{"id":29587,"date":"2024-10-24T12:35:17","date_gmt":"2024-10-24T12:35:17","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/thelegalcompany.nl\/?p=29587"},"modified":"2026-09-02T07:18:05","modified_gmt":"2026-09-02T07:18:05","slug":"can-a-landlord-pass-on-the-investment-and-maintenance-of-a-wko-installation-to-a-residential-tenant-through-service-charges","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/thelegalcompany.nl\/en\/can-a-landlord-pass-on-the-investment-and-maintenance-of-a-wko-installation-to-a-residential-tenant-through-service-charges\/","title":{"rendered":"Can a landlord pass on the investment and maintenance of a WKO installation to a residential tenant through service charges?"},"content":{"rendered":"

In this case, the claimants (a tenant) have been renting a home from the defendant (the landlord) since February 2021. The home is part of a complex that uses a sustainable <\/span>aquifer thermal energy storage installation (WKO)<\/span><\/b> for heating and hot water. Operation of the WKO installation is outsourced to a third party (company 3), and tenants are required to enter into a heat supply agreement with this company.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

The claimants take the position that the fixed costs for the WKO installation, which they must pay to company 3 every month, should actually be borne by the landlord. In their view, these costs form part of the bare rent, since they relate to the investment in and maintenance of the installation, which is needed for the rented home. They refer to a Supreme Court ruling in which it was established that such costs form part of the rent.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

In its judgment, the subdistrict court ruled in favor of the claimants and held that the costs of investing in and maintaining the WKO installation do indeed <\/span>fall to the landlord<\/span><\/b>. The tenant should not have to pay these costs separately, because they are in fact included in the rent. The landlord is therefore ordered to repay these costs and to reimburse them going forward.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

The landlord does not accept this and lodges an appeal, not without success.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal’s ruling.<\/span><\/b> <\/span><\/p>\n

The Court of Appeal’s main considerations are:<\/span><\/b> <\/span><\/p>\n

    \n
  1. The WKO installation does qualify as an immovable appurtenance under Article 7:233 of the Dutch Civil Code, but this does not mean that the landlord must bear the fixed costs for the installation.<\/span> <\/span><\/li>\n
  2. The tenant has a separate heat supply agreement with Eteck, not with Tuindorp the landlord. This implies that landlord Tuindorp is not responsible for the costs charged by Eteck.<\/span> <\/span><\/li>\n
  3. The law provides no basis for holding that Tuindorp, as landlord, must pay the fixed costs of the installation, especially since Tuindorp does not supply any heat or cooling.<\/span> <\/span><\/li>\n
  4. The 2022 Supreme Court ruling that was cited only applies if the landlord itself supplies heat or cooling, which is not the case here.<\/span> <\/span><\/li>\n<\/ol>\n

    The Court of Appeal concluded that there is therefore no legal or contractual basis for the alleged payment obligation of landlord Tuindorp toward the tenants.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

    What lessons can you draw from this case as a landlord<\/span><\/b> <\/span><\/p>\n

    The essence of this case for the landlord is that clarity and transparency about the costs of facilities such as a WKO installation are crucial when entering into lease agreements.<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

    There are a few important points a landlord should pay attention to:<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n

    1. Clear agreements on costs:<\/span> <\/span><\/p>\n