If your landlord tells you that the rent cap does not apply because of a modernisation, a second, critical look is worthwhile — because this statement is surprisingly often wrong. In everyday language, "renovated", "refurbished", "fully refurbished" and "modernised" are used almost interchangeably. For tenancy law, however, it makes a considerable — and often four-figure — difference which work was actually carried out. In practice this distinction is often not drawn cleanly — and tenants therefore overpay unjustifiably.
This guide shows you what matters and how to check whether the rent cap applies to your flat despite an alleged modernisation or "full refurbishment". On the basics, see: Does the Mietpreisbremse apply to me?
"Refurbished, so no rent cap"? The most common mistake
Anyone who has their rent checked or raises the rent cap often hears a seemingly clear answer: the flat was modernised, fully refurbished or extensively renovated before letting, so the rent cap does not apply. That sounds convincing — but on closer examination it often does not hold.
The very terms are misleading — and what is decisive is never the word, but the legal assessment of the work. If this assessment shows that it really is a refurbishment or renovation, then it is precisely no modernisation, but rather maintenance — and maintenance does not justify any exception to the rent cap. Conversely, construction work described as "refurbishment" can, in legal terms, well be (wholly or partly) modernisation ; then they can have an effect on the permissible rent . And thirdly, the mere use of an incorrect term can trigger a — temporary — block on the exception (more on this below).
Behind this lies a distinction that is complex in practice, and the misunderstood terms can play a role on several levels — from calculating the permissible rent to the question of whether the landlord may rely on an exception at all. What is decisive is therefore never the freely chosen label, but what was really and verifiably renewed in the flat. A flat can have a new bathroom, new floors, a new kitchen, overhauled wiring and freshly painted walls — and the rent cap can still apply.
Does the rent cap apply to a modernised flat?
In principle: yes. Very often that is even the case. The law distinguishes above all between two constellations here — and this difference decides real money.
If the landlord modernised the flat before the tenancy began, that can raise the permissible rent: Section 556e(2) BGB allows certain modernisation measures from the last three years before the tenancy began to be taken into account. But the rent cap does not disappear as a result — the permissible rent merely rises by a certain amount.
A much further-reaching exception is set out in Section 556f sentence 2 BGB: if a flat has been extensively modernised, the rent cap does not apply to the first letting afterwards. The key point: modernisation does not automatically mean extensive modernisation. Only the latter can fully exclude the rent cap for the first subsequent letting.
Renovated, refurbished, fully refurbished, modernised — the fine, expensive distinction
This is exactly where most misunderstandings arise. Before re-letting, a flat may be completely repainted, the old flooring removed, the bathroom renewed, a new kitchen installed, the wiring overhauled — and the listing then speaks of a "completely refurbished", "high-quality renovated" or even "fully refurbished" flat.
For the rent cap, this designation chosen by the landlord or agent is not decisive on its own. A renovation may merely serve to remove signs of wear and restore the flat to a proper condition. Even an extensive "modernisation" often contains work that in law only amounts to maintenance. And even if individual works are genuine modernisations, that does not yet amount to an extensive modernisation within the meaning of Section 556f BGB. So do not be impressed too quickly by terms — what is decisive is which work was actually carried out and how it is to be classified in law.
When is a modernisation "extensive"?
Whether a modernisation is "extensive" does not depend on a lot of money having been spent or the flat looking smart afterwards. According to case law, what matters above all is the financial scale of the measures and the qualitative improvement of the flat; the modernisation must reach a weight that justifies the special exception — the flat should come close to a new build . As a rough guide, practice often uses the benchmark that the genuine modernisation expenditure must reach the order of about one third of comparable new-build costs; but this is not a rigid limit, always a question of the individual case.
A mere list of many works is therefore not enough. And the statement "several tens of thousands of euros were invested" does not yet answer the decisive question. First it must be clarified which part of this investment actually relates to genuine modernisation — and this is exactly where the assessment becomes interesting.
