The landlord wants to raise the rent: four systems that limit it, and three civil codes that say nothing
Germany, England, California and New York compared on residential rent increases - consent, market comparison, percentage caps and notice periods - and why the Italian, French and Spanish civil codes have no answer at all.
Who answers this problem
The problem
A letter arrives saying the rent is going up, sometimes by a lot, sometimes with a fortnight's warning. The question is whether the landlord can do that. This is the one cluster in the whole comparison where the pattern is inverted: the four civil codes that usually carry the answer mostly do not, and the three common-law jurisdictions that usually leave things to contract all have a statutory rule. Anyone looking for the answer in the Italian, French or Spanish civil code is looking in the wrong book, and it is worth saying so before anything else.
What they agree on
Where a rule exists at all, all four systems agree that a rent rise is not simply something a landlord announces. Germany requires the tenant's agreement or a court judgment. England requires a notice in a prescribed form and gives the tenant a tribunal. New York requires warning measured in weeks and months. California caps the size of the step. Each of them, in other words, attaches a procedure or a ceiling to an act that would otherwise be unilateral.
All four also attach a consequence to getting it wrong, and in three of them the consequence bites on the increase itself rather than on the landlord's pocket. In Germany, without consent or judgment the rent simply does not change. In England, an increase attempted by a route other than a s. 13 notice, a s. 14 determination or an agreement following one 'is of no effect' so far as the provision purports to allow it. In New York, a late notice does not take effect on the date the lease says: the tenancy continues on the existing terms until the notice period has run from the day actual written notice was given. Only California attaches money, in the form of damages, treble damages for willful conduct and injunctive relief.
And none of the four regulates every part of the problem. Germany caps the increase but has a separate regime for what may be charged at the start of a new tenancy. England says nothing about the amount and hands that to a tribunal. New York regulates neither the amount nor the reason, only the warning. California regulates the amount and nothing else. A reader needs to know which of those questions they are asking before deciding which rule helps.
Where they part company
| Jurisdiction | What its law does | Why it matters |
|---|---|---|
| Deutschland | In Germany the landlord cannot raise the rent at all. § 558(1) gives him the right to 'die Zustimmung zu einer Erhohung der Miete bis zur ortsublichen Vergleichsmiete verlangen' - to demand the tenant's agreement, not to impose an increase. Two waiting periods gate the demand: the rent must have been unchanged for fifteen months at the moment the increase is to take effect, and the demand may be made at the earliest one year after the last increase. Increases under §§ 559 to 560 for modernisation and operating costs are left out of that count. | This is a different legal act from the one the other three systems describe. In England, New York and California the increase happens unless something is done about it; in Germany nothing happens unless the tenant consents or a court substitutes its judgment. § 558(6) makes the whole section mandatory in the tenant's favour, so a lease clause providing otherwise is ineffective. |
| The German ceiling is a market reference rather than a percentage. § 558(2) defines the ortsubliche Vergleichsmiete as the usual rents agreed, or changed, in the last six years in the municipality or a comparable one for accommodation of comparable type, size, fittings, condition and location, 'einschliesslich der energetischen Ausstattung und Beschaffenheit'. Housing whose rent is fixed by statute or in connection with a subsidy commitment is excluded. | The six-year window counts changes to running contracts, not only new lettings, which keeps the reference figure below what a landlord could achieve on the open market. That is the exact opposite of the English measure, which under s. 14 is the open market rent a willing landlord could reasonably expect. Two systems, both asking what comparable properties fetch, and answering with two deliberately different populations of comparables. | |
| On top of the market ceiling Germany applies a percentage cap that operates independently of it. § 558(3): the rent may not rise by more than 20 per cent within three years, disregarding modernisation and operating-cost increases - reduced to 15 per cent in municipalities or parts of municipalities where the adequate supply of rental housing on reasonable terms is particularly endangered, in areas designated by Land regulation for at most five years at a time. | Germany is the only system here that applies two limits at once, so an increase can be blocked because it exceeds the local comparable rent or because it exceeds the Kappungsgrenze, and satisfying one does not answer the other. It is also the only one where the applicable percentage depends on a regional designation, so the answer to 'is 15 or 20 per cent the limit' is a question about the Land, not about the flat. | |
