Limitation period for electricity: information with explanations

Limitation period for electricity

As explained by Konstantin Shishka, Advisor to the Directorate for Housing and Public Utilities Problems of the Analytical Center under the Government of the Russian Federation, according to the law, measures to influence willful defaulters include going to court with subsequent forced collection of debt, up to deprivation of living space from those who live on the basis of social rent.
Thus, according to the Fund for Assistance to the Reform of Housing and Communal Services of the Belgorod Region, throughout the region, since June, claims have been filed in court on a weekly basis to collect payments from persistent defaulters. According to Andrei Chernyshin, director of the settlement organization of the Moscow region, which deals with fees for major repairs in the region, documents for lawsuits are also now being prepared in the Moscow region. In total, he said, it was possible to collect 87% of the planned amount.

FAQ

When can production not be reopened due to the expiration of the statute of limitations?
Discovery is impossible if the creditor has not contacted the bailiffs within three years after the court decision was made or after the return of the IL to the recoverer. In a number of special cases, which are described above, instead of three years there will be shorter terms.

Is the number of repeated applications to the FSSP limited?

Such restrictions are not established by current legislation. The only requirement that is presented to the claimant is to comply with the deadlines established by the enforcement procedure.

How much time is given to the claimant to re-apply to the FSSP?

Repeated presentation of the IL to the FSSP for forced collection of the debt after the return of the document is possible after six months. For other executive documents, except for the sheet - orders, contracts with the executive. a notary's inscription, traffic police regulations - a period of two months.

The claimant can resubmit the claim without waiting 6 months if there is information that the debtor’s financial situation has changed for the better.

The most accessible and correct way to understand this not so simple problem is to contact professional lawyers. If you need to write off debts due to the expiration of terms or due to the impossibility of payment, call us! We professionally deal with personal debts. individuals and help you get rid of loans according to the law.

DebtsLimitation periodBailiffs

Author of the article Konstantin Milantiev

Publications 283

More information →

about the author

Expert in the field of bankruptcy of individuals. He has been an active arbitration manager since 2015. Konstantin’s publications are published in various expert publications and media. Active participant in conferences, seminars and discussions on amendments to the current legislation of the Russian Federation on bankruptcy.

Rate this article

2 liked

Share with friends:

What is the statute of limitations for electricity debt?

In such cases, lawyers recommend solving problems by turning to the judiciary. Talk to the legal advisers of the Pravoved.RU portal, they will tell you about the features of resolving such issues, help you make the necessary calculations, and teach you how to properly communicate with representatives of utility services in court. Good afternoon I received a letter of claim for a debt for utilities in Moscow.

payment to pay off debt -. rub. the amount of debt is. rub. Defendant Kudryashova T.A. at the court hearing, she agreed to pay for the consumed electricity, but not more than for three years preceding the filing of the claim, referring to the statute of limitations. Representative of a third party - the Tulenergo branch of IDGC of Center and Volga Region, JSC, by proxy N.I. Trefilov.

Period after which the management company can sue

The procedure for using the premises (residential or non-residential) obliges the owner (tenant) to fully compensate the cost of utilities. The payment period is set monthly and, according to the general rule, a week to a week and a half before the agreed term, each property owner must receive a receipt indicating the amount of housing and communal services, as well as additional amounts to be repaid.

Every month, service providers must conduct reconciliations to identify citizens who are evading their financial obligations. If unpaid invoices are identified, notifications must be sent regarding the need to pay payments.

The legislator does not limit the period during which public utilities can file a claim in court.

Since 2021, a simplified procedure for collecting funds from debtors has been provided. The application is considered in court in a magistrate's court after the subscriber has accumulated a debt for the previous three months and the amount of the debt does not exceed 0.5 million rubles.

Limitation period for electricity

7 years have passed, for the last 2 years they have been sending me letters from the electricity service and threatening to sue me. Thanks for any answer. Answer: Hello. The fact is that electricity is supplied only in accordance with the terms of the contract. So, while the contract was valid, and, in fact, remains so at the present time, as long as electricity is supplied.

1 answer. Moscow Viewed 186 times. Asked 2021-02-26 14:13:28 +0400 in the topic “Other questions” Debt for housing and communal services. Can I request debt forgiveness? — Debt for housing and communal services. Can I request debt forgiveness? Further

Duration of enforcement proceedings

The next question is how long does enforcement proceedings last for bailiffs? According to Art. 36 Federal Law No. 229-FZ, the FSSP employee is given two months to execute the court decision.

In practice, cases where debt repayment occurs in such a short time are extremely rare. At the request of the claimant, the bailiff may extend the term, for which he will issue a separate ruling - for example, if no answers have been received from the state. authorities about the debtor's property, if the person is wanted, if an auction is being prepared.

Enforcement proceedings may also be suspended:

by a court decision - for example, if the debtor challenges the collection on newly discovered grounds or when bankruptcy is declared in the Arbitration Court;
in the event of the death of the debtor or his recognition as incompetent - until the date of identification of heirs or guardians;
at the request of the debtor himself - in case of his illness or conscription into the army.

If the bailiff checked the property and income of an individual. person, and came to the conclusion that there is nothing to collect, the IL is returned to the collector. Resumption of enforcement proceedings occurs at any time in accordance with a repeated application by the creditor. As already noted, the basis for its complete termination is the bankruptcy of the debtor.

What is the statute of limitations for electricity?

Hello. We received a Court Order from the Magistrate dated January 30, 2017 to collect the debt for electricity for 2021. Is the judge’s decision to collect the debt for 2021 legal based on the statute of limitations? In January 2021, the electricity supplier changed and until now no one has notified us about the debt. Sergey

Hello. We received a Court Order from the Magistrate dated January 30, 2017 to collect the debt for electricity for 2021. Is the judge’s decision to collect the debt for 2021 legal based on the statute of limitations? In January 2021, the electricity supplier changed and until now no one has notified us about the debt.

