Voters do not want new rules for own rental requirements
Published: Sunday, Nov 24th 2024, 13:50
Zurück zu Live Feed
The rules on terminating rental properties for personal use are likely to remain unchanged. According to projections by the research institute gfs.bern on behalf of SRG, 51% of voters rejected a change in tenancy law.
The no vote in the ballot box is not entirely surprising. During the course of the referendum campaign, the bill on own rental requirements was viewed increasingly critically, which is an exceptional case in the formation of opinion for government bills. The latest polls predicted a close result, with a No tendency.
The bill's downfall is a success for the tenants' association, which had launched the referendum. Despite having fewer financial resources available for the referendum campaign, it was able to convince a majority of people of its arguments together with the left-wing parties.
Civil arguments not convincing
The conservative majority in parliament, on the other hand, suffered a defeat. The SVP, FDP and Center Party as well as the trade and homeowners' associations were in the Yes camp. The GLP also argued in favor of a yes vote for the regulations on personal use.
The proponents wanted to simplify the conditions for exceptional early termination. The asserted personal use should now be "significant and current when assessed objectively". In future, courts would have had to rely on this wording when assessing specific disputes. Today, terminations are only possible for "urgent" personal use.
The new rules should mean that rented rooms can be used by the owners themselves more quickly than is currently the case. The conditions for urgent personal use are often unclear, argued those in favor of the reform. Sometimes lengthy procedures are the result.
Doubts about the benefits of the reformulation
Ultimately, however, the critics prevailed. They argued that personal use is often used as an excuse to terminate tenants' leases and then re-let rooms for more money. With the new wording, tenants would be less well protected against extraordinary terminations due to the landlord's own requirements.
The planned rules were described by many in the polls as unnecessary because sufficient restrictions already exist today. The Federal Council also originally felt that the bill was unnecessary. During the referendum campaign, however, it was required by law to represent the parliament's "yes" position.
The topic of rents remains topical
With the no vote, everything remains the same for the time being. After purchasing a property, the new owner can terminate a tenancy agreement taken over from the previous owner prematurely with a longer notice period if they claim urgent personal use. In the event of a legal dispute with landlords, tenants are protected from so-called revenge terminations during the proceedings and for a certain period afterwards.
However, further debates on tenancy law can still be expected soon. The responsible National Council committee recently passed two bills that raise the hurdles for tenants to defend themselves against initial rents. The National Council is expected to decide on the bills in the spring.
©Keystone/SDA
German 
English 
French 
Spanish 
Arabic