Mr. Gavin Elliott:

I would like to suggest that the committee examine the recent regulatory changes made in Amsterdam and the agreement that was reached with Airbnb there. The city approved new private rental laws allowing residents to occasionally rent their homes for up to two months per year under certain conditions such as the payment of related taxes, including tourism taxes, and special arrangements when neighbours complain. In addition to Amsterdam attempting to constrain the number of short-term lettings, it also sought to regulate and clean up legal uncertainties within the market. For example, hosts must comply with health and safety and fire safety rules and a new category of "private rental" was legislated for.

Beyond the issue of supply and demand, there are other issues in the short-term letting market, most of which relate to the legal status of the parties involved in it, such as the legal position of tenants using services like Airbnb without their landlord's knowledge or permission. It is common for a standard lease to contain a provision that no commercial activity should take place on a private rented property. It would be understandable and reasonable if a landlord who found out his or her tenants were renting the property on Airbnb said that was a commercial activity and, therefore, a breach of the lease. Ultimately, it would be a decision for the RTB dispute resolution process, but Threshold would be remiss if it did not caution tenants to reassure themselves of their legal position before listing on sites such as Airbnb.

Similarly, insurance is a vexed issue. Liability for accidents in Airbnb properties is unclear. It seems likely that an insurer would not cover a landlord who has a claim brought against him or her by somebody who had rented the property on Airbnb because the insurance would not have been taken out on that basis. Similarly, renter's insurance would probably not be honoured either. This issue would be considered on a case-by-case basis but there is a nightmare scenario where a landlord who does not know his or her property is being rented out could suddenly be sued by an Airbnb customer claiming that he or she should have known and should have had more control over the property. That would be up to the courts but this area of legal uncertainty should be examined.

The issue of fire safety was examined in Amsterdam. It is likely that an Airbnb property would be considered guest accommodation under the Fire Services Act 1981. A host is required to take all reasonable measures. In essence, he or she is required to conform with the guide to fire safety issued by the Department. It is unlikely anecdotally that many hosts are even aware that they are required to do this. Landlords who rent properties on short-term letting sites for longer periods may be caught by the Property Services Regulation Act 2011. That sums up much of the legal aspects of Airbnb. It is not at all clear what position people are in.

The rent-a-room scheme comes under section 216A of the Taxes Consolidation Act 1997. The Revenue Commissioners say it does not qualify for the tax relief under the scheme. Ernst & Young disagree and its advice to Airbnb is it could potentially qualify. There is uncertainty again. That issues boils down to the definition of "residential accommodation". There are issues, therefore, that go beyond supply and demand and the effect that has on the private rented sector, though they are incredibly important. There is a need for certainty for everybody concerned - landlords, tenants and customers, who are mostly tourists visiting the country.