Why a new bathroom or new flooring is not yet a modernisation
An example: a flat has old vinyl flooring, heavily worn after many years. Before re-letting it is removed and replaced with high-quality new flooring. The flat is undoubtedly nicer afterwards — but the old floor had to go anyway. Insofar as the costs merely remove a worn-out condition, that is maintenance. Only insofar as there is actually an improvement going beyond that does a modernisation come into consideration.
The same applies to an old bathroom, plumbing, radiators, windows or the electrical installation. That is why the calculation "the landlord invested €70,000, so €70,000 was modernised" does not work. What counts is for what the money was actually used. If, after deducting the maintenance shares, for example only €30,000 of genuine modernisation remains, the legal assessment looks completely different from the gross figure quoted.
Even working components often contain a maintenance share
An important point that is readily overlooked: a component does not first have to be completely broken for maintenance to play a role. If an older component is replaced that has already reached a substantial part of its usual service life, a corresponding maintenance share must be taken into account. The landlord cannot therefore simply replace an old component with a better new one and then treat all the costs as if they were pure modernisation.
Especially with older flats, this makes a big difference. A bathroom may still have been usable but already 25 years old. If it is completely renewed and at the same time significantly upgraded, maintenance and modernisation come together in the same measure — and then you have to look more closely.
A look back: what did the flat look like before?
This leads to an initially surprising consequence: for the question of whether the rent cap applies despite modernisation, it counts not only what the flat looks like today — at least as important is what it looked like before . Was the bathroom a few years old or in use for decades? Was the floor flawless or worn out? Was the wiring modern or in need of renewal anyway? Only the comparison between the condition before and after the work allows a sensible legal classification.
For tenants this is naturally difficult: anyone who has just moved into a freshly refurbished flat often does not even know what it looked like before. But that does not mean you simply have to accept the landlord's assertion — on the contrary.
Your right to information: what landlords must disclose (see also Mietpreisbremse without a lawyer: what you can do yourself)
Tenancy law takes account of the fact that many decisive pieces of information are initially known only to the landlord. Under Section 556g(3) BGB tenants can demand information about the facts that are decisive for the admissibility of the agreed rent.
This becomes particularly important when the landlord relies on a modernisation or extensive modernisation. Without more detailed information it is often impossible to assess which work was carried out and whether the conditions of an exception really apply. A blanket "the flat was extensively modernised before you moved in" should therefore not be the end but the beginning of the assessment.
Modernised, but not "extensive" — what then?
Particularly relevant in practice is the large intermediate area between "no modernisation at all" and "extensive modernisation, rent cap excluded". If the landlord has indeed modernised without there being an extensive modernisation within the meaning of Section 556f BGB, Section 556e(2) BGB can apply: certain modernisation measures may then be taken into account when calculating the permissible rent.
The result is then not "the flat was modernised, so the rent cap does not apply", but rather: "the rent cap continues to apply — but because of the modernisation the landlord may demand a somewhat higher rent."
An illustrative example: Ms B. rents an "extensively modernised" flat in Düsseldorf for €1,150 net cold; the landlord points to around €70,000 of investment. The assessment shows: a large part relates to maintenance (worn flooring, 25-year-old bathroom), genuine modernisation only to a smaller extent — no trace of an extensive modernisation. Permissible under the local reference rent plus a permissible modernisation surcharge under Section 556e(2) BGB would be, in the example, about €940. Result: €210 too much each month — quickly a five-figure sum over the years. Exactly how high the permissible surcharge is must always be calculated in the specific case; here there is often quite a lot to be gained for tenants.
"Extensively modernised" — a separate assessment, not a free pass
Nor should the term "extensive modernisation" put you off too quickly. It appears above all in flat listings to describe a comprehensively done-up flat. For the rent cap, however, what matters is not which word the landlord or agent chooses, but whether the statutory conditions of an extensive modernisation are actually met. A flat advertised as "extensively modernised" or "fully refurbished" can therefore be just as much in need of checking — and conversely, of course, an extensive modernisation may really be present if the conditions are met.