This is interesting: Bribe to the traffic police for driving license 2021 St. Petersburg

How quickly do bailiffs close proceedings?

Termination of recovery in enforcement proceedingsRelated article

The inability of the debtor to fulfill financial obligations established by a court decision becomes the basis for termination or termination of proceedings. The bailiff makes such a decision within a period of two months to three years after opening. The writ of execution is returned to the claimant.

After the bailiff completed the case under Part 4, Clause 1 of Art. 46 Federal Law No. 229, a citizen has the right to submit documents to the MFC to write off debts of up to half a million in out-of-court bankruptcy.

At the same time, in the list of creditors you can indicate not only the debt that the bailiffs had, but also other arrears - outstanding loans and microloans, housing and communal services, taxes and fines, even debt for the Internet or telephone.

How to prepare documents for free bankruptcy through the MFC, how much they will write off, and what you can do during the procedure, we described in a special material.

Until the citizen has written off the debts through the MFC, the creditor has the right to resume proceedings - re-submit the application and sheet to the FSSP. It is important that the countdown of the deadline for submitting the writ of execution to the bailiffs after the return of the IL due to the impossibility of collection begins anew.

If there are no grounds for ending the proceedings - for example, a person has a salary or pension, he receives regular income, then the reason for closing the cases will be the recognition of bankruptcy of the individual. persons through the court. This is a real and legal way to get rid of debt, and the total amount should be at least 300 thousand rubles. There is no upper limit - at least a million, at least 100 million rubles.

Debt for electricity for 10 years

When I contacted the electricity supply organization, it turned out that I had been in debt since 2021. They demand payment and threaten to turn off the electricity. I said that I didn’t agree with the debt, let them collect it through the court (I was hoping to claim that the statute of limitations had passed). However, they told me that they would not go to court, they would simply turn off the electricity.

This means that once payment is made on my part (for 36 months), the remaining debt is “hopeless for collection,” then disconnecting the email. energy on their part will be a violation of PP354 and 442??

Review of disputes regarding unmetered electricity consumption for January - August 2021 (Central District)

I continue to publish reviews of judicial practice on disputes in the field of electricity supply (unmetered electricity consumption). Next up is the practice of AS of the Central District.

Arbitration Court of the Central District

Resolution of the Central Election Commission dated March 25, 2021 in case No. A64-446/2020

If the acts of control over the introduction of a partial mode of limiting energy consumption contain information about the integrity of the seals on the metering device, the periods in which such acts were drawn up should be subtracted from the calculation of unmetered electricity consumption.

The consumer filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Tambov Region against the Network Company to invalidate the act on unaccounted consumption and the calculation of the volume of unaccounted consumption.

The claim was partially satisfied, the calculation of the volume was changed downwards: the volume was reduced by more than half (from 375,860 kW/h to 144,000 kW/h). All authorities supported this decision.

Having checked the calculation of the volume of unmetered electricity consumption, the courts, taking into account the explanations of the plaintiff and the third party, as well as the acts of control over the introduction of a partial regime for limiting electricity consumption, drawn up by the supplier of last resort in relation to the consumer, presented in the case materials, found the calculation to be incorrect in part.

At the same time, the courts indicated that the above-mentioned acts of control over the introduced partial limitation of the electricity consumption regime presented in the case file recorded the integrity and safety of the seals on the metering device, due to which the amount of unaccounted consumption of electrical energy payable by the consumer (plaintiff) on the basis of the act on unaccounted consumption of electrical energy energy is 144,000 kW/h for the consumption period from 12/02/2019 to 12/17/2019, but not from 11/03/2019, as indicated in the calculation.

Resolution of the AC TsO dated 04/06/2021 in case No. A68-14015/2018 (the case reached the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation)

The signing of an act on unmetered consumption of electrical energy by the defendant without objection does not indicate the defendant’s recognition of the fact of interference in the operation of the meter, since the consumer confirmed the presence of obvious defects identified during the inspection, but did not acknowledge the fact of interference in the operation of the meter.

The supplier of last resort filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Tula Region against the Consumer to collect the debt for unaccounted for consumed electricity.

Three instances rejected the claim.

During the consideration of this case, the courts established that the violations identified by the network organization as a result of checking the calculation measuring instrument belonging to the defendant: “the holographic sticker with the verification date of the metering device is not glued to the body of the metering device, the sticker with the verification date of the metering device is torn, the body has damage”, qualified by the plaintiff as alleged interference with the operation of the counting mechanism of the meter.

During the inspection, according to the message of PJSC IDGC Mercury - 230 AM-01 with serial number 03968852-10g, it was sent for research to LLC NPK Incotex.

Based on the results of the study of the metering device of LLC NPK Incotex, a research report N 900/230 dated 09/04/2018 was drawn up, in which conclusions were made about the absence of interference in the operation of the electricity metering device "Mercury - 230 AM01" with serial number 03968852-10g, due to with which the resolution of the UUP of the Chernsky police department dated 03.10.2018 in initiating a criminal case against O.V. Kulakova. denied.

From the information provided by O.V. Kulakova. in the file of the technical inspection report of the product N 900/230 dated 09/04/2018, received by the Ministry of Internal Affairs of Russia "Plavsky" OP "Chernsky" about the electricity meter "Mercury" 230 AM-01 manager. N 03968852-10g, compiled by LLC NPK Incotex, it follows that the electric meter arrived at the service center in a cardboard box, sealed with control stickers N 45899825, N 45899826, N 45899827 and a sheet of white paper with the inscription stamp “N 51/1”.

