Judicial practice regarding flooding of an apartment by upstairs neighbors. Bay apartments

Judicial practice regarding flooding of an apartment by upstairs neighbors. Bay apartments
Judicial practice regarding flooding of an apartment by upstairs neighbors. Bay apartments
05.05.2019

SOLUTION
In the name Russian Federation
February 22, 2011 Moscow
Meshchansky District Court of Moscow
composed of the presiding judge Pritula Yu.V.,

with the secretary Akhmyarova L.I., having considered in open court civil case No. 2-2452/2012 on the claim of FULL NAME1 to FULL NAME3 for compensation for damage caused by the flooding of the apartment,

INSTALLED:

Plaintiffs Full Name 1. and Full Name 2 filed a claim against Full Name 4 for compensation for damage caused by the flooding of the apartment. In support of the claim, they indicate that on February 17, 2010, a flood occurred in the plaintiffs’ apartments in two bathrooms and kitchens located in Moscow, 6th Krasnoprudny lane, no. Z., apartments 27 and 35. Based on LLC reports “National Consulting Bureau “Liga-Expert” the amount of damage for Full Name 2 amounted to 96,624 rubles, and for Full Name 1 - 159,412 rubles. Also, expenses were incurred to pay for the services of an appraiser, the services of a representative, for the execution of a power of attorney, payment of the state duty, telegram and BTI documents for Full Name 2 in the amount of 41,759 rubles, and for Full Name 1 - 45,395.75 rubles. By ruling of the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow dated May 5, 2011. defendant Full Name 1 was replaced by the proper defendant Full Name 4, who is the owner of apartment No. 43, located at the address: Moscow, 6th Krasnoprudny lane, d.Z.

By the ruling of the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow dated December 23, 2011, they were allocated to separate production claims of the plaintiff Full Name 2 to Full Name 4 for compensation for losses caused as a result of the flooding of the apartment.

The plaintiff’s representative appeared at the court hearing, supported the claims in full and asked to satisfy them based on the arguments set out in the claim.

The defendant did not appear at the court hearing; she did not present any evidence to confirm the justification for her failure to appear at the court session.

Considering that the exercise by participants in civil transactions of their rights should not violate the rights and legally protected interests of other persons, the court considers it possible to resolve the dispute based on the evidence available in the case.

Having studied the case materials, listened to the plaintiff's representative, and assessed in totality all the evidence presented, the court finds the claim subject to satisfaction.

In accordance with Part 1 and Part 4 of Article 3 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the owner of a residential premises exercises the rights of ownership, use and disposal of the residential premises belonging to him by right of ownership in accordance with its purpose and the limits of its use, which are established by this Code.

The owner of the residential premises is obliged to maintain this room V in good condition, without allowing mismanagement of it, respect the rights and legitimate interests of neighbors, the rules for the use of residential premises, as well as the rules for maintaining the common property of the owners of premises in an apartment building.

According to Art. 1064 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, harm caused to the person or property of a citizen, as well as harm caused to property legal entity, is subject to compensation in full by the person who caused the harm.

As follows from the case materials and established during judicial trial in the case, the owner of apartment No. 27, located at the address: Moscow, 6th Krasnoselsky per., no.Z in Moscow is full name 2, who is registered and lives at the place of residence.

During the trial, it was also confirmed that the owner of apartment No. 43, located in building 3 on 6th Krasnoselsky lane, no. Z, is full name 4

According to the act on the consequences of flooded residential premises No. 27, located at the address: Moscow, 6th Krasnoselsky lane, no.Z dated February 17, 2010, drawn up by the commission of the service organization ZAO REU "Krasnoe Selo" in the presence of Full Name 2, the residential premises were inspected , apartment 27 at the above address according to the application for ODS-7 dated 02/12/2010. No. 8 at 12.22 p.m. The reason for the flooded apartment was flooding from the apartment No. 43 above, due to a burst tank from the tee to flexible hose for hot water supply, water to apartment No. 43 is shut off. Degree of damage, room: ceiling finishing water-based paint- yellow leaky spots with an area of ​​10 sq.m.; room: walls decorated with wallpaper - yellow leaky spots and swelling, damage area 6 sq.m.; floor finishing parquet - swelling and lag from the floor, damage area 6 sq.m.; kitchen: ceiling finished with water-based paint - yellow leaking spots, damage area 3 sq.m.; bath: ceiling, water-based paint - yellow leaky spots, damage area 3 sq.m.