When the wrong terms topple the exception: the notice requirement (Section 556g(1a) BGB)
The terms are not only a question of accuracy — they can even cost the landlord the exception. For tenancies concluded since 1 January 2019 , the landlord can from the outset only rely on the modernisation exceptions if, before the contract was concluded, they duly pointed out in text form the existence of the exception under Section 556g(1a) BGB .
This is exactly where, according to the prevailing view, the clean distinction plays a central role: if an incorrect term such as "full refurbishment" was used, that, according to the prevailing view, does notsatisfy the pre-contractual notice requirement. The consequence is a temporary block on the exception and is worth real money for tenants: even if the exception would actually apply, the landlord cannot rely on it for up to two years after duly providing the information later. For that period the basic rule of the rent cap applies — the local reference rent plus at most ten percent.
Is it worth checking despite an alleged modernisation?
Yes — precisely then. The reference to modernisation, refurbishment or renovation is one of the most common arguments against the rent cap, and you should be particularly sceptical of blanket statements like "the flat is refurbished, so the rent cap does not apply". The legal position is not that simple.
Via the tenancy-law platform RentAid you can have it checked free of charge and without obligationwhether your rent is excessive despite an alleged modernisation. If the assessment reveals a legally and economically suitable case, enforcement can be taken on as litigation funding — with no own cost risk for you, in return for a success share if you win.
Conclusion: "modernised" does not automatically mean "no rent cap"
If you are told that the rent cap does not apply because of a modernisation, you should not end the assessment too quickly — usually it is worthwhile precisely here. A normal modernisation does not override the rent cap; under certain conditions it can only lead to a somewhat higher permissible rent. Only an extensive modernisation can fully exclude the rent cap for the first letting afterwards. And not all costs for construction work are modernisation costs — maintenance shares must be deducted. In addition: if the exception was not duly notified before the contract was concluded, the landlord cannot benefit from it for up to two years, even if the conditions were actually met.
The decisive question is therefore not "does my landlord think she has renovated or modernised the flat?", but: "what was actually done — and is that legally really enough to exclude the rent cap?"
Frequently asked questions (FAQ)
Does the rent cap apply to a modernised flat?
As a rule, yes. A normal modernisation does not exclude the rent cap; under Section 556e(2) BGB it can only lead to a surcharge on the permissible rent. The rent cap is fully excluded only in the case of an extensive modernisation (Section 556f sentence 2 BGB).
Is a renovated or refurbished flat exempt from the rent cap?
No, not for that reason alone. If, on a legal assessment, it really is a refurbishment or renovation, that is precisely not a modernisation but maintenance — and maintenance does not justify any exception.
Does the rent cap apply after a full refurbishment?
Not on account of the word alone. "Fully refurbished" is an advertising label. What is decisive is whether the statutory conditions of an extensive modernisation are actually met — that has to be checked in the individual case.
Are a new bathroom, a new kitchen or new floors enough for an extensive modernisation?
Not automatically. Insofar as work merely removes a worn-out condition, it is maintenance. For an extensive modernisation, the financial scale and qualitative improvement must reach a weight that brings the flat close to a new build. The landlord must also present and prove both in any court proceedings.
Must the landlord give notice of the modernisation before the contract is concluded?
For tenancies since 1 January 2019, yes: without a proper notice in text form under Section 556g(1a) BGB, the landlord cannot initially rely on the modernisation exception. If the information is only provided later, the exception takes effect at the earliest two years later — until then the local reference rent plus at most ten percent applies.
Can I demand information about the alleged modernisation?
Yes. Under Section 556g(3) BGB you can demand information about the facts decisive for the permissible rent. A blanket reference to a modernisation is not enough.
Can my rent be too high despite a modernisation?
Yes, very often. If there is no extensive modernisation, if maintenance shares were passed off as modernisation, or if the pre-contractual notice was missing, the agreed rent can be unlawfully high despite a "refurbishment" — and you can have a reduction and reclaim assessed.