Who repairs “nobody’s” water supply? Responsibilities for replacing risers in a privatized apartment Who should repair the water supply in the private sector

Understanding the boundaries of responsibility between the RSO, the management company and owners of residential premises in apartment buildings important to avoid controversial situations. In judicial practice, there are often cases of disputes between the RSO and the management company regarding operational responsibility for certain sections of utility networks, regarding which no agreement has been reached.

In half of administrative cases of this kind, the court takes the side of the RSO, in this case the Criminal Code incurs large losses. To avoid this and be insured against unwanted conflicts, you need to draw up an act of delimitation of responsibility.

Not all CGs are clearly defined in the legislation boundaries of operational responsibility and balance sheet inextricably linked with it. These concepts are most clearly presented in clause 1 of the Rules for cold water supply and sanitation (Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 644).

According to this document balance sheet boundary the property division boundary is recognized. It, in turn, determines the boundary of operational responsibility, that is, it indicates who will bear the burden of maintaining the facility: the management organization, the RSO or the owners. The same can be said about other communal resources.

The boundary of the operational responsibility of the RSO, if we are talking about power supply, extends to the point of connection of the common house metering device with the electrical network included in the apartment building. Responsibility of the management company - in-house power supply system and electrical devices, disconnecting devices for the apartment. The responsibility of residents is internal devices and devices after disconnecting devices in floor panels, meters in apartments.

Responsibility for heat supply is distributed as follows: RSO is responsible up to the point of connection communal metering device with the heating network included in the apartment building. The management company is responsible for the heating system risers, disconnecting devices on branches from the risers and for shut-off and control valves on the intra-apartment wiring. The responsibility of the residents again begins inside their home, they are responsible for the heating devices and for the branches from the heating system risers after the shut-off and control valves.

The responsibility of the RSO, when it comes to water supply and sanitation, extends to the point of connection of the common house meter with the water supply network included in the apartment building. Management companies are required to monitor the condition of hot and cold water supply risers, shut-off devices on branches from risers and shut-off and control valves on intra-apartment wiring. Owners of premises in apartment buildings are responsible for branches from the risers of the hot and cold water supply system after the shut-off and control valves, for the shut-off and control valves themselves and for plumbing equipment in apartments.

In the resource supply agreement, the balance sheet boundary separates utility networks, which are common property of the building (Article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation), from other utility networks. Therefore, let us recall what applies to common property(Resolution of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 491, Article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation):

• premises in apartment buildings that are not parts of apartments and are intended to serve more than one residential/non-residential premises in the house;
• in-house engineering systems cold and hot water supply, gas supply, heating and electricity supply.

The boundaries of operational responsibility can be external and internal. In the first case, they share the spheres of competence of the RSO and the management company (the external border of the wall of the apartment building), in the second - the management company and the owners (the internal border of the wall of the apartment building).

External limits of operational responsibility

If we are talking about the external boundary of utility networks that are part of the common property of an apartment building, then the boundary of operational responsibility between the RSO and the management company will be considered the external boundary of the wall of the house, and if there is a common house meter for a certain utility resource, the place where this common house meter connects with the corresponding utility network, included in the MKD.

Separately, it is worth mentioning the external border of the gas supply networks included in composition of common property MKD. In this case, the boundary of operational responsibility between the RSO and the management company is the point of connection of the first shut-off device with the external gas distribution network.

Often the line of operational responsibility does not run along the wall of the house. Then, a fragment of a utility network located outside the outer wall, which, it would seem, formally belongs to the area of ​​responsibility of the RSO, falls into the zone of the management company managing the apartment building. Its content threatens large losses, so you need to carefully approach the description of the boundaries of operational responsibility in the act of delineation of responsibility.

The case when the boundary of operational responsibility passes along the external valve can be considered controversial. This happens if the external section of the utility network is included in composition of common property. Then the RSO carries out maintenance of this utility network at a tariff approved by the owners of the premises in the apartment building. The duty of the management company is to offer such a tariff to the owners. Repairs, including emergency ones, are carried out at the expense of RSO.

