Refund of share contribution to a member of the Housing Committee expelled from it

What kind of disputes might there be?

The most common type of dispute between residents of apartment buildings and utility companies, including housing cooperatives, is a conflict over the latter’s performance of their obligations under the contract. Each tenant pays a periodic fee for services provided by housing cooperative employees. This includes work on landscaping the local area and timely cleaning of entrances. Current repairs also fall into this category.

Many housing cooperatives ignore their responsibilities or do not fulfill them fully. The houses they manage are rarely cleaned and infrastructure elements break down. Residents, having discovered the fact of a negligent attitude of housing cooperatives to their duties, can complain about it to the authorized body or file a lawsuit.

There are disputes that are associated with the reluctance of a large development company to allow the exercise of the residents' right to independently manage their home. Housing and construction cooperatives can be created as management companies controlled by the developer.

Important. If residents want to change the organization managing the house, they will face severe resistance from the current managers. This also includes falsifying decisions of the OSS and ignoring the charter.

Since a housing cooperative acts not only as an organization for the operation of a house, but is also often a form of organization of a developer company, disputes arise with shareholders even before the stage of their moving into apartments.

Notorious stories about defrauded shareholders are inextricably linked with housing cooperatives and gaps in their contracts with shareholders. There have been many legal disputes on this basis.

What to do and where to go?

Depending on the severity of the situation, you can try to resolve the dispute through various authorities.

The first thing you should do is write a letter to the housing cooperative office demanding that your problem be resolved. If they do not answer you or they refuse, then you should write a complaint to the State Housing Inspectorate at your place of residence.

This is a specialized supervisory body involved in control in the public utilities sector. His powers also include supervision of the activities of housing cooperatives. If the organization responds to your complaint, it will send an inspector to check. He can impose an administrative penalty on the cooperative and force it to solve your problem.

But it often happens that the Housing Inspectorate does not respond to complaints, or the inspector is negligent in his work and ignores obvious violations on the part of the cooperative management.

If the State Housing Inspectorate did not help in solving your problem , then contact the prosecutor’s office with a complaint against the housing cooperative. In Russian legislation, the powers between individual supervisory authorities in the housing and communal services sector are generally unclear. Therefore, it is not surprising that a representative of the prosecutor’s office conducts an inspection together with an inspector from the Civil Housing Inspectorate.

As a last resort, if the supervisory authorities have not helped you, you can go to court by filing a claim against the chairman of the housing cooperative. This is an effective method if you have evidence indicating that the management of the cooperative is dishonest.

Death of a housing cooperative member

In the event of the death of one of the members of the Housing Committee, exclusion occurs within the framework of Federal Law No. 344-FZ, as well as on the basis of Chapter 3 of the Civil Code, which regulates the procedure for inheriting the property of the deceased.

The right of the deceased to dispose of a cooperative apartment ceases from the moment of death, and his powers are transferred to his heirs. These include persons included in the testamentary disposition or relatives entering into inheritance by law.

Leaving the cooperative

The relationship between shareholders and cooperatives is regulated by No. 215-FZ dated December 30, 2004. Article 9 of this document states that the shareholder has the right at any time before the completion of the construction of the house to voluntarily withdraw from the cooperative and return the money spent on the purchase of the share. This can be implemented by the shareholder unilaterally by writing a statement.

Reference. In your application to leave the housing cooperative, refer to Article 9 of the above Federal Law, enter your passport details and ask to cancel your contract, as well as return all the money spent.

The procedure and terms of return can also be immediately indicated in the application, or you can ask for clarification from the management of the cooperative.

TERMINATION OF MEMBERSHIP IN THE HUD (BEGINNING)

Articles by R. Demyanov Sections: Membership in a housing and housing construction cooperative;
HBC (housing construction cooperative) Article 130 of the Housing Code (HC) provides for 5 possible cases of termination of membership in a housing construction cooperative (HCS):

• exit of a cooperative member;
• expulsion of a member of the cooperative;
• liquidation of a legal entity that is a member of the cooperative;
• liquidation of a housing cooperative;
• death of a citizen who is a member of a housing cooperative.

