Post by High Priestess on Feb 17, 2016 18:09:18 GMT
This is from Cory, as originally posted on Home Sharers of San Francisco about Feb 2014. Cory was the host who had squatters at her Palm Springs condo -- a story which made the news (see here: bit.ly/1pmr3QR )
See other posts on Long term stays here:
globalhosting.freeforums.net/thread/787/long-term-guests
globalhosting.freeforums.net/thread/986/long-term-rental-pros-cons
globalhosting.freeforums.net/thread/1648/insurance-cover-squatters
Here's an interesting article with a claim that one can create a contract which prevents squatting:
www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth-strategies/2014/08/lessons-from-airbnb-howto-protect-your-home-from.html?page=all
Cory2 years ago
www.airbnb.com/groups/content/content-67919
Hosts, reservations longer than 29 days put you at risk!
hidden)/default/article/(email hidden)p#photo(phone number hidden)
39 comments•1 like
Following
Like
Amanda
Cory
Cory2 years ago
Search sfgate for airbnb squatter article
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Try here:
bit.ly/1pmr3QR
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Also, I read the article and was delighted to read that Airbnb helped pay for your loss and may provide some legal help. I didn't expect that to happen. I thought Airbnb would wash its hands of the matter and say it couldn't do anything about it. Very glad to hear that they are helping some. My wish would be that Airbnb would take care of all legal fees and your losses in the time it takes to evict. 3-6 months is scary. I thought eviction for nonpayment of rent cases went faster than that.
Reply Like
Cory
Cory2 years ago
Hi Deborah, thanks for your note. FYI--airbnb has not paid for anything. They stated they would "assist with legal fees" once the press became involved. I hope they do right in this situation.
Reply Liked 1 reply•1 like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
I hope so too!!! And I am glad you got the press involved. Given that so many pro-tenant, anti-landlord stories have been in the SF Chronicle, it is important for people to see the malicious behavior that some tenants engage in, which causes such suffering to small landlords particularly. I agree with Peter though that it is not accurate for the press to in any way insinuate that this situation is caused by Airbnb. (And SF Chronicle does seem to have an anti-Airbnb agenda....) No, there are thousands of stories like yours -- but the media doesn't show them. THey prefer the mythology of the "greedy landlord" not the malicious scammer tenant.
Peter
Peter2 years ago
Cory, I am so sorry for your experience, both with the tenant and Airbnb. It's clear that Airbnb's Customer Service really needs to step up its game. I've been hearing stories of inadequate responses from that sector of the company for some time. As hosts, we are all concerned about the risk of getting "the guest from hell." Would it be possible to share his Airbnb profile, if it is still up? I also think there needs to be a conversation about the complicity of the CA tenancy protection laws that this tenant was able to take advantage of and shield behind (something which I thought the SF Chronicle article was silent about). I'm all in favor of tenants rights, but there has to be a reasonable balance in respecting landlords rights too. When a tenant overstays, willfully and fundamentally breaches the lease agreement by categorically refusing to pay rent for no reason at all and causes you economic harm (by running up the electricity bill to four times normal) and threatens you with unreasonable legal action in return, the law should not make it so difficult, expensive and time consuming to provide an adequate remedy. The conduct of Airbnb clearly can be faulted, but I'm not sure it's fair to place all the blame on the Airbnb, as this article seems to suggest. Please keep us updated on developments, and let us know if there's anything we can do to assist you.
Reply Liked 6 likes
Tim
Tim2 years ago
When I read the about the squatter, I remembered that old movie "Pacific Heights". Weird part is that the character in the movie started in Palm Springs before moving up to San Francisco to his next victim.
I am a little confused. I thought the (phone number hidden) Airbnb guarantee covers squatters? All I know is that this keeps me up at night. I have been a landlord for over 30 years and I can tell you that a contested eviction could cost you almost $100,000 if there is a trial. And what about damages? You also have to keep all the utilities open. I think some members might be in danger of losing their home if this were to happen.
I am hoping for a positive outcome. Please airnbnb, start requiring rental agreements so at least the host has the right to re-enter his/her home.
Reply Liked 2 likes
Sylvie
Sylvie2 years ago
We are in a really tricky uncomfortable situation: short term rental is currently illegal, but we have no protection if we rent more than 30 days! I wish David Chiu's legislation could protect us for 30 days rental or more.
Reply Liked 2 likes
Tim
Tim2 years ago
I was unaware of protections for under 30 days. Can you tell me? Can we call the police and remove a guest?
Reply Like
Tim
Tim2 years ago
Sorry, misread your post Sylvie. I guess we don't have protection under 30 days either.
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
You're absolutely right, Peter, about the complicity of CA tenant protection laws. Further, if anyone has ever dealt with the US civil litigation system, you'll see that that too is complicit. Both of these encourage squatting, fraud, lying, malicious behavior, using the legal system for revenge, or to stall someone from being able to evict you when you don't pay rent or violate the house rules, vandalize the property, etc, because the justice system protects those whose lawsuits are full of lies, all the way up to trial.
The premise of the US civil justice system is that there is justice for everyone, that everyone can file a lawsuit. But the fact is, that it is a farce to say one can obtain justice in the system, when litigating lawsuits is so extremely expensive, and also when the tenant in many cases can obtain a tenant attorney willing to take the case on contingency, at no cost to the tenant. So then the landlord is faced with thousands of dollars in legal fees just to get someone out of their home, or perhaps, as in cases I know of, the tenant does move out, but then sues the landlord afterwards with a slew of false accusations cooked up by an unethical tenant attorney, which could also cost the landlord thousands.
I believe much suffering by property owners could be mitigated, by a change in laws about eviction, which allowed cases of eviction to be exempt from jury trial, and required them to be brought before a judge, with the parties representing themselves, as in small claims court. This would enormously accelerate and vastly reduce the potential cost of the process. THere are cases in California where homeowners have lost their homes because the tenant was a scammer who stopped paying rent, and then stalled the eviction process with a professional level of knowledge of the malicious stalling tactics available, until the homeowner lost the home in foreclosure.
This is not a problem just with Airbnb, but up to now those renting out their property have not had such a central place to discuss issues that arise, as these Airbnb forums offer. Which is why I am so grateful for them.
Reply Like 5 likes
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Regarding the overuse of utilities -- Cory, if you can, I would tell the squatter that you are having a repairman come to the unit to do work on the A/C. At that point, install a timer or nest thermostat on it. If you use a timer put it in a locked place where squatter cannot access it. If you use a nest thermostat, you can adjust the temperature from your mobile phone. Squatter turns it up, you turn it back down again. Or remove the A/C due to abusive use of it.
Reply Like 1 like
Sylvie
Sylvie2 years ago
Well, let me express the same idea another way. There are days where I am thinking of renting for 30 days or more because of the risk to rent 30 days or less (ex: terrible story of Jeannie and Skate who are amazing hosts). With the squatter story, it looks like renting 30 days or more brings its own set of risks.
It feels that we are in a very uncomfortable situation in both situation (short term and long term). While David Chiiu is wanting address the short issues, it would be fair that he also address the long term issues - like let us evict from our own homes, sometimes with children, guests who want to overstay.
Reply Liked 1 reply•2 likes
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
You're absolutely right! See what I wrote about the CA "Single Lodger" law below.
Sylvie
Sylvie2 years ago
Question to the community:
The room I rent has its own entrance with a pad lock (code no key). If someone stayed longer, would it be legal for me to change the code of the door?
Reply Liked 2 likes
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Sylvie -- see this information, produced by the California HOtel and Lodging association, about evicting short term guests;
www.calodging.com/images/uploads/pdfs/ABCsOfEvictingGuests.pdf
Those staying less than 30 days are not legally tenants and have no tenant's rights, so, if you follow the procedure described in the article above, and have the guest sign a document when they arrive stating that they are aware that if they overstay their reservation, then according to CA Civil Code 1865 and CA Penal Code 602, you have the right to remove their belongings from the room, and lock them out by rekeying the room.
