The question of whether the management company is the executor of public services in the absence of a written agreement with the RSO does not lose its relevance. If previously the answer was unequivocal (yes, it is), then with the entry into force of the Rules for the Provision of Utilities on September 1, 2012, it became possible to think about options. Judicial practice currently being formed is not uniform. Along with numerous examples of the fact that the manager of an apartment building by default acts as the executor of utility services, one can find decisions that without a resource supply agreement, the RSO has direct legal relations with the owners of the premises.
Clause 14 of the Rules for the provision of utility services states that the management company begins to provide utility services no earlier than the start date of supply of the utility resource under the agreement for its purchase concluded between the management company and the RSO. That is, utilities are not provided without concluding an appropriate resource supply agreement. This rule was checked for legality, and the applicant was refused to recognize it as invalid (Decision of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of January 13, 2014 No. AKPI13-1116).
Later, Review of judicial practice of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation 1 (2014)[1] was published, in which question 9 from the explanations of the judicial panel on economic disputes was formulated as follows: can a management company be recognized as a provider of utility services in the absence of an agreement concluded with RSO on the acquisition of a utility resource? However, the review did not contain the answer expected by many (“without an agreement concluded with RSO, the management company is not a contractor”). It only indicated the possibility of recognizing a management company as a provider of utility services even without a signed resource supply agreement: if the management company began managing an apartment building, issues bills for utilities to consumers and receives bills for utility resources from the RSO, this means that between the management company and RSO actually had a contractual relationship. This is an important conclusion for the further development of judicial practice, since, based on the Rules for concluding resource supply agreements[2], the corresponding contract must be concluded in writing (clause 15).
It is appropriate to recall here, especially since the arbitrators use these links, two recommendations from YOU:
- the absence of contractual relations with an organization whose energy receiving installations are connected to the networks of the energy supplying organization does not relieve the consumer from the obligation to reimburse the cost of the energy actually supplied to him (clause 3 of the Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated February 17, 1998 No. 30 “Review of the practice of resolving disputes related to the contract energy supply");
- the consumer's actual use of the services of the obligated party should be considered in accordance with clause 3 of Art. 438 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation as the subscriber’s acceptance of an offer proposed by the party providing services (performing work). Therefore, these relations must be recognized as contractual (clause 2 of the Information Letter of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated 05.05.1997 No. 14).
Currently, there are two categories of disputes based on an analysis of the situation that interests us: about the legality of presenting payment documents to consumers and the collection of the cost of a utility resource supplied to the house.
Position of the Supreme Court
In the summer of 2015, the Supreme Court considered two cases, the reason for which was the claims of prosecutors from two different regions, filed in the interests of an indefinite number of persons, for a ban on charging and collecting electricity fees from residents of apartment complexes for one-room distribution network. In one case, the prosecutor brought claims against the RSO (see Determination of the RF Armed Forces dated June 23, 2015 No. 8-KGPR15-2), in the other - against the management organization[3] (see Determination of the RF Armed Forces dated July 14, 2015 No. 35-KG15-1) . There is an opposite interpretation by the supervisory authority of the norms of the law about who has the right to charge consumers for utility services at ODN in the absence of a resource supply agreement concluded between the management company and the RSO.
The first case ended with the Supreme Court taking the side of the prosecutor: RSO does not have the right to charge electricity charges to ODN. The judges did not agree with the conclusions of the lower court judges (see Resolution of the Presidium of the Yaroslavl Regional Court dated 10/08/2014 in case No. 44-g-51/14) that in the absence of an agreement between the management company and the RSO, the latter is obliged to supply electricity to the house and perform the functions of a utility service provider. The Supreme Court concluded: the procedure for paying for utilities in an apartment building depends on the chosen method of management, and the right to charge and collect fees for the provided utilities belongs to the person, including RSO, on the basis of a decision made in the manner prescribed by law by the general meeting of owners of premises in the apartment building to make utility fees for a specific regional distribution system. At the same time, it was emphasized: housing legislation does not allow the possibility of direct payment by owners and tenants of premises in apartment buildings to resource supplying organizations for utilities consumed when using common property in apartment buildings (Part 7.1 of Article 155 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation), with the exception of the case where the owners of premises in the house directly Management of MKD (Part 8 of Article 155 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation). Current legislation does not grant resource supplying organizations the right to collect payment from consumers for utilities consumed for general house needs; therefore, such organizations do not have the right to make calculations and demand directly from residents of apartment buildings served by management companies payment for utility resources spent for common house needs, as well as compensation for losses, since they are not contractors and do not manage apartment buildings, and therefore are not responsible for the quality of utilities and services for the maintenance of common building engineering networks.
