ImmoScout24 has published informational material on rent price controls. The portal explains the legal foundations of the regulation that applies in many German cities. The market leader is positioning itself as an educator in a politically charged debate.
The timing of the campaign is noteworthy. Real estate portals are regularly criticized as price drivers because they make comparison rents transparent and could thus push rental levels upward. Rent price controls are designed to prevent exactly that: when re-letting, rent may be at most ten percent above the locally customary comparison rent. With this educational effort, ImmoScout24 is apparently trying to present itself as part of the solution.
For property managers and housing companies, rent price controls have been a double-edged sword for years. On one hand, they limit rent increases on new lettings in tight markets. On the other hand, landlords must be familiar with the complex exceptions: modernizations and rents agreed upon before the regulation came into force are not affected. Enforcement lies with tenants, who must actively object.
The portals play a central role in this. They provide the data basis for comparison rents, which in turn are used for rent indices. Critics accuse platforms like ImmoScout24 of painting a distorted picture through listing rents. In fact, listing rents are often significantly higher than existing rents. The portal's material now also explains these relationships to laypeople.
For the industry, the initiative could be a signal. While competitors like Kleinanzeigen are shaking up the market with aggressive pricing, ImmoScout24 is focusing on expertise and transparency. This could strengthen cooperation with professional landlords who need legally secure solutions.
Whether the educational effort will have political impact remains to be seen. Rent price controls are rejected by the Union and FDP, defended by the SPD and Greens. Studies on effectiveness reach different conclusions. ImmoScout24 takes no position in its explanation, but describes the legal situation neutrally. Both sides should be satisfied with that – and that is probably exactly the intention.
