Rent reduction: noise pollution from neighbors

Everyone is inevitably exposed to noise today. In road traffic, at work and also at leisure events outside the home, you are used to this and usually willing to accept it.

Your own apartment, on the other hand, should be a haven of peace that enables relaxation and a lifestyle that is not influenced by the behavior of others. However, anyone who thinks that they can find the desired peace in their apartment in an apartment building at any time without restrictions has made their calculations without their neighbors.

Since the apartment is the center of life for many, it is not only used for relaxation, but also for leisure activities, which can not always be done silently. It is therefore inevitable that the interests of several tenants within a multiple dwelling conflict. While some want to sleep in at the weekend or relax after work in the evening, others want to get active and play music, clean the apartment or celebrate with friends with loud music.

This article deals with the question of whether, under what conditions and to what extent tenants who are affected by the noise of their neighbours feel disturbed rental fee reduce can.

Content: Rent reduction in case of noise from neighbors

1. There is no right to absolute silence – the noise pollution must be significant

If a tenant wants to be sure not to be exposed to the noise of his neighbors, he has to rent a detached family home. In a rented apartment within an apartment building, however, he has to expect to hear something from the lives of his neighbors and tolerate their noise to a certain extent without being able to reduce the rent. However, this does not mean that tenants have to accept any noise pollution from neighbors without consequences. As always, there is no black or white. A rent reduction due to disturbing noise from the neighbors is neither fundamentally excluded nor possible at any time. The circumstances of the individual case are decisive.

The decisive legal requirements for a rent reduction are made by the law in § 536 Abs.1 BGB. It says that the rental fee reduced is when and as far as leased one defect which has their fitness to the contractual use not insignificant decreases.

It is undisputed that noise from the neighboring apartment reduces the living quality and thus the usability of the apartment.

The right to rent reduction crucial question is therefore:

2. When is the noise pollution irrelevant and when does the threshold of relevance be exceeded??

The question of the conditions under which noise pollution from neighbors can be regarded as significant depends on many circumstances. Ultimately, this can only be determined separately in each individual case. Before going into individual cases and certain types of noise immissions, some should be mentioned generally applicable principle and factors are shown at the classification the noise pollution as irrelevant or substantially can play a role:

As scale is this here Feel one average people to be set. Subjective hypersensitivities of a single tenant must be disregarded as well as the noise immunity of some tenants.
The classification of the disturbance as irrelevant or significant depends on whether it is still considered episode one socially acceptablebehavior of the neighbors and thus as a concretization of the generallife risk represents or but considering the bid the Consideration to other tenants Not more than unacceptable appear.

critical For the answer to the question whether a disorder is still a manifestation of the general life risk or goes beyond, the following are in particular factors:

The kind the noise pollution,
the frequency the disturbance,
the day– respectively. time of day the harassment,
their volume,
the location the flat,
the (Un) predictability harassment and
the structural (Mis) construction esp. soundproofing and isolation the apartment.

Not essential however, the question is whether the landlord in the location is the noise pollution especially through bans on the noisy neighbors to prevent.

3. An overview of the individual faults

The application of the general principles outlined above, in particular by the courts, gives the following picture in relation to the various sources of interference:

construction noise

However, the landlord takes structural changes in front of an older building, unless otherwise agreed, the tenant can only expect the impact and airborne sound insulation to be higher conditions the for time the structural changes applicable DIN standards is sufficient, if the activities on the intensity of the intervention in the building substance with one new or one basic change of the building comparable are (see BGH, judgment of June 5, 2013 – VIII ZR 287/12).

As the requirements for sound insulation have increased over time, tenants in an old building have to accept greater noise levels than those whose apartment is in a new building.

A decisive one technical regulations in this context DIN 4109 represents minimum requirements to the structural sound insulation (Air and impact sound insulation), by which people in common rooms are to be protected from unreasonable nuisance caused by sound transmission.

