taz: Ms. Hartmann, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) has decided that people who sublet their apartment are not allowed to make a profit. How do you rate that?
Jutta Hartmann: Basically very good. The BGH has made it clear: It must not be a return model to skim profits through subletting. We welcome that.
taz: The tenant argued that he left the apartment fully furnished and thus justified the almost doubled rent. He didn’t get away with it.
Hartmann: In the specific case being negotiated, it was clear that the amount of the sublease could not be appropriate due to the furnishings. However, this judgment is an important indication to the federal government that furniture urgently needs to be regulated.
taz: Federal Minister of Justice Stefanie Hubig (SPD) is currently working on one corresponding draft law.
Hartmann: We very much welcome that and we also hope for a parliamentary majority. The furniture surcharge should be stated separately in the rental agreement so that the basic rent can be checked. This is the only way to check whether the Rent control is adhered to.
taz: Does the rent cap also apply to subletting?
Hartmann: Yes, in principle the normal tenant protection regulations apply. However, the rent cap does not apply if it is a short-term rental or if the main tenant lives in the apartment and sublets a fully furnished room to an individual. Then this person can be thrown out the door again relatively quickly. This is justified by a private close relationship.
taz: So subtenants are less protected.
Everyone must adhere to tenant protection rules, regardless of who acts as a landlord, whether it is an owner or a tenant
Jutta Hartmann, German Tenants’ Association
Hartmann: The biggest problem is that subtenants are fundamentally dependent on the main rental agreement. If the main tenant is terminated, the landlord also has a claim to eviction against the subtenant. In other words: The subtenant is always dependent on what happens with the main rental agreement. And that is also the crux of this judgment.
taz: What do you mean?
Hartmann: In itself it is a good judgment. Subtenants are protected from profit-oriented rents. On the other hand, the consequence of this case is that the landlord can terminate the main tenant if he sublets profitably. The BGH has confirmed that. This means that the actual landlord can now also have the subtenant evicted. Subtenants are therefore better protected against excessive rent, but in case of doubt they can lose their apartment. In our opinion, this needs to be improved. Subtenants should not be the ones who suffer, as that would be counterproductive to the subtenant’s actual idea of protection.
taz: Is subletting actually a good thing?
Hartmann: Many tenants sublet because they can no longer afford their own housing costs. Younger people in particular are increasingly dependent on sharing a shared apartment somewhere because the asking rents are so high. That makes sense then. Of course, subletting also offers flexibility for tenants who may be going abroad for a short period of time but don’t want to quit the apartment straight away. But if subletting is born out of necessity because you can’t find an apartment, then that’s a sign that the market is failing.
taz: Are there any figures on how widespread subletting is?
Hartmann: No. We also don’t have any statistics on how often primary tenants exploit subtenants; they don’t exist. What is important is that everyone must adhere to tenant protection rules, regardless of who is acting as the landlord, whether it is an owner or a tenant.