Reflection in payment documents of additional expenses of the Criminal Code – housing and communal services

In payment documents, the Criminal Code illegally increased the fee for the maintenance of the dwelling or informed the owners about the need to compensate for additional races …

Reflection in payment documents of additional expenses of the Criminal Code

In payment documents, the Criminal Code illegally increased the fee for the maintenance of the dwelling or informed the owners about the need to reimburse additional costs? The arbitration court of the West Siberian district was dismantled (case No. A75-8071/2021).

In 2019, the Criminal Code indicated in the receipts the costs of previously repairs of pylones (pylons) – decorative elements on the facade of MKD.

For such an “initiative”, the Criminal Code received from the service of housing and construction supervision of the Khanty-Mansiysk Autonomous Okrug-Ugra (hereinafter referred to as the Service) a requirement to eliminate the violation. The legality of this order was confirmed by judicial acts that entered into force.

When considering this case, the courts indicated: the availability of the right to reimburse expenses incurred in connection with the urgent repair of the common property of the MKD does not exempt from the obligation to comply with the legal procedure for changing the amount of the fee for the maintenance and repair of common house property.
That is, an increase in the amount of fees for a dwelling had to be agreed with the owners, and in the case of their refusal, in court to demand reimbursement of expenses incurred, presenting evidence of the amount of work performed and their economic validity.

In 2021, according to the results of another audit, the service came to the conclusion that in payment documents for December 2020, the Criminal Code repeatedly and again unreasonably included the requirement to pay for additional services (strengthening of pylons).
The case ended with the next order with the requirement to recalculate on all personal accounts for December 2020 and return the excessively paid funds to the owners of the MKD. However, the Criminal Code did not agree with the order and went to court.

Courts of the first and appeal instances Recognized the order of the service illegal and canceled it.

At the same time, the courts found that in December 2020 of the Criminal Code Not turned on Additional expenses in the payment for the maintenance and repair of common property of MKD. This is confirmed, among other things, the documents submitted by the Criminal Code – accounting certificates, a sample on the personal account, uniform payment documents.
The accrual of the fee for the repair of steamers (pylons) was one -time in nature, it was made by separate Personal accounts for a complex of services Additional services.

The Criminal Code tried to organize a general meeting of owners on the issue of reimbursing the costs of carrying out work to strengthen pylons. However, the owners did not make the corresponding decision.
Then the Criminal Code Given the information On the cost of additional work on the repair of piles (pylons) in unified payment documents.These amounts were not included in the payment for the maintenance and repair of common house property, and were not reflected in the personal accounts of the owners of MKD. Then the Criminal Code went to court with claims against the owners to recover the disputed amounts.

As a result, the courts came to the conclusion that the information in the payment documents about the additional payment for the repair of flashings was informational (reference) in nature. This was not an illegal change in maintenance fees.
“The reflection in a single payment document of the amount of additional expenses in order to inform the owners of the premises about the need to reimburse the cost of work in proportion to the share in common property does not in itself indicate the obligation of the Criminal Code to recalculate all personal accounts”. Moreover, the Service did not prove the fact of reflecting the disputed amounts on the personal accounts of the owners of MKD.

Court of Cassation left the decisions made unchanged. At the same time, he indicated that the reflection in payment documents of the disputed amounts without including them in the accrued payment for housing, in the bar code on the document and personal accounts does not indicate a violation of the Criminal Code of housing legislation. Such informing does not mislead the owners about the amount of the monthly payment for housing and does not create obstacles to its payment, including using a bar code.