Why are most brokers broke

Draft law on rent control: "Equals a professional ban for brokers"


Whoever orders, pays - the grand coalition actually wanted to introduce this "ordering principle" for the brokerage of rental apartments. But she shot far beyond the target. Friedhelm Hufen explains in an interview why, according to the draft law, the tenant will hardly ever be commissioned and the broker's profession is in danger.

LTO: Mr. Hufen, how does the brokerage service between landlords, tenants and brokers currently usually work?

Hooves: Contracts in the rental property market tend to be informal. Either the landlord or the tenant can hire the broker.

In fact, it is not uncommon for the initiative to come from those searching who are not familiar with the local market. The landlords often do not approach the broker of their own accord, but first put their apartments on the network themselves and are then approached by the broker who offers them his brokerage service. If the broker receives the order from the landlord, he shows the property to the customers who have contacted him on the initiative.

Landlords and brokers usually agree that in the end the tenant pays the commission. According to Section 3 (2) of the Housing Agency Act, this is currently possible. In this way, the costs are passed on to the weaker tenant. For the landlord, hiring the broker is comfortable and for the broker profitable.

"The draft law goes far beyond the ordering principle"

LTO: With the draft law that the government has now passed, this situation, which is often unfavorable for tenants, should be changed. Which changes are planned in detail?

Hooves: The draft basically regulates that the "ordering principle" should apply in the future: Whoever appoints the agent, pays him too. The passing on of the tenant is to be prevented. This point, which was also laid down in the coalition agreement, is unproblematic - at least from a constitutional point of view.

Conversely, this means: If the apartment hunter takes the initiative, the broker can only demand the commission if he has also received an order from him. The draft law goes far beyond that. It stipulates that the broker may only demand a commission from the searcher if he has just determined the specific apartment on behalf of the apartment seeker. If he has already shown it to another interested party, it automatically becomes an existing apartment and is no longer considered "determined on behalf of this customer". The realtor only has one chance to broker an apartment. If he does not manage that, he can no longer demand a commission from interested parties for all time.

This is the absurdity of this law: In a market in which - empirically determined - between seven and eight apartment visits are carried out before the lease is signed, it is only a theoretical possibility that the tenant will move into the first property directly. The realtor can therefore actually never demand the commission from the tenant.

LTO: What purpose do you think this strict regulation could serve?

Hooves: It is not clear to me what purpose the legislature could pursue with this regulation. Probably just the one to push the brokers out of business entirely. There should be no additional costs for brokers at all. Either the landlords should pay the brokers - which they probably won't do in most cases - or the whole thing is done via the open market on the Internet.

"Realtor has to broker an apartment for the devil"

LTO: What consequences would the draft law have in practice?

Hooves: For realtors, the flexible market for apartment rent is actually falling flat, because they can no longer offer the properties they have in their portfolio - that has so far made up around 80 percent of their income. Due to the low interest rates, the real estate market is also paralyzed. As a result, the existence of many brokers is threatened.

As a rule, those looking for an apartment will only be offered one apartment. The broker then has to convey this "no matter what the hell", because only then will he get the commission. That is of course naive. It is also disadvantageous for those looking for accommodation, who would like to see as many apartments as possible in a short period of time in order to make a selection.

Anne-Christine Herr, draft law on rent control: "Equals a professional ban for brokers". In: Legal Tribune Online, October 20, 2014, https://www.lto.de/persistent/a_id/13536/ (accessed on: May 17, 2021)

Information on the suggested citation
  • It is unfortunately the case that the profession concerned has put itself in the pillory by failing to convince for lack of its own performance.

    The statutory maximum rate was gladly demanded without paying anything in return (especially in metropolitan areas).

    Since the apartments rent themselves like sliced ​​bread anyway, the service usually consisted of opening the door and maintaining an Excel table with applicants. If you were lucky, the broker still knew 2-3 raw data on the property.
    The costs for this were in no relation to the received value of the activity.