Indeed, in Part 7.1 of Art. 155 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, as amended, was in force until June 30, 2015, it was clearly stated that, by decision of the general meeting, residents can pay directly to the RSO only for utilities consumed on the premises. It turns out that the payment for utilities to the ODN should in any case be received by the management company if it acts as a provider of utilities. Therefore, the question of the legality of billing for utility services on ODN is directly related to the status of the provider of utility services. Please note that here the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation did not delve into the discussion of the issue of the presence or absence of actual contractual relations between the Criminal Code and the RSO. The court operated only with the provisions of the Housing Code, from which it clearly follows that if the management company manages the house, it receives payment for utilities on the one-room apartment building.
The Supreme Court sent the second case for reconsideration to the court of first instance with a recommendation to take into account specific circumstances that may indicate actual contractual relations between the management company and the RSO in the absence of a concluded resource supply agreement, which would indicate that the status of the provider of public services belongs to the management organization, and not RSO (it is documented that during the disputed period the management company paid for consumed electricity to RSO).
We know that the conclusions made in the ruling of the RF Supreme Court, adopted following the consideration of a particular case, are not binding on lower courts, however, in practice, judges usually rely on the conclusions made by the RF Supreme Court.
Neighbours
The Management Agreement is the cornerstone of the relationship between the owner and the Management Company. But the owners not only don’t know about this, but they haven’t even seen the agreement.
And where can you see him? Only on the official website of Reform Housing and Communal Services RU. But you won’t see him there either, because it’s not profitable for the manager. So how do you get it to be placed there? Only through the Moscow Housing Inspectorate - through the website dom.gosuslugi.ru. We have detailed instructions on how to register on this site.
Know that when you write an application to the housing inspectorate, you will receive an answer that everything you need is already posted on the website and according to PP 731 they are not obliged to publish Management Agreements. So this is not so - below is the competent opinion of an expert: the manager MUST publish the remote control!
Read and use this article in your applications.
—————————————————————————-
The editors of the magazine received the following question. The Management Company has posted a template for a draft management agreement in Word format on the website www.reformagkh.ru. The inspectorate considered that the organization should have published copies of contracts in the form of electronic files, and, accordingly, issued an order for incomplete publication of information in violation of the standard. Explain where the Criminal Code is wrong.
According to paragraphs. “b” clause 3 of the Information Disclosure Standard approved by the Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of September 23, 2010 № 731,
The management organization
is obliged to disclose information such as a list of apartment buildings that it manages, indicating the address and basis for management of each apartment building. From clause 2 of form 1.4
“List of apartment buildings managed by a management organization, partnership, cooperative”, approved by Order of the Ministry of Construction of the Russian Federation dated December 22, 2014
No. 882/ pr
, it follows that the grounds for managing a house are understood as a management agreement, minutes of the general meeting of owners , protocol of an open competition held by a local government body.
In turn, form 2.1 “General information about an apartment building” (clause 3) requires the attachment of a copy of the apartment building management agreement in the form of an electronic file.
The Criminal Code is not clear about which copy of the document should be attached as a file:
“fish” of the agreement containing the conditions approved by the decision of the general meeting of owners of the premises;
a draft agreement signed by the management company;
an agreement signed by the management company and one of the owners;
agreements signed by the management company and each of the owners, who in total have more than 50% of the votes.
The wording of the by-laws does not allow us to answer this question, so we will have to resort to a systematic analysis of the norms of housing legislation. The Disclosure Standard talks about the basis for managing a particular home. It seems that in the case of a management company, this can only be a concluded management agreement.
The fact is that, by virtue of Part 7 of Art. 162 of the RF Housing Code, unless otherwise established by the MKD management agreement, the management company is obliged to begin implementing such an agreement no later than 30 days from the date of its signing. In turn, according to Art. 198 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the licensee has the right to carry out activities related to the management of a specific house only after he himself publishes the relevant information on the official website for disclosure of information and the body of the Civil Housing Inspectorate enters the house into the register of licenses of a constituent entity of the Russian Federation in connection with the conclusion of a management agreement for apartment buildings (before this, the management company is obliged to provide officials a copy of the management agreement signed in accordance with the requirements of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation - see Letter of the Ministry of Construction of the Russian Federation dated 08/05/2015 No. 24430-АЧ/04).
Thus, you can start managing the house only if you sign a management agreement for the apartment building.
