Illegal tourist accommodation: Owners indirectly guilty?

According to Bill 67, recently approved by the National Assembly, the owner of an apartment building could be indirectly guilty of an offense that would be made in the context of subletting an apartment to tourists unless there is enough evidence he prevented the tenant from exploiting the unit without the necessary certificate required by law.

CORPIQ opposes the precept that would unfairly punish the landlord who very often ignores the illegal subletting activities taking place in his dwellings.

However, the Minister of Tourism, Dominique Vien, was quick to offer reassurance by explaining that the lease already contains a clause which specifies whether the dwelling is for residential purposes only or not. To the question of a member who wanted to know whether the owner would be charged in case of a violation of the contract by the tenant, she replied that ‘it is the case. However (…) it was stipulated at the time on the lease, the condition that the landlord is to ask of the tenant and which clearly indicates to this effect that the dwelling is to be rented for residential purposes only. You either tick yes or no. If you tick yes and the tenant indeed offers accommodation to tourists without your consent and does so without your knowledge, you have proof that you acted diligently.'

But as it stands at the moment, the section B of the lease is not quite clear: a classification certificate could be issued on the basis that the ‘no' box was selected, without the landlord's agreement that his housing is to become a tourist accommodation. In order to ensure perfect coherence between legislation and lease, CORPIQ is calling for the addition of a sentence and a check box in section B which would make everything clear.

CORPIQ also requests that the certificate becomes mandatory for anyone who sublets their apartment to tourists more than twice a year regardless of the duration. By leaving the term ‘regularly' without further elaboration, as is currently the case in the regulation draft, the door is left wide open to a growing tolerance if the financial and human resources to respond to complaints, proceed with inspections and prosecute offenders prove to be insufficient over time.

CORPIQ will transmit any additional detail on this issue to its members as the situation develops.