Exit of a housing cooperative member

The withdrawal of a member of a cooperative is a voluntary termination of membership in the cooperative based on the application of the participant. In fact, the application itself is drawn up in any form and content - the Housing Code does not establish special requirements. This means that any written document addressed to the cooperative should be considered as such if it clearly implies the will of a particular member of the housing cooperative to consider himself as having lost membership in the cooperative. A member’s application for voluntary withdrawal from the housing cooperative is considered in the manner prescribed by the charter of the housing cooperative (clause 2 of Article 130 of the Housing Code). Hence the question: does the housing cooperative’s charter have the right to allow options in which the application for withdrawal is not subject to satisfaction? Let's consider what is allowed to be included in the charter of a housing cooperative. According to paragraph 1 of Article 113 of the Housing Code, the charter of the housing cooperative must contain information about:

• name of the cooperative;
• its location;
• the subject and purpose of the activity;
• the procedure for becoming a member of the cooperative;
• the procedure for leaving the cooperative and issuing a share contribution and other payments;
• the amount of entrance and share contributions, the composition and procedure for their payment, etc.

At the same time, according to paragraph 2 of Article 113 of the LC, the charter of the cooperative may contain other provisions that do not contradict the LC and other federal laws. Thus, since the charter of the housing cooperative should not contradict the Housing Code, therefore, it cannot contain provisions excluding the possibility of voluntary withdrawal of a member of the cooperative on the basis of an application submitted by him in a free form, since such a possibility is provided for by the Housing Code. Also, since the charter of the housing cooperative must necessarily contain information about the procedure for leaving the cooperative and issuing a share contribution and other payments in connection with this, this also excludes the possibility of prohibiting exit. Exit from the cooperative itself is possible both before and after payment of the share contribution. Since, according to paragraph 4 of Article 218 of the Civil Code (Civil Code), members of the housing cooperative, who have fully paid their share contribution for an apartment or other premises provided to these persons by the cooperative, acquire ownership of the specified property, it means that in the event of leaving the housing cooperative after paying the share contribution to the share the contribution should not be paid (after all, a member of the housing cooperative has acquired ownership of the residential premises, and the return of the property will lead to unjust enrichment). If a member of a housing cooperative decides to leave it before paying the share contribution, then the procedure for such payment is regulated directly by the charter of the housing cooperative. However, the issue of the size of such payments is highly controversial. The question of the consequences of exit for family members living with a member of the cooperative is debatable. In practice, this issue is resolved as follows: family members of those who have left the housing cooperative retain the right to continue using the apartment for which the share contribution has not been paid, only if they become members of the housing cooperative.

Expulsion of a member of the housing cooperative

According to paragraph 3 of Article 130 of the Housing Code, a member of the housing cooperative may be expelled from it on the basis of a decision of the general meeting of members of the cooperative (conference) in the event of gross failure by this member, without good reason, to fulfill his duties established by the Housing Code or the charter of the housing cooperative. Thus, failure to comply with the requirements of other internal documents (in addition to the charter) formally cannot serve as a reason for the forced termination of membership in the housing cooperative. The exclusion is made out of court, but can be appealed in court. According to Article 132 of the Housing Code, the expelled member of the cooperative is paid the amount of his share within the terms and conditions that are provided for by the charter of the housing cooperative. The period for such payment cannot be more than 2 months from the date the cooperative makes a decision to expel a member. Violation of the legal or statutory (less than legal) deadline for fulfilling the obligation to pay a share entails the legal possibility of bringing the cooperative to civil liability in the form of collecting interest for the use of other people's funds and compensation for losses in the part not covered by interest. According to Article 395 of the Civil Code, the use of someone else’s funds due to their unlawful retention, evasion of their return, other delay in their payment or unjustified receipt or savings at the expense of another person is subject to payment of interest on the amount of these funds. The amount of interest is determined by the discount rate of bank interest at the place of residence of the creditor, and if the creditor is a legal entity, at its location on the day of fulfillment of the monetary obligation or its corresponding part. An expelled member of a housing cooperative, as well as members of his family living with him, lose the right to use residential premises in the cooperative’s house and are obliged to vacate this residential premises within 2 months from the date the cooperative makes a decision on expulsion. In case of refusal to vacate the premises, citizens are subject to eviction in court without the provision of other residential premises (Article 133 of the Housing Code). See further: “Termination of membership in the housing cooperative (termination).”