    If the landlords were then also included in the commission as a "thank you" for the mediation, as has probably happened more often, then one should not be surprised if the pity from the population is limited.

  • Thank you for the factual presentation of the bill.

    The brokers and especially the IVD are not entirely innocent of the misrepresentation with regard to the alleged unconstitutionality of the "customer principle" (see the corresponding press release).


    Overall, I see the customer principle as a good and constitutionally compliant solution. Separately, I also see that too many bad sheep have damaged the broker's reputation by doing poorly for dearly money. I had to experience all the real estate agents who couldn't even give me the basic information about the property viewed when viewing the apartment. For this you should diligently reveal your most intimate data.

    Ernst Hagen
  • The problem could be solved, for example, through a common pool of apartments and a network of brokers, which would create more competition.
    I suspect this approach - bringing more competition into the brokerage market was also a goal of the Justice Minister.

    And one more comment to the editors / Anne-Christine Herr: Next time, please state with whom the interview is being conducted and what he is doing / the reference to the topic BEFORE the interview, or at least on the first page.

  • In principle, I fully and completely agree with the comments above. From my own experience looking for a place to live in various metropolitan areas, I have only met one broker who, at least at the beginning of his work, only offered me half the maximum brokerage fee. Without exception, regardless of the effort involved, the tenant should pay the statutory maximum brokerage fee in all other cases. A profitable business when 30 people are waiting in front of the door.

    In addition, the transfer of costs to the landlord is not even a loss-making business for the landlord, because the landlord can in principle fully offset the costs incurred here as operating costs against his income from renting and leasing.
    It is incomprehensible that the economic plight of those looking for a home (living is a basic human need!) Is supposed to be used for the economic success of the broker without acknowledging the actual performance of the broker. That cannot be changed by adding more living space. More living space would at most enlarge the market for brokers, but not affect the essential problem of freedom of contract.
    The customer should pay, is perfectly fine. The question remains, however, how does the broker have to provide this evidence when he requests the tenant to provide the service. He will only be able to do this regularly if he has found this apartment for the tenant and then approaches the landlord accordingly. In all other cases, the landlord, insofar as he hires the broker to find a tenant for the apartment, will have to pay the bill (which, as mentioned above, is not at all to the detriment of the landlord, insofar as he is a little entrepreneurial).
    If necessary, the brokerage should think about how staggered pricing can compensate for the lost contractual design options. The remuneration regulations for various other professions show how it is done. Innovations are in demand for the old profession of broker.

    RA Wehle
  • When I was looking for an apartment a few months ago, I would have liked to hire a broker and would have been very happy to pay for it. Interestingly, the brokers did not want to accept such assignments at all. Why not - because I was looking in a price segment in which the apartments are being ripped out of the hands of realtors. So you did not need to specifically take care of individual interested parties or possibly even just record the data of those interested in housing. Ultimately, through my own search through the regional housing association, I found an apartment that is much cheaper than the one brokered through a broker and for which I did not have to pay a brokerage fee.
    => I recognize the problem that is addressed in the article, but sorry, my pity is limited!

  • "For the landlord, hiring the broker is comfortable and for the broker profitable."

    With this sentence everything is actually said.

    In metropolitan areas, a broker at tenant costs is just as unnecessary as it is worth protecting. If a landlord is not even worth viewing his apartment, it is quite desirable that the costs remain with him - if he allocates these to the rent, this will actually be regulated via the market.

    Even if - which I think is very questionable - an already questionable profession falls by the wayside (real estate agent at tenant costs in metropolitan areas - the affirmation of a "professional ban" remains questionable anyway), this is to be accepted and, in the tenant's interests, to be supported.

  • Realtor under monument protection!

    Where else can you find that you can comfortably earn a pig's money in a job where you don't have to be able to do anything more than reading and writing.

    So protect them from any headwind, otherwise they will die out and switch to construction workers.