What about ownerless utility networks? That is, with such networks that are not on the balance sheet of either the management company or the RSO and are not part of the common property. Typically, such networks are transferred to municipal ownership. In turn, the local government body, within thirty days from the moment the ownerless utility network is identified, is obliged to determine the distribution network whose utility networks are connected to the ownerless one (Clause 6 of Article 15 No. 190-FZ).

The Federal Tariff Service will have to include the costs of maintaining such a network in the RNO tariffs for further regulation. Until this is done, energy losses in this disputed section of the network, as well as repair work, are carried out at the expense of the management company in proportion to actual consumption.

Internal operational boundaries

The boundary of operational responsibility between the management company and the owners when it comes to the internal boundary of the utility networks included in composition of common property MKD are:

• for heating - valves on the heating pipeline connections to the apartment radiator. If there are none, then the boundary passes along the threaded connection in the radiator plug.
• for cold and hot water supply - a valve at the pipeline outlet from the riser. If it is not available, the boundary is the weld at the pipeline outlet from the riser.
• for drainage - a socket of a shaped product (tee, cross, bend) on the riser of the drainage pipeline.
• for power supply - the place where the outgoing wire of the apartment electrical wiring is connected to the plug of an individual electricity meter, circuit breaker, RCD.

The boundary of operational responsibility between UK and the owners (we are talking about the internal border of building structures that are part of the common property of an apartment building) are the inner surface of the walls of the apartment, window fillings and the entrance door to the apartment.

The enclosing load-bearing structures, the land plot (including children's and playgrounds, collective parking lots) on which the house is located, staircases, corridors, roofs and attics, as well as elevators are located in area of ​​operational responsibility UK.

Arbitrage practice

Perhaps the main argument in favor of the importance of discussing in detail the boundaries of operational responsibility in a resource supply agreement will come from examples from judicial practice.

Managing organization filed a lawsuit to declare the terms of energy supply contracts invalid and to order the obligation to transfer heating networks to the area of ​​​​responsibility of the RSO. The court refused to satisfy the claims, since the Criminal Code agreed on the boundaries of the balance sheet, accepting the disputed section of the networks for its maintenance (Resolution of May 23, 2012 in case No. A63-9362/2011).

The court may make a different decision if the boundaries of the balance sheet in the act are indicated differently than along the external wall apartment building or at the installation point of the metering device. In this case, the act of delimiting balance sheet ownership is invalid (Determination of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated June 26, 2012 No. 6421/12 in case No. A14-11374/2010).

When concluding the contract, disagreements arose between the parties regarding the limit of operational responsibility, since there was no act of delimitation of responsibility, the court decided to determine the limit of operational responsibility in accordance with Rules for maintaining common property(Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Central District dated May 21, 2015 N F10-1143/2015 in case N A68-2267/2014).

And according to the FAS Decree UO dated February 28, 2011 No. Ф09-443/11-С5, in a similar situation of absence of a conflict concluded between the parties act of delimitation of responsibility the court concluded that the line of operational responsibility should run along the line of balance sheet ownership, in other words, along the line of division of utility networks between the owners.

If you have any questions, you can always contact us for advice. We also help management companies comply 731 RF PP on the Information Disclosure Standard(filling out the portal Housing and communal services reform, website of the Criminal Code, information stands) and Federal Law No. 209 (). We are always happy to help you!

The resource supplying organization is responsible for the mode and quality of water supply within the boundaries of its operational responsibility. Maintenance of in-house engineering systems, as well as systems located outside the household and not included in the area of ​​responsibility of the resource supplying organization, unless otherwise provided by the agreement with it, is carried out by a service provider, whom homeowners engage independently (Resolution of the Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation dated November 8, 2011 No. 5686 /eleven).

The crux of the matter

An accident occurred on the water supply section between the main pipe and the border of the land plot on which the building was located. The emergency service fixed the leak, installed a temporary plug and recommended a complete replacement of the pipes from the building to the junction with the main pipeline. The water supply contract was concluded directly with the resource supply organization. That is, the consumer received water directly, without an intermediary - a utility provider. Therefore, the owner of the building turned to the resource supply organization (hereinafter referred to as the company) with a request to replace the pipes and restore the water supply. He was refused, citing the fact that the section of the emergency pipe does not belong to municipal networks.

