High Court!

Me, Jörg, the plaintiff, hereby request that M. Schlaffner-Blömche aka “Immo Martin”, the defendant, who lives in Düsseldorf on or near the dike (but only on the wrong side of the river), be arrested and sentenced without further ado!

And as follows:

1. The defendant is ordered to return the full amount of a deposit of €160 to the plaintiff, plus 9% interest above the base rate since March 1, 2020.
2. The judgment is provisionally enforceable.

Reasons:

The defendant argues that oil stains on a parking space rented by him to the plaintiff are to be attributed to the plaintiff, and that he must therefore withhold a deposit of €160 paid at the beginning of the rental relationship for any resulting damage after the termination of the rental relationship on March 1, 2020.

The plaintiff initially declares that he is not aware of the claim that it is an oil stain. Furthermore, it is neither proven nor even provable that a stain that is actually there can be attributed to the plaintiff.

Furthermore, a portion of the deposit in the amount of €40 is expressly intended to secure a remote control. However, this was returned. Therefore, even in the – disputed – case that the soiling could be attributed to the plaintiff, withholding this portion would not be possible at all.

The defendant has not proven the extent of the damage, if any.
The expert opinions he announced to clarify the matter were obviously never carried out. Nor was it explained, even when expressly asked, to what extent there would have been a loss of rent.

Incidentally, the stains were never removed afterwards - as of November 2020. There is countless further soiling throughout the facility.
In short, the plaintiff denies that any damage at all has occurred, regardless of who is responsible.

In the event that the defendant could show that he has suffered damage, for example from lost rent, he would also have to prove that this is undoubtedly attributable to the plaintiff, which is simply impossible.

But let's get to the point:

On May 27, 2012, the plaintiff and the defendant entered into a rental agreement for a parking space with the number 1033, starting on June 1, 2012. The parking space “at the property Hiddenseestrasse 3a” is located under the Lindner Hotel Airport (Unterrather Str. 108).

According to § 9 “Deposit” of this contract, the following was determined:

A deposit of €40.00 is agreed for the period of the hand-held transmitter. The amount is payable upon delivery of the transmitter. The tenant will receive the amount back without interest when the functional radio transmitter is returned. A rental deposit of two months' rent (€120) and the first month's rent is also paid upon handover.
The amount was handed over in cash on May 27, 2012, which was acknowledged in writing on the rental agreement.

However, this separately lockable, “garage-like” parking space within the underground car park, which was surrounded by a cage-like steel reinforcement, proved to be somewhat impractical in that the driver's door of the plaintiff's vehicle, which was regularly parked there, could not be opened sufficiently to get in and out in a reasonably humane manner.
This is already a challenge when the door can be opened wide. The court of law is referred to social media for example here. In YouTube videos like

The Fat Guys' Guide to Getting In (and Out) of a Lotus Elise

or

Lotus Challenge: Old man gets stuck in an Exige S

the viewing audience has made a “fun” out of this fact.

Rentnerkarre

They are much easier to get into. But that's why they are often ridiculed as senior citizens' cars.

At least the plaintiff knows this for a fact from fans of British or Italian brands.

Be that as it may.

For this reason, this parking space with the number 1033 was exchanged for a general parking space that cannot be locked separately with the serial number 1016, which allows for much more comfortable entry and exit. The parties agreed that the deposit paid on May 27, 2012 would simply be retained.

According to point 4 of the newly concluded contract (in the appendix):
(4) The tenant is liable to pay compensation for damage to the rented property and the facilities and equipment in it, insofar as it is culpably caused by him or by persons whom he has allowed to enter. The landlord is obliged to prove that the cause of the damage was set in the tenant's area of risk. The tenant is then obliged to prove that the damage was not culpably caused.

In the event of damage, the defendant is initially obliged to prove to the plaintiff that the damage is attributable to the plaintiff.

This evidence has not been provided.

In addition:

The area not intended by the Lindner Airport Hotel for its own customers (in which both the first and second parking spaces are located) is actually separated by two barriers that restrict unauthorized driving on the parking area. One of these barriers has been defective since 2018. When we inspected it in November 2020, we found that the barrier had still not been repaired. The owners of the entire complex have obviously failed to ensure that the parking spaces are properly secured, which is actually also agreed in the rental contract.
For this reason alone, it is not clear to the plaintiff how it could be determined with the necessary certainty that the stains were not left there by the defendant himself or a third party. After all, anyone could have driven here without restriction.
Furthermore: due to their location in the immediate vicinity of the underground parking wall, the stains cannot plausibly be explained by an oil leak from the plaintiff's vehicles.
However, the plaintiff would like to leave it at this. After all, it is not his job here to prove that the stains are not attributable to him. On the contrary, it would be the defendant's responsibility to prove that the stains were caused by the plaintiff's area of risk.

What about here?

Further:

The entire area of the underground parking lot on the first basement level of the hotel is covered with countless oil stains and other dirt.
The Lindner Hotel Airport, as a 4-star hotel, presents itself as a dignified, well-kept establishment. The plaintiff is welcome to report from his own experience that the services provided by the room rental, restaurant and bar areas do justice to the hotel's reputation.
However, a visitor looking at the grubby underground parking lot in question here will be thoroughly disgusted, probably comparable to what we would feel if we looked up the dress of a lady who is actually elegant but has unfortunately never washed herself.
Finally, it is also fitting that the stains in question have not been removed in the meantime.

one more

Finally:

The defendant's repeated statements to date, that the expert opinion and court proceedings would be associated with considerable costs, are valued by the plaintiff as a - rather transparent - attempt to avoid settling undisputed claims by means of crude threats.

Unfortunately, the defendant does not stop here from burdening our court system with such quarrels over quite ridiculous amounts.

The plaintiff attributes “eBay classifieds jargon” to formulations such as “my lawyer will be pleased”. This has absolutely no place, especially when ending a long-standing, mutually beneficial relationship between cultivated business partners.

The overall sad impression is that the defendant seems to consider “every means justified” in order to optimize his earnings by withholding a deposit without cause.

amts-gerichtspost-zu-lindner-hotel-zoff-mit-dem-porsche-rentner-01-2021.pdf