Are the minimum structural requirements for sound insulation according to. DIN 4109 not complied with been and exceeds the actually existing noise pollution in the apartment the set there limits, this represents a person who is entitled to the reduction defect the rental item, unless the transgression the sound insulation limit is so slight, that it does not represent a legally significant, significant impairment of rental use. In this context, the BGH has in a case where the minimum requirements for impact sound insulation are met, but those for the Airborne sound insulation around one decibel missing were decided that a Rent reduction not considered comes (see BGH, judgment of June 5, 2013 – VIII ZR 287/12). As justification, the court explains that exceeding a sound insulation limit value by one decibel is generally not of decisive importance, because according to general knowledge of acoustics, a change in the sound level of this magnitude is barely perceptible to the human ear.

Since DIN 4109 only specifies minimum requirements for sound insulation, compliance with the limit values specified there does not preclude that disturbing noises can be heard from neighboring apartments. Nevertheless, the tenant has no corresponding contractual regulation no claim to a DIN standard compared to the limit values in force at the time the building was erected increased sound insulation (see BGH, judgment of 07. 07. 2010 – VIII ZR 85/09).

Something other applies, however, if the parties agree agreed another scale to have. For example, an agreement on the validity of the VDI 4100. VDI guideline 4100 contains – in addition to the minimum requirements for sound insulation according to DIN 4109 – recommendations for one increased sound insulation in the sense of confidentiality and increased comfort in buildings with apartments that serve all or part of the stay of people. If the parties agree to comply with these increased requirements, a rent reduction can be considered if the noise pollution is much lower.

Recommendations for increased sound insulation also contains that Supplement 2 to DIN 4109. This can also be used to clarify whether there is a defect in the rental property if the parties have agreed on increased noise protection.

Note: In order to achieve increased noise protection, the validity of VDI 4100 or Supplement 2 to DIN 4109 does not have to be expressly agreed. Also agreements that read, for example: "The minimum requirements for sound insulation are exceeded" or "Optimal sound insulation is achieved" can lead to the VDI guideline 4100 or Supplement 2 to DIN 4109 being used as a yardstick for the extent of sound insulation owed (cf. the decision of the BGH of June 14, 2007 – VII ZR 45/06, which was not, however, a question of a defect that is relevant under tenancy law, but a contract that is relevant to the work contract).

Celebrate and music

People have always done it and always will, anywhere and anytime. To celebrate increases the zest for life and is an expression of the free development of the personality. It is therefore not surprising that this also happens in apartment buildings. While the mood of the celebrants is at its peak, the festival regularly turns into a restless event for the other tenants of the house. Because nowadays there is hardly a festival without more or less loud music celebrated. Also are loud regularly voices and steps heard more clearly than usual. Many tenants misjudge their rights, which they are entitled to in this case because they believe in the widespread principle that tenants may celebrate loudly once a month after 10 p.m. and thus disturb the rest of the tenants. However, there is no such right (cf. OLG Düsseldorf, decision of January 15, 1990 – 5 Ss (OWi) 475/89 – (OWi) 197/89 I).

As in any case, the answer to the question of whether a rent reduction because of disturbances by celebrating or Neighbors listening to music can be done one weighing up between Interests the "noise ends" under consideration of social adequacy and the need for rest the remaining residents. Here especially the frequency, the duration, the time of day , the (Irregular) regularity and the volume the celebration or music noises a decisive one role.

According to a decision of the BGH dated 02/29/2012 – VIII ZR 155/11 – occasional celebrations as Accept socially appropriate. Similarly, the AG Wiesbaden also ruled on April 13, 2011 – 92 C 3781 / 07- that loud rapp music would not be a significant impairment if it was 56 minutes in four days during the first month, 35 minutes in the next month and 144 minutes could be heard in a further month on three days.

A significant impairment and therefore a reduction law however, exist when a tenant goes through very frequent loud celebrations other tenant late into the night the Weekends significantly in its Night’s sleep disturbed (cf. AG Lünen, judgment of December 16, 1987 – Zw 14 C 182/86).