On October 13, 2010, a telegram was sent to the defendant inviting him to assess the above damage.

According to the report of the National Consulting Bureau "Liga-Expert" LLC on determining the market value of the work and materials necessary to eliminate the damage caused to the decoration of the plaintiff's apartment located in Moscow, 6th Krasnoselsky per., no.Z, apt. 27 the damage amounted to 96,624 rubles.

According to the conclusion of the forensic expert of NTC Soyuzexpert LLC dated December 23, 2011, the cost of repair and restoration work in the plaintiff’s apartment to eliminate the consequences of the flood, taking into account wear and tear, is 92,850.58 rubles.

By virtue of Art. 210 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, the owner bears the burden of maintaining the property belonging to him, unless otherwise provided by law or contract.

The court places responsibility for the damage caused to the plaintiff’s property on the defendant, Full Name 4, who, being the owner of apartment No. 43, located in Moscow, 6th Krasnoselsky lane, bld.Z, did not ensure the technically serviceable condition of the sanitary equipment of her apartment , which was the reason for the flood.

In accordance with Art. Art. 12, 56, 57 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, civil proceedings are carried out on the basis of adversarial and equal rights of the parties, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections.

Since the defendant did not present to the court indisputable evidence refuting the plaintiff’s claims, the fact that the damage was caused not through her fault, the amount of damage caused was not disputed, the court considers it correct to recover from Full Name 4 in favor of Full Name 2 the amount of damage in the amount of 92,850.58 rubles. established by a forensic expert opinion, since this expert has been warned about criminal liability, has the appropriate qualifications and is not an interested party in the outcome of the case, as well as 7,500 rubles. - compensation for appraiser services, RUB 30,000. in accordance with Art. 100 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the costs of paying for the services of a representative, which the court considers reasonable, taking into account the category of the dispute, the participation of the representative in court hearings and the services provided by him to the plaintiff, 700 rubles. towards the registration of a power of attorney, 3098.72 rubles. the state fee paid when filing a claim in court in accordance with Article 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, 321.19 rubles. expenses for sending a telegram to the defendant and 140 rubles. expenses for paying for documents with the BTI, which the court considers to be legal expenses, in accordance with Articles 88 and 94 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, incurred by the plaintiff in this civil case.

From the statement general director LLC "Yuridex" follows that the latter, in accordance with Article 98 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, asks to pay the costs of conducting forensics, appointed by the court in the amount of 18,000 rubles. These expenses are subject to reimbursement from Full Name 4 in favor of Yuridex LLC.

Based on the above, in accordance with Articles 194-199 of the Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, the court

DECIDED:

The claims of Full Name 2 to Full Name 4 for compensation for damage caused by the flooding of the apartment are partially satisfied.

To recover from Full Name 4 in favor of Full Name 2 RUB 92,850.58. for damages, RUB 7,500. for assessment services, RUB 30,000. expenses for paying for the services of a representative, 700 rubles. towards the registration of a power of attorney, 321.19 rubles. expenses for sending a telegram and 140 rubles. expenses for paying for documents with BTI, as well as 3098.72 rubles. the state fee paid when filing a claim in court, and a total of 134,610.49.

To recover from Full Name 4 in favor of the limited liability company "Yuridex" the costs of conducting the examination in the amount of 18,000 rubles. The decision can be appealed to the Moscow City Court through the Meshchansky District Court of Moscow within a month from the date of its production in final form.

_________________________________

Summary of the case: the company’s specialist defended the interests of the client (plaintiff) and recovered from the defendant the full cost of the damage caused by the flooding of the apartment. In addition, the lawyer of the Madrok firm recovered legal costs in full.

Tags: court decisions, judicial practice

The practice of considering civil law disputes shows that court decisions are often made by analogy with other court decisions, adopted in more early dates for a similar situation. Disputes about flooding (flooding) of premises are no exception to of this rule. In view of this, it is worth considering some judicial acts that resolved disputes regarding the flooding (flooding) of premises. This judicial practice, to a certain extent, may subsequently influence the outcome of the case when considering a new dispute about the flooding (flooding) of the premises between other parties.

