Problem landlords and rental deposit returns

690 posts in this topic

But isn't the burden of proof on the landlord to prove damages? Especially in this case where there is dispute regarding who is at fault

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PratikGermany said:

But isn't the burden of proof on the landlord to prove damages? Especially in this case where there is dispute regarding who is at fault

As far as the window is concerned, I don't think it really matters, for it wasn't in the protocol and from that moment the case on further damage reporting, ordinarily, is closed.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lunaCH said:

As far as the window is concerned, I don't think it really matters, for it wasn't in the protocol and from that moment the case on further damage reporting, ordinarily, is closed.

Hello @lunaCH , and what about the lock that they claim i have damaged? There is absolutely no documentation of it, only verbal

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
6 minutes ago, PratikGermany said:

what about the lock that they claim i have damaged? There is absolutely no documentation of it, only verbal

If the protocol was signed by both sides and there was no mention of the lock, then it is also a non-issue. You don't have to pay anything for any of these things. The landlord complaining about these things later is not how things work here. These are attempts to get money, seemingly by people who are not following the rules, nothing more. :rolleyes:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, PratikGermany said:

But isn't the burden of proof on the landlord to prove damages? Especially in this case where there is dispute regarding who is at fault

5 hours ago, PratikGermany said:

But isn't the burden of proof on the landlord to prove damages?

Sure, but the question is what will be accepted as evidence. There is the concept of prima facie evidence, after all. I´ve just looked up § 548. It doesn´t say what you wrote (that " landlord has to claim damages within 6 months after moving out ") but merely that this claim reaches the statute of limitations after 6 months. I´m not a lawyer but AFAIR this might still allow him to deduct it from your deposit because, while claims which reached the statute of limitation can´t be actively enforced anymore they can still be offset against counterclaims. So the whole story looks a bit murky. Maybe best to try to reach some compromise and /or join the Mieterverein.

 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, jeba said:

Sure, but the question is what will be accepted as evidence. There is the concept of prima facie evidence, after all. I´ve just looked up § 548. It doesn´t say what you wrote (that " landlord has to claim damages within 6 months after moving out ") but merely that this claim reaches the statute of limitations after 6 months. I´m not a lawyer but AFAIR this might still allow him to deduct it from your deposit because, while claims which reached the statute of limitation can´t be actively enforced anymore they can still be offset against counterclaims. So the whole story looks a bit murky. Maybe best to try to reach some compromise and /or join the Mieterverein.

 

Yes, on closer inspection of the section, I do agree with what you are saying. I even read a few other cases online where the same thing has been written as what you have mentioned, claims being offset.

But then he has not given me any reciepts or proof of payment for repairs. Further, there is no Ubergabprotokoll for the move in.

Also, most widely accepted timelines for deposit return are 3-6 months but there is nothing clearly mentioned in the BGB, so I am not sure the LL is automatically in default if he crosses the 6 months limit.

Most lawyers charge around 200 Euros for consultation, so this claim does not seem worth pursuing through lawyers. However, I also read that once a demand is made, and not complied with, the other party can engage a lawyer to protect their interests and make the other person bear expenses. 

 

The Mietverein looks like a good option at the moment. I will give it sometime and see what other options are

 

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, PratikGermany said:

there is no Ubergabprotokoll for the move in.

This could be seen as advantageous. There is no proof that the window or lock was damaged when you moved in, but in your case it wasn't mentioned in the protocol when you handed back the flat, so it could be viewed that neither thing is your doing/fault/responsibility.

I don't understand why the landlord would be so sloppy, three times. First no protocol, then a protocol with no damages mentioned, then a late claim. :wacko:

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 minutes ago, lunaCH said:

This could be seen as advantageous. There is no proof that the window or lock was damaged when you moved in, but in your case it wasn't mentioned in the protocol when you handed back the flat, so it could be viewed that neither thing is your doing/fault/responsibility.

I don't understand why the landlord would be so sloppy, three times. First no protocol, then a protocol with no damages mentioned, then a late claim. :wacko:

Haha, the sloppiness is probably a form of overconfidence I guess. I am not German, nor white, nor do I have great German language skills. When I moved into the flat it was my first time ever in Germany, and 5th day overall in Germany and I am a student as well. The landlord knew all of this.

I don't wish to make any accusations or assumptions, but this combination of circumstances makes me seem especially vulnerable and gullible and may be he is trying to take advantage.

Again, I don't wish to assume anything, because I have met some of the most helpful, generous and welcoming people in Germany as well :) 

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, PratikGermany said:

nor do I have great German language skills.

This is a reason why they would try to take advantage and add extra costs to get money from you. ;)

Nationality and colour do not come into it.

1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, PratikGermany said:

the sloppiness is probably a form of overconfidence I guess.

I might just be a case of a private landlord not being familiar with the details of the law.

2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now