A visual inspection of the meter revealed damage to the warranty and holographic stickers, mechanical damage to the meter body, the imprint on the state verifier seal is genuine and has no mechanical damage.

Based on the test results, it was found that the meter error corresponds to the accuracy class declared by the manufacturer. No violations were found in the functioning of the reading device. No traces of mechanical impact on the drums of the reading device were found. No traces of unauthorized intervention were found, no devices/electrical devices not provided for in the manufacturer's design documentation were found.

At the request of the court of first instance, NPK Incotex LLC submitted explanations to the court, from which it follows that during the study of the Mercury electricity meter 230 AM-01 manager. N 03968852, defects in the electric meter were identified in the form of damage to the warranty and holographic stickers, and mechanical damage to the meter body. Identified defects do not affect the reliability of the data received from the meter.

Taking into account the above circumstances, the courts of both instances made a reasonable conclusion that the conclusion of NPK Incotex LLC (act dated 09/04/2018), which is the manufacturer of the controversial metering device, drawn up based on the results of the study, confirms the absence of interference in the operation of the metering device belonging to to the defendant, which indicates the absence of consumption of electrical energy in violation of the electricity supply agreement established by the contract and the Basic Provisions No. 442 of the procedure for accounting for electrical energy on the part of the defendant.

At the same time, the courts noted that the signing of an act on unmetered consumption of electrical energy by the defendant without objection does not indicate the defendant’s recognition of the fact of interference in the operation of the metering device, since the consumer confirmed the presence of obvious defects identified during the inspection, but did not admit the fact of interference in the operation of the metering device.

Resolution of the AC CO dated 04/07/2021 in case No. A36-10498/2019

By conducting a forensic examination, it is possible to refute the Grid Company’s arguments about the existence of unmetered electricity consumption.

The consumer filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Lipetsk Region against the Network Company to invalidate the act on unaccounted consumption of electrical energy.

Three authorities supported the claim.

As follows from the case materials, based on the results of an inspection of the state of the electrical energy measurement circuit and the operation of the metering device, in the presence of the consumer, the network organization drew up an act N 48-024068 U dated August 22, 2019 on unaccounted electricity consumption, which recorded unauthorized interference in the operation of the device accounting, by installing a device that allows you to distort data on actual electricity consumption; During the instrumental check, measurements were made of the own consumption of voltage coils (PU phase A>62mA, B>31.6mA, C>31.8mA). The housing of the metering device is sealed 48399888.

Since disagreements arose between the parties regarding interference with the operation of the meter and its proper operation, a forensic examination was carried out in the case, the production of which was entrusted to the expert of Expert-Center LLC, A.Yu. Maslov.

From the expert opinion N 550-01/20 dated 01/20/2020 it follows that the integrity of the body of the electrical energy meter "Mercury 230AM" factory N 28792487, the integrity of the two wire seals of the verifier and three control self-adhesive seals are not broken. This confirms the absence of mechanical damage to both the device body and seals. There was no internal interference in the operation of the “Mercury 230AM” electrical energy meter, serial number 28792487, in order to distort the readings of consumed electrical energy. This is confirmed by the integrity of the seals installed on the device body, both wire and self-adhesive, and the integrity of the magnetic indicator of the anti-magnetic self-adhesive seal. There is no additional equipment not provided by the manufacturer in the body of the Mercury-230AM electrical energy meter, serial number 28792487.

In the expert conclusion N 550-01/20 dated 01/20/2020, the expert also stated that the Mercury 230AM electrical energy meter, serial number 28792487, does not have any mechanical damage and is in good condition.

In connection with the disagreement of IDGC Expert Center PJSC, Maslov A.Yu., who answered the questions of the court and the parties, gave detailed explanations on all the circumstances of the examination and the conclusions made.

Evidence indicating that the expert violated the requirements of the current legislation during the study, as well as evidence that the controversial conclusion contained contradictory or unclear conclusions from the case materials, is not seen by PJSC IDGC IDGC Expert Center Maslova A.Yu. N 550-01/20 dated January 20, 2020 as appropriate evidence in the case.

Resolution of the Central Election Commission dated 04/09/2021 in case No. A64-3380/2019

If a bankruptcy procedure is introduced in relation to a consumer, either the bankruptcy trustee or his authorized representative must be present when checking the metering device. An act on unaccounted energy consumption, signed by a representative whose powers are certified by the former manager of the debtor, is not evidence in the case.

The sales company filed a claim with the arbitration court against the Consumer to recover the cost of unmetered consumption of electrical energy.

The courts rejected the claim.

As can be seen from the case materials, when checking the electrical energy metering device at the point of supply of electrical energy, employees of the network organization found that the electrical energy metering device does not receive voltage through the secondary circuit in phase “A”, thereby the metering device does not take into account electricity in phase "A".

This violation of the procedure for accounting for supplied electrical energy is recorded in the act on unaccounted consumption of electrical energy, which states that the act was drawn up in the presence of a consumer representative. The act was signed with objections.

The courts have established that the plaintiff associates the possibility of accrual of unmetered electricity consumption with the consumer’s failure to comply with the terms of the energy supply contract, according to which the consumer is obligated to immediately notify about the identified fact of failure of the meter, as well as with the inaction of the person that led to the distortion of data on the volume consumption.

Rejecting this argument, the courts rightfully noted that the case file does not contain evidence confirming the presence of a malfunction of the meter before 02/19/2019, information about when the consumer became aware of the malfunction of the meter, and evidence indicating a violation by the defendant of the terms of the contract in terms of terms notifications about the presence of this malfunction, as well as those indicating the inaction of a person, which led to a distortion of data on the volume of consumption.

