Reader question: How do I check whether the same caretaking work appears twice in my service charge statement?
The service charge statement lists both the caretaker and garden maintenance. That can be justified if genuinely different tasks are billed. But it can also raise the question whether one and the same service has been included twice in the total. To check, you need the actual task and time-period reference.
The special rule for caretaker work
§ 2 number 14 BetrKV describes caretaker costs and excludes certain tasks, for example administration and repair. It also contains a specific rule against double-counting: insofar as the caretaker performs work from numbers 2 to 10 and 16, costs for labour of those items may not additionally be charged. [BetrKV2]
The existence of two headings therefore proves neither double charging nor automatically two permissible services. § 1 BetrKV and the agreement under § 556 BGB are among the other fundamentals. [BetrKV1] [BGB556]
Create a small task card
Our editorial recommendation: note for the suspicious items the specific task, the person or company performing it, the period of service and the document. For garden maintenance this could for example mean regular mowing, but there might also be another actually separate task. Request an explanation that clearly distinguishes these activities.
If the caretaker contract lists a broad package of tasks, ask which parts are actually included and which have already been deducted from its costs. An additional order may have been sensible; the billing must nevertheless show in a comprehensible way what is being charged in addition to the existing package.
Take periods and substitution into account
An external company may have taken over the work during a documented substitution period. Then the question is how the related caretaker remuneration and the additional labour costs were handled. The fact that a different person was on site in summer does not in itself explain the entire annual bill.
Therefore compare not only names. Look for the same scope of work in the same period. Materials, independent service and labour remuneration should be separated appropriately in the concrete review. This article does not invent any general percentage allocation for that purpose.
A fictional comparison of two invoices
For Luise the caretaker package, according to the description available, includes regular lawn care. A second invoice also lists lawn care for several of the same months. Luise highlights precisely this overlap and asks for the delineated service or an already effected cost separation.
If the second document instead concerned a truly distinct task with a different scope, the situation would be different. Luise therefore does not declare the entire garden item to be incorrect, but has the concrete possible double charge examined. The invented example does not confirm any individual overpayment.
Basing the objection on the evidence
A useful text names both billing lines and the activity that overlaps according to the documents. Attach copies of receipts or precise references. That is more comprehensible than the general accusation that the caretaking is being paid twice.
§ 556 BGB contains the right to inspect documents and objection deadlines. [BGB556] Clarify these in good time if documents are missing. An explanation that sets out two different services can dispel the suspicion; a confirmed overlap requires a comprehensible correction. In both cases the decisive factor is the actual work, not merely the number of cost lines.