Unfortunately, this is why there's hotel regulations. I think AirBnb is net-good, but it certainly is going to make a few people's lives miserable in the meantime. Hopefully AirBnb finds a way to mitigate these issues.
That being said, I guarantee you were violating your lease when you used AirBnb. And, you approved the person to stay in your house. If anyone should be mad, it's your neighbors and apartment owner -- they followed the rules. This is really unfortunate, but it's not all AirBnb's fault.
(b) Since Airbnb is illegal in NYC, it's not Airbnb's fault someone is trusting them and their vetting system in NYC.*
Both seems false to me.
* Obviously it's not their "fault", but they should take responsibility, just like an insurance company / hotel chain would.
ADDITION: What's the purpose of Airbnb's vetting/trust system? Is it not the same as the purpose of hotel regulation? Should they not both serve a similar function?
No, it totally could happen in a hotel room. And I bet it does, constantly. But hotels are equipped for it, so there's fewer issues (no personal property damaged, better fire codes, credit card on file, not happening in a residential area, etc).
And I didn't say (b). Rather, I said AirBnb didn't force them to let strangers into their home; it was their decision. AirBnb approved the people, sure -- but so did the apartment owner.
EDIT: In response to your addition -- AirBnb doesn't verify they won't do something bad (they can't see the future). Rather, it means that AirBnb has verified they are who they said they are. So, AirBnb can now go to the police with that information.
I think Airbnb has the potential - and wants to - be as equipped as hotels are in most of those dimensions. That's why they reimbursed the person whose house was vandalized, and why they do keep banking info on file (IIRC).
It is true it was their decision, but they did it under a false impression. Who facilitated this impression? Who ultimately allows Airbnb to stay in NYC? Airbnb.
I agree Airbnb can go to the police, but in the meantime it doesn't seem unreasonable that they help the person out, just like it doesn't seem unreasonable that a hotel chain is helping out a local hotel when a prostitution ring is uncovered.
AirBnB requires credit card on file, doesn't it? And property gets damaged in hotels the same way, the only difference whose property it is - hotel owner's or appartment owner's. As for fire code, I don't see how it is even relevant.
So? It doesn't prevent people from ignoring those rules, and there's no fire inspector going through all rooms to check if there's no code violation. Again, the prevention here is impossible. Fining people that did it after the fact - easily, but that's not the problem here. If having "max occupancy set" were a problem, AirBnB would just said on the site "no more than 3 people and no wild sex parties" and problem solved, right?
It is legally relevant, whether you like it or not. There's a lot of bluster in the rest of your response. I sure as hell don't support the hotel lobby and I'm not a fan of "hotel taxes" either. But that's special interest politics and its quite removed from the broad structuring of risk that legitimate regulation facilitates. Fire-codes, health-codes, and fundamental liability for willful corporate malfeasance/negligence are not so easily dismissed.
Nobody is dismissing anything. OP has posted a story about his bad experience with AirBnB-approved people he let into his place, and the knee-jerk response was "that's why we have hotel regulations". No, that's not why - hotel regulations would not do anything to prevent the specific thing OP was complaining about.
That is a very common knee-jerk response which appears any time new and disruptive industry challenges one with entrenched regulation that had already captured the law and the regulatory agencies. Every time something wrong happens - and eventually something wrong always happens, nothing is perfect - we get a knee-jerk "that's why we need all that regulation". Never it is examined if the said regulation would actually prevent the said bad from happening (usually not) and whether the costs of this regulation is worse overall than the bad thing happening. This is so basic logic fallacy that it just boggles the mind how so many people insist so much on not seeing it.
What the OP reported was that a business fronted its way into a residential building (using AirBnB) to hold a commercial event in an un-sanctioned venue.
This is exactly why places like NYC have regulations of various types, of which a multitude are applicable.
It is incredibly inefficient economically to have consumers "due dilligence" every potentially manipulative market exchange with a limited liability c-corp. So, we can either ban limited liability c-corps outright (forcing liability onto biz owners) or we can allow them within a regulatory framework that forces "structured" liability onto them.
The idea that this is some kind of logical fallacy is hillarious. It is quite sound, and is in general acceptable trade-off. It allows capital concentration/formation which is required for MES projects, whist not allowing abuse of power driven by such scale variance.
Hotels are staffed and better prepared to deal with such situations.