In addition to the frequency, the frequency is of crucial importance for the assessment of the significance of an impairment due to celebration or music noises time of day the disturbance. According to the immission control laws of the federal states (see e.g. § 9 Abs.1 LImSchG NRW) may the Night rest from 10 p.m. to 6 a.m., and that neither through the disturbance-causing operation of systems nor through the independent disturbance-disturbing behavior of people. If a tenant disturbs the night’s rest, he commits one misdemeanor (see § 17 Abs.1 e LImSchG NRW). These public law provisions do not say anything about a tenant’s right to a reduction under civil law. However, they can be used to assess the social adequacy of a disorder and support the assumption that loud celebration and music noises during the night rest grds. Not as Accept socially appropriate are, namely not even if just her occasionally can be heard. On the other hand, not every disturbance of the night’s sleep automatically creates a reduction right. Esp. at special events such as. Birthdays or Weddings the tenant has impairments usually too after 10 p.m. to some extent to accept, provided that Night rest not overly disturbed is (see Eisenschmidt, in: Schmidt-Futterer, tenancy law, § 536 para. 125).

What authoritative importance the regularity respectively. irregularity a noise pollution, in particular through music from the neighboring apartment, not only for answering the question of whether a rent reduction is even an option, but also for Rating of period, for the reduction has taken place, shows the judgment of the AG Bremen from 09.03. 2011 – 17 C 105/10. This therefore classified the noise from the neighboring apartment in the form of loud music as justifying the reduction chronic disorder a because the other tenants due to the irregularity of noise pollution at any time with renewed Calculate noise had to be affected and thus, in the opinion of the court, particularly in their sleep behavior even when there were no acute noise disturbances. Because it was not just a periodic nuisance that had an impact in a foreseeable period, but because of the possible malfunction at any time a continuous load was there rental fee was therefore not only for the periods when there were actually disturbances of rest, but during the the entire duration of possible impairments.

Gardening and garden tools

Although it can also be quiet, many lawn mowers are real hell machines these days. Especially these, but also other garden tools, drive many tenants crazy again and again. If you have just sat on the balcony or terrace to relax, you can forget this when the lawn mower starts operating in the garden.

When it comes to answering the question of whether noise caused by lawnmowers or other garden tools represents a significant reduction in the usability of the rental apartment, it is crucial time, the duration, the frequency and the intensity respectively. volume the noise immission.

There are no generally applicable limit values, the exceeding of which leads to the assumption of a defect entitling to a rent reduction. The regulations set out below also do not regulate this question. However, they can be used for orientation. If, in particular, rest periods are disregarded with a certain frequency, or if certain immission guidelines are exceeded, it is reasonable to assume that noise pollution should no longer be accepted as socially adequate.

The Equipment and machine noise protection ordinance – also called 32nd Federal Immission Control Ordinance (BImSchVO) – contains in its § 7 rest periods, in which certain equipment in residential areas Not in business may be placed. 57 different devices causing noise are recorded, but not all of them can be listed here. Next to the mowing machine count esp. Lawn trimmers, hedge trimmers, leaf blowers and Verticutter to. For all of the devices listed in the appendix to the ordinance, section 7 (1) sentence 1 no.1 BImSchVO stipulates that All day on Sundays and public holidays as well as at business days in the time of 8 p.m. to 7 a.m. not operated may be. For some devices, such as Leaf blowers and leaf collectors are subject to the operating ban according to Section 7 (1) sentence 1 no.2 BImSchVO even on weekdays even from 7 a.m. to 9 a.m., from 1 p.m. to 3 p.m. and from 5 p.m. to 8 p.m..

In the "Technical Instructions for Protection Against Noise" (TA noise) that serve to protect against harmful environmental impacts are certain immission regulated, which may not be exceeded by the operation of certain systems. For general residential areas, these guidelines are 55 db (A) for emission locations outside of buildings during the day between 6 a.m. and 10 p.m. and 50 db (A) for pure residential areas. These guide values can be used as an indication of the point at which noise pollution caused by garden tools can no longer be assigned to the general risk to life.

Commercial operation

There are not always only apartments in a tenement. In a city center location in particular, residential areas on the ground floor are often rented to traders, for example one restaurant or some other retail store operate. These companies can cause noise pollution that limits the living value of the rental apartments.

For the answer to the question of whether the tenant has to accept these noise disturbances without being able to reduce the rent or not, it is crucial, as with every rent reduction, whether the reduction in the quality of living is significant or as socially adequate and therefore insignificant.

