A resident wishes to alter her bathroom because the existing fittings have become impractical in everyday use. A new shower appears to her to be a pure improvement. For the preparation, however, that positive goal is not sufficient: the planned intervention must fit the actual rented flat, the execution and the relevant consent framework.
This article assumes that § 9 Mietrechtsgesetz is applicable to the specific Austrian main tenancy. It does not blanketly transfer this provision to all rented flats. If the scope of application is unclear, it will be classified individually before any binding order.
A concrete alteration from an everyday problem
First describe what should work better, and then what would actually need to be changed for that to be the case. Is it about different sanitary fittings, relocated connections or additional interventions in existing components? A sketch and a comprehensible scope of services help to talk about the same undertaking.
A functional improvement in everyday use is not yet a technical execution plan. Have a suitable specialist company explain which works and connections belong to the proposed solution. Unknown substrates or pipe routes are not treated as already resolved in the quotation.
What § 9 brings together for consent
The provision requires notification of an intended substantial alteration to the landlord. If the landlord does not refuse within two months of receipt of the notice, consent is deemed to have been given under the rule. In addition, § 9 names several prerequisites under which consent cannot be refused, such as technical conformity, proper execution, cost-bearing by the main tenant and the protection of other parties involved as well as of the building. [BAD]
For certain sanitary alterations paragraph 2 contains a facilitation with regard to the requirement from paragraph 1 number 2. That does not mean that all other requirements thereby fall away. [BAD] Precisely for that reason “It is a bathroom renovation, so I may do anything” is not a usable conclusion.
The resident needs a description in which the scope and prerequisites of her actual planning are recognisable. A casual oral mention is not treated here as a reliably documented receipt of a complete notice.
Also consider the later end of use
§ 9 paragraph 3 allows, for substantial alterations outside the cases referred to in paragraph 2, consent to be made dependent on an obligation to restore the previous state upon reinstatement. [BAD] Which classification applies to the specific conversion and which agreement is required therefore remains a separate question. A blanket statement that every bathroom renovation must later be removed is not made.
In the hypothetical example the resident clarifies execution, notification and the aforementioned reinstatement question before commissioning. She treats any desired subsidy separately; this article mentions neither an amount nor an entitlement. Only when the prerequisites fit the concrete project does a general idea become an executable order.
The preparation ends with a comprehensible connection of the intended use, planned execution and clarified consent status. It does not replace an individual legal review and does not provide instructions for sanitary or waterproofing work. Its value lies in preventing a well‑intentioned alteration from starting on different understandings of scope and later consequences.