How to remove residual magnetization. Court: There are no requirements for anti-magnetic protection of water meters in the legislation

There is growing evidence that the mass discovery of apartments with magnetized water meters turns out to be ordinary wiring of tenants by management companies (UK). At the same time, the Criminal Code takes advantage of the legal ignorance of the residents and takes them, as they say, to the gun.

It happens like this. The Criminal Code states that the difference between the readings of a common house water meter and the volumes consumed by residents is too large. That is, someone steals water. Having declared, he begins a campaign in search of traces of unauthorized interventions in the operation of metering devices. He enters into an agreement with a certain company that checks the magnetization. Schedule visits to apartments.

When checking, a representative of the company measures the magnetization of the meter with a special device and finds that its level exceeds the permissible level. On this basis, the Criminal Code concludes that a magnet was placed on the device, which distorted its readings, and recalculates the fee upwards, counting consumption either according to the standard or according to the throughput of the pipe, which already threatens with bills of hundreds of thousands of rubles. And owes tenants.

If you believe the information of the Criminal Code itself, many tenants agree with the claim and pay the debt. Many, but not all. For example, a resident of house No. 2 on Lilac Passage (Upper Terrace) categorically disagreed, saying that he did not use any magnet, did not artificially change the meter readings and did not intend to pay the additional charge (more than two thousand rubles). The case went to court. It was considered by the justice of the peace of judicial district No. 3 of the Zavolzhsky district, who came to the conclusion that legal grounds for recalculation of payment for water is not present.

The text of the judge's decision is quite large, so I will retell it briefly. The main thing in it is that the regulatory documents for determining the suitability of water meters for use do not provide for testing and measuring for magnetization, and there is no information about the possible magnetization of the meters or some residual value of magnetization. In these documents, in principle, there are no requirements for water meters regarding the impact of external magnetic fields. And they do not have a residual magnetization standard.

In other words, the whole undertaking of the Criminal Code and these firms to test the magnetization is an amateur activity not based on any law.

There is not even a documented methodology for measuring magnetization, and there is no such type of violation in the operation of the counter as artificial magnetization. As for the powers of the Criminal Code to check the correctness of taking meter readings and look for signs of unauthorized interference in their work, then we are talking only about checking the presence and integrity of the seals on them. “Damage of any additional control marks while maintaining the integrity of the seals, as well as the determination of residual magnetization, does not in itself prove interference with the operation of metering devices”, the court said in its decision. This is what the defendant proved in this lawsuit by checking his meter at the Ulyanovsk Center for Standardization and Metrology, which confirmed that it was in order and suitable for further operation. The court left the claim of the management company, which demanded not only payment by the tenant of the debt, but also compensation for the magnetization test itself, plus the legal costs of the Criminal Code, without satisfaction. So do not succumb to blackmail and do not rush to pay money for the allegedly excessive magnetization of your counter. Fairy tales are all.

As an appendix to this note, we publish recommendations on this topic that came to the editorial email address, and excerpts from the court decision, which was analyzed above.

REMEMBER: the legal requirement for replacing the meter is only a notice of unsuitability issued by the Ulyanovsk CSM after verification.

If you nevertheless agreed to conduct a magnetization test, you should know: 1) the test is carried out only with your consent; 2) demand from representatives copies of documents confirming their right (the right of their organization) to carry out verification of water meters and provide metrological services to the population in this area using devices for determining magnetization; 3) demand to provide a methodology for conducting this verification, approved by the State Standard; 4) during the measurements, ask what response threshold is set in preparation for measurements, where (from which GOST, methodology) the response threshold value is taken (since this indicator is not standardized either during production or during operation of water meters, in other words, taken "from the pillar"); 5) the act must necessarily indicate the type of device, its serial number, the date of verification, the method by which the verification is performed; 6) based on the purpose of the device (“magnetometer (microteslameter-gradientometer) MF-24FM is designed to measure the residual magnetic field ferromagnetic products and is an indispensable tool for quality control of product demagnetization during welding using electronic and arc welding, as well as parts after magnetic non-destructive testing. In addition, it can be used when controlling by the “magnetic memory” method to identify areas of spontaneous magnetization”), it will definitely show some magnetic field value, since magnets are used in the water meter, therefore, the magnetic field will be (and the higher the magnetic field value field, the better the “adhesion” of the magnets in the meter, the better it works, the lower the indicator, the “adhesion” is lower, but, I repeat, the conclusion about the suitability or unsuitability of the water meter for further operation does not depend on the magnitude of the magnetic field of the water meter); 7) who has already signed the act, contact a lawyer!

