The regulatory framework for relations in the provision of public services is made up of the provisions of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the Rules for the provision of public services to citizens (approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 23, 2006 N 307) (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), the Rules for the supply of gas to ensure the domestic needs of citizens (approved Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of July 21, 2008 N 549) and other regulations.

In accordance with paragraph 2 of Art. 161 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, owners of premises in apartment building are required to choose one of the following ways to manage an apartment building:
- immediate property management in an apartment building;
- management of a homeowners association (HOA) or a housing cooperative or other specialized consumer cooperative;
- management of the managing organization.
In the first case, i.e. in the direct management of an apartment building, each owner independently concludes agreements on the acquisition of the necessary utility resources (heating, electricity, hot and cold water etc.) with the relevant resource-supplying organizations (clause 2 of article 164 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation). Owners of individual residential buildings act in a similar way.
In the second and third cases, the obligation to provide the owners of premises in an apartment building with communal resources rests with the HOA, a specialized housing cooperative or a management organization. It is these entities that the legislator defines as possible utility service providers(paragraph 3 of the Rules for the provision of public services to citizens). Customers of services are the owners of premises in an apartment building.

The method is chosen at the general meeting of the owners of the premises and can be changed at any time based on its decision. If during the year the owners of premises in an apartment building did not choose the way to manage this building or if the decision of the owners was not implemented, local governments hold an open competition to select a managing organization. Subsequently, the owners of the premises conclude with the managing organization, determined by the results of the competition, apartment building management agreement. The contract specifies:
- compound common property the apartment building to be managed;
- a list of works and services for the maintenance and repair of common property in an apartment building, as well as a list of utilities provided by the managing organization;
- the procedure for determining the price of the contract, the amount of the fee for the maintenance and repair of the dwelling and the amount of the fee for utilities, the procedure for making such a fee;
- the procedure for exercising control over the fulfillment by the managing organization of its obligations under the management agreement (clause 3, article 162 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation).
Thus, it is the responsibility of the managing organization to provide the owners of premises in an apartment building with all the necessary utilities. Unlike an HOA (housing or other specialized cooperative), the managing organization is not entitled to limit its obligations under the contract only to intermediary functions, for example organization provision of public services.
The company applied to the Arbitration Court of St. Petersburg and the Leningrad Region with a statement to declare illegal and cancel the decision of the Office of Rospotrebnadzor for the Leningrad Region (hereinafter referred to as the Office) on bringing the company to administrative responsibility under Part 2 of Art. 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation.
The application was satisfied by the decision of the court. In the cassation appeal, the administration, referring to the incorrect application of substantive law by the court, asks for the decision to be canceled, to refuse to satisfy the application of the company.
As follows from the materials of the case, the employees of the department conducted an audit of the company's compliance with the requirements of legislation in the field of consumer protection. In the opinion of the management, the contracts concluded by the company as a managing organization with the owners of residential premises include conditions that infringe statutory consumer rights. Based on the results of the audit, the department issued a decision to bring the company to administrative responsibility under Part 2 of Art. 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in the form of a fine.
The court of first instance, satisfying the statement of the company, pointed to the absence of an event of an offense under Part 2 of Art. 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, since management contracts in an apartment building do not infringe on the rights of consumers.
The Court of Cassation considers this conclusion to be erroneous. In accordance with paragraph 3 of the Rules for the provision of public services, the contractor may be a managing organization, a homeowners association, a housing construction, housing or other specialized consumer cooperative, and in the case of direct management of an apartment building by the owners of the premises - another organization that produces or acquires communal resources. The materials of the case confirm the conclusion by the company with the owners of residential premises of contracts for the management of an apartment building, according to which the company, among other services, has undertaken organize the provision of public services residential property owners. By virtue of these agreements, in order to organize the provision of communal services to the owners, the company undertakes to conclude agreements with the relevant resource supply organizations on behalf of and at the expense of the owners of residential premises. Thus, conditions have been introduced into the management agreements for an apartment building, according to which the company is not a contractor, whose responsibility is to provide utility services, which is contrary to current legislation (clauses 1, 2 of article 162 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, clause 3 of the Rules for the provision utilities). Since the company introduced conditions into the management contracts of the apartment building that infringe on the rights of the consumer established by law, the management rightfully attracted the applicant to the stipulated part 2 of Art. 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation of administrative responsibility (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District of April 23, 2007 N A56-44223 / 2006).
The main responsibilities of the utility service provider include:
- providing the consumer with utility services in the volumes necessary for him, of proper quality, safe for the life and health of the consumer and not causing harm to his property;
- timely elimination of accidents and fulfillment of consumer requests;
- drawing up, at the request of the consumer, acts on the presence of interruptions in the provision of public services and (or) on the inadequate quality of public services;
- correct execution and timely delivery to consumers of the documents necessary to pay for consumed utilities.
For harm caused to the life, health and property of the consumer, as well as to persons cohabiting with him, due to the failure to provide utility services or the provision of utility services of inadequate quality, the contractor is liable regardless of fault (Article 1095 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation). He can be released from liability for the inadequate quality of public services only if he proves that it was caused by force majeure circumstances. Such circumstances do not include, in particular, a breach of obligations by the Contractor's counterparties (resource-supplying organizations) or the Contractor's lack of the necessary funds.
When providing utilities of inadequate quality or with interruptions exceeding the allowable duration, the consumer has the right to demand from the contractor a reduction in the amount (recalculation) of the fee for the relevant utility service in the manner prescribed by these Rules. At the same time, the inadequate quality of public services is understood as their non-compliance with the mandatory requirements provided for by law or an agreement with the consumer, for example, the deviation of the air temperature in a residential building from the required level, the deviation of the voltage and frequency of electricity from state standards, etc. (Requirements for the quality of public services, including the maximum duration of a break in the provision of public services and other permissible deviations, are established in Appendix No. 1 to the Rules for the provision of public services to citizens). For violation of the regime for the provision of public services, the consumer also has the right to demand from the contractor the payment of a penalty provided for by the Law on the Protection of Consumer Rights.