Assessing the act of unaccounted consumption of electrical energy presented in the case, taking into account the evidence presented in the case file, the courts came to the conclusion that the admission of representatives of the network organization to the metering device was carried out without the knowledge and without the consent of the person in respect of whom the act was drawn up. unaccounted electricity consumption, the inspection was carried out by representatives of the network organization in the absence of proper notification to the consumer, the consumer’s representative did not participate in the inspection.

The argument of the network organization that the act of unaccounted consumption of electrical energy was drawn up in the presence of a consumer representative on the basis of a power of attorney was rightfully declared unfounded by the courts.

At the same time, the courts, taking into account the provisions of Articles 182, 185 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, Art. 126 of the Bankruptcy Law, a legitimate conclusion was made that the power of attorney in the name of V.M. Prosvetov. dated 02/19/2019, signed on behalf of JSC Construction Management No. 1 by General Director T.V. Makhov, has no legal force and does not confirm the presence of V.M. Prosvetov. authority to act on behalf of the consumer when conducting an inspection of metering devices on 02/19/2019, since from the date the debtor was declared insolvent (bankrupt) (in this case from 11/23/2018), the authority to issue a power of attorney for the right to represent the interests of the debtor in relations with third parties belongs only to the bankruptcy trustee , which the network organization must be aware of.

Resolution of the Central Election Commission dated April 21, 2021 in case No. A36-8482/2018

A forensic examination of the meter can refute the argument of the Network Company about the fact of unaccounted energy consumption recorded in the act of unaccounted for electricity consumption.

The consumer filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Lipetsk Region against the Grid Company to declare the act of unaccounted electricity consumption illegal.

The courts supported the plaintiff in all instances.

Challenging the fact of unmetered electricity consumption on the basis of this act dated March 23, 2018, the plaintiff, when considering the case in the court of first instance, filed a petition to conduct a forensic examination, the production of which was entrusted to specialists of the Non-Profit Partnership “Federation of Forensic Experts”.

According to the expert opinion of the Non-Profit Partnership “Federation of Forensic Experts” dated 09/05/2019 N 019825/10/36003/212019/A36-8482/18, it is not possible to unambiguously confirm interference with the controversial electrical energy meter N 03248683 due to the replacement of factory seals with seals verification. There are no traces of soldering on the seals. No traces of tampering with the metering device were found.

Experts have established that there are no malfunctions (defects) in meter N 03248683 that would prevent its normal operation. There are no foreign devices in the housing of the metering device that would distort the readings of the counting mechanism or interfere with its normal operation.

As a result of the inspection of the metering device, it was established that visually and in the field of view of a digital microscope, there were no traces of connecting additional wires, handicraft soldering, or changes in the circuit. There are also no changes to the meter software.

In addition, experts have established that the operating error of the controversial electric energy meter N 03248683 is acceptable and is shown in the test results (Tables 1, 2).

Having analyzed this expert opinion, the court indicated that there were no ambiguities or conflicting conclusions on the issues raised. The conclusion contains a detailed description of the research carried out by specialists and substantiated answers to the questions posed by the court.

There is no evidence in the case materials that reliably indicates that the experts violated the requirements of the current legislation when conducting the research.

Resolution of the Central Election Commission dated May 18, 2021 in case No. A64-2352/2019

A forensic examination of the meter can refute the argument of the Network Company about the fact of unaccounted energy consumption recorded in the act of unaccounted for electricity consumption.

The network company filed a claim with the arbitration court against the Consumer to collect debt for unmetered consumption of electrical energy.

Three instances did not support the claim.

During the consideration of this dispute by the courts, it was established that on December 12, 2018, based on the results of checking the condition of consumer electrical energy metering devices by employees of PJSC IDGC VSKRYTO, the antimagnetic seal N 0250195 installed on top of the metering device body was damaged.

According to the examination report No. 1089/01 dated July 23, 2019, submitted by the defendant to the case materials, drawn up by the expert of ANKO “Tambov Center for Forensic Expertise” A.N. Molchanov, “the body and cover of the body of the electricity meter Mercury 230 AM-02 N 21960572, presented on research, sealed with a hologram seal, paper seal, anti-magnetic seal. There is an anti-magnetic seal on the meter housing cover. The mounting screws of the housing cover are sealed with metal seals. Both antimagnetic seals have tears formed as a result of accidental contact or exposure to natural factors (temperature, precipitation). The integrity of other fillings is not compromised. No traces of external influence (interference) of a foreign object (scratches, chips and missing parts, abrasions, etc.) indicating attempts to penetrate or make changes to the design were found on all seals. All seals have not been removed or re-attached; the integrity of the lid body has not been compromised. The terminal block cover is not secured with the existing two screws and can be easily removed.”

By the ruling of the court of first instance dated December 24, 2019, at the request of PJSC IDGC of Minus, the (lack of) material was formed as a result of external mechanical influence caused by environmental factors during operation. The seal 0250195 submitted for examination has a violation of the integrity of that part of the sealing wire, which was used to attach the seal to the sealed object. Due to the fact that the seal was dismantled from the sealed object, and the original position of the seal on the sealed object and the method of its dismantling are not reflected in the presented materials, determine whether the existing violation of the integrity of the sealing wire is the result of unauthorized removal, and whether it was reinstalled , does not seem possible. There is a foreign object inside the seal body that is not included in the design of this type of seal.

Having analyzed the conclusions of the expert report dated May 12, 2020 N 00108/05-3-20, the courts came to the conclusion that the said conclusion complies with the requirements of the law, the expert fully and comprehensively examined the evidence presented in the case, and provided detailed explanations on the issues put to its resolution, there are no contradictions in the conclusions.

