Damage to tiles - inconsistent jurisdiction

06.02.2019

High-quality natural stone tiles are sensitive and like to be impregnated. If the landlord does not carry out such impregnation and forms discoloration, calcification, exfoliation or sanding on the bathroom tiles caused by shower gel, shampoo or all-purpose cleaner, the renter does not have to compensate for the damage. It concerns a "contractual use of the renting thing" (district court Brandenburg, judgment of 24.02.2017, 31C 179/14).

If the tenant has overcoated wall tiles with paint that can not be removed, the landlord can renew the tiling after the end of the contract and claim the costs from the tenant. However, if the tiles are already 30 years old, only 50% of the costs are reasonable (Cologne Regional Court, judgment of 26.03.1996, 12 S 312/95).

With the bathroom equipment, stinginess is not worthwhile. In addition to the sanitary ware, the landlord should attach towel rail, shower rod, toilet paper holder, mirror with lighting and filing or a mirror cabinet. Otherwise, he has to accept that every tenant attaches the missing accessories himself and after a few tenant changes the walls look appropriate.

A general ban on drilling and attaching dowels in the rental agreement is ineffective (BGH, judgment of 20.01.1993, VIII ZR 10/92). In the case of particularly high-quality tiles and it is clear from the outset that boreholes can no longer be removed without replacing tiles, drilling is no longer considered to be contractual use. The tenant must then obtain a permission from the landlord. If the renter disregards the drilling ban, the landlord has a claim for damages in accordance with § 280 Abs. 1 BGB and can offset this with the deposit (Amtsgericht Münster, judgment of 29.01.2001, 28 C 3053/07). In the opinion of the court, the renter may drill a maximum of the tile joints, which can later be closed again.

The district court Kassel (judgment of 15.03.1996, 451 C 7217/95) and the regional courts Hamburg (judgment of 17.05.2001, 307 S 50/01) and Göttingen (judgment of 12.10.1988, 5 S 106/88) judged the differently: Tenants may pierce wall tiles in the bathroom, in order to install necessary equipment for the contractual use, even if the borehole was to be evaluated as property damage. However, the customary amount of boreholes should not be exceeded. However, all drill-erasers that are not required for the usual installations are not permitted.

Tile damage should always be repaired before the apartment is re-rented. The district court of Berlin has decided in one case that six defective bathroom tiles justify a rent reduction of 2% (judgment of 28.10.2001, 64 S 108/01). The Landgereicht Kleve confirmed a rent reduction of 5% due to optical defect, if the landlord does not attach visually matching replacement tiles (judgment of 05.02.1991, 6 S 285/90).

   info@btconsult-hv.de     +49 7042 2839021    +49 176 62472161
Unterstützt von Webnode
Erstellen Sie Ihre Webseite gratis! Diese Website wurde mit Webnode erstellt. Erstellen Sie Ihre eigene Seite noch heute kostenfrei! Los geht´s