The author of the report, Luis Falcón, said at a presentation at the Majorca Chamber of Commerce, that the number of properties for holiday rental in Palma represented just 1.42% of all properties. He concluded, therefore, that holiday rentals are "not a determining factor" in the bullish prices of the real-estate market.
The report points to the recovery of the labour market, economic improvement and population increase as reasons for the rise in the cost of rented accommodation in general. Falcón argued that they are the cause of rents still being high, despite properties (some) having been made available for residential rather than tourist letting.
The president of Fevitur, Tolo Gomila, said that the study provides real data that can help local authorities make decisions.
According to the study, there are some 587,000 properties in the Balearics, of which 40,675 are (or were) being rented to tourists either in a legal or an "irregular" manner. The study places a percentage of 47.7% on the holiday rentals that had the necessary licence; the remaining 52.3% were being marketed illegally.
The Fevitur report comes against the background of what the Balearics holiday rentals association Habtur (formerly Aptur) has described as "contradictions" emanating from the government. These specifically have to do with what is or isn't allowable in accordance with the national Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos (typically referred to as the tenancy act).
The origin of these contradictions would appear to have arisen at a meeting in Muro on 20 March. The director-general of tourism, Antoni Sansó, who is often attributed as having been the main influence in the drafting of the rentals legislation, attended a meeting with owners of holiday rental accommodation.
He was asked in particular about the so-called thirty days rule. It has been understood that any property being marketed for less than thirty days would be considered by the government to be a tourist let. Sansó replied, and his words come from a recording obtained by the Onda Cero radio station: "If you place publicity that says you are renting out an apartment, we understand that this is not publicity for tourist rentals and, therefore, can be rented to tourists."
What he had meant to say, and he clarified this later, is that the government can only take sanctions against an owner if publicity or marketing is touristic (e.g. uses terms such as tourist or holiday) and there isn't the necessary holiday rental licence. If the owner of a holiday home cannot rent out to private individuals, he went on, the Balearic tourism legislation would be challenged by the national government as it would contradict state law, i.e. the tenancy act.
8 comments
To be able to write a comment, you have to be registered and logged in
confused,really, wait till the unemployment levels rise, bunch of clueless idiots.
The government is confused at their own lack of foresight ;)
Yes. They're confused because the changes to the tourist laws were brought in at a rush, in resonse to the demand from the hoteliers federation in exchange for free holidays in the Carribean. Subsequently it's becoming obvious that it will need to be tempered as the elements of it breach some basic fundamentals of e-commerce and National tenency laws. We'll see the fines to the web platforms being anulled, and any sanctions not being followed up, or successfully appealed against. The problem is that politicians are in business to get rich, out of touch with reality and wishes of the people, and cannot refuse backhanders.
Jimw1947: As you describe it the simple answer is NO. (To explain why its long answer) It is easy to get paranoid with a lot of misleading and contradicting information that circulates on the net.
Sorry .the post uploaded twice. First time I've tried this.
Hi all. I've been keeping an eye on all the comments about apartment rentals and I'm also confused. I have a very good friend from school who has owned an apartment in Majorca for over 25 years. He has kindly let me use the apartment totally free of charge for over 15 years. For example I was over there in March for a week . The apartment had not been used since last October, all he asked was that i gave the property a good check over and let him know if it was in good order after the winter. As I say a very good friend. If an inspector spoke to me while I was there would my friend get into trouble? No contract. No cash changes hands. No licence as he does not rent out. But would the inspector believe that is the case. The last thing I want to do is get him into trouble. He does not seem concerned but I am.
Hi all. I've been keeping an eye on all the comments about apartment rentals and I'm also confused. I have a very good friend from school who has owned an apartment in Majorca for over 25 years. He has kindly let me use the apartment totally free of charge for over 15 years. For example I was over there in March for a week . The apartment had not been used since last October, all he asked was that i gave the property a good check over and let him know if it was in good order after the winter. As I say a very good friend. If an inspector spoke to me while I was there would my friend get into trouble? No contract. No cash changes hands. No licence as he does not rent out. But would the inspector believe that is the case. The last thing I want to do is get him into trouble. He does not seem concerned but I am.
The govenment is confused. That makes two of us . So if there's no marketing then no sanctions against the property owner ? I must have missunderstood.