Hi all,

I was in a sub letting agreement before, and I realised only now that the main renter was charging me too much, namely once a year he would charge me for the heating costs in full when the yearly invoice arrived, although in my rent I was already paying a deposit. But I had trusted him and his invoices. Now that our contract has been terminated I realised this mistake, but he said that although I am right he had got used to it (yes she said that) and wants to give me only 10% of the whole amount (the whole amount being around 2.000 chf).

Since I find this proposal and the motivations behind quite laughable, I would like to know what happens if I go to a lawyer, and he sees that I am right? Will he have to pay also the legal costs? Thanks!

Usually the legal costs are included automatically in the claim. Whoever loses the argument must pay for both lawyer's fees, which are based on the disputed sum.

Swiss judges have a nasty habit of not making a 100% decision, and only award 50 / 50 damages.

Imagine you would go to court and demand 2'000 from the landlord, and the judge awards you only half the amount, I believe you are still liable for your lawyer's fee in full, but not the fee for the other lawyer.

In retropspect the offer of 10% might be acceptable! You could join the MieterVerband, it costs about Sfr 50,-- per year, and get some expert advice.

Well well... that seems quite unfair of the Swiss judges to award 50/50 whatever the claim; invoices in Switzerland are so popular (I was even asked by my mechanic if I wanted to pay cash or receive one!) that this prospect in this case would seem unlikely to me, but probably you know better.

My legal costs are already covered by the Legal Protection insurance by the way, so even if I get 1'000 CHF, I still won't have to pay the legal costs myself, and it should be in the Insurance Company's interest to avoid this outcome, as the lawyer belongs to the same insurance that issued my legal protection (so I assume they want to get the best outcome for their money).

I do hope that the prospect of falling into the Betreibungsregister (the register of the people that don't pay invoices in time, not sure if it's called that way) would be discouraging for the previous main renter, since as far as I've seen it seems quite a "shameful" thing in Switzerland (I had to send one each time I wanted to rent an apartment). Somebody told me that now the main renter should get an Invoice to pay, and if it's not done within 30 days, it will follow the usual procedures for a normal invoice (several warnings and then maybe to court and into the Betreibungsregister).

Actually I am a member of the Mietverband, but the meeting for the legal advice could be scheduled only in a few weeks time, so I wanted to hear about the opinion of the forum too.

Who will be billing him? Warnings aren't necessary, if you give him a timeframe on the invoice within which he doesn't pay, you can go straight to the debt collector's office and have the procedure started - but he can put a stop to it by claiming "Rechtsvorschlag" which you can only get rid of (and thus continue the procedure) by starting a (not free) procedure in court - knowing that you will have to cover all costs until a judge decides that the non-paying person is at fault and thus owes you.

I've seen several cases where it all seems clear cut - one party in the right, one in the wrong - but lawyers are very good at muddying waters, and there's a strong motivation (it seems) to arrive at consensus, being "fair" to both parties.

Thanks for your feedback!

I guess the lawyer will, but I haven't consulted with him yet - he will protect me and said that will write a letter to the main renter, and will contact me to decide the further steps (but I wanted to know beforehand what I might expect...).

A cheaper option might be to go for arbitration, the first hearing is free, and as they would almost certainly rule in your favour, if you have to go to a court, then it would put him in a bad position as he had refused the arbitration. Discuss with your lawyer?

Does the main rental contract holder know you have legal insurance? That might convince him to pay you the money.....

Thank you!

I do hope this won't happen to me too...! It's written on a contract how much I should have paid.

Thanks for the tip! I will keep this in mind in my next consultation with the lawyer!

The main rental contract holder doesn't know I have legal insurance, I didn't tell him explicitly. However I told him two times that if he didn't agree, I would go to a lawyer. But he responded that I was "foolish" to do so for a such low amount, so probably thought it was a strategy to just put pressure on him.

So since he also skipped many "deadlines" he had set himself to give me an answer (he became sick twice, then had to work a lot, then had to travel and then eventually even had vacation in just three weeks), I wanted to avoid he buying further time. I had given enough warnings, so when he said I was "foolish", I told him I would go to a lawyer and eventually signed the Power of Attorney.

If the amount you're fighting for is 2k max, the chairman of the arbitration office can make a final decision (if you ask for it), so you wouldn't have to go to court. If you and the other party don't agree on the fact that the chairman should make a final decision or if the amount is higher than 2k, you will receive an authorization to proceed to trial.

Link in German

Thanks for your input and for the link! Well it's still below 2'000 CHF, so I can fall in the 1st category...

Hi all,

I'd like to ask you guys what you would do in this case given the recent developments...

The lawyer contacted the guy, who responded that he will not pay, because according to him, I had found the error already after signing the contract, and that he had my verbal agreement that I wanted to increase the value of my rent, and that I was indeed lying to the lawyer... Which he could not demonstrate because it was of course verbal, and it was my fault not to have written that in a contract

Curiously, I myself had to demonstrate to my lawyer that it was not true. It took me 5 minutes, I showed the email where he himself said that I could have brought this point earlier... I was also quite angry about these false allegations.