From a judgment
“Water meters are metering devices for energy resources (cold water, hot water) and are measuring instruments for mutual settlements between the consumer and the management company. Regulatory documents for determining the suitability of water meters for use are GOST R 50601-93 “Impeller drinking water meters. Are common specifications”, MI 1592-99“ Water meters. Verification method”, GOST 6019-83 “Meters cold water winged. General technical conditions”, GOST 8.156-83 “GSI. Cold water meters. Methods and means of verification”. Analyzing these documents, these documents do not provide for tests and measurements for magnetization, therefore there is no information about the possible magnetization of meters or the residual value of magnetization. In these documents there are no requirements for water meters regarding the impact of external magnetic fields. In addition, these operations are not provided for by manufacturers in the technological process of production of water meters (the basis is a letter from BETAR LLC, ref. 530 dated 03/25/2013), and accordingly, the residual magnetization standard (factory level of magnetization) is not established by any of the above documents .

From the explanations of B., interrogated at the court session as a specialist, who is the head of the department for checking measuring instruments for measuring mechanical and geometric quantities of the Ulyanovsk CSM, it follows that measurements for residual magnetization were carried out using a measuring instrument (magnetometer), which is not intended for such measurements for water meters. This device is designed to measure the magnetic induction gradient of a constant magnetic field and is used to assess the level of residual magnetization of parts and assemblies of products, as well as to identify local magnetic poles using the fluxgate method in laboratory and workshop conditions of aircraft repair and aircraft building enterprises and other engineering industries. In the case under consideration, there are no certified or included in the operational documentation measurement procedures (methods). In addition, he believes that the submitted certificate of verification of the magnetometer cannot be recognized as valid, since it does not comply with PR 50.2.006-94 “Metrology Rules, State system providing measurements. The procedure for conducting measuring instruments”, approved by the order of the State Standard of the Russian Federation “On approval of the procedure for conducting verification of measuring instruments” dated 18.07.1994 No. 125. In the case file there are written explanations of BETAR Production and Commercial Company LLC, according to which, depending on the magnitude of the magnetic field strength created by an external permanent magnet, in metering devices, water meters of the SHV, SGV type that do not have antimagnetic protection, malfunctions may occur - going beyond the limits of the characteristics established by the standard: the specified error and sensitivity threshold (set in accordance with the class of the device), up to the complete stop of the device. At the same time, there are no requirements for anti-magnetic protection of water meters in the legislation and state standards. In view of the foregoing, the letter from the manufacturer of the MF-24FM microteslameter on the possibility of using this device to measure residual magnetization, which is available in the case file, cannot serve as a basis for the provision of these services to the population by management companies and other legal entities ...

The presence and integrity of the seals on the measuring instruments (in this case, the cold water meter) are sufficient to protect them from unauthorized interference. Damage to any additional control signs while maintaining the integrity of the seals, as well as the determination of residual magnetization, does not in itself prove interference with the operation of metering devices. At the same time, the defendant at the court session re-submitted a certificate of verification of the cold water meter installed in his apartment, dated 05/30/2013, according to the results of which the water meter was recognized as suitable for use. The verification was carried out by the FBU "State Regional Center for Standardization, Metrology and Testing in the Ulyanovsk Region". The magistrate has no reason to consider the defendant's meter readings unreliable, underestimated, not corresponding to the actual volumes of water consumed, since the meter verification period has not expired, the meter meets the technical requirements for measuring instruments: the meter is based on the results of verification by the metrological service of the FBU "Ulyanovsk TsSM » recognized fit, approved for operation.

