Statement on the Göttingen housing market report
For the first time in June 2009, the Göttingen district made the controversial report from the company F+B from March 2009 to determine the appropriateness of the costs of accommodation as part of social benefits in Göttingen the basis of its evidence in social court proceedings. Families with children are particularly affected by the lower values determined there than before.
With the support of Dr. HD Frieling from the Geographical Institute at Georg-August University, we developed a counter-statement in July 2009. The full text is now available here.
Statement_on_the_expertise_of_the_company_F+B_-_Anwaltskanzlei_Adam_-_July_2009.pdf
Counter-statement from July 2009 to the report from F+B from March 2009
File format: pdf – Size: 699.5K – Uploaded: 07/08/09 – Downloads: 643
Appendix_-_Writing_from_F+B_an_die_Wohnungsunternehmen_im_LK_Goe_vom_10.03.08.pdf
Attachment to the statement
File format: pdf – Size: 279.5K – Uploaded: 07/08/09 – Downloads: 492
Appendix_-_Schreiben_des_LK_Goe_an_Mieter_vom_14.07.08.pdf
Attachment to the statement
File format: pdf – Size: 172.2K – Uploaded: 07/08/09 – Downloads: 422
Appendix_-_Schreiben_des_LK_Goe_an_Mieter_vom_04.08.08-Wohnkostenerheft.pdf
Attachment to the statement
File format: pdf – Size: 102.6K – Uploaded: 07/08/09 – Downloads: 407
In a press release from the law firm Sven Adam dated July 9, 2009, it says about the publication:
The Göttingen lawyer Sven Adam sharply criticized the rental report commissioned by the Göttingen district. The report by the company F+B from March of this year is intended to determine the appropriateness limits for accommodation costs in Göttingen according to the Social Codes II and XII. The rental cost reimbursement for Hartz IV recipients should then be adjusted accordingly. Families with children are primarily affected by the lower values determined there than before, says Adam: “The report neither reflects the current conditions on the Göttingen housing market nor was representative data used for the evaluation. “. For example, social housing was included in the report, while apartments measuring less than 20 square meters and apartments in one- and two-family houses were not taken into account. In addition, almost exclusively data from large landlords was processed. Factors that are important for the rental price, such as the location and furnishings of the apartments, were instead not even collected. “ There can be no question of a coherent concept for a housing market analysis, as the Federal Social Court repeatedly demands, ” Adam continues and predicts: the district will not be able to prove the conclusiveness of the report in the relevant proceedings. Due to current case law, the table values of the new Section 12 of the Housing Benefit Act (WoGG) must apply as the basis for determining appropriateness. This means an increase of the previous adequacy limits by 10% instead of the even lower values determined. The counter-proposal passed by the Göttingen city administration on Tuesday also clearly falls short. It only takes into account part of the increase in values in the new housing benefit table. Shares supposedly included for heating costs are deducted, although they have to be granted separately. Apparently the administration made a calculation error here.
The question of the cost of accommodation in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II and Section 29 SGB XII is the most controversial subject before the social courts in connection with the approval of basic security benefits. The introduction to the counter-statement therefore states:
In Göttingen, after the Hartz reform, the Göttingen district is responsible for granting benefits according to SGB II (Hartz IV) and SGB XII (old social assistance) based on the model of the so-called option municipalities. His area of responsibility includes the urban area of Göttingen as well as the entire municipalities in the Göttingen district.
As part of the social benefits, the Göttingen district must also provide those affected with the so-called accommodation costs (basic costs and “cold” additional costs) ( Section 22 SGB II and Section 29 SGB XII ). Section 22 Paragraph 1 Sentence 1 SGB II states: “Services for accommodation and heating are provided in the amount of the actual expenses, provided these appropriate .” Conversely, those affected will only be reimbursed for the costs of accommodation in the actual amount , if they are not inappropriate.
The concept of appropriateness is a so-called indefinite legal term that must be brought to life by the administration and the social courts depending on the location to be examined. Due to the legal text, which is open to interpretation, and the administration's fiscal will to save public money, the so-called " appropriateness of the costs of accommodation " is the most hotly disputed issue before the social courts. The recipients of social benefits are often concerned about their existence, as they are forced to move due to an alleged and sometimes only minor (alleged) inadequacy of their accommodation costs or they have to compensate for parts of the corresponding costs with the standard benefit that is already too low and thus have to accept cuts in the subsistence level.
