Residents need to agree to increase retirement costs

Residents need to agree to increase retirement costs
Karlsruhe (jur). Retirement homes and nursing homes may not demand a higher home allowance without the consent of their residents. It represents an inappropriate discrimination against consumers, if home contracts provide for a one-sided increase in pay, the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled in Karlsruhe in a ruling published on Friday, June 3, 2016 (Ref .: III ZR 279/15). Only when the resident rejects the desired increase in fees, the home operator can claim them by legal action.

Thus, the BGH was the Consumer Federation Federal Association (vzbv) right. This had sued a nursing home operator from the Ruhr area for omission. The stumbling blocks were the home contracts of the institution and the remuneration rules contained therein.

Residents must agree to increase the cost of accommodation. Image: Robert Kneschke-fotolia

The home allowance is, according to the social legislation, laid down in special framework agreements with the authorities for residents whose accommodation is paid by the social welfare office or the social care insurance. Nevertheless, the home operator reserved a unilateral increase in the accommodation charge, "if the previous calculation base changed" and the increase is appropriate. This applies even more to residents who pay the home privately. The operator relied on the Housing and Supervision Contracts Act.

The Federal Court of Justice (BGH) stopped this procedure with its judgment of 12 May 2016. A unilateral price increase by the home operator is not permitted and disproportionately disadvantages the resident. Just as in tenancy law, where a landlord requires the tenant's approval for an intended rent increase, this also applies to home residents under the Housing and Care Contract Act.

Not only private payers, but also residents for whose accommodation the social welfare office or the long-term care fund pays, would have to agree to a pay increase. Only if the resident denies this consent, the home operator can try to claim this court.

The legislature also had good reasons for its new legal regulation that home operators can not unilaterally set a fee increase. Although the Federal Association of private providers of social services had warned that home operators would now have to complain every time a resident denied his consent to increase the fee. This would lead to unnecessary lawsuits.

However, the consent requirement was intended to protect older persons, people in need of care or those with disabilities, from disadvantages and to "meet their desire for more self-determination", said the BGH. The legislator wants to strengthen consumers as "equal negotiating and contracting parties". Thus, the resident can decide whether he agrees with the intended increase in fees or whether he, for example, makes use of his special right of termination. fle / mwo