By using this website, you agree to our use of cookies to enhance your experience.


London mayor Sadiq Khan urged to crackdown on short-term letting adverts

London mayor Sadiq Khan is being urged to pull advertisements encouraging landlords to move into tourist lets.

Following a significant drop in the number of homes available to rent long-term in the capital, the Residential Landlords Association (RLA) has added its support to calls for Khan to remove the adverts by short-term letting firms Hostmaker from the Transport for London (TfL) network.

Research shows that the number of available properties to rent is plummeting at an alarming rate across some parts of London, and this is placing upward pressure on rents.


According to RLA, listings on the short-term lettings site, Airbnb, increased by 60% to 53,000 listings in the capital in the 12 months to 2017 alone and the popularity of these sites shows no sign of abating.

Laws limit the number of days homes in London can be let on a short-term basis to 90 nights a year to prevent homes being taken from the long term rental market, with Airbnb making a firm commitment to enforcing these rules.

But a recent BBC investigation found Hostmaker was one of a number of companies encouraging people to flout these rules.

David Smith, policy director for the RLA, said: “While people have the right to do what they want with their properties, the movement of homes from the long term to short-term lettings sector is damaging to communities and to the supply of homes to rent for ordinary Londoners.

“The sentiment of these advertisements contradicts the Mayor’s own policy on short-term lettings, and we call for their swift removal.”

Want to comment on this story? If so...if any post is considered to victimise, harass, degrade or intimidate an individual or group of individuals on any basis, then the post may be deleted and the individual immediately banned from posting in future.

Poll: Should London mayor Sadiq Khan crackdown on short-term letting adverts?


  • icon

    Section 24 is fully to blame here

  • icon
    • 23 May 2019 10:01 AM

    Most AirBnB is FRAUDULENT.
    Nobody is doing anything about this.
    Lenders; freeholders, insurers, some LL are unaware that AirBnB is occurring at the property.
    If they were there would be consequences.
    FRAUD is the foundation of much of AirBnB.
    The only way to attempt to prevent such fraud is for councils to licence them.
    The regulated hospitality industry is losing billions to the fraudulent short-stay market.
    Surely unfair!!?


    Disagree with you on this one. Especially in London it’s fortunes to get a hotel these days. Incentivise a landlord to issue a six month tenancy and things would go back to how they was


    life is unfair

    competition is good

  • icon

    Doesn’t he know s24 is the cause these people are unreal

    • 23 May 2019 11:23 AM

    As a Socialist Khan has no interest in the travails of LL.
    In his ideal world there would be no PRS.
    Of course that would be completely illogical but of course to a socialist ideology trumps any practicalities which is why socialists are IDIOTS.
    The fact that putting the PRS out of business would result in tenants being made homeless is of no consequence to a socialist.
    Their ridiculous ideology takes precedence.
    It is always the proletariat that suffers from the actions of idiot socialists.
    Of course S24 is fully supported by socialists.
    Can't have the little man rise above his station can we!?
    No leave the PRS to those that don't need mortgages or who are corporate LL not subject to S24.
    Which actually means that by supporting S24 Socialists are supporting the rich!!
    But of course as Socialists are thick they don't understand that by supporting S24 they are de facto supporting rich LL who don't need mortgages.
    They really don't understand basic economics.


    Great post Paul

  • icon

    Couldn’t put this better myself Mayor Khan like most socialists can not fathom basic maths and what incentivises people. Section 24 plays right into the hands of lack of homes for people that need them. The poorest in society will suffer at the hands of these idiots. I also resent the fact that a Mayor can decide what we do with our properties whilst pushing the ridiculous Sect 24. Along with James 4 ovens Brokenshire these policies won’t help the tenant that just wants to rent. Sect 24 is almost like saying to the masses you should be buying/mortgaging and a certain type of person just cannot handle raising a deposit and lying a mortgage

  • icon
    • 23 May 2019 16:02 PM

    @jahan khan
    Just because it is costly to source short-term accommodation at reasonable cost in London is NO excuse to ignore FRAUD.
    Things are expensive usually because of REGULATIONS.
    I have NO issue with such short-term accommodation PROVIDING it is provisioned whilst being FULLY compliant with

