Repayment with Hartz IV - Is the repayment covered by the office?

Hello,

what happens if one later becomes a [Hartz IV] recipient. Everything is possible nowadays. Does one have to sell the house? A friend said that the office takes over the repayment or part of it. Has anyone dealt with this?

Regards

As far as I know, there is a burden allowance for property ownership similar to housing benefit. However, if you have a huge luxury mansion, the office will probably "politely" urge you to sell.

That exists. However, as with the application for [Wohngeld], a certain size of the [WF] for x residents must not be exceeded. I think I once read that with 4 people it is something around 150 sqm. But the office or Google probably knows more about that.

There is no subsidy for repayment, only for the interest portion, as it is equivalent to the rent. In addition, there are square meter limits that are still considered reasonable, to my knowledge 130 for the condominium and 110 sqm for a house. Anything above that must be monetized. Repayment would have to be paid from the rate, which with 360 euros, or whatever it is currently, would be extremely tight. However, I would research it again exactly, as something may have changed over the years, for example at [tacheles].

Judgment on this: BSG of 07.06.2011 Az. B 14 AS 79/10 R

Depending on the job center, the caseworker doesn't really care how expensive the cheapest comparable rental apartment in the area is. Example: a H4 recipient is looking for an apartment, the cheapest has 29 sqm and costs 290 cold. Unfortunately, that is too expensive for the office, since only 230 euros are considered "reasonable" for a single person. But there are no apartments for 230 euros in the entire area. Especially not with 45 sqm, which the single person would be entitled to. For 230 cold, he can at most get a small shared room. The rejection of the "unreasonably expensive" rental apartment by the caseworker is not okay, but go ahead and sue. It takes a while and meanwhile, you can camp under the bridge. Example 2: necessary moving costs are supposed to be covered, but the job center does not recognize a need in case of divorce, so what now? Continue sharing bed and board with the ex-partner? No problem, you can sue and even win. After three years. Two real examples from the immediate surroundings that show that theory, practice, and law are not always so simple. There are exceptions where repayment portions were paid, but I would roughly estimate that 100% of all applications in this direction are rejected. But no problem, you can sue and maybe even win. After three instances and 10 years, the house will probably be gone too, but whatever. At least you had the right retroactively.

And I know from family and professional environments situations described above without complaints. Every employee of the ARGE must accept the question of proportionality. And as an H4 recipient, you even get the legal costs paid or PKBH. And there are urgent applications in social law where a hearing takes place within 14-21 days. Specialized social law attorneys show no mercy there, especially when it comes to vital necessities.

Don’t get me wrong, I am not a fan of this, but what is right must remain right, and as a taxpayer, I am not thrilled either way that other people live at my expense. But that is how it is, and I therefore demand every civil servant, especially in this regard, to use moderation and common sense, even if it is difficult. If I can maintain the current situation with costs X, but any other demand leads to costs of X + Y, plus one-time costs for moving or similar, then that person should simply continue to live there.

Next example:
A fully graduated student temporarily applies for H4 (there is no ALG, never worked), she has an offer from a company that she will start there in 4 months. The rent is 40 euros above the “allowed” rate but includes a fitted kitchen from the landlord. The authority does not recognize this rent level and wants to pay 40 euros less but knows that a work contract exists. As a result, the landlord offers the tenant to buy the used kitchen for 500 euros. These costs have to be paid because there is a fundamental right to a kitchen, whether in the currently inhabited apartment or in a new apartment. In the end, the office has two options: pay 4x40=160 euros “too much rent” or pay a one-time 500 euros for the kitchen.

At this point, I expect them to decide on these 160 euros and not pay 500 euros. Common sense demands that.