District Court of Hanover, 06.11.2013, Case No.: 502 C 7971/13
The rental of residential property is known to carry certain risks for landlords. One particular risk is posed by so-called „rent nomads,“ individuals who move from one apartment to another, leaving behind significant rental arrears and often a damaged apartment.
For small private landlords who rent out only one or two properties, such situations can quickly become a threat to their livelihood, especially if they rely on the rental income.
In such cases, it may be tempting for landlords to take matters into their own hands and clear out the rented property or parts of it themselves, especially when the tenant is not present. However, such actions are strongly discouraged.
Unauthorized repossession of an apartment and clearing it out without a court order constitutes unlawful self-help according to § 858 para. 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) and is considered illegal self-help under § 229 BGB.
Therefore, if a landlord takes matters into their own hands, they may be liable not only for fault-based damages under §§ 280 para. 1, 823 para. 1 and 2 BGB, but also without fault under § 231 BGB.
In the case heard by the District Court of Hanover, the defendant landlord cleared out the cellar of the plaintiff tenant, who subsequently filed a claim for damages.
Case Facts
The plaintiff had stored personal belongings in her cellar, which was part of her rented apartment, including her 25-year-old hibernating Russian tortoise named Max. After checking on the tortoise in January 2013, her partner discovered about four weeks later that the cellar had been cleared out.
Landlord’s Actions
During this time, the landlord had cleared out the cellar without any prior notice. He argued that the cellar had not been secured with a padlock and that it was not apparent to him that the cellar was still in use. Additionally, the janitor had left a notice on the cellar door, but no one had responded. The cleared items, including the tortoise in a pet transport box, were disposed of at the local waste facility.
Plaintiff’s Argument
The plaintiff objected to the landlord’s actions, stating that the cellar was still in use. She argued that the cellar remained in her possession despite the lack of a padlock, and she was not obligated to respond to the notice left by the janitor. It is common for tenants to visit their cellars only at longer intervals.
Ruling of the District Court of Hanover
The District Court of Hanover ruled in favor of the plaintiff. The court determined that the landlord could not assume that the cellar had been abandoned merely because it was not locked. The notice left on the cellar door did not create any obligation for the tenant to respond. The court clarified that unauthorized clearing is only permissible when there is an immediate danger, and official assistance cannot be obtained in time. This was not the case here.
Source: District Court of Hanover
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.