Algorithm for filing a claim

The basis for filing a claim against the housing cooperative is a violation of your rights. If you think that the management of the housing cooperative does not comply with Russian legislation in its work, then go to court.

Such claims are heard in civil court. In civil law, the statute of limitations for considering cases is three years; during this period from the moment a conflict arises with a housing cooperative, you can try to solve the problem through the court.

1. In the application itself, provide your full contacts, including your residential address.
2. Also write down the full name and address of the organization you are suing.
3. The body of the application describes the circumstances that led to the defendant’s violation of the law, as well as its essence.
4. In the statement of claim, you are required to present your demands to the defendant. This could be either a demand to pay monetary compensation or a demand to solve a long-standing problem in the house.
5. At the end of the application, the date of writing and the signature of the plaintiff are indicated.

Termination of an agreement

Termination of a share contribution agreement by agreement of the parties or unilaterally. To terminate, you will need to write a notice of termination and wait for a response from the housing cooperative. But there are disadvantages to this option:

• Consent to termination by agreement is the good will of the housing cooperative; they can refuse;
• The housing cooperative may offer unfavorable termination conditions (for example, withholding 10-15% of the contribution);
• As a result, the housing cooperative simply will not pay you the money and you will have to go to court.

We do not recommend going to court straight away - asking the court to terminate the contract. On the one hand, this seems logical to you, especially if the construction of the house is delayed or has stopped altogether.

However, having signed an agreement with the housing cooperative, they are obliged to make you a member and nothing more. Formally, the housing cooperative is simply looking for a developer who will build a house. The housing cooperative is obliged to transfer the apartment to you only after the developer has built the house. Accordingly, in the event of a postponement of construction, the housing cooperative reports that the construction period in the contract is planned. Practice shows that on this basis you will be denied a trial.

Even in cases of victory in court, the housing cooperative has a legally defined time to pay the money. Practice shows that housing cooperatives do not pay immediately. You will have to go to court again to force the housing cooperative to pay the money. Therefore, we do not recommend going to court twice, especially since one process will take approximately 5 months.

Arbitrage practice

In the open database of judicial practice, most of the cases concerning housing cooperatives are devoted to unlawful decisions of this organization. In general, according to Article 117 of the RF Housing Code, for such organizations the general meeting of owners is the main body, the decision of which cannot be challenged by the board. However, the minutes of such meetings are falsified.

Such a case occurred in the city of Ryazan, where in 2010 citizen Shabordin announced a violation of the procedure for convening a general meeting of owners. The elected board of the cooperative did not meet in full and without notifying the majority of its members.

Despite the fact that a total of 12 people were elected there, only three of them took part in the meetings. They convened a fictitious meeting of owners, at which a new head of the housing cooperative was approved.

Citizen Shabordin himself was the head of the cooperative up to this point, and demanded that such actions be recognized as illegal.

However, the court ruled that the minutes of the board meetings provided by the plaintiff himself indicated that 7 members were elected to the board, and the decision to hold the meeting was initiated by 6 of its members and a quorum was achieved. Citizen Shabordin’s claims were denied by decision No. 2-994/2010 dated October 21, 2010.

As can be seen from the case, in order to invalidate the decision of the general meeting or the board of the housing cooperative, it is necessary to convince the court that the documents confirming these procedures are not genuine. The plaintiff in this case provided the court with information that refuted his own position and made winning the dispute in court impossible.

In Ulyanovsk in 2011, another case was considered regarding the cancellation of decisions of housing cooperatives. There, the Kompleks cooperative took a roundabout route in organizing general meetings of owners and violated the Housing Code.

