ᐅ Is the Prohibition of Other Heat Sources When Using District Heating Legal?

chrisi2501 schrieb:

Is it the municipal utility company stating that if you continue using our district heating, then you must use only that and nothing else? We are wondering if this is lawful?

In principle, for district heating there can be both a connection obligation and a usage obligation (meaning no other heating allowed). Whether the applicable local regulations are fully compliant with the law must be determined by a specialized lawyer.

WilderSueden schrieb:

Basically, with district heating, both a connection obligation and a usage obligation (meaning no other heating system allowed) are possible. Whether the relevant local regulations are legally sound must be determined by a specialized lawyer.

Does this mean I would not be allowed to operate a fireplace?

As long as the usage obligation is legally secure, yes. The term "the total heat" would probably exclude additional heating sources like a fireplace.

One question now is whether it is legally permissible to impose such a usage obligation by contract with just one month’s notice, and whether the district heating provider is even authorized to require someone to agree to such terms. Or if this must be decided by the local council through a regulation, including transition periods. As a non-lawyer, I am not qualified to answer this.

You have a valid contract. The letter is a unilateral declaration of intent, so I would definitely consult a lawyer.

chrisi2501 schrieb:

We have lived in our house for 7 years, using district heating from the municipal utility and have a wood-burning stove.
[ / ] The house is now 7 years old. And we were the builders ourselves. [ / ] If I don’t sign the contract, the house will be cold from then on. It’s basically a catch-22.

As first occupants and builders, you should know if there was a connection and usage obligation in the development plan – since you were granted permission for a heating appliance, apparently there wasn’t one. Any interim changes to the development plan do not apply to existing buildings, though they may affect renovations. Likewise, I cannot imagine a local ordinance retroactively intervening legally. If such a case did occur, a lawyer would probably advise filing a constitutional complaint. Regarding the supply contract, I could imagine your lawyer recommending concluding it with the clause removed. I don’t see the catch-22 in two ways: first, you mention a wood-burning stove (which you could logically use without a prohibiting contract), and second, I only know the principle that a local supplier must provide basic supply if the contracted supplier fails to do so, usually at a basic tariff. Coercion and extortion are criminal offenses, and a threat of significant disadvantage seems not far off from that. A forum can only be a first sounding board; here, consulting a lawyer appears necessary. There is still plenty of time to send their letter to the supplier by mail.

allstar83 schrieb:

What does the land register say? Something like that is recorded in ours.

In my legal understanding, that would be disproportionate and not the right tool—unless the municipality sold the plot and the condition was in the purchase contract. In some councils, environmental agendas lead to questionable outcomes. Climate goals may be legitimate, but property rights and their reasonable use are legitimate, too.

---

https://www.instagram.com/11antgmxde/
https://www.linkedin.com/company/bauen-jetzt/

The question of whether the area is subject to district heating regulations and whether there is a connection and usage obligation was not clearly answered by the questioner.

All advice given is therefore speculative.

Please provide a clarification first.