A fictional landlord sees several rent payments in his bank statements only after the day he expected. He marks them all as late. The tenant replies that they each instructed the transfers in good time. Before this discrepancy becomes a formal accusation, the landlord needs a more complete payment chronology.
Check the correct point in time
§ 556b Absatz 1 BGB determines payment at the beginning, at the latest by the third working day of the periods according to which the rent is calculated. [B556B1] The concrete calendar and the contractual situation are examined on the basis of the case; this article does not calculate a specific monthly date.
In judgment VIII ZR 222/15 the BGH decided for residential rent in transfer traffic: with a sufficiently funded account, a payment order issued by the relevant third working day is sufficient. The later crediting to the landlord’s account then does not argue against timeliness. [BGH222]
This changes the operative question in the example. Instead of considering only when I see the money, the landlord also clarifies what the tenant initiated in good time.
Match the specific postings with the alleged order
Our editorial recommendation is a reconciliation per month. Assign the actual receipt to the amount and the corresponding payment order. Keep open which facts are not yet evidenced. A merely earmarked future order should not be described uncritically in one’s own overview as an action already executed. The legal significance of each piece of evidence remains to be assessed.
Request only the information needed for the specific clarification. An untargeted complete overview of all private payments does not help the allocation. If a document is unclear, describe the missing information factually, instead of immediately assuming an intentional false statement.
In the fictional case, one month shows a later credit despite an order issued in time. In another month the order date is already unclear. These events receive different levels of scrutiny. A single collective marking as late would conceal the difference.
Do not use a contractual clause as an answer without checking
In the cited judgment the BGH declared a standard form clause invalid that shifted the risk of delays by payment service providers to the residential tenant. [BGH222] This does not mean an individual approval or rejection of every similarly worded contract clause here.
Therefore present the version actually used. The landlord should neither copy a sentence from the judgment into his contract nor rely solely on the heading Payment credit. The concrete interpretation is part of the task of examination.
Derive further consequences only from the clarified course
A factual follow-up question can complete the circumstances. Whether a warning or termination is appropriate then requires its own legal decision based on the fully clarified course. The article does not assess any specific breach of duty.
In the example the landlord first corrects his overview. It now distinguishes receipt, stated order, document status and legal result. In this way a bank statement that at first glance appears clear becomes a verifiable factual basis for the correct next step.