Excluded by Another Authority’s Decision: § 7 WoGG

By the end of this chapter you will be able to say when another benefit excludes a person from Wohngeld, what the model needs to know about that benefit, and when the exclusion does not apply.

1. The question

A woman lives alone in a rented flat in Weimar, rent €500. In March 2025 she receives basic income support from the job centre under the Second Book of the Social Code (SGB II), and the job centre’s calculation includes her housing costs. She applies for Wohngeld as well.

Predict before you read on: what does the model answer — a reduced Wohngeld, no Wohngeld, or “not enough facts”?

2. The text

§ 7 Abs. 1 Satz 1 WoGG excludes recipients of a list of benefits:

Vom Wohngeld ausgeschlossen sind Empfänger und Empfängerinnen von 1. Bürgergeld nach dem Zweiten Buch Sozialgesetzbuch … 5. Grundsicherung im Alter und bei Erwerbsminderung nach dem Zwölften Buch Sozialgesetzbuch, 6. Hilfe zum Lebensunterhalt nach dem Zwölften Buch Sozialgesetzbuch … wenn bei deren Berechnung Kosten der Unterkunft berücksichtigt worden sind (Leistungen).

In English: recipients of basic income support under SGB II, of basic support in old age and on reduced earning capacity, of subsistence assistance under SGB XII and of six further benefits are excluded from Wohngeld — if housing costs were taken into account in calculating those benefits. The other benefit already pays for housing; Wohngeld would pay twice.

A note on names: in March 2025 the SGB II benefit was called Bürgergeld. Since 1 July 2026 it is called Grundsicherungsgeld (BGBl. 2026 I Nr. 107); the model holds both editions of § 7 and quotes the text in force on the date. The name of the benefit inside the model, NR1_GRUNDSICHERUNGSGELD_SGB2, follows the current edition; for March 2025 the quoted text still says Bürgergeld.

§ 7 Abs. 1 Satz 3 then lifts the exclusion in two situations: when the benefits are granted only as a loan, and when Wohngeld can avoid or end the need for help and the other benefit has not yet been paid while its procedure runs, or is paid by a carrier only obliged in second rank (§ 104 SGB X). § 8 Abs. 2 adds a third: if a member waives the other benefit in order to apply for Wohngeld, the exclusion is treated as not having happened.

3. A fact decided elsewhere

Whether the woman receives SGB II support with housing costs is not a question the Wohngeldbehörde decides. The job centre decided it, in its own decision notice. The model therefore does not infer it; it takes it as a fact, with every detail § 7 needs. origin case_input says how the fact entered the case — from the file; the document behind it, the job centre’s notice with its date, belongs in the file and should be cited beside the fact:

assert "ehefrau-leistung7": de.social.wohngeld::leistungsbezug_7(
    entity_ref("…:ehefrau"),
    de.social.wohngeld::NR1_GRUNDSICHERUNGSGELD_SGB2,   // which benefit
    de.social.wohngeld::JA,     // housing costs taken into account
    de.social.wohngeld::NEIN,   // only as a loan
    de.social.wohngeld::NEIN,   // Wohngeld would avoid the need for help (§ 7 Abs. 1 S. 3 Nr. 2)
    de.social.wohngeld::NEIN    // waived under § 8 Abs. 2
) { origin case_input; }

The value marked “Wohngeld would avoid the need for help” says more than its comment: JA there certifies the whole of § 7 Abs. 1 S. 3 Nr. 2 — that Wohngeld can avoid or end the need for help and that alternative a) or b) applies. A case must not enter JA on the first half alone.

Five values in one fact, because § 7 turns on all five. For the Vogts, the same fact says KEINE — no such benefit — for each of the four members. That is a fact too: Chapter 8 shows that when it is missing, the household cannot be established.

4. The answers

The case AlleinGrundsicherung holds this woman’s file on 1 March 2025.

The path in the proof: the rule AusschlussEmpfaengerMitKostenDerUnterkunft (§ 7 Abs. 1 S. 1 and 2) excludes her; with her excluded, the household has no counted member; the rule AlleHaushaltsmitgliederAusgeschlossen (§ 21 Nr. 2) concludes that no claim exists.

That answers the prediction: no Wohngeld — and the reason is not “not enough facts” but a ground established by law, resting on the job centre’s decision.

5. Change one thing

The suite of exclusions runs the exceptions, one fact at a time, all passing on 12 October 2026:

The last line matters in families. In the ministry’s Rechenbeispiel 10 of 2025, a retired father lives with a son who receives SGB II support with housing costs. The son is excluded; the father is not. The Wohngeld is computed for one counted member out of two, with the rent and its components taken in proportion (§ 11 Abs. 3): €191 a month — the ministry’s number, matched by the scenario.

6. What this gives the authority

The office can see at once which fact excluded a person, which authority’s decision that fact rests on, and which of the exceptions were checked. If the job centre changes its decision — housing costs no longer included, or the benefit turned into a loan — one fact changes, and the answer follows with its new ground. The two decisions stay connected in the file instead of in a caseworker’s memory.

7. Where Catala stands on this

Catala’s exception mechanism is a natural fit for § 7: a general exclusion and its exceptions, written beside the text (Catala book, ch. 2.2). GETTSIM goes further on the economics, computing which of the competing transfers a household should take. What Arxo adds in this chapter is the status of the input: the decision of another authority enters as a fact with its origin, and the excluding ground in the answer names the provision that turned it into “no claim”.

8. Run it

law ask <case package> --case AlleinGrundsicherung --query-json queries/kein-anspruch-alle-ausgeschlossen.json
law ask <case package> --case AlleinGrundsicherung --query-json queries/wohngeld-485.json

The first answer is established; the second not established. The exceptions are scenarios of the canon: law test <canon> --file tests/ausschluss-und-urteil.lawtest (16 of 16 passed on 12 October 2026 with law 0.1.12).

Exercise

1. The woman’s job centre grants her SGB II support only as a loan. What changes in the model’s answer, and under which provision?
2. Why does the model need to know whether housing costs were taken into account, and not only whether the woman receives SGB II support?
3. In Rechenbeispiel 10, why does the father keep a claim although his son is excluded?