The management contract: twelve points that should be in it — and three nobody reads

A preliminary note

This article is not legal advice and cannot be. It describes what we would look for from practice, and what has struck us in contracts in this industry. To assess your specific contract you need someone who reads it — that may be a lawyer or your fiduciary (Treuhänder).

What this article can do: give you the questions to take into that conversation. And name the points that are regularly missing from contracts.

First: the commission, and what it is based on

The most important point, and in most contracts the least clear. A percentage without a basis of calculation is an empty figure: between 20 per cent of the booking amount and 20 per cent of accommodation revenue after the platform fee lies a difference of more than 40 per cent.

The contract should state which amount forms the basis, and in a way you can check against a statement. «Of the rental income» is not enough — is the cleaning fee part of the rental income? The platform fee?

• Ask for a worked example using a concrete booking: three nights, a price, a cleaning fee. Have them show you what is deducted.
• Establish whether pass-through items are excluded: deposits, compensation for damage, platform refunds. It is documented that commission is sometimes charged on these.
• Establish whether commission also arises on cancelled bookings for which no money changed hands.

Second: cleaning, laundry, tradesmen

The item where most disappears in this industry. From French industry analyses of 2026: the guest is charged a EUR 90 cleaning fee, the cleaner receives 45 to 55. The difference appears on no owner statement.

At six stays a month that is around EUR 240 which nobody sees as a line item. The same pattern applies to laundry and consumables at a 30 to 50 per cent mark-up, and to tradesmen’s work through the hourly rate.

The contract should state that third-party services are passed on at cost, and that receipts are attached. Without that assurance the percentage is only half the calculation.

Third: in whose name does the listing run?

This is the point most rarely settled and most expensive when it is not. The review history hangs on the platform account — and that is the most valuable intangible asset a let property has.

If the listing runs in the management company’s name, the history stays with them on a change of provider. You start at zero: no reviews, no ranking, no price you can hold. The difference between zero and five reviews is considerable; reaching market occupancy then takes another six months.

Settle this point before the first booking, not on termination. On termination you no longer have a negotiating position.

Fourth: term and exit

In the United Kingdom commitments of 6 to 12 months with exit fees are widespread, sometimes tiered: Houst gives better rates for 24 and 36 months. That is a legitimate model — it lowers the price in exchange for commitment.

What matters is that you know what you are entering into. And three things should be in the contract:

• The notice period, and whether it applies to both sides.
• What happens on termination to bookings already confirmed. Who looks after guests who have booked for after the contract ends?
• The handback: keys, codes, access to the platform account, transfer of the review history, release of guest data and of the photographs.

And three points nobody reads

These three sit far back and get skimmed. In case of doubt they decide more than the commission does.

First, the authority granted. What may the management company do in your name? Change prices, decline bookings, instruct tradesmen, grant goodwill to guests? With goodwill it becomes concrete: if a guest complains and the manager refunds CHF 300 — out of whose money?

Second, the spending limit for repairs. Without one, either every light bulb prompts a question or a boiler gets replaced without asking. Both are bad. A limit of CHF 300 per case is workable; what matters is that one exists at all.

Third, the allocation of liability for damage. Who reports it, who documents it, who pursues the claim? And the question that follows: who bears it if the claim cannot be enforced? That is the most frequent point of dispute in this industry.

What no contract can contain

Finally, the other direction: there are assurances that should make you prick up your ears.

A management company that promises to check permits, zoning codes or association rules for you is taking on a responsibility it cannot carry when it matters. Only information from the municipality is binding. If a use is prohibited, the manager’s assurance is worth nothing to you — the flat stands empty.

The same applies to levies and notification duties: these duties fall on the host. A management company can help in practice, but the responsibility stays with you, whatever the contract says.

And a guarantee of income or occupancy should give you pause. Anyone guaranteeing an amount they do not control has either not understood the calculation or is selling a risk as security. A rental guarantee is different — there the risk is openly assumed, and in exchange you give up the upside.