighbours wasted service charges and interrupted quiet enjoyment? They reckon about 4.5million in the UK are leaseholders. in my experience I reckon about 4.5 of them properly understand the commitment they enter into when they buy a lease and that it includes a big commitment to treating their neighbours fairly, not helping themselves to, and wasting their neighbour's paid for managing agent time. There are far more useful things to do with MA time than for them to be forced to police and deal with chancers. If any actual leaseholders here disagree I suggest you volunteer your time as directors in the management of your building. Then you might learn something.

If MSE'ers really feel the need to get this unfortunate OP out of debt so he isn't tempted to help himself to his neighbour's funded managing agent time, then I suggest the best compromise is a whip round on MSE or offer him an extra job.

NeilCr

peterbaker wrote: »

On what basis? Why is a compromise needed - because you want to offer an MSE'er with a problem the benefit of his neighbours wasted service charges and interrupted quiet enjoyment? They reckon about 4.5million in the UK are leaseholders. in my experience I reckon about 4.5 of them properly understand the commitment they enter into when they buy a lease and that it includes a big commitment to treating their neighbours fairly, not helping themselves to, and wasting their neighbour's paid for managing agent time. There are far more useful things to do with MA time than for them to be forced to police and deal with chancers. If any actual leaseholders here disagree I suggest you volunteer your time as directors in the management of your building. Then you might learn something.

If MSE'ers really feel the need to get this unfortunate OP out of debt so he isn't tempted to help himself to his neighbour's funded managing agent time, then I suggest the best compromise is a whip round on MSE or offer him an extra job.

As it happens I am a director of our management company (and currently chairman). Indeed I have been a director of ManCos for much of the last seventeen years on two different estates

As you will have seen in my previous posts we had much the same situation and we dealt with it as a compromise. It worked very well - none of the neighbours who had complained (and are certainly amongst your 4.5 who understand their leases) had any problems with it and very little MA time was wasted. I think our property manager sent one letter, four or five emails and, on occasions, checked out AirBnB to make sure the ad remained taken down. It had no effect on the service charges as basic work like that is included in their management fee.. I assume you have (had) the same type of agreement as a director

Once we approached the miscreant he was apologetic and understood what the issue was. Whether he knew what he had done is a moot point (!). He agreed to remove the ad and we didn't see a whole lot of issue in not letting him fulfil bookings for a few weeks. The neighbours were kept informed

The alternative was to insist he stopped straight away. In my experience that approach tends to make people dig their heels in and we had no way of forcing him to in a short period (AirBnB stay out of these arguments and would not take the ad down purely on our say so). I rather suspect we would then have had a confrontation which would have resulted in more MA time being wasted and a solicitors letter which would have cost money.

Had he continued past the agreed time we would have gone down the legal route. However, in the end, it was resolved amicably. The neighbours were happy with the outcome - they realised, like the grown ups they are, that sometimes these matters can take a little time to sort out

Jaw jaw is better than war war etc

peterbaker

NeilCr wrote: »

Jaw jaw is better than war war etc

Yeah yeah, alright, got to admit that, but where is the likelihood of war in this one? By publicly suggesting it is fair to carry on a bit longer to a leaseholder in breach on an internet forum, aren't you making a rod for the backs of other management companies up and down the land? Much like the private car parking "park where you like/ignore any tickets/they can't touch you" brigade did for ten years? There are plenty of leaseholders who will read this thread and think "I could do with a few bob extra, so what's the real risk of me breaching that covenant? I'll put it on AirBnB and try to keep it a low profile and should I ever get challenged, I'll offer to stop it after within a month or two. Nothing to lose, is there?"

The problem is that every development has a different mix of leaseholders. As someone who has been a director for many years you surely appreciate that sub-letting of any kind generally leads to increased managing agent workload, increased service charges and general upset from time to time, yet most leases allow nothing extra to be collected from leaseholders who sublet, do they?

If managing agent workload is increased, then that means they are wasting time which otherwise could be used proactively on improving the value of their service in other ways, don't you think? AN MA's work is never done, and wasted MA time is therefore not free.

I think if you are not persuaded, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

NeilCr

peterbaker wrote: »

Yeah yeah, alright, got to admit that, but where is the likelihood of war in this one? By publicly suggesting it is fair to carry on a bit longer to a leaseholder in breach on an internet forum, aren't you making a rod for the backs of other management companies up and down the land? Much like the private car parking "park where you like/ignore any tickets/they can't touch you" brigade did for ten years? There are plenty of leaseholders who will read this thread and think "I could do with a few bob extra, so what's the real risk of me breaching that covenant? I'll put it on AirBnB and try to keep it a low profile and should I ever get challenged, I'll offer to stop it after within a month or two. Nothing to lose, is there?"
The problem is that every development has a different mix of leaseholders. As someone who has been a director for many years you surely appreciate that sub-letting of any kind generally leads to increased managing agent workload, increased service charges and general upset from time to time, yet most leases allow nothing extra to be collected from leaseholders who sublet, do they?

If managing agent workload is increased, then that means they are wasting time which otherwise could be used proactively on improving the value of their service in other ways, don't you think? AN MA's work is never done, and wasted MA time is therefore not free.

I think if you are not persuaded, then we'll have to agree to disagree.

There seems no risk of war. But, as well, OP has acknowledged they are in the wrong and has offered (well, I guess, they have) to stop in a month's time. From a MA and ManCo's pov I see no need to do other than accept that. No more effort/time needed other than to check that they do, actually, stop at the promised time. I'd be interested in how you would propose to enforce the covenant before the end of the month without time and money being spent (even then it's going to be difficult)

The whole issue of enforcement of covenants is difficult. Unless you are prepared to go all the way down the legal route - and I've done that with someone who continually did not pay service charges - that ended in a charge on their house - it's complicated and can be time consuming

You're right- people can play cat and mouse. No-one is going to deny that. In some ways tenants are easier to deal with as you can put pressure on landlords to get them to comply. On our estate, anyway, the landlords want to keep a good relationship with us as the ManCo so tend to be helpful

Owners - if they refuse then it is a battle. As I say costs time and money. I'd always rather to try
to find agreement first. Sometimes a solicitor's letter does work. There is a cost (on to the service charge) and - on occasions - you find that they start again a few months down the line - and then, so do you! We had a running skirmish with the owner of a commercial van a few years back along those lines

In principle I don't disagree with you. I think if you have signed up to covenants then you should respect that when asked to cease. Trouble is, in practice, it doesn't work like that and you have to find the best way to resolve the issue with the least hassle and cost. In this case, I think it not unreasonable to agree to the month's extension

It's probably also worth saying that many covenants were written before AirBnB came into being. And, it's only relatively recently that the issue has become prominent. I don't know the timescale with the OP moving in/property built but this could be a covenant that might be less easier to relate to in terms of the situation

Not sure this is so much a case of agreeing to disagree. Perhaps if you explained how you would deal with it as a director that might help