Lease Violation Letter

Dear Sir or Madam, I have the following question: Since I moved in more than 10 years ago, my property management company has retained further keys to my mailbox without informing me and therefore without my consent. In addition, she recently passed on my mailbox keys to tenants who had just moved in. The matter became conspicuous because my name plate was removed or pasted over. After I asked the new tenants what the whole thing was about, it turned out that they were now also in possession of my mailbox key, and thus had unrestricted access to my mail. They did not respond to my demand to return the keys they had been given, i.e. they brazenly kept the keys. The result of all this is now that important documents (contracts) as well as an announced credit card have not reached me. Since I can neither understand such behavior, and then find the whole thing too brazen, and also not sure what else can happen, I would like to know what violations could be asserted in court, or whether it would even have to be a report to the police? According to my information so far, abuse of data protection as well as violation of postal secrecy come into question. I would be very much obliged if there are any others, to inform me about them as well, and to provide the relevant paragraphs to the above mentioned. Thank you in advance for your kind efforts. Dear questioner, I am happy to answer your question. As a tenant, you are indeed entitled to your own mailbox. The landlord is not allowed to give keys to other tenants, certainly not without your knowledge and consent. Due to this fact, you could reduce the rent and that in the order of 5%. I think it is questionable whether there is a direct violation of data protection, because the landlord does not pass on any data. The landlord also does not process or use any personal data. At most, one could accuse the transfer of data according to § 3 BDSG, but I do not see this as relevant. Nevertheless, I advise you to inform the data protection commissioner of your federal state, as this commissioner also acts preventively, i.e. ensures that a violation is avoided. The violation of the secrecy of correspondence is punishable according to § 202 StGB. However, the prerequisite would be that the landlord or the other tenant opens your letters or otherwise obtains knowledge of the contents. You can file a criminal complaint and a criminal complaint, but it is doubtful whether the prosecution will continue. It may be difficult to prove that the tenant has taken and opened letters. You should proceed as described above. Similar topics

35 €
32 €
60 €
52 €
15 €
48 €

Dear questioner, based on your description, I would like to answer your question in an initial legal assessment as follows: You do not have to tolerate the opening of your mail by third parties. Insofar as you have corroborated suspicions against the landlords, you should emphatically point out to them that they must refrain from doing so in the future and that this is relevant under criminal law. With regard to the possibilities you have requested, however, the problems of your facts lie at the actual level of a provability. Termination without notice is justified if there is an important reason, whereby strict requirements are placed on this, which make it appear unreasonable that the tenancy is terminated in due time. Therefore, a prior warning of the breach of contract is also required in principle. Further details can be found in §§ 569, 543 BGB. In employment law, however, the violation of the secrecy of correspondence may justify termination without notice. I consider this to be transferable to tenancy law as well, although I also consider a prior warning to be necessary in the case of a one-time violation. In addition, you should note that in the event of a dispute with the landlord about the existence of good cause, you bear the burden of presentation and proof. This means that you have to prove that the landlord has opened the mail without authorization (possibly after a warning has been issued; possibly several times). Since you did not witness this yourself and cannot produce any witnesses, I see problems here. As far as you want to give notice yourself, you should therefore think about the mentioned written “warning” to the landlord, if necessary in connection with a notice of termination in due time. I have attached § 573 c BGB with regard to the notice periods below. You do not need an arbitrator for a termination with notice. As far as you are thinking about continuing the tenancy, it also makes sense to set up your own mailbox. I hope that my remarks have given you some initial legal guidance. Please understand that a conclusive legal evaluation of your problem requires knowledge of the complete facts of the case. In the context of this forum, however, the comments can only be based on your descriptions and thus only represent an initial legal assessment. I therefore recommend that you engage a lawyer of your confidence if you wish to obtain a final assessment. Please note that this will incur additional costs. I will also be happy to assist you in further asserting your interests. Should you wish to do so, please feel free to contact me at any time – also by eMail. Yours sincerely, Martin P. Freisler – Rechtsanwalt – www.ra-freisler.de www.kanzlei-medizinrecht.net Tel.: 06131 / 333 16 70 [email protected] § 573c Periods of ordinary notice of termination (1) 1The notice of termination is permissible at the latest on the third working day of a calendar month to the end of the month after next. 2The notice period for the landlord shall be extended after five and eight years since the transfer of the living space by three months in each case. (2) A shorter period of notice may be agreed in the case of residential accommodation which has been let for temporary use only. (3) In the case of residential accommodation pursuant to Section 549 (2) No. 2, termination shall be permitted no later than the 15th day of a month with effect from the end of that month. (4) Any agreement deviating from paragraph 1 or 3 to the detriment of the tenant shall be invalid. Attorney Martin P. Freisler Specialist Attorney for Medical Law, Specialist Attorney for Insurance Law

Who opens foreign letters or opens and reads locked diaries,
uses or cracks passwords without permission in order to access e-mails or chat histories,
enters apartments, houses or fenced properties without permission or
stalking others may be liable to prosecution.

