Reader question: Which facts support the statutory presumption when construction fails to start and what is the significance of objective reasons?
The announced modernisation of your German flat should have started long ago. You have already made concrete arrangements because of the announced burden. In fact, nothing appears to have happened on the construction site. Now you want to have it examined whether a breach of duty and compensable damage are possible.
For this question §559d BGB contains a special statutory presumption. It does not replace the exact timeline nor the proof of every alleged expense. The article considers a current event; for older announcements the applicable transitional law must be examined separately.
Secure the relevant announcement in full
Provide the original announcement, all changes and any actual responses. Which start date was announced? When was the announcement received? Were different dates named later and what exactly was agreed about them? A calendar note taken out of context does not answer these questions.
Also record the observed actual works. An incorrect statement “Nothing was done at all” does not help if individual measures have already begun. Mark what you yourself observed and what was only communicated to you. The legal significance of preparatory activities is examined on the basis of their actual content.
Assign the special twelve‑month rule correctly
Section 559d number 1 presumes a breach of duty if the alteration is not begun within twelve months of the announced start. If information about the start is missing, the rule instead ties to the receipt of the announcement. [BGB559d]
These are different starting points. In the hypothetical case the notification contains a concrete future start date. The tenant therefore does not simply count twelve months from the earlier day of receipt. They provide both dates and let the statutory time limit be checked against the relevant event. The article does not calculate a personal deadline on the basis of incomplete data.
Not every delay leads to the same conclusion
The presumption does not apply under §559d if the landlord sets out an understandable objective reason for the conduct in the individual case. [BGB559d] Therefore secure their explanation as well. Have it checked whether they plausibly explain the actual delay and the period concerned. A mere guess about malicious intent will not be passed on as an established fact.
The provision also lists other facts: certain particularly high announced increases, substantial burdens not objectively necessary during the execution and a halt of begun works for more than twelve months. [BGB559d] A failure to commence for the first time is not equated with a mere interruption of construction.
Prove the alleged damage separately
Section 280 BGB links damages, among other things, to the damage caused by the breach of duty; special types of compensation have additional requirements. [BGB280] A presumption regarding the breach of duty therefore does not automatically confirm all moving, storage or other costs.
For each claimed expense assemble the order, reason, amount and receipt. Why was it incurred specifically because of the announced measure? What information was available at the time? What would have happened in any event? In the hypothetical file a privately planned purchase made beforehand remains separate from the dispositions concretely caused by the announcement.
Proceed with a specific claim question
The consultation receives the announcement, the timeline, the other party’s explanation and individual damage items. It examines the presumption, possible rebuttal and the elements of the claim together. A self‑assumed compensation will not be unilaterally offset against the current rent until then. The aim is a substantiated specific claim, not a lump‑sum payment solely because of a long‑standing construction announcement.