Also if a hotel room gets trashed, that's just a business expense. Most people don't have their bed bolted to the wall, and tend to have nicer furnishings and appliances, etc, than you'll find in a hotel. Ignore the value even: we're talking someone's property, someone's life. If a room, a floor, or even the entire hotel gets shut down due to destruction, it's inconvenient and an expense. If I get evicted, that's a crisis, at least for a time.
The "OMG! DISRUPTING!" crowd seem to hand-wave these situations away, as if destroying "evil" business models is far more important than the impact it has on individuals. If someone's life is ruined 1 out 1000 AirBnB rentals, that's too often.
If AirBnB would like to formally institute a policy of "haha, WTF were you thinking letting us send people from the internet to stay in your house?", then they should be wholly unsurprised when numerous government bodies shut down their business completely. Soon.
Overwhelming majority of rental cases on AirBnB are ending very well. I just recently used AirBnB to stay a week in a 1br apartment owned by a nice family in a great location for 1/3 of the price I'd pay for more inferior hotel. I would never think of doing anything to harm my hosts. 99% people think the same. Of course, there's also 1% of the rest, but if you live your life worrying about the percentage of psychos in the population, you only will be hurting yourself.
Firstly, fairly sure it's way less likely than 1 in 1000 - ptmoee like 1 in 100,000, but even if it wasn't: really? If we take the decision to let our apartment when we 're away in the summer and something happens then, well,that's my shout. Everyone here is adult, and the platform's reasonably symmetrical in terms of contracting ability. No one forced the guy, although yeah, there's a clear case of fraud/ deception here. "One is too many" type stuff is just histrionic.
I agree that "one is too many" is unreasonable, if by "one" we mean "one person's house was violated". If we mean "one person's house was violated and AirBnB did nothing about it", then, no, I think that's fairly reasonable.
Either it happens often enough that AirBnB needs to be regulated or it's rare enough to chalk up to unpredictable freak events, in which case they ought to bend over backwards to spend the little bit of money to make people whole again.
Presumably AirBnB needs to do some verification, so they're not handing out cash to anyone who makes up a story. Any such verification system will have some rate of false positives.
The purpose of hotel regulations isn't to keep these things from happening. It's to keep these things confined to places equipped to deal with them, and zoned to keep it all away from residential places.
> What's the purpose of Airbnb's vetting/trust system? Is it not the same as the purpose of hotel regulation?
No they're not. Hotel regulations are actual regulations, enforced by the state. Airbnb's "vetting" system is just a marketing device, enforced by no one, and that you trust at your own expense, as these stories show.
You can sue AirBnB. You'd say it is expensive, but "legally appeal" is always a pretty expensive thing to do.
And, as far as I know, the regulatory agencies do not have actual legal obligation to consistently enforce their regulations - they have a very wide discretion, so if they want to ignore you, you don't have a lot of recourse. In fact, lately we have a lot of instances of executive powers modifying and plainly abandoning enforcing the laws they don't like. You don't have a lot of options in such case.
Imposing rules on your own users for the good of your other users is not at all the same thing as imposing rules on everyone for the good of those who paid for your reelection campaign.
My initial thought is to draw the line at rules which are enforced by a group that uses violence to prevent other groups from offering alternative rules and/or is funded by taxation.
any condominium, townhouse, co-operative, apartment, or other unit within a multiple-dwelling structure, complex, or similar type development to the extent owned in whole or in part by anyone other than you
Since he mentioned a landlord, I'm doubtful that he owned his apartment.
It's remarkable if the guarantee was an honest attempt to protect hosts, but makes a lot of sense as a cynical PR stunt designed to convince people to let AirBNB customers into their homes without the actual cost of protecting them.
No, hotel regulations are there because hotel owners lobby the lawmakers to protect their business and exclude competition. Nothing in the hotel regulations could prevent somebody from inviting people in and having a wild sex party. Of course, eventually they'd be thrown out, and possibly billed for damages, but there's no way to prevent it upfront.
Maybe you should look up the rash of hotel fires before some of those regulations were put on the books. Or consider the fact that many of our homes are in apartment buildings and we didn't sign on to have an illegal hotel in the apartment next door.
What fires have to do with it? The OP didn't complain about fire. It complained about his guests inviting other people, having wild sex party and trashing the apartment. Tell me that never happened in hotels.