In these cases, however, a rent reduction often fails because of the Ban reason of § 536b S.1 and S.2. BGB, without the relevance being important. After that, the tenant has that Law, the rental fee to reduce, namely Not to when he got the defect knew when signing the contract or this him remained unknown due to gross negligence is. If a tenant rents an apartment, even though he knows that there is a restaurant in the same house, he cannot reduce the rent due to noise pollution that is usually caused by the operation of a restaurant If the tenant did not know when renting the apartment that noise beyond the normal noise of a restaurant could be heard in the apartment, a reduction is considered (cf. AG Braunschweig, Judgment of June 29, 1989 – 113 C 4614/88 (9)).

Even those who have an apartment above one bakery rents, must generally assume that this will cause noise pollution that is associated with the normal operation of a bakery. In this case, the contractual condition of the rental apartment includes a certain amount of noise (see LG Berlin, judgment of November 21, 2002 – 67 S 102/02).

Before concluding the rental agreement, pay close attention to whether there are commercial operations in the house or in the immediate vicinity.

If the right to mitigation is not excluded, because the noise pollution was not foreseeable for the tenant or the situation changed after the contract was concluded, it depends on whether this is the threshold of relevance exceed.

Here, the location the flat a crucial role. So are in one Downtown location or in Mixed with discos and industrial facilities higher noise Levels common as in outlying areas or rural areas.

In addition to the time, the duration and the frequency, the decision in most cases volume about the relevance. Here, the one already mentioned TA noise can be used as a guide with their immission guidelines, which are used for daytime noise transmission within buildings limit values of 35 db (A) and for the night (10 p.m. to 6 a.m.) of 25 db (A)

It should be noted, however, that on the one hand not every violation of public law standards – such as TA noise – leads to a deficiency in the sense of private tenancy law (cf. LG Berlin, judgment of November 21, 2002 – 67 S 102 / 02) and on the other hand a defect justifying the reduction can also be assumed if the limit values of TA noise are not exceeded or only exceeded in individual peak values (cf. LG Berlin, judgment of 03.03.2005 – 67 S 238/02 ).

children’s noise

"disturbing Sounds, that of children are going out as Expression for granted childlike development and basically to maintain child-friendly development opportunities socially acceptable and thus reasonable.“For example, it says in Section 6 of the Immission Control Act of the State of Berlin. Although this law does not regulate the question of when a rent reduction due to child noise is considered, it is an expression of the general view that child noise must be accepted to a considerable extent.

However, this does not mean that a reduction in rent due to noise caused by children is excluded in every case.

A crucial one difference first make it whether the noise outside or within the neighboring apartment caused becomes.

Already in 1975 the LG Freiburg (cf. the judgment of February 18, 1975 – 9 S 197/74) decided that a healthy development of children presupposes that there was space available outside the actual living space, where they could adapt to their age could develop safely and freely in the game.

noise, the by children playing outdoors is usually caused no lack of the rental property that entitles to the reduction. Children therefore play on Children’s playgrounds, soccer fields or similar facilities noise pollution as socially acceptable to be accepted, even if the background noise is perceived by an average adult as "unbearable" (cf. AG Frankfurt a. M., judgment of 13.03.2009 – 33 C 2368 / 08-50).

A significant impairment justifying the reduction exists according to a judgment of the LG Munich I of November 27th. 1985 – 20 S 8842 / 85- not even if a playground is not built in the immediate vicinity of a tenant’s interior after a contract has been signed.

Play children outside one playground in the patio of an inner-city apartment building, tenants must also do so in houses from which a playground cannot be reached safely accept (cf. LG Berlin, judgment of January 16, 1986 – 61 S 288/85). But even if a playground is reachable and children instead play in a garage, a right to abatement is not necessarily given (see LG Wuppertal, judgment of July 29, 2008 – 16 S 25/08).

Self rest periods may be disturbed by children. The Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court ruled on October 11, 1995 – 9 U 51 / 95- that it existed no claim on one of Children’s sounds free lunchtime.

Only when the noise caused by children playing outdoors exceeds the usual level unreasonable impairment caused (see LG Wuppertal, judgment of July 29, 2008 – 16 S 25/08) and a tolerable and reasonable level, has to noise pollution from the tenant Not more accepted (cf. the judgment of the Schöneberg AG, dated November 19, 1991 – 11 C 303/91, in which, however, it is not a rent reduction, but rather a tenant’s claim against the landlord for the removal of a basketball hoop installed in the courtyard went with reflection plate).