The violation consisted of transferring the powers of the OSS to a conference elected by it - an elected body consisting of owners. The management of the cooperative tried to approve the charter, as well as the staffing table and the annual shift, by falsifying the decisions of the conference.

In addition, “Complex” was engaged in the establishment of commercial enterprises, which it had no right to do, its leaders were elected to the conference by delegates, and also made sure that housing cooperative contractors were elected there. Based on an analysis of the organization’s charter and its inconsistency with the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, as well as the inconsistency of the documented actions of the housing cooperative with it, the court decided by decision No. 2-3067/11 of November 9, 2011 to satisfy the claim in full.

The battle with housing cooperatives

The background to this lawsuit is as follows.

On Saturday evening, in my friends’ apartment, water was briskly running down the walls. The suspended ceiling took on the bulk of the leak and sagged in several places. The walls and floor were damaged by water. Before they started cleaning, the friends called the chairman of the housing cooperative and the neighbor upstairs. The chairman, disturbed in the evening, muttered something like: “Oh, leave it,” the neighbor above said that his sink was gushing and he had already called the plumber who services the house.

Then everything went according to the usual pattern. Everyone who was supposed to help the flooded residents did everything they could: the chairman of the housing cooperative made an excuse over the phone, sending the residents to the housing office, the plumber, called from the holiday, blocked the risers and, without going into the affected apartments, left to celebrate, appearing the next time only on Tuesday.

On Monday, the owners of the affected apartments went to call technicians from the housing department to draw up an apartment inspection report. The housing and communal services workers came, stomped around the threshold, looked at the floor, at the ceiling, made a note and left. A few days later, a report was received in which the damage was described and the probable cause of the flood was a clogged common riser. I omit the details of receiving the act; they are a topic for a feuilleton, and not for an article in a legal publication.

The apartment owners turned to the chairman of the housing cooperative with a request to compensate for the damage, the amount of which totaled about 150,000 rubles. The chairman of the cooperative refused to compensate for the damage, citing the fact that the pipes inside the apartment belong to the residents themselves, and if there is a blockage on the pipe inside the apartment, even on a common riser, then the residents must sort it out.

We were unable to convince them to voluntarily compensate for the damage. References to the Housing Code led to nothing. “It’s different in our house because we decided so.” Realizing the pointlessness of further discussions, we began preparing a claim and a statement of claim. Having mailed the claim and a copy of the appraisal report, we rightly expected a response. The cooperative decided that it was not necessary to receive the letter in the mail.

We combined the demands into one lawsuit and sent it to court. When the victims asked about the time frame for consideration of the case, I optimistically reported that the maximum period in which such a case could be considered was six months, or maybe eight months. How wrong I was.

To begin with, the district court judge divided the claims and reserved the claim only for the upper apartment, considering that the price of the claim for the lower apartment did not reach the amount established by Article 23 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation and this claim should be considered by a magistrate. In our opinion, merging the cases would have allowed us to consider everything faster and more objectively, but the judge decided differently.

On the date of filing the claim, we had available evidence:

- apartment inspection report;

— report on the assessment of the cost of restoration repairs

— copies of residents’ requests to the chairman of the cooperative for previous years with a request to clean the riser;

- copies of letters from the State Housing Inspectorate, which indicated that the risers belong to common property and must be maintained by the cooperative, and also reported that the cooperative was fined for improper maintenance of the house;

- copies of certificates of ownership of the apartment.

As a third party who did not make independent demands, we engaged housing services, whose employees inspected the apartment. Since Zhilkomservice carried out maintenance of the common property of our apartment building, this was a completely justified step.

When choosing between the two defendants, I was guided by Article 110 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, according to which a cooperative is created in order to meet the housing needs of its members, as well as manage an apartment building. In accordance with Article 161 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the management of an apartment building must ensure favorable and safe living conditions for citizens and proper maintenance of common property in the apartment building. Since only one management method can be chosen in one apartment building, the management of the building must be carried out in the interests of all owners of the premises.

