Renting Voters do not want new rules for tenants' own needs

The rules on terminating rental properties for personal use are likely to remain the same. According to projections by the research institute gfs.bern on behalf of SRG, 52% of voters rejected a change in tenancy law.

The "no" at the ballot box is not entirely surprising. During the course of the referendum campaign, the bill on rent-to-own requirements was viewed increasingly critically, which is an exceptional case in the formation of opinion for government bills. The last polls predicted a close result with a "no" tendency.

The crash of the bill is a success for the tenants' association, which had launched the referendum. Despite having fewer financial resources available for the referendum campaign, it was able to convince a majority of people of its arguments together with the left-wing parties.

Bourgeois arguments not convincing

The conservative majority in parliament, on the other hand, suffered a defeat. The SVP, FDP and Center Party as well as the trade and homeowners' associations were in the Yes camp. The GLP also argued in favor of a yes vote for the regulations on personal use.

The supporters wanted to simplify the conditions for exceptional early terminations. The asserted personal use should now be "significant and current when assessed objectively". In future, courts would have had to rely on this wording when assessing specific disputes. Today, terminations are only possible for "urgent" personal use.

The new rules should mean that rented rooms can be used by the owners themselves more quickly than is currently the case. The conditions for urgent personal use are often unclear, argued those in favor of the reform. Sometimes lengthy procedures are the result.

Doubts about the benefits of the reform

Ultimately, however, the critics prevailed. They argued that personal use was often used as an excuse to evict tenants and then re-let rooms for more money. With the new wording, tenants would be less well protected against extraordinary terminations due to the landlord's own requirements.

The planned rules were described by many in the polls as unnecessary because sufficient restrictions already exist today. The Federal Council also originally felt that the bill was unnecessary. In the referendum campaign, however, it was forced by law to represent the parliament's "yes" position.

The issue of rents remains topical

With the No vote, everything remains the same for the time being. After buying a property, the new owner can terminate a rental contract taken over from the previous owner early with a longer notice period if they claim urgent personal need. In the event of a legal dispute with landlords, tenants are protected from so-called revenge terminations during the proceedings and for a certain period afterwards.

However, further debates on tenancy law can be expected soon. The relevant National Council committee recently passed two bills that raise the hurdles for tenants to defend themselves against initial rents. The National Council is expected to decide on the bills in the spring.

SDA