    It is rare that all these can be complied with.
    Just because London short-term accommodation is expensive is NO excuse for FRAUD!!!
    A 6 month AST does NOT address the short-term accommodation demand.
    That is used for tenants.
    Councils have EVERY right to control the usage of all types of properties within their purview.
    If the gig economy short-term accommodation fraud is ignored there will be anarchy.
    Councils have control over property usage and correctly so.
    FRAUDULENT operations like AirBnB are ignoring relevant conditions for those who use their listings service.
    They facilitate FRAUD which is unfair on those who do provide legal short-term accommodation irrespective of the costs.
    Of course the argument could be made that cheaper short-term accommodation facilitates greater economic activity.
    That may well be the case but it would be based on FRAUD!!
    ECONOMIC activity is all very well but it must be legal.
    Very little of it is in London.
    I fully accept that many LL are engaging in AirBnB fraud as a consequence of S24.
    If I was in such a position I would have no issues in operating fraudulent short-term accommodation.
    S24 is a tax to be evaded at all costs and by whatever means.
    But there are big potential risks but I suppose such risks are a minor detail compared to the S24 risk of bankruptcy.
    So FRAUD to counter the ridiculous S24 tax is OK in my book.
    Just don't get caught!!!


    crap--the enemy within?

  • icon

    khan is just a low level fool--completely useless

    • 23 May 2019 16:21 PM

    Unfortunately he very much controls the fortunes of London LL.
    He is aiming for rent controls which is reason enough to bale out of London.
    His ideology won't build sufficient property.
    Only by reducing demand as well as building will rents stabilise.
    London is a world city.
    Rent controls would destroy it.
    Only bombing it would it be made worse!!
    By controlling immigration and building rent pressures would reduce.
    Neither political party is prepared to do any of this.
    Khan is clueless.
    He is well out of his depth.
    The politicians have proven themselves collectively unable to address the problems of meeting residential and tenant demand in London.

  • icon

    no way building more will help--probably make it worse. need to control immigration and remove those here illegally--there are probably millions of illegals in london alone

    • 23 May 2019 16:32 PM

    Totally agree that building will not solve the problems.
    When you are sucking in 300000 net immigrants per year most of whom gravitate to London and the SE it is clear that it would be IMPOSSIBLE to build your way out of the problem..
    It is reckoned there are about 1.5 million illegal immigrants in the UK.
    They must be using much needed housing by legal occupiers.
    Govts of all political persuasions seem incapable of managing immigration.
    I look at Oz and NZ and they seem to have far more effective measures than the UK.
    Can't the UK learn from them!?

  • icon

    Dont agree that councils have a right to control property usage regarding the professional LL who purchased with their hard earned taxed money either with the help of a mortgage or bank or not. A TA of min 6 months together with tenants details should be sufficient. If the council wants to check further they can do so via Land Registry. Yes have a licence possible for a min fee of say £100, renewable on sale only or change of hands. But fitto let these half wits clueless bods at the council and a major to take control, no, no way.

    • 23 May 2019 16:37 PM

    You simply must have Councils controlling things.
    If I buy a flat in a residential block no way do I want AirBnB riotious parties in an adjacent flat.
    LL CANNOT be allowed to do what they want nor homeowners either.
    It matters not how anyone achieves to purchase a property Councils must still have controls.
    Plus all the others like insurers and lenders.
    Legal use I have NO problem with.
    But nobody should be allowed to do what they like with their property.

  • icon

    Now is the time to ask your local councillors And MPs if they support professional LLs no if no buts no yes but this way or the other. Do they want us orofessional LL to carry on providing homes under a min tenancy agreement at rents we set or not. Simple couple of questions.
    They are not listening to us.
    Make them listern, now is an opportunity to, lets not waste in. Log all replies from Councis and your MP

    • 23 May 2019 16:45 PM

    The answer is NO they do not support private LL unless you are a large corporate.
    Woe betide you if you have invested your hard earned monies in a few properties.
    Then you become the devil incarnate to be eradicated for letting property at market rents.
    You have become in the parlance
    A greedy LL!!!

  • icon

    Join the landlord alliance it’s really important

    • 23 May 2019 16:53 PM

    This one of the organisations.
    Personally I would like to see national LL licencing and I would also make it COMPULSORY to belong to a trade body like the
    LA etc etc.
    In fact I would like there to be just one LL body called the NRLA that every LL was obligated to join as part of the National LL licensing scheme that should be introduced.