Curiosity is the driving force of our civilization and all too human. However, the criminal code has set clear limits to this impulse. After all, curiosity makes people look for information that they may not even want to disclose. This legal tip sheds light on when curiosity entails criminal consequences: Violation of the secrecy of correspondence The “classic” case of criminal curiosity is the violation of the secrecy of correspondence: According to Section 202 of the German Criminal Code (StGB), anyone who opens a sealed letter without permission is liable to prosecution. However, this provision protects not only letters, but all written documents. A document is sealed if it is clearly intended to prevent third parties from taking note of it, for example if the document is in a sealed envelope or in a sealed drawer. The possible consequence for the overly curious is a prison sentence of up to one year. Reading other people’s diaries is taboo. Reading a diary is only punishable if it is also locked or locked away. However, the decorative locks often affixed to diaries are sufficient for the books to enjoy protection under criminal law. Anyone who opens someone else’s parcel without permission, for example because they have accepted the parcel on behalf of a neighbor, is also liable to prosecution if they look at the invoice inside. If the package does not contain a document, opening it may constitute criminal damage to property under Section 303 of the German Criminal Code. Third-party e-mails also enjoy protection under criminal law Correspondence is an almost extinct form of communication. Nowadays, the exchange of information takes place predominantly on the Internet. Information is usually stored digitally. The legislature has reacted to this development with Section 202a of the German Criminal Code: Spying on data punishes anyone who gains access to other people’s data without permission and overcomes security measures in the process. For example, anyone who uses passwords without permission or penetrates computer systems to gain access to chat messages or e-mails faces up to three years in prison. Trespassing begins at the garden fence Anyone who feels called to be a block captain is usually allowed to patrol the neighborhood, but this ends at the garden fence: anyone who trespasses on another person’s home, building or pacified property can be committing a breach of the peace. And the property enclosed by a fence, hedge or wall already counts as pacified property. According to § 123 StGB, trespassing is punishable by up to one year imprisonment. The landlord is also liable to prosecution if he enters the premises rented to the tenant without permission using a duplicate key. Looking into the trash can, on the other hand, is not punishable in itself. And that even if it is behind the fence and the self-appointed inspector lifts the lid: Trespassing only begins when the neighborhood watch has to additionally brace itself beyond the fence to do so. Stalking is punishable However, anyone who regularly checks and monitors his neighbors’ trash must reckon with making himself liable to prosecution as a stalker: He can be punished with up to three years imprisonment for stalking according to § 238 StGB. Stalking is the legal term for stalking. The law is deliberately broad. It makes all behaviors of a stalker punishable: For example, who daily patrols around the neighbors’ property and/or closely observes their behavior. Or repeatedly makes contact with them against their will, in particular perpetrating telephone terror. A further prerequisite is that the lifestyle of the persons concerned is severely impaired as a result. This means, for example, that the person concerned only leaves their home under security precautions, stops their leisure activities or even changes their home or job. (FMA)

Does the Mietpreisbremse apply in your case?

If you have signed your lease up to and including March 31, 2020, and suspect that your new landlord is collecting an excessive rent, you should set about checking as soon as possible whether the Mietpreisbremse applies in your case. If you pay the rent demanded by the landlord without first claiming a violation of the Mietpreisbremse, you may not reclaim any money due on excessive rent. Conversely, if you assert claims even though the landlord is comprehensibly complying with the rent cap after all, the landlord can take legal action against you. For from 1. April 2020 applies: You have 30 months to assert the violation of the rent control regulations.

Sample letter: “Reprimand of violation of the rent brake regulation”.

You want to write to the landlord? Then use the sample letter that our legal experts have provided for you. You will also find further detailed instructions in it. Download: Mietpreisbremse sample letter

Reprimand better justified

For rental agreements concluded since January 1, 2019, the following applies: A general reprimand is sufficient. Sample text: “I reprimand the violation of the legal regulations of the Mietpreisbremse. The rent demanded by you is higher than permissible.” However, test.de recommends that you give reasons for your complaint. You must check anyway whether there are sufficiently strong indications of a violation of the Mietpreisbremse. You should then also use your findings to justify your complaint. This reduces the risk that you will lose rights – such as the payment of default interest on amounts to be refunded. For leases concluded by December 31, 2018, the statement of reasons is mandatory. The crucial time is when either you receive acceptance of the lease or the landlord receives yours. If both parties meet to sign the contract, that is when the contract is signed.

New leases: local rent plus 10 percent is allowed

When the price brake applies, the “local comparative rent” plus 10 percent is the upper limit for what a new tenant must pay. This comparative rent is a net cold rent, i.e., the amount of rent excluding monthly advances for utilities. If there is a rent index for the municipality, the rental parties can use it to determine the comparative rent.

Landlord must register exceptions

Landlords may collect more than permitted if the previous tenant already paid a higher rent or if he modernized the apartment. Since the beginning of the year applies by law: However, the landlord must inform tenants of this before the rental agreement is signed. If he does not do so, tenants can rely on it: Until further notice, they must pay a maximum of the comparable rent plus 10 percent.

