But it generally is, to the point that a threat of being taken to the “Betreibungsamt” causes many many to pay bills even though they may have good cause not to. There are always exceptions but the number of tenants milking or abusing the system in Switzerland is minimal.
1 Like
Tenancy issues and debt enforcement aren’t really related in this context, though. Sounds like your GF knew how to game the basic system but, equally, she had an ineffective landlord. Conversely, trying to piss about with one of the big letting agencies probably wouldn’t have got her as far.
“If…” 
The landlord owned about 200 rental properties in the area, so had an idea how things worked.
Again, there is no legal ground to do this, meaning you can just lie and breach the contract and it can’t be held against you. The landlord has no right to couple the validity of the rental contract to a valid liability insurance coverage.
Yes, but liability insurance was asked only at the time when the contract was signed. I could have ended it several years ago. There’s no compliance check for this.
1 Like
Better for the landlord to take insurance and add to the rental cost.
2 Likes
For most people liability insurance is a very good idea anyway. I initially refused to get it. On leaving a flat years ago we were charged an unreasonable amount for repairs. Since the landlord holds the deposit there is little one can do about it. Since then, I have always had liability insurance. If someone claims against you unfairly, send the claim to the insurance and let them sort it out. Take care to pay the higher premium that covers “negligence”. Criminal activities are not included 
A landlord will have separate insurance - not sure liability is the correct one here.
You can just lie about this, it’s a “do you plan to get pregnant” type of question. Some insurances offer a 2 week notice period…
Quote the contrary, he needs to prove the damages, the age of the items and itemize how much is “übermässige Abnutzung”, etc. it’s very hard to actually get the deposit money.
As a cyclist it ofc makes sense to have the insurance, in case of a traffic accident - I have a high sum, but high Selbstbehalt as well (10M, Grobfahrlässigkeit and 700 CHF Selbstbehalt).
Eh. Possession is 90% of the law. The landlord controls access to the deposit. It may be hard to get the deposit back. It is also so, that the flat needs to be returned in pretty much the same condition if it was rented out. Normal wear and tear here is much less many expats expect especially if the rental only lasted 2-3 years.
What I have learned is to be very careful when taking over a flat and to take pictures if necessary. Copies can be added to the rental agreement.
Liability insurance makes sense for almost everyone is Switzerland. Your may not recover all your premiums in pay-outs but it saves a lot of hassle and also saves the worry of having to meet a big claim.
If an item lasts for 10y and you stayed for 3y and the land lord bought it 5y ago, you’ll only need to pay 2/10 of the replacement costs (as it was almost at the end of it’s lifespan). And for the pictures: The land lord who has no pictures also has no case, as it’s just hearsay vs hearsay in such a case. I’m not arguing against liability insurnane, it’s probably the only insurance that’s sensible (besides health insurance), but outside of a bit of paperwork, it’s very hard to access the money for the landlord - and the money isn’t his either, it’s on a neutral bank account and every claim to said money can be challenged in front of the Schlichtungsstelle or the civil courts.
The most likely scenario is that e.g a fridge tray is broken. If the the fridge is not due for replacement you have to pay the full cost of the tray- best replace it yourself and not let the landlord do it. Appliances may have had to have a recent service done at your cost. Again, it is better to organise this in advance. If it has had a recent service it is difficult for the landlord to claim it is not working. Damage to a wall must be repaired at your full cost - fill all screw-holes unless otherwise stated in the tenancy agreement - in this case one should enquire how they will be dealt with at the end of the tenancy. Landlords sometimes take photos at the end of a tenancy for the outgoing tenant - make sure you also take yours when moving in and out. Join the tenants association.
Back to the initiative: why vote no?
I’ve not really followed the conversation in this topic, but I’ll bite, taking your question at face value:
- As a renter myself I feel inclined to vote for whatever the Mieterverband advocates for.
Cap on my rent? Good for me! Egoist Goofy at his best. - Reading what the Mieterverband claims what they want to achive (Mietpreis-Initiative eingereicht | Mieterinnen- & Mieterverband) this doesn’t sound entirely unreasonable.
It kind of isn’t fully reasonable, either, though.? - As an investor myself a mandatory cap on profits (3.25%) would lead me to shy away from putting any money into this.$
- Price (and profit) control in itself is suspicous to me as it’s a step onto a slippery socialist road that leads – IMO – to less prosperity for everyone.