A selection of judicial practice by bay for 2009

1) The Federal Arbitration Court of the Moscow District, in its decision dated March 30, 2009 N KG-A40/2231-09-P in case N A40-24487/07-102-271, established that the cause of the flooding was the failure of the pressure regulator hot water the right riser of the apartment above. Control apartment building was carried out by a homeowners association (HOA). In accordance with paragraph 4 of Article 138 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the homeowners’ association is obliged to ensure the proper sanitary and technical condition of the common property in an apartment building. This pressure regulator was recognized by the court as the common property of the owners apartment building. According to Article 13 of 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 N 491, inspections of common property, depending on the method of managing the apartment building, are carried out responsible persons, which are officials governing bodies of the homeowners association. Thus, the HOA was recognized as responsible for the maintenance of common property (in particular the pressure regulator). Therefore, the HOA must produce damage caused by flooding (flooding) of the premises.

2) The Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation, in its ruling dated December 3, 2009 N VAS-16246/09, indicated that liability due to damage caused by flooding of premises is not due to the right of ownership. Obtaining a certificate of ownership of the premises from which the flooding occurred after causing damage by such flooding does not relieve the culprit from the responsibility to compensate for the damage caused. In the case under consideration, the culprit was found to be the administration, which owned the apartment from which the flooding occurred. The court indicated that since the administration owned this apartment, it was accordingly obliged to maintain the property in good and safe condition. Contrary to this, the cause of the flooding was a poor-quality connection between the heating radiator and the riser in the apartment. In view of this, the court found the administration guilty and ordered it to compensate for the damage caused by the flooding.

3) An organization that has the right of operational management of a specific premises is obliged, in accordance with Article 210 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and Article 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, to maintain the property belonging to it (that is, the premises). Accordingly, if the flooding occurred as a result of improper maintenance of property owned by the organization, then such organization is obliged to compensate for the damage caused by the flooding. Such conclusions are set out in the resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court West Siberian District dated November 2, 2009 in case No. A75-3607/2008. In this case, the cause of flooding was the failure to ensure the tightness of parts of the heating system pipelines as a result of dismantling heating device in the apartment.

4) The use of non-certified products in the heating system may be grounds for being found guilty of flooding the premises. This conclusion follows from the resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the East Siberian District dated November 16, 2009 N A19-2809/09. During the consideration of this case, it turned out that the management company, on the basis of an agreement with an individual entrepreneur, transferred the following responsibilities to the latter: to carry out work on maintenance, sanitary maintenance and routine repairs apartment buildings, their engineering infrastructure, provide services to the population in accordance with norms and quality standards. The court found that the individual entrepreneur replaced the heating fill valve, while installing an uncertified ball valve. The installation of such a valve caused the apartment to flood. Due to the fact that the valve did not have certification, the court decided to recognize individual entrepreneur guilty of flooding the apartment, despite the fact that the latter repaired the heating system.

Bay of the apartment. Judicial practice for 2010

1) The resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District dated February 27, 2010 in case No. A70-1425/2009 states that if flooding occurred as a result of incorrect installation of a flood sensor, which is designed to detect the presence of water and issue an alarm signal, then the developer is responsible for the damage caused for this reason, since this sensor was installed by him.

2) The resolution of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District dated March 19, 2010 in case No. A79-6882/2009 established that the management of an apartment building was carried out by a homeowners' association (HOA). During the consideration of the case, it turned out that the flooding of the apartment occurred as a result of a roof leak due to construction deficiencies, deviations from design solutions and violations of SNiPs during construction. Despite this, the cassation court agreed with the decisions of the lower courts, indicating that in the case under consideration the HOA is obliged to compensate the damage to the injured party. At the same time, the court justified this conclusion by the fact that the HOA did not take timely measures to carry out roof repairs. Thus, this HOA is guilty of causing damage to the party affected by the flooding. also noted that in in this case The HOA cannot recover the losses it incurred to compensate the injured party from construction company due to the fact that the HOA acted carelessly and did not carry out the appropriate repairs in a timely manner.

3) Correct and timely drawing up of the Flooding Act, as well as indicating the list of damaged property, is of great importance for the successful resolution of the case. This conclusion follows from the decision of the Federal Arbitration Court of the Volga District dated July 13, 2010 in case No. A65-31662/2009. The cause of the flooding was the improper fulfillment by the company's employees of their official duties who were cleaning the battery in the apartment located above the machine gun room, as a result of which the heating radiator in this apartment ruptured. Despite this, the cassation court refused to recover damages on the grounds that the Report on the failure of the machine gun room premises was drawn up by the plaintiff unilaterally in the absence of representatives of the defendant and the owner of the apartment from which the flooding occurred. In addition, this Report did not contain any indication of the damage caused to the equipment, and the date of its preparation was not indicated. In view of this, the court found this evidence to be inadequate and, accordingly, did not take it into account when making a decision. Therefore, the claims for compensation for damage caused by flooding were rejected.