It was established that the previous owner of the building connected to the main pipeline in 1973 without permission. And the section of pipe from the highway to the building was not on the company’s balance sheet. The owner of the building was recommended to draw up design documentation for external water supply networks and only then seek help.

The owner of the building, left without water, filed a complaint with the antimonopoly authority. Antimonopoly officials considered that the company was avoiding eliminating the accident and restoring water supply and infringing on the rights of the owner of the building. The company was charged with violating the Rules for the provision of utility services to citizens, approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated May 23, 2006 No. 307 (hereinafter referred to as the Rules) and the Rules for the use of public water supply and sewerage systems in the Russian Federation dated February 12, 2006 No. 167.

By type of activity “water supply” the company had a market share of more than 35%. The Antimonopoly Service considered that the company violated Part 1 of Art. 10 of the Federal Law of July 26, 2006 No. 135-FZ “On the Protection of Competition” and issued an order to eliminate violations.

In fact, the resource supplier had to prepare design documentation at its own expense, replace rotten pipes, put the “no man’s” section of the water supply system on its balance sheet and begin supplying water to the consumer. The society did not agree with this and went to court.

Trial

The arbitration court did not accept the company's arguments and confirmed the position of the antimonopoly authority. It was established that in 2002, a water supply agreement was concluded between the company and the owner of the building (consumer).

The judges rejected arguments that the accident occurred outside the boundaries of the company's responsibility, since it assumed an obligation to supply water. And the obligation to provide the service properly does not depend on whose balance sheet the damaged pipeline is located. After all, the company, as a resource supplying organization, bears responsibility for the regime and quality of water supply both under the contract and in accordance with clause 7 of the Rules.

The court recognized that the owner of the building is responsible for the water supply only within the boundaries of his land plot. Outside of them, water networks must be maintained by society. The appeal and cassation supported this verdict.

Position of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation

The Presidium of the Supreme Arbitration Court of the Russian Federation overturned the decisions of all three courts, satisfying the demands of society and invalidating the decisions of the antimonopoly authorities. The logic of the arbitrators' reasoning is as follows.

Unless otherwise provided in the agreement with the resource supplying organization, repairs of in-house engineering systems are carried out by persons hired by the building owners (clause 7 of the Rules). The operational responsibility of the resource supplying organization is established for the mode and quality of water supply at the network boundary. And there is no reason to extend said liability beyond this boundary, that is, to the area where the accident occurred.

Thus, the conclusion of the lower courts that the company must eliminate accidents and maintain water supply networks in an area outside the area of ​​​​responsibility was found to be unfounded. Consequently, Art. 10 of the Federal Law of July 26, 2006 No. 135-FZ was applied incorrectly.

The arbitrators emphasized that the responsibility for maintaining internal water supply networks is not assigned to the resource supplying organization, but to the service provider - a legal entity or entrepreneur who purchases utility resources from the resource supplying organization and provides utility services to the consumer (clause 3 of the Rules). And the consumer, if he wishes, can enter into an agreement with the service provider for servicing the water supply network located outside his land plot. If the consumer has not engaged such a contractor, the above-mentioned obligation can be assigned to the resource supplying organization only by agreement.

Hello, friends! Let's talk about utility issues today. Let’s imagine a situation (it’s better to imagine than to experience it in reality) that a cold or hot water riser is leaking in your apartment. Or let’s change the conditions a little, let’s say the water supply risers in an apartment building are leaking. Question: who and at whose expense should carry out repairs or replace them?

As it was before

In recent Soviet times, the question of whose property the apartment was was rather idle. Apartments were provided by the state, and systems such as risers - heating, sewerage, water supply - were also repaired at the expense of the state. But times have changed. Most of us have privatized housing and become owners. And this both gives rights and imposes responsibilities.

From water intake to apartment

We will return to the question of who should replace the pipes later. First, let's define how the water supply scheme of an apartment building is structured and by what principles it operates. To put it simply, this is an engineering system that includes pipes routed in a certain way, devices that allow you to regulate water pressure, meters, filters, etc.

Before entering the house, water goes through several stages. From the water intake unit it goes to a water treatment station, a water tank, a water pumping station, a water supply network, and only then is it supplied to the consumer. In an apartment building there is also a special system for water to reach the consumer. She does this through risers - vertically located pipes.

