Question as a landlord regarding the renewal of the carpet floor.
September 14, 2009 | 30,00 EUR | answered by Dr. Dr. Danjel-Philippe Newerla
In the standard lease agreement (pre-printed form) signed on 03.05.1996, section § 8 "Beauty Repairs" states: Beauty repairs include in particular.....painting the floors or cleaning/replacing the carpeting...... The tenant has now moved out after 13 years, the carpeting was never cleaned, and now looks so terrible that it needs to be replaced. The legal precedent now assumes that after 10 years the carpeting is worn out and the landlord must replace it at their own expense. Does this also apply retroactively to my contract? This would mean that a contract can be retroactively declared invalid. Because if it had been known at the time of signing the contract that the landlord always has to replace the carpeting themselves, I would have asked for a higher rent. Or does the tenant have to at least cover the cleaning costs, even if it is no longer possible?
Dear inquirer,
Thank you for your inquiry!
Below I would like to address your question based on the description of the situation you provided:
Renewing floor coverings, such as laying a new carpet in a rental property, does not fall under the category of so-called cosmetic repairs, as you correctly stated (see, for example, OLG Hamm 30 REMiet 3 / 90, WuM'91, 248 ff.).
You also correctly noted that it is the landlord's responsibility to provide the tenant with a contractually compliant floor covering at their own expense. Therefore, if the landlord rented the apartment with carpet flooring, as stated in your description of the situation, the wear and tear period, as also correctly noted by you, is 10 years from the installation of the carpet/floor covering.
Lease clauses that, as in this case, impose the costs of renewing the floor covering on the tenant are generally invalid, unless they are individually agreed upon in the contract and not formulated as general terms and conditions, as in your case, through a standard pre-formulated contract.
This does not mean, however, that the entire contract becomes retroactively invalid. Only the cosmetic repair clause is invalid, meaning that the landlord cannot demand reimbursement from the tenant for the cost of the floor covering regardless of its condition, contrary to the standard contract wording.
Therefore, in your case, the principle is that the landlord must bear the renewal costs. The question of cleaning costs is no longer relevant, as the carpet is worn out and cleaning would not make sense, meaning that, according to your description, the tenant would not be responsible for cleaning costs either.
I hope this has provided you with an initial legal orientation and wish you much success and all the best!
Lastly, I would like to point out the following:
The legal advice I provided is based solely on the information you provided. My response is only an initial legal assessment of the situation and cannot replace a comprehensive evaluation of the circumstances. Adding or omitting relevant information can lead to a completely different legal assessment.
I hope my explanations have been helpful. Please feel free to contact me via email or the follow-up option if you have any further questions.
Wishing you a pleasant Monday evening!
Kind regards,
Dipl.-Jur. Danjel-Philippe Newerla, Attorney at Law
Heilsbergerstr. 16
27580 Bremerhaven
kanzlei.newerla@web.de
Tel. 0471/3088132
Fax: 0471/57774
