The Göttingen district also lacks a coherent concept for determining reasonable housing cost limits for social welfare benefits in Hann. Münden. After the district lost a court case concerning the city of Göttingen in February 2017, the Hildesheim Social Court, in judgments dated March 3, 2017 (Case Nos.: S 26 AS 220/16, S 26 AS 306/16, S 26 AS 307/16 and S 26 AS 315/16), also upheld the claims of a family of three from Hann. Münden. The district had reduced the family's housing cost benefits based on an expert opinion from the Hamburg-based company Analyse und Konzepte (A+K) from March 2013 .
The court criticized the expert report primarily for combining the municipalities of Hann. Münden and Staufenberg into a single, unified residential area, even though it does not constitute a homogeneous living space. Furthermore, the report failed to assess housing standards during data collection. "For years, we have argued that the report improperly conflated Hann. Münden and Staufenberg into a single comparison area, failed to assess necessary housing standards, and based its findings on estimates derived from 2006 average figures that weren't even collected in the respective municipalities themselves," summarized attorney Sven Adam, representing the plaintiffs, highlighting just a few of the numerous criticisms of the so-called A+K report.
Since the Göttingen district, as the responsible benefit provider, does not possess valid housing market data according to the decisions of the Social Court, the court is of the opinion that reasonable costs can no longer be determined based on the district's unlawfully low guidelines. Instead, the values in Section 12 of the Housing Benefit Act (WoGG), plus a 10% safety margin based on the respective rent level of the municipality in which the recipient lives, should now form the limits for reasonable accommodation costs for social benefit recipients.
shows Our overview which limits of appropriateness the Hildesheim Social Court currently applies for the area of responsibility of the Göttingen district, which limits of appropriateness have been set by the Göttingen district in contrast, and how large the differences are.
“The effects of the unlawfully set limits on reasonable rent primarily affect multi-person households, i.e., families and single parents. As a result, children are often removed from their social networks when forced relocations occur due to allegedly excessive housing costs,” Adam continued. For the plaintiffs, aged 55, 47, and 14, who remained in their apartments and filed lawsuits, the court rulings now mean back payments of up to €73.00 per month for more than two years.
Further information – including the specific limits of appropriateness for selected locations in the Göttingen district – can be found here:
http://www.anwaltskanzlei-adam.de/index.php?kosten-der-unterkunft-im-landkreis-goettingen