Resolution of the Central Election Commission dated May 24, 2021 in case No. A09-11802/2019

If a malfunction of the meter is immediately reported to the supplier and/or network company, there is no fact of unmetered energy consumption.

The consumer filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Bryansk Region against the Sales Company for the recovery of unjust enrichment (payment of invoices based on unaccounted-for energy consumption).

The courts granted the claim.

As follows from the case materials, the meter was sealed on June 10, 2019 by representatives of BryanskElectro LLC; based on the results, an inspection report and admission to operation of the electricity measuring complex was drawn up, as well as a report on unaccounted-for consumption of electrical energy.

The courts believe that the plaintiff properly fulfilled his obligations to ensure the functioning of the electrical energy meter. The fact of a malfunction of the metering device was identified by the consumer himself, which the latter immediately declared and took steps to replace the meter and seal it within the time limit established in clause 4.3 of the energy supply agreement dated May 23, 2018 N 290/BGO, in connection with which it should be recognized that the fact unaccounted consumption of electrical energy at the facility of Bryansky Dream LLC, since, according to the cassator, it was from that moment that the plaintiff should have learned about the violation of his right.

The court correctly stated that the preparation and sending of payment documents to pay the cost of unaccounted consumption of the resource depended solely on the will of the plaintiff, and therefore this event (receipt or non-receipt of such documents by the consumer) cannot be considered the moment of determining the beginning of the limitation period, since payment documents are only confirmation of the size and cost of unaccounted for energy consumption.

Thus, the statute of limitations for claims for recovery of unaccounted for consumed electrical energy is calculated from the moment the fact of unaccounted consumption is established, recorded in the relevant act.

This conclusion corresponds to the legal position set out in the Rulings of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 08/26/2019 N 302-ES19-13266, dated 05/27/2020 N 308-ES20-4826(2).

Resolution of the Central Election Commission dated June 23, 2021 in case No. A68-14063/2018

In the absence of evidence of direct technological connection of the defendant's power receiving devices to the plaintiff's electrical grid facilities, acting as another owner of the networks, the Company did not prove that, by virtue of the norms of current legislation, it has the authority to identify the fact of non-contractual electricity consumption in relation to the defendant.

The Company filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Tula Region against the Entrepreneur for the recovery of 2,107,203 rubles. 99 kopecks unjust enrichment in connection with non-contractual consumption of electrical energy.

As follows from the act of checking the electrical power of the connected network of Solers LLC dated 03/01/2015 (case sheet 122 v. 2), direct connection to the Solers KTP was carried out only in relation to the power receiving devices of Universal LLC.

Moreover, the courts found that the defendant did not have the actual opportunity to consume electricity, since when acquiring ownership of this building, the electricity supply to this building was carried out through the electrical installations of Universal LLC (located in a neighboring building), with which an agreement dated 10.10.2017 N was concluded 04-17/IK for the provision of operational and utility services, payment under this agreement, including for electricity supplied to this non-residential premises, was made to Universal LLC, however, in December 2017, one of the owners of the building, Zyabrikov S.L., cut off the power supply to the building of IP Garshina T.I. From this point on, there was no power supply to the defendant's building.

Due to a blackout in December 2021, the power supply to the defendant’s assignment, IP Garshina T.I. repeatedly approached Solers LLC (represented by V.D. Milyaev) with an application to conclude an agreement on direct technical connection, which was not concluded between the parties, as a result of which, as established by the court, there is no electricity supply in the defendant’s building.

As follows from the case materials, on October 10, 2018, an agreement for the provision of operational and utility services was concluded between the former owner of the disputed production workshop, IK Industrial Membrane Systems LLC and Universal LLC.

Rozhdestvensky I.V., who, at the request of IP Garshina T.I. provided technical assistance, explained that the power supply to the disputed building was provided by electrical equipment from Universal LLC, indicated that on December 1, 2017, at the request of IP Garshina T.I. arrived at the territory of the industrial zone (where the disputed building is located) with the aim of conserving this object and preparing it for the winter period and at approximately 17:00. On December 1, 2017, the power supply to the disputed building was stopped. The shutdown was carried out by employees of Universal LLC; subsequently, the power supply to the disputed building was not restored.

Also Rozhdestvensky I.V. explained that the fact of the lack of power supply to the disputed building since December 1, 2017 can be confirmed by S.V. Zyabrikov, who at the controversial moment was one of the owners of the building, and A.V. Fomin. - Director of LLC "Universal".

Under the above circumstances, in the absence of evidence of direct technological connection of the defendant’s power receiving devices to the plaintiff’s electrical grid facilities, acting as another owner of the networks, Solers LLC did not prove that, by virtue of the norms of the current legislation, it has the authority to identify the fact of non-contractual electricity consumption in relation to defendant.

Resolution of the Central Election Commission dated July 28, 2021 in case No. A36-2154/2020

Replacement of a machine by the Consumer with the permission of local distribution zones cannot be qualified as a fact of unmetered electricity consumption.

The consumer filed a claim with the Arbitration Court of the Lipetsk Region against the Network Company to declare the act of unaccounted consumption of electrical energy illegal.

The courts supported the claim.

The court found that due to the failure of one of the automatic electrical switches at the plaintiff’s facility in order to replace it and obtain the appropriate permits in connection with this, on December 27, 2019, the head of the Consumer contacted the deputy head of the Usman Distribution Zone by phone to give permission to remove the front panel in box in which a metering device (meter), a package of circuit breakers and a protective device (RCD) are installed.

On December 27, 2019, with the permission of the Usman Distribution Zone, the plaintiff removed the front panel in the box in which the metering device and a package of circuit breakers were installed to replace one of the circuit breakers that had failed. The automatic electrical switch was replaced, but as a result of removing the panel, the special paper visual inspection marks on the two panel mounting screws were broken.

