Verdict Rental reduction due to continuous child noise

BGH: Detailed noise report does not need to be presented
Children are not allowed to keep babbling in the flat. Even though children's noise can be regarded as "socially adequate", the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) ruled in Karlsruhe in a decision published on Tuesday, 12 September 2017 (Ref .: VIII ZR 226/16). If tenants in the house complain of persistent repeated noise from children and their parents, no detailed noise report must be submitted as evidence of a rent reduction.

In this case, the Karlsruhe judge of non-admission complaint a Berlin tenant instead. She has been the tenant of a three-room apartment in an eight-family house in Berlin-Tiergarten since 2004. At the end of 2012, when a family with two children who were not yet of school age moved into the flat above, it was over.

Image: Andrey Kuzmin - fotolia

The woman complained that since then, the little children have been causing massive noise for nearly one to four hours, almost every day and during rest periods. They would stomp for hours, jump, rumble or scream. If it gets too much for the parents, they would also regularly shout quietly.

The noise and the resulting vibrations were so strong that the pots on the shelf were moving. Affected by the noise but the whole apartment. Visitors would not stay with her because of the noise. Even a hearing-impaired neighbor can hear the noise without a hearing aid.

The plaintiff reduced the rent by 50 percent because of the noise impact and paid them only with reservation. In court, she now demanded a good 9,000 euros of the rent paid by reservation from the landlord.

The district court of Berlin determined that even childrens' noise can not be endured without limit. Here, however, the reasonable level has not been exceeded. It belongs to the normal development that children "walk away" and communicate in "louder language". That the parents urge to rest, is a proof of consideration.

Infants are also not capable of differentiated verbal arguments, the district court. Therefore, it is quite normal and common that they make themselves felt louder. The information given by the applicant is too inaccurate. The appeal against the verdict was not allowed.

In its ruling of August 22, 2017, the BGH ruled that another chamber of the district court must deal with the case again. Even if children's noise was considered socially adequate, neighbors would not have to be able to offer everything. It was the commandment of reasonable mutual consideration.

Here, the district court of the noise pollution was not sufficiently investigated and thus violated the right of the applicant to the right to be heard.

For recurring impairments, it is also not necessary that tenants submit a detailed noise record. It is sufficient to describe at what times of the day, how often and over which period of time the noise occurs. The district court could have listened to witnesses and checked the clairaudience of the house. This must now make up for it.

The BGH had already ruled on February 29, 2012, that tenants would not have to keep a "Noise Diary" due to constant noise (file: VIII ZR 155/11, JurAgentur notification from the day of the judgment). Tenants would have to accept occasional celebrations or loud quarrels in the neighboring apartment as "socially adequate", but not constant noise and dirt. For a Mietminderung then a description of type, duration, frequency and times of the day from the noise. The presentation of a "protocol" could not demand the landlord. fle / mwo