You make it sound like OP was running a crime syndicate there. He just let people stay in his place for a couple of nights. People do it all the time. I did it many times for my friends and was the beneficiary of the same many times. One time he trusted wrong people's recommendation and it didn't work out. It could as well happen to anybody - you could trust your best friend's friend and let him stay at your place and he could invite his pals and turn the place upside down. Nothing to do with fire codes.
It's not just for the benefit of hotel owners. Cities typically charge huge taxes on hotel stays, so illicit hotels are dodging taxes. And there are actually some vestiges of regulations directed at protecting consumers from hotels that are firetraps, lack adequate ventilation, etc.
Well, you're right, that too. Though I'm not sure what this tax is for - i.e. what exactly is it except "these people do not live here, so they aren't our voters, so fleecing them a bit won't hurt"?
Go and tell that to OP's neighbors, who were not expecting an XXX fuck fest in their building, complete with random ejection of furniture into the street.
Yeah, around here (Copenhagen) the negative attitudes towards AirBnB are much more strongly driven by neighbors than by hotels. Coop associations are particularly active in tracking down people who're subletting "off the books", often driven by complaints being raised at the monthly association meetings. These come up for reasons ranging from specific ones like noisy parties in the floor above, to vague ones like "too many weird people I don't recognize coming and going".
It seems it only means that AirBnB only checked that the person is who they are and they have some credit card on file.
The problem is the way it appears conveys more trust than it should because verified appears in way that says "secure". I agree it's not what it says, but still, that's how it "appears". It sounds as if there's some sort of insurance.
Speaking of insurance, does AirBnB offer insurance (for a price or not) to its customers? Does the lack of regulations and the gray area prevent this?
Let's not forget in the end the victim is the OP. He's probably been careless, but he remains a victim.
Airbnb provides various means of "verification". You can verify a telephone number, an ID, Facebook profile (and even see how many friends the person has). Airbnb also provides references by friends and reviews by Airbnb members. Example:http://imgur.com/yQaSBdO Some of these verifications are optional, and as far as I know only a number, email and sometimes an ID are compulsory. The fundamental issue at hand is whether the OP is at fault for being too naive, not checking for proper verifications and simply choosing to trust the renter based on the info he/she provided. Personally, I don't think Airbnb is at fault. (did the OP even bother to talk to the renter over the phone?). I personally love using Airbnb and will continue to use it. What is continually a worry for me is is the lack of common sense people have when renting out their homes to complete strangers. What would have been the difference if this person was simply running an illegal bed & breakfast in his apartment and this happened? I feel sorry for the OP, but if you just choose to trust "strangers" and not take proper precautions and then expect Airbnb to have all the blame, then you're just kinda of a moron.
This happens all the time in hotels. Where do you think a good chunk of xxx movies are shot? I will answer this for you - HOTELS or any homes producers have access to before deadline. This wont be the first, second or last time either.
The fact that he's getting evicted is a pretty good clue. While it's possible to get evicted for a one time noise incident, it's highly unlikely. Violating the sublet terms on the other hand is a slam dunk. Also, I've never seen an NYC rental contract that allowed for subletting without the landlord's permission. Finally, in the very unsual circumstance that he had a lease that would allow for short term sublets, I'd think he would mention it.
So all and all the grandparent's guarantee is pretty solid. This guy isn't a victim, he's one of the co-conspirators, as are AirBnb. His landlord and neighbors are the victims.
I believe in NYC, while the lease may say they require permission to sublet, the law says otherwise. So long as they don't have any reasonable reason to restrict you it's permitted.
The law forbids a landlord from unreasonably refusing permission to sublet, which is quite a bit different from not requiring permission in the first place.
2. (a) A tenant renting a residence pursuant to an existing lease in a dwelling having four or more residential units shall have the right to sublease his premises subject to the written consent of the landlord in advance of the subletting. Such consent shall not be unreasonably withheld.
(b) The tenant shall inform the landlord of his intent to sublease by mailing a notice of such intent by certified mail, return receipt requested. Such request shall be accompanied by the following information: (i) the term of the sublease, (ii) the name of the proposed sublessee, (iii) the business and permanent home address of the proposed sublessee, (iv) the tenant's reason for subletting, (v) the tenant's address for the term of the sublease, (vi) the written consent of any cotenant or guarantor of the lease, and (vii) a copy of the proposed sublease, to which a copy of the tenant's lease shall be attached if available, acknowledged by the tenant and proposed subtenant as being a true copy of such sublease. ...