4) The Federal Arbitration Court of the West Siberian District, in its ruling dated June 10, 2010 in case No. A03-9591/2009, established that the cause of flooding was the penetration of sewerage Wastewater from the basement of one residential building, where utility sewer networks are located, to the basement of another residential building. As a result of this flooding, damage was caused to property, in particular goods, which were furniture and retail store equipment. The court ordered an examination of this product, which found that this product could not be sold due to the fact that it was destroyed supporting elements, the presence of corrosion on nails, fungal lesions on birch cuttings in the form of dark gray spots, polymerization of superpolymer glue, loss of presentation of the packaging of an imported circular saw were revealed. Thus, this product has lost its quality indicators and cannot fully ensure safety during use. The court found that the house was managed by the housing department (served this house). Based on this, the court decided that the housing department is the person responsible for the damage caused by flooding basement, in which the corresponding product was located. In view of this, the housing department is obliged to compensate the damage to the party affected by such flooding in full.

All of the above judicial practice regarding the flooding of apartments and premises indicates that the final outcome of the case depends on various circumstances, namely the conclusion of an agreement for the maintenance of an apartment building, the obligation to carry out current repairs, the reasons why the flooding occurred, the results of the examination, and so on.

(review of judicial practice)

Sorted by publication date

  1. Appeal ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated 04/07/2015 N 33-6045/2015
    Circumstances: Definition appeal to the court decision in the case of compensation for damage caused by the flooding of the apartment, returned due to failure to comply with the requirements set out in the ruling on leaving the complaint without progress.. Decision: The ruling was canceled, the case was returned to the court of first instance to fulfill the requirements provided for in Art. 325 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.
    Court decisions, arbitration | 06/25/2015 22:31:04
  2. Appeal ruling of the Moscow Regional Court in case No. 33-13461/2014
    The claims for compensation for damage caused by the flooding of the apartment were legitimately satisfied, since the inspection report established that the cause of the flooding of the plaintiff’s apartment was the actions of the defendant.
    Court decisions, arbitration | 06/13/2015 10:30:31
  3. Appeal ruling of the Moscow Regional Court dated July 28, 2014 in case No. 33-12983/14
    The claims for compensation for damage caused by the flooding of the apartment were satisfied, since the said damage was caused to the plaintiff through the fault of the defendant.
    Court decisions, arbitration | 06/06/2015 15:53:45
  4. Appeal ruling of the St. Petersburg City Court dated March 4, 2015 No. 33-2632/2015 in case No. 2-518/2014
    On the joint collection of the debt under the loan agreement, interest for using the loan, as well as on the foreclosure of the pledged property.. Circumstances: The loan obligations are secured by the mortgage of the apartment and a guarantee.. Decision: The requirements are satisfied, since the fact of improper fulfillment of obligations under the loan agreement has been established, the initial sale price of the apartment was determined based on the conclusion of a forensic examination.
    Court decisions, arbitration | 06/03/2015 10:52:21
  5. Appeal ruling of the Krasnoyarsk Regional Court dated June 23, 2014 in case No. 33-5817/2014
    The claims for compensation for damage caused by the flooding of the apartment, for the recovery of compensation for moral damage, were rightfully partially satisfied, since the defendant, as the tenant of the residential premises, is obliged to ensure proper maintenance of the property belonging to him, control over it technical condition and quality in order to prevent its damage, but did not fulfill the duties assigned to it, as a result of which the plaintiff suffered damage, the amount of which was determined by the expert.
    Court decisions, arbitration | 05/31/2015 07:59:35
  6. Determination of the Leningrad Regional Court dated March 4, 2015 N 33-1104/2015
    On recovery of damage caused by flooding of residential premises, compensation for moral damages, costs of assessing damage, legal expenses.. Circumstances: According to the plaintiff, the flooding occurred in connection with the unauthorized installation by the defendants of a gutter for drainage of water above the plaintiff’s residential premises.. Decision: Requirements satisfied in terms of recovery of damages, assessment costs, legal costs, since the defendants’ guilt in the flooding was confirmed, while the damages were recovered on the basis of an assessment report taking into account the degree of deterioration of building materials.
    Court decisions, arbitration | 05/30/2015 10:45:35
  7. Resolution of the Fourth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated 04/08/2015 No. 04AP-5852/2013 in case No. A19-9525/2013
    On the cancellation of the ruling on the cancellation of interim measures.
    Court decisions, arbitration | 05/29/2015 19:57:57
  8. Resolution of the Fifteenth Arbitration Court of Appeal dated March 10, 2015 No. 15AP-1437/2015 in case No. A53-21663/2014
    On the recovery of damages, fines, the obligation to perform work, hand over certificates of completed work, commission objects overhaul.
    Court decisions, arbitration | 05/21/2015 22:47:08
  9. Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Moscow District dated February 26, 2015 N F05-184/2015 in case N A40-151326/13
    On the collection of insurance compensation.. Circumstances: The plaintiff refers to the fact that, on the basis of an insurance contract, he paid insurance compensation to the owner of the flooded apartment in an amount equivalent to that presented for collection.. Decision: The claim was rejected, since there was no evidence indicating that the cause of harm is the defendant and it was as a result of his actions that the apartment was flooded, the plaintiff is not represented.
    Court decisions, arbitration | 05/18/2015 04:19:43