| United Kingdom | England is the only one where a third party sets the figure. Section 13 of the Housing Act 1988 says nothing about how much: the landlord serves a notice in the prescribed form proposing a new rent to take effect at the beginning of a new period, not earlier than two months after service and, except for a statutory periodic tenancy, not before 52 weeks of the tenancy have run and not within 52 weeks of the last increase. The tenant then either applies to the tribunal or agrees a lower rent or no change; do neither before the new period begins and the proposed rent simply takes effect. | The English scheme therefore produces at most one increase a year and no ceiling. Silence costs the tenant the whole point of the section, which is the mirror image of Germany, where silence costs the landlord the increase. |
| Section 14 then values the property, not the tenancy. The tribunal determines the rent at which the dwelling-house 'might reasonably be expected to be let in the open market by a willing landlord' on the same periods and the same terms other than rent, with three disregards in subsection (2): any effect attributable to letting to a sitting tenant, any increase in value attributable to a relevant improvement carried out by the tenant, and any reduction in value attributable to the tenant's failure to comply with the terms of the tenancy. | It is not an affordability test and the tribunal is not bound by the landlord's figure, so the determination can produce a higher rent than the one proposed. The improvement disregard is the tenant-friendly counterpart: a tenant who fitted a new kitchen at his own expense does not pay rent on his own work, subject to the conditions in subsection (3) about when it was done and under what obligation. Under subsection (7) the new rent normally bites from the beginning of the period in the landlord's notice, but the tribunal may direct a later date up to the date of determination where the earlier date would cause the tenant undue hardship. | |
| England is also the only one that voids a contractual escalator. Section 13(4A): the rent for a period may not be greater than for the previous period except by a s. 13 notice, a s. 14 determination, or a written agreement following a determination - and 'any provision relating to an assured tenancy to which this section applies is of no effect so far as it provides that the rent for a particular period of the tenancy must or may be greater than the rent for the previous period' by any other route. | A clause raising the rent by a fixed percentage every year is vulnerable in England where the section applies, whereas in California the same clause is not void - it is simply capped by § 1947.12 - and in New York nothing limits its size at all. Section 13 also does not apply where the tenancy itself contains a binding rent review provision of the kind described in subsection (1), nor to a relevant low-cost tenancy as defined in subsection (4C). | |
| California | California builds the opposite machine: a pure formula on the amount, with no consent, no comparables and no tribunal. § 1947.12(a)(1): over any 12-month period the owner may not increase the gross rental rate by more than 5 per cent plus the percentage change in the cost of living, or 10 per cent, whichever of the two is lower, measured against the lowest gross rental rate charged for that unit at any time in the preceding 12 months, with discounts, incentives, concessions or credits the tenant accepted excluded from that baseline. Subdivision (a)(2) adds that the rent may not be raised in more than two increments in a 12-month period for a tenant who stays. | The exclusion of accepted discounts from the baseline closes a route the other systems do not address at all: a landlord cannot manufacture headroom by discounting first and measuring the increase from the discounted figure. And because the cap is arithmetic, a Californian tenant can check the increase without knowing anything about comparable properties, which is exactly what a German or English tenant cannot do. |
| California's cap stops at the door. § 1947.12(b): where no tenant from the prior tenancy remains in lawful possession, the owner may set the initial rental rate free of the cap, which then governs only the increases after that. | The section restrains rent during a tenancy and does not control what a unit is advertised at once it is empty. Germany's § 558 has no comparable vacancy exit inside it, because the German rule for what may be charged at the start of a new letting is a separate provision, § 556d, which the German page names. The practical effect is that in California the pressure lands on turnover and in Germany it does not. | |
| The Californian fight is usually about coverage, not arithmetic. Subdivision (d) lists what the section does not reach: deed-restricted or subsidy-agreement affordable housing; dormitories of schools and higher education institutions; housing already under a local rent control scheme that permits less than this section does; housing issued a certificate of occupancy within the previous 15 years; separately alienable single-family homes and condominiums where the owner is not a REIT, a corporation or an LLC with a corporate member and the tenant was given the exemption notice in the words the statute prescribes; and owner-occupied duplexes. Subdivisions (n) and (o) make the section operative from 1 April 2024 and repeal it on 1 January 2030. | The 15-year exclusion is a rolling one, so a building ages into coverage - a fact about the statute that no reader can deduce from a percentage. The exemption notice has prescribed wording, which is why the answer to 'am I covered' is usually found by reading the lease and the age of the building rather than the cap. And a statute that expires on a stated date is unusual in this comparison: nothing in the German, English or New York provisions has a sunset. | |
