BGH Ruling: Switch to Commercial Heat Delivery — Tenants Pay Only Baseline Costs
Switch to Commercial Heat Delivery: What Tenants Must Pay — and What They Don't
Your landlord has replaced the old individual heating in your apartment — your electric heater or gas stove — with central heat delivery from a commercial provider (Wärmelieferungs-Contracting)? Suddenly a heating bill lands in your mailbox with amounts you've never seen before. Do you have to pay it?
A May 2026 ruling by Germany's Federal Court of Justice (BGH) gives a clear answer: not in full.
What the BGH decided (VIII ZR 46/25 and VIII ZR 47/25)
The case: Two Berlin tenants had apartments with their own electric heating that they operated themselves and paid for directly through their power provider. Heating costs were not listed as allocable operating costs in either lease (1971 and 2010). In 2013, the landlord signed a heat delivery contract (Contracting) with an external provider. After installation in 2015, he demanded the tenants pay the full contracting costs.
The result: The BGH overturned the lower-court rulings. § 556c BGB does not apply — neither directly nor by analogy — when tenants previously operated their own heating. The provision allows a cost switch only if tenants were already paying heating costs as operating costs.
What § 556c BGB regulates — and where the limit is
§ 556c BGB lets the landlord switch from self-supply of heat to commercial heat delivery and pass on the costs — but only if:
- The tenants were already paying heating costs as operating costs
- The switch produces efficiency gains
- Certain formal requirements are met
If — as in the BGH case — the tenants had their own heating and paid the supplier directly, the first condition is missing. Analogy is ruled out, says the BGH: the legislature deliberately chose not to regulate this constellation.
What tenants still have to pay
Of course, heating isn't free either. Through supplementary contract interpretation, the landlord may pass on a portion of the heat costs — but only to the extent that the tenants would reasonably have impliedly agreed to:
- The benchmark is the operating-cost categories under § 7 (2) and § 8 (2) HeizkostenV — exactly the costs that would arise if the landlord ran their own heating system.
- The contractor's markup (profit margin, service fee, investment cost) is not borne by the tenants.
In practical terms: you pay the pure energy share plus the recurring heating operating costs — but not what makes the contracting deal more expensive than landlord-operated heating.
4 practical takeaways
1. Check your lease
Does your lease state that heating costs are part of the operating costs (e.g., with reference to the Betriebskostenverordnung or a specific itemization)? If not, and you were heating on your own before, a later switch to contracting is not automatically allocable.
2. Read the bill critically
Does the heating cost bill include items that go beyond actual heating and maintenance? Typical examples:
- Flat contracting fees (provider base charge)
- Investment cost shares (the contractor's heating equipment)
- Risk or profit surcharges
Such items can be objected to in writing, citing the BGH ruling.
3. Watch the deadline
Objections to a heating bill must be raised within 12 months of receipt (§ 556 (3) BGB). Anyone who stays silent longer loses the right to reduce the bill.
4. Refund possible
Have you been paying inflated heating costs for several years? A claim for repayment is generally possible for the last three years (statute of limitations, § 195 BGB). You'll need to show the difference between the contracting costs actually paid and the level permissible under HeizkostenV.
Who is actually affected?
This ruling applies to you if all three points are true:
- You originally had your own heating (electric, gas storey heating, oil stove) and paid for the fuel yourself
- The landlord at some point switched to central heat delivery via a contractor
- Since then, you've been billed for the full contracting costs
If only point 2 applies (you were already paying as operating costs), the normal § 556c BGB rules govern.
What this means for modernization
Landlords may still modernize — including heating systems. The BGH ruling does not forbid this. But it draws a clear line on cost allocation: tenants who receive a modernization they didn't ask for cannot be charged the full market price of a third-party provider. The landlord bears the risk of their own business decision.
Does this apply to you?
Received a heating bill after a switch to commercial heat delivery? Amounts seem too high, or your lease doesn't even mention heating costs? MieterHelfer helps you assess your bill — free and in seconds. Just describe your situation and get an initial orientation based on the latest BGH ruling.