Now the lawyer, after calling him and getting answered that he will not pay, recommended me not to go to the arbitrate and provide a "compromise", because from his experience it's not worth to go to the arbitrate for this amount...

I found honestly quite unacceptable. First of all, because it looked like I was speaking with his lawyer, not mine. Secondly, because I don't see how I would be wrong, also given the false allegation he made on my side, which compromised my reputation to my lawyer.

So what would you do in this case? Should I follow my lawyer's advice?

Thanks...

First off - don't take this personally - but clients lie. There is nothing more embarrassing than sitting in court and having opposing counsel present the court with some evidence, which basically makes your case fall down like a stack of cards because your client lied to you. So, yes we do ask our clients and double check there is indeed no paper trail to the contrary of their story. That being said, don't take it personally. You proved you were telling the truth to your lawyer. He/she will think no less of you.. My goodness if I thought less of every client based simply on the allegations of the other side.. well, I'd be pretty jaded.

Secondly, if you feel strongly go to arbitration. Keep in mind though, that you will receive a bill for your lawyers time. The compromise strategy is often worthwhile in instances where the legal costs (i.e. the lawyer's time in preparing and attending arbitration) exceeds what you stand to claim. Sometimes it's better to have a bird in the hand than nothing at all.

Finally, you can of course go through arbitration on your own. Thereby minimising your lawyer's fee. As they would only submit the paperwork etc.. Though again that alone may cost you more than you will be able to claim.

If you feel that strongly about it and want to win for the sake of a win then go for it. You have legal insurance. Make sure your lawyer obtains a "Kostengutsprache" for the full case and then pursue to your hearts content.

__________________
*Above information is rudimentary and basic. Legal outcomes vary on individual circumstances. No liability for the content assumed.

Thank you so much for your valuable feedback!!!

I know I sound a little pathetic, but to me it just didn't look like my lawyer was fully on my side, to be honest. Firt of all he started with "your counterpart does not want to go to the judge because it costs time and money and effort, to you too". When I asked whether there was any solution before going to the judge (because I read it in this thread!), he said "NO"; when I asked again, the "Schichtungstelle" magically shows up! Yeey!

The lawyer however tries to talk me out of it, as he says that I am anyway late in realizing this issue after three years (I read the limit for this is five, but anyway), and that the arbitration could rule to reach a compromise which could be lower than a compromise we would get otherwise, that I have to take half a day off to go to hearings, and so on and so forth.

From a person keen to defend my interests I was expecting something like "The arbitration might rule in your favour or not, however we still have this ammunition we can use, because she made false allegations on your side, she has been long unresponsive, you are asking money that you paid too much and it's written in a contract...". So I was expecting him to bring things on my side, not on the my opponent's side... I also did not appreciate too much the fact that I should feedback to him in four days, whereas the opponent took much longer to reply...

To me it looks like the lawyer wanted me to accept a compromise now because the arbitration would cost his company more than it's worth. So it's also in the company's interest that I accept the compromise, so they don't waste money on preparing for an arbitration.

To me it looks anyway that odds are on my side: if I go to the arbitration, I don't lose any money, the risk is reaching a compromise that is lower than an offer they would accept now. I win anyway, just not what I could have won otherwise.

For my opponent odds don't look so great; he doesn't have a legal insurance (otherwise he would let his lawyer speak to mine), so he would have to pay a lawyer, go to hearings, and then on top of that, reimburse me part of the amount, plus my lawyer's cost (correct?). It would cost him much more than 2'000 CHF.

So to me it looks like if I insist to go to arbitration, he could do the math and give my money back. A less risky strategy could be to propose a compromise which to me would still be acceptable, and if he refuses and makes a counter offer, not accept the counter-offer and go to arbitration. In that case on my side I would have the fact that I did want to reach a compromise, and the court might rule on my favour, albeit on that lower amount.

What are the costs that the accused part has in an arbitration? Can that be completely for free, or is there anyway a lawyer to pay, even if you're the accused part?

I don't think you understand how the legal system works, it's all about compromise. Very different to the UK / USA.

Sounds like your lawyer was more than on your side.

He gave you excellent counsel according to Swiss law.

A lawyer is there to look after your best interests - which may not always be the same as getting you a win. The Swiss system (in cases like this) encourage the parties to come to an agreement as quickly as possible. The longer it goes on the more it costs!

Thank you very much everyone. I honestly did not yet know that Swiss law is all about compromise. In other places, it's more like who's right and who's not. And who determines it is the judge, based on evidence and according to the law. I'm not saying which system is better. Maybe a system that makes everybody happy generates less turmoil...?

Exactly, this is a case that is difficult to say the least, you were stupid to sign something you don't know fully about and the other guy was stupid to try and screw you over: who is right and who is wrong ?

So you end up in court, lawyers, judges, procedures and a sodding great bill at the end of it for a measly Chf 2k. If only other jurisdictions took a similar attitude to find a compromise and use common sense rather than rush down the legal route, i think the results to all would be far more beneficial.

Chalk it up as an education expense, expensive but you won't forget