  • It's a shame that many don't know what a realtor really does. If that were really such a profitable business - the brokerage industry would have to experience a brisk influx ...

  • I wonder why my prescribers don't all become real estate agents and earn quick money including driving a big car - ooooops, you have to be self-employed, take an entrepreneurial risk, provide 100% for your pension yourself, for health insurance and disability insurance yourself worry - and the state wants 19% VAT and 42% income tax from the nasty commissions ...... there is so much left ......

  • So the brokers can't survive if they are paid by their principals? Because there are too few landlords who want to pay the broker themselves?
    So what: If my regular landlord has too few customers, he also closes his restaurant and does not receive the missing income from passers-by.
    The market will take care of it, because of the housing situation it has secured the brokers full pockets for years at the expense of those looking for accommodation. My pity is very, very narrow.

    Hans-Dieter Poppe
  • It was clear that such comments would come. But I wish all those who defame serious real estate agents in such a way will soon have to look for apartments themselves. The consequences of the planned law will have serious, negative effects on those looking for accommodation. Examples please:
    - Even more people interested in individual apartments, especially in metropolitan areas
    - The landlord only chooses those who are financially strong
    - The landlord will no longer take interested parties who may only look for an apartment for 1 or 2 years or even less
    - Socially weak and non-German speakers will have a much harder time
    - More contracts with an exclusionary notice are being concluded.
    - Due to the legal uncertainty of the landlord and tenant, the way to the expensive lawyer is sought much more often
    - There will be no one left who tells the landlord before the offer phase that his rent claim is too expensive or that the demand for redemption does not work at all.
    - The landlord will no longer be willing to agree to the start of the rental in 1 or 2 months if the interested party still has a notice period, since he also has to pay the broker.
    - Young couples who want to move in together for the first time and who are at risk of parting immediately are no longer considered.
    - The number of rental nomads will increase because landlords do not have the opportunity to properly examine a tenant. This increases the mistrust of landlords even more
    - There will no longer be detailed exposés with beautiful pictures and prepared floor plans, but rather more unnecessary trips to scruffy apartments.

    I could list hundreds of negative consequences, but those who advocate the law will see that for themselves.

    In addition, Germany consists not only of metropolitan areas, but also of areas in large cities, where 8 or 10 viewing appointments are required and a tenant can be found.

    The proponents think it is also a good thing if interested parties make appointments with realtors and then do not come without canceling. In the future, obligations to pay damages could be introduced, similar to the doctor's.

    What is actually expected when someone is looking for a small apartment? That if 30 people are interested, everyone gets an hour-long individual appointment and everyone can be the first to look at the apartment? Then prefer a collective appointment with 5 - 7 interested parties, where everyone has the same chance.

    I could name a number of people who were absolutely happy that they got an apartment through me and who know exactly that they would never have got the apartment without my advocacy and solutions during the settlement.

    • Exactly these people are already sorted out by the broker and never get the opportunity to contact the landlord and personally convince him.
      And why are legal problems avoided by engaging a broker? Because of the in-depth legal advice from a real estate agent?

    • Thank you for the factual presentation of the varied activities of a good broker. I can only confirm this list from practical experience in dealing with brokers. I explain the emotional expressions in the comments from regrettable encounters with unfortunately also existing unprofessional brokers, who only have a chance of survival in metropolitan areas. To measure the discussion against this would be too brief. In any case, I know real estate agents who make standard single appointments in the Cologne metropolitan area and are well informed.

