Airbnb ruling praised
There was additional risk to property owners when they did not know who was staying in their rental properties and could not vet them.
There was potential for more damage to a property with people regularly shifting in and out, and the current law put most of the responsibility for paying for unintentional damage on to landlords.
‘‘It increases the risk. There’s also a chance that if they’re letting it out, your insurance may not cover it,’’ King said.
‘‘It’s really good that the Tenancy Tribunal said ‘you can’t profit from this’.’’
Without a specific ‘‘noAirbnb’’ clause, some tenants might plead ignorance and say they did not realise it was prohibited, even if they signed a no-subletting clause.
David Mahon, senior solicitor at Duncan Cotterill, said the ‘‘account of profits’’ remedy used in this case had not been awarded by the tribunal in similar earlier cases.
‘‘In the four other Tenancy Tribunal cases we are aware of that involved the use of premises by Airbnb, the tribunal followed the more common approach of ordering that the tenant’s use of the premises for Airbnb cease, and ordered a modest sum be paid by the tenant in exemplary damages to the landlord.’’
He said it was likely that a landlord could still bring a claim against a tenant, even when Airbnb had not been expressly prohibited, provided there was a general no-subletting clause.
‘‘Such a clause is standard in most residential tenancy agreements. The takeaway point for landlords is that it is always best to be explicit in a tenancy agreement if the landlord wishes to prohibit the use of premises for Airbnb or similar commercial activity.’’
He said tenants also faced termination of the tenancy, awards of damage or orders to stop letting the property.