Visual control signs and factory seals on the metering device were not broken, which is not disputed by the defendant.

On 12/30/2019, employees of the Grid Company, who arrived at the plaintiff’s facility at his request to seal the screws on which the box panel is attached, drew up a report on unaccounted consumption, in which the employees of the network organization incorrectly reflected the result of the inspection of the metering device, indicating a violation of the integrity of the seals of the metering device .

These circumstances are also confirmed by the testimony of Gulidov R.A., who took part in drawing up the act on unaccounted consumption, and Nenashev N.V., as well as photographic materials presented in the case materials, from which it is clear that visual control signs and factory seals on the disputed device the meters are not damaged, but only the special paper visual control signs on the two screws that secure the panel of the box in which the meter is located are broken.

There is no documentary evidence to refute these facts in the case and the applicant of the complaint, in violation of the requirements of Art. 65 APCs of the Russian Federation were not presented.

Resolution of the AC CO dated 08/04/2021 on case No. A36-4620/2019

Drawing up an act without notification and in the absence of the consumer (authorized representative) deprives the consumer of the right to participate in drawing up the act, verify the accuracy of the information reflected in it, give explanations, make comments on the act, and present appropriate objections in order to protect their rights and legitimate interests.

The sales company filed a claim with the Lipetsk Region Arbitration Court against the Consumer for the recovery of amounts of unaccounted-for electricity consumed.

All authorities rejected the claim.

As the courts correctly pointed out, drawing up an act without notification and in the absence of the consumer (authorized representative) deprives the consumer of the right to participate in drawing up the act, verify the accuracy of the information reflected in it, give explanations, make comments on the act, present appropriate objections in order to protect their rights and legitimate interests. The presence of the consumer during the inspection and drawing up the report is a guarantee of compliance by the person conducting the inspection with the requirements of the law and the rights of the subscriber, as well as complete, reliable and impartial recording of the facts of the identified violation.

This legal position is consistent with the explanations set out in paragraph 27 of the Review of Judicial Practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation No. 4 (2019), approved by the Presidium of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation on December 25, 2019.

Meanwhile, as follows from the case materials and established by the courts of two instances, the power receiving device (KTP - 544) and the metering device are the property of the network organization - PJSC IDGC IDGC Lipetskenergo; due to the distinction between balance sheet ownership and operational responsibility, KTP-544 is also assigned to the jurisdiction of the network organization.

When conducting a control check of the technical condition of electrical grid facilities located at the address: Lipetsk region, p. Sukhaya Lubna, st. K. Konstantinova, KTP 544, representatives of the network organization discovered damage to the state verification seals of the electric meter installed on the body of the electric meter, a violation of the seal (hologram), which was cut along the seam of the front and rear covers of the electric meter.

At the same time, an act on unmetered electricity consumption dated November 16, 2016 N 48-020550 was drawn up in relation to Novolipetskoye LLC. This act was signed by employees of the network organization, as well as by disinterested parties - N.V. Chinareva. and Sidyanina M.E. At the same time, the consumer representative was not present when drawing up the act. According to the testimony of witness N.V. Chinareva. data to the court, the act itself was drawn up not at the place where unmetered consumption was detected, but in the administration of the village council, employees of the network organization asked to pay attention to the fact that the cabinet door where the meter was installed was open and there was damage to the seal.

The plaintiff did not provide evidence of notification of the consumer about the inspection in respect of which the act was drawn up in the case file.

Limitation period for payment for electricity

“All standard procedures in accordance with the law will be applied to those who do not pay bills for major repairs (such citizens, according to rough estimates, are 20%), just like all other defaulters,” the Deputy Minister of Construction and Construction told Izvestia Housing and communal services, the country's chief housing inspector Andrey Chibis.

Arbitrage practice

Judicial practice shows that when considering claims, judges make one of the following decisions:

satisfaction of the application in full (if the debt formation period does not exceed three years);
partial satisfaction of the claim;
refusal to approve the application requirements.

How the meeting will be held, as well as which legal rules will be used, depends on the following factors:

for what period will the debt extend (for how long has the citizen regularly evaded payments);
the reason for the lack of payments;
defendant's position.

As a last resort, if the debt exceeds 5% of the value of the home itself, the court may decide to seize the property. The execution of such a verdict falls on the shoulders of the bailiffs. The arrest lasts until the debt is paid in full.

Limitation period for electricity

According to the requirements of the law, the consumer is obliged to enter into an agreement for the provision of housing and communal services, prepared by the contractor on the basis of a standard agreement, to pay for the services provided within the terms established by him, and in case of untimely payment, to reimburse the penalty in the agreed amounts. The law also establishes that fees for utility services are charged monthly, and its amount is calculated based on approved prices and tariffs and indicators of metering devices or according to standards approved in the prescribed manner.

supported the claim on the grounds set out in the statement, and believed that there were no grounds for applying the statute of limitations. Representative of the plaintiff OJSC "Tulaenergosbyt" by proxy E.V. Pashkova also objected to the application of the statute of limitations, citing the fact that the entire amount of consumed and unpaid electricity was established on an impersonal date of the year, therefore, the statute of limitations should be calculated from this date. Considering that the statute of limitations limits the time limits of judicial protection of a violated right, the court considered it necessary to begin consideration of the dispute with the question of whether the plaintiff complied with the statute of limitations.

This is interesting: Questions for a cadastral engineer on land management expertise

What is the statute of limitations for housing and communal services debt and what happens to it after 3 years?