According to Part 1 of Art. 162 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, a management agreement is concluded in writing or in electronic form using the GIS Housing and Communal Services by drawing up one document, which is signed by the parties. In this case, the owners of premises who have more than 50% of the votes of the total number of votes of the owners of premises in a given building act as one party to the concluded agreement. Thus,
management agreement as the basis for managing the house is considered concluded in proper form when it is signed by the parties .
This means that it can be considered that the management company has disclosed information about the basis for managing the house (as required by paragraph “b” of clause 3 of the Information Disclosure Standard) only if it has posted
copies of agreements signed by the management company on the one hand and the owners of the premises (owners of more than half the votes) on the other side.
Thus, the goal of disclosing the management company’s information will be achieved, first of all, for clients: the owners of the premises can verify whether the management company manages the house legally, identify possible forgeries, etc.
add
: a copy of the contract with all integral parts ( appendices ), which usually contain a list of works , services , and their costs, must be posted . The terms of the agreement must comply with the conditions approved at the general meeting of premises owners and be the same for all consumers .
Additionally, you should keep in mind the requirements of the legislation on personal data.
It is known that in practice, the bodies of the State Housing Inspectorate recommend that the management company (and consider this sufficient) to post on the official website for the purpose of disclosing information copies of management agreements signed only by the management company. However, this option, in essence, is no different from placing a “fish” agreement (a sample agreement with all the essential terms in relation to a specific house, not signed by both parties).
The presence of a signature on the copy of the agreement on the part of the management company, as well as the absence of any signatures or the presence of signatures of the management company and owners with less than 50% of the votes, does not indicate the fact of the conclusion of this agreement. Such an agreement cannot be considered as a basis for managing an apartment building.
* * *
A systematic analysis of the norms of housing legislation allows us to come to the conclusion that, as part of the disclosure of information about the management activities of apartment buildings, the management company is obliged to post a copy of the management agreement with the signatures of the parties: the management company and the owners of premises holding more than 50% of the votes of the total number of votes of the owners of premises in the building. Such an agreement is the basis for managing the house.
E. V. Emelyanova,
magazine editor
“Housing and communal services: accounting and taxation”, No. 12, December, 2015.
https://www.audar-urist.ru/articles/153/raskrytie-informacii
Similar
- NEIGHBORS - public organization of the Filevsky Park district
Examples from arbitration practice
The majority of judges, even before the adoption of Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation of June 23, 2015 No. 8-KGPR15-2, were of the opinion that even without an agreement with RSO, the management company acts as a provider of utility services, therefore RSO does not have the right to issue payment documents for utility services to ODN. Thus, the courts recognized as legal the orders addressed to the RSO, prohibiting the issuance of payment documents to residents of apartment buildings, as well as orders addressed to the management company, obliging them to calculate fees for utility services and draw up payment documents even in the absence of a concluded resource supply agreement.
In particular, the arbitrators of the AC VBO believe that the current legislation does not allow us to come to the conclusion that the responsibilities of the management company for the provision of utilities, billing and collection of payments depend on the presence (absence) of a resource supply agreement. They believe that the obligation of the management company to provide utility services to consumers is related to the moment of delivery of the utility resource, including within the framework of actually established (in the absence of an agreement) relations with the RNO (Resolution of the Supreme Soviet of the Russian Federation dated 03.08.2015 No. F01-2744/2015, F01-2745 /2015, dated July 20, 2015 No. F01-2662/2015, dated April 23, 2015 No. F01-1208/2015).
SSO arbitrators pay special attention to facts that indicate the existence of actual relations between the management company and the RSO:
- a representative of the management company took part in the acceptance of a common house meter located in the apartment building, signed an act delineating the balance sheet and operational responsibilities of the parties, a single-line power supply diagram in relation to the specified house, in the invoices issued to consumers for payment of a utility resource, the RSO indicates the management company as the executor utilities (Resolution dated 09/03/2015 No. Ф04-22583/2015);
- The management company signed guarantee obligations, according to which it must conclude agreements with RSO within the established time frame (Resolution No. F04-18454/2015 dated July 20, 2015);
- the debt for a utility resource was collected from the management company in favor of the RSO (Resolution dated July 20, 2015 No. F04-19855/2015);
- After the signing of an agreement between the management company and RSO on the termination of the resource supply agreement, the actual contractual relationship for the supply of resources via the connected network between the parties did not cease, the RSO continues to indicate the management company as the executor in the payment documents, the new agreement is at the approval stage (resolution dated June 24, 2015 No. F04-20076/2015[4], dated May 13, 2015 No. F04-18864/2015).
