- This topic has 4 replies, 4 voices, and was last updated 9 years, 1 month ago by .
-
Topic
-
Our strata manager has declared that the building insurance is invalid if there are short term rentals taking place. So we reluctantly took down our listing on Airbnb. The building is zoned commercial/residential.
There is a draft bylaw to prohibit so they’re obviously resolved.
We have a sharecover policy that covers common property and our contents insurance takes care of the rest.
We have lost a significant amount of income because of this decision as we live between two addresses.
I would like to say to the committee that we have insurance that covers common property and since there is currently a moratorium on Airbnb until the state gov has their say, we’re going to relist. Does anyone see a problem with that?
-
Replies
-
Nobody who has been a regular reader of this website or my columns in the SMH will be surprised to learn that I probably do have a problem with it.
But let’s look at the facts (and I’m going to play devil’s advocate here) If the building is fully jointly residential/commercial then there shouldn’t be a problem.
However, I suspect that the zoning allows for both commercial activity in the commercial section and residential-only in the residential section. If that’s the case, then you shouldn’t be running short-stay lets in the building. End of story.
But let’s assume you never set out to maintain your city pad using Airbnb but, hey, when it came along, why wouldn’t you use it? Is there a middle ground?
Regarding the insurance, the law allows for people whose use of their lot causes insurance premiums to be raised to pay the difference individually, so you could go back to the strata manager and ask them to obtain a quote for the increased insurance, with a view to paying it.
Also, as you may have read elsewhere on this website, there is considerable discussion about whether anti-Airbnb by-laws are valid or not. You might want to re-list and take your chances at NCAT.
But let’s look at the big picture: unfortunately for you, your neighbours really don’t want you allowing complete strangers over whom neither you nor they have authority, control nor responsibility getting free access to their home.
By the way, the unofficial council moratorium on illegal holiday letting doesn’t mean the law has changed, it just means that your councillors and council workers have found another excuse for not doing their jobs.
You could re-list your property and wait for the committee to take you to NCAT as a test case and/or do their damndest to make your life difficult (nothing personal, but I would).
Cancelled keys, fines for not registering tenants names, fines for not handing over copies of the by-laws, reports to the tax office, locked access to facilities … there’s a whole armoury there for the determined anti-short-stay committee without so much as filling in a Fair Trading form.
So perhaps the best solution may be to find another property where short-stay letting is allowed, if not actively encouraged. And sell your flat at a premium.
You’ll make a profit – nobody wants to live in a block of flats that’s being turned into a holiday hotel, so residents will be desperate to sell.
And people who love living in apartments will pay more to stay somewhere that actively keeps the short-stay set at bay.
Win-win?
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.
Am I missing something? Why is the SM making this decision? I would have thought that this type of decision and opinion is outside of his job description.
A draft by law is not a resolved by law, is it?
Surely it would be the responsibility of the insurance company to decide whether they will provide cover for short term letting within the original contract. If an extra premium is required then it would be the responsibility of the OC to decide whether to pay the extra premium or not. This decision would be made at a General Meeting. None of these actions are the SM’s responsibility to undertake or to determine.
Lady Penelope is right, the SM can’t make a unilateral decision/declaration like that. It’s up to the insurance company. And a draft by-law doesn’t mean anything.
I am not a great fan of short-term letting but you may find that the policy doesn’t preclude it. Note also that even if it did, or didn’t cover it, that doesn’t make the policy invalid, it may make parts of it void or have the effect that certain things aren’t covered, but not invalid. (there is a difference between void, voidable and invalid)
To be fair, it sounds like the strata manager is merely giving the committee some ammunition to use against owners who want to let their units on Airbnb.
None of this is set in stone but it gives the committee grounds for threatening short-term letting owners.
Whether or not they have a leg to stand on would only be established after it had been run through NCAT and the losing side had appealed.
The committee clearly wants to warn off potential Airbnb hosts. Whether or not it works depends on the hosts.
If you want to be alerted when anyone replies to your posts or responds to this topic, please register and login, then you will be able to subscribe to the topic. The opinions offered in these Forum posts and replies are not intended to be taken as legal advice. Readers with serious issues should consult experienced strata lawyers. NB: Longer threads may spill over to additional pages - look for the numbers on the bottom right, under the last post.