Washington extends eviction ban to Airbnbs with guests staying 14+ days

[Teresa1485]

I'm wondering what Airbnb's position is on new legislation in Washington extending eviction bans to Airbnb guests that have stayed for 14 or more days? If someone refuses to leave at the end of a reservation, we are unable to enforce eviction if they have been in the home for 14 or more days.

That means we will have to cancel any existing future bookings for the property during the time the eviction ban is in effect (currently through March 31, 2021).  We will also lose revenue for any days that could have been booked during an eviction ban that keeps getting extended.

This affects the financial viability of this business for hosts as well as Airbnb. The only way to currently mitigate this risk is to set 13 day maximum stays. Is it possible to set a max number of days for bookings? 

Even if we set max stays at 13 days,  this solution limits revenue potential for hosts and reduces the number of properties available on the platform for longer-term stays. Will we be penalized for cancelations due to eviction bans?

Does Airbnb have a policy on this matter? 

[Ricardo85]

@Teresa1485 

You can limit the numbers of days.

Ricardo

[Debra300 · Accepted solution]

@Teresa1485,

Airbnb has always instructed property owners to familiarize themselves with their state's tenants rights laws, and insure that they operate in compliance of the regulations.  It is each host's responsibility to set up their availability in a manner that works best within the jurisdiction the property is located. 

If you've not done so already, you may want to set your maximum length of stay to 13 days.  Try contacting Airbnb to terminate any reservation, active or future, that is 14 days or longer, and explain that it's due to a change in the eviction moratorium.  Hopefully, you won't get penalize, and you're listed on other platforms, but it may not be catastrophic if that does happen.  Personally, I'd prefer getting my calendar blocked or getting shorter reservations, and not having to worry about a guest claiming tenant's right.

[Teresa1485]

@Debra300  

Thanks so much for your insights! This is the first time I've used the forum and I much appreciate strangers taking time from their days to assist others. 

[Nathalie-Et-Gilles0]

.

[Teresa1485]

Oh my! Yes, this helps with perspective. 🙂

[Anonymous]

@Teresa1485  I agree completely with @Debra300  here.  As long as this law is in effect, you definitely don't want bookings of over 13 days in your home. There's nothing Airbnb can do to help you if guests acquire right of tenancy and refuse to leave.

It's worth finding out if Airbnb will grant you penalty-free cancellations due to the change in the law. I don't know if they will, but it would be very reasonable of them to do so. If they don't, one alternative to cancelling would be to send an alteration request asking the guest to accept a shorter booking period, explaining that if they don't agree to the 13 day maximum you will unfortunately have to cancel their reservations.

[Teresa1485]

Thank you so much for taking the time to give your advice! I think I will adjust my max stay length as suggested. What a great community! 

[Teresa1485]

@Anonymous   Thank you so much for taking the time to give your advice! I think I will adjust my max stay length as suggested. What a great community! 

[Rose422]

I found these conversations helpful especially that I am in California and eviction moratorium is extended to June. I wonder if anyone had issues with locals making enquiries to stay for a few nights then refusing to leave past the checkout date. I am hesitate to approve requests and I wonder if anyone may have any advice or guidance. Thank you.

[Anonymous]

@Rose422  In California, to the best of my non-expert knowledge, it's only considered eviction if the person has resided in the home long enough to acquire the right of tenancy. The standard period for that has been 30 days, though some localities might have different laws. If a guest stays just a few days and refuses to leave, they're just trespassers rather than tenants, so it would still be within your rights to force them out. Easier said than done, of course. 

[Rose422]

Thank you Andrew0, I appreciate your comment. Easier said than done for sure, especially in California. 

[Amir11]

I wonder if anyone here can comment on if contractually having a shared space accessible to host and perhaps have the place as shared and not “entire place”can protect the host against this risk. Let’s say if you don’t rent a room or area in your unit, and preserve the right to commute to the unit will cancel the squandering opportunities.