Munich Local Court, 8 November 2011, Ref.: 431 C 20886/11
Tenants must exercise great care when asserting rental defects against the landlord.
The tenant's rights in the event of a rental defect are set out in the German Civil Code.
The main standard with regard to the tenant's defect rights is Section 536 BGB. According to this, the tenant only has to pay an appropriately reduced rent for the period in which the suitability of the rented property is reduced due to the rental defect, i.e. a rent reduction claim.
In addition to the claim for a reduction in rent in accordance with Section 536 BGB, the tenant may also have a claim to remedy the defect themselves and a corresponding claim for reimbursement of expenses, a claim for extraordinary termination or a claim for damages in the event of a rental defect.
If the tenant wishes to reduce the rent due to the existence of a defect, the following steps should be followed:
1. precise examination of the existence of a rental defect
There are relatively high hurdles for the existence of a rental defect. According to case law, a rental defect is a deviation in the actual condition of the rented property from the contractually stipulated condition that is detrimental to the tenant.
A further prerequisite is that the suitability of the rented property for use in accordance with the contract is significantly impaired.
The question of whether the tenant may have been responsible for the rental defect (e.g. if mould growth in the rented rooms was caused by insufficient ventilation by the tenant in the first place) also plays a role here.
2. notification of the rental defect to the landlord
Before the rent is reduced, the landlord must also be notified of the defect and given the opportunity to remedy the defect.
In order to be able to prove the notification in the event of a dispute, this notification should be made in writing.
3. assertion of the rent reduction
If, after careful examination, there is a rental defect, the tenant may reduce the rent appropriately.
Depending on the defect, the rent must therefore be reduced by a certain percentage. The percentage of rent reduction must be estimated with particular care.
If the tenant has reduced the rent by an unreasonable amount, he risks termination of the tenancy without notice due to late payment.
In the Munich Local Court case mentioned above, the court had to decide whether the tenants had a claim for damages due to a recurrence of a rental defect, even though they had not reported the defect to the landlord again.
Facts of the Case:
Landlord had only treated large areas of mould with mould removal spray
Mould had formed in all rooms of the plaintiff tenants' flat with the exception of the hallway. After reporting the defect to the defendant landlord, the caretaker of the property initially treated it with a mould removal spray.
Despite this treatment, mould infestation returned shortly afterwards. The plaintiffs again reported this to the defendant, who then commissioned a specialist painting company to remove the mould.
After mould had repeatedly formed again, the tenants gave notice without notice and demanded compensation
When mould appeared again a few months later, the plaintiffs gave notice without notice, vacated the flat and demanded compensation from the defendant for the removal costs of 500 euros, the estate agent's costs for the new flat of 1713 euros and the costs of a new kitchen worktop of 101 euros.
The defendant refused to pay on the grounds that the plaintiffs had not notified him of the new mould growth and he therefore had no opportunity to remedy the defect.
Judgment of the District Court of Munich
Munich Local Court saw no liability for damages on the part of the landlord
The Munich District Court agreed with the defendant. The plaintiffs were not entitled to compensation as the landlord had not been notified of the new defect in the flat, the mould in the bathroom.
Such a renewed obligation to notify also applies to tenants if a defect is remedied that has not been permanently successful.
Landlord must be given another chance to remedy the defect
This is particularly the case if the landlord could objectively be of the opinion that he had done everything necessary to remedy the defect.
Source: District Court of Munich
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. The content has been compiled to the best of our knowledge and belief. However, the complexity and constant change of the subject matter covered make it necessary to exclude liability and warranty.
Lawyers in Cologne provide advice and representation in tenancy law.
One Response
An incomprehensible judgement. The tenants reported the defect twice and the landlord tried to rectify it twice, obviously without addressing the actual cause, which the tenants even pointed out to him.
What do you want to achieve by reporting the problem again? Should the tenants continue to live in a mould-infested flat while the landlord makes further attempts to get the problem under control?
In particular: after the painting company was unsuccessful, how likely is it that the problem can be solved? Demolition is probably the only solution here...