Strictly speaking, the problem (more precisely, a violation of consumer rights) consists not so much in the claim of a disputed payment by an improper person, but in the overestimation of the amount of this payment. Let us remember that, by default, the management company - the provider of utility services has the right to present utility services for payment to consumers at the ODN only within the limits of consumption standards. The management company bears the difference between standard and actual consumption (paragraph 3 of clause 44 of the Rules for the provision of utility services). And only if the provider of utility services is RSO, the actual volume of consumption at ODN is distributed among consumers (paragraph 4 of the same paragraph). Accordingly, if, due to the inaction of the management company and the RSO, the latter considers itself the executor, although the management company was chosen to manage the house, consumers must pay more for utilities than if the resource supply agreement had been signed.
What are the consequences of not having a contract?
If a document has not been concluded with the management company that would stipulate the services provided, the amount of payment and the person representing the interests of the public, this will not allow receiving the necessary services.
As soon as a meeting was held at which the proposals of the management company were discussed and a decision was made to join it, a paper is formed and all residents must fulfill the conditions.
What does the agreement with the management company include?
One of the two originals of the contract is kept by the very person who was elected and is a party to the document. Each premises owner has the right to request a copy of the agreement in order to analyze the provisions and draw conclusions from them.
Do I need to pay
The same article 153 of the Housing Code states that every citizen must pay for all services that he consumes and the rent for the space used.
Even the fact that he does not agree with the contract, or does not have it in hand, will not be a reason for refusing to pay the bills, since the majority has decided for him.
If a dissenting citizen wants to challenge the amount of payment or the procedure for cooperation specified in the agreement, he needs to follow the algorithm described above.
First, a protocol of disagreements is drawn up, and if it does not work, you can go to court with a refusal and a copy of the agreement. But it is still necessary to transfer funds for the entire period before the court decision, despite the disagreement.
If there is no money, the court may order all damages to be paid to the management company, and penalties will also be assessed as a sanction.
Is it possible to terminate the contract with the management company, watch the video:
Therefore, it is better to pay receipts, and if the contract is declared invalid, you can demand a refund, although you must save all payment documents for this.
Special opinion
It should be recognized that even now some arbitrators make decisions with opposite conclusions. For example, AS UO considered that it is RSO that acts as the executor of utility services after the unilateral termination of the contract with the management company due to the management company’s failure to fulfill its obligations to pay for the supplied electricity. Therefore, the RSO’s order to adjust the amount of electricity charges at ODN based on the standard volume was declared invalid (Resolution No. F09-6282/15 dated 09/07/2015). A similar conclusion was made in the Resolution of the AS SZO dated 04/27/2015 No. F07-1809/2015: having taken over the management of the house from 03/01/2013, the management company did not enter into resource supply agreements, the RSO supplied electricity to the house and legally issued bills to citizens.
Watch an online training seminar on preparing an annual report
On February 16, Irina Malikova, General Director of the Institute of Housing and Communal Services Management LLC, an expert on the Housing and Communal Services Commission of the Public Council under the Ministry of Construction of the Russian Federation, conducted an online seminar “Report on the implementation of the management agreement for 2020.”
Watch the demo video on the YouTube channel of the P1 Association →
The expert examined the questions to which management organizations most often seek answers when preparing an annual report:
- in what form the report is compiled;
- what should be the content of the document if its form is not approved in the management agreement or in the OSSS;
- why is it necessary to confirm the fact of completion of work, services for the maintenance and repair of common property;
- can the management agreement be considered a subscription agreement;
- why funds for current repairs of common property are recognized as targeted funds;
- how to prepare summary information included in the report;
- how to calculate savings;
- whether unused target funds for current repairs are considered savings under the management agreement;
- how to correctly adjust the amount of payment for CD on SOI.416
Watch the online seminar demo to see what else we talked about. And if you want to know the answers to the questions listed above, we recommend purchasing the full video. You will find it, as well as the lecturer’s presentation, under the article.
How to draw up a management agreement correctly: we sort out the mistakes
On debt collection for utilities
The status of the utility service provider is important to establish not only the person authorized to issue payment documents to consumers and collect fees for utility services, but also the person obliged to pay the RSO the cost of the utility resource supplied to the house. If, in the absence of a concluded resource supply agreement, the RSO subscriber (due to the actually established contractual relations and the status of the manager of the apartment building as a provider of utility services according to housing legislation) should be considered the manager of the apartment building, then claims should be brought against him, and not against the owners of the premises.
