• Content count

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

0 Neutral

About SZJX

  • Rank

Profile Information

  • Location Berlin
  • Nationality Chinese
  • Gender Male
  • Year of birth
  1. I know there have already been quite some topics on Mietpreisbremse and I've looked through them, however, this situation still seems confusing and different sources give different answers.   For example, PandaMunich stated in several threads that furnished apartments are actually not subject to Mietpreisbremse (e.g.   However, @lisa13 stated in that there are also rent controls for furnished apartments.   I've read in several websites online that usually the landlord can charge 2% of the furniture monthly. However, the only basis for that claim seems to be a decision made in a Berlin court a long time ago.   I wonder if something has changed/been clarified since the law has apparently been prolonged for 5 more years just recently.   On ImmobilienScout24 the vast majority of rental listings I see (in Berlin, München etc.) seem to have double the price of what the Mietspiegel would suggest, even though they are not new buildings. It sounds barely plausible to reach such a price, even with a full set of luxury furniture (not to mention many apartments only have random IKEA-level furniture anyways). Maybe the Einbauküche and kitchen appliances costs some money but it's unlikely to be that much either.   I think the following paragraphs from this article last year summarized the situation quite well:   > Die große Koalition hatte im Jahr 2015 die Mietpreisbremse eingeführt. Sie sollte die extremen Steigerungen der Mietpreise begrenzen. Bei der Wiedervermietung einer Wohnung, die in einem angespannten Markt liegt, darf die Miete höchstens zehn Prozent über der ortsüblichen Vergleichsmiete liegen. Diese Regeln gelten auch für möblierte Wohnungen – das sehen zumindest die Mieterschützer so. Laut Rechtsprechung ist aber ein Aufschlag für die Möblierung erlaubt: Im Jahr 2003 hat das Landgericht Berlin diesen Zuschlag auf die Monatsmiete mit zwei Prozent des Zeitwerts der Möbel beziffert. Demnach dürfte eine Wohnung, die für 5.000 Euro möbliert wurde, monatlich um 100 Euro teurer sein als eine unmöblierte. Bisher ist das Urteil allerdings nur die Meinung eines einzelnen Gerichtes. Vom Bundesgerichtshof, der in diesem Fall zuständig wäre, wurde es nicht bestätigt.   > Wie problematisch das Zwei-Prozent-Urteil sein kann, zeigt sich, wenn man etwa beim anfangs erwähnten "wundervollen Zuhause" in Neukölln nachrechnet. Selbst wenn man eine ortsübliche Vergleichsmiete von zehn Euro pro Quadratmeter annimmt und Nebenkosten, Heizkosten und Strom miteinbezieht, kommt man auf eine zulässige Miete von 535 Euro für die 35 Quadratmeter. Bei einem Möblierungszuschlag von zwei Prozent des Zeitwerts der Möbel müsste die Einrichtung zwischen 35.000 und 40.000 Euro gekostet haben, um die 1.400 Euro Miete zu rechtfertigen – und komplett neu sein.   If this is true, then the so-called "2 percent rule" for furnished apartments seems to actually be some sort of legal gray zone, and each case will have to be decided separately?   I'm wondering about this since I just realized that the Kaltmiete for my furnished apartment (in a central area in Berlin) is almost 300 Euros more than the Mietspiegel. However, it feels like the landlord just left some cheap furniture in there so as to make it "furnished". It's hard to justify this price if we apply the 2 percent rule.   But when I look at comparable online listings in similar locations, they are almost all even more expensive than what I'm currently paying. This makes me wonder if Mietpreisbremse is being invoked at all, or are most people just content with paying the higher price, since they feel this is just how the market is at the moment, and it's quite hard to find a place. I wonder if it's ever worth the trouble to complain about my rental contract after all. I don't intend to search for a new place in the short term.   I bought Rechtsschutzversicherung about 3 months ago, but clearly it doesn't cover the rental contract that I signed, which started 1 year ago. I was surprised to find out that the Prozesskostenrechtsschutz offered by Berliner Mieterverein also has a similar clause. It makes me wonder if there is a point in going to the Mieterverein after all, since I have to join them before I can make a consultation, but the membership in the Mieterverein has a minimum duration of 2 years... Though maybe most cases were resolved by the Mieterverein communicating with the landlord already, without them ever going to a Prozess?
  2. So I actually found a Reddit thread on this topic, and apparently the Berlin Senate has decided to grant a 6 months reprieve and not impose fines on the Vermieter if they fail to provide the Informationsschreiben, "due to the COVID situation", which is interesting.   There's also a sentence that "Die im Gesetz vorgesehenen Melde- und Informationspflichten können durch die Vermietenden aufgrund der Corona-Krise ggf. nicht fristgerecht erfüllt werden. Für diesen Fall stellt das Land Berlin in Aussicht, dass bei so begründbaren Verletzungen der Rechtspflichten auf Sanktionsmaßnahmen wie Ordnungsgelder verzichtet wird." on the Mietendeckel Informationen website, which probably refers to the same thing.   