The affected residents were not members of the cooperative, but they paid for the cooperative’s services for the maintenance and routine repairs of common property and management of common property. I considered that by the actual actions of the parties (invoicing the apartment owners for the management of the apartment building and paying these bills), an agreement was concluded between the parties for the management of the common property of the apartment building. Therefore, the Law “On Protection of Consumer Rights” is applicable to disputed relations. In the statement of claim I referred to paragraph. 3 paragraph 1 of the Resolution of the Plenum of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation dated September 29, 1994 No. 7 “On the practice of courts considering cases on the protection of consumer rights.”

I also indicated in the statement of claim that, within the meaning of Article 7 of the Law of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1992 No. 2300-1 “On the Protection of Consumer Rights,” the consumer has the right to have utility services safe for his life, health, environment, and also did not cause damage to his property.

In accordance with paragraph 1 of Article 14 of the Law of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1992 No. 2300-1 “On the Protection of Consumer Rights”, harm caused to the life, health or property of the consumer due to design, production, prescription or other defects of the product (work, service), is refundable in full.

Paragraph 2 of the same article provides that the right to demand compensation for damage caused as a result of defects in a product (work, service) is recognized for any victim, regardless of whether he was in a contractual relationship with the seller (performer) or not.

Since sewerage is also a public service, and in our situation the housing cooperative is the executor of the utility service for the owner, the housing cooperative is obliged to provide the consumer with services that meet the quality of the terms of the contract, the mandatory requirements of standards, sanitary rules and norms established by regulations, as well as information about public services in accordance with Article 4 of the Law of the Russian Federation of February 7, 1992 No. 2300-1 “On the protection of consumer rights” and paragraph 49 of the Rules for the provision of utility services to citizens, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 23, 2006 No. 307 “On the procedure for the provision of utility services to citizens” .

We demanded little - compensation for damage and a 50% fine for refusing to voluntarily satisfy the consumer’s demands.

The chairman of the cooperative went to the first meetings on her own. In response to the judge’s proposal to end the case amicably, she said that she agreed to make peace, but would not pay the money. She didn’t admit the claim, but she couldn’t really explain why.

As luck would have it, the district court was moving to another building. The judge postponed the preliminary hearing for a month and a half, then for an indefinite period.

While the district court was moving, the justice of the peace continued with almost the same arguments the trial regarding the lower of the flooded apartments. The cooperative now has a representative, but no clear position has emerged. For the most part, the representative nitpicked about third-rate evidence, demanding clarification on completely obvious issues. She did not admit the guilt of the cooperative; she disputed the cause of the flood. She also argued that the terms of the mortgage agreement include an obligation to insure the apartment, and since the apartment is insured, the plaintiff can receive compensation twice, and if the apartment is insured, then the claim should be denied. Taking into account the fact that applying for insurance compensation in this case is the right and not the obligation of the insured person, and also that other risks were insured under the insurance contract, the representative’s statement was of course absurd, but we had to bring the object insurance contract and close this question. On several occasions, the defendants raised the issue that the victims did not call emergency services. We overcame this objection by proving that information boards with a list of necessary telephone numbers were not installed in the house.

A representative of a third party (Zhilkomservis) showed herself only once, complaining about the technical illiteracy of the workers who drew up the apartment inspection reports, as well as the lack of authority of the technicians who signed the report to establish the cause of the accidents. She did not provide evidence, did not state a written position.

To clarify doubts, at our request, an examination was ordered by the magistrate in the case. The expert was asked the following questions: What is the reason for the flooding of the apartment and what is the cost of restoration repairs. The expert examined the damaged apartment, got acquainted with the case and reported that, with a high degree of probability, the cause of the leak was a clogged common riser. At the same time, he assessed the cost of the damage, increasing it by about a third. At the next court hearing, we increased the price of the claim. The judge made a ruling and sent us to the district court.

We have more evidence. So, in particular, on the record, the chairman of the cooperative explained that she knew about the leak, that she did not conduct seasonal inspections of the common property inside the plaintiffs’ apartment and in the apartment above, and that drawing up reports was not within her competence. The situation seemed quite obvious.