Please note that payment to consumers directly by RSO, and not by the management company on the basis of a special decision of the general meeting (Part 7.1 of Article 155 of the RF Housing Code) also does not indicate the absence of actually established contractual relations between the management company and the management company (Resolution of the AS CO dated 07/09/2015 No. F10-2191/2015). A more universal conclusion is formulated in the Decree of the AC Central District dated April 20, 2015 No. F10-865/2015: in the absence of an agreement between the management company and the resource supplying organization and the population pays for the received utility resource directly to the resource supplying organization, when managing an apartment building by a management company chosen by the owners of the premises, The management organization is the provider of public services and is responsible for paying the debt owed to the resource supplying organization.
Thus, the court refused RSO to collect the debt for utilities from the owner of the premises in the apartment building during the period when the house was managed by the management company: the owner is an improper defendant (resolutions of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated August 25, 2015 No. F01-2969/2015, dated March 20, 2015 No. F01- 6334/2014, dated March 10, 2015 No. Ф01-44/2015).
The fundamental importance of studying the circumstances that may indicate a contractual relationship between the management company and the RSO in a dispute over the recovery of amounts in favor of the RSO from the owner of the premises in the apartment building was emphasized by the AS SZO in Resolution No. F07-5958/2015 dated August 28, 2015.
It is necessary to collect the debt for the utility resources actually consumed in the apartment building from the management company: this was indicated by the AS SZO in Resolution No. F07-10100/2014 dated January 21, 2015, establishing that the resource supply agreement was signed with a protocol of disagreements that were not resolved. When a management company takes steps to conclude a resource supply agreement and there is evidence that it has issued payment documents to residents, it is foolish to deny that it has nothing to do with the provision of utility services: it is the management company that must pay for utility resources (Resolution of AS UO dated July 22, 2015 No. F09-4294/15 ). In turn, the judges of the AS FEB recovered from the management company the cost of the excess volume of electricity supplied to the distribution network, based on the claim of the RSO, but did not find out whether there were actual contractual relations between the management company and the RSO. It was enough for the arbitrators to refer to the above-described Resolution of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated 06.23.2015 No. 8-KGPR15-2 that the role of the executor of public utilities according to the law is the Criminal Code, and not the RSO (Resolution dated 08.12.2015 No. F03-2688/2015) .
But by Resolution of the AS UO dated April 24, 2015 No. F09-2037/15, the claim of RSO against the owner of non-residential premises for the recovery of the cost of thermal energy was satisfied. The court rejected the owner's arguments that he was not a proper defendant, since it found that no agreement was concluded between the Management Company and RSO, the RSO independently issued payment documents to the residents of the house, and the Management Company did not issue invoices. The same conclusions were made in the Resolution of the Autonomous District of Central Asia dated May 22, 2015 No. F10-1160/2015 in a situation where the RSO unilaterally refused to fulfill the resource supply agreement.
Also, the arbitrators of the AS SKO considered that in the absence of a resource supply agreement between the management company and the RSO, the owner of the non-residential premises must pay the RSO not only for the consumption of the resource on the premises (based on the agreement concluded between the owner of the premises and the RSO), but also the cost of the resource provided to the RSO. The court indicated: in the absence of an agreement between the RSO and the management company, contractual relations by force of law arise directly between the RSO and the owners of the premises in the apartment building (Resolution No. F08-1047/2015 dated March 27, 2015).
Submit a report to the owners using one of five options
The management organization provides the owners with a report in the manner established in the management agreement or in the OSSS. If the management agreement does not specify the method of submitting the report, then, according to established practice, the management entity determines it independently.
Irina Malikova listed several ways how this can be done:
- Conduct an informational reporting meeting for premises owners.
This is not an annual or extraordinary OSS, but an informational one. There is no need to assemble a quorum: the number of owners who attend the meeting will be the same.
- Provide a report at the annual general meeting of owners.
It is necessary to put the issue of providing a report on the agenda of the meeting. Irina Malikova noted: not a single legislative norm contains a requirement that the owners of the premises give their assessment of the document: express their opinion whether the management organization worked well, satisfactorily or poorly last year. The main thing is to simply submit the report.
- Publish the report in a news newspaper specially issued for the occasion.
The newspaper can be placed in mailboxes. The method is convenient during a pandemic because you do not need to personally contact anyone.
- Send the document in writing to each owner.
This is an expensive method, but suitable if you manage a small apartment building.
- Place the document on information boards in the entrances or in the local area.
