Several tenant parties are for the first time wishing for a shared passenger lift. An offer is available, and at the house meeting many vote in favour. As the landlord side you want to turn this into a reliable next step. The assent in the room is a start; it does not yet answer the statutory agreement and financing route.
Determine the improvement framework first
§ 4 MRG lists, among its conditions, the installation of shared facilities such as a passenger lift as a useful improvement. Legal, economic and technical possibilities as well as the general state of repair of the building belong to the examination. The provision is not a technical permit and does not turn every wish into an immediately executable order. [M4]
The scope of application must also be established. The rule shown must not simply be adopted from another building; § 1 MRG contains exceptions and partial applications. An owners’ vote in a WEG likewise does not automatically follow this tenancy-law route. [M1]
Make the uncovered financing visible
§ 4 paragraph 3 contains a funding route from the rent reserves of the preceding ten calendar years including relevant grants, taking into account required maintenance work. In addition, number 2 names the written agreement of the landlord with the tenant majority on the implementation and financing of the uncovered part. [M4]
Therefore do not lay out only a current bank statement beside the lift offer. For a professional examination the relevant accounting documents, necessary maintenance work, confirmed grants and the delineated scope of improvements are required. A desired lift and an urgent repair must not disappear into an unresolved total sum.
Count the majority according to the statutory reference
For this agreement route the majority is calculated according to the number of rented rental units in the building at the time of the agreement. That is neither automatically a vote by living area nor by all persons present at the meeting. In addition the landlord must be part of the written agreement. [M4]
In the illustrative hypothetical case there are eight rented rental units and one vacant unit. Five of the corresponding rent positions support the project. This initial overview is professionally checked against the actual contractual and representation situation. The vacant unit is not invented as its own consenting tenant party; several occupants of the same apartment are likewise not turned into multiple rented units merely because they are present.
Explicitly consider the remaining tenants
The norm additionally requires that the other tenants are not financially burdened by the improvement works and are not otherwise unduly affected. A majority cannot simply vote to override this protection. [M4]
As editorial preparation therefore the financing of the uncovered costs, consequences for non-participating tenants and actual construction impacts belong in the same examination. Who bears which expressly agreed burden? Which accesses change during the works? How will outstanding questions on later use and ongoing costs be resolved separately? A construction finance commitment does not already decide every future facility accounting.
Provide a concrete status for review
Before commissioning the project, funding documents, parties involved, the proposed financing in writing and the protection of the remaining tenants should fit together. This article does not provide contract clauses and does not replace technical planning or building-law or tenancy-law clearance. Its result is a complete improvement case by which the correct further course can be assessed, rather than retrospectively using a list of consents as a universal approval of costs.