Reader question: How do I distinguish the EVB repayment claim under §14d paragraph 4 WGG from a payout on moving out?
You live in an Austrian flat within the scope of the WGG and wonder what happens to long-accumulated maintenance and improvement contributions. The ongoing payment is referred to as EVB. §14d paragraph 4 WGG regulates a special repayment case: contributions that have not been used to finance a maintenance or improvement work within twenty calendar years must be reimbursed without delay plus statutory interest. [WGG14d]
This rule is not a general promise to receive back all EVB paid when you move out. For an examination you need the history of the contributions in question and their use.
Which payment are you examining?
Separate on your documents the monthly EVB from the financing contribution on moving in and from a deposit. This is exclusively about the EVB. The special consideration of unused contributions on a later acquisition of condominium ownership under paragraph 5 is a different procedure. [WGG14d]
A high current total balance does not yet prove a due repayment claim. It must become evident from which calendar years unused amounts originate and which works were financed from them. A new surplus and a contribution unused for a long time are not the same audit criterion.
Build the accounting sequence
The managing housing association must prepare an account of the EVB for the previous calendar year and grant appropriate inspection of vouchers by 30 June at the latest. Copies may be requested from inspected vouchers at your own expense. If not fulfilled, §19 paragraph 2 provides for a judicial obligation on application. [WGG19]
Collect available annual accounts in chronological order. Mark brought-forward balances, payments, allocated receipts, expenditures and remaining balance. Note gaps explicitly. If a consolidated brought-forward balance obscures the origin of old amounts, ask specifically for the reconciliation and the underlying accounts.
Distinguish use from mere intention
Request a comprehensible allocation of the amounts in question to financed maintenance or improvement works. Which work was accounted for when with which amount? The legal review can then examine whether the claimed use meets the statutory requirements.
In the hypothetical case the account contains a substantial brought-forward balance. The tenancy initially assumes everything has been untouched since their move-in. The supplementary documents, however, show several different contribution years and already charged works. They narrow their query to the still unresolved old remainder. That turns a blanket assumption into a verifiable factual situation.
Who is entitled to assert the claim?
§14d paragraph 4 entitles the person who is the tenant or other user authorised for the item at the time of maturity to reclaim. Your own payment history alone therefore does not answer the question of entitlement. In case of a change, the contract date and the time of maturity must be examined as well. [WGG14d]
Have the relevant calendar period, the actual non-use and the interest calculated on the basis of the documents. The article does not state a blanket rate of interest and does not replace a transitional or limitation-period check. An ordinary enquiry also does not automatically suspend every conceivable deadline. The useful result is a claim delineated by contribution years or a documented declaration why no such repayment remainder exists.