    • Thank you Rainer for this factual and completely correct presentation. I am a certified broker and this year with the "predicate" one of the 1000 best brokers in Germany. 8 (Focus) why? My customers chose me !! NONE of my customers have ever complained about the brokerage fee, but were satisfied and rated me positively. What will happen? Brokers, especially those who specialize in leasing, will be on the street en masse. Landlords will take rents as far as they will go, refurbish their apartments and conclude rental contracts that are legally untenable. BUT and that will hit the people looking for rent in particular ........ the market will be empty and apartments will usually only be found by the well-heeled. Those who cannot speak perfect German fall through the grid, even if they have studied. Why, I ask myself, does nobody actually come up with the idea of ​​introducing a 50:50 rule. All would be good !! We work for vendors and tenants so this would only be fair. Over the past 25 years, I have continuously trained myself, participated in legal training courses in tenancy law and attended other courses.I am an association broker, work on public holidays and weekends and, thanks to the high costs for the Internet provider, have no higher income than an employee. Anyone who writes stupid stuff about a broker here should work for a broker for a week. Renting an apartment is a lot of work. Admission of apartment, create photos, create and advertise exposé, possibly get and look after craftsmen, viewings per apartment an average of 8-10, obtain self-assessment, check, draw up rental agreement, apartment acceptance and apartment handover. Who says we brokers do nothing for our money? The monthly Costs for insertion, car, telephone, property damage liability, liability, association fees, office, etc., amount to at least. 2,500 euros and THEN you start earning. Anyone who thinks here that they have a clue about the job of a broker should better find out more first.

  • Mr. Poppe,
    correct, due to the well-founded legal knowledge and the constant new information of the association, legally secure rental contracts are concluded by serious brokers that stand up to every examination by a lawyer. That is why the proof of expertise is the decisive approach and not the "wrong" ordering principle. Even today, every interested party has the choice of going to the broker or not.

  • One more sentence Mr. Poppe,
    it is not the broker who sorts out the people, but rather he implements the landlord's specifications. If you ask me as a landlord to look for interested parties and you tell me that you can send a maximum of 2 people, in their mid-40s, working without pets. Then you as the landlord expect me to select, right?

  • It is always amazing what brazen courtesy reports you can get for money.

    If apartments are rented out through brokers in practice, then it is usually outsourcing by the owner or the contracted property management company.

    Now a landlord lives off the rental income from his real estate and that includes making sure that it is rented out, i.e. renting it out.
    The fact that the tenant has to pay for the outsourcing by the owner (representative) is legal charlatanism.

    The fact that the broker offers his service to the owner is a pure acquisition of new customers for regularly recurring rental contracts. Deriving an initial order from a prospective tenant is impractical.

    The fact that prospective tenants commission brokers exclusively with the search for an apartment and ignore the real estate portals also only happens on VOX.

    There are already landlords who rent out with an internal commission; the majority of institutional landlords have to be named. And therein lies the future of the real estate agent.

    That the commissions will shrink and some brokers will disappear from the market, that is obvious when the market economy finds its way into housing brokerage.

    Karsten L.
  • The "legally secure" contracts do not have to withstand an examination by a lawyer, but that of the courts. And since nobody can see into the future, for example, how the BGH reacts to renovation obligations, the legal advice given as a special service by the broker is often worthless. You should ask the owners with ineffective renovation clauses about it.
    The real estate industry is to be hoped that a thorough clean-up will take place. One can only hope that these people have also learned a recognized profession, otherwise they could be on the pocket of the state in the future.

  • This broker bashing is annoying. I just had very bad craftsmanship experience, may I go against them? Bad work, broken repaired, arrogant to cheeky and expensive. Still, I don't lump them all together.
    Brokers can also only work with the data that the landlord provides. Property managers who want their commission from the realtor so that this tenant is accepted, interested parties who do not show up without canceling. Interested parties who do not pay the bill afterwards. Brawls between buyers and sellers to cheat the broker. Costs that are not seen. Landlords / sellers who also want something from the brokerage fee. Objects that have been offered for years, have been viewed thirty and still not get rid of and then the grandson buys from the neighbor for a fraction - of course without an agent. But always up to the bad brokers!

    Miss Morgan
  • All brokers are bad, long live the broker!

