Collective heating: what if a co-owner disputes the cost allocation?

In a collective heating installation, each co-owner's consumption is usually metered individually. Each unit pays its share according to the actual consumption registered by the calorimeter. But what happens when a co-owner doubts the accuracy of that measurement? Can such a bill be contested? The Veurne court ruled on this in a 2025 decision.

How are costs allocated in collective heating?

In an apartment building, common costs such as electricity and heating are distributed among the co-owners according to the rules laid down in the statutes.

For collective heating this distribution is usually based on individual sub-meters. Each unit pays its own consumption. In addition, there are fixed costs not directly linked to individual use, such as:

• maintenance and repairs of the installation;
• renewal of the heating system;
• heat loss outside the apartments;
• possibly the collective hot-water consumption.

These costs are generally distributed according to the quotities.

What are quotities?

Quotities express the share a co-owner holds in the building. This percentage is determined based on, among other things, the surface area, location and intended use of the apartment. You can find these figures in the deed of sale and in the building's statutes.

Quotities determine not only your share in the common costs, but also your voting rights at the general assembly.

A disputed electricity bill in court

The Veurne court handled a dispute in which a co-owner contested a notably high electricity bill. According to him, the measurement was incorrect.

It also emerged that he had disconnected his apartment from the collective heating installation without the consent of the association of co-owners (VME) and connected it to his own electricity meter.

Burden of proof rests with the co-owner

The judge clearly stated that it is up to the co-owner to demonstrate that the measurement is incorrect. Higher consumption alone is not sufficient evidence of an erroneous bill.

Because the co-owner could not present concrete evidence, he ultimately had to pay his share of the costs.

You cannot simply leave the collective system

The court also emphasised that a co-owner cannot unilaterally leave a collective heating system without the consent of the VME. Such interventions affect the common parts and require a joint decision.

The importance of clear agreements and communication

This case mainly shows how important clear agreements and good communication are within a co-ownership. Clear statutes and transparent communication:

• prevent disputes after the fact;
• ensure legal certainty;
• strengthen trust between co-owners and the VME;
• enable efficient management.

The statutes form the legal framework on which both the co-owners and the property manager can rely.

Questions or need support?

Feel free to ask your further questions to property manager SEBAS, we are happy to help. welkom@mysebas.be

Source: Syndicus Insights