Tore off the crane on the riser what documents. Tore off the first tap from the riser, flooded the neighbors. Who is responsible for the consequences? The management company of an apartment building - approves in its decision the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. Municipal apartment - solution

Useful in all respects, an explanation for residents of multi-storey buildings was made by the Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The high court spoke about which pipes in the house the management company is responsible for.

And the reason for such interpretations was a utility accident in one of the apartments. The injured owner, who had a flood due to a broken tap on the cold water riser, demanded compensation from the management company for its own costs to eliminate the consequences of the leak. The amount came out rather big, as the citizen added moral damage to the repair costs, a fine for the fact that public utilities voluntarily did not reimburse the amount, as well as the costs of the examination.

Already in court, the plaintiff said that she was the owner of the apartment. And as a result of an accident at the first shut-off and control valve of the cold water riser, her apartment was flooded. According to the victim, the management company is to blame for the accident, which "improperly performed the duties of maintaining the common property of an apartment building." Voluntarily communal workers did not admit guilt. I had to go to court.

The city court agreed with the plaintiff's demand and satisfied her claim. But the next instance - the judicial board for civil cases of the regional court - did not agree with their colleagues. She canceled the decision and adopted a new one - to refuse the citizen's claim. The plaintiff had to go to the Supreme Court, where the decision of the regional court was canceled.

Here are the arguments of the Supreme Court of the Russian Federation. The court stated that in order to correctly resolve this dispute, it is necessary to establish "the presence of guilt of the parties in the accident." And in the materials of the Court of Appeal there were copies of the decision of another court that entered into force on the claim of another victim in this flood. A certain man presented financial claims to a neighbor who had this tap on a cold water riser, as well as to the management company. The court decided the dispute in favor of the injured neighbor, but awarded the money to him only to the management company, and did not take anything from the neighbor whose tap broke. In this decision it is said that communal services are guilty of the accident that happened in the apartment of a neighbor. These conclusions of the court, which no one disputed, the appeal did not take into account. The law (CPC, Article 61) states that the circumstances established by a court decision that has entered into force are mandatory. And they are not proven again and are not disputed.

The Housing Code lists which equipment the management company is responsible for. And then there are the Rules for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building. They were approved by the government (Decree No. 491 of August 13, 2006). The rules state that the common property, among other things, includes "common house engineering systems for hot and cold water supply, consisting of risers, branches from risers to the first disconnecting device." And managing apartment buildings companies are responsible to the owners for violation of obligations and are responsible for the proper maintenance of common property.

There is another law that is useful for citizens who find themselves in a similar situation - "Technical Regulations on the Safety of Buildings and Structures" (No. 384 of December 30, 2009). The Supreme Court said that from this law, as well as existing standards and codes of practice, it follows that the first disconnecting devices and shut-off and control valves on the outlets of the intra-apartment wiring are elements of intra-house engineering networks. These first shut-off devices and shut-off and control valves meet the basic hallmark of a common property as being designed to service some or all of the rooms in the house.

If the equipment is located in an apartment, this does not mean that it is used only to service this apartment.

And the fact that this equipment is located in an apartment does not mean that it is used exclusively for servicing this apartment, and cannot be attributed to common property in an apartment building, since the Housing Code provides for its location both inside and outside the premises.

The Judicial Collegium for Civil Cases of the Armed Forces emphasized: the circumstances indicating that the emergency plumbing equipment belongs to the property of the plaintiff or to the common property of the residents of the house are significant for resolving the dispute and are subject to proof. When the appeal reviewed the decision on this dispute, she stated that the plaintiff, along with the replacement of the internal engineering networks in the apartment, which are her property, also replaced the shut-off valve, due to which there was an accident. But the lady categorically disagreed with this statement, and the court of second instance did not check this and "did not reliably establish it."

Legal advice:

1. Should the first faucet from the riser, inside the apartment, be replaced free of charge?

1.1. In accordance with the Rules for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of August 13, 2006 No. 491 risers, specified disconnecting devices[/quote]. The current repair of the specified device is part of the maintenance of the common property and is carried out depending on the way the apartment building is managed.