2017 The court came to the defense of our client and collected money from the Criminal Code - 42,568 rubles for apartment repairs, a fine of 21,284 rubles, costs for an appraiser of 3,000 rubles and costs for a lawyer of 5,000 rubles.

2016 The court came to the defense of our client and collected money from the management company for apartment repairs, as well as a fine in the amount of 44,600 rubles, compensation for moral damage of 2,000, assessment costs and a lawyer.

2015 DEZ Kalininsky district did not admit guilt, citing shortcomings utility networks, requiring major repairs, of which the residents were notified. Cause of flooding: the thread on the riser outlet in our client’s apartment had rotted.
The court found these arguments unfounded and ordered 73,000 rubles for repairs, a 37,000 ruble fine, and legal costs.

2013 In this legal dispute, not counting compensation for legal costs, in favor of our client the following was recovered: 43,000 rubles as material damage, as well as a fine of 22,000 rubles. The court of first instance refused to collect the penalty, but we filed an appeal. As a result, the court decided to impose a penalty in the amount of 41,000 rubles.

2013 C management company in favor of our client in the court of first instance the following was recovered: RUB 162,761. for apartment renovation, 162,761 rubles. on account of the penalty, 168,261 rubles. fine. Total, not counting compensation for legal costs, with the cost of repairs being 162,761 rubles. RUB 493,783 collected.

2013 In this legal dispute, the specialists of our company, in addition to 92,086 rubles for apartment repairs, additionally collected the same amount as a penalty. The court of first instance refused to collect the penalty, but we filed an appeal. As a result, the decision of the court of first instance was changed and an additional penalty in the amount of 92,086 rubles was collected.

2. Procedure for filing claims

Claim procedure. It is not mandatory, however, if you want to receive a penalty, we recommend that before filing a claim, send a claim to the person responsible for the flooding, demanding compensation for damages, indicating the amount and attaching documents justifying your claims (assessment report, calculation, estimate, checks for repairs).

Filing a claim in court. The law does not provide a specific deadline for filing statement of claim (maximum term 3 years). As practice shows, to collect a penalty, it is enough to wait a reasonable period (Article 314 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation) 3-5 working days from the date the defendant receives the claim.

Which court should I go to?. If the culprit of the flood is a neighbor from above, then it is necessary to file at the place of residence of the culprit. Please note that the culprit may have two, three or more apartments. And it may not be registered in the apartment from which the flooding occurred. In this case, the claim is filed at the place of residence (registration) of the culprit.

If the culprit of the flood is the housing office or management company, then the provisions of the law “On the Protection of Consumer Rights” apply, and you can file a claim at your place of residence or the location of the housing office or management company.

List of documents:

  • Copies of the statement of claim according to the number of defendants and third parties;
  • Certificate of ownership of the apartment (copy);
  • Flooding report (drawn up by the housing office or management company) (copy);
  • Documents confirming the amount of damage - assessment report, estimate, etc. (original)
  • If the culprit is a neighbor from above, a receipt for payment of the state duty (original).
  • Extract from Rosreestr (Registration Chamber) for your apartment. Costs 210-230 rubles.

3. Case review practice

We will try to briefly tell the essence. When considering cases of this category, the main questions are two: who is to blame and how much it costs to repair the apartment (amount of loss).



Who is guilty. The culprit of the flood is usually indicated in the Flood Report, which is drawn up by the Housing Office commission, the Criminal Code. However, this act is not the ultimate truth. This act is contested mainly by ordering a forensic examination.

