Painting due ?: BGH assesses beauty repairs



counselor


Do not wipe or wipe? Many tenants ask themselves this question on departure.

Do not wipe or wipe? Many tenants ask themselves this question on departure.(Photo: dpa-tmn)

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

The moving boxes are packed, we can start. But then the landlord makes an annoyance in the housing. Justly? Many tenants are uncertain. A judgment can provide more clarity.

Do I really need to renovate? Many tenants are uncertain when moving, disputes with the landlord are always in court. What role in such a conflict a settlement with the previous tenant, decided on 22 August, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe.

According to the experience of the German Association of Tenants, the vast majority of leases obliges the tenant to take care of cosmetic repairs such as painting the walls and ceilings. In principle, that works. However, according to the recent jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Justice since 2015, such clauses are not effective if the tenant enters a non-renovated apartment. Otherwise he would probably have to leave the rooms nicer without doing anything about it than he had found them.

So things are also in a dispute of the Lower Saxon Celle – actually, the tenant could whistle so what is in his lease. The fact that his case still has the highest civil court in the service is because the man of his previous tenant had, among other things, bought the carpet. It was agreed that he will also take care of the renovation.

The Lüneburg district court had therefore last ruled that the tenant should be treated as if the landlord had handed over the renovated apartment. Now the decision lies with the BGH. At the trial in July it was clear that the tenant could have better opportunities in the last resort. (Az.: VIII ZR 277/16) The dispute is about 800 euros. The tenant had already removed the apartment when he left. As a result, the cooperative housing corporation was not satisfied and a painter showed up.

It is argued who should pay the bill for the painter. Actually the tenant should not have canceled because he had moved to a non-renovated apartment. If there was no agreement with the previous tenant: the man had taken over the carpet and the kitchen from her and paid 390 euros. The transfer record states that he is responsible for "Renovation and Tebo". The cooperative now insists – the tenant has bought the much more expensive carpet ("Tebo") with his promise to renovate.

Source: n-tv.de

threads


Source link

Painting due ?: BGH assesses beauty repairs



counselor


Do not wipe or wipe? Many tenants ask themselves this question on departure.

Do not wipe or wipe? Many tenants ask themselves this question on departure.(Photo: dpa-tmn)

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

The moving boxes are packed, we can start. But then the landlord makes an annoyance in the housing. Justly? Many tenants are uncertain. A judgment can provide more clarity.

Do I really need to renovate? Many tenants are uncertain when moving, disputes with the landlord are always in court. What role in such a conflict a settlement with the previous tenant, decided on 22 August, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe.

According to the experience of the German Association of Tenants, the vast majority of leases obliges the tenant to take care of cosmetic repairs such as painting the walls and ceilings. In principle, that works. However, according to the recent jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Justice since 2015, such clauses are not effective if the tenant enters a non-renovated apartment. Otherwise he would probably have to leave the rooms nicer without doing anything about it than he had found them.

So things are also in a dispute of the Lower Saxon Celle – actually, the tenant could whistle so what is in his lease. The fact that his case still has the highest civil court in the service is because the man of his previous tenant had, among other things, bought the carpet. It was agreed that he will also take care of the renovation.

The Lüneburg district court had therefore last ruled that the tenant should be treated as if the landlord had handed over the renovated apartment. Now the decision lies with the BGH. At the trial in July it was clear that the tenant could have better opportunities in the last resort. (Az.: VIII ZR 277/16) The dispute is about 800 euros. The tenant had already removed the apartment when he left. As a result, the cooperative housing corporation was not satisfied and a painter showed up.

It is argued who should pay the bill for the painter. Actually the tenant should not have canceled because he had moved to a non-renovated apartment. If there was no agreement with the previous tenant: the man had taken over the carpet and the kitchen from her and paid 390 euros. The transfer record states that he is responsible for "Renovation and Tebo". The cooperative now insists – the tenant has bought the much more expensive carpet ("Tebo") with his promise to renovate.

Source: n-tv.de

threads


Source link

Painting due ?: BGH assesses beauty repairs



counselor


Do not wipe or wipe? Many tenants ask themselves this question on departure.

Do not wipe or wipe? Many tenants ask themselves this question on departure.(Photo: dpa-tmn)

Wednesday, August 22, 2018

The moving boxes are packed, we can start. But then the landlord makes an annoyance in the housing. Justly? Many tenants are uncertain. A judgment can provide more clarity.

Do I really need to renovate? Many tenants are uncertain when moving, disputes with the landlord are always in court. What role in such a conflict a settlement with the previous tenant, decided on 22 August, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe.

According to the experience of the German Association of Tenants, the vast majority of leases obliges the tenant to take care of cosmetic repairs such as painting the walls and ceilings. In principle, that works. However, according to the recent jurisprudence of the Federal Court of Justice since 2015, such clauses are not effective if the tenant enters a non-renovated apartment. Otherwise he would probably have to leave the rooms nicer without doing anything about it than he had found them.

So things are also in a dispute of the Lower Saxon Celle – actually, the tenant could whistle so what is in his lease. The fact that his case still has the highest civil court in the service is because the man of his previous tenant had, among other things, bought the carpet. It was agreed that he will also take care of the renovation.

The Lüneburg district court had therefore last ruled that the tenant should be treated as if the landlord had handed over the renovated apartment. Now the decision lies with the BGH. At the trial in July it was clear that the tenant could have better opportunities in the last resort. (Az.: VIII ZR 277/16) The dispute is about 800 euros. The tenant had already removed the apartment when he left. As a result, the cooperative housing corporation was not satisfied and a painter showed up.

It is argued who should pay the bill for the painter. Actually the tenant should not have canceled because he had moved to a non-renovated apartment. If there was no agreement with the previous tenant: the man had taken over the carpet and the kitchen from her and paid 390 euros. The transfer record states that he is responsible for "Renovation and Tebo". The cooperative now insists – the tenant has bought the much more expensive carpet ("Tebo") with his promise to renovate.

Source: n-tv.de

threads


Source link

Leave a Reply