![\"What](\"https:\/\/www.mth-partner.de\/wp-content\/uploads\/Pflichten_-Mieter_und_Vermieter.png\")
<\/p>\nA rental property is often a good investment, but it also carries certain risks. Increasingly, we hear about tenants deliberately damaging rental apartments and then disappearing overnight without a trace. Such thoughts can send shivers down any landlord\u2019s spine, as incidents like these are often associated with significant financial costs. Regular visits by the landlord can help prevent such occurrences, as they allow the landlord to observe how the tenant is treating the property. However, tenants also tend to become nervous when they read about a landlord\u2019s right to regular access in the lease agreement. The concerns of both parties in the lease agreement are understandable, but when is a landlord\u2019s right to access the apartment permissible, and when does it cross the line?<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
A landlord cannot secure a general right of access to the rental property without a valid reason via the lease agreement, as such clauses are invalid due to their conflict with the Basic Law (German Constitution), specifically Article 13(1), which guarantees the inviolability of the home. The home is a personal and private space for individual self-development. Every person must be able to rely on being undisturbed and protected in this space. Therefore, each person should be able to decide for themselves who is allowed to enter this private area and who is not. This also applies to the landlord, who remains the owner of the property and thus retains certain rights.<\/p>\n
Many pre-formulated lease agreements include a clause that allows the landlord to inspect the rental property every one or two years without a specific reason to ensure the property\u2019s proper condition. The German Federal Court of Justice (BGH) considers such clauses invalid. There is no right to inspect without reason, and such a clause is considered an unreasonable disadvantage to the tenant under Section 307(1) Sentence 1 of the German Civil Code (BGB) (BGH, June 4, 2013, Case No. III ZR 289\/13).<\/p>\n
In principle, the provisions of Sections 535 et seq. BGB apply to rental agreements. However, there is no statutory right of the landlord to inspect the property. Nevertheless, the landlord may enter the rented property if there is a concrete and legitimate reason to do so. Otherwise, the landlord\u2019s right to property under Article 14 of the Basic Law might be restricted. Some valid reasons for inspection include:<\/p>\n
<\/p>\n
This list is not exhaustive, so there may be other reasons not mentioned here that justify the landlord\u2019s right of access. If your landlord seeks access for another reason and you are unsure whether they have the right to do so, you should consult a lawyer who can provide professional advice specific to your situation.<\/p>\n
If none of these reasons or similar ones exist, the landlord has no right to enter the rental property (BGH, June 4, 2013, Case No. III ZR 289\/13). Even if a legitimate reason is present, the landlord cannot enter the property without consideration. For example, the number of inspections should be kept to a minimum. If the property needs to be measured in the near future and meter readings also need to be taken, the landlord should try to combine these appointments. Additionally, the landlord should schedule a time with the current tenants.<\/p>\n
If the landlord can demonstrate a legitimate interest and concrete reasons to enter the rental property, they cannot act freely during the visit. They are not allowed to inspect every room unless it is necessary for the purpose of the visit. What the landlord is allowed to do in the rental property depends on the specific reason for the visit and is assessed on a case-by-case basis.<\/p>\n
Example The tenant and landlord agreed on a date for the inspection. Smoke detectors had been installed in the rental property, and the landlord wanted to check them. The tenant did not object. However, during the visit, the landlord entered other rooms where no smoke detectors were installed, opened windows, and even moved items belonging to the tenant without permission. The tenant found this too intrusive and asked the landlord to leave. When the landlord refused, the tenant physically removed her from the apartment. The landlord felt so humiliated that she terminated the lease without notice. The case went to the Federal Court of Justice, which ruled in favor of the tenant. The landlord was only entitled to inspect the rooms with smoke detectors. By entering other rooms against the tenant\u2019s will, the landlord was partly to blame for how the situation escalated. Thus, the termination of the lease was invalid, and the tenant was allowed to stay.<\/em>:
\n<\/u>The tenant and the landlady jointly arrange an appointment for an inspection. Smoke detectors have been installed in the rented property, which the landlady would like to check. The tenant had no objections to this. However, during the appointment, the landlady entered other rooms in the rental property without authorisation and therefore without permission, in which no smoke detectors had been installed. She also opened windows and even moved things that belonged exclusively to the tenant. This became too much for the tenant, so he asked her to leave. The landlady then refused to comply. As a result, the tenant carried her to the front door. The landlady felt so humiliated by this incident that she terminated the tenancy without notice. This dispute ended up before the Federal Supreme Court, which, however, ruled in favour of the tenant. The landlady was only entitled to inspect the rooms where the smoke alarms had been installed. She nevertheless entered other rooms against the tenant's will, meaning that she was at least partly responsible for how the situation ultimately ended. The cancellation without notice<\/a> was therefore invalid and the tenant was allowed to stay.<\/em><\/p><\/blockquote>\nFor example, if the landlord enters the property to inspect a water damage issue in the bathroom, they may only enter the bathroom and, possibly, adjacent rooms to check for further damage. Under no circumstances are they allowed to open cabinets or move tenant\u2019s belongings without permission.<\/p>\n
Additionally, the landlord must notify the tenant of the inspection in advance, preferably in writing and in good time. This notice should include the exact date and the specific reasons for the visit. Exceptions apply only in emergencies, such as a fire or a burst water pipe, in which case the landlord is allowed and required to act immediately. The appropriate notice period depends on the reason for the visit and the tenant\u2019s personal circumstances. Although not legally specified, a notice period of at least three to four days is generally expected for working tenants, while 24 hours may suffice for non-working tenants. However, courts may differ in their interpretation of these periods. The frequency of such inspections is also not regulated by law, but the landlord must always provide a valid reason for each visit.<\/p>\n
If the landlord can demonstrate a valid reason for accessing the property, the tenant cannot refuse the inspection. If the proposed appointment is inconvenient for the tenant, they may suggest an alternative. However, the landlord cannot gain access by force or hire a locksmith. The landlord is also not entitled to keep a spare key unless the tenant permits it. Tenants have the right to demand all keys to the property.<\/p>\n
Refusing access without a valid reason may, in some cases, result in a valid termination of the lease without notice. The landlord may also sue the tenant or obtain a court order granting access, which could result in additional legal costs or damages for the tenant. Therefore, refusing access without a valid reason is strongly discouraged.<\/p>\n
A final refusal of access by the landlord, despite an admissible objective reason, can lead to an effective termination without notice in individual cases. Furthermore, the landlord can also sue the tenant or obtain access to the rented property by means of a temporary injunction in summary proceedings, which would then mean additional legal costs and possibly even compensation for the tenant. It is therefore extremely inadvisable to refuse access without good reason. If you still have reasons for not wanting to allow the landlord access to the rented property, for example because you feel that you are being monitored or even spied on, contact a lawyer who can provide you with individual and professional advice.<\/p>\n
If the landlord enters the property without permission, it constitutes trespassing and is a criminal offense. In such cases, the tenant may file a complaint and terminate the lease without notice.<\/p>\n