Children play everywhere and therefore also within the flat or in stairwell. The principle that noise from children playing is generally accepted as socially appropriate also applies here. While child noise from children playing outdoors only entitles the tenant to reduce rent in exceptional cases, the tenant does not always have to accept child noise that is caused inside the apartment building without compensation.

For "interior noise“The following applies:

Basically, the noise caused by children and adolescents as a side effect of childhood and adolescent leisure behavior is more reasonable than that of adults (cf. BGH, judgment of 05.02.1993 – V ZR 62/91).

thats why usual children’s noise in the apartment building to accept. However, according to a judgment of the AG Kassel from April 23, 1991 – 872 C 855/91 – the custom should not be based on the ideas of rest and order of third parties, but on the living and living conditions as well as the needs of the children and their caring and educating Judge parents.

No usual noise is more when children about the bare Play out Take actions that the Bother neighbors, without there being an imperative due to the children’s play. In such cases it is possible and reasonable for the parents to prevent the behavior of the children without their play instinct or movement instinct being impeded (cf. AG Kiel, judgment of June 21, 1984 – 8 C 383 / 83- zu the question of when child noise no longer presents itself as a contractual use of the rented property).

No to rent reduction leading significant impairment, however nightly Baby or toddler cries This is to be accepted as an unavoidable consequence of normal child development (cf. OLG Düsseldorf, judgment of January 29, 1997 – 9 U 218/96). Also one impairment the rest periods must in these cases accepted become. With the judgment of September 24, 1996 -12 S 6 / 96-, the Cologne District Court ruled that disturbances in the midday rest periods from 1:00 p.m. to 3:00 p.m. and nighttime rest periods from 10:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m. caused by cries of the baby and crying from the neighbors, even if they should lead to longer sleep disorders in these than should be accepted as socially adequate, because a crying baby cannot simply be “turned off” like a radio.

Also Toddler cries, the short-term when you leave the rental apartment in the stairwell is also early in the morning socially acceptable and does not give the co-tenant the right to reduce rent (cf. LG Munich I, judgment of February 24, 2005 – 31 S 20796/04).

Not just baby sounds, but also Running and playing noises and in any case occasional children’s trample must always be as socially acceptable are accepted (cf. AG Frankfurt am Main, judgment of 09.09.2005 – 33 C 3943/04 – 13).

The border of reasonable is achieved, however, when the children z. B of chairs leap or furnishings upset or in the apartment broad jump to practice(see AG Kiel, judgment of June 21, 1984 – 8 C 383/83).

On the grounds that children must also take other residents’ rest needs into account within the limits of what is possible for them, the AG Neuss also ruled on July 07, 1988 – 36 C 232/88 – that noise phenomena such as Run, trample and jump in particular after 8 p.m. until late in the evening Not more to accept are.

Making music

For many tenants that means Making music an indispensable part of theirs Recreation Other tenants, on the other hand, can go mad if their neighbor repeatedly senselessly hits the piano keys or makes squeaky tones.

In these cases, too, the answer to the question of whether a rent can be reduced due to noise pollution is based on an individual case that is based on the principle of consideration balancing of interests in the possible regulations of the House rule are to be included (see district court Berlin, judgment of 15.03.2011 – 65 S 59/10). Both the interests of the musician and the disturbed tenant must be taken into account. Because making music in your own home is constitutionally protected as a right to free development of your personality as well as the interests of (non-making music) co-tenants, in particular the right to rest and relaxation in the form you choose (see District Court Berlin, judgment of 15.03. 2011 – 65 S 59/10).

As a rule, an appropriate result of this balancing is provided by many house rules limit of making music on two hours a day outside the rest periods (8 p.m. to 6 a.m. and 1 p.m. to 3 p.m.).

Even if there is no corresponding regulation in the house rules, making music for up to two hours a day outside of rest periods is regarded by the courts as a contractual use of the rented property (cf. AG Düsseldorf, judgment of July 28, 1988 – 20 C 79/87 (2 hours of piano outside of rest periods) or also AG Frankfurt, judgment of May 22, 1996 – 33 C 1437/96 (90 minutes of piano outside of rest periods)).

