Details

Parent Category: News Archives

Created on Friday, 05 June 2009 18:24

Last Updated on Friday, 28 December 2012 18:54

Time Bars Utility Bill Even When It's Agreed Upon

The Federal Court of Justice was sought to decide on a situation where a tenant agreed to pay the utility bill within the settlement period but the landlord did not present a valid bill. The BGH decided this issue on April 9, 2008 (re VIII ZR 84/07).

[PPD_PAYTOREADMORE]

Danny had been renting an apartment to Suzy until January 2005. With her written notice, she asked Danny to settle the utility costs of previous periods back to the year 2003. Danny did so with a letter in November 2004 demanding an additional € 602.84. One of the items in read: "share in the costs per square meter living space * months. Given to that was: total amount 3,816.00, your share 1,176.00; in the line beneath the number 12 was mentioned. Danny alleges that Suzy promised in front the landlord to pay for all open utilities including ones no longer enforceable because they were too old. Suzy complained the settlement was not understandable and therefore invalid. Danny corrected his settlement bill in March of the following year but still Suzy did not understand. And since Suzy did not pay, Danny went to court.

The BGH saw no grounds in Danny's case. Even when the tenant recognizes a utility settlement, this does not start the period for settling the utilities pursuant to §556 III 2 and 3 BGB. The court agreed with Suzy that the settlement bill was not understandable for an average tenant. This invoice is therefore invalid. The average tenant cannot understand that the number "3,816" is the product of the house's total living space of 318 m² and the 12 months of the year. Just as little understandable is that the number "1,170" results from Suzy's living space of 98 m² and 12 months. The corrected settlement of March 2003 came too late. The period in §556 III 3 BGB is an exclusive one. So even when Suzy promised to pay, this exclusion period did not start anew. The rules on postponing the time barring of a claim (when acknowledging the existence of a claim, re §212 I no. 1 BGB) are not applicable. The aim of the exclusion period is to establish legal security and certainty. This aim would be countered by a renewal.