    Anyone who thinks the goal of the law> to save the tenant costs other

  • Another small addition, yes, I am proud to be a broker! And I am happy about every interest that expects a top service from me in the future without paying! Whose interests will I represent? In addition, I support a real customer principle WHO ORDER, PAY! Who will actually order me to visit? The tenant or the landlord? Correctly the prospective tenant and preferably after work. Because you have to work. Why does this actually assume that he will receive this service for free? So please always be fair, stinginess is not always awesome. But as written, the market will take care of it, that's sure, like the amen in church. And the tenant won't save. I think a 50/50 division would be fair, after all, brokers provide a service for both sides! This either or has been annoying me for a long time. But unfortunately I don't have a vote in parliament :-)

  • Good night broker. Your rip-off is finally over.

    A legal middle ground would have been that the landlord and tenant share the brokerage costs in half and the brokerage fees amount to one month's rent.

    So greed led to the end of your profession.

    I hated you when I was looking for an apartment in Hamburg. Now you can go cleaning.

  • Do I have to disappoint you better BLS - the money store is full;) - and I can only fully agree with this sentence * And I am happy about every interest that expects a top service from me in the future without paying! Whose interests will I represent? *

  • The brokers created their own problems, there were too many black sheep. I also rate the system absurdly according to the object value of the commission. If someone in Cologne buys a (normal) house for € 500,000 and then has to pay € 30,000 for an agent, that is too seldom in proportion to the agent's performance. Why is it not possible to pay hourly wages for such properties. The amount is the annual earnings of an average earner in Germany. As a tax advisor, I also have good hourly wages, but for € 30,000 you would have to have worked 200 to 250 hours (hourly wage 120-150 €). And why the customer shouldn't pay for his order is not clear to me. There will be enough cases left for brokers where landlords don't feel like stress and prefer to let a broker do the work. He should be rewarded for his effort, done. Why should the brokers be afraid of this? This is also not understandable to me? Is her job so bad that she has to take money from people who can't fight back? Or is their work good enough and the customers pay them accordingly.

    Benjamin Schmidt
  • Hello Rainer,

    The owner of a property then has to get used to the fact that he pays the broker from the start, for advertisements anyway, but also for his work as a broker. If brokers create really good exposés, the buyer should and must pay for it. Unfortunately, large parts of our society are not yet ready to pay for services. I know this as "I just have a question and say quickly". I don't, I don't, no money and best still stick to the advice. The brokers just have to discuss the issue of money a little more aggressively, set the hourly rate right at the beginning, that's it. I've had good experiences with it, because someone who comes to me knows that it costs money. This is how it should be with the broker. The contracts that I placed with realtors (apartment - house e.g. for clients - doctor - looking for) were discussed in advance, a budget was set, everyone was satisfied.

    Benjamin Schmidt
  • Sure, if the landlord hires the broker, he should pay. But here you go, what can the landlord do if his tenant suddenly moves out and the apartment has to be re-let?

  • The oh so poor brokers and the even poorer landlords ...! Basically, it has been the case for decades that the poor and troubled landlords are simply too lazy and stingy to take care of the rental. They would rather leave the apartments empty for months or years than think about whether the price-performance ratio is right. Every possible small opportunity is passed on to the tenant anyway, and often enough against the law. If a landlord is found here and there who offers "privately", these brokers almost constantly rush to these providers and piss him off until he finally gives permission to "broker". For years there has been an almost complete compulsory brokerage. So, from my point of view, it is not at all a shame if these brokers disappear from everyday life. In addition, in most cases they are not even so-called experts. "Broker" is an unprotected term and almost everyone who comes along can adorn himself with this "job title". It was overdue to bill whoever placed the order. Unfortunately, the landlords will also want to make the contract dependent on a "voluntary" assumption of costs in the future. Consequence: you can hardly convict the courts and have something like that declared illegal.