Ultimately, however, for the answer to the question of whether a rent reduction is possible, the only decisive factor is whether there is a not inconsiderable impairment in the usability of the rented apartment of the disturbed tenant in the specific case.

Actually existing or usual regulations in house rules can just on indication for when impairments by making music from neighbors usually as socially acceptable and as a result of general life risks are to be accepted and when not. Mandatory requirements do not necessarily result from this.

Even if one House rule is present and the tenant making music these comply, includes this one reduction law of the tenant Not compellingly out. From the observance of the house rules it only follows that the music tenant does not exceed the limits of the contractual use towards his landlord.

However, the right to reduce relates to the relationship between the disturbed tenant and the landlord that must be separated from this. If compliance with the house rules would inevitably mean that other tenants’ rights to reduction are excluded, the landlord could undo the reduction rights of the disturbed tenants through a generous design of the house rules. However, a contractual restriction of the right to reduce is gem. Section 536 (4) BGB not permitted.

Conversely, the fact that the limits of the existing or normal house rules have not been complied with does not automatically mean that the rent can be reduced.

Essential is only that relevance or irrelevance of use impairment taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case.

The following factors are relevant here:

The duration of making music,
the time of day of making music,
the season,
the frequency of making music,
(Un) predictability on the time and duration of making music,
the kind of Instruments,
the volume,
the height or depth of the frequencies,
a About tint through others Sounds depending on the Surroundings.

The meaning of some of these factors is described very clearly in the LG Fuehrt from September 17, 1991 – 13 S 5296/90. The reasonableness of the daily exercise game on one was to be assessed here Drums. The court particularly states that, unlike the usual house music (piano, violin, clarinet and the like), the drums are predominantly concerned low frequencies, the impulsively penetration. The strong rhythmic component keep listening and cause distraction in the negative sense in contrast to lightly rippling light music. In addition, disturbances in the summer months, where neighbors also wanted to relax in the garden, less reasonable than in other seasons, in which one usually hardly spends time in the garden, and in which other tenants could therefore neutralize the impairment by putting sound receivers or playback devices into operation if they were to stay in the living room at the same time. These peculiarities of drumming In the opinion of the court, however, should at most become a further limitation in terms of time than is the case for other musical instruments, and not to total inadmissibility. A reduction in rent due to drum noise is therefore only regularly considered if these time limits are exceeded.

According to a judgment of the district court Berlin from March 15th, 2011 – 65 S 59 / 10- making music for neighbors can be classified as particularly annoying if it can start at any time of the day and the Duration unpredictable is.

Overall, the threshold the relevance however, in case law right high stated. For example,. playing the piano for two hours outside of rest periods always as inconsiderable Impairment viewed (see LG Berlin, judgment of 16.11.2001 – 64 S 492/00). The LG Frankfurt (see judgment of October 12, 1989 – 2/25 O 359/89) even holds Play piano up to three hours a day For reasonable and demands that a lunch break be observed only on weekends and on public holidays.

animal noise

Animals in rental apartments are not uncommon. Many tenants cannot do without their little companions and do not feel disturbed by their noises. However, the neighbors are often completely different. This can drive the noise emanating from animals to white heat. While small animals like hamsters and guinea pigs pose no problems in this regard, primarily offers barking always cause disputes not only between the tenants, but also between the landlord and the tenant, namely when the tenant reduces the rent due to noise pollution.

animal noise then provides one reduction justified defect of the rented item, if this the fitness the neighboring apartment for contractual use more than insignificantly affected. When it comes to answering the question of when this is the case, the primary question is: volume, the duration, the time of day and the frequency, as well as on the predictability of animal noises.

