# job Center Reluctance to Cover Rental debt: A Case Study
In most cases, job centers are hesitant to assist citizens with rental debt, particularly if the apartment is deemed unsuitable. While not impractical,securing assistance can be challenging,as illustrated by the experience of one family who accrued several thousand euros in rent arrears. Their legal attempt to resolve the situation ultimately failed, not due to the apartment’s condition, but because of a perceived lack of willingness to contribute to a solution.
## Over 8,000 Euros in Rent Debt
A family of four, receiving civil allowance, accumulated €8,316.33 in rental debt for their 90 square meter apartment. The total rent,including heating,amounted to €1,371.44 – over €300 above the job center’s adequacy limit. the mother worked and received a monthly income allowance of €378. Facing eviction due to the arrears, the landlord offered to continue the tenancy if the outstanding rent was paid.
## Job Center Rejects Loan application
The family applied to the job center for a loan to cover the debt. However,the application was rejected,and the district office of social housing aid also opposed the loan – an unusual stance. The decision was primarily based on the family’s failure to demonstrate a plan for future rent payments.The case initially went to the Berlin Social Court (S 128 AS 2711/23 er), wich initially obligated the job center to grant the loan, citing health restrictions and the potential disruption to the children’s schooling.however, the job center successfully defended its decision by pointing to the apartment’s inadequacy.
The State Social Court of Berlin-Brandenburg (L 31 AS 627/23 b er) emphasized that covering rent debts is only justified if the apartment falls within the adequacy limit. for a four-person household, the job center allocates €713.70 for gross rent plus €346.24 for heating costs, totaling €1,059.94.This is €311.50 less then the actual rent, a difference further increased by an additional €50. The judges stated this exceeded the limit by approximately one-third, which they deemed “not slight.” Even considering housing benefit of €1,171.24, a difference of €200.20 (17 percent) remained.
## No Positive Forecast
The court determined that whether the apartment was worth preserving, and thus a loan justifiable, depended on whether the family would utilize their benefits to cover the rental difference. The court found that the applicants had “in no way tried to contribute to the preservation of the apartment” or negotiate with the landlord. The LSG also criticized the family for not seeking more affordable housing options.