Federal Court of Justice
A electricity meter, many lease: landlord has to pay
A landlord defended herself against her imposed electricity and gas costs. Didn’t the energy supplier offered itself to your tenants? In this case: No, says the BGH.
If an apartment only has one electricity and gas meter, but the rooms are rented individually, the range of services of an energy supplier is aimed at the landlord – and not as usual as usual. This was decided by the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) in Karlsruhe. The condition for this is that there is no written energy contract.
In the specific case, it was about a legal dispute between a landlord and an energy supplier. The company asked for money to supply their apartment with electricity and gas in the context of basic care. The owner had rented the rooms of the apartment individually with each separate rental contracts. Common areas such as the kitchen and bathroom were used by all residents. For the apartment there was only one common counter for electricity and gas and no written energy contract.
BGH: Consumption cannot be assigned
In court, the parties argued whether the supply contract with the owner or the tenants, which was concluded by the removal of electricity and gas, exists. Concludent means that a legally binding contract is concluded through conclusive behavior – as the use of electricity and gas here – without explaining this. As a rule, such an offer is aimed at the tenant of an apartment.
Not this time: The energy supplier’s offer is not directed to the tenants of the individual rooms or the entirety of the tenants, according to the eighth Civil Senate of the BGH. “Although the tenants alone have an impact on electricity and gas consumption in the apartment. However, this consumption – due to a lack of separate meters – cannot be assigned to the individual rented rooms”.
The individual tenants would have no interest in standing in the electricity consumption of the other tenants. The fact that the energy offer is therefore aimed at the landlord is the result of the rental concept she chosen. Her revision against a judgment by the Kiel Regional Court, which had previously been given the lawsuit against the owner, was rejected. (Az. VIII ZR 300/23)
dpa
Source: Stern
