Statement on the Göttingen housing market report
The legal dispute concerning the applicability of the so-called F+B report for determining reasonable housing cost limits for social welfare recipients was decided by the Federal Social Court in its ruling of November 28, 2014 (Case No.: B 14 AS 215/14 B). This ruling upheld the jurisprudence of the Hildesheim Social Court (e.g., Hildesheim Social Court, judgment of December 9, 2011, Case No.: 23 AS 1911/10), according to which the F+B report was not based on a coherent concept for surveying the rental housing market in Göttingen.
In 2012, when it was already becoming clear that the F+B report would not stand up in social court, the Göttingen district commissioned a new company to prepare another report. In February 2013, the district published a "Conclusive Concept for Determining the Limits of Reasonable Housing Costs in the Göttingen District" by the privately organized company Analyse & Konzepte (A+K), again based in Hamburg. This report once again concluded that the limits of reasonable housing costs in Göttingen should be far below the values established by case law. The findings of this report stand in clear contradiction to the repeatedly reported findings in the press regarding rent increases within the Göttingen district's jurisdiction.
In light of this again "surprising" result of the A+K report, we also examined its compatibility with the Federal Social Court's case law on determining limits of reasonable housing costs under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Book XII (SGB XII).
In collaboration with lawyer Victoria Lübeke, Göttingen, and with the support of Dr. HD Frieling, we published a counter-statement in December 2014. The full text of this statement is now available here.
Counter-statement from December 2014 to the expert opinion of the company A+K from March 2013.
File format: pdf – Size: 315.6K – Uploaded: 20.12.14
In a press release dated December 16, 2014 stated the following regarding the publication:
“The report improperly conflates various municipalities into a single comparison area, fails to consider Göttingen’s specific characteristics as a university town, and its findings are based on estimates derived from average figures from 2006 that weren’t even collected in Göttingen,” summarizes attorney Sven Adam, addressing just a few of the numerous criticisms leveled against the so-called A+K report. Together with attorney Victoria Lübeke, also from Göttingen, and in collaboration with economic geographer Dr. H.-D. von Frieling, Adam drafted a 44-page counter-statement to the report […]. This counter-statement also references previous rulings by the Lower Saxony-Bremen State Social Court (LSG) in preliminary injunction proceedings concerning the A+K report (decision of August 12, 2014, case number L 11 AS 647/14 B ER). In that case, the LSG criticized the arbitrary creation of comparison areas and declared the report inapplicable.
The consequence of this is the application of the established case law of the social courts, namely the determination of the limits of adequacy based on the values in Section 12 of the Housing Benefit Act (WoGG), taking into account a 10% safety margin.
[…]
Especially for families, the effects of the unlawful reduction of social benefits are therefore […] considerable. Even the increase in the values announced by the district as of January 1, 2015, based on the index update through analysis and concepts from November 2014, thus does not meet the legal requirements and continues to lead to unlawful and, in some cases, significant reductions in social benefits.
The question of housing costs under Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) or Section 29 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is the most hotly contested issue before the social courts in the context of granting basic income support benefits. The introduction to the opposing statement therefore reads as follows:
In Göttingen, following the so-called Hartz reforms, the Göttingen district is responsible for granting benefits under the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II, formerly Hartz IV) and Book XII (SGB XII, formerly social assistance), based on the model of so-called "option municipalities." Its area of responsibility encompasses the city of Göttingen and all municipalities within the Göttingen district.
As part of these social benefits, the Göttingen district is also obligated to cover the costs of accommodation (basic costs and "cold" utility costs) for those affected (§ 22 SGB II and § 29 SGB XII). The current version of § 22 para. 1 sentence 1 SGB II states: "Needs for accommodation and heating are recognized in the amount of the actual expenses, provided these are reasonable." Conversely, those affected will only be reimbursed for the actual amount of their accommodation costs if these are not unreasonable.
The concept of reasonableness is a so-called indeterminate legal term, which must be interpreted by the administration and the social courts on a case-by-case basis. Due to the open-ended nature of the legislation and the administration's fiscal desire to save public funds, the so-called "appropriateness of housing costs" is the most fiercely contested issue in social courts. This is because recipients of social benefits often face an existential threat, as they are forced to move due to alleged, and sometimes only minor, perceived inadequacy of their housing costs, or they must compensate for part of these costs with their already inadequate standard benefits, thus accepting cuts to their subsistence level.
In recent years, the wave of lawsuits against the
Hartz IV legislation has therefore led to the development of comprehensive case law in social courts regarding the appropriateness of housing costs. However, the following court rulings can be cited as established legal principles:
– Within the framework of reasonable housing costs, recipients of social benefits are only entitled to reimbursement of costs for apartments in the lower price segment of comparable apartments within the relevant geographical area (Federal Social Court (BSG), judgment of November 7, 2006 – Case No.: B 7b AS 18/06 R).
– To determine the reasonableness of housing costs, the basic income support provider must first ascertain the local characteristics of the rental housing market (BSG, judgment of November 7, 2006 – Case No.:
B 7b AS 18/06 R).
– The data basis chosen by the basic income support provider must [if available] […] be based on a coherent concept that provides sufficient assurance of reflecting the current conditions of the local rental housing market (Federal Social Court, Judgment of June 18, 2008 – Case No.: B 14/7b AS 44/06 R).
– In the absence of valid information about the local housing market, the limit for reasonable accommodation costs within the meaning of Section 22 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book II (SGB II) and Section 29 Paragraph 1 of the German Social Code, Book XII (SGB XII) is to be calculated based on the values in Section 12 of the German
Housing Benefit Act (WoGG) plus a surcharge of 10% (Federal Social Court, Judgment of December 12, 2013 – Case No.: B 4 AS 87/12 R). Since the Hartz IV reform, the Göttingen district has lacked the necessary information regarding the rental housing market within its jurisdiction.
We welcome any criticism and suggestions regarding the counter-statement, which can be sent via email to kontakt@anwaltskanzlei-adam.de .
The counter-statement may be used, distributed, and published free of charge (sic!), provided our law firm is credited as the author. This page can be linked to using the following address: https://anwaltskanzlei-adam.de/goettinger-wohnungsmarktgutachten/
