The WEG reform since 2020: what has changed for commissioning caretaker and cleaning services

Anyone who has ever had to commission winter maintenance or stairwell cleaning in the middle of the season — as a managing agent or as a member of the advisory board — knows the question that comes straight back: don't we need a resolution of the owners for that first? The reformed version of the Wohnungseigentumsgesetz (the German law on residential property ownership, reformed by the Wohnungseigentumsmodernisierungsgesetz, WEMoG for short) has applied since 1 December 2020 — and since then the answer has been considerably simpler in the vast majority of cases than it used to be.

The key change: the managing agent represents the association externally

Two changes work together here. First, since the reform the community of residential property owners has expressly been a legal entity in its own right — under § 9a Abs. 1 WEG it can acquire rights and enter into obligations. The contracting party of a caretaker or cleaning contractor is therefore the residents' association as such, not the sum of the individual owners.

Second, § 9b Abs. 1 Satz 1 WEG provides that the managing agent represents this association in and out of court — with no value threshold and with no general requirement for a prior resolution. What matters in practice, though, is sentence 3 of the same provision: “A restriction on the scope of the power of representation is ineffective towards third parties.” Before the reform this was precisely the point that caused constant uncertainty — how far the agent's authority reached externally depended on the declaration of division (Teilungserklärung), the management contract and the resolutions that had been passed, and in a dispute it was often hard to assess.

For commissioning today, this means: if the managing agent signs a cleaning or caretaker contract, that contract is valid as a rule — even where the owners had internally resolved on a value threshold that was exceeded in the process. The contractor does not have to know the internal resolutions, nor to check them.

The one important exception

In § 9b Abs. 1 Satz 1 WEG the law names exactly two transactions for which the managing agent additionally needs a resolution of the residential property owners: entering into a contract for the purchase of land and entering into a loan agreement. For an ongoing caretaker, cleaning, gardening or winter maintenance contract, this exception is practically never relevant.

A different special case comes up more often: if the association has no managing agent at all — in a small development that manages itself, for instance — it is represented jointly by the residential property owners under § 9b Abs. 1 Satz 2 WEG. In that case either all the owners sign, or one person who has been expressly authorised to do so. If you are obtaining quotes in this situation, settle the question of representation before the contract is concluded, not afterwards.

External and internal relationship — the difference that is often confused

The fact that the power of representation cannot be restricted externally does not mean that the managing agent has a free hand in relation to the association. The internal relationship is governed by § 27 WEG: towards the association, the agent is entitled and obliged to take measures of proper management that are of subordinate importance and do not lead to substantial obligations — or that are necessary in order to meet a deadline or to avert a disadvantage. Under § 27 Abs. 2 WEG the residential property owners can restrict or extend these rights and duties by resolution. This is exactly where value thresholds and consent requirements belong.

If the managing agent exceeds such an internal limit, the contract concluded externally with the contractor remains valid nonetheless. The consequences fall within the internal relationship instead: the agent may become liable in damages to the association, and if it happens repeatedly may even be removed from office. The contractor is not affected by any of this. A resolution intended to limit the power of representation “towards third parties as well” changes nothing about this division — it takes effect solely in the internal relationship.

Latest: the BGH has overturned the “three-quotes rule”

For years, many lower courts required at least three comparative quotes before larger measures were awarded — otherwise the resolution was open to challenge. In its judgment of 27 March 2026 (Az. V ZR 7/25) the Bundesgerichtshof (BGH, the Federal Court of Justice) rejected this schematic rule for maintenance measures on the common property: there is no general obligation to obtain several comparative quotes.

That is not the all-clear, however. A sufficient factual basis is still required, measured against the standard of an owner who thinks sensibly and in economic terms — and that basis can just as well consist of solid experience with a contractor who has proved reliable. Conversely, a resolution can be flawed even where three quotes were on the table, if the company commissioned is objectively unsuitable or the price is markedly excessive. In practice this means: it is not the number of quotes that counts, but a basis for the decision that others can follow.

What this means for commissioning in concrete terms

• Able to act more quickly:cleaning, caretaker and winter maintenance contracts can be concluded without waiting for the next owners' meeting — which matters above all when a previous contractor drops out at short notice or the winter season is approaching.
• Fewer queries on the contractor's side: a contract signed by the managing agent is a solid basis. That noticeably shortens the time between the quote and the start of work.
• Control shifts, it does not disappear: the advisory board and the owners steer through value thresholds, reporting duties and the annual discharge — not through the question of whether an individual contract came about validly.
• The content of the contract remains the lever: the term, the notice period and the description of services decide how flexible the association stays. Just how different those can be is shown in our article Cancellable monthly vs. annual contract.

Whether one provider for all trades makes more sense than several specialists is a separate question — the arguments on both sides are set out in Caretaker service vs. individual firms. And how the services commissioned later end up correctly in the service charge statement is covered by Passing on service charges correctly.

How Zamsa helps

We work for managing agents and residents' associations in the district of Groß-Gerau, in Darmstadt, Neu-Isenburg, Oberursel and the surrounding area — with a description of services split by type of work, so that the contract fits the later statement of costs, and with documented visits in the customer portal that a managing agent can produce for the owners at any time if there is any doubt. What is included in the scope of services is set out on our caretaker service page.

This article describes the general legal position after the WEG reform and does not replace legal advice in an individual case. Particularly where specific powers of representation are in dispute, it is worth consulting a firm specialising in residential property law.