“Three years guaranteed rent” sounds reassuring for an investment flat. In the fictitious German offer an additional company is said to secure €1.000 monthly. The buyer, however, does not yet know whether this is intended as a rent payment in its own right, an addition to missing rents or some other obligation. Without this clarification even a clearly printed yield figure is not a reliable basis for decision-making.
This article develops editorial checking steps for the entire investment decision. It does not evaluate any specific provider and does not promise either the effectiveness of a commitment or its subsequent fulfilment.
First map the actual payment route
The buyer has the existing or planned tenancy agreement shown to her and asks who is supposed to owe her the rent under it. § 535 Absatz 2 BGB assigns the agreed rent payment to the tenant. [MIETE] A payment by an additional company must be distinguished from that on the basis of the concrete agreement.
In her overview therefore stand owner of the flat, tenancy party, managing company and the person or company behind the additional promise. The same corporate group can use several names; for the check you need the specific contractual party in each case. A well-known sales brand will not without further basis be entered as the debtor of all later payments.
In the example the tenant is assumed to owe €850 monthly. The buyer now asks whether the announced €1.000 is meant in total or in addition to the rent. The answer significantly changes the calculation. Even a marketing phrase does not yet answer what is to happen in the event of only partially missing rent.
Check the contract rather than just the word “guarantee”
Request the proposed agreement in full before your purchase decision. It must specify performance, start, duration, possible limitations and prerequisites so understandably that you can play through a concrete case of default. Which documents would have to be produced? When would payment be made? What happens in the event of a change of occupant or an extended repair?
A surety (Bürgschaft) is under § 765 BGB the standing surety towards the creditor for the obligation of a third party. [BUERGSCHAFT] However, that is not an automatic legal classification of every offer headed “rent guarantee”. Whether a surety, a direct payment obligation, insurance or other arrangement exists and which rules apply must be clarified on the basis of the whole contract.
The question of the correct contract is not mere legal fine-tuning. A buyer should understand against whom in which case she would have to pursue which claim. The actual ability to pay of the obligor remains an additional question.
Place the promise on the timeline
In the learning example the three-year commitment already begins at an earlier date fixed in the contract; the buyer would only take over the flat later. She therefore has the actually remaining duration for her calculated. “Three years” in the brochure will not uncritically be converted into three full years from her personal move-in or acquisition.
A purely arithmetic difference of €150 monthly between a €1.000 model payment and an assumed €850 rent results over 36 months in €5.400. This amount is not a market valuation of the commitment. It merely shows the order of magnitude under explicitly constant assumptions; contractual conditions and default risk are not yet priced into it.
Assess the flat independent of the promise
Place next to the initial calculation a period without the additional payment. Which actual rent is evidenced by documents? Which re-let is merely expected? Which ongoing expenses and financing must be borne regardless of the supplementary contract?
The buyer in the example cannot cover a monthly financing need with a time-limited amount for the entire loan term. She also checks location, condition, existing tenancy and necessary works. An attractive supplementary contract no more replaces this property inspection than a claimed favourable tax effect. Tax assumptions are assessed separately.
Make the comparison decidable
Where appropriate compare an offer with a payment promise and another without this addition. Different purchase prices and property features remain visible; the more favourable result is not produced by an invented equating of the flats.
A sensible concluding question is: Would the investment decision remain comprehensible with different payment developments? If the entire project only seems viable with an ununderstood marketing promise, an essential basis is missing. Only the separate assessment of the property, the real tenancy agreement, the additional obligation and your own financing makes the decision understandable.