Reader question: Which payments and further damage claims must be examined separately when a vacating deadline has already been granted?
The court has granted you a vacating deadline for moving out of your German rented flat. The landlord now demands, in addition to payments for continued use, further damages, for example because of a missed subsequent arrangement. Examine these items separately. The granted deadline is neither a blanket exemption from costs nor a basis for claiming every alleged consequential loss without further scrutiny.
Recognise two types of claim
§546a paragraph 1 BGB provides, for late return, compensation for the duration of the deprivation of use: the agreed rent or the rent that is customary in the locality for comparable items. Paragraph 2 generally allows the assertion of further damage. Whether the concrete requirements, including deprivation and amount, are met must be examined in the actual case. [BGB546a]
Therefore mark each item in the letter you received. Is an amount intended to compensate for the continued use? Or is a further personal loss being alleged? The heading “Mietausfall” alone does not create a clear allocation. Request the period, the basis of calculation and the evidence.
Correctly classify the judicial deadline
§571 paragraph 2 contains a special protection: if a vacating deadline is granted under §721 or §794a ZPO, there is no obligation to compensate for further damage for the period from the end of the tenancy until the expiry of that deadline. [BGB571]
Provide the full order or judgment showing the relevant deadline dates. A privately requested or tolerated later handover is not automatically a judicially granted deadline in the sense of this rule. This article deals primarily with a deadline already granted under §721 ZPO. [ZPO721]
A hypothetical case with two invoice lines
A letting party receives an itemised statement for the period within its judicial vacating deadline. One line concerns the continued use. A second is intended to cover additional costs of a planned further utilisation. It submits the invoice together with the court decision for advice.
The first line is examined under §546a. For the second, it is separately investigated whether it is a further damage and whether the period is covered by the protection of §571 paragraph 2. The tenant does not simply declare the entire invoice settled just because a vacating deadline exists.
Outside this period a separate assessment remains
Paragraph 1 of §571 limits further compensation for damage in respect of residential premises as a rule to return circumstances for which the tenant is responsible and to indemnification required according to equity. For a termination by the tenant the paragraph contains an exception. Do not transfer this general rule to your case without examination. [BGB571]
Even an originally granted deadline does not cover arbitrarily later periods. Record contract end, start and end of the granted deadline, actual return and all demanded periods alongside each other. Any extension must be classified according to the actual judicial decision.
§571 paragraph 3 prohibits disadvantageous deviations from its protection. [BGB571] The substantive result is therefore an answer examined by type of claim and period. It is neither about a blanket promise of free continued residence nor about the unexamined recognition of every alleged consequential loss. Individual advice is required regarding the concrete amount and timely response to a payment demand.