In view of the foregoing, the justice of the peace considers that the plaintiff has not provided legal evidence based on the law of the legitimacy of the plaintiff's measurements of the residual magnetization of water meters, as well as unauthorized intervention of the defendants in the water meter.

Analyzing the evidence presented, the court sees no grounds for imposing on the defendant the obligation to pay the debt accrued to him for payment utilities, as well as the amount for checking the water meter. Under such circumstances, the court believes that the plaintiff's claims are unfounded and their satisfaction should be denied in full ... ".

Vasily Melnik

Why didn’t they write that this company, which conducts measurements of alleged magnetization, is called Measurement Center No. 1 LLC, its director Lyakh I.S. The company as such does not exist, the registration address is his apartment, there is only him and one more person. We dealt with this issue, because we, too, were allegedly found to have magnetization. Lyakh was even afraid to meet with us to clarify our questions, he did not answer a single question on the phone, his voice trembled - he was frightened, and at the same time fought off when we threatened him with a court that he had nothing to do with it, that we should not sue him, and with UK. We studied court cases, and there are a lot of them around the city, everywhere residents are suing the Criminal Code, but you need to sue this LLC. They do not have a license, they have a license for the device, and licenses for taking measurements stop. there is no magnetization and cannot be, there are no such GOSTs. The company BETAR-manufacturer is already tired of sending out letters to everyone that there is no such standard, our metrology and standardization center is also tired of the work of this so-called company. We did not bring the case to court, because the Criminal Code managed to convince that this was all nonsense and they withdrew their claims against us, although I know that there are those who paid, by the way, we were charged about 13,000 rubles. But we knew for sure that there were no magnets on the meters, so we would definitely sue if we could not settle before the court. So I warn YOU - this LYAKH is a scammer, he still has an interesting payment, if the counter is not magnetized - this is 40 rubles per device, and if it is magnetized - 280 rubles. Interest material on the face. Those. They charge different prices for the same service.

The most innocuous - if you fail, the counter will not stop, and the money was wasted. And the most dangerous thing is that even if the meter stops turning, sooner or later it will fail, which will entail fines ranging from 25 to 40 thousand rubles or a complete shutdown of the water supply. In addition, your neighbors will not approve of such actions on your part.

Regulatory authorities have ways to find out if you are stealing water or not. With such savings, you can even earn yourself a criminal case. Therefore, you need to think 100 times about the consequences before buying and putting a magnet on a water meter. And now let's look at everything in more detail.

Why can a water meter fail?

In water meters, the main driving force behind the numbers on the dial is the magnet in the meter's impeller. When a neodymium magnet acts on it, its strength drops and the dial stops. But the problem is that over time, the built-in magnetic element demagnetizes, and eventually the water meter becomes completely inoperative.

This is interesting! The neodymium magnet got its origins in Japan. It was made for industrial purposes. Now it is used for oil filtration in engine gearboxes, for soil treatment in separators, gearboxes, as well as in medicine and everyday life.

For example, a neodymium magnet with dimensions of 1 × 1 m is capable of lifting up to 400 kg of metal cargo from the bottom of the sea.

The alloy is neodymium, boron and iron. It is quite dangerous for human health, but thanks to the nickel-copper coating it does not pose a threat.

Of the minuses, it is worth highlighting:

demagnetizes in water at a temperature of +7 0С;
completely demagnetized by a strong blow to the magnet (for example, with a hammer);
complex and expensive metal production technology. The cost starts from 1000 rubles for a quality magnet.

Why can't anything come out?

The thing is that for each type of water meter you need to select l weight and dimensions of neodymium magnet. A weak magnet may not lead to a stop, and a strong one can immediately disable it. This is done only by trial and error, starting from the center of the dial. As soon as the counter stops spinning, the place is found. On the Internet you can find a video of how the “kulibins” install a magnet on a water meter (This is not an instruction for theft, but a general understanding of the problem of illegal actions):

There are many reviews and recommendations on the Internet on the forums on the topic of which magnet is needed to stop a counter of one type or another. Usually, older models of water meters are the easiest to stop. For this, cylindrical magnets 50x40 and 60x30 are often used. Here are some examples of reviews from the Internet:

I took a magnet for the water meter "Roskontrol SVU 15" with dimensions of 50 × 30. Stopped completely. It does not turn even when I open all the taps at the same time. Bought for 1000 rubles.