Rules and regulations

The arrangement of the system that supplies the consumer with water is carried out in accordance with the construction rules reflected in SNiP, adopted in 1997. The name SNiPa means internal water supply and sewerage systems for buildings. The document clearly states which pipes, fittings, equipment, and materials should be used. It reflects all technological processes that must be followed strictly.

Cast iron, steel or propylene?

What materials are most often used in the water supply system. More recently, in Soviet times, these were metal - cast iron, copper or steel - pipes. Their main disadvantage is their susceptibility to corrosion. Despite the fact that the shelf life of such pipes is quite high - according to standards 25 years, in fact it is much longer, up to 40 years. However, everything has an end; these pipes also need to be replaced.

A new generation of pipes has appeared on the modern equipment and materials market. Most often, cast iron, copper and zinc are replaced with polypropylene pipes. These are durable pipes with a good shelf life, smooth inside, which prevents the formation of limescale, and therefore increases this period. They also meet environmental requirements and, most importantly, are resistant to corrosion.

Controversial issue

And yet, returning to the question at the beginning of the article, let's find out who should change the water supply risers in an apartment building. To have a clear understanding of the situation, you need to refer to the documents. The main one is government decree number 491, as well as one of the articles of the Housing Code. These documents establish the area of ​​responsibility between the owner and the company chosen by the residents.

According to the documents, the water supply risers are common property. Who should repair this property? If residents have entered into an agreement with the management company, then it should definitely do this. Cold and hot water supply risers and branches from them to the first valve are her area of ​​responsibility.

The owner of the apartment is obliged to change the plumbing at his own expense, until recently install meters (now this should be done free of charge), and repair pipes after the stop valves. Otherwise, he does not have to pay any money. What about common property? - someone will ask. The management company will do the repairs and pay?

The owners also pay for these services, but they do this not at the time of replacing the pipes, but, so to speak, in advance. In the receipts that each of us receives every month, there is a line “maintenance and repairs”. The price of these services is quite high in terms of all payments for housing and communal services. It is from these funds that the management company must pay for the repair and replacement of risers and water supply pipes.

Algorithm of actions

Let's briefly go through the scheme of your actions if you suddenly need to replace the riser and you want to do it yourself. First, you need to get permission to do this from the management company. Only this organization can turn off the riser, which is used not only by you, but also by other residents.

Then, if you are going to install new pipes not only in your premises - from floor to ceiling, but also in the ceilings, affecting the premises of your neighbors, you must obtain their consent. If the decision is positive, purchase pipes of the required diameter, draw up a water supply diagram and get to work.

There are many companies operating in the market for these services today. If you are not ready for independent work, you can use the services of one whose prices, as well as professionalism, suit you. Replacing a water supply riser is, of course, a troublesome task, but often necessary. Following the algorithm specified in this article will hopefully help you cope with the task.

No need to wait for an accident

If an accident occurs, the riser will have to be replaced in any case. Although management companies often delay this work in every possible way, limiting themselves to eliminating fistulas. But it is advisable to replace the risers without leading to an accident. It is best to do this during a major overhaul.

Today, by the way, there are water supply schemes where pipes are removed from view and hidden in various ways. This looks much more aesthetically pleasing than when they are located in plain sight. The main thing is that the materials and work are of proper quality.

If you found this article helpful, we would love to receive feedback on our site. Leave your comments, remarks, additions. We look forward to further communication.

Ownerless networks of engineering support ( engineering networks, systems or communications), necessary for heat, gas, electricity, water supply, sewerage and ventilation, pose a certain problem for management organizations, since it is not always clear who is obliged to maintain them and with what funds.

Today we will talk about the distribution of duties and responsibilities for maintaining such networks.

Thermal utility network

Gas supply networks

Since currently the current legislation does not establish standards for the maintenance of ownerless gas supply engineering networks, then, taking into account the obligation of the RSO to supply gas of proper quality, it is possible to apply the position according to which the maintenance of such engineering networks is carried out by persons operating ownerless facilities for the purposes of entrepreneurial activity.

Arbitrage practice

The fact that the problem of ownerless utility networks is always relevant is evidenced by abundant judicial practice.

