Tenancy law/How secure is rent really for Hartz recipients/refugees?

One could agree in the rental contract that the rent is paid directly by the [arge]. Whether this is legally allowed in terms of tenancy law is another matter (no idea). Ultimately, social welfare recipients as tenants are only good in apartments where you normally can't get anyone else. Otherwise, the working population as tenants is clearly at an advantage. If you have a university, rent to students with parents as guarantors. Quite a safe thing :) The guarantee for rents is often capped at 3 months' rent. Still relatively safe. Which clientele you end up with basically depends on 2 things: location and apartment quality.

So I would always prefer to rent to people who earn the money themselves and appreciate the value. If they damage something, there is usually something to recover in case of doubt, unlike with H4 recipients. We have had apartments where the "tenants" (after not paying anything for almost a year) vanished in the dead of night and (now hold on) even removed and took the laminate flooring as well as switches and sockets (very old).

the housing market guarantees the rentals anyway, so why not someone who also has money?!
the Hartz4 recipient can also have the money paid out to themselves and pay the rent themselves. that way the landlord doesn't even find out that one is unemployed...

I would request proof of income before the lease agreement. But basically, you're right, if there is or should be demand, which will become clear after placing the ad, I would have the choice...

I work at the social welfare office. [emoji6]

Of course, the municipality is happy when small and inexpensive housing is available.

As a caseworker I encourage my clients to pay the rent themselves as long as the person has reliably forwarded the rent payments in the past.
Also, you should be aware that you have the contract with the person themselves, not with the office (some landlords tend to forget that).

Kind regards

Good advice, thanks! But from my landlord’s perspective, the tenant paying the rent directly has no advantage, it only carries a big risk. Therefore, I would try to avoid that.

Well, I would also always prefer to rent to people who earn the money themselves and know how to appreciate the value. If they destroy something, in case of doubt, there's probably more to get from them than from Hartz IV recipients.

The appreciation point is a good one. Although anyone can end up on Hartz IV. I think you really have to get to know the people and "assess them individually".

Sure, one cannot and should not judge anyone beforehand. Also common, single woman and a little later the dubious new boyfriend moves in, who only causes trouble...

My mother used to work in a real estate office, and many years ago they were really happy when the social welfare office showed interest in an apartment: the social welfare office paid, and after moving out, the original condition was restored without any debates. (i.e., any damages that may have occurred were repaired) As we say in Bavaria: that was a piece of cake.

At some point, the idea came up that it is discriminatory for a social welfare recipient not to be allowed to handle such matters themselves. Therefore, they now receive the money for rent from the office directly, and the rental contract is made directly with the tenant and no longer with the office.

Now you might be lucky and the social welfare recipient uses the money intended for rent exactly for that. Then everything is fine.
Or you might be unlucky and then unfortunately have the short end of the stick.
And from painful experience, I can say: it takes time to get a tenant out of an apartment, even if they don’t pay rent. But you are stuck with the costs caused by any damages and/or court costs (you have to obtain a judgment to get someone out of the apartment, which takes time and costs), eviction costs, rent arrears, etc. Of course you can sue! Only: if there is nothing, no one can get anything, even the most beautiful judgments are no help.

Therefore: I wouldn’t do it anymore.

As a landlord, you always have a certain risk which can be minimized if you find, for example, a guarantor (the option parents guarantee for a student is good!), someone who already has a long-standing employment relationship with a good employer (the probability of losing the job is rather low), someone from your circle of acquaintances whom you trust, etc.

In any case, obtain information about the employment relationship!

One-room apartments unfortunately have the property that they are usually only occupied for a certain period of time (then family formation happens or one earns better and wants to live more comfortably, etc.). Which is not only a disadvantage for the landlord, because it is not at all easy to get a long-term tenant out of the apartment.
In a student city, I would definitely prefer the option of a student with parental guaranty (please request proof of income there) in any case. We had the best experiences with that.