Unscrupulous landlords are swindling tenants out of CHF10.4 billion ($11 billion) a year in Switzerland, according to an advocacy group.

24 comments

  1. The Swiss Tenants’ Association is calling on lawmakers to cap “exploding” rents that is says are squeezing people on low incomes.

    The Tenants’ Association complained on Monday that landlords are profiteering by ignoring rules that limit rent rises.

    In 2021, the average tenant was over-paying by CHF370 per month, the organisation claims.

    Switzerland has one of the lowest home ownership rates among advanced economies. Only around 40% of people own their own properties while the rest rent.

    Tenants are protected by laws that restrict large rental increases, but increasing demand for apartments, especially in cities, continues to drive up rents.

    The Tenants’ Association is calling on parliament to re-write the rules to better protect tenants, particularly in the current climate of inflation and rising energy prices.

    The group also demanded more affordable housing and non-profit accommodation projects.

  4. What an awful article. How has asloca calculated this? For instance, is this amount including the value of potential rent reductions when interests plummeted and that were not requested by tenants?

  5. Swiss landlords are such scumbags, probably couldnt find more greedy ones anywhere else in Europe.

  6. I don‘t see how capping rents is going to help? They‘re still going to be expensive and unaffordable to many.

    The only solution is to create more housing but since most Swiss people are NIMBYs and hate skyscrapers, densification, etc. I don‘t see this problem getting solved anytime soon.

  11. For those believing in fairetales like fReE mArKeT…how about in the last 20 years you gave decent pay rises to people? The big problem is also that salaries have not catched up with inflation.
    And don’t tell me bs like “you can always leave your job if you think you are not paid enough”… especially in Switzerland, the job market is very small, plus it’s much riskier for an employee to switch job than for an employer to loose an employee.

  13. Well, another kind of “tax” for the working population to finance a wellfare state for the rich…

  14. What they fail to mention is that two of the biggest players in this game are 1) our pension funds (PK) and 2) the SBB. Yes we need better restrictions on foreign investment funds buying up our real estate (the Jelmoli disaster has show this), but we also need to sweep up our own yard first.

    Also, for the love of good our lawmakers need to make it easier to build new housing *in places where it’s needed*. We’re in the fucked up situation where we have the continuous destruction of nature by suburban sprawl, but at the same time development in urban areas is halted by nonsensical regulations and blockades.

  15. You can’t protect the environment (particularly habitats and biodiversity, by stopping to build enough housing) while also having your population grow exponentially through birthing and immigration. At one point, you’ll run out of homes.

  16. The problem is you cant solve the problem beside you stop the massimigration thats the only way i say is realistic. Every other way will only lead to less investments into the market means less quality for everyone instead of 3 glas windows back to 1 glas window because much cheaper. Back to the shared washrooms. You all forget your Houses are that nice because its a investment so you invest money to get the best out of the investment. Also nobody will build houses because why should i if it dont bring any profit at all?

  18. I don’t see what overpaying is. There is a market price. What do you consider overpaying ?

    Also, let’s point at the real problem here, because that’s economics 101.

    Population increase, territory not, thus housing not, thus price go up.

    So two solutions:

    1. limit immigration (because the population increase comes from immigration (funny it’s usually the same people who complain about rent and low salaries that are pro-immigration).
    2. build higher

    An add on to the above is to stop pissing off owners by stopping to tax the shit out of them and lower the initial capital needed for mortgage -> increase the % of property owner.

    But then tenants hate property owners, yet want to be a property owner (but too expensive partly because of the former, vicious circle)

  19. I have given this subject and health care a thought over the years. And, I’ve come to the conclusion that the way to still incentivise investment while stopping profiteering is to place caps (%) on how much profit you can make. A very simplistic way it could work is:

    The developer is capped on the profit it can make on the property.
    Renters are capped at the yearly profit as % of the inflation adjusted original property price(not current valuation price). Fixing stuff, insurance, and so is tax deductible. Inflated deductions are disqualified. (e.g. fixing a door was suddenly 10000CHF).

    Given that profit margins on a lot of things are low and that money sitting in the bank is losing value, there is still an incentive. especially since it is a very low risk investment.

    The outcome I would expect is that:
    Rents stay low
    Owners can still profit
    Property prices stay low since the rent is capped at the inflation adjusted original property price.
    Properties are resold less since paying higher prices leads to lower yield. The second-hand market is reserved for people who want a property to live in rather than an investment.

    Another related idea would be:
    The government issues housing bonds
    With the money the government pays for projects by developers
    Properties are then administered by companies that are paid to do so (fixed % of yearly rental income per property)
    Money from rent goes to the fund from these bonds
    Money for repairs from normal wear and tear come from the fund.
    Rents are proportional to the original property cost, adjusted for inflation.
    Rents are only increased if repairs and maintenance can’t be covered at current prices.
    Excess money generated for the fund goes into more housing and projects with a positive social impact (e.g. gardens playgrounds, cycle paths)

    Both these solutions should be attractive ways to invest money, IMO.

    I have no experience in any of the fields discussed. I’d like to hear some feedback.

  20. The real story is how they are marking up nebonkosten at all levels across the board and nobody ever questions it. Wincasa was caught doing this on many different occasions.

Leave a Reply