Market clean-up first, restrictions afterwards – What does BPDB’s September 2026 measurement show?

On 1 September 2026, there were 15,125 active short-term accommodation listings in Budapest. Of these, 4,952 were irregular, representing 32.7 per cent of total supply. GuestGuru’s position is clear: before introducing further restrictions, irregular listings must first be identified and removed.

One of our own cases clearly showed where the system gets stuck. Four unrelated listings were using one of our clients’ NTAK numbers on accommodation platforms. We wrote to four authorities, including the district clerk. The other three all directed us to the district clerk, but the clerk has no authority to have a listing removed from online platforms.

The two irregular Booking listings were ultimately removed by the platform itself, six days after our report. We reported the case via Booking’s public web form.

We also presented the case and the market measurements behind it to the press. The briefing was introduced by Antos Péter, while the data were presented by IT Director Krasser Tamás and Professional Director Benedek Áron. Around fifteen major media outlets published the material in the following days.

One in three listings in Budapest is irregular

GuestGuru’s proprietary market database, BPDB, or Budapest Database, links district accommodation registers, the NTAK register, and listings on Airbnb andBooking.com.

According to BPDB data from 1 September 2026, there are 15,125 open short-term accommodation listings in Budapest. Of these, 4,952 are irregular.

Irregularities appear in five forms on the market:

• 2,764 listings display an NTAK number that does not exist in the official register
• 1,472 listings provide no identifier at all, even though this has been mandatory since 2023
• 375 listings demonstrably use the identifier of another accommodation property
• 218 listings have a valid permit in Terézváros but are operating actively despite the ban
• 123 listings contain contradictory data

This is a deliberately cautious estimate. A further 1,402 listings do display an identifier but have no valid accommodation classification. We have not included these among irregular listings, as the missing classification may be due to an expired certificate or an ongoing procedure.

If these were also counted as irregular, the proportion would rise to 42 per cent.

The data refer to listings. One flat may appear on several platforms, so at property level we are talking about 10,703 units in Budapest.

How the case of NTAK numbers used by unrelated parties was handled

In May 2026, we noticed that four unrelated listings were operating with an NTAK number that had been deleted in January 2025. On 13 May, we wrote to four organisations:

• the district clerk;
• NTAK;
• the accommodation classifier, MTMT;
• NAV.

The accommodation classifier and NAV replied that the matter did not fall within their remit. According to NTAK, as a data-reporting platform it has no regulatory authority. All three organisations directed us to the district clerk.

In June, we submitted a detailed data package to the clerk: the listings’ links and identifiers, the addresses, and screenshots. On 17 June, we received a brief update stating that the numbers had been corrected on the listing sites.

However, we do not know whether proceedings were initiated or whether a fine was imposed. We have still not received a substantive answer on this.

In a second opinion, NTAK also highlighted a fundamental problem in the system: the clerk has no legal or technical means to have listings directly removed from online platforms.

On 24 July, we also reported the two Booking listings concerned via the platform’s own form. Both were removed on 30 July.

In the case of the fourth listing, on Airbnb, it eventually emerged that there had been a typo. The operator had entered the last digit of their own identifier incorrectly. This does not make the matter more reassuring; quite the opposite: because of a single mistyped digit, an accommodation property can operate for months under somebody else’s identifier without either the platform or the authority noticing.

Many irregular listings remain active in Terézváros even after the ban

Since 1 January 2026, it has been prohibited to let private accommodation in District VI. Yet eight months later, 864 listings are still operating in the district. Of these, 661 are irregular, or 76.5 per cent of local supply.

Approximately 144 accommodation properties have remained open legally. These are guesthouses, hotels and community accommodation establishments.

Compliant accommodation providers have closed, while those who do not follow the rules remain open. This gives them a tax advantage over hosts operating legally in neighbouring districts.

Data on the economic impact of the restriction are provided in Parliament’s 2026/6 Information Note, based on KSH data. Between January and March, guest nights in District VI hotels increased by 22,700, while private accommodation lost 94,900 guest nights.

Hotels were therefore able to absorb less than a quarter of the lost demand. This is our interpretation; the Information Note does not directly link the difference to the Terézváros ban.

According to the Hungarian Hospitality Industry Association, MVI, restaurant turnover in Terézváros fell by 30 per cent.

Accommodation properties are mostly operated by families and small businesses

According to district municipality registers, 15,062 permits are distributed among 9,495 providers.

• 97.5 per cent of operators have no more than three accommodation properties.
• Every second accommodation property is run by an operator with only one property.

This is primarily a market of families and small businesses, not a few major players.

Short-term letting affects 1.1 per cent of Budapest’s housing stock

Budapest has 961,061 homes. Of these, 10,703 operate in the short-term accommodation market, representing 1.1 per cent of the total housing stock.

By contrast, 95,320 homes stand empty and unused. This is almost nine times the number of homes let on a short-term basis.

Erzsébetváros is an exception: there, 9.1 per cent of homes are short-term accommodation properties. But even in this district, there are twice as many vacant homes that are not let short-term.

Up to HUF 3.1 billion in tax revenue may be lost annually

We estimated lost tax revenue due to irregular operations in two ways.

Conservative estimate: approximately HUF 1.3 billion per year

This calculation includes only listings appearing on Airbnb and accounts for two types of tax:

• tourism tax: approximately HUF 660 million;
• tourism development contribution: approximately HUF 660 million.

The estimate is based on revenue estimated by AirDNA for listings flagged as irregular.

Extended estimate: approximately HUF 3.1 billion per year

This also includes Booking’s estimated turnover and the flat-rate tax. The amount does not include VAT, building tax or fines.

What does GuestGuru propose?

Our basic principle is simple: market clean-up first, restrictions afterwards. As long as one third of supply is invisible or irregular, every quantitative restriction mainly penalises compliant operators.

Budapest needs one enforcement centre instead of 23 clerks

A team of two or three people specifically appointed for this purpose could manage the data in one place, liaise with platforms, and coordinate regulatory proceedings.

Platforms should provide historical booking data

If a platform provides the historical booking data of an irregular accommodation property, proceedings could even become self-financing.

Platforms should verify identifiers

EU Regulation 2024/1028 requires platforms to make reasonable efforts to verify the authenticity of registration numbers and to carry out spot checks. The regulation also requires monthly data reporting per accommodation property, while Member States must establish a single digital entry point.

The regulation has been applicable since 20 May 2026. The question is: how far has implementation progressed?

Create a uniform Budapest tourism tax base

With a uniform tax base, platforms could technically collect the tax automatically. This already works in Pozsony and France.

We will provide BPDB to the authorities free of charge

GuestGuru offers the authorities the full database and map-based filtering system without charge.

What can you do if you see an irregular listing?

If someone is using your NTAK number

Report the case to the district clerk and, in parallel, through the platform’s own reporting form. Our experience is that the platform acts more quickly.

If an irregular accommodation property is operating in your building

Booking has a public reporting form. Describe the suspicion and attach:

• a screenshot of the listing;
• the relevant part of the municipal list.

If you are an accommodation provider

Check that your NTAK number is displayed correctly in your listing. If it is missing, add it.

Why are we dealing with this?

We are not an authority, and we do not publish names. We are protecting our own market.

We manage more than 170 flats in Budapest. All operate legally, and we pay every tax. We want compliant operation not to mean a competitive disadvantage.

For questions, interviews or data requests, write to us:hello@guest.guru. The measurement methodology and correspondence with the authorities are available on request.

The measurement methodology, district breakdown and full dossier can be found on our information page:https://guest.guru/feketezok