The minimum conditions for comfortable living in our homes are the availability of electricity, drinking and hot water, gas, and in winter, heating of our home. All these benefits are uninterruptedly supplied to us on the basis of agreements concluded with representatives of the housing and communal services (hereinafter referred to as the Housing and Communal Services Management Company). The existence of such agreements creates an obligation for users of these services to pay the appropriate fees. However, such a fee is not always paid for a number of reasons, be it difficult life circumstances or simple reluctance. Moreover, failure to pay the fee can last for years. Unpaid bills for housing and communal services are growing like a snowball. But the debtor gradually accumulates not only amounts equal to the final figures in the accounts, but also penalties (Article 153 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation). So is there a period after which the payment requirements of the Housing and Communal Services Management Code are canceled?

Limitation period for payment of electricity

With the start of the heating season, utility workers began to zealously collect debts from the population, launching punitive operations with the confiscation of cars and apartments. In essence, Ukrainians found themselves powerless before the union of the housing and communal mafia and the judicial system.

No. 5. According to clause 3 of the Instructions, the period for calculating damage caused to an energy supply organization as a result of unauthorized (non-contractual) consumption of electrical energy (power) is set equal to the limitation period and is calculated from the date of drawing up the act, unless another shorter period is documented. If the energy supplying organization identifies the fact of repeated unauthorized (non-contractual) consumption of electrical energy (power) by a legal entity or citizen, including an individual entrepreneur, in respect of whom the act has been drawn up, the period for calculating the damage caused to the energy supplying organization as a result of such unauthorized (non-contractual) consumption, is established from the date of drawing up the previous act to the date of drawing up the next act, unless another shorter period is documented (but not more than the limitation period).

What documents should I attach?

The statute of limitations for paying utility bills (Article 195 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) is three years. But in order for the court to take this fact into account, the defendant will have to document every word of the counterstatement. You will have to have with you;

a check confirming payment of the state duty;
receipts for compensation for the cost of rent (to avoid paying off an earlier debt, not a single payment should be missed in the past three years before filing a claim);
independent calculation of the generated debt amount, the repayment of which must be carried out by the subscriber;
a list of documents confirming a significant deterioration in the financial situation of a citizen.

The legislator allows you to receive a subsidy and other benefits for paying for housing and communal services if a citizen cannot independently fully compensate for the cost of services. Such reasons include:

the pensioner's income is the only profit;
a family or citizen has received preferential low-income status;
receiving disability;
loss of real estate as a result of a natural disaster;
the breadwinner died.

Each of these facts must be confirmed by an official certificate. In this case, the debt must be recalculated and only some part of the debt will have to be repaid.

Limitation period for electricity

Service Provider - a legal or natural person engaged in electricity supply, heat supply, water supply, sewerage (hereinafter referred to as the energy supply organization), as well as providing (rendering) services for waste removal and elevator maintenance, provision of services for subscribers and condominium facilities - is the delivery of electrical and thermal energy ; energy supply organization - a legal entity that delivers (independently or under an agreement with an energy transmission organization) and sells produced or purchased electrical energy, thermal energy, and water to consumers;

Housing and communal services debts and terms of their collection: the essence of the story

It all started when the management company filed a claim to collect utility bills from a citizen for almost 6 years – from February 2012 to May 2021. This application was preceded by a court order, which was canceled by the debtor. It covered the period from July 2011 to December 2015.

The price of the claim, when clarified, was just over 543 thousand rubles, excluding state duty. The Odintsovo City Court of the Moscow Region, by its decision dated August 22, 2018, reduced this amount to 100 thousand.

However, the appellate court decided otherwise. By her ruling dated December 3, 2018, she collected from the woman a debt in the amount of 406 thousand and a penalty of 10,000 for the period from May 2014 to May 2021.

Statute of limitations for paying for electricity

In this case, the first option is preferable for you, since when payment is received, resource supply organizations usually pay off the debt that arose earlier and it will be much more difficult for you to prove that the payment was made for the last three years, and not for the first.

The statute of limitations for debts is 3 years. But! If during the disputed period the tenant partially repaid the debt or paid interest for late payment (i.e. acknowledged the debt), this may serve as a basis for interrupting the limitation period, and after the break it is counted again from the day of the break, i.e. from the date of payment (Article 203 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). If this was not the case, you can safely claim that the statute of limitations applies and the court will oblige you to pay the amount only for the last 3 years.

Court for non-payment of utilities

In case of malicious non-payment of debts for utility services, the supplier files a claim in court. It happens like this:

The HOA representative submits to the magistrate an application for the issuance of a court order;
Within 5 days, the judge makes a decision on judicial collection and sends it to the debtor;
Within 10 days, the debtor can file objections, and if they are accepted, the HOA representative will have to contact the judge again, but with a statement in the form of a claim;
If the debtor does not receive a decision or does not submit a claim, the order will enter into force and will be transferred to the bailiffs.

Is it possible to challenge the management company's claim?

You can challenge the claim in court. To do this, you need to deal with the fact of illegal charges. In the event that there are no violations regarding accruals, you need to pay attention not to the fact that the statute of limitations has expired, which will come into force only after your statement about its existence.

How to challenge a claim from a management company

It is necessary to submit an application for recalculation of the debt amount and come with a ready recalculation to the court hearing. This move will help identify any irregularities in the operation of your management campaign.

Valid reasons for applying

Valid reasons may include:

Long delays in payment of pensions or wages;
Unemployment of all family members;
Illness of the employer or one of the family members;
Presence of disabled people or minors in the family.

Required documents

In order to appeal the management company’s claim, you need to collect a package of documents:

Receipt for payment of state duty;
Pay slips from the service organization for the last three years;
If the amount of the claim does not coincide with your calculation, you need to take it too;
Justification of a difficult life situation, if it is the basis for delaying debt payment.

