(de-news.net) – Justice Minister Stefanie Hubig’s proposal to restrict the permissible annual increases in index‑linked rents has been described by both the German Tenants’ Association and the German Trade Union Confederation (DGB) as an appropriate and long‑overdue corrective to structural imbalances in the housing market. The Tenants’ Association emphasized that, although the proposed ceiling of 3.5 percent per year would represent a meaningful improvement over the current situation, such a rate would still remain comparatively high in an environment marked by persistent inflationary pressures. In their view, households in densely populated metropolitan regions—where competition for affordable housing is already intense—would continue to face disproportionate financial burdens. Because index‑linked rents are tied directly to consumer‑price and living‑cost indices, they adjust automatically to macroeconomic fluctuations, thereby amplifying broader price dynamics and transmitting inflation into the housing sector with limited delay.
Labor unions similarly underscored that access to adequate housing constitutes a fundamental social necessity rather than a discretionary good that can be subjected to unrestrained market forces. Against this backdrop, DGB board member Stefan Körzell welcomed the minister’s intention to impose limits not only on index‑rent adjustments but also on furniture surcharges and short‑term rental practices, both of which have increasingly shaped the rental landscape in high‑demand urban areas. From the union’s perspective, these measures collectively signal a more assertive regulatory approach aimed at curbing mechanisms that have contributed to escalating housing costs.
After Hubig formally announced the proposed cap, the DGB reiterated its endorsement, arguing that index‑linked rents had evolved into a significant driver of overall housing‑price growth and had placed particular strain on wage‑earning households whose incomes have not kept pace with inflation. The union framed the minister’s parallel initiative to enhance transparency in the furnished‑rental sector as an important step toward countering practices that obscure true rental costs and undermine existing tenant‑protection frameworks. Körzell noted that furniture surcharges in furnished apartments were frequently used as a loophole to circumvent rent‑control provisions, and he maintained that such practices required prompt regulatory intervention to restore fairness and predictability to the rental market.
In sharp contrast, the property‑owners’ association Haus & Grund issued a forceful critique of the minister’s reform agenda. Its president, Kai Warnecke, argued that preventing rents from rising in line with general price developments would constitute an inequitable constraint on landlords and could ultimately discourage private individuals from continuing to make their properties available for rent. He contended that the minister’s approach reflected partisan priorities rather than a balanced attempt to reconcile the interests of tenants and landlords. The association also rejected Hubig’s additional proposals—such as increased transparency in furnished rentals and clearer rules for short‑term leasing—on the grounds that they would impose further administrative burdens on property owners.
Warnecke further objected to a separate reform under consideration that would extend the grace period during which tenants may reverse a termination by settling outstanding rental arrears. He argued that such a measure would shift responsibilities that properly belong to the state onto private landlords, who, in his view, should not be expected to absorb the financial risks associated with prolonged nonpayment. For small‑scale landlords who rely on rental income as a component of their personal financial stability, he maintained that being compelled to maintain tenancies despite months of unpaid rent would constitute an unreasonable and unsustainable burden.