It is not allowed to include in the contract with the consumer conditions that change the procedure for the provision of utility services to the detriment of the interests of the consumer, in particular: increase the permissible duration of interruptions in the provision of utility services or the period for eliminating emergencies, change the procedure for suspending and resuming the supply of utility resources.
The company applied to the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Bashkortostan with a request to cancel the decision of the Territorial Administration of Rospotrebnadzor (hereinafter referred to as the Administration) on bringing the company to administrative responsibility, provided for in Part 2 of Art. 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, and on the invalidation of the order of management.
By the decision of the court of first instance, left unchanged by the appellate instance, the satisfaction of the stated requirements was denied. In the cassation complaint, the company asks to cancel the said judicial acts, referring to the incorrect application of substantive law by the court. The Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District, having studied the materials of the case and the arguments of the parties, found no grounds for canceling the decision.
In accordance with the gas supply agreement, the company has the right to stop gas supply to the subscriber for a delay in payment for the supplied gas for more than two months, warning the subscriber 10 days in advance. The resumption of gas supply is carried out within 15 days after the subscriber submits written evidence of repayment of the debt for gas and payment for work on connecting gas equipment.
Meanwhile, paragraphs 80, 81, 82 of the Rules for the provision of public services to citizens establish a strictly defined procedure for suspending or restricting the provision of public services, including gas supply. Suspension or restriction of the provision of utility services is made one month after a written warning to the consumer in case of incomplete payment of utility services, which means the presence of a debt exceeding 6 times the monthly fee for services. In addition, clause 82 of the Rules provides that when the subscriber liquidates the debt, the provision of utility services is resumed within two calendar days from the moment the debt is paid off. Since the terms of the disputed gas supply agreement establish a different procedure for suspending and resuming gas supply than provided for by the Rules and violate the rights of consumers, the company was rightfully brought to administrative responsibility under Part 2 of Art. 14.8 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation (Resolution of the FAS of the Ural District of March 6, 2007 N F09-1312 / 07-S1) (Resolution of the FAS of the Volga-Vyatka District of May 15, 2006 N A11-18389 / 2005-K2-19 / 743 (condition an agreement that the energy supply organization eliminates deficiencies in the supply of electricity within a reasonable time, but no later than five days from the moment the deficiencies are discovered by the subscriber, infringes on the legal rights of the consumer, since, in accordance with the mandatory requirements (standards), this period should not exceed one day)) .