What you need to know

Defending yourself against excessively high rents isn’t all that difficult. test.de provides detailed instructions in the Special Mietpreisbremse: Wie Sie sich gegen zu hohe Rieten wehren.

When can the landlord terminate the tenant without notice in the event of a dispute?

A landlord has the right to terminate a tenant’s lease without notice if he has good cause to do so. This is the case, among other things, if the tenancy has broken down due to a serious breach of contract and it is no longer reasonable for him to continue it after a comprehensive consideration of interests. When these conditions are met in a dispute between tenant and landlord cannot be answered in a general way, but must be decided in each individual case.

Are insults and threats in a dispute sufficient for termination of the lease without notice?

Landlords do not have to put up with insults from their tenants. If a tenant calls a landlord a “PhD ass” in a dispute, the landlord can terminate the lease without notice, according to the Munich Local Court (Case No. 474 C 18543/14). According to the court, such a gross insult to the landlord is such a serious breach of contract that makes it unreasonable for the landlord to continue the tenancy. The tenant’s remarks are also no longer to be regarded as rudeness or tolerable vulgarity. Also, the landlord does not have to warn the tenant first before terminating the tenancy. A warning cannot restore the serious destruction of the relationship of trust, according to the Munich judges. In another case, a tenant was taken to task by his landlord for allegedly making racist comments to other roommates. At the end of the conversation, the tenant dubbed the landlord a pig. The Munich Local Court ruled that the tenant was justified in terminating the lease without notice (Case No. 411 C 8027/13). The insult to the landlord constitutes a significant breach of contract, especially since there was no apology from the tenant for his remarks. On the contrary: in the reply to the eviction action, the tenant had called the landlord a liar. It could therefore not be assumed that the tenant would change his behavior. The landlord cannot be expected to continue the tenancy and is therefore entitled to terminate the tenancy without notice. Likewise, a landlord does not have to put up with a rebuke from a tenant in front of third parties that ends with the sentence “Shut the fuck up”. This was also decided by the Munich Local Court (Az.473 C 9473/21) and confirmed the termination of the lease by the landlord without notice. According to the court, a prior warning was not necessary, since destroyed trust could not be restored by a warning. The Munich I Regional Court (Case No. 14 S 16950/15) clarified that a tenant may not call his landlord a “terrorist” in a dispute, among other things. This considerable insult leads to a serious breach of contract, which justifies termination of the tenancy. Employees of the landlord may also not be threatened or insulted. This was decided by the Berlin-Charlottenburg District Court (Case No. 203 C 45/21) in the case of a tenant who blocked the entrance to the building to employees of the landlord who wanted to deliver letters and threatened that he would fetch his pit bull, which would then tear them apart. The landlord terminated the tenancy without notice. Since the tenant did not want to move out, the landlord brought an action for eviction before the district court. With success!

What do landlords have to put up with in a dispute with a tenant?

A tenant who in a dispute with the landlord in a letter the statement of the former Minister Nahles “then we hit you in the face” as a quote reproduces, the landlord is not yet threatened and therefore can not be terminated without notice, ruled the district court of Lübeck (Az. 24 C 2626/19). A tenant who expresses the words “Fuck you” to the property manager in a somewhat tense situation can therefore not be terminated without notice, ruled the Berlin-Köpenick Local Court (Az. 3 C 201/19). This statement is a youth colloquial language, with which the displeasure about a situation is expressed. It is not defamatory and not so significant that the continuation of the lease would be unreasonable. According to a decision of the Higher Regional Court of Frankfurt/Main (Case No. 2 U 55/18), a criminal complaint filed by the tenant for insult does not yet entitle the landlord to terminate the tenancy without notice. This is a right of the tenant to take action against possibly insulting statements of the landlord. The Berlin-Charlottenburg Local Court (Az. 216 C 461/14) found the designation of an employee of the landlord as “lazy” and “talentless wrecking ball” to be a rather less serious insult. In this case, a warning to the tenant would have been required first before termination without notice, according to the court. If the landlord is partly to blame for a dispute with his tenant, he may not terminate the lease, ruled the Federal Court of Justice (Case VIII ZR 289/13) in the case of a landlord who did not comply with the tenant’s repeated requests to leave his apartment. As a result, the tenant grabbed the landlord and carried him outside. The landlord then terminated the tenancy. Wrongly, the Federal Court of Justice ruled. The landlord had violated the tenant’s domiciliary rights and was therefore partly to blame for what happened. In view of the overall circumstances of the case, the tenant’s behavior did not constitute a serious breach of duty that would justify termination of the tenancy.

When does a quarrel with the landlord threaten criminal charges and damages for pain and suffering?

If a tenant’s statements to a landlord during a dispute constitute a gross public insult, the landlord can claim damages for pain and suffering. first published on 03.07.2014, last updated on 27.06.2022 Lease Violation Letter.

Luftwerbung Riesenballon

Lease Violation Letter