  • It is not entirely true that landlords only want the broker to act as a broker. You let the broker pre-sort the applicants and save yourself the annoying selection. That's why they should pay and not the tenants. The latter are particularly dependent on brokers in markets with high demand (large cities, university towns) and this is where the lion's share of the business is carried out. In rural areas with an oversupply of apartments, realtors tend to be dispensable. This is why brokers have so far been able to take advantage of their strong position and cash in on the weakest. That this is now turned off is only right. Long live the principle of ordering!

  • The brokerage will probably die out, because in my opinion the following scenario is likely: Most landlords will be afraid (of the trouble of advertising the onslaught of seekers and of "rental nomads") themselves, so hire a broker and add the costs to the rent .

  • The funny thing is that most prospective tenants in the metropolitan areas are no longer at the door with 50 others but with 200 and, thanks to the rental price brake and the ordering principle, of course only the higher-income earners who then get supposedly cheaper apartments - all the low-wage earners are then allowed to go to the country pull ;)

    PS: @elena until now we have always represented the interests of the tenant - be it when determining the rent or negotiating with the landlord about an overdue renovation on his behalf - but you do NOT want to see that - because we are all on the axis of evil belong.


    Dear @elena You speak to me from the heart, I understand you completely, more on that later, whereas @Lex Nevel can read, but hardly understand.

    "Anyone who digs a pit for someone else falls into it himself."

    So it will also come with a wrong ordering principle and the rental price brake. At least if it is decided as it has now been introduced. Is anyone really imagining that it will be cheaper for the tenant? When has something ever got cheaper? I just watch with great interest how whole buckets of hatred are poured out over us brokers. Which, on the one hand, are driven by envy and, on the other hand, prospective buyers have a completely wrong idea of ​​what brokers 'have to do' in order to be able to issue an invoice and what they actually do. And now there will be an outcry! An inspection, for example, is not one of them, but it is nevertheless provided and of course is one of the classic brokerage services. Without it, it probably won't work either, but it is not absolutely necessary for invoicing. The main reason for the big discrepancy between claim and reality is the claim behavior of interested parties, who in the internet age of Wikipedia and Co. still think that everything should be free. But the social welfare office is not a broker. And we and we have to be paid by whoever. Ideally, of course, from those for whom he provides his service.

    ... and to prevent any misunderstandings again, I do not complain and I also have no existential fear! On the contrary, those who are said to be dead live longer. Rather, I am convinced that all brokers who do their job professionally and knowledgeably and yes, this is the majority of all brokers, do not have to have this either. It is by no means the case that the brokerage profession will disappear! I am also happy to discuss face-to-face with anyone who hates brokers. But that falls to people who are rather small-minded themselves, so it is difficult to rush into the annoyance of the network.

    I see it as well, the broker should be rewarded for his services> whatever it is <. Namely from the one who ordered him. No problem, only for this the law would have to be changed accordingly and that is what the legislature rejects, at least so far! The broker may not at all, even if he wants to settle according to effort! Rather, he is only allowed to take a fee, also called a commission, and only if it is successful. This leads e.g. to the 'overpayment' perceived by @elena and many others in individual cases. And the opinion of @Lex Nevel that the realtors have to work for free if he couldn't close the deal! But is the broker responsible for this? I can and only want to move within the framework of the law! I would like to invoice the person who orders me and that means both parties tenant and landlord as well as buyer and seller in every mediation. But the law doesn't allow it. And so it happens that the person who ultimately concludes the contract pays for the services provided for all previous interested parties.

    And one more word about greed, I can very well remember the times of the 'tenant market' that prevailed in Berlin about 4-5 years ago. So it wasn't that long ago. How tenants have made the most of this. 30-40 visits were not uncommon before an apartment was rented out. And of course only if there was also 3 months of rental freedom or the flat screen or the annual pass for the zoo and of course the voucher for the moving car on top of that. Of course, the landlord also paid a commission, which I don't laugh at. The market was used to the maximum. The tenant, at least in Berlin, got used to it, and he thought it would go on and on. Now the market has turned, so whatt so is capitalism, and suddenly all landlords are criminals and brokers anyway. My pity for tenants is therefore also limited. I have not seen a tenant who refused these landlord gifts. Not even for moral reasons. So always stay honest. That is the mainspring MAXIMUM PROFIT, GROWTH, GROWTH, GROWTH! Otherwise you go bankrupt.