For cases where the reservation is for more than 30 days, you can't legally lock them out ---though the way I see it, if the consequences of letting a scammer stay in your place are that it could cost you thousands and risk foreclosure, it might just be safer to lock the person out and that a subsequent lawsuit, if any, is covered by your homeowner's insurance. Further, you are really in a bind if, for instance, you have rented your place for 45 days to one guest, and then two days after that 45 day reservation you have another reservation that will commence, and another guest arriving. If you lock out the first guest you could be sued for an illegal eviction, but if you allow the first guest to illegally overstay, you could be sued by the second guest for breach of contract, since you promised accomodations to him which now you cannot provide. No homeowner or landlord should ever be placed in such a bind.
Reply Like 1 like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Another thing, that I don't know if many folks are aware of -- In California there is something called the "single lodger" law. See Ca civil code 1946.5 and CA penal code 602. If you rent a room to one and ONLY one person, meaning you don't rent two or more rooms in your house, only one -- then, you do NOT have to go to court to evict a person if you are evicting them with a 30 day notice. (You can't do a 3-day eviction for nonpayment of rent w/o going to court, though). IF at the expiration of the 30 days they haven't left, you are legally permitted to either lock them out or have the police haul them out.
This does not apply if you are renting an apartment out to someone -- only if it is a room in the house where you also live. I believe you have to be the owner for this law to apply -- I don't think it works if you are a tenant there yourself. On that note, I know of a woman who was a tenant in a house in the East Bay, and she had rented out a room to a man who wouldn't leave when she asked him to go. Her landlord wouldn't help, and she ended up unable to evict him and had to leave the house herself and find another place to rent.
Reply Like 3 replies
Sylvie
Sylvie2 years ago
Thank you for that info as well. I rent 1 room in my condo. For short term I rent to couple but for more than 30 days, I would only rent to 1 person. It is too crowded other wise. So, it seems that I could also refer to the lodger law in case of trouble. Thank you for sharing all this.
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
By the way, if the person has a fixed-term contract, as do all the guests who come from Airbnb, then this contract in and of itself limits their stay and you would not have to give the SIngle Lodger a 30 day notice to vacate. You could have them sign an additional contract when they arrive, just to be safe -- and then, yes, CA civil code 1946.5 and CA penal code 602 allows you to simply lock out of your premises someone who has stayed more than 30 days who does not leave at the expiration of their fixed term rental contract.
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
YEs, I believe you would definitely be covered by the Single Lodger law, so you are safer than many -- though be advised, as many landlords have found, it is quite possible to follow the law to the "T" and still get subsequently sued by totally bogus allegations. This is pretty much entirely the fault of unethical tenant attorneys who are happy to exploit a revenge-seeking tenant, in order to line their own pockets. I have seen it happen several times. To avoid possible problems like this, I know some landlords who refuse to rent to lawyers. It was in fact a free-agent lawyer who scammed a CA woman and caused her to lose her home, by refusing to pay rent based on bogus claims of "uninhabitability". One would also do well, when screening guests for >30 day rentals, to search their full name on the Superior court website of the US county they come from, to see if they have been involved in any lawsuits, particularly if unlawful detainer suits have been filed on them. For instance, read this story: bit.ly/1tUOGBi Had a SF superior court search been done on this guest prior to taking her in, the host would have found this: bit.ly/TLPo9j An unlawful detainer had previously been filed against her.
Sylvie
Sylvie2 years ago
Scary and hard to believe. But thank you for the information and for giving me the exact information so I know where I stand. Thank you for the links, they are really useful. If I ever have a stay for more than 30 days, I will make people sign a document/contract.
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
You're welcome Sylvie -- and actually if you rent for LESS than 30 days, you may also want to have them sign a contract, notifying them of CA Civil Code 1865 and CA penal code 602 as that will allow you to lock them out if they overstay.
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
I was just brainstorming, and had an idea to share -- generally you're on safer ground as a property owner, as far as what's required to evict someone, if you live in the unit along with them. As I was explaining to Sylvie, the Single Lodger law can come into play, and then you don't need to go to court to evict.
So, one way to try to set up a rental contract, if you want to rent out a whole apartment and/or house but keep yourself safe at the same time, would be to state very clearly in the rental contract that although you will most likely be gone most of the time from this rental unit, you also reside there. You might even state that it is your primary residence, but that you will be away traveling a while.
If the place has more than one bedroom, make sure to retain one bedroom for your exclusive use, and keep some of your things in it. IF it is a one-bedroom unit, you could state that you will reside in the living room, on the couch, when you do live there. You could informally tell the renter/guest/tenant that you have no intention of being there while they are staying there, but if ever there arises a situation like Cory's, where the renter turns out to be a scammer, all you have to do is move back into the unit, take up your residence in the living room, and then once you are residing there again, it would be much easier to evict. In fact, under the Single Lodger law, it would likely be legal to evict without going to court.
Reply Like 2 replies•2 likes
Albena
Albena2 years ago
Thank you, Debora! Very helpful!
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Alena and others-- more about how this strategy would work. First, as stated, You make it clear in the rental contract when you rent out the "whole apartment" or house that the person actually isn't renting the whole apartment, because you are reserving for your own ongoing residential use either one bedroom, or one small area of space say 3 ft by 6 ft in the living room where you keep your small fold out foam bed stored, as well as a small bag of items for daily use. You state in the rental contract that this is your primary residence, but that you travel. Your informal agreement with the renter is that you most likely won't be returning to reside here again until the day after they are scheduled to leave. Then, if they leave as scheduled, you have no need to go live there, unless you want to. But if they don't leave as scheduled, you move in right away, and then lock them out of the place the very next day, in accordance with the single lodger law CA civ code 1946.5 and CA penal code 602. The fact that they were on a fixed term rental agreement ( where the end date where tenancy is terminated is stated) and not an ongoing rental situation means you are not obligated to give them 30 day notice to vacate. If they call police and try to get back in, you show police a copy of the rental agreement and the pertinent ca civil and penal codes. The renter can try to sue alleging that the place is not really your permanent residence, but once you have gotten them out, most of your worries are over and I would guess that their lawsuit, if any, is a long shot for them. I would guess the scammer is less interested in long shot lawsuits than in stealing accommodations, getting a place to live for free.
Sylvie
Sylvie2 years ago
Great thinking. Thanks
Reply Like
Rachel
Rachel2 years ago
On advice of an attorney, we have a liquidated damages clause in our contract that is signed by the guest. By signing, the guest has given written notice for moving out on the date specified in the contract. If the guest violates this contract, he is, of course, legally able to stay as long as eviction proceedings take, but he has agreed to pay liquidated damages of $300 per night. The guest has to sign that line specifically. The attorney said after signing this contract giving written notice of the move-out date, the guest has no legal foot to stand on, in terms of challenging me in court. I'm not sure if that's 100% correct? I hope we don't get a renter from hell, but if we do, I hope the liquidated damages, signed by the guest, will be helpful. From what I've heard, having an eviction on your record is very damaging, so hopefully this is something that will deter most opportunists from taking advantage of the situation. But I agree, it's quite awful that the legal system allows for squatting to happen in the first place.
Reply Like 2 likes
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
That is a good move to make, Rachel, this liquidated damages clause. But I think one if the problems many property owners face, even with such a clause, and beyond that, even with an attorney fees clause which would require a tenant to pay thousands of dollars to you if they lose an eviction case in court-- the problem lies not on your ability to win in court and get a judgement against tenant of thousands of dollars-- the problem is in your ability to collect on that judgement if the scamming tenant has no assets. Which is often the case. Then you have spent potentially thousands to win, but can't collect a dime.
Also, a lot of eviction cases, particularly if the tenant gets legal aid, will not go to trial. There will be a settlement.