Alexander, Rostov region

My first attempt to stop the 2017 Economy meter was a failure. All due to the fact that he took a weak magnet - 40 × 20. The forum advised me to buy a magnet 60 × 30 mm. He copes with his task.

Mikhail, Moscow

Somehow I got 2 magnets from friends - 50 × 30 and 60x30 mm. I decided to try them on the new Valtec water meter (2017). The first only half slowed down his work, and the second stopped completely. Installed on the side in the area of the counting arrow. And be careful when you put the magnet! It bonds to metal instantly with impressive impact force. If you do not remove your fingers in time, you can severely injure the limbs.

Eduard, St. Petersburg

It is worth considering that the manufacturer upgrades its production technologies every time. Therefore, the magnet is able to stop one counter and break the other, moreover, of the same company. Just one mistake will be fatal for you.

This is interesting! The newest counters have built-in radio modules. With their help, your meter readings are automatically sent to the utility. An example of such a counter is Aqua-1.

The sensor is capable of transmitting information for 10 km in the city. Moreover, it works from an autonomous power source (about 10 years). By the way, an attempt to install a neodymium magnet on such a counter is immediately recorded and sent to the dispatcher. Therefore, this meter model is not in demand among unscrupulous residents.

How can controllers know everything?

A banal situation - when your experiments led to a complete stop of the water meter. Everything is simple here. You will have to call the water utility employees to unseal and replace the water meter. The inspector will understand the reason and issue an administrative protocol.

Moreover, even if you succeeded, the controllers will still be able to determine whether you are using a magnet.

We do not take into account the moment when you were caught hot. Everything is easier here. When you have a magnet on a water meter, his body is magnetized. And they can determine this at your home with a special device - a teslameter or in a service when you hand over the meter every few years for verification. You can watch the video to see how easy it is to do even without any equipment.

Of course, the water utility will not be able to officially confirm the presence of a magnet using this method. After all, firstly, not every service has such devices worth more than 30 thousand rubles, and secondly, there are no legislative acts on which decisions could be made based on the testimony of a non-certified device or guesses of controllers.

However, your person will be given full attention. You will most likely be installed anti-magnetic sealing tape (color changing), with which an attempt to put a magnet will immediately turn into a crash. And then you can't avoid the fine.

How much will the fine cost?

And here we gradually approach the issue of an administrative offense. Since 01/01/2016, the punishment has become tough - the average amount of water consumed for 3 years is charged (if the check has not been carried out for several years). In addition, this figure is multiplied by 10. If the auditors visited you this year, then the recalculation starts from the date of their visit. The amount of 25-40 thousand is an average figure.

When your guilt is proven, all that remains is to pay a fine. Arguing won't help. In the practice of lawyers, there are still no court decisions in favor of the debtor. Please note that all courts will be on the side of the public utilities. And you will also pay legal costs in case of disputes.

Avoiding paying the fine is not even worth it, because the injured party through the court can:

Confiscate part of your property on account of a debt;
Withhold part of wages;
Arrest a bank account;
Restrict the right to leave the country.

Unpleasant? That's it. Well, do not forget that spoiled relations with neighbors will be added to the bitter sediment.

How will the neighbors look at me?

Do you know that in addition to meters in apartments there are common house counter. When tenants steal resources, discrepancies in the readings of the total meter and the total number of consumption of all apartments immediately become noticeable. Who do you think will pay for someone who thinks they are smarter?

In order to compensate for unpaid consumption, the management company will distribute the shortage among all residents, among whom may be single mothers, elderly people with modest pensions. Most likely, now you can clearly imagine how they will look at you.

How to demagnetize a water meter?

