Federal Court of Justice, 04.12.2013, Ref.: VIII ZR 32/13
Rent increases for price-controlled housing are governed by Section 10 of the Housing Commitment Act (WoBindG).
The landlord may increase the rent by written declaration in accordance with Section 10 (1) sentence 1, 2 WoBindG if the tenant is only obliged to pay a lower rent than that permitted by law.
The declaration is only effective if it calculates and explains the increase. In addition, Section 10 (1) sentence 3 WoBindG requires that the calculation of the cost rent be accompanied by a profitability calculation or an extract from it that shows the amount of the current expenses.
For tenants of a publicly subsidised flat, this means that the monthly rent can also be increased retroactively under certain circumstances (Section 10 (2) sentence 3 WoBindG).
The question therefore arises as to whether further formal requirements beyond the wording of Section 10 I WoBindG are to be placed on the justification of a declaration of rent increase. The Federal Court of Justice dealt with this question in the above-mentioned judgement.
Facts of the Case:
Landlord had retrospectively increased the rent in accordance with the Housing Act
The plaintiffs were tenants and the defendant was the landlord of a publicly subsidised single-family home. The parties disputed the validity of the defendant's declaration of rent increase dated 26 July 2011, with which the defendant had increased the monthly net rent by EUR 72.99 retroactively to 1 January 2009 in accordance with Section 10 WoBindG.
The plaintiffs paid the increased rent under reserve after the defendant had threatened to terminate the tenancy due to non-payment.
The tenants subsequently reclaimed the rent increase they had paid and sued for it
The plaintiffs demanded repayment of the amounts paid for January 2009 to December 2011 totalling € 2,627.64. The Berlin-Schöneberg Local Court ruled in favour of the claim. On appeal by the defendant, the Berlin Regional Court amended the judgement and dismissed the claim. The plaintiffs continued to pursue their claim on appeal.
Appeal judgement of the Federal Court of Justice
BGH considered rent increase request to be effective
The Federal Supreme Court followed the opinion of the Regional Court and dismissed the plaintiffs' appeal. The plaintiffs were not entitled to repayment of the co-increase amount of 2,627.64 paid under reservation for the years 2009 to 2011, as the defendant's declaration of rent increase was valid.
The declaration of rent increase fulfils the requirements for a rent increase pursuant to Section 10 (1) WoBindG. In the letter, the basis of the rent increase, namely increased maintenance and administration flat rates as well as higher loan expenses, was communicated and the increase in the average rent by 13.06 % was calculated on this basis.
Formation of the individual rent and residential value of the flat does not always have to be explained
Further explanations regarding the formation of the individual rent as a whole and the residential value of the individual flat, which only has to be explained at the beginning of the letting in accordance with Section 8a (5) WoBindG and not in every rent increase declaration, are not necessary.
This already follows from the wording of Section 10 (1) sentence 2 WoBindG. Accordingly, only the increase itself is to be explained and calculated. When explaining the rent increase, only the reasons for which the individual expenses had increased and the amounts attributable to them had to be stated in accordance with Section 4 (7) sentence 2 NWV 1970.
Only the increase would have to be explained in detail
The provision in Section 10 (1) sentences 2 to 4 WoBindG, in conjunction with the provisions that complete and supplement it, contains a detailed list of the formal requirements to be met by the declaration of rent increase.
There would be no reason to tighten these requirements, especially as the tenant affected by a rent increase pursuant to Section 10 (1) WoBindG would be entitled to the right to information and inspection pursuant to Section 8 (4) WoBindG, Section 29 (1) NMV 1970, which is not subject to any further conditions, in order to clarify any ambiguities.
Source: Federal Court of Justice
Important Note: The content of this article has been prepared to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, due to the complexity and constant evolution of the subject matter, we must exclude liability and warranty. Important Notice: The content of this article has been created to the best of our knowledge and understanding. However, due to the complexity and constant changes in the subject matter, we must exclude any liability and warranty.
If you need legal advice, feel free to call us at 0221 – 80187670 or email us at info@mth-partner.de.
Lawyers in Cologne provide advice and representation in tenancy law.