Reader question: How can I recognise a judicial increase for major maintenance work?
Major works are to take place in the building. A letter arrives stating a higher monthly main rent. You must not yourself convert a construction notice into an index calculation. If the letter relies on §§ 18 ff. MRG, it concerns a special procedural route with its own cost basis and its own decisions.
Read the asserted legal basis
Our editorial recommendation: Highlight in the letter what is specifically named: an application, an already issued decision, a policy decision or a provisionally approved increase? If information is missing, request the corresponding document and the file number. An announced start of construction does not answer the procedural status.
The rules described apply only within the appropriate MRG framework. § 18 applies, under its conditions, to major imminent maintenance works whose costs are not sufficiently covered. The calculation takes into account, among other things, rent reserves or reductions, costs and financing, and a limited distribution period. [MRG1] [MRG18]
Do not simply divide the construction price by the number of flats
The new monthly charge does not arise from an arbitrary division of the most expensive quote by the number of tenants. § 19 lists, among the application documents, a cost estimate, the main rent accounting for the previous ten calendar years, an object inventory, the calculation of the coverage requirement and the financing plan. The collection of the increased main rent requires a decision by the court or the municipality. [MRG19]
For your review, both building-related fundamentals and the information relating to your flat are therefore important. Demonstrate an incorrect usable area or category specifically with counter-evidence. A blanket statement that the works are too expensive leaves the affected calculation item open.
Provisional is a distinct procedural status
§ 18a distinguishes the policy decision and a provisionally permitted increase under further conditions. It must be oriented towards the likely final result; differences can arise later for differing categories. The provision also contains a reimbursement rule for failure to fulfil the obligation to carry out the works. [MRG18a]
Therefore write down which stage was actually decided. A policy decision is not automatically any arbitrary final monthly billing. Conversely, “still provisional” is not a safe justification to ignore payment without review.
A fictitious proof instead of a collective complaint
In Jakob’s case a new billing has been issued with reference to the roof renovation. His adviser receives the decision and an apartment inventory. The latter shows a different usable area than in his contract documents. Jakob identifies the specific line and attaches the plan; the legal or factual clarification of the area remains open.
He distinguishes this objection from the question of whether the roof needs to be technically renewed. The example does not decide either question. It shows what a comprehensible participation in the procedure can look like instead of a general protest.
Continue to monitor the actual status later
Keep the decision, billings and information on the progress of the works together. § 19 paragraph 3 provides, under its conditions, a recalculation where expenses have changed. [MRG19] A changed construction price is therefore a reason for a targeted review and not an instruction to make your own arbitrary monthly correction.
Have concrete objection and appeal deadlines clarified on the basis of the documents served. This article deliberately does not state a universal deadline. It helps you to link procedural stage, calculation and actual works together, without deriving every demanded increase from a renovation alone.