? The initiative would enforce that even for very sought after rental properties where very wealthy renters – say tenants of some villa on Lake Zurich who are willing to pay CHF 20k per month – can ask the landlord to technically only charge the Kostenmiete plus 3.25%? That seems kind of dumb. Like very dumb?
$ I understand that there are other investors who will not shy away from it for different reasons (e.g. they like bond like investments, their investment horizon is many decades and they count on capital gains to make up for otherwise capped cash flow return, etc).
The fact though that this return cap drives out some capital that would otherwise be potentially interested means that the price for such properties will be less efficiently determined by the market (which is bad, IMO).
I won’t even comment on government entities (mainly cities like Zurich etc) will artificially interfere in the market with tax money the officieals responsible can decide over without taking into account any profitability calculations.
1 Like
The land lord has absolutely 0 legal grounds to use the deposit money for this. Idk maybe they like to rip off expats, but legally speaking, he can not access the money for this.
No, if the fridge has a lifespan of 10y and the tray broke after the fridge is 9y old, you’ll be liable for 1/10th of the replacement costs.
yeah, you need to fill the holes with acryl, costs like 5 chf per tube. The rest I agree with.
Because in Switzerland the driver for RE prices isn’t rental yield and capping rent yield won’t drive house prices down even one cent.
And capping how much money you can make, regardless of interest levels, alternative investments, etc. is very stupid. If property wouldn’t appreciate in valuem almost no one would want it in the first place.
“he land lord has absolutely 0 legal grounds to use the deposit money for this. Idk maybe they like to rip off expats, but legally speaking, he can not access the money for this”
This is a very good reason for voting yes. Since I have been here, the procedures have tightened up about the deposit money. It remains a grey area.
The initiative is mostly about making sure that the current laws are applied more to the benefit of the tenant.
Capping rental yields obviously is going to keep rental prices down. My flat has recently been renovated. The renovations were largely not necessary from my point of view and I am very happy if there are limitations on the rent increases that will come. If it was a totally open market here, I would be forced to move. The owner is an institutional pension/finance company - they have their safe investment with a guaranteed yield.
There has been a lot of talk about preserving the “Swiss way of life”. This initiative is definitely about doing that.
It is always the same. Politicians dig a hole and then want to sell us that we will get out of the hole by digging deeper.
First politicians (and we in votings) decided that the market has to be cut because we don’t want too much construction. OK, you cut one edge of the market, another on starts to grow. We pay a goddamn fortune just to have a place to sleep and take a shit. In almost any place in the world you can rent a whole village for what you pay here for a flat.
Now the next brilliant idea: cap the rent. That will probably affect new construction even more. What is more, 3.5% of 3 millions or 5% of one?
With all I hate AI, but I think all the errors they make are less than what politicians (and we ourselves with voting) destroy. Every action has its consequences and one should have very good reasons to mess with the market. We sometimes do it just because we confuse markets with capitalism, which are two completely different concepts.
Messing with the market is almost always good for capitalism. It will find a way to gain more with the new situation without the market molesting the gains. Just think about that!
1 Like
This is simply not true, in fact rent seems to be something people are always willing to spend between 20% and 35% of what they’re making, this is why the prices are so high, people just make a lot of money and double income households price out single income households.
a 3.5% rental yield is in theory way too low for a reasonable investor. In Switzerland, this only works because PKs are forced to invest in real estate and when your yield goal is 1.5%, 3.5% is plenty or margin. Then appreciation is ofc a thing, but ngl, if you’re a landlord or a normal dude this doesn’t really help you much. Can’t do shit if your property has 200K more in value besides reducing amortization payments (funnily enough it makes your yield on capital even worse). Using 4x leverage to get an abysmal return is wild imho.
Sorry to borrow some dirty rhetorical tricks from you. You cannot proof that it is “simply not true” (why simply, it is true or not). But I can prove that your quote “this is simply not true” is “simply” not true. Just learn how to read, the word “almost” is enough.
I just wanted to make a point. Most people in the world do not make half of what a flat costs here in Switzerland and that is because we don’t have a real market. Now, cutting the market even more will not help. That was my point.
If you mean in nominal value, then sure - but I am saying that people would still spend about 1/3 of their income on housing, which is why the prices are where they are at the moment.
Maybe I’m too stupid but that’s precisely the objective of public policies: make rental unattractive to investors seeking for higher yields, and open the gates for retirement funds which are super happy with a safe 3.5% which is infinitely above the 0% of Swiss government bonds.