Improper garbage disposal
The owner of a premises in an apartment building went to court: he demanded to recover 100,000 rubles from the management organization for the fact that for several years it provided poor quality services for the maintenance of common property and did not remove garbage from container sites.
During the court hearing, it turned out that Rospotrebnadzor had repeatedly brought the management organization and its director to administrative liability under Art. 8.2 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation for neglecting her duty to remove garbage and clean container sites on a daily basis. In addition, the MA did not have certificates of work performed.
The court found that despite the fines, the situation with garbage removal did not improve, and the management organization issued monthly receipts to the owners for housing and communal services, including the removal of solid waste.
Inclusion in the receipt for payment of utilities the cost of a service that was provided poorly is a violation of consumer rights, entailing the responsibility of the contractor and, as a consequence, compensation for moral damage on the basis of Art. 15 of the Law of the Russian Federation dated 02/07/1992 No. 2300-1.
Taking into account the reasonableness of the requirements, the court partially satisfied the owner’s demands and recovered 1,500 rubles from the management organization.
No hot water for more than two weeks
In accordance with clause 3.1.11 of SanPiN 2.1.4.2496-09, during preventive maintenance, shutdown of hot water supply systems should not exceed 14 days.
The shutdown of hot water for about six months led to litigation. A resident of an apartment building went to court for compensation of 10,000 rubles from the provider of the hot water supply utility service.
The management organization presented its arguments: turning off the water for 14 days was allowed to carry out preventive repairs, but it carried out major repairs of heating networks and did not charge the owners for hot water supply for six months.
The court considered the MA's arguments insufficient to reject the claim: the management organization violated the rights of residents to provide public services.
However, there were no serious consequences for the owner as a result of the actions of the management organization. Therefore, the amount of moral compensation was 1,000 rubles.
How foreign management organizations manage apartment buildings
Violation of the temperature regime in the apartment
The heating distribution system in the apartment building was overhauled: metal pipes were replaced with plastic ones and the cross-section of the pipes in the entrances was reduced. After such repairs, the temperature in the apartments of the outer entrances of the building decreased.
The owners of premises in the apartment building wrote appeals to the management organization with requests to resolve the issue, but the management office did not respond. Then one of them went to court with a demand to ensure the thermal conditions in the corner apartments in accordance with sanitary standards and to recover compensation for moral damages from the management organization.
The court satisfied the demands of the owner of the premises and ordered the management organization to pay moral damages.
How can an organization prepare for the heating season?
Fire, flood and broken arm: how to recover money from the management company
In winter, the owner of the apartment, Dmitry Orlov*, parked his car near the house. Snow fell from the roof directly onto the car, as a result, its windshield broke, and dents appeared on the roof and hood. Orlov called police to the scene. The employees drew up a report on the inspection of the site, and later refused to initiate criminal proceedings against the owner of the car. Then Orlov assessed the damage to the vehicle (it came out to 147,000 rubles) and contacted Zhilservis LLC, which maintains the house, so that they would pay for the repairs. But they did not respond to his complaint, so he filed a lawsuit against the company. He asked to recover the damage caused to his car from snow melting (147,000 rubles), assessment costs (8,000 rubles), legal fees (20,000 rubles), a fine and compensation for moral damages (10,000 rubles) .
Provider vs. HOA: Do I need to pay for wires on the roof of the house?
The first instance refused, considering it unproven that the damage to the car was caused by snow falling from the roof of the high-rise building. The appeal overturned this act, since, in its opinion, the fact of falling snow was confirmed by the protocol of inspection of the scene of the incident. The Supreme Court of the Republic of Sakha (Yakutia) partially satisfied the claim and recovered 147,000 rubles in favor of Orlov. as material damage, fine 74,000 rubles, 2,000 rubles. as compensation for moral damage, 8,000 rubles. and 10,000 for the services of an appraiser and lawyer. And the cassation came to the conclusion that it was impossible to award the driver compensation for moral damages and a fine, since the provisions of the “consumer” law were not applicable in the case.
The matter reached the Supreme Court. He pointed out that apartment owners are consumers of services provided by the management organization under a management agreement for an apartment building, therefore the law on the protection of consumer rights applies to legal relations. The board upheld the appeal decision and canceled the cassation act (case No. 74-КГ17-10).
Ivan Bychkov, lawyer BA Bureau of Lawyers "De Jure" Bureau of Lawyers "De Jure" Federal rating. group Arbitration proceedings (medium and small disputes - mid market) group Bankruptcy (including disputes) (mid market) group Dispute resolution in courts of general jurisdiction group Family and inheritance law group Criminal law group Natural resources/Energy group Land law/Commercial real estate/Construction 8th place By number of lawyers 13th place by revenue per lawyer (more than 30 lawyers) 15th place by revenue The company profile says that along with snow falling from the roof, falling icicles is a common situation. In this situation, it is necessary to distinguish that the fall of an icicle from the eaves of a balcony or an apartment window is the responsibility of the apartment owner, and the fall of an icicle from the roof of a house is the responsibility of the management company or the owner of the entire building.
Problem counter: how to avoid additional charges
Sergei Bogomolov* managed to receive almost 600,000 rubles for falling an icicle onto a car. In February 2018, a man parked his Toyota RAV4 near one of the multi-story buildings. It turned out that at that time the owner of the building (Electrokombinat LLC) was clearing ice from the roof. When the owner of the car returned, he saw that an icicle had fallen on the foreign car. There were dents on the door and roof, and the paint on the car was also damaged. The assessment said that the repairs would cost RUB 583,000. The owner of the building did not pay the amount voluntarily, then Bogomolov went to court. The first instance conducted a forensic examination of the case. She confirmed that the damage to the car was typical of an icicle falling. The court recovered from the defendant not only the cost of repairs, but also the costs of a representative and state duty (in total, almost 600,000 rubles). The decision was “overpowered” by an appeal (case No. 33-23011/2020). In the same way, the drivers of cars on which a tree fell (case No. 2-116/2020) and a window frame (case No. 16-KG16-38) were able to recover money for repairs.