The question of when barking entitled to a rent reduction, the AG Hamburg stated in its judgment of March 6, 2005 – 49 C 165 / 05-:

“It is true that barking a dog in the neighborhood can be a deficiency justifying the reduction. However, this only applies when the dog barking takes on a certain extent. In this respect it should be borne in mind that the attitude of dogs far in apartment buildings common and common is so occasional vocalizations of dogs – like other inevitable noises such as steps, the noise of showers or flushing toilets, operating noises from washing machines, apartment door and telephone bells etc. – are part of the noise spectrum that every tenant of an apartment building expects and accordingly as to accept according to the contract Has. Of a considerable and therefore justifying the reduction defect can against it first can be assumed if the sounds emitted by a dog significantly exceed normal dimensions. This is especially true if a dog barks loudly regularly for long periods, be it because he is left alone or because the owner is unwilling or unable to calm the dog down. The same applies if a dog strikes very often – e.g. B. on almost any external noise – so that at any time With sudden dog barking expected must and there are practically no periods of rest. "

How crucial Duration, frequency and (Un) predictability of Hundegebells for the question of rent reduction, the following decisions also show:

For example, the AG Potsdam has ruled on February 22, 2001 – 26 C 76/00- longer barking of dogs to different day- and night hours as disorder of house peace viewed.

The AG Düren (cf. the judgment of August 30, 1989 – 8 C 724/88) has in a case in which dogs almost in the neighboring apartment barked all the time, if someone at the Apartment door passed or if the elevator the Floor happened, decided that the neighbors would be disturbed by this noise disturbing the undisturbed use of their home and therefore entitled are, according to this impairment rental fee to reduce.

To what extent not only the duration, but also the time of day especially dog barking plays a role in the classification of noise as a significant or negligible impairment, can be the judgment of the OLG Hamm from 11.04. 1988 – 22 U 265/87 – inferred that not to the rent reduction, but to the comparable question, when dog barking acc. Section 906 (1) BGB is to be tolerated as an insignificant disturbance. According to the court, may barking only insofar as inessential impairment be classified as it outside the usual rest periods is audible and its duration is certain Period does not exceed. The threshold to relevance should exceeded be when the dog barks longer than overall 30 minutes Every day, longer as ten minutes continuously or outside the periods of 8 a.m. to 1 p.m. and from 3 p.m. to 7 p.m. is audible.

The nerves of tenants are strained even more than by dog barking when their neighbor joins forces parrots holds. Especially if the neighbor is on the balcony this can become unbearable for other tenants. Even if the sounds made by parrots are not among those that are common and common in apartment buildings, one comes rent reduction only considered if this one considerable extent to reach.

After a judgment of the LG Nürnberg-Fürth from 13.06. 1995 – 13 S 9530 / 94- the weighing up of the right to keep pets and the right to undisturbed rest in the morning and evening hours as well as during the usual midday rest leads to the fact that noise pollution by parrots, which are parked outdoors or on the terrace of the neighboring property, only in the period from 9 a.m. – 12 p.m. and 1 p.m. – 4 p.m.as insignificant impairment i.S.d. § 906 BGB to tolerate are.

such times can however Not as universal be considered. In particular, the decision of the OLG Hamm and the LG Nürnberg-Fürth with their differentiated timeframes show how much the decision about a rent reduction due to animal noise depends on the individual case.

Living behavior (household appliances, bathroom noises)

Washing and cleaning is also carried out in rental apartments. This is part of normal living behavior. It is therefore inevitable that certain noises, such as the vibration of a washing machine or the noise of water from the shower or toilet flush can be heard in the other apartments. Provided noise disturbances on one normal residential behavior of the neighbor, reduce she Not the use value a rented apartment (cf. AG Münster, judgment of January 18, 1983 – 28 C 539/82).

The crucial question is therefore which activities in the household are normal and which are no longer normal.

After the decision of the AG Münster on January 18, 1983 – 28 C 539 / 82- the actuation of flush, the Let run of water and the to open and Conclude of windows also after 11 p.m. in a neighboring apartment, consequences of not reducing the value in use of the rented apartment normal behavior a neighbor who still works or reads in the evenings or at night.

The use of household appliances such as Vacuum cleaner, washing machine or dishwasher does not give the tenant of the neighboring apartment the right to a rent reduction due to the associated noise if they do necessary framework and the does not exceed the usual size. For example, the tenant uses the upper apartment two times a week his Washing machine, so put the associated noise and vibration no qualifying for rent reduction defect (cf. AG Mönchengladbach, judgment of October 15, 1993 – 20 C 363/93). Different However, it is the case if neighbors regularly visit twice or three times a week night time and also in the noon your Washing machine or let the dryer run. In this case, there is a significant impairment that justifies the reduction. (see OLG Frankfurt, decision of September 26, 1985 – 8 W 25/85).

