Federal Court of Justice protects tenants from excessive modernization costs

Icon: enlarge

Installation of new windows (archive photo): maintenance or modernization?

If the landlord renews components and facilities that are still functional but are getting on in years, they must not surrender the full costs to the tenant. The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe decided that before a rent increase was taken out, the proportion used for maintenance. Otherwise, the landlord would have the opportunity to pass on any costs incurred to the tenant in the near future.

Maintenance includes all work that is necessary to keep the apartment or house in a tidy, habitable condition. The landlord is obliged to do so and has to bear the costs himself. It is different with modernization: this work ensures real improvement. The landlord can therefore add the costs to the rent up to a certain limit.

A woman from Düsseldorf who had previously paid a rent of over 300 euros for her apartment had sued. In 2016, the house was thoroughly spruced up. Among other things, the owner had the plaintiff's approximately 60-year-old apartment door and several equally old front doors, staircase windows and mailboxes replaced. After that, the woman got two rent increases into the house within a year: one for around 190 euros, one for a good 240 euros.

Tenants could be relieved financially

Some of these increases had already been overturned by the Düsseldorf Regional Court. However, the judges let the replacement of the old windows, doors and mailboxes pass as modernization - the plaintiff did not show that defects would have required repairs. The BGH is now preventing the full apportionment of the costs. After six decades the service life of the components "has already largely expired". That must be taken into account.

The German Tenants' Association welcomed the judgment. "This clarification from Karlsruhe is gratifying and leads to financial relief for the tenants," said President Lukas Siebenkotten. So far, the tenants would have had to bear all costs as long as nothing was defective. This practice has now come to an end.

Az. VIII ZR 81/19

hej / dpa