Utility Debts in 2026: Between the Supplier’s Rights and Consumer Protection

After a prolonged period of effectively “frozen” judicial activity, courts are once again seeing a surge in cases concerning the recovery of utility debts. Service providers are actively using the judicial system to enforce payment, and the restoration of the standard statute of limitations regime means that issues which remained outside procedural action for years are now entering the phase of active litigation.

Restoration of the Statute of Limitations and New Recalculation Rules

A key factor behind the increase in lawsuits is the reinstatement of the ordinary statute of limitations. The general limitation period for court enforcement of utility debts is three years. However, a court applies this limitation only if the defendant invokes it. If the consumer does not raise the issue of expired limitation, the court will consider the claims in full, even if part of the debt exceeds the three-year period.

As of January 1, 2026, service providers are required to independently recalculate charges if services were not provided, were provided incompletely, or were of inadequate quality. Such recalculations must be carried out automatically, without any request from the consumer. In practice, this creates additional legal grounds for challenging inflated charges.

It is important to understand that Ukrainian legislation does not provide for the “write-off” of utility debts. The issue concerns potential reduction or partial contestation of the debt if there are proper legal grounds.

Martial Law: What Applies and What Does Not

During martial law, several restrictions apply to service providers. In particular, they are prohibited from suspending or terminating utility services due to non-payment. For citizens who left their place of residence after February 24, 2022, there is a prohibition on enforcing debts accrued after that date. In communities located in areas of hostilities or occupation, financial penalties are also prohibited.

However, martial law itself does not release citizens from the general obligation to pay for utility services. The final legal framework for settling accumulated debts after martial law ends has not yet been clearly established in judicial practice.

Absence of a Written Contract Is Not a Defense

Judicial practice, including the position of the Grand Chamber of the Supreme Court, confirms that the absence of a written agreement with a service provider does not relieve a property owner from the obligation to pay for services actually consumed. Such relations are qualified as de facto contractual relations. Property ownership entails an unavoidable obligation to maintain it.

In addition to the principal debt, courts typically award inflation losses and 3% annual interest for the entire period of delay as liability for breach of a monetary obligation. These additional charges often significantly increase the final amount payable.

Court Order Procedure — Without a Hearing

A common practice is for service providers to apply for a court order (summary procedure). Such applications are considered without a court hearing and without notifying the debtor. If the consumer does not timely file an objection and request cancellation, the court order becomes enforceable and may lead to compulsory execution.

Living Abroad or in Another Region

If a consumer resides outside their registered place of residence for more than 30 days, they may request a reduction of charges for certain services. However, this does not exempt them from paying for heating, maintenance of common property in multi-apartment buildings, and adjacent territory upkeep. Long-term absence does not fully release apartment owners from these financial obligations.

Practical Conclusion

The current landscape has changed: service providers are actively litigating, and the previous “debt freeze” mechanism no longer applies. At the same time, consumers retain legal tools for protection — from invoking the statute of limitations to challenging inflated charges and demanding proper service quality.

A passive approach in disputes with utility providers almost always leads to an unfavorable outcome. Timely and legally sound action, however, can substantially reduce financial risks or prevent unjustified recovery altogether.