Meanwhile, the district court intensified its consideration of the case in the apartment in which the main leak occurred. Leaving aside the procedural battles regarding the powers of housing cooperative representatives, which took several meetings, we can say that the process was difficult precisely from an emotional point of view.

The defendant diligently did everything to delay the process - he called witnesses who themselves could not understand why they were called, he spoke about the immoral behavior in the everyday life of the tenant of the flooded apartment. He did not appear at the hearings when we brought witnesses. The representative of the defendant could not formulate a firm position on why we should refuse the claim. In a document with the title Objections to the Statement of Claim, containing only 18 grammatical errors per page of text, the lawyer reported in particular that the plaintiff (the owner of the apartment) is not a member of the housing cooperative, pays only for utilities (heating and water), and therefore it does not apply to “guarantees for members of housing cooperatives,” in particular to compensation for damage. The representative of the defendant believed that the fault of the cooperative in the accident had not been proven.

At one of the meetings, I outlined our position, talking about what happened, pointing out direct and indirect evidence, describing in detail the probable cause of the leak and briefly recounting the apartment tenant’s version. After the court allowed me to ask questions, the defendant’s representative decided to “get the truth from me.” The dialogue went something like this:

— On which of the risers did the leak occur - cold water supply or hot water supply?

— The blockage occurred on the common riser.

- Cold water, hot water?

— Common riser, fan pipe.

- Still - cold water, hot water?

— Fan pipe.

- Then why, in your words, did the plumber block the hot water and hot water risers?

- So that the flooding of the apartment stops.

— But the plumber didn’t block the common riser?

— there was already a blockage on the common riser.

- So after all - cold water supply or hot water supply?

- I find it difficult to answer your question.

Addressing the court, the representative decided to comment on my words - “You see, the plaintiff’s representative cannot clearly explain which of the risers was clogged, what can we talk about here.”

Our dialogues continued in approximately the same abstract style. I was questioned about the cost of restoration repairs calculated by the appraiser. The defendant's representative did not understand why the cost of restoration repairs stated in the claim differed from the estimated cost indicated by the appraiser in the report. Looking at the next page of the report, which contained a disputed figure, we saw the final cost and removed this objection.

Despite all the obstacles, we smoothly rolled towards our goal. Witnesses were questioned and said that the riser often gurgled, and that the chairman of the cooperative was repeatedly told about the need to clean the riser. Witnesses who helped clean up the flooded apartment were questioned. A plumber was interviewed and reported that the cause of the leak could have been a blockage in the common riser. Together with certified copies of minutes of meetings and an expert’s opinion from another case, we convincingly proved the connection between damage and cause and guilt. So it seemed to me.

For the meeting, which we saw as the final one, a representative of Housing and Communal Services showed herself. She (at the very end of the process) was finally announced her position on the case. A representative of Zhilkomservis stated that the apartment inspection report cannot be considered admissible evidence, since the persons who signed this report were not in the apartment, for which they were punished with reprimands. The order for disciplinary action was included as evidence. Next, one of the “signatories” of the act was interrogated, who said that yes, he waved this act just like that, without looking, in his office.

It was a strong and thoughtful move at the right time. In order to destroy the system of evidence we had built, it was necessary to “knock out” important evidence - the inspection report of the apartment. Without it, it was impossible to prove both cause and consequences in the current state.

The judge adjourned the hearing, calling the remaining signatories of the act as witnesses. We now have time to think about the situation.

I was haunted by the feeling of some kind of ostentatious deceit and unnaturalness of the situation. I worked in the housing and communal services system and I know that the approval of an inspection report for a flooded apartment without going to the address, or the inspection of an apartment by commissions that are not full, or the establishment of the cause of the flood by a technician, are such ordinary events that no one would think of punishing workers for them. Unless a specific employee is facing dismissal. But my feelings cannot be used as evidence in the case. It was necessary to find something more significant. There was some dissonance in the order to reprimand, something stuck, but it was impossible to understand what was wrong. The order was signed on a working day, the reasons are vague, but these are problems of quality, not reliability, a signature confirming familiarization with the order on a separate sheet. Signatures. That's what was so catchy! On the apartment inspection report, the signatures of the head of the housing department and his subordinates are quick, confident, and firm. On the order information sheet, the signatures were made with a trembling hand. Very similar to each other, but so different.