  • icon

    Licensing Schemes are just anti -LL Schemes. All my properties are licensed some as far back as 2006 & some relicensed twice more so some being licensed 3 times. This was the biggest disaster before S24 / S21 meddling. It’s total discrimination against some LL as it only applies to some sections of the community if you let to family’s not required as if they wouldn’t burn at all. It’s destroyed property big time causing damage / over crowding / sub-letting full scale because LL on back foot all he can do is keep his o below parapet & hope Rogue Tenants don’t complain to Council or he is guaranteed to be sanctioned. £5k first offence civil, second offence upto £30k criminal, no Court just like a parking ticket or if you would like to go to Court unlimited fine. All one sided no equality whatsoever before the law.

    • 23 May 2019 22:32 PM

    National LL licensing would at least give a base level for all LL to achieve.
    Any LL letting a property that is not licensed for letting would face onerous sanctions.
    It would be quite simple.
    You either have a licence for letting a particular property or you don't.
    If you let and don't have a licence then that is it you face a RRO going back 5 years from when the property was first let.
    The sanctions have to be made so onerous that only an idiot LL would risk letting an unlicensed property.
    They might choose to risk it but in the knowledge that all the income they have received from the unlicensed property would be subject to a RRO.
    Included in any letting licence would be CTL proof, correct insurance proof and correct tenant type permission from a lender..
    Of course I FULLY accept that my proposed stringent letting property licence would never occur due to millions of tenancies breaching the conditions of all that I have mentioned.
    Millions of letting properties are being let in breach of relevant conditions.
    No Govt will ever introduce such a stringent licensing process.
    It would result in millions of homeless tenants.
    It is an unpalatable truth that a massive part of the PRS is based on FRAUD!!
    Of course a LL letting to a HB tenant when that is prohibited by a BTL mortgage lender wouldn't be considered by that LL as fraud even though it is.
    Same with letting with AirBnB when the BTL mortgage only allows an AST.
    All fraud.
    But of course most LL don't consider they are carrying out any form of fraud.
    But technically they are and as such are competing unfairly by not using the correct loan product with the correct sort of tenants etc.
    But everyone turns a blind eye to the sutuation.


    Licensing landlords could get rid of the rogues if properly policed and Proceeds of Crime legislation applied to unlicensed rogue landlords. One benefit of the Glasgow HMO 3 year licence is that rents have trebled in the last 12 years since this came into force, and licensed flats are definitely safer, with annual safety checks, fire doors etc.

  • icon

    We have huge penalties already whether licensed or not but LA prosecute and are benefiting from fines , conflict of interest. We are now too scared to let not that it matters anymore now that the housing market has collapsed. Building tens of thousands of Flats clearly not required because of fake media & subsidised unnecessary Rogue Schemes to line the pockets of big Developers. Where are all those people living now. I will tell you where we house them so you have to bankrupt us to take our Tenants.

    • 23 May 2019 23:20 PM

    I don't believe the PTB are the slightest bit concerned about bankrupting LL.
    After all they will only be bankrupting leveraged LL.
    Most leveraged corporate LL will be OK.
    Sole trader LL are stuffed.
    So basically about 70% of the PRS will still be around.
    Govt can live with that.
    Losing 30% of the PRS wouldn't bother them.
    It gets rid of the leveraged sole trader LL which is what they want.


    That’s why they did it to push larger landlords into incorporation like I did and the smaller ones to sell up my LTD company is working brilliant and am glad I did it

  • icon

    It doesn’t matter to Gov’ whether we are forced out or not, there is always a pot of gold for them. They will have SDLT from next buyer & Capital gains tax from us or Better still if we die they will have another 40% graveyard tax, no worries for Gov’ just keep churning the property over.

  • icon
    • 23 May 2019 23:53 PM

    Yep as you suggest leveraged LL are the pot of gold that will keep on giving.
    Makes you wonder whether in 1997 the PTB determined how they could get access to property wealth.
    I know lets mug LL into buying with mortgages.............19 years later there should be a nice little pot of gold to rob when we introduce S24!!
    Or am I being a bit too cynical!!!?


Please login to comment

MovePal MovePal MovePal
sign up