Even the actuation of shutters belongs to normal use an apartment. It is socially appropriate behavior, even during rest periods. As the Düsseldorf AG ruled on November 29, 2010 – 55 C 7723 / 10-, it is in the nature of things that the roller shutters are just for night time be used as they are intended to darken the rooms for sleeping.

According to a decision of the Düsseldorf Higher Regional Court of 25/01/1991 – 5 Ss (OWi) 411/90 – (OWi) 181/90 I – belongs to normal living habits though also showering at night or bathing. In the time of 10 p.m. to 6 a.m. However, this should only apply if or to the extent that the showering or bathing takes a period of 30 min does not exceed.

4. The amount of the rent reduction – an overview of case law

If the question is answered whether the noise from the neighboring apartment represents a not inconsiderable impairment of the usability of the rented apartment, this is only the first step to successfully reducing the rent. In a further step, the height of reduction amount be determined. This can be a difficult task for tenants, as there are no general requirements for the reduction rate. The following do play factors always a role:

The volume the noise immission,
their duration,
the time of day,
the frequency the disturbance,
their (Un) predictability,
possibly also the season and
the noise the Surroundings.

Ultimately, however, the reduction rate can only be determined taking into account the specific circumstances of the individual case.

It helps to familiarize yourself with comparable cases and the reduction rates granted by the case law. So use the following table rent reduction:

Description of the defect	reduction ratio	court decision
Music from a jazz cellar at night	5%	LG Berlin, judgment of 03.03.2005 – 67 S 238/02
Drums and electric guitar playing for months, in the midday hours and in the evening after 8 p.m., using an amplifier	5%	LG Berlin, judgment of 15.03.2011 – 65 S 59/10
Operation of the washing machine or dryer in the neighboring apartment regularly two to three times a week at night and also at noon	10%	OLG Frankfurt, decision of September 26, 1985 – 8 W 25/85
Audible urine jet noises from the upper apartment next door	10%	LG Berlin, judgment of April 20, 2009 – 67 S 335/08
Noise from the back of chairs in a restaurant below the rental apartment	10%	AG Braunschweig, judgment of June 29, 1989 – 113 C 4614/88 (9)
Noise disturbances from a billiard cafe in the (neighboring) house in the evening	20%	AG Cologne, judgment of February 17, 1989 – 201 C 581/88
Disturbance of the night’s rest due to not only occasional but very frequent loud celebrations on the weekends until late at night	20%	AG Lünen, judgment of December 16, 1987 – Zw 14 C 182/86
Loud music from the apartment next door, which makes glasses in the rental apartment shake and causes children’s sleep disorders	50%	AG Braunschweig, judgment of 03.08. 1989 – 113 C 168/89 (9)

5. A final tip for practice: noise protocol instead of counter-noise

Your excess energy should therefore be better in creating a disrupted tenant noise Protocol to facilitate the implementation of the rent reduction. It is not uncommon for there to be a legal dispute between the tenant and the landlord about the existence and the amount of the tenant’s right to reduction. In the legal process, it is the tenant’s responsibility to take care of those circumstances explain and to to prove, from which the existence of the for lack of and its effects on the serviceability of the apartment. With its judgment of February 29, 2012 – VIII ZR 155 / 11- the BGH gave a clear rejection of the previously widespread principle that the tenant had to submit a noise protocol in order to meet its burden of disclosure.

In order to preserve one’s own memory, however, every tenant is advised to keep a noise record in which

the date of each noise pollution,
their time of day (Beginning and end),
a precise description the sound propagation hinsichtlichihrer kind and – if possible theirs volume and their consequences and
possible witnesses

6. Conclusion and summary

A noise pollution from the neighbors constitutes a deficiency of the rented property, which justifies a reduction, if this results in a not insignificant reduction in the usability of the rented apartment.
In order to classify noise pollution as insignificant or significant, the interests of the “noisy” neighbors have to be weighed up, taking into account the social adequacy and the rest needs of the other residents.
Both the question of whether a noise pollution exceeds the threshold of significance, as well as for the measurement of the amount of the reduction amount, the following factors are of particular importance: