Immosearch Immosearch
Sign up

Cancel
KI-Symbolbild: Ein leeres, frisch gestrichenes Zimmer mit Heizkörper unter dem Fenster und einem Schlüsselbund auf dem Holzboden.
Decision aid Renting & everyday living Germany

Deposit missing after moving out: Distinguish a service‑charge retention from a blanket waiting period

A still outstanding service charge statement can justify a justified retention of the deposit. Check period, expected claim and retained amount together, rather than relying on an alleged fixed six‑month deadline.

Automatically translated – the German version is legally binding. Show original (German)

Published
19 Oct 2026
Research as of
17 Oct 2026
Applies to
Germany
For whom
Everyone
Article ID
WX26-02-DE-017

The flat has been handed back. No new damage was noted at the handover, yet part of the cash deposit is not returned. The letting agency cites the still missing service charge (Betriebskosten) statement as the reason. The person who moved out hears from friends that everything must be paid out after six months anyway. For the concrete German case, purpose of security, amount and accounting status must be distinguished more precisely.

The following steps are editorial recommendations for an ordinary, market-rate residential tenancy. They do not decide any concrete claim and do not transfer the result wholesale to price-regulated housing or other security agreements.

Return condition and ongoing accounting are different subjects

A protocol on the condition of the rooms does not yet answer whether a claim is to be expected from a later service charge statement. The BGH clarified in VIII ZR 71/05 that the purpose of a deposit can also cover such claims that are not yet due. If a subsequent claim is expected, a reasonable portion may be retained until the relevant statement has been made. [BGH]

This does not mean permission to retain any amount as a precaution for an indefinite period without concrete reason. The actual agreement and the need for security belong in the examination. A mere statement “We will settle it sometime” does not answer the question why exactly this part of the deposit is still needed.

Check what the alleged six‑month rule actually covers

§ 548 BGB regulates, among other things, the six‑month limitation (Verjährung) of the landlord’s compensation claims for alterations or deterioration of the rented property from the time of its return. [VERJAEHRUNG] That is something different from a general deadline for every deposit payout.

The BGH also describes the time required for examination and settlement on a case‑by‑case basis and considers more than six months possible under corresponding circumstances. [BGH] Neither “You can always keep everything for six months” nor “After that everything automatically falls due” therefore replaces a concrete classification.

Find the actual accounting period

§ 556 paragraph 3 BGB requires an annual statement for advance payments of service charges. It must in principle be communicated no later than the end of the twelfth month after the accounting period; the provision contains a statutory exception for late subsequent claims. [ABRECHNUNG]

The period is noted separately from the move‑out date. In the purely fictitious example the tenancy ends in June while the accounting period follows the calendar year. The move‑out does not of itself turn that annual period into an already fully accountable six‑month period. Which documents and actually due steps are present here is checked on the basis of the contract and the accounting.

Request amount and justification together

Our recommendation: ask for the amount of the entire security held, items already accounted for, amounts paid out and the specific retained remainder. For the service charge portion it should be made comprehensible why an additional payment is expected and which amount is being set for this.

In the invented case Daniel has already received €1.800 back; €400 remain open because of the expected additional claim. The two amounts together make €2.200, but by themselves say nothing about the legitimacy of the €400. Daniel reviews the previous statements, advance payments and the explanation provided. He neither accepts an old additional demand uncritically as a secure new claim nor sets the future amount to zero simply because a final statement is lacking.

Actively pursue an outstanding remainder

Daniel keeps the response together with the deposit receipt, contract documents and accounting status. When the announced statement is available, the still open part of the deposit is taken up again. An accepted interim position is not to be treated internally as a final settlement.

If reason, amount or duration remain disputed, he takes the concrete compilation for advice. He does not declare a due date calculated by himself nor a waiver of possible claims on the basis of this article. Ongoing payments from another tenancy are not mixed with it.

The practical aim is a comprehensible settlement: what has already been paid out, what actual security reason still exists and how the remaining remainder will be finally dealt with. A clearly labelled outstanding item helps more than an alleged universal deadline.

Sources and context

  • [BGH] BGH VIII ZR 71/05 vom 18. Januar 2006 — Bundesgerichtshof. Abruf am 17.10.2026.
  • [ABRECHNUNG] BGB § 556 — Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz / Bundesamt für Justiz. Abruf am 17.10.2026.
  • [VERJAEHRUNG] BGB § 548 — Bundesministerium der Justiz und für Verbraucherschutz / Bundesamt für Justiz. Abruf am 17.10.2026.

Created with the help of AI and editorially reviewed. General guidance only; not individual legal, tax or financial advice. Errors and later changes are possible.