In recent years, as part of the wave of lawsuits against the Hartz IV legislation, extensive case law has developed on the question of the appropriateness of the costs of accommodation in the social justice system. The following findings of the courts can be cited as established legal principles:
– Within the scope of the appropriateness of the accommodation costs, social benefit recipients are only entitled to cover costs for apartments in the lower segment of the apartments that are eligible based on size in the spatial district that forms the comparison standard ( Federal Social Court (BSG) – judgment of November 7th, 2006 – Ref.: B 7b AS 18/06 R ).
– In order to determine the appropriateness of the costs of the accommodation, the basic security provider must first determine the local characteristics of the rental housing market ( BSG – judgment of November 7th, 2006 – Ref.: B 7b AS 18/06 R ).
– The data basis chosen by the basic security provider must [if available] […] be based on a coherent concept that offers sufficient guarantee that it reflects the current conditions of the local rental housing market ( BSG – judgment of June 18, 2008 – Ref.: B 14/ 7b AS 44/06 R )
- In the event of a lack of valid information about the local housing market, the appropriateness limit for accommodation costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II and Section 29 Paragraph 1 SGB XII is based on the right column of the table on Section 8 of the Housing Benefit Act - WoGG - (id F. valid until December 31, 2008) plus a surcharge of 10% (see BSG - judgment of November 7, 2006 - Ref.: B 7b AS 18/06 R ; Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court - judgments of April 24, 2007 - Ref.: L 7 AS 494/05 ; from March 11, 2008 - Ref.: L 7 AS 332/07 ; Resolutions from May 23, 2007 - Ref.: L 13 AS 11/06 ER; from June 28, 2007 - Ref.: L 13 AS 58/07 ER ; from April 17, 2008 – Ref.: L 7 AS 166/08 ER; among others).
For years, the Göttingen district has had no knowledge of the rental housing market in its area of responsibility. The last attempt was made in 2005 to map the Göttingen housing market using a report from the Hamburg company “Gewos”. The data at that time quickly became outdated and can no longer be used to represent the actual conditions on the housing market today. However, the results of the Gewos report were not without controversy at the time and, depending on how the report was read, the district would have had to raise the appropriateness limits to a greater extent immediately after the report was published than was done.
For several years, the Göttingen district “saved” itself by referring to the values in the right-hand column of the table for Section 8 WoGG (valid until December 31, 2008) - but without the case law regarding the necessary 10% increase to implement.
For years, main proceedings that we have been conducting have been pending at the Hildesheim Social Court aimed at recognizing the values in the right-hand column of the table under Section 8 WoGG (currently valid until December 31, 2008), including the 10% increase.
Under the pressure of the ever-increasing case law regarding the required 10% increase in the values mentioned, as well as on the local political initiative of various factions, the Göttingen district commissioned the private company “F+B Research and Consulting for Living, Real Estate and Environment GmbH” at the beginning of 2008 (hereinafter F+B) from Hamburg with the preparation of a new report on the Göttingen rental housing market.
After more than a year, this report was published in March 2009 and was introduced by the district as evidence for the first time in June 2009 in the main proceedings conducted by us.
The report comes to the “surprising” conclusion that the appropriateness limits for the costs of accommodation with social benefits are largely even lower than the values in the right column of the table on Section 8 WoGG (currently valid until December 31, 2008) without them 10% increase.
As a result, even more recipients of social benefits would be at risk of having their benefits cut or forced to move financially than before. This particularly affects households with more than one person - i.e. families. The administration's final decision on how to deal with the report is still pending at the time of writing this statement. However, it is to be expected that in the future the appropriateness limits determined by the report will be used by the administration to determine the costs of accommodation to be borne in accordance with Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II and Section 29 Paragraph 1 SGB XII .
The surprising result of the report as well as the fundamental effects on families in Göttingen and the surrounding area, particularly those receiving social benefits, gave rise to the report prepared by the company F+B to be examined more closely.
In our opinion, the result is clear:
The report does not meet the requirements that the BSG has set Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II and Section 29 Paragraph 1 SGB XII For the area of responsibility of the Göttingen district, the report ultimately offers no (sic!) basis for determining an appropriateness limit Section 22 Paragraph 1 SGB II and Section 29 Paragraph 1 SGB XII The data collected by the company F+B does not even begin to allow conclusions to be drawn about what the Göttingen housing market is like.
We would be grateful for criticism and suggestions regarding the counter-statement by email to the address kontakt@anwaltskanzlei-adam.de .
The counter-statement can be used, distributed and published free of charge (sic!) with the attribution of our law firm. This page can be linked to the address:
https://anwaltskanzlei-adam.de/goettinger-wohnungsmarktgutachten/
