The situation is making her nervous, says Marga Busse. The pensioner has been waiting for months and waiting for the liability insurance of the Friedehorst nursing service to cover the costs of replacing a locking system: about 3,600 euros. An employee who cared for her husband, who has since died, had lost the key to the front door. But the insurance company refuses to pay. Marga Busse’s lawyer has now filed a lawsuit against Friedehorst. However, the management of the diaconal facility is convinced: Marga Busse does not have the right to complain against Friedehorst, but against her former landlady, who wrongly changed the locking system.
“It is important to make sure in advance that such costs are covered if a key is lost”, is the message from Marga Busse. That’s why she wants her story to be reported. “After all, it often happens that the keys are deposited in the nursing services.” The 79-year-old man no longer lives in the Vegesack apartment. He moved to Lesum after the death of her husband.
For about two and a half years, she says, the Friedehorst mobile care team was on duty with her husband. “I’ve always been happy and I don’t blame the caretaker who lost the key,” she says. She remembers the morning that she called the nurse. She drove to the next patient and found that the key fob was unlocked. The key to our front door was missing.” Marga Busse informed the owner of the apartment, which is located in an apartment building with 15 residential units in Vegesack.
“First, the owner temporarily replaced the locking system to which three apartments are connected,” says the pensioner. That costs around 600 euros. After six weeks, the final exchange took place, which, according to Busse, cost another 3,000 euros. According to Jörg Sommer, who represents Marga Busse as a lawyer, a total of six cylinders were changed. The landlord then withheld or offset the money when Marga Busse moved out, with money for an awning she bought from her former tenant.
Daniel Ruths, spokesman for the insurance company “Die Haftpflichtkasse VVaG”, emphasizes when asked: “We have always communicated openly. We remain interested in an amicable solution.” The insurance company initially offered Marga Busse 50 euros for get a new key The insurance company doesn’t want to cover the costs of replacing the lock system because they don’t see the security function being affected The liability insurance company’s argument: Because the lost key doesn’t was marked with a name, address or the like, it would not have been possible to match it with the correct lock.The lawyer Jörg Sommer, for his part, emphasizes: “It cannot be ruled out that the key was stolen.”
However, the amount of damage claimed is also not disclosed to the insurance company. “In the course of the ’emergency repair,’ not only was a lock on the apartment replaced, but multiple locks on the property. We didn’t understand why other locks had to be changed afterwards,” says Ruths. It’s also unclear whether other keys were lost, how old the swapped lock system was, and whether locks of comparable quality were installed. “If the system has been in operation for many years and the keys have already been lost, there is no right to a refund of the full cost of installing a new locking system”.
Now an expert must assess the matter on the site. Marga Busse and her lawyer Jörg Sommer have filed a lawsuit against Friedehorst. However, the management of Friedehorst, like the insurance company, is of the opinion that it is not necessary to pay for the replacement of the locking system. “The insurance covers the replacement of the closing systems if there is verifiable damage. But that’s not the case here,” says Friedehorst spokeswoman Gabriele Nottelmann.
The spokeswoman refers to a 2014 Federal Court of Justice ruling: “A purely abstract potential risk does not represent a reimbursable financial loss.” The sentence explicitly emphasizes that a lost key that has not been tagged represents a purely abstract potential risk.
Nottelmann emphasizes, “We understand the tenant’s concerns, so with our board members, there were two people to speak for the tenant and her child. Both board members apologized to the tenant for the loss of the key.” and they took their time to explain the legal situation and to answer questions, Friedehorst himself could not bear the sum in question.
In Friedehorst’s view, the landlord replaced the locking system for no reason “and then incorrectly recovered the costs of this from the tenant’s deposit.” In this regard, the tenant would now have to take action against the landlady.” Nottelmann expressly reiterates the Friedehorst management’s apology to Marga Busse for the inconvenience caused by the loss of the key. “At the same time, we also understand that the insurance company relies on the rulings of the Federal Court of Justice and therefore has no room for maneuver.” Marga Busse is still waiting for her expenses to be reimbursed.
Safe now: We give you 1 month of WK+ for free!