I work for an East Bay landlord who had to go to court to get a nonpaying tenant out. The tenant was low income and so qualified for free legal aid from an eviction defense agency. The agency demanded that if you don't let that tenant stay for 4 more months for FREE, AND not have to pay two months more in back rent due, AND then get her whole security deposit back before she moved out, they would take the case to jury trial and force landlord to pay thousands in attorney fees that she would NEVER be able to collect, even with an attorney's fees clause on the rental agreement (which many contracts don't even have) . This is the type of extortion and scamming by tenants and their sleazy attorneys that is quite common in landlord tenant law.
Reply Like 1 reply
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Oh, and that East Bay landlord DID have to let that deadbeat tenant basically stay in the place for 6 months for free. No choice, extorted into it. She also had to give that scammer the whole security deposit back before she moved out, according to the terms of the settlement agreement, and the tenant of course trashed the place and damaged it when she left. So, thousands of dollars of expense to the landlord and no justice whatsoever, and an "Eviction Defense" agency enabling and abetting the malicious scamming on top of that, all the while no doubt confident in their belief that they were helping a poor disadvantaged person dealing with a greedy landlord.
Rachel
Rachel2 years ago
If the deadbeat tenant owes me money, won't the collection agencies be after the tenant to garnish his or her wages for the money owed, until the money is paid? Sure, if the person never makes any money again, I'll never get any payment, but if he or she truly is a scammer making $1000 per day (like the squatter in the article above), while refusing to pay rent and/or liquidated damages, wouldn't the legal system make sure the scammer pays the debts owed? I hope so. If not, it's time for some serious changes. I'm not willing to live under a legal system that rewards scammers like this. I really hope there will be some justice in Cory's situation.
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Rachel -- yes, if you have a court judgement against a tenant, and that tenant is employed by SOMEONE ELSE (eg is an employee of a company) you have a very good change of being able to garnish their wages. However, the amount you can garnish is limited, so if they don't make much, you won't get paid very quickly. But, if the person is SELF EMPLOYED, it will be pretty much impossible to "garnish their wages" for the simple fact that they earn no wages, the money goes right from their customer to them, and there's no way for you to get in between them and take the payment as it is handed over.
You can also garnish a person's bank account if you have a court judgement against them, but it is not hard, particularly for a practiced scammer, to hide their account. A non-US bank account for instance might prevent you from garnishing.
The least risky tenants in some ways are those who have a stable job, where they are employed by someone else, not self-employed, and who have some assets, and care about their credit rating and reputation. Having an unlawful detainer lawsuit on your record ruins your credit for at least 7 years, and any potential landlord can use a credit reporting agency such as Experian, or search court cases, to find out about the eviction. Most decent people don't want this on their record and don't want their credit ruined.
However, professional scammers may not care about their credit, and may have tactics to avoid wage and bank account garnishment. In addition, particularly with the aid of unscrupulous attorneys, scamming tenants can turn the tables on the landlord, as this one did, by threatening legal action against the landlord. THe number of baseless, fraudulent allegations that could potentially be made would blow your mind. ANd the legal system allows all of this.
I do think that anyone who could see the truth about the civil justice system in the USA, and in particular who could see the truth involved in landlord-tenant cases, would be incredibly disgusted by the amount of extortion and scamming involved, as well as the fact that the way the legal system is set up, rolls out the red carpet to scammers. I do think it is time for serious changers as many are suffering under the present system.
Reply Like
Tim
Tim2 years ago
Great ideas. Can any attorneys comment on this? I know we have quite a few in this group. It would be great to get a legal opinion.
Reply Like 1 reply
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
My guess would be that most landlord attorneys would recommend using a more conservative approach, and filing an unlawful detainer suit on the tenant, rather than trying to use CA civil code 1946.5, for the simple reason that there is then less likelihood of you being sued for wrongful eviction or anything else. HOwever, sometimes the risk of allowing the tenant to stay illegally may be the greater risk, for instance if you live with a tenant who is abusing you and yelling at you on a daily basis, and you just cannot take the violence of it. Or, if allowing them to stay and using an unlawful detainer could potentially lead to a long drawn out legal fight and the loss of your property in foreclosure. Each individual must decide their own comfort level regarding what risks to take and how.
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Also, I believe you can still use the Single Lodger Law and evict a tenant without going to court, even if you rent out more than one bedroom in your home to a guest. As long as you don't have more than one SCAMMER, the way you would do it would be this: if the scammer tenant doesn't leave at the end of their reservation, you wait for the other guest(s) to leave, or pay them to go and stay at another place. Then, you and the scammer tenant are now the only ones in your home, so you have a Single Lodger and that allows you to lock the scammer out of your home.
This could potentially also be used if you have a "whole apartment" or house that has more than one bedroom which can accomodate more than one guest, IF you do as described above and reserve yourself either a bedroom or an area of the living room for your exclusive use, and claim the place as your permanent residence, AND if you rent to more than one guest, those guests are unrelated and don't know each other. It is not likely you would have two different unrelated guests in two bedrooms, for instance, and both turn out to be scammers. You wait for the decent one to leave, then you move in, and use the Single Lodger law to lock out the deadbeat.
Just some ideas.
Reply Like
Rachel
Rachel2 years ago
Unfortunately, by providing lodging to others, we open ourselves up to all kinds of liabilities. This is why a lot of people don't want to mess with being landlords or hosts, whether short-term or long-term. I recently read an article about a woman who was brutally attacked while inside her apartment. The assailant entered through the window that she had open in her bedroom. The victim sued the landlord for not having screens on the windows, which might have deterred the attacker from coming in. The victim won the lawsuit, and it was a lot of money, although I don't remember how much ... which is perfectly understandable, as I'm sure there is no amount of money that can erase the brutality of the attack for this woman. Although ... I do wish it were the attacker who was made to pay, and not the landlord! Unfortunately, I believe any host could be held liable for this sort of thing, whether hosting long-term or short-term. We as hosts are responsible for having property safety measures in place. If it the host is a renter, then it could be the landlord who would be sued if an Airbnb guest were attacked. I guess my point is, a lot of people don't realize the amount of responsibility that landlords have. Good landlords are providing their tenants with a safe place to stay while taking care of all the costs of taxes, maintenance and upkeep for the building (as well as the very substantial cost of buying the property), and they are meanwhile incurring a lot of liability, as the safety of all the inhabitants is in their hands. If anything goes wrong, the landlord can be perceived as being at fault ... could have had steel doors instead of wood ... could have an alarm system installed ... etc.
Reply Like 1 reply•2 likes
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
You're right, there can be a lot of risk offering housing to others. The more you are in this business or know others who are, the more stories you will hear. I think it doesn't help matters that we have a litigious and entitled culture, where people feel that if something bad happens to them, there must be someone to blame and to pay them for it.
Cory
Cory2 years ago
This is a test...I posted here previously, but not sure if my posts are being uploaded...
Reply Like
Tim
Tim2 years ago
Yes they are…..
Reply Like
Cory
Cory2 years ago
Great Tim...thanks.
Hi All,
I’m hoping some of the coverage of my story will educate the public (and not just point finger at airbnb. Even though airbnb’s lacking customer service frustrated me to no end…I do want to make sure this situation does not happen to someone else in the future—so the public awareness part is important to me. Because airbnb was unavailable/unable to help me in the beginning, I sought advice from an online community that includes other vacation rental hosts/property owners. This forum was invaluable to me, and provided the guidance that I was unable to obtain from airbnb.
Some of my bullet points below are suggestions others made on this online forum:
Goal: Educate hosts/ the public
Airbnb customer service experience:
• My situation had red flags from the get go, and airbnb was not timely in their responses.
• Hold time when initially calling airbnb customer service up to 51 minutes—is this common?
• Return time when emailing customer service: initially 24 to 48 hours—is this common?
• Once a situation escalates, airbnb needs provide a direct staff person contact person name, phone number and email. To date, airbnb states they are still unable to provide me with a direct contact phone number.
• To date—airbnb staff state that they are still unable to provide me with a direct staff phone number. Instead, I have to wait for them to call me (from a generic phone number), or email them.