A prosecutor's audit related to the issue of ownerlessness of utility networks revealed violations of the requirements of legislation in the housing and communal services sector in the activities of the local government body: it did not take measures to register the heating network as an ownerless real estate object. Therefore, the court decided to impose on the local government body the obligation to determine the distribution network and apply to the registration authority to register the ownerless utility network (Appeal ruling of the Astrakhan Regional Court dated September 2, 2015 in case No. 33-3064/2015).

The court received a claim from the HOA to declare illegal the inaction of the city administration, which refused to recognize the right of municipal ownership to an ownerless thermal utility network. The HOA argued that since this utility network is located beyond the border of intra-house networks and outside the land plot occupied by the apartment building, then it cannot be considered common property. The court did not satisfy the request, since the pipeline networks are in the possession and use of the HOA and are not considered ownerless property (Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Volga-Vyatka District dated April 26, 2016 N F01-1295/2016 in case N A43-7539/2015).

RSO, through the court, demanded that the local government body register the ownerless thermal engineering network. RSO believed that transit sections of utility networks that run in the basements of residential buildings are ownerless property, therefore the local government body is obliged to register them. The court satisfied the request of the RSO, since the disputed sections of pipelines were not transferred to it along with utility networks, and there is no information in the state register about the rights to the disputed sections of pipelines. That is why the court considered the disputed sections of pipelines ownerless (Resolution of the Arbitration Court of the Ural District dated January 25, 2016 N F09-10599/15 in case N A50-5612/2015).

If you have any questions, you can always contact us for advice. We also help management companies comply 731 RF PP on the Information Disclosure Standard(filling out the portal Housing and communal services reform, website of the Criminal Code, information stands) and Federal Law No. 209 (). We are always happy to help you!

Water hatches were stolen on a private street, who should install them? When contacting the water utility, they claim that these hatches belong to the homeowners.

Who should do plumbing repairs in the private sector?

Hello. Who should repair the water supply in the private sector if a break occurred on the branch to the house from the main pipe? I would be grateful if you can help.

Can an individual entrepreneur conduct plumbing without a license?

As an individual entrepreneur, the local water utility prohibits me from installing water pipes in the private sector, although they themselves have neither a license nor an SRO. Is this legal?

Is it legal to build an apartment building in the private sector?

Good afternoon The purchased house on six acres of land was demolished, the developer is building a three-story apartment building with 24 apartments in the private sector. Residents of the entire street use their own wells, since there is no central system...

How to oblige an organization to repair a central water supply pipe?

Is it possible to oblige a water supply organization to repair a central water supply pipe in the private sector without paying for street residents? The organization turned off the water supply due to an accident in the central water supply, and is ready to provide repair services to...

Vodokanal cut off water to a private home without warning or order

Vodokanal employees, during a scheduled inspection, about which there was no warning, were unable to get into the house, because... An 81-year-old grandmother was at home and could not open the door. They besieged the house for 4 hours, walked around the house, knocked on the windows, took photographs,...

How to draw up a permit to connect to a private water supply?

Good afternoon I live in the private sector and decided to install water supply into the house. I want to connect to a private water supply, but the water utility requires permission from the owner to connect to the water supply. Please tell me how to write it and what...

How can I force my neighbor to repair the water pipe running through my property?

Hello. Problem with water supply in the private sector. There is a water supply along the road along my property, which was laid by the owners themselves 30 years ago. Currently only 1 person uses this water supply....

Is it legal to demolish street water pumps?

Good afternoon Is it legal to demolish street water pumps in the private sector of the Vodokonal municipal unitary enterprise, on those streets where not all private houses are connected to the central water supply system?

700 price
question

the issue is resolved

The neighbor is going to demand the imposition of an encumbrance on the plot due to a private water supply

The neighbor is going to demand the imposition of an encumbrance on the land plot due to a private water supply. Is it possible to protect himself from the encumbrance, and under what conditions can he do this? Good afternoon, dear lawyers! The situation is as follows. In 1993...

Vodokanal, repair of private sector mains

Good afternoon Please tell me who is responsible for tapping into the main pipe in the private sector? A pipe burst after a weld (inset), who should repair it, at whose expense? The water utility workers offered to pay us, and...