Although it was already 11 pm, my partner found an expert organization on the Internet that worked around the clock, photographed the samples with a smartphone and sent them to the expert for a preliminary assessment. The expert called back half an hour later and said that even taking into account the fact that he was dealing with copies and there were no other images, he was ready to make an unambiguous conclusion that the signatures on the order and the signatures on the act were made by different people. My heart was relieved. We took control of the situation again. The experts prepared an opinion on the non-identity of the signatures on the documents, and on its basis we prepared a statement on the falsification of the evidence.

At the next, final meeting in the case, we interrogated the housing service workers and re-interrogated the tenant of the flooded apartment.

Before the interrogations began, I made a statement about the falsification of the evidence, talking about our research in the field of comparative handwriting. The judge accepted the application and asked to invite a witness.

The housing service workers repented of their professional incompetence, saying that this was the only time they did not contact the address, and only because they did not service the house, and the report should have been drawn up by the cooperative commission. This act was drawn up only because the residents “pressured” the technician and “forced” her to draw up this act, in this form. The testimonies contradicted each other and were excluded from the case materials. Everyone agreed on only one thing - they were all punished together for drawing up this act. When asked about the identity of the signatures, they averted their eyes, but confirmed that it was their signature on the order.

The last witness to be questioned was the resident of the damaged apartment. The judge asked him one single question - who was in the apartment besides you at the time of the accident. “Nobody but me,” the witness replied. At this stage, the examination of evidence has been completed.

After the debate, the judge retired to the deliberation room, and we remained to wait for the decision. I had almost no doubt about the outcome of the case; I was only confused by the judge’s last question asked of the witness.

About twenty minutes later, the judge came out and announced the operative part. “The claim must be denied,” she notified that the decision could be appealed within 30 days from the date of its issuance and went back to the deliberation room, leaving everyone in the room at a loss. Some are happy, some are sad.

After reading the decision, I learned that the judge was not critical of any of the evidence heard at the trial. It was clear to her that there was a bay as such. But for some reason, according to the judge, no one saw the initial moment of the bay. The testimony of the apartment tenant was simply not taken into account.

In the appeal, I outlined in detail all the logical inconsistencies in the decision, supplemented them with the evidence available in the case, and hoped that the city court would impartially consider the case. But alas. The appellate troika was not at all interested in my argument regarding the reasons for the flood. They began to find out more detailed details - whether the housing cooperative was the proper defendant (and ultimately decided that it was not), whether a physical agreement had been concluded between the cooperative and the owners, and in a word they discussed everything that was not directly related to the accident. It took the panel three minutes to uphold the court's decision.

The fate of the claim for the apartment below, for obvious reasons, also remained bleak.

I have tried many times to analyze the reasons for the defeat in this process, where there was obvious damage, guilt, causation were so obvious. Where, at what point did I make a mistake when forming a position or providing evidence? I still don't have a clear answer.

The fight continues.

What is stated in the complaint?

A complaint can be written to the following supervisory authorities:

1. The prosecutor's office.
2. State housing inspection.
3. Rospotrebnadzor.

You can write a complaint to several authorities at the same time. A complaint is written according to one type: the essence of the problem that has arisen is described, and the person responsible for its occurrence and elimination is described. The complaint also indicates the contacts of the housing cooperative and its behavior after you reported the problem.

ATTENTION! . It is advisable to attach your correspondence with the housing cooperative to the complaints to make it easier to establish the fact of violation of the law.

Challenging decisions

Challenging a decision is possible in two cases:

• if the legal form of its adoption is not observed;
• if the essence of the decision contradicts the legislation or the charter of the organization itself.

In both cases, the decision can be challenged by filing a lawsuit in court.

Cases from judicial practice were considered above, where one plaintiff managed to challenge the decision, but the other did not. The decisive factor in the trial are the documents that must accompany the decisions of the housing cooperative, as well as the testimony of residents and board members.