    And even if those who are unfamiliar with the industry believe it, in the rental business, no profits are made. You can be happy if this is cost-covering at all. A pure rental agent cannot survive.Not even if the broker would receive the possible maximum commission of 2 NKM in any case, which is by no means the case. Profits are only made in and with sales commissions.

    Finally, it should be emphasized again that brokers provide a service and this is not possible without payment. Whoever orders, pays, it should and will be! For sure.

    And private landlords are not responsible for providing cheap housing below the cost rent. That is up to the state. Or do you sell for example. Your car or maybe a bike below its value? Hardly likely.

    Have a relaxing weekend with best regards ...


    ps. I look forward to any factual comment that at least tries to understand the problem.

  • I don't understand why a broker is needed.
    As a tenant, I have always looked for my own apartment.
    And as a landlord, I've always rented out the apartments myself.
    If I had so many properties to rent that I didn't have the time to do it myself, then I would delegate these tasks to a property manager committed to my interests, but not to an agent pursuing his own interests or those of others.
    Real estate agents who have contacted me without being asked and who wanted to introduce me to potential tenants without being asked have so far only recommended interested parties who I did not like.
    Calling in a broker may be necessary if it is not about rental contracts, but about sales contracts in which one side lacks the time to look for a property or a buyer himself, or to conduct sales contract negotiations.
    Sometimes brokers are really good at negotiating a purchase price and then of course they are worth the money.

    Penny Foxes
  • I don't know whether the federal government is endangering the real estate agents' existence.
    But the federal government is apparently endangering the freedom of contract with its law.
    The supposedly caring state is increasingly becoming a more and more patronizing, all-prescribing and all-regulating bureaucratic and authoritative state.
    It is to be feared that it may actually be exactly what many politicians want.
    Many politicians would rather have more state power and more interference with freedom than freedom.

    Frank the formerly free Franconian
  • Some of the comments are astonishing - and mostly full of ignorance.
    An experienced landlord wants to rule out getting a problem tenant as far as possible.
    There are various ways of eliminating problematic people from the outset.
    One of them is the form of the advertisement (advertisement, internet), another is the payment behavior (with the broker's commission), furthermore the checking of the creditworthiness and the self-disclosure and their verification.
    The broker takes on a large part of these tasks including the costs (even in the Rhine / Main metropolitan area, a search can take up to 6 months, which can cost several hundred euros).
    If the landlord has to bear these costs himself, this will be added to the rent in the long term.
    There will be no savings for the tenants.

  • "determined on behalf of this customer"

    I wonder how you can prove the opposite when the realtor claims to have just found this apartment for the customer ...

    From the side only the

  • Dear Mr. Brandner,

    "Many brokers do not have a contract with the landlord" WHO has a CONTRACT with WHOM? >>> That’s also a MÄR! Which remains steadfast in the market.

    Certainly there will be brokers who do not have a contract with the landlord, but MANY certainly are not. How does the broker get his information? Copied from the internet or elsewhere so as not to say "stolen"? OK, but then it is the landlord's own fault if he accepts interested parties from this "non-commissioned broker"! Permits on the phone, "... yes, you can offer my apartment, provided it doesn't cost anything, of course ..." are contracts! So even if there is no contract at first, at some point there will be. The brokerage contract comes about regularly, namely implicitly, i.e. through simple conclusive action by the contracting parties, in the rarest case, i.e. in writing. So someone always has a contract, at least when it comes to the main contract, i.e. rental or purchase contract. The only question is who will ultimately have to pay. Of course, the one who has a BROKERAGE AGREEMENT. But what does that mean again? 14 days right of withdrawal sends greetings. But now we could open our own seminar topic. However, other professional groups are paid for legal advice, which can and may do better.

