Is meter removal or meter rental during vacancy legal? No!

Hello,

for several years it has become fashionable for energy suppliers in multi-family houses to want to have the meters removed, justifying this by either removal or meter fees. On the internet, you find a lot of amateur nonsense about this, mostly with the claim that because the meter belongs to them, they are also entitled to the money. They call it maintenance costs of the system but forget that except for the meter and the small main box of the 3 phases, nothing else belongs to them and all of that is cheap stuff that was already paid to them with the first 6 months' fees in the lifetime of a house.

Since very few people have any knowledge of law and legislation and even courts or lawyers often talk huge nonsense, it would be important to clarify how things really stand. It was said that removing and at least reinstalling the meter costs a lot of money, around €50 each, and you may lose the existing protection as well. Also, the meter wires do not benefit from continuous rebuilding.

One must also not assume that those who live off money are so humane that they distribute gifts all day long, because far too many have become rich only through robbery. Since in Germany one pays among the highest electricity prices, elsewhere it is 5-15 cents/kWh, the cheating is more than proven. Now, the problem lies with the landlord, who especially during vacancy would have to pay for his meters, and with 7 meters, that quickly amounts to €1000 a year, just for standing around. The fact that this cannot be a meter rental fee is firstly established and proven by the fact that it is called a basic fee and not a meter fee (which is just colloquial) and that the energy companies only cost about €15 for a meter and you cannot speak of a rent per year if you can buy 8 new meters per year for that amount.

Now one must also know that electricity contracts can only ever be concluded with the supplier or basic supplier, while the street network together with the meter belongs to the grid operator, with whom no contract with fees can be made. According to §36 EnWG, the grid operator is obliged to supply electricity to every household/customer, even if he does not like the customer's face. In doing so, he must lay a functional network free of charge to the customer, logically with a meter, because without a meter no electricity can be drawn. This is called the connection usage relationship, which then arose. Many do not even know about that.

From this it already follows that a meter cannot cost anything in terms of "meter fees," because it belongs free of charge to the compulsory connection of the grid operator and the costs belong to the entrepreneurial risk of the grid operator. The basic supplier also has no right to declare meters as his property because they do not even belong to him.

Now comes the basic supplier (or a free supplier), who buys electricity from the grid operator and rents it on to the customer. Only with him can a fee contract be made. With the basic supplier, this is the basic supply contract, which must be concluded pursuant to §2 and can be terminated within 2 weeks in accordance with §20 Electricity Basic Supply Ordinance. With a contract, it costs a basic fee; without a contract, it costs nothing because the basis for it is then missing. Now the tenant can enter into the contract with the supplier, but also the property owner and thus cancel it again. This creates a special situation. The grid operator must provide electricity to the house, even if no one currently wants it, the basic supplier cannot collect money because the basic supply contract has been properly terminated. If the meters were now removed, this would violate §36 EnWG. Normally, as a homeowner during vacancy and if it lasted months or years, you always have this condition.

Now, however, these two companies dare to lurk for the customer's money and threaten to remove meters if the customer does not pay the fees, which he does not have to pay anyway after reading the laws. Only some are so stupid that they then pay or give up meters - got fooled.

In our opinion, this is illegal and urgently needs clarification because many had the meters removed with all unforeseen consequences or are even sued and stupid judges provide no relief, being stupid or bought. Only the question how remains. We suspect that a declaratory action is the right thing to put an end to arbitrariness. With it, one can go all the way to the Federal Court of Justice (BGH) and obtain a fundamental decision.

The benefit of all this is that if you are sued, you immediately have an effective counterargument because with a lawsuit you hardly have time to research.

Since hardly anyone has any knowledge of law and legislation and even courts or lawyers often talk complete nonsense, it would be important to clarify what is really the case.

So who is supposed to answer your question in such a way that it is clarified what is really the case? Is there anyone left?

Yes, of course, finalized court judgments are, for example, useful. You can find a lot on the WWW, but most of it revolves around payment defaults or incorrect billing. However, these are by no means all that have been created somewhere in the country. Other explanations from the Bundesnetzagentur for electricity and everything else that exists are also helpful. It is already good that we have come this far so far. One that already explains a lot and clearly distinguishes differences is, for example, with LG Lüneburg, decision of April 16, 2012, Az. 4 O 283/11 under openjur-de.

What is your contribution supposed to lead to now? I can't find a question. It reads more like "venting." Although the basic idea is not so far-fetched. There is a certain logic to the fact that a meter is required for electricity consumption. Without it, the consumption amount cannot be determined; therefore, it is absolutely necessary for electricity delivery. If it must be there, then the electricity supplier might also have to provide it free of charge.

But this is where it gets difficult again because the electricity supply contract can be given to third-party providers at will. At the same time, there is no exchange of the meter because the local main supplier must provide the meter for use by the third-party provider. The third-party provider pays an amount to the local main supplier for this.

For this reason alone, it becomes clear that the meter or its usage must be compensated separately, and the assumption of free provision (by whom, actually) is not really a viable alternative. In addition, the inevitable provisions cannot always be understood in every case. Example: renting an apartment. The tenant is regularly obliged to sufficiently heat the apartment. If he is obliged, why should he have to pay separately for it? The landlord would have to take care of the heating and therefore must pay the costs for it. The example is deliberately a bit far-fetched, but I just wanted to make clear that the subjective sense of justice .... is subjective.

You really didn’t understand that, hence the question about what the point is. As a landlord, you can use the tenant meter and enter into a contract like a tenant, but you can also terminate the contract if you don’t want to or won’t consume electricity. If you terminate the contract with the supplier, there is no longer any binding price agreement. The grid operator’s connection relationship remains unaffected by this and can never generally cost anything. You can cancel the electricity supply contract without having to take another one. A compulsory provision is the obligation from the state that the grid operator must supply the household with cable and meter, no more and no less. You don’t have to “compensate” a €15 meter, what are such nonsensical thoughts for, it is fully paid off with 2 basic fees over 15 years. What is or should be compensated (wishful thinking) are idle employees, called overhead, but that cannot be legally enforced. This is not about a tenant who doesn’t have to pay a basic fee and uses electricity, but about a landlord who does not have to compensate energy providers for vacancy without electricity usage with gigantic basic fees, just because they are bored and possibly greedy. There is exactly the contract termination §20 Stromgrundversorgungsverordnung by law, i.e. the Federal Network Agency Electricity. They are mandatory for every basic supplier.

Ah, now I understand. Interesting thought. But where is the question here?