I don’t see the clarifying aspect. While it’s “sold” as a tool against Airbnb misuse it’s exactly not. The max. two year clause hits private people, not those short term stays of tourists. The landlord basically has to prove the constant changes. How will they do that? By breaking other laws (video cameras etc.) or turning other tenants into spys?
The other additional thing is the “just because” reasoning the landlord can use against subletting. That is what we call a “Gummiparagraf” (elastic paragraph) in Switzerland and we got enough of those already.
They better come back with a change of law that stops short terms subletting. A minimum law instead of a maximum law to stop Air bnb where it’s not wanted. I’ll be right behind that.
Clarifying means that sublets need to agreed with owners in writing. Can’t see what is wrong with that. And as an owner and landlord, I think this reduces the chances that a tenent sublets for profit.
And I think it is fair to be able to deny 2+ yr sublets as it is clearly hoarding capacity that is not the tenant’s.
This “in writing” thing is strange (fishy?) - we have to vote about that? In Switzerland a contract is generally valid orally too but harder to prove than in writing. That is why most people put agreements/contracts in writing.
If we now put into the law that this specific contract must be in writing we will vote often in future as other people will want that in the law (Obligationenrecht) as well for their specific contracts.
Fully agree. If somebody wants to hoard rental capacity they should buy such.
What are you talking about? Sublets are already specifically regulated in OR 262. This is about an amendment of this paragraph. See pages 32 and 33 of this document. It really does not feel like it is a big thing.
That’s already required today by law. You cannot sublet without letting owner know 1) to whom 2) at what price and 3) for how long. If you don’t it is deemed illegal and hence your contract can be terminated.
Exactly. The new law simply requires this to be detailed out in writing and it introduces the 2 year threshold as a reason to deny consent. That is what I am saying, I don’t see what the fuzz is about.
page 32/33 is the new version.
I’m argueing that generally here you don’t HAVE TO put contracts in writing for them to be valid. But this one now explicitly will be. And that is strange.
If anything the vote should be “all contracts must be put in writing”. Only then it would make sense to me.
Why? An oral contract is generally valid in Switzerland. Harder to prove in court but valid. It can already be done in writing (which most people do)
Why does this one have to be in writing all of a sudden?
The existing OR 262 does not have an explicit right for landlord to terminate if there is a sublet without consent. The new one does. The more I read about it, the more I am in favour of the new regulation.
I tend to agree with you.
I went from “yes” to “no” and am swinging back to “yes”. The good thing, I did not fill it out yet.
Yeah, doing politics as a side job is a time consuming thing
That’s the case with all oral contracts. Word agains word. As I mentioned several times: Hard to prove. Most people around here do their contracts in writing for that reason.
What people say doesn’t need to be factual, but it’s difficult to counter a verbal lie. The requirement of a written contract does because it provides proof.
When you shop at Migros/Coop/etc you always conclude a contract (doesn’t apply to thieves). That also applies to your bus/train/taxi ride, having a beer at the local bar/pub/restaurant/etc, even buying a coffee at the train station kiosk. And of course to your purchase at the vending machine, robots like robotaxis, etc, situations where you don’t even interact with a human.
It makes no sense to require of them all to be in writing.
Don’t know what you’re trying to say. Just stating the obvious?
By the way, every purchase - all the stuff you listed and more - by law requires a receipt in writing. Meaning, the seller must provide it if the buyer wants it. It’s not only proof for the buyer but also proof that the seller has correctly registered it. The term “cash on hand” is often used for past the tax.
It has become habit that lots of people don’t want those receipts. And the latest is that sellers use environmental reasons for not handing them over without demand. Still, Migros, Coop et al must ask whether you want it or not (=offer it), which they do.
The only one who is eligible to decide on receipt or not is the buyer.
With the Migros and Coop apps, one gets the receipt automatically electronically.
I found this is very useful when taking stuff back as I just have to open the app, I was never any good at saving those paper receipts.
I’ve come to my standpoint on the subletting point. And it’s a yes.
Landlords should have a strong say in who lives in the flats they are letting. After all, it is their property. Many are also pretty good at choosing tenants who fit the community in the house. Mine is - with a few exceptions but hey, it’s not an easy job.
If flats are subletted the landlord (and the neighbours) might have to put up with people who are difficult for a long time. Worse, if they are subletted to frequently changing people it causes lots of turmoil.
So yes, settle it in writing, give the owner a decent/legal choice. Limiting it to two years is already quiet a long time and there is no law that it can’t be prolonged with a new contract if both sides agree.
If people want to hoard/block living space when not even needing it to live in it (in a country where there’s a lack of it, nota bene) they are free to buy some.
The Eigenbedarf bill stays a no for me. It is settled in the law already. The tenants have some protection in that they can appeal and there are other laws which help making speculation less attractive. The demand for Eigenbedarf (personal need) is a system to get tenants out faster than the regular way. With the regular way it is not even necessary to give a reason to end a contract but one has to keep the legal periods.
The personal need claim is more and more often misused and can put tenants in serious troubles, specially families. So I believe there should be some protection for them. They will lose their flat anyway but they should have a reasonable amount of time to solve that problem.
Already under the current law, the personal need demand (which of course is reasonable if genuine) works for the owners.
So, maybe my line of thoughts helps some one to make their decision. Maybe even an opposite one from mine