How to draw up an application for the application of the statute of limitations

The petition is submitted in any form.

The header indicates: the addressee of the appeal, information about the parties to the conflict, addresses of the parties and their contact information;
Describe the essence of the petition, requirements and application number;
You need to ask for a complete or partial cancellation of the requirement due to their violation.

IMPORTANT! A statement of claim must be submitted before a decision is made.

There are three options for submitting an application:

Through government services;
Registered letter by mail;
Through an employee of the department office.

IMPORTANT! The debtor does not have to agree with the accusation, sign papers or repay even partial debt. These actions may cause your application to be denied.

Sample application

statements on the application of the limitation period: obrazets-iskovogo-zayavleniya-o-primenenii-sroka-iskovoy-davnosti.docx

Period and rules for filing a claim in court

What the statement of claim will look like depends on the circumstances of the case. In all cases, the following will remain unchanged: references to regulations; amount of debt; penalty amount; the period during which the debt was incurred.

It is better to file a claim before a decision is made, otherwise the decision will enter into irreversible force.

Amount of state duty and legal costs

According to Article 333.19 of the Tax Code, the state duty on the statement of claim is charged as a percentage, depending on the amount of the debt.

Limitation period for electricity

Considering that the claims of Tulaenergosbyt OJSC for the collection of debt for electricity are subject to partial satisfaction, legal costs - state duty are subject to reimbursement in proportion to the amount of satisfied claims in the amount of . rub.

Moreover, in cases where the obligation provided for execution in parts or in the form of periodic payments and the debtor committed actions indicating recognition of only some part (periodic payment), such actions cannot be the basis for interrupting the limitation period for other parts (payments).

Deadlines for opening enforcement proceedings

How bailiffs work - law and realityRelated article

Readers ask how long the bailiff's writ of execution is valid, hoping to write off debts within the time frame. If the sheet is presented to the FSSP, then its validity period is unlimited - the bailiff will collect the money until full payment is made, or will end the case if there is no income or property.

In this case, the bank or other creditor can present the IL again in six months or earlier if the debtor has finances or property is discovered.

Limitation period for utility bills: debt collection and penalties for non-payment

If at least one payment was made within the last three years, the limitation period begins from the date of making this payment. If you paid at least part of the amount, the court may reject your petition because it considers that you have admitted the debt.

On a note! Legal relations between suppliers and consumers of utility services are regulated by the Civil and Housing Codes, as well as Decree of the Russian Government No. 354 of May 6, 2021.

What can a management company do?

The Housing and Public Utilities Code cannot extend the statute of limitations . Its only trump card may be proof of the interruption of the term by indicating the recognition of the debt by the defendant.

REFERENCE! Although there are no specific deadlines established by law regarding exactly when a supplier can sue a debtor, practice shows that this can be done starting from six months of non-payment of rent and receipts by the tenant.

Sometimes this period is equal to five or ten years, and therefore the defaulter needs to know how to write off housing and communal services debts. In any case, it is not advisable to bring the case to court, because you can always reach an agreement with the management company. But if it just so happens that such conversations only happen in court, then now you know how to achieve a reduction in the payment amount.

Is there a statute of limitations for utility bills? Arbitrage practice

In the event of a difficult life situation (illness of a family member, vehicle accident or other problem), which temporarily does not allow making up for non-payment, citizens should apply for a subsidy, apply for restructuring of the resulting debt, or take other steps.

Yes, you can try to file a counterclaim . First of all, you should not be lazy and carefully check the amount of your actual debt with the amount that appears in the management company’s claim. If there is a discrepancy, expressed in a significant amount, it makes sense to prepare clear and correct calculations, as well as all receipts .

Possibility of interrupting the deadline

LEDs can be interrupted in two ways:

Upon full recognition of the debt by the consumer of services.
When sending a claim for forced collection of debt obligations.

The period may be interrupted if negotiations between the consumer and the CP or management company have reached mutual agreement, and the consumer has acknowledged the arrears and partially repaid the debt.

After the LED is interrupted, if there is arrears, such counting begins anew, without taking into account the past period. A demand for recognition of debt is allowed within three years from the date of its occurrence.

Failure to pay housing and communal services payments cannot be justified, since this is the responsibility of a citizen, according to the law of the Russian Federation. The consumer must know his responsibility for late payments for housing and communal services, since untimely payments lead to the accrual of penalties, fines, exclusion from the provision of services and ultimately can lead to forced collection through the court of all arrears, including penalties and fines, which will cost the consumer a lot expensive.

Limitation period for paying for electricity

Note: in an extract from a personal account for less than 36 months, the “opening balance” may be indicated as “debt for previous periods” (10 years?) - you require you to issue an explanation of the debt on a monthly basis, it is not included in the payment, but you pay an UNCONTESTED amount

Every organization servicing residential buildings should monitor non-payments , and debtors should be sent reminders in the form of notifications about accumulated debt . If this work is not carried out, then non-payments on some personal accounts may accumulate over several years .

The procedure for restoring a missed deadline for applying to the FSSP

The grounds for restoring the deadline for filing an application with the FSSP are established by Article 23 No. 229-FZ. It contains a list of valid reasons, if documented, the court will extend the period when a claim can be filed. sheet. These include:

illness of the creditor (confirmed by medical documents);
lack of information about the possibility of collecting the debt (the situation rarely arises - if the writ of execution has not been sent to the collector);
long-term business trip (required to provide a travel certificate);
other circumstances that the judge considers objective.

In practice, these are isolated cases when the claimant is an individual. the person has been ill for several years or is away from home. If the creditor is an organization, bank or microfinance organization, then the terms are not restored.