| New York | New York regulates neither the amount nor the reason, only the warning - and it scales the warning to how long the tenant has been there. Real Property Law § 226-c is triggered where the landlord intends to renew with an increase 'equal to or greater than five percent above the current rent', or does not intend to renew at all. The period is set by the cumulative time the tenant has occupied the residence or the length of the tenancy in each lease, whichever is longer: thirty days under a year, sixty days between one and two years, ninety days over two years. | Below five per cent the section is not engaged at all, so a tenant of ten years can be given a four per cent increase without any statutory notice. And the sanction is time rather than money: under subdivision 1, a landlord who fails to give timely notice sees the tenancy continue on the existing terms from the date actual written notice was given until the notice period expires, 'notwithstanding any provision of a lease or other tenancy agreement to the contrary'. Being late does not invalidate the increase; it postpones it. |
| The published New York text carries the section in two versions at once, which is worth flagging because it is visible on the page. Until 15 June 2034 the notice must append or contain the good cause eviction notice required by § 231-c, stating whether the unit is subject to the good cause eviction article and why it is exempt if it is not, the lawful basis for a non-renewal of a covered unit, and the justification for an increase above the applicable local rent standard. From that date the requirement falls away and the shorter version applies. | It means the same section imposes materially different content requirements depending on when the notice is served, and a template drafted for one version will not satisfy the other. Paragraph 1(b) also removes the obligation for a cooperative housing corporation as against its own shareholder-tenants, subject to the exceptions named there. |
The provision in each country
Each card links to the page that reproduces the official text and explains it in that country's own language.
Deutschland BGB
United Kingdom Housing Act 1988
- HA 1988 s. 13 Rent on a periodic assured tenancy may be raised only by a prescribed-form notice taking effect at a new period, at most once a year - and any contractual provision for an automatic increase by another route is of no effect.
- HA 1988 s. 14 On a tenant's application the tribunal fixes the open market rent a willing landlord could reasonably expect on the same terms, disregarding the sitting tenancy, the tenant's own improvements and any damage the tenant caused.
California California Civil Code
Where there is no answer in the code
A jurisdiction listed here is a finding, not a gap. Either its answer lives outside the corpus — special legislation, case law, municipal rules — or its law simply has no such rule.
-
Italia
In law we don't carry
L. 392/1978; L. 431/1998
Residential rent and its indexation in Italy are L. 392/1978 and L. 431/1998, not the Codice Civile. The code governs the general obligations of landlord and tenant and stops there: the lookup answered with arts. 1575 and 1587, which set out what each party owes the other and say nothing about increases. Italy is absent from this comparison because the Italian answer was legislated out of the civil code decades ago.
-
France
In law we don't carry
Loi n° 89-462, art. 17-1
The same in France: revision of a residential rent is art. 17-1 of the loi n. 89-462 and the IRL index published by INSEE, both outside the Code civil. The lookup found only art. 1103, that lawfully formed contracts bind the parties - true, and useless to a tenant facing a large increase.
-
España
In law we don't carry
Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos, art. 18
The same again in Spain: rent revision on a residential lease is art. 18 of the Ley de Arrendamientos Urbanos. The lookup returned arts. 1556 and 1569 of the Codigo Civil, which are about breach of the lease and grounds for eviction - a neighbouring subject, not this one.
That's the law in seven places. Now let's settle your problem.
Say what is happening. A neutral mediator hears your side and the other party's, and walks you both to a written agreement. In the advanced settings you can ask for the decision to be reasoned on the law of one of these jurisdictions.
Or open a session directly and invite the other party.
This page compares provisions of several legal systems in general terms and links to the official text of each. It is not legal advice, it does not tell you which country's law governs your situation, and it takes no account of the circumstances of your case. For a live dispute, consult a qualified lawyer in the jurisdiction concerned.