(c) Within ten days after the mailing of such request, the landlord ...
...
5. Any sublet or assignment which does not comply with the provisions of this section shall constitute a substantial breach of lease or tenancy.
6. Any provision of a lease or rental agreement purporting to waive a provision of this section is null and void.
This guys story is an example of a reasonable reason to restrict. Tons of horror stories like this. I would not be surprised "Airbnb clauses" become standard in rental contracts AND maybe even condo and co-op bylaws, depending on how the owners vote, of course, which will vary by building, some allowing, some not, but it should be a conscious decision, not a silent issue kind of thing. The clauses will probably forbid Arbnb rentals. If Airbnb rentals are allowed, the landlord and/or condo/co-op association should get a cut of the money. Administrative costs, extra hassle, risk, insurance, and, yes, a share of the profits for enabling it.
"you can't do illegal stuff without violating a lease"
This is speculation and not true. Not to mention that the criminal code and the civil code are distinct bodies of law. In general, it would be more likely to be evicted for a "quality of life" violation (such as that citation) than for any ramdom infraction of the criminal code. Furthermore, to the extent relevant, a landlord usually reserves "the right, but not the oblication" to take action or not. And crap like this is more likely to warrant eviction than a mere legal infraction (which need not even be disclosed).
Is porn fest an illegal stuff? Of course there is property damage for which they are responsible, but other than that? I lived a long time in Prague, and there are porn fests once every few days in every block and nobody seems to worry.
I'd be more worried about lying in the contract, but that's just me. If I sub lease you a real-estate parcel for non-commercial use and then you charge money, that's you using my property for a (unauthorized) commercial transaction. Not to mention the provision of alcohol (commercially) which is seperately regulated. Etc.
Not only does this demonstrate lack of integrity in the direct relationship, it creates problems with thrid-party contracts and service providers. Ie, insurance claims etc. So, yeah I would be making you sign an open ended imdeniication for any breech such as this. And you're lawyers wouldn't like that.
Also, there is repuataional damage to my brand. Again, if you did this in breech of my contract, I would put you on the hook for this via the terms of the contract.
Of course, we might never sign a deal If I was this well protected and your intentions were not above board.
Yea, it is illegal. Even if you are allowed to sublet your apartment, renting it out for any period of time less than 29 days is classified as running a hotel, which you aren't allowed to do in an apartment.
Update: I am not entirely correct. It is only illegal if you are not present in the apartment at the time, so people renting out rooms in a multi-room apartment can do so legally, although they are likely still in violation of their lease.
Unless the poster was registered as a licensed BnB in the city of New York with a lease that allowed said usage, they were violating their lease and the law. Under NY law, it is illegal to sublet your apartment without you being physically present. It's to prevent, among other things, situations like this, which are an annoyance and a danger to the other occupants of the building.
Even if subletting were legal, I would imagine he would be responsible for anything that goes on in the unit. Disturbing the neighbors with an XXX party would be enough to evict on its own.
Pretty sure that the law supersedes the lease. In NYC (possibly NY State), subletting is permitted unless the landlord can raise a reasonable objection within 30 days of being told you are subletting.
Which probably means you also have to let your landlord know so they have that opportunity.
Even then, I kind of suspect "a person I've never even met in person, have no personal access to his id, have not vetted his references, and I don't even know what he looks like for sure" probably gives a landlord plenty of reasonable grounds to object.
Basically, you can't just sublet. You still have to inform the landlord. And in the case of informing him that you are operating through Airbnb, illegal in NYC, an objection would be reasonable.
If you lease is written on the back of a napkin, maybe, but most landlords use boilerplate leases, and every boilerplate lease has a sublet clause. It's one of the most important clauses in the lease; why bother with the rest of the terms if the lease simply delegates all authority to the renter?
A sublet clause, yes. Perhaps I misunderstood your original comment because it sounded like you were saying that landlords personally vet all subletters. My previous lease did not have such a clause.
What did your sublet clause say, if it didn't say you needed landlord approval for a subletter? Think about what a lease that doesn't require approval for subletters is really saying.
That being said, I guarantee you were violating your lease when you used AirBnb. And, you approved the person to stay in your house. If anyone should be mad, it's your neighbors and apartment owner -- they followed the rules. This is really unfortunate, but it's not all AirBnb's fault.