Results a payment, has the reverse is billable landlord pitch: according to 556, paragraph 3, sentence 3 BGB, the additional tax is excluded. For this reason, it is always worth to insist on a settlement. The faulty billing of the tenant has to access of service charge settlement one year time, to check the accuracy of the billing and claims objections. For him it is tactically useful to assert objections only after expiry of the period of the year, because until then, the landlord has the right to make other adjustments, which can lead to a higher payment. In one of the German Federal Supreme Court (BGH) in February 2013 (BGH, judgment of 06 02 2013, AZ.) VIII ZR 184/12) determined case the tenant had been established after receiving the settlement that he had to provide not demanded payment, but to reclaim credits. The amount of the unused advance payments made it possible to 30,00 even a lowering of future monthly payments. The affected tenants the landlord informed the error of Service charge settlement in writing and explained that he was expecting to the balances with the rent for the next month. In addition, he was the landlord in informed that he soon the monthly expenses advance payments to 30.00.

First, the Supreme Court gave him law. Actually also the tenant in accordance with section 560, paragraph 4 may BGB unilaterally adjust the additional costs allowance in the average consumption of the previous marketing year to perform. He has however to respect the principle of cost-effectiveness. This also means that the costs to be expected for the future are covered by the advance payment. A low heating costs due to unusually mild winter weather is so or the tenant because of exceptionally long absence in the year of significantly less water consumed is to be expected that the cost back regular use of the home or average heating demand increase on the amount originally budgeted.

In this case, a reduction in advance payments should not be made. The tenant has the right to explain the compensation due a refund claim with the current rent on. By this measure, the void of the lessor on the payment of rent. Here, the first decisive regional court had accepted that a right to set-off does not exist, but the tenants could sue the landlord for repayment of expenses balance. This opinion is but already that’s why unfairly because the tenant should first dispersed Court and possibly legal costs, only following a judicial decision – and that can take longer sometimes to get his money. Before a set-off, an affected tenant at the landlord and then at the local tenants Association or a lawyer should contact to check the actual amount of the balance of the costs. Should namely credits do not exist and set-off be wrongly, the termination is threatening the tenants in the worst case. Wiebke Meyer-Arndt