    From the above it is very easy to see that the “buck is very happy to be made a gardener”.

    Yes, this is the simple truth, landlords as well as administrators like to use the broker as a grateful service provider. AND THAT'S JUST AS WELL! However, they like to stay in the background. So you are less vulnerable. But YOU are the client and provide the conditions, no one else! On the other hand, there is of course a contractual relationship with the prospective tenant! That's exactly the problem, whose interests is the broker now?

    Yes, yes, as you can see, it is not easy for the agent, but it is easy for him.

    Long live the broker, for a real ordering principle, according to market economy principles.

    There should be a fee schedule for brokers similar to the HOAI for architects or the BraGo for lawyers. They are z. B. paid according to effort and not according to success! And nobody in Germany has a problem with that. Danger! Dear lawyers, notaries and architects, please do not misunderstand. I just wanted to make a parable. You do a good job and no one envies you.

    By the way, the real estate profession is the ONLY one that reveals HIS remuneration in such a transparent way! Therefore it is easy for everyone to put their costs into the so-called "cost-benefit" ratio. But how much% profit is actually in a song, book, Mac, iPhone, travel agency, bread roll, car, insurance, dress (not at Kick but in a boutique) or or or?

    And if you are honest, you can easily admit that an apartment is not rejected because of the commission, but because something ELSE did not fit. The permanently affordable rental charge is always more important! In addition to the other soft factors, of course, such as charming etc. And - does the rental amount now determine? Well, the broker?

    So see you soon…


  • Hello everyone, you all now know how much a broker earns. Do you all work at the tax office or how do you know all of this. ??????
    I am a real estate agent myself and have a prosperous company. But I didn't even know I made that much.
    Just ask Father State, who pulls the taxes out of your pocket. In Hesse the real estate transfer tax increased again. Now to 6%. Everything is accepted.

  • Quote: "... if he has just determined the specific apartment on behalf of the apartment hunter. If he has already shown it to another interested party, it automatically becomes an existing apartment and is no longer considered" determined on behalf of this customer ". The broker has So only one chance to broker an apartment. If he doesn't manage that, he can no longer demand a commission from prospective buyers for all time. "

    When I read the proposed legal text, it is not about whether the realtor DETERMINES the apartment on behalf of the customer, but whether the landlord receives the ORDER to offer the apartment to the specific apartment seeker.

    However, the dilemma that the broker would then no longer be able to offer the apartment to any other apartment hunter can be solved very simply by the fact that the broker does not conclude a brokerage contract with the landlord, but a FRAMEWORK AGREEMENT under which the broker - if he finds a tenant - from The landlord (each) receives a SINGLE ORDER to offer the apartment to this specific tenant. The wording of the law is fulfilled by the conclusion of such individual orders by the landlord. At the same time, the broker enjoys protection through the framework agreement, can show the apartment to several apartment hunters one after the other and, in the event of the final rental, also receive commission, because this was then - as stated - based on a specific individual contract.

    I don't want to get involved in all the political banter here; I'm only interested in the legal solution.

  • I'm out of my professional life now. Before that, I rented houses and apartments in Bavaria and Baden Württemberg for professional reasons. E.g. house in Bavaria, official residence in BW. But all without a broker, always directly with the owner. He wants to see for himself who he wants to take into the property. I also got to know "Stammtischmakler". Paperwork in the trunk. Meet in the local pub. When I asked for the commission to be concluded and handed over, in cash and without an invoice, in his office, he refused. His office was the car. Because of VAT and taxes to the state. Everything in cash on the claw. Chased him to hell. As an entrepreneur, I need the invoice when I rent office space and company accommodation.

You might also be interested in: