Social welfare office has to pay EUR 25,445 for unsecured home costs!

Social welfare office has to pay EUR 25,445 for unsecured home costs!

A current ruling by the Baden-Württemberg State Social Court has important implications for the assumption of uncovered home costs by the social welfare office. Loud Against Hartz The social welfare providers are obliged to cover the costs of the home if a claim for an order is credibly made and the applicant has no assets. In a specific case, the court found that the social welfare office had to pay the home costs of EUR 25,445 because these were not fully covered by income and nursing care insurance benefits.

In addition to the financial aspects, it should be noted that the applicant in this case had no usable assets and claims for benefits from a previous traffic accident are currently not being asserted. These circumstances meant that the social welfare office could not reject the costs, even if recourse to third parties would theoretically be possible according to Section 103 SGB XII - but with high hurdles.

Urgency and legal framework

The urgency of the decision was reinforced by an announced payment and eviction action by the home provider. The court decided that the social welfare office must cover uncovered and ongoing home costs as soon as the applicant has no assets. This also applies to severely disabled children for whom the costs of integration assistance must be borne; meaningful social assistance must not be unreasonably rejected.

In another case Social rights victories established that a plaintiff was entitled to cover uncovered costs for the inpatient accommodation of her deceased sister in a retirement home. The decision was based on an appeal against a previous ruling by the Aachen Social Court, which had not recognized the plaintiff's need for help.

Reclaim and legal situation

In the specific case, the plaintiff demanded payment of around EUR 27,000 for inpatient accommodation that had been incurred during the period from July 1, 2018 until the death of Ms. V. C. The defendant had previously rejected applications for nursing home allowance because no assets could be proven. But the deceased woman's financial situation was unclear due to financial losses resulting from the withdrawal.

The plaintiff, who was recognized as the legal successor, argued that living benefits should not be rejected based on assumptions. The judgment ultimately proved her right by revoking the decision of October 30, 2018 and ordering the defendant to pay the uncovered home costs. This decision shows how important it is that applicants are able to clearly and comprehensibly explain their need for help in order to be able to enforce legal claims.