1.3 LSG NRW, judgment of 06/23/2022 – L 6 AS 120/17: Accommodation costs in the Märkisch district for recipients of benefits from SGB II/ SGB XII too low

Final certainty. Since 2014, the basic security providers in the Märkisch district have not had a coherent concept in BSG jurisprudence.

2. Press release by RA Lars Schulte-Bräucker

“As already explained in my last press release, the judgment concerns the accommodation expenses for beneficiaries under SGB II/SGB XII, which are considered reasonable from the point of view of the basic security provider according to the concept of the company analysis. and concepts.

The state social court of North Rhine-Westphalia has now largely agreed with the plaintiff and found that the concept of the defendant job center Märkischer Kreis is not decisive in the sense of the case law of the federal social court.

This was mainly due to the lack of representativeness and validity of the related data for the concept of business analysis and concepts.

In this connection, it emerged from the judgment that the defendant job center could not prove an exact relationship between the individual landlord types in the requested data material that formed the basis of the concept, which is absolutely necessary for a concept to be final.

In this regard, the representation of all significant subgroups of the population with regard to the apartments of the large landlords and the small landlords according to their share in the sample, according to the reasoning of the judgment, is not guaranteed. It cannot be determined to what extent and to what extent the rents of “small” or private landlords have been taken into account.

In the present case, however, it was not possible to establish the relationship between small and large landlords in the database and therefore it was not certain that there was a mismatch, which is unacceptable according to the practice of the Federal Social Court.

For example, the undersigned stated that IGW, which claims to have more than 2000 apartments, was completely ignored when the concept was drawn up. In the opinion of the regional social court, these shortcomings in the creation of the concept led to the inconsistency of the Märkischer Kreis’ guidelines for the accommodation costs.

It follows that, according to the Housing Benefit Act, with the addition of a security supplement of 10% due to the lack of conclusion, must be provided as housing expenses for the benefit recipient and thus also for the claimant.

According to the Social Court’s opinions, it should no longer be possible to reduce the costs of accommodation until a new concept adapted to the judgment has been drawn up.

The other concepts in the company Analysis and concepts and the latest concept, which has now been in effect since 2022, were probably developed according to the same standards.

Several additional cases by other claimants are pending at the Dortmund Social Court, which can now be decided on the basis of the grounds for the judgment.

An appeal against the decision was not allowed in the judgment.

The undersigned will be happy to answer any questions.”
Lars Schulte-Bräucker
(Lawyer)

In addition, the guiding principles for RA Lars Schulte-Bräucker are:

  1. Accommodation costs in the Märkisches Kreis for recipients of SGB II/SGB XII benefits are too low because the basic security authorities have no coherent concept in accordance with BSG’s case law.
  2. Due to the lack of representativeness, the term is not decisive in BSG’s jurisprudence.
  3. The data underlying the concept of the basic social security institution must provide information on the relationship between individual landlord types.
  4. If it is not possible to determine the ratio between small and large landlords in the database, it cannot be assumed that the data will be representative.
  5. Due to the flawed concept, the values ​​according to the Housing Benefit Act plus a security supplement of 10% must be provided as reimbursable expenses for housing.

Tachele’s case law sticker week 46/2022.

https://www.beispielklagen.de/bilder2/Kosten_der_Unterkunft_nach_dem_WoGG_plus_Sicherheitszuschlag.jpg

The table shows the correct performance requirements according to BDG’s case law (all information without guarantee)

Submit review requests now and reclaim overpayments

If you don’t move, you get nothing.
Applications for notification that can be proven to have been submitted to the job center no later than 31 December 2022 at 23.59, will be retroactive to 1 January 2021.
A back payment must be calculated for those who have brought proceedings in the courts.
According to the law, interest is charged at 4%.

Do not expect to be thoroughly informed about all your rights at the Märkischer Kreis job center.

.

Leave a Comment