If a pipe break occurred up to and including the first locking device from the common riser (first junction, tap), then the housing office or management company is responsible, since this is common property. Everything after the first locking device belongs to the property of the apartment owner and he is responsible (in such a situation, the courts practically make a decision on recovery from the apartment owner in one sitting, without really looking into it).

All disputes regarding the search for the culprit of the flood usually concern the first locking device.

In practice, there have been cases when a tenant hired a repair team to replace plumbing or install washing machine. As a result of the work, the first locking device was replaced by these specialists, and subsequently the apartment was flooded due to poor-quality installation or the material from which the device was made.

The courts, in such a situation, involve these specialists as third parties, but collect from the owner of the apartment. The owner who has compensated for the damage subsequently has the right to present the amount of damage to these organizations. If you find yourself in such a situation and are the culprit of the flooding, then in the first court (in which the victims recover from you), it is advisable to establish the following facts:

  • you hired specialists,
  • they bought materials and they carried out work;
  • the flooding occurred as a result of poor-quality installation carried out by these specialists or poor-quality materials.

If these facts are reflected in the court decision, this will make it easier to recover damages from the organization that carried out the repair or installation of the equipment.

How much does the repair cost?

The amount of damage due to flooding is proven in each case. The evidence is:

  • report of an independent appraisal organization;
  • estimate;
  • actual repair costs.


The most acceptable is an independent assessment report, because the estimate is drawn up taking into account wholesale prices, not market prices, actual expenses do not contain information about wear and tear, which gives the defendant the right to challenge these amounts.

Challenging the amount of damages is carried out through the appointment of a forensic examination. The examination is carried out by appraisal organizations. The specific organization and list of questions to be asked of the expert are indicated by the party applying for the examination. When satisfying the petition, the court itself determines the organization and issues, taking into account the opinions of the parties.

In most cases, if the defendant does not appear in court or does not dispute the amount of damage, the court recovers it based on the documents presented by the plaintiff. If an expert examination is carried out, the court shall recover according to the examination. The results of the examination are usually disputed by conducting an additional or re-examination.

4. Compensation for moral damage. Enforcement proceedings. The practice of collecting money from a debtor

Compensation for moral damage. In our practice, courts on average recover 2000-5000 rubles. To recover compensation for moral damage, the plaintiff must prove moral suffering. Suffering is proven by filing a statement with the court, which describes all the emotional inconveniences that were experienced by the owner of the affected apartment and his family members. Since compensation is an evaluative category, i.e. the specific amount is determined at the discretion of the court; the more “complaint” your application is, the more the court will charge.
Important: moral damages are recovered from the housing office and management company. If the culprit of the flood is the neighbor above, then the courts in most cases refuse to collect compensation for moral damage.

Enforcement proceedings. The practice of collecting money from a debtor.

If the debtor is the Housing Office, the Criminal Code. Two options:

  • First option. hand over the writ of execution to the bailiffs. Bailiffs work for 1-2 months. You periodically visit the bailiffs. Make sure that the bailiff requests information about current accounts from the tax office, information about the debtor’s real estate from Rosreestr, and information about cars from the State Traffic Safety Inspectorate. Afterwards, the debtor’s property is seized and sold and you receive the money. If the accounts are empty, then implementation may take 3-6 months.
  • Second option. You submit the writ of execution to the bank where the debtor has a current account. The sheet is accompanied by an application (taken from the bank), details of your account, a copy of your passport (1 page and registration).

If you don’t know which bank the debtor has an account with, you can look at the payment receipts utilities. If the information is not there, submit a copy. writ of execution to the regional tax office with a statement in which you indicate that the debtor has a debt and ask to provide information about the accounts opened in his name. Within five working days you will receive a response with a list of banks and submit a form to receive money.

If the debtor. The owner of the apartment is an individual

In fact, there is only one option - to go to the bailiffs. Make sure that the bailiff makes requests to all banks in your region (or at least the most popular ones). In addition to Rosreestr and MREO, request to Pension Fund, perhaps it will provide information about the debtor’s place of work. Then the bailiff will issue a decree on monthly deduction from his wages Money to pay off the debt owed to you.

In addition, write a statement to the bailiffs about a ban on travel outside the Russian Federation. In extreme cases, go to court to recognize this debt as the common debt of the spouses. And work with the second spouse in the same order as with the first.

Below you can find court decisions. Attached here are decisions on disputes about fault, the cost of repairs, the collection of penalties and fines under the law on the protection of consumer rights.