30 day+ stays – Airbnb and CA:
• Airbnb only collects payment for 30 days at a time for longer stay
(Not sure if there are legal reasons why they can’t collect entire amount upfront for longer stays?)
• Collecting guest fees for 30+day stays for only 30 days at a time equals no guarantee to the host of payment in full
• A 30-day stay in a typical vacation rental in CA creates a tenancy situation.
• Airbnb should be required to disclose this issue to CA hosts.
• Without a secure source of payment for the entire stay, a vacation rental becomes just like any other month to month rental if the guest's credit card or source of payment doesn't go through on Day 31.
• Educate hosts about potential for unlawful detainer, explain the process for this worst case scenario.
Airbnb opportunities:
• Build awareness of this issue for vacation rental hosts
• Outline what hosts can do to avoid this situation (Run your own background and credit checks, accept larger deposit, etc.)
• Airbnb to expand on its education of rental owners/ alert them to possibility/provide some tips on how to protect themselves.
• AirBnb gave warning about the 30 day tenancy issue as good customer service (obviously it is responsibility of landlord/host to know laws in their local area).
• Airbnb to expand $1M guarantee to cover lost rents, evictions and legal representation when the guest doesn't pay and/or leave.
• Thousands of vacation rental owners are vulnerable, and don’t know it. The public needs to know, lawmakers need to know, and sites like airbnb need to know and improve upon their policies, procedures and protections.
Reply Liked 4 likes
Tim
Tim2 years ago
Thanks Cory! Your post is much appreciated! We have 3 hosts in our neighborhood and 2/3 have decided to unlist their properties for the time being.
Can we start a petition to AIrbnb to exband $1M guarantee to cover lost rents, evictions, and legal representation?
How about airbnb adding background checks to their verification process? It would be very easy to check for criminal and eviction backgrounds.
Reply Liked 3 likes
Rachel
Rachel2 years ago
Landlords can subscribe to services where the check for evictions, credit history, etc, costs about $30 (or a bit less) per applicant. For any guest inquiring about a stay of 30 days or more, Airbnb could have something that comes up and tells the guest that a background check is needed, and the guest needs to pay $30 to submit this inquiry. Once the background check is passed, the guest can inquiry to as many properties as he or she wishes, during some upcoming period such as 60 days. I'm sure Airbnb could get some kind of bulk pricing from the credit check companies like Experian etc, so probably Airbnb would even make some profit from the fee. That's fine; I'm all about Airbnb being profitable. But what I need as someone accepting stays of more than 30 days, is for the potential guest to have PASSED the credit check. Airbnb could even make it optional ... as a host, we could specify that we require the credit check. If you were a host who didn't care about the credit check, you could say that you accept guests who HAVE NOT DONE the credit check, or who did the credit check but got a terrible score. Certainly it could be up to the hosts, about whether you require a credit check for stays of more than 30 days. But right now that option isn't even there. And certainly it could be.
Reply Liked 3 likes
Rachel
Rachel2 years ago
P.S. I don't think credit / eviction history / etc checks would be needed for stays of less than 30 days. But 30+ stays that establish legal tenancy, I agree with Tim ... .there's no reason why Airbnb cannot provide this option to the hosts. Just make it clear to the potential guests ... this particular property requires a background / credit check prior to booking a 30+ stay. I do think Airbnb has a nice advantage that once the credit check is run, that information that the credit check was passed and was clear ... could be something that's like part of the person's profile for the next XX days ... and so the guest could pay for the credit check once but then use the "badge of approval" to inquire at multiple properties until they were accepted at a place. Actually, legally I'm not sure if that is allowed ... for a person's credit score etc to be made public to multiple parties ... but if it is legal, I think it would be great. Then the guest wouldn't have to pay a separate fee for every property that they inquire at, while shopping around for the best place for their 30+ day stay.
Reply Liked 2 likes
Tim
Tim2 years ago
Great ideas Rachel!
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
I love the idea of having Airbnb help with credit checks on those who want stays of 30 days or more. This could eliminate those who have previously had unlawful detainer suits filed on them.
I also LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the idea of the $1 million Airbnb host guarantee to cover lost rents, eviction and legal representation if the guest doesn't pay and/or doesn't leave.
I myself have commented numerous times on several forums that it doesn't make sense that Airbnb only collects 30 days' payment from the guest up front, for stays over 30 days. This is much less protection than occurs in a normal landlord-tenant situation, where the tenant must pay up front not only first month's rent, but also a last month's rent and security deposit. Why would Airbnb leave us LESS protected than we could be just renting out the place on our own? Ideally, Airbnb would allow for two types of security deposit to be set on any listing: one for stays under 30 days, the other for stays over 30 days. For stays over 30 days you could make your security deposit amount equal to one month's rent, or even 1.5 times a month's rent, and this security deposit would be collected up front. It makes no sense to have a security deposit stipulated if it is impossible to collect at some later time. It should be collected but held by Airbnb, and only remitted to the host if damage or nonpayment of rent due occur at a later point.
Reply Like 3 likes
Rachel
Rachel2 years ago
Yes, and I also love Tim's idea of petitioning Airbnb to make sure the $1M host guarantee applies to the cover lost rents, eviction, and legal representation. That would be awesome! And think how many more landlords would start advertising on Airbnb, if Airbnb provided that ....
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Here is some information on your Palm Springs squatter, Cory -- the guy sued someone else in court in San Francisco, but apparently never showed up in court --
bit.ly/1t8uQXh
Also there is another SF chronicle article about him here:
bit.ly/1tNeeln
Reply Like
Tim
Tim2 years ago
I called my insurance company to ask about "squatters" (I have commercial insurance by the way). He didn't know the answer but he will get back to me with an answer. Apparently, landlords across the country are asking this question as he received the same question from someone in Florida.
Reply Like
David + Tina
David + Tina2 years ago
Cory- sorry to hear about your troubles. Thank you for sharing and being vocal.
To all hosts- I asked airbnb through customer service what they were doing about 30+ day guests to protect the hosts and got this response. He recommends calling the police. It shows, it's still on us to be proactive:
"My name is Younion, and I very much appreciate your email. I am please to be of assistance to one of our great hosts of more than four years.
Absolutely, the safety and security of our community is our top priority. I respect that you wish to be informed in this matter.
We do have outlined in our Terms of Service that while using our services, no user may "infringe the rights of any person or entity, including without limitation, their intellectual property, privacy, publicity or contractual rights." This means that a guest may not stay longer than their reservation permits unless permission is granted by you, the property owner. In addition, by agreeing to these terms, the guest agrees to abide by all of your house rules, which in your case states that check out is noon.
If ever a guest refuses to leave, or otherwise is behaving inappropriately, please contact your local authorities right away. You then will want to contact and provide us with your police station and report number at the following email address so that we can offer assistance in any way we can: (email hidden)ep in mind though, all guests and hosts are participating in our community by their own will and are considered to be doing so "at their own risk". This is also stated in our Terms of Service.
For a detailed breakdown of our services, liabilities, and terms, please review the following Terms of Service document: www.airbnb.com/terms.
I thank you for being a safe member of our community. I hope I was able to help ease your concerns. If you have further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach back out to me. I'm more than happy to help wherever I can.
Sharing is caring!
Younion M
www.airbnb.com/help";
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
david and Tina -- That reply from customer service seems either uninformed or disingenuous vis a vis suggesting that we call the police if a guest stays longer than their reservation permits. The problem we have is precisely that even though it is illegal for a guest with an over 30 day reservation to stay longer than the reservation permits, that is not an illegality that police can address, it is one which we are required to address with the court system, hence the hassle and expense to us.
This specific point, that it is only the court, not the police, who can (in most instances, not all -- see info on Single Lodger law above in this thread) address an illegal holdover or unlawful detainer by the guest/renter, is why we as hosts hope for additional protective measures from Airbnb, such as the ability to collect a larger security deposit, and collect it IN ADVANCE, for guests staying over 30 days.
See other posts on Long term stays here:
globalhosting.freeforums.net/thread/787/long-term-guests
globalhosting.freeforums.net/thread/986/long-term-rental-pros-cons
globalhosting.freeforums.net/thread/1648/insurance-cover-squatters
Here's an interesting article with a claim that one can create a contract which prevents squatting:
www.bizjournals.com/bizjournals/how-to/growth-strategies/2014/08/lessons-from-airbnb-howto-protect-your-home-from.html?page=all
Cory2 years ago
www.airbnb.com/groups/content/content-67919
Hosts, reservations longer than 29 days put you at risk!
hidden)/default/article/(email hidden)p#photo(phone number hidden)
39 comments•1 like
Following
Like
Amanda
Cory
Cory2 years ago
Search sfgate for airbnb squatter article
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Try here:
bit.ly/1pmr3QR
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Also, I read the article and was delighted to read that Airbnb helped pay for your loss and may provide some legal help. I didn't expect that to happen. I thought Airbnb would wash its hands of the matter and say it couldn't do anything about it. Very glad to hear that they are helping some. My wish would be that Airbnb would take care of all legal fees and your losses in the time it takes to evict. 3-6 months is scary. I thought eviction for nonpayment of rent cases went faster than that.
Reply Like
Cory
Cory2 years ago
Hi Deborah, thanks for your note. FYI--airbnb has not paid for anything. They stated they would "assist with legal fees" once the press became involved. I hope they do right in this situation.
Reply Liked 1 reply•1 like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
I hope so too!!! And I am glad you got the press involved. Given that so many pro-tenant, anti-landlord stories have been in the SF Chronicle, it is important for people to see the malicious behavior that some tenants engage in, which causes such suffering to small landlords particularly. I agree with Peter though that it is not accurate for the press to in any way insinuate that this situation is caused by Airbnb. (And SF Chronicle does seem to have an anti-Airbnb agenda....) No, there are thousands of stories like yours -- but the media doesn't show them. THey prefer the mythology of the "greedy landlord" not the malicious scammer tenant.
Peter
Peter2 years ago
Cory, I am so sorry for your experience, both with the tenant and Airbnb. It's clear that Airbnb's Customer Service really needs to step up its game. I've been hearing stories of inadequate responses from that sector of the company for some time. As hosts, we are all concerned about the risk of getting "the guest from hell." Would it be possible to share his Airbnb profile, if it is still up? I also think there needs to be a conversation about the complicity of the CA tenancy protection laws that this tenant was able to take advantage of and shield behind (something which I thought the SF Chronicle article was silent about). I'm all in favor of tenants rights, but there has to be a reasonable balance in respecting landlords rights too. When a tenant overstays, willfully and fundamentally breaches the lease agreement by categorically refusing to pay rent for no reason at all and causes you economic harm (by running up the electricity bill to four times normal) and threatens you with unreasonable legal action in return, the law should not make it so difficult, expensive and time consuming to provide an adequate remedy. The conduct of Airbnb clearly can be faulted, but I'm not sure it's fair to place all the blame on the Airbnb, as this article seems to suggest. Please keep us updated on developments, and let us know if there's anything we can do to assist you.
Reply Liked 6 likes
Tim
Tim2 years ago
When I read the about the squatter, I remembered that old movie "Pacific Heights". Weird part is that the character in the movie started in Palm Springs before moving up to San Francisco to his next victim.
I am a little confused. I thought the (phone number hidden) Airbnb guarantee covers squatters? All I know is that this keeps me up at night. I have been a landlord for over 30 years and I can tell you that a contested eviction could cost you almost $100,000 if there is a trial. And what about damages? You also have to keep all the utilities open. I think some members might be in danger of losing their home if this were to happen.
I am hoping for a positive outcome. Please airnbnb, start requiring rental agreements so at least the host has the right to re-enter his/her home.
Reply Liked 2 likes
Sylvie
Sylvie2 years ago
We are in a really tricky uncomfortable situation: short term rental is currently illegal, but we have no protection if we rent more than 30 days! I wish David Chiu's legislation could protect us for 30 days rental or more.
Reply Liked 2 likes
Tim
Tim2 years ago
I was unaware of protections for under 30 days. Can you tell me? Can we call the police and remove a guest?
Reply Like
Tim
Tim2 years ago
Sorry, misread your post Sylvie. I guess we don't have protection under 30 days either.
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
You're absolutely right, Peter, about the complicity of CA tenant protection laws. Further, if anyone has ever dealt with the US civil litigation system, you'll see that that too is complicit. Both of these encourage squatting, fraud, lying, malicious behavior, using the legal system for revenge, or to stall someone from being able to evict you when you don't pay rent or violate the house rules, vandalize the property, etc, because the justice system protects those whose lawsuits are full of lies, all the way up to trial.
The premise of the US civil justice system is that there is justice for everyone, that everyone can file a lawsuit. But the fact is, that it is a farce to say one can obtain justice in the system, when litigating lawsuits is so extremely expensive, and also when the tenant in many cases can obtain a tenant attorney willing to take the case on contingency, at no cost to the tenant. So then the landlord is faced with thousands of dollars in legal fees just to get someone out of their home, or perhaps, as in cases I know of, the tenant does move out, but then sues the landlord afterwards with a slew of false accusations cooked up by an unethical tenant attorney, which could also cost the landlord thousands.
I believe much suffering by property owners could be mitigated, by a change in laws about eviction, which allowed cases of eviction to be exempt from jury trial, and required them to be brought before a judge, with the parties representing themselves, as in small claims court. This would enormously accelerate and vastly reduce the potential cost of the process. THere are cases in California where homeowners have lost their homes because the tenant was a scammer who stopped paying rent, and then stalled the eviction process with a professional level of knowledge of the malicious stalling tactics available, until the homeowner lost the home in foreclosure.
This is not a problem just with Airbnb, but up to now those renting out their property have not had such a central place to discuss issues that arise, as these Airbnb forums offer. Which is why I am so grateful for them.
Reply Like 5 likes
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Regarding the overuse of utilities -- Cory, if you can, I would tell the squatter that you are having a repairman come to the unit to do work on the A/C. At that point, install a timer or nest thermostat on it. If you use a timer put it in a locked place where squatter cannot access it. If you use a nest thermostat, you can adjust the temperature from your mobile phone. Squatter turns it up, you turn it back down again. Or remove the A/C due to abusive use of it.
Reply Like 1 like
Sylvie
Sylvie2 years ago
Well, let me express the same idea another way. There are days where I am thinking of renting for 30 days or more because of the risk to rent 30 days or less (ex: terrible story of Jeannie and Skate who are amazing hosts). With the squatter story, it looks like renting 30 days or more brings its own set of risks.
It feels that we are in a very uncomfortable situation in both situation (short term and long term). While David Chiiu is wanting address the short issues, it would be fair that he also address the long term issues - like let us evict from our own homes, sometimes with children, guests who want to overstay.
Reply Liked 1 reply•2 likes
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
You're absolutely right! See what I wrote about the CA "Single Lodger" law below.
Sylvie
Sylvie2 years ago
Question to the community:
The room I rent has its own entrance with a pad lock (code no key). If someone stayed longer, would it be legal for me to change the code of the door?
Reply Liked 2 likes
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Sylvie -- see this information, produced by the California HOtel and Lodging association, about evicting short term guests;
www.calodging.com/images/uploads/pdfs/ABCsOfEvictingGuests.pdf
Those staying less than 30 days are not legally tenants and have no tenant's rights, so, if you follow the procedure described in the article above, and have the guest sign a document when they arrive stating that they are aware that if they overstay their reservation, then according to CA Civil Code 1865 and CA Penal Code 602, you have the right to remove their belongings from the room, and lock them out by rekeying the room.
For cases where the reservation is for more than 30 days, you can't legally lock them out ---though the way I see it, if the consequences of letting a scammer stay in your place are that it could cost you thousands and risk foreclosure, it might just be safer to lock the person out and that a subsequent lawsuit, if any, is covered by your homeowner's insurance. Further, you are really in a bind if, for instance, you have rented your place for 45 days to one guest, and then two days after that 45 day reservation you have another reservation that will commence, and another guest arriving. If you lock out the first guest you could be sued for an illegal eviction, but if you allow the first guest to illegally overstay, you could be sued by the second guest for breach of contract, since you promised accomodations to him which now you cannot provide. No homeowner or landlord should ever be placed in such a bind.
Reply Like 1 like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Another thing, that I don't know if many folks are aware of -- In California there is something called the "single lodger" law. See Ca civil code 1946.5 and CA penal code 602. If you rent a room to one and ONLY one person, meaning you don't rent two or more rooms in your house, only one -- then, you do NOT have to go to court to evict a person if you are evicting them with a 30 day notice. (You can't do a 3-day eviction for nonpayment of rent w/o going to court, though). IF at the expiration of the 30 days they haven't left, you are legally permitted to either lock them out or have the police haul them out.
This does not apply if you are renting an apartment out to someone -- only if it is a room in the house where you also live. I believe you have to be the owner for this law to apply -- I don't think it works if you are a tenant there yourself. On that note, I know of a woman who was a tenant in a house in the East Bay, and she had rented out a room to a man who wouldn't leave when she asked him to go. Her landlord wouldn't help, and she ended up unable to evict him and had to leave the house herself and find another place to rent.
Reply Like 3 replies
Sylvie
Sylvie2 years ago
Thank you for that info as well. I rent 1 room in my condo. For short term I rent to couple but for more than 30 days, I would only rent to 1 person. It is too crowded other wise. So, it seems that I could also refer to the lodger law in case of trouble. Thank you for sharing all this.
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
By the way, if the person has a fixed-term contract, as do all the guests who come from Airbnb, then this contract in and of itself limits their stay and you would not have to give the SIngle Lodger a 30 day notice to vacate. You could have them sign an additional contract when they arrive, just to be safe -- and then, yes, CA civil code 1946.5 and CA penal code 602 allows you to simply lock out of your premises someone who has stayed more than 30 days who does not leave at the expiration of their fixed term rental contract.
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
YEs, I believe you would definitely be covered by the Single Lodger law, so you are safer than many -- though be advised, as many landlords have found, it is quite possible to follow the law to the "T" and still get subsequently sued by totally bogus allegations. This is pretty much entirely the fault of unethical tenant attorneys who are happy to exploit a revenge-seeking tenant, in order to line their own pockets. I have seen it happen several times. To avoid possible problems like this, I know some landlords who refuse to rent to lawyers. It was in fact a free-agent lawyer who scammed a CA woman and caused her to lose her home, by refusing to pay rent based on bogus claims of "uninhabitability". One would also do well, when screening guests for >30 day rentals, to search their full name on the Superior court website of the US county they come from, to see if they have been involved in any lawsuits, particularly if unlawful detainer suits have been filed on them. For instance, read this story: bit.ly/1tUOGBi Had a SF superior court search been done on this guest prior to taking her in, the host would have found this: bit.ly/TLPo9j An unlawful detainer had previously been filed against her.
Sylvie
Sylvie2 years ago
Scary and hard to believe. But thank you for the information and for giving me the exact information so I know where I stand. Thank you for the links, they are really useful. If I ever have a stay for more than 30 days, I will make people sign a document/contract.
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
You're welcome Sylvie -- and actually if you rent for LESS than 30 days, you may also want to have them sign a contract, notifying them of CA Civil Code 1865 and CA penal code 602 as that will allow you to lock them out if they overstay.
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
I was just brainstorming, and had an idea to share -- generally you're on safer ground as a property owner, as far as what's required to evict someone, if you live in the unit along with them. As I was explaining to Sylvie, the Single Lodger law can come into play, and then you don't need to go to court to evict.
So, one way to try to set up a rental contract, if you want to rent out a whole apartment and/or house but keep yourself safe at the same time, would be to state very clearly in the rental contract that although you will most likely be gone most of the time from this rental unit, you also reside there. You might even state that it is your primary residence, but that you will be away traveling a while.
If the place has more than one bedroom, make sure to retain one bedroom for your exclusive use, and keep some of your things in it. IF it is a one-bedroom unit, you could state that you will reside in the living room, on the couch, when you do live there. You could informally tell the renter/guest/tenant that you have no intention of being there while they are staying there, but if ever there arises a situation like Cory's, where the renter turns out to be a scammer, all you have to do is move back into the unit, take up your residence in the living room, and then once you are residing there again, it would be much easier to evict. In fact, under the Single Lodger law, it would likely be legal to evict without going to court.
Reply Like 2 replies•2 likes
Albena
Albena2 years ago
Thank you, Debora! Very helpful!
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Alena and others-- more about how this strategy would work. First, as stated, You make it clear in the rental contract when you rent out the "whole apartment" or house that the person actually isn't renting the whole apartment, because you are reserving for your own ongoing residential use either one bedroom, or one small area of space say 3 ft by 6 ft in the living room where you keep your small fold out foam bed stored, as well as a small bag of items for daily use. You state in the rental contract that this is your primary residence, but that you travel. Your informal agreement with the renter is that you most likely won't be returning to reside here again until the day after they are scheduled to leave. Then, if they leave as scheduled, you have no need to go live there, unless you want to. But if they don't leave as scheduled, you move in right away, and then lock them out of the place the very next day, in accordance with the single lodger law CA civ code 1946.5 and CA penal code 602. The fact that they were on a fixed term rental agreement ( where the end date where tenancy is terminated is stated) and not an ongoing rental situation means you are not obligated to give them 30 day notice to vacate. If they call police and try to get back in, you show police a copy of the rental agreement and the pertinent ca civil and penal codes. The renter can try to sue alleging that the place is not really your permanent residence, but once you have gotten them out, most of your worries are over and I would guess that their lawsuit, if any, is a long shot for them. I would guess the scammer is less interested in long shot lawsuits than in stealing accommodations, getting a place to live for free.
Sylvie
Sylvie2 years ago
Great thinking. Thanks
Reply Like
Rachel
Rachel2 years ago
On advice of an attorney, we have a liquidated damages clause in our contract that is signed by the guest. By signing, the guest has given written notice for moving out on the date specified in the contract. If the guest violates this contract, he is, of course, legally able to stay as long as eviction proceedings take, but he has agreed to pay liquidated damages of $300 per night. The guest has to sign that line specifically. The attorney said after signing this contract giving written notice of the move-out date, the guest has no legal foot to stand on, in terms of challenging me in court. I'm not sure if that's 100% correct? I hope we don't get a renter from hell, but if we do, I hope the liquidated damages, signed by the guest, will be helpful. From what I've heard, having an eviction on your record is very damaging, so hopefully this is something that will deter most opportunists from taking advantage of the situation. But I agree, it's quite awful that the legal system allows for squatting to happen in the first place.
Reply Like 2 likes
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
That is a good move to make, Rachel, this liquidated damages clause. But I think one if the problems many property owners face, even with such a clause, and beyond that, even with an attorney fees clause which would require a tenant to pay thousands of dollars to you if they lose an eviction case in court-- the problem lies not on your ability to win in court and get a judgement against tenant of thousands of dollars-- the problem is in your ability to collect on that judgement if the scamming tenant has no assets. Which is often the case. Then you have spent potentially thousands to win, but can't collect a dime.
Also, a lot of eviction cases, particularly if the tenant gets legal aid, will not go to trial. There will be a settlement.
I work for an East Bay landlord who had to go to court to get a nonpaying tenant out. The tenant was low income and so qualified for free legal aid from an eviction defense agency. The agency demanded that if you don't let that tenant stay for 4 more months for FREE, AND not have to pay two months more in back rent due, AND then get her whole security deposit back before she moved out, they would take the case to jury trial and force landlord to pay thousands in attorney fees that she would NEVER be able to collect, even with an attorney's fees clause on the rental agreement (which many contracts don't even have) . This is the type of extortion and scamming by tenants and their sleazy attorneys that is quite common in landlord tenant law.
Reply Like 1 reply
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Oh, and that East Bay landlord DID have to let that deadbeat tenant basically stay in the place for 6 months for free. No choice, extorted into it. She also had to give that scammer the whole security deposit back before she moved out, according to the terms of the settlement agreement, and the tenant of course trashed the place and damaged it when she left. So, thousands of dollars of expense to the landlord and no justice whatsoever, and an "Eviction Defense" agency enabling and abetting the malicious scamming on top of that, all the while no doubt confident in their belief that they were helping a poor disadvantaged person dealing with a greedy landlord.
Rachel
Rachel2 years ago
If the deadbeat tenant owes me money, won't the collection agencies be after the tenant to garnish his or her wages for the money owed, until the money is paid? Sure, if the person never makes any money again, I'll never get any payment, but if he or she truly is a scammer making $1000 per day (like the squatter in the article above), while refusing to pay rent and/or liquidated damages, wouldn't the legal system make sure the scammer pays the debts owed? I hope so. If not, it's time for some serious changes. I'm not willing to live under a legal system that rewards scammers like this. I really hope there will be some justice in Cory's situation.
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Rachel -- yes, if you have a court judgement against a tenant, and that tenant is employed by SOMEONE ELSE (eg is an employee of a company) you have a very good change of being able to garnish their wages. However, the amount you can garnish is limited, so if they don't make much, you won't get paid very quickly. But, if the person is SELF EMPLOYED, it will be pretty much impossible to "garnish their wages" for the simple fact that they earn no wages, the money goes right from their customer to them, and there's no way for you to get in between them and take the payment as it is handed over.
You can also garnish a person's bank account if you have a court judgement against them, but it is not hard, particularly for a practiced scammer, to hide their account. A non-US bank account for instance might prevent you from garnishing.
The least risky tenants in some ways are those who have a stable job, where they are employed by someone else, not self-employed, and who have some assets, and care about their credit rating and reputation. Having an unlawful detainer lawsuit on your record ruins your credit for at least 7 years, and any potential landlord can use a credit reporting agency such as Experian, or search court cases, to find out about the eviction. Most decent people don't want this on their record and don't want their credit ruined.
However, professional scammers may not care about their credit, and may have tactics to avoid wage and bank account garnishment. In addition, particularly with the aid of unscrupulous attorneys, scamming tenants can turn the tables on the landlord, as this one did, by threatening legal action against the landlord. THe number of baseless, fraudulent allegations that could potentially be made would blow your mind. ANd the legal system allows all of this.
I do think that anyone who could see the truth about the civil justice system in the USA, and in particular who could see the truth involved in landlord-tenant cases, would be incredibly disgusted by the amount of extortion and scamming involved, as well as the fact that the way the legal system is set up, rolls out the red carpet to scammers. I do think it is time for serious changers as many are suffering under the present system.
Reply Like
Tim
Tim2 years ago
Great ideas. Can any attorneys comment on this? I know we have quite a few in this group. It would be great to get a legal opinion.
Reply Like 1 reply
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
My guess would be that most landlord attorneys would recommend using a more conservative approach, and filing an unlawful detainer suit on the tenant, rather than trying to use CA civil code 1946.5, for the simple reason that there is then less likelihood of you being sued for wrongful eviction or anything else. HOwever, sometimes the risk of allowing the tenant to stay illegally may be the greater risk, for instance if you live with a tenant who is abusing you and yelling at you on a daily basis, and you just cannot take the violence of it. Or, if allowing them to stay and using an unlawful detainer could potentially lead to a long drawn out legal fight and the loss of your property in foreclosure. Each individual must decide their own comfort level regarding what risks to take and how.
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Also, I believe you can still use the Single Lodger Law and evict a tenant without going to court, even if you rent out more than one bedroom in your home to a guest. As long as you don't have more than one SCAMMER, the way you would do it would be this: if the scammer tenant doesn't leave at the end of their reservation, you wait for the other guest(s) to leave, or pay them to go and stay at another place. Then, you and the scammer tenant are now the only ones in your home, so you have a Single Lodger and that allows you to lock the scammer out of your home.
This could potentially also be used if you have a "whole apartment" or house that has more than one bedroom which can accomodate more than one guest, IF you do as described above and reserve yourself either a bedroom or an area of the living room for your exclusive use, and claim the place as your permanent residence, AND if you rent to more than one guest, those guests are unrelated and don't know each other. It is not likely you would have two different unrelated guests in two bedrooms, for instance, and both turn out to be scammers. You wait for the decent one to leave, then you move in, and use the Single Lodger law to lock out the deadbeat.
Just some ideas.
Reply Like
Rachel
Rachel2 years ago
Unfortunately, by providing lodging to others, we open ourselves up to all kinds of liabilities. This is why a lot of people don't want to mess with being landlords or hosts, whether short-term or long-term. I recently read an article about a woman who was brutally attacked while inside her apartment. The assailant entered through the window that she had open in her bedroom. The victim sued the landlord for not having screens on the windows, which might have deterred the attacker from coming in. The victim won the lawsuit, and it was a lot of money, although I don't remember how much ... which is perfectly understandable, as I'm sure there is no amount of money that can erase the brutality of the attack for this woman. Although ... I do wish it were the attacker who was made to pay, and not the landlord! Unfortunately, I believe any host could be held liable for this sort of thing, whether hosting long-term or short-term. We as hosts are responsible for having property safety measures in place. If it the host is a renter, then it could be the landlord who would be sued if an Airbnb guest were attacked. I guess my point is, a lot of people don't realize the amount of responsibility that landlords have. Good landlords are providing their tenants with a safe place to stay while taking care of all the costs of taxes, maintenance and upkeep for the building (as well as the very substantial cost of buying the property), and they are meanwhile incurring a lot of liability, as the safety of all the inhabitants is in their hands. If anything goes wrong, the landlord can be perceived as being at fault ... could have had steel doors instead of wood ... could have an alarm system installed ... etc.
Reply Like 1 reply•2 likes
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
You're right, there can be a lot of risk offering housing to others. The more you are in this business or know others who are, the more stories you will hear. I think it doesn't help matters that we have a litigious and entitled culture, where people feel that if something bad happens to them, there must be someone to blame and to pay them for it.
Cory
Cory2 years ago
This is a test...I posted here previously, but not sure if my posts are being uploaded...
Reply Like
Tim
Tim2 years ago
Yes they are…..
Reply Like
Cory
Cory2 years ago
Great Tim...thanks.
Hi All,
I’m hoping some of the coverage of my story will educate the public (and not just point finger at airbnb. Even though airbnb’s lacking customer service frustrated me to no end…I do want to make sure this situation does not happen to someone else in the future—so the public awareness part is important to me. Because airbnb was unavailable/unable to help me in the beginning, I sought advice from an online community that includes other vacation rental hosts/property owners. This forum was invaluable to me, and provided the guidance that I was unable to obtain from airbnb.
Some of my bullet points below are suggestions others made on this online forum:
Goal: Educate hosts/ the public
Airbnb customer service experience:
• My situation had red flags from the get go, and airbnb was not timely in their responses.
• Hold time when initially calling airbnb customer service up to 51 minutes—is this common?
• Return time when emailing customer service: initially 24 to 48 hours—is this common?
• Once a situation escalates, airbnb needs provide a direct staff person contact person name, phone number and email. To date, airbnb states they are still unable to provide me with a direct contact phone number.
• To date—airbnb staff state that they are still unable to provide me with a direct staff phone number. Instead, I have to wait for them to call me (from a generic phone number), or email them.
30 day+ stays – Airbnb and CA:
• Airbnb only collects payment for 30 days at a time for longer stay
(Not sure if there are legal reasons why they can’t collect entire amount upfront for longer stays?)
• Collecting guest fees for 30+day stays for only 30 days at a time equals no guarantee to the host of payment in full
• A 30-day stay in a typical vacation rental in CA creates a tenancy situation.
• Airbnb should be required to disclose this issue to CA hosts.
• Without a secure source of payment for the entire stay, a vacation rental becomes just like any other month to month rental if the guest's credit card or source of payment doesn't go through on Day 31.
• Educate hosts about potential for unlawful detainer, explain the process for this worst case scenario.
Airbnb opportunities:
• Build awareness of this issue for vacation rental hosts
• Outline what hosts can do to avoid this situation (Run your own background and credit checks, accept larger deposit, etc.)
• Airbnb to expand on its education of rental owners/ alert them to possibility/provide some tips on how to protect themselves.
• AirBnb gave warning about the 30 day tenancy issue as good customer service (obviously it is responsibility of landlord/host to know laws in their local area).
• Airbnb to expand $1M guarantee to cover lost rents, evictions and legal representation when the guest doesn't pay and/or leave.
• Thousands of vacation rental owners are vulnerable, and don’t know it. The public needs to know, lawmakers need to know, and sites like airbnb need to know and improve upon their policies, procedures and protections.
Reply Liked 4 likes
Tim
Tim2 years ago
Thanks Cory! Your post is much appreciated! We have 3 hosts in our neighborhood and 2/3 have decided to unlist their properties for the time being.
Can we start a petition to AIrbnb to exband $1M guarantee to cover lost rents, evictions, and legal representation?
How about airbnb adding background checks to their verification process? It would be very easy to check for criminal and eviction backgrounds.
Reply Liked 3 likes
Rachel
Rachel2 years ago
Landlords can subscribe to services where the check for evictions, credit history, etc, costs about $30 (or a bit less) per applicant. For any guest inquiring about a stay of 30 days or more, Airbnb could have something that comes up and tells the guest that a background check is needed, and the guest needs to pay $30 to submit this inquiry. Once the background check is passed, the guest can inquiry to as many properties as he or she wishes, during some upcoming period such as 60 days. I'm sure Airbnb could get some kind of bulk pricing from the credit check companies like Experian etc, so probably Airbnb would even make some profit from the fee. That's fine; I'm all about Airbnb being profitable. But what I need as someone accepting stays of more than 30 days, is for the potential guest to have PASSED the credit check. Airbnb could even make it optional ... as a host, we could specify that we require the credit check. If you were a host who didn't care about the credit check, you could say that you accept guests who HAVE NOT DONE the credit check, or who did the credit check but got a terrible score. Certainly it could be up to the hosts, about whether you require a credit check for stays of more than 30 days. But right now that option isn't even there. And certainly it could be.
Reply Liked 3 likes
Rachel
Rachel2 years ago
P.S. I don't think credit / eviction history / etc checks would be needed for stays of less than 30 days. But 30+ stays that establish legal tenancy, I agree with Tim ... .there's no reason why Airbnb cannot provide this option to the hosts. Just make it clear to the potential guests ... this particular property requires a background / credit check prior to booking a 30+ stay. I do think Airbnb has a nice advantage that once the credit check is run, that information that the credit check was passed and was clear ... could be something that's like part of the person's profile for the next XX days ... and so the guest could pay for the credit check once but then use the "badge of approval" to inquire at multiple properties until they were accepted at a place. Actually, legally I'm not sure if that is allowed ... for a person's credit score etc to be made public to multiple parties ... but if it is legal, I think it would be great. Then the guest wouldn't have to pay a separate fee for every property that they inquire at, while shopping around for the best place for their 30+ day stay.
Reply Liked 2 likes
Tim
Tim2 years ago
Great ideas Rachel!
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
I love the idea of having Airbnb help with credit checks on those who want stays of 30 days or more. This could eliminate those who have previously had unlawful detainer suits filed on them.
I also LOVE, LOVE, LOVE the idea of the $1 million Airbnb host guarantee to cover lost rents, eviction and legal representation if the guest doesn't pay and/or doesn't leave.
I myself have commented numerous times on several forums that it doesn't make sense that Airbnb only collects 30 days' payment from the guest up front, for stays over 30 days. This is much less protection than occurs in a normal landlord-tenant situation, where the tenant must pay up front not only first month's rent, but also a last month's rent and security deposit. Why would Airbnb leave us LESS protected than we could be just renting out the place on our own? Ideally, Airbnb would allow for two types of security deposit to be set on any listing: one for stays under 30 days, the other for stays over 30 days. For stays over 30 days you could make your security deposit amount equal to one month's rent, or even 1.5 times a month's rent, and this security deposit would be collected up front. It makes no sense to have a security deposit stipulated if it is impossible to collect at some later time. It should be collected but held by Airbnb, and only remitted to the host if damage or nonpayment of rent due occur at a later point.
Reply Like 3 likes
Rachel
Rachel2 years ago
Yes, and I also love Tim's idea of petitioning Airbnb to make sure the $1M host guarantee applies to the cover lost rents, eviction, and legal representation. That would be awesome! And think how many more landlords would start advertising on Airbnb, if Airbnb provided that ....
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
Here is some information on your Palm Springs squatter, Cory -- the guy sued someone else in court in San Francisco, but apparently never showed up in court --
bit.ly/1t8uQXh
Also there is another SF chronicle article about him here:
bit.ly/1tNeeln
Reply Like
Tim
Tim2 years ago
I called my insurance company to ask about "squatters" (I have commercial insurance by the way). He didn't know the answer but he will get back to me with an answer. Apparently, landlords across the country are asking this question as he received the same question from someone in Florida.
Reply Like
David + Tina
David + Tina2 years ago
Cory- sorry to hear about your troubles. Thank you for sharing and being vocal.
To all hosts- I asked airbnb through customer service what they were doing about 30+ day guests to protect the hosts and got this response. He recommends calling the police. It shows, it's still on us to be proactive:
"My name is Younion, and I very much appreciate your email. I am please to be of assistance to one of our great hosts of more than four years.
Absolutely, the safety and security of our community is our top priority. I respect that you wish to be informed in this matter.
We do have outlined in our Terms of Service that while using our services, no user may "infringe the rights of any person or entity, including without limitation, their intellectual property, privacy, publicity or contractual rights." This means that a guest may not stay longer than their reservation permits unless permission is granted by you, the property owner. In addition, by agreeing to these terms, the guest agrees to abide by all of your house rules, which in your case states that check out is noon.
If ever a guest refuses to leave, or otherwise is behaving inappropriately, please contact your local authorities right away. You then will want to contact and provide us with your police station and report number at the following email address so that we can offer assistance in any way we can: (email hidden)ep in mind though, all guests and hosts are participating in our community by their own will and are considered to be doing so "at their own risk". This is also stated in our Terms of Service.
For a detailed breakdown of our services, liabilities, and terms, please review the following Terms of Service document: www.airbnb.com/terms.
I thank you for being a safe member of our community. I hope I was able to help ease your concerns. If you have further questions or concerns, please do not hesitate to reach back out to me. I'm more than happy to help wherever I can.
Sharing is caring!
Younion M
www.airbnb.com/help";
Reply Like
Deborah
Deborah2 years ago
david and Tina -- That reply from customer service seems either uninformed or disingenuous vis a vis suggesting that we call the police if a guest stays longer than their reservation permits. The problem we have is precisely that even though it is illegal for a guest with an over 30 day reservation to stay longer than the reservation permits, that is not an illegality that police can address, it is one which we are required to address with the court system, hence the hassle and expense to us.
This specific point, that it is only the court, not the police, who can (in most instances, not all -- see info on Single Lodger law above in this thread) address an illegal holdover or unlawful detainer by the guest/renter, is why we as hosts hope for additional protective measures from Airbnb, such as the ability to collect a larger security deposit, and collect it IN ADVANCE, for guests staying over 30 days.