The rules regulate in detail the procedure for paying utility bills by the consumer. The amount of payment for cold and hot water supply, sewerage, electricity, gas supply and heating is calculated according to the tariffs established for resource supply organizations. Available in residential areas individual devices accounting, the amount of payment for utilities is determined based on the readings of metering devices.
Payment for utility services is paid monthly until the 10th day of the month following the month in which the utility services were provided, unless a different payment term is specified in the apartment building management agreement. The fee is paid on the basis of payment documents submitted by the contractor no later than the 1st day of the month following the expired month.
For late payment of utilities, the consumer pays the contractor a penalty in the amount of 1/300 of the refinancing rate of the Central Bank of the Russian Federation, effective at the time of payment, from the amounts not paid on time for each day of delay (clause 14, article 155 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation). An increase in the amount of penalties in the contract is not allowed. When drawing up the documents necessary to pay for utilities, the amount of penalties for violation by the consumer of the terms of the contract is indicated by the contractor in a separate document.
In case of temporary absence of the consumer in the residential premises for more than 5 full calendar days in a row, the payment for cold water supply, hot water supply, sewerage, electricity and gas supply is recalculated (in the absence of individual metering devices in the residential premises). The recalculation of the amount of payment for utilities is carried out by the contractor within 5 working days on the basis of a written application from the consumer with the attachment of documents confirming the temporary absence of the consumer (copies of a travel certificate or a business trip certificate, a certificate of being treated in an inpatient medical institution; travel tickets issued on consumer's name; hotel bills or other documents).
In addition to providing utility services proper, the management company (HOA, housing cooperative) provides owners of premises in an apartment building with services for managing the common property of the house. The key concept is common property apartment building, which includes, in particular:
- inter-apartment landings, stairs, corridors, elevators and elevator shafts;
- technical floors, attics, basements in which there are engineering communications, other equipment serving more than one room in this house (technical basements);
- roofs enclosing load-bearing and non-bearing structures of this house;
- mechanical, electrical, sanitary and other equipment located in this house outside or inside the premises and serving more than one room;
- land plot, on which this house is located, with elements of gardening and landscaping (Article 290 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, clause 1 of Article 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation).
The composition of the common property of an apartment building is specified in 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). The common property of the house includes:

In-house engineering systems of cold and hot water supply, consisting of risers, branches from risers to the first disconnecting device, the indicated disconnecting devices, collective cold and hot water, the first shut-off and control valves on the outlets of the intra-apartment wiring from the risers, as well as mechanical, electrical, sanitary and other equipment located on these networks;
- in-house heating system, consisting of risers, heating elements, control and stop valves, collective heat energy meters, as well as other equipment located on these networks;
- in-house power supply system, consisting of introductory cabinets, input-distributing devices, protection, control and management equipment, collective metering devices electrical energy, floor shields and cabinets, lighting installations of premises common use, electrical installations smoke exhaust systems, automatic fire alarm systems, etc.
In the cited provisions, one can see a certain conflict of norms, which has already manifested itself in practice. From the point of view of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation and the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, heating elements (radiators), it would seem, are not part of the common property of an apartment building (like in-house electrical wiring, cold and hot water distribution in the kitchen and bathroom, etc.) and must be serviced owners of the premises themselves.
Zhilfond-Sluzhba LLC (hereinafter referred to as the company) applied to the Arbitration Court of the Republic of Karelia with an application for recognition as illegal and annulment of the Decree of the State Housing Inspectorate of the Republic of Karelia (hereinafter referred to as the inspection) of March 27, 2008 N 55 on bringing the applicant to administrative responsibility for Art. 7.22 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in the form of a fine of 40,000 rubles.
By the decision of April 25, 2008, the stated requirements were denied. The decision of the court of appeal was annulled by the decision of the court of appeal, the decision of the inspection was recognized as illegal and canceled. Having studied the inspectorate's cassation appeal, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District found no grounds for satisfying it and upheld the decision of the court of appeal.
As follows from the case file, the inspectorate received a statement from K. about bringing the company to administrative responsibility in view of the fact that in 2006-2007. The radiators in her apartment were dismantled and have not been replaced to date. Decree of March 27, 2008 N 55 society brought to administrative responsibility under Art. 7.22 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation in connection with the failure to perform work on the repair of heating devices (heating radiators) in a residential building that is part of an apartment building, which was accepted for service by the company (under a management agreement dated February 28, 2005, concluded with the administration of Petrozavodsk).
Clause 6 of the Rules for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building establishes that the common property includes an in-house heating system consisting of risers, heating elements, control and shutoff valves, and other equipment. At the same time, according to paragraph 1 of Art. 36 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, common property in an apartment building includes mechanical, electrical, sanitary and other equipment located in this house outside or inside the premises and serving more than one room.
The Court of Appeal justifiably recognized as erroneous the position of the Court of First Instance that heating radiators in residential apartments belong to the common property of an apartment building. The rules for maintaining common property in an apartment building (clause 6) can only specify the norms of the current civil and housing legislation, but not contradict them (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the North-Western District of October 16, 2008 N A26-2110 / 2008).
On the other hand, the Rules for the maintenance of common property directly classify heating elements as common property in an apartment building. Moreover, in accordance with regulations governing issues of maintenance and operation of the housing stock, control over the condition heating system apartment building (including the serviceability of heating elements) is the responsibility of the service organization.
OOO "Dorstroytrans" (hereinafter referred to as the company) applied to the Arbitration Court of the Perm Region with a statement challenging the Resolution of the Housing Inspectorate dated November 17, 2006 N 1247 on bringing it to administrative responsibility under Art. 7.22 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, in the form of a fine in the amount of 40,000 rubles.
By the decision of January 24, 2007, the stated requirements were denied. By the decision of the appellate instance, the decision was canceled, the requirements stated by the company were satisfied. The inspectorate filed a cassation appeal with the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District.
As follows from the case file, the Housing Inspectorate, on the basis of a consumer complaint, conducted an unscheduled inspection of the company's compliance with the mandatory requirements established by the current regulatory legal acts when providing housing and communal services to the population. During the inspection, the inspection revealed facts of violations of the rules for the maintenance and repair of residential premises: in the apartment owned by the consumer in the large room, the radiator and the heating riser are not heated, the heated towel rail is not heated in the bathroom. Based on the results of the inspection, the housing inspectorate drew up a protocol on an administrative offense and the said resolution on bringing the company to administrative responsibility.
Satisfying the requirements stated by the company, the court of appeal proceeded from the lack of proof by the housing inspectorate of the presence in the actions of the company of an administrative offense under Art. 7.22 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation. At the same time, the court of appeal pointed out that it was not possible to determine whether the radiator and heated towel rail were part of the common property of a residential building, the responsibility for the maintenance of which lay with the company. The Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District considers this conclusion of the Court of Appeal to be erroneous and inconsistent with the circumstances of the case.
Between the administration of the Dzerzhinsky district of Perm and the company signed an agreement dated May 25, 2005 N 14-05 "On the execution of an order for the provision of services for the repair of structural elements of buildings, repair and maintenance of house equipment and ensuring the sanitary condition of residential buildings." Under the terms of this agreement, the company assumed obligations to fulfill the list of works specified in the agreement, including the current repair of the common property of a residential building at the request of consumers. The contract also establishes that the company is obliged to systematically monitor the quality of heat in residential premises, provide the customer service with information about the absence of heat and other types of housing and communal services. By virtue of clause 5.2.1 of the Rules and Regulations technical operation housing stock (approved by Resolution of the State Committee of the Russian Federation for Construction and Housing and Communal Complex of September 27, 2003 N 170), the operation of the central heating system of residential buildings should ensure, in particular, uniform heating of all heating devices, adjustment of the heating system. Meanwhile, the courts established and the case materials confirm that in the disputed apartment (owned by the consumer) they do not heat the radiator, the heating riser, the heated towel rail in the bathroom. In accordance with paragraph 6 of the Rules for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building, the common property includes an in-house heating system, consisting of risers, heating elements, etc.
In connection with the foregoing, a radiator, a heating riser and a heated towel rail are the common property of an apartment building, conducting heat not only to a single apartment, but also to all residential premises through which these risers pass. Consequently, the responsibility for their maintenance, maintenance, operation and repair is assigned to the relevant managing organization (society). Thus, the conclusion of the court of first instance on the legality of bringing the company to administrative responsibility, provided for by Art. 7.22 of the Code of Administrative Offenses of the Russian Federation, the decision of the appellate instance is subject to cancellation (Resolution of the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District of May 24, 2007 N F09-3841 / 07-C1).
In this case, the Federal Antimonopoly Service of the Urals District did not limit itself to a formal comparison of the provisions of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation and the Rules for maintaining the common property of an apartment building, but tried to explain the reasons for including heating elements inside the apartment in the common property of the house. This approach seems to be more reasonable.
The lack of clarity in the legislation regarding the imposition of the burden of maintaining in-house heating equipment (radiators, heated towel rails) leads to the fact that the courts impose on the owners of the premises not only the obligation to maintain this equipment, but also responsibility for the harm caused by them to third parties.
I. filed a lawsuit against Tsentrzhilservis LLC (management company) for compensation of 26,800 rubles. pecuniary damage caused as a result of flooding belonging to the plaintiff apartment, and non-pecuniary damage in the amount of 20,000 RUB. I. motivated her demands by the fact that on July 12, 2007, at about 2 o’clock at night, her apartment was flooded hot water, which ran from the ceiling in two living rooms, a kitchen and a bathroom. The total amount of damage was, according to the expert, 26,800 rubles.
The management company did not recognize the claim, because it considered itself an improper defendant. In her opinion, responsibility for the damage should be assigned to N., the owner of the apartment located above the plaintiff's apartment, since the flooding was caused by a malfunction of the radiators in N's apartment. At the request, the plaintiff N. was involved in the case as a second defendant.
N.'s representative insisted that the management company should be held responsible for the damage caused by the flood, since N. was out of town at the time of the flood. Per Maintenance common property of the house (including a heating radiator) and utilities N. makes a payment to the defendant in a timely manner and in full. In addition, according to representative N., the damage to the radiator occurred as a result of hydraulic tests being carried out by the defendant in anticipation of the start of the heating season.
Having studied the materials of the case and the arguments of the parties, the court recovered the amount of damage caused from N., and refused the claim for compensation for non-pecuniary damage. The court motivated its decision as follows. In accordance with 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. In accordance with Art. 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, clause 19 of the Rules for the Use of Residential Premises (approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of January 21, 2006 N 25), the owner of the residential premises is obliged to maintain this residential premises in proper condition, observe the rights and legitimate interests of neighbors, etc.
During the trial, it was established that the flooding of the plaintiff's apartment was due to a rupture of an aluminum radiator located in the kitchen of the apartment owned by N. This fact is confirmed by an extract from the journal of sanitary applications ZhEU-1, an extract from the emergency service journal. Representative N.'s arguments that hydraulic tests were the cause of the radiator rupture are refuted by a certificate received from "Service 005", according to which no hydraulic tests were carried out in the disputed house between 11 and 16 July 2007. In addition, in accordance with paragraphs 5 - 6 of the Rules for the maintenance of common property in an apartment building, the common property includes: in-house engineering systems of cold and hot water supply (including risers and branches from risers to the first disconnecting device), an in-house heating system, consisting of "... risers of heating elements, control and shut-off valves and other equipment located on these networks." As N. explained, the aluminum radiator was installed by her independently in order to improve the apartment instead of the cast-iron radiator that had previously been in the kitchen. In view of the foregoing, the court concluded that the amount of damages should be recovered from N. (decision of the Justice of the Peace of the Central District of Krasnoyarsk dated November 20, 2007 in case No. 2-90-363/07).
In this case, drawing an analogy with the elements of the engineering system of cold and hot water supply (that the common property of an apartment building includes only risers and branches from risers to the first locking device), the court recognized the heating elements as the personal property of the owner of a particular dwelling and therefore imposed on the owner the obligation to compensate for damage caused to third parties. The missing comma (!) when listing the composition of the common property of the house caused the court to make an incorrect decision on the case. The court should have studied more carefully the circumstances of N.'s replacement of the radiator (observance of the relevant rules for using the living quarters, filing an application with the management company) and, if there were any violations on the part of N., take into account her guilt in flooding the neighboring living quarters.

