Same here, which kinda pisses me off. Mine is annual though, so I really need to be careful not to miss the window.
I guess I could insist, or go to the conciliation commission, because to the best of my knowledge there are no “maximum” time, but it’s more of a hassle than simply waiting a bit.
Still, the asymmetry in the relationship is blatantly unfair. If i ignore/decline by letter a rent increase I get debt collection on my ass. If the landlord ignores the rent decrease, I need to go to the conciliation commission to force them to take it into account. Why shouldn’t they be the one doing it if they think the decrease is not justified?
They should already give you the amount of the reduction, only valid starting from the next date. At least that’s what I got, reduction starting from July.
I don’t really believe there is asymmetrical relationship in Switzerland
In fact I think tenant rights are one of the best in world here. Landlords cannot raise rent unless they fulfil requirements. They cannot lick out tenants without certain conditions. And so on…
Why should it be symmetric? They are owning the building, you‘re just renting. It‘s not your own property and as such the relationship has to be asymmetric.
Because it’s a contract between two parties, and it would make sense that both parties have to follow the same procedure to amend it, within the limits defined by the law?
I am not asking for everything to be symmetrical, but to me it would make sense for the contract modification. It’s already the case regarding pretty much every other aspect (notice period, rights to increase/decrease, …).
I do agree renters rights in Switzerland are some of the best, just I think this specific case is inconsistent with the rest.
The point is, renters have many rights, but there are hurdles in place to make use of them. Such as the tedious rent decrease effort (from tenant side, landlord has to agree to come into effect) but the “simple” rent increase (from landlord side; renter doesnt need to agree to come into effect).
This does not make sense to me. There shouldn’t be artificial administrative hurdles that benefit one over the other in the given regulatory context.
Fairness is always in a context, if you compare it to other countries, basically everything in CH becomes ‘fair’.
Yes, and all of this is included in the calculation (e.g. from MV), same btw if we would theoretically have deflation, the rent increase after ref. rate hike would be reduced.
It should be easy:
if the calculation (based on current law) says it should go up, it should go up
if it says it should go down, it should go down.
I’m having a hard time to understand why people defend administrative hurdles that prevent this from working smoothly.
If the LL wants to raise rents, he has to do something and the tenant has to agree (else they go to arbitration). If the tenant does nothing (tacitly accepts), the rent increases go into effect.
If the tenant wants to reduce rents, he has to do something and then the LL has to agree (else they go to arbitration). If the LL does nothing (tacitly accepts), the rent decreases go into effect.
Are you sure about that part?
My understanding is that the LL can do nothing (or simply send back a letter saying “yeah, nah”) and not decrease the rent, and they would not be in the wrong. At that point the tenant would be the one that has to contact arbitration to enforce the decrease.
If LL can just do that then there wouldn’t be so many rent reductions across the board.
Rent controls work quite well in CH. This is also the reason when someone have a good location and good rent, they just never leave that place. It’s quite common in Zurich city and central area.
I think in most cases people follow the policies. Of course some LL might try to game the system but on average if the rent reduction is deserved, it would be granted.
I have never heard in my life (out of CH) that rent can even be reduced. Only thing I heard is rent always goes up so for me it’s a pleasure that one can even ask for reduction
Oh, the landlord would ultimately lose when it eventually goes to court after the failed conciliation. They would possibly also have to pay for the tenant’s court fees in case it’s blatantly bad faith.
This is going to dissuade most landlords from playing too many games.
But it’s the tenant that has to request conciliation (within 30 days in case of refusal, after roughly a month in case of no answer).
I have a friend that got stiffed out of a year of rent decrease a few years back because the rent decrease was refused for being too early and they didn’t contest within 30 days, and then they sent it a second time but too late (they own fault, but still) and they had to wait one extra year (1-year contract is pretty usual in Lausanne).
This is simply not true.
If you do not get an answer from LL after you ask for a rent reduction and therefore decide yourself to pay less rent from next month, you as a tenant get into trouble. You have to become active and initiate the arbitration instead. This is clearly described in the 4th step section (‘what if they don’t reply’) of the MV here.
By reading and partipating to this forum, you confirm you have read and agree with the disclaimer presented on http://www.mustachianpost.com/
En lisant et participant à ce forum, tu confirmes avoir lu et être d'accord avec l'avis de dégagement de responsabilité présenté sur http://www.mustachianpost.com/fr/
Durch das Lesen und die Teilnahme an diesem Forum bestätigst du, dass du den auf http://www.mustachianpost.com/de/ dargestellten Haftungsausschluss gelesen hast und damit einverstanden bist.
so for me it’s a pleasure that one can even ask for reduction