I really doubt COVID should be used as an excuse for the Vermieter to not send this information. They seem to be quite unrelated. However, it feels like the senate is granting reprieve for the Vermieter for whatever reason, and it could feel like a gray zone if I demand the Informationsschreiben now, but they just point to this decision by the senate and refuse to comply, before the 6 months extension runs out. I'll probably try to clarify this question with a lawyer, or simply wait for these 6 months to be over.   However, during my research, I actually found out that the rental price I'm paying doesn't only exceed the Mietendeckel, it probably also exceeds the limit established by the Mietpreisbremse... which complicates the issue further (though my apartment is furnished). I'll ask a separate question for that.   > If you're not a member of the Mieterverein, you should probably join one.  They will be able to answer questions on the Mietendeckel and what you can do.   Yeah I thought about that but I saw that their legal insurance also has a three months Wartezeit, and only covers contracts signed after that. They also have a minimum membership period of 2 years. Then I'm not sure if it's worth joining them in addition to the legal insurance that I have already bought. I will probably call the legal insurance first and see if they have any advice, even if it seems my contract can't be covered by the insurance.
  3. Hi, thanks for the link. I tried it out and yeah, as I mentioned, my rent is definitely way above the allowed limit.   Though the confusion for me was, does the law mean that even if I get the Informationsschreiben now, the landlord can still demand me to pay the original rent, until 23.11.20? Or does it mean that the moment I receive the Informationsschreiben, I'm already supposed to pay the lowered rent, even if the date is before 23.11.20. It seems to be the former, right?   I have Rechtsschutzversicherung, but it was bought about 2 months ago. It seems that the insurance has a term that it would be effective 3 months after I buy it, as is usually the case for legal insurance. Maybe it would make sense for me to consult the lawyer next month and ask them to send the landlord a letter?
  4. I've been living in the current apartment for over a year. In February I received a letter from the landlord telling us to halt the previously agreed rent increase and continue paying the original rent for now, and saying that they would send the criteria letter a bit later. However, that letter never seems to have arrived.   I wonder if this is a common situation that has happened if the current rent is clearly higher than the Mietendeckel (my apartment is really small but in a central area). I guess if they send the criteria letter now, it would suggest that I should pay a much lower rent, and this would put them in an awkward position? However, it seems that by the Mietendeckel law, the landlord is allowed to continue charging the original rent until 23/11/2020. Therefore, even if there is theoretically a criteria letter that established that the new rent should be lower than the current rent, they can still demand the Mieter to pay the original rent until 23/11/2020. Is this understanding correct?   Maybe they're expecting the Bundesverfassungsgericht to overturn the law. However, I'm not sure what would happen if the decision still doesn't come out on 23/11/2020. That would seemingly cause some uncertainty in Berlin.   I'm wondering if I should simply wait until 23/11/2020 or the decision from Bundesverfassungsgericht, whichever comes earlier, before I take any action. My thought process is that, even if I do demand the criteria letter and receive it now, it doesn't really help me, since the landlord is still allowed to charge the original rent until 23/11/2020. If the law then gets overturned, it would potentially put me in an awkward position, since I don't have any intention of moving out for now.   I have bought legal insurance and my idea is that if things are still up in the air by 23/11/2020 I may contact a lawyer and demand a lower rent. I don't know if starting only then would delay things a bit.   I also have no idea how likely it is for the law to be overturned. From what I've read so far, many people do seem to think that the law will be overturned, but it's not sure when.   Or would it still make sense for me to demand this criteria letter now anyways?
  5. When browsing through legal insurance options (Rechtsschutzversicherung), I noticed that some companies offer "Vertrag-Check", primarily on work and rental contracts. But it's unclear to me how useful it would actually be. I mean, if I have doubts over a contract, I should always be able to consult a lawyer over it anyways, right?   The scope of the "check" is also not clear. Here is a description from one provider:   "Geprüft wird, ob der Vertrag für Sie als Verbraucher rechtlich unwirksame Vertragsklauseln enthält."   If a clause that disadvantages me is really legally invalid, it seems that this would be more relevant when a conflict actually arises and I consult a lawyer at that time, than when I first sign the contract.   (Though maybe it could be the other way round, i.e. there is some clause that benefits me, but when conflict arises it turns out to be invalid. I wonder how practical such a case would be though. I don't feel like this is what the above sentence is referring to.)   Feels to me this "Vertrag-Check" could be more of a gimmick and I shouldn't take it into consideration too much when I choose a legal insurance. Maybe I'm wrong though.   I wonder if somebody has used such a service from a legal insurance and had some experience. Or in general had some experience about using a legal insurance when signing new employment/rental contracts etc.