You are holding a special book in your hands: it was written by experienced public figures, practicing lawyers who protect the rights of consumers of housing and communal services - Irina Sokolova and Alexei Koryagin, who lead the Consumers Association of Russia. Problems in the housing and communal sphere worry us, citizens, most of all - this is evidenced by public opinion services. It is very important that we, consumers of housing and communal services, be satisfied, first of all, with the quality of housing and communal services and, of course, with a fair and transparent distribution of utility payments sent by us. Therefore, the reform of the housing and communal services system continues to be one of the most pressing topics on the social agenda today. In my opinion, now the main task is to involve the direct owners of housing in the real management of the housing and communal services system as soon as possible. This is exactly what Vladimir Putin wrote about in his article "Building justice. Social policy for Russia": "We need to put things in order in the housing and communal services by joint efforts. First, we need broad training of citizens in the basics of legislation and the economics of housing and communal services." It is obvious that it is possible to achieve a positive result from such work only with the active participation of public organizations with experience in protecting the interests of consumers of housing and communal services. The authors of the book, Irina Sokolova and Alexei Koryagin, are precisely the leaders of the largest public consumer organization in our country - the Consumers Association of Russia. They are not only reputable public figures and experienced practicing lawyers who have been dealing with the problems of shared construction and housing and communal services for over 10 years, but also caring consultants who regularly publish their materials in the media and write books for us - consumers. Presenting this book, aimed precisely at helping consumers of public utilities understand the basics of legislation in this area and learn how to apply them in practice, defend their civil rights, I am convinced of its relevance also because it reflects not only all the latest changes in legislation in the field of public utilities, but also considers upcoming innovations. Of course, the book will be useful both for owners and tenants of housing, and for lawyers and employees whose activities are related to housing and communal services. Let me emphasize that today it is very important that the citizens themselves get involved in the work of restoring order in housing and communal relations. Armed with legal knowledge, it is possible to move on to practical actions to protect their rights as consumers of public services by uniting in public consumer organizations. Acting in this direction, citizens have the right to count on the support of the authorities, which, in turn, should be interested in working together with the public. In this regard, I will continue the above quote from Vladimir Putin: "We must support the formation of a network of public organizations that help residents organize themselves, protect their rights, and control the fulfillment of their obligations by housing and communal services enterprises." The Consumers Association of Russia is just such an organization, which has significant experience in both educational activities and practical legal protection of consumers, including successful litigation in the interests of utility consumers. I have no doubt that today we have every opportunity to work together to achieve high-quality housing and communal services that are economically justified and socially fair for each of us.

Chapter 5. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF THE CONTRACTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Chapter 6. RESPONSIBILITY OF THE CONTRACTOR OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Chapter 7. RIGHTS AND OBLIGATIONS OF A CONSUMER OF PUBLIC SERVICES

Books and textbooks on the discipline Housing Law of Russia:

1. Alexander Sergeevich Belanovsky; Svetlana Shevchenko. All about housing and communal services 2016. Additions, fines, ways not to pay or pay less - 2016
2. O.B. Kichikov .. The rights of consumers of housing and communal services - 2016
3. V.S. COSTCO and others. RESIDENTIAL PREMISES: RIGHTS OF CITIZENS IN ACQUISITION AND MANAGEMENT COMMENTS AND EXPLANATIONS OF THE SPECIALISTS OF THE LAW FIRM "AVELAN" - 2015
4. I. Genzler. STIMULATION OF INITIATIVES OF HOUSING OWNERS 2012 - 2012
5. O.A. CITIES. COMMENTARY TO THE HOUSING CODE OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION (Item-by-item). 4th edition, revised and expanded 2012 - 2012
6. FGKU "Rosvoenipoteka" SAVINGS AND MORTGAGE SYSTEM OF HOUSING PROVISION FOR MILITARY SERVICE. Information and methodological manual. Moscow 2011 - 2011

The main responsibilities are detailed in paragraph 31 of Regulation No. 354. So, the performer must:

1. To provide the consumer with utility services in the volumes necessary for him and of the proper quality.

2 . Conclude agreements with resource-supplying organizations, as well as independently or with the involvement of contractors, carry out maintenance of in-house systems.

3 . Calculate the amount of payment for the consumed utility service. At the same time, if a social norm for electricity is established in the region, then the contractor is obliged to calculate the amount of payment "for electricity", taking into account social norm. In addition, the contractor also recalculates the fee if suddenly during the month the service was not provided in full (for example, cold water was turned off in an emergency for a day) or if the owner of the premises was absent from home for some time.

4. If the owner is not sure that he was correctly charged a payment or a fine, the service provider must immediately (and not “come back in a week”) check whether the calculations are really correct and issue documents to the consumer containing correctly calculated payments. If the consumer asks to certify them with a seal, the contractor is obliged to do so.

5 . If a collective (common house) metering device for electricity, water, etc. is installed in the house, every month from the 23rd to the 25th, the performer must take the readings of the devices and enter them in the register of readings of the collective meters. If the consumer requests, within one working day to provide an opportunity to get acquainted with the magazine. The data must be kept for 3 years. By the way, if individual meters are installed outside the apartments (as is the case in Soviet-built houses) and this is reflected in the contract, then at least once every 6 months the service provider must take readings from these meters and check the technical condition of the devices.

6. To take readings of individual instruments is also the duty of the performer. Moreover, apartment residents can transfer them different ways: phone calls, filling out tear-off coupons for payment receipts, via the Internet. Periodically, the contractor must check whether the data on the metering devices coincide with the readings that the residents transmit. If this is determined by the contract, the contractor may also take readings from meters installed inside the apartments.

7. At least once a quarter, performers are required to notify consumers about how often they should take meter readings, how they can transfer them and in what time frame this can be done. In addition, to warn consumers about what consequences occur in case of unauthorized intervention in the operation of metering devices or failure to transmit readings. All this information should be printed on payment receipts.

8. Receive complaints from residents improper performance utilities, to verify these facts. If, for example, due to a broken pipe, an apartment was flooded among residents, draw up an act on causing damage to property (or health).

9. Keep a record of complaints (as well as statements, appeals, etc.) of consumers. Consumer complaints about the quality of utility services must be answered within three working days.

10 . Not later than 10 days to inform residents about the planned shutdown of hot water. If you plan to turn off electricity, cold water, gas, also post ads in advance, where you indicate the time for disconnection and connection.

11 . If it becomes necessary to carry out planned work inside the premises (apartment or office), the contractor is obliged to agree on the deadlines for the specialists to come to the apartment (office) at least 3 days in advance. The contractor can simply call by phone and agree verbally. And can send a written request, where to indicate the date and time of the work, as well as their type and duration. The full name and position of the person who will carry out the work must be written; phone number by which the consumer can call and reschedule the date to a more convenient one (but no later than five working days from the date of receipt of the notification).

12. Fulfill other duties stipulated by the housing legislation.

However, the utility service provider has not only obligations, but also rights.

The main ones are also detailed in paragraph 32 of Regulation No. 354.