What should the management company change in the entrances of the house to increase the loyalty of residents?
Summary
So, to date, judicial practice does not give a clear answer to the question of who is the provider of public services in the absence of a resource supply agreement signed by the management company and the RSO. One thing can be stated: if there are signs of an actually established relationship (the management company issues payment documents to consumers, receives payment from them, pays off with the RSO, participates in the procedure for concluding a resource supply agreement), the management company should be considered the contractor. If there are no such signs (RSO issues bills to consumers, the management company does not apply for a management agreement), there is still no certainty that the RSO is recognized as the contractor, since in some cases the arbitrators believe that the management company acts as a provider of utility services by force of law, independently from any actual circumstances. The conclusions made by the Supreme Court in the case of the illegality of RSO issuing bills for utility bills on ODN are not of a generally binding nature, although, most likely, they will be applied in practice.
Do I need a contract with a management company for house maintenance?
If some residents do not want to participate in signing the contract and assume the obligations specified in it, they must understand that the absence of a document will lead to uncertainty in their relationship with the company.
A problem of this kind can only be solved at a meeting of residents, where a person is elected who is subsequently authorized to enter into an agreement. This is the person who will speak on behalf of each owner of the premises, but you should enlist the support of at least half of all residents in the house.
Only in this case the document will be complete and official. If half the votes are received, but some people do not agree with the terms of the contract, they can start a legal dispute; new home owners have the same right.
Scheme of work with the Criminal Code.
When there is disagreement, then, according to Article 445 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, it is necessary to draw up a protocol of disagreements, where points requiring changes are noted.
Article 445. Mandatory conclusion of a contract
1. In cases where, in accordance with this Code or other laws, the conclusion of an agreement is mandatory for the party to whom the offer (draft agreement) is sent, this party must send to the other party a notice of acceptance, or of refusal to accept, or of acceptance of the offer for other conditions (protocol of disagreements to the draft agreement) within thirty days from the date of receipt of the offer.
The party that sent the offer and received from the party for whom the conclusion of the contract is obligatory a notice of its acceptance on other terms (protocol of disagreements to the draft contract) has the right to submit the disagreements that arose during the conclusion of the contract to the court for consideration within thirty days from the date of receipt of such notification or expiration of the period for acceptance.
2. In cases where, in accordance with this Code or other laws, the conclusion of an agreement is mandatory for the party that sent the offer (draft agreement), and a protocol of disagreements to the draft agreement is sent to it within thirty days, this party is obliged within thirty days from the date upon receipt of the protocol of disagreements, notify the other party of acceptance of the agreement in its wording or of rejection of the protocol of disagreements.
If the protocol of disagreements is rejected or notification of the results of its consideration is not received within the specified period, the party that sent the protocol of disagreements has the right to submit the disagreements that arose during the conclusion of the agreement to the court.
3. The rules on deadlines provided for in paragraphs 1 and 2 of this article apply unless other deadlines are established by law, other legal acts or agreed upon by the parties.
4. If a party for whom, in accordance with this Code or other laws, the conclusion of an agreement is mandatory, evades its conclusion, the other party has the right to apply to the court with a demand to compel the conclusion of an agreement. In this case, the agreement is considered concluded on the terms specified in the court decision from the moment the relevant court decision enters into legal force.
A party that unreasonably evades concluding a contract must compensate the other party for the losses caused by this.
It also stipulates the desired wording of the conditions, which the management company can accept or reject and require acceptance of the original option.
The citizen has the right to go to court for proceedings, and if he decides that the contract is illegal, it will need to be changed . Otherwise, the document will be valid for the citizen and he will need to compensate for losses.
Owner's responsibilities
The need to pay rent from the owner for services provided to housing is dictated by Article 153 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation. It says that every citizen and organization that owns or uses premises must pay for the utilities they consume.
If there is a management company, but individual residents do not agree with its terms, the latter must prove their rights and protect their interests in law.
This video will tell you what you should pay attention to in an agreement with a management company:
If there is no agreement at all, for example, when a facility has just been put into operation, a general meeting should be held and at it a representative of the public should be elected, giving him the right to conclude an agreement.
After all, without an agreement they will not provide vital services, but if they disagree, the person is not exempt from paying for utilities. Responsibilities include not only transferring money for utility services, but also participation in decision-making and discussion of proposals.
The initiators of the meeting must notify all residents about it in advance, and before the meeting, inform about the procedure for making decisions. If the meeting was attended by less than half of the residents, it cannot be held, because the decisions will be illegitimate.
