You like the flat; the previous tenant is asking for money for the kitchen. A quick bank transfer is allegedly supposed to secure your succession. Before you decide, three things must fit together: what is actually being sold, what demonstrable value it has, and on what basis you are getting the flat. This article concerns a change of tenancy in Austria and does not confirm any individual Ablöse claim.
Paying for the kitchen does not by itself secure the tenancy agreement
Our editorial recommendation: clarify the letting with the party actually responsible for it. A person may own certain pieces of furniture without being entitled to decide alone on your admission to the tenancy agreement. Conversely, a positive promise to let the flat does not automatically mean that every additional payment demanded is objectively justified.
Therefore place the communication about the flat and the planned furniture transaction side by side. Who is promising what to which party? What has been definitively agreed and what is merely hoped for? A pre-printed payment slip bearing the word “Ablöse” is not a complete answer.
A consideration must be concrete and reasonable
In the relevant scope of application § 27 Absatz 1 Ziffer 1 MRG in particular prohibits payments for the mere surrender of the flat or without an equivalent consideration. The official consumer information distinguishes from that objectively justified reasonable payments, for example for furniture at current value. The scope of application and particular constellations must fit the case. [VERBOT] [AMT]
A kitchen is therefore neither automatically free to take over nor a pretext for any arbitrary price. Have the actual items named and their allocation explained. If individual appliances belong to the rented fixtures, an additional private sale of that item must be clarified precisely. a general prohibition on Ablöse does not replace an examination of ownership and contracts.
An example of our own dissects the unclear sum
In the fictitious case Nora is supposed to pay €4.800. In the joint inventory it emerges that the refrigerator mentioned in conversation is not to be included. For her preliminary negotiation preparation she allocates €2.400 for kitchen parts and €700 for the specified appliances. The positions she assumes amount to €3.100, that is €1.700 less than the claim.
These are explicitly invented assumptions, not an appraisal and not an authorised maximum amount. Nora has age, actual condition and scope further clarified. A calculatory difference does not yet prove a prohibited overpayment. But it does identify a concrete open question that would have remained concealed by a mere total sum.
Ascertain condition and whereabouts together
Our practical recommendation: before deciding on a price, establish which appliances and parts are present and which of these are actually to be handed over. Ask for comprehensible purchase information and known defects. An old purchase price sticker is not a confirmed current value; a self-chosen annual percentage depreciation is no expert report either.
For a substantial, disputed sum an appropriate expert valuation can help. The commission for that should precisely record the items taken over and the relevant condition. Also ensure whether the fittings may remain and whether any questions about reinstatement are open. A private agreement about money does not automatically resolve all arrangements with the landlord.
What happens if the letting does not go ahead after all?
Raise this question expressly before making any payment. Furniture can become unusable for you if you do not get the flat or other parts are removed. A coordinated procedure therefore requires appropriate agreements on the prerequisites, the handover and the handling of the failure of the letting. Have an important condition drafted concretely, rather than deriving a guaranteed refund from a general promise.
Separate deposit, furniture price and other items on the receipt. Recipient, subject matter and reason for the payment should remain comprehensible. At the actual handover compare the agreed inventory with the items present and record discrepancies.
In the example Nora only decides on this clarified basis. She does not buy mere hope for a flat and does not mistake a nice kitchen for an already confirmed equivalent value. It is precisely this connection of letting, performance and proof that makes the decision to take over more robust.