You will make the right decision if stop using the magnet. After all, such a method cannot be called reasonable economy. Where better to use water rationally. And to remove the magnetization, use a powerful electromagnet. It is necessary to bring it to the counter several times and slowly remove it from the device.

Check residual magnetic forces can be done with a compass. Bringing the compass closer to the magnetized device, the north arrow will deviate towards the water meter. You need to keep demagnetizing with an electromagnet until the compass needle stops responding.

On a note! When the counter stops spinning after the magnet, this does not mean that you need to change it. It happens that the impeller is jammed in the housing. And to start it, you need pushes. You can create such shocks by opening and closing the riser valve.

Summary: Most likely, the magnet on the counter will bring more problems than save money.

SOLUTION
IN THE NAME OF THE RUSSIAN FEDERATION

Magistrate of court district No. 3 of the Zavolzhsky district of Ulyanovsk Kireeva E.V.,
under the secretary Hibeb O.E.,

having considered in open court a civil case on the claim of the Association of Homeowners "Zavolzhsky" against Pankov<ФИО1>on the collection of debts for payment of utilities, the cost of checking the meter and court costs,

INST A N O V&L:

The partnership of homeowners "Zavolzhsky" (hereinafter referred to as the HOA "Zavolzhsky") filed a lawsuit, clarified during the trial, against Pankov<ФИО1>on the recovery of arrears in payment of utilities, the cost of checking the meter and court costs, indicating the following.

Pankov M.P. is the owner of the residential premises located at the address: Ulyanovsk, proezd<АДРЕС>, where it has been registered since February 17, 1989. Since the indicated time, in the disputed residential area, they are also registered as Pankov's wife<ФИО2>, as Pankov's daughter<ФИО3>, as the son of Pankov<ФИО4>, as the grandson of Vaitkunas<ФИО5>. In fact, since 2012, the defendant and his wife have been living in this apartment. According to the Charter of the HOA "Zavolzhsky", approved by the general meeting of the owners of a residential building<НОМЕР>on the way<АДРЕС>in Ulyanovsk dated February 14, 2011, HOA "Zavolzhsky" is the assignee of the Association of Individual Owners of Apartments "Zavolzhsky". The partnership was established to jointly manage and ensure the operation of the complex real estate, possession, use and disposal of the common property of an apartment building at the address: Ulyanovsk, proezd<АДРЕС>. In accordance with Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation of May 6, 2011 No. 354 “On the provision of public services to owners and users of premises in apartment buildings and Residential Buildings” since September 1, 2012, new rules for calculating utility bills have been introduced. At the general meeting of the HOA "Zavolzhsky" on December 12, 2012, the issue of payment for the maintenance of places was resolved common use(ODN) from January 2013. It was unanimously decided to pay for ODN - water and ODN - electricity according to the calculation, tariffs were set from 1 sq.m. the total area of the apartment, the amounts for apartments for ODN - water and ODN - electricity, which also included shortfalls resulting from the difference in readings between the readings of common house water meters and the readings of individual apartment devices. Since some owners refused to pay for ODN - water, referring to the installation by other residents magnets for individual metering devices water, for the purpose of disagreements on this issue on 04.02.2013 between Measurement Center No. 1 LLC represented by CEO Lyakha I.S. and HOA "Zavolzhsky" represented by the chairman Levushkina V.A., on the other hand, an agreement No. 00019 was concluded under the terms of which the Contractor undertook to measure the residual magnetization of water meters in apartments of a residential building<НОМЕР>by pr-du<АДРЕС>in Ulyanovsk. The customer, for his part, undertook to pay in full for the services received in accordance with Appendix No. 1 to the contract in the amount of 12,650 rubles. 00 kop. and provide the performer with access to measurement objects in a timely manner. When measuring the residual magnetization of water meters, in apartments of a residential building<НОМЕР>by pr-du<АДРЕС>it was found that in 30 apartments the devices have a very high magnetization. In this connection, the general meeting of the HOA "Zavolzhsky" dated February 17, 2013 decided that the apartment owners in respect of which an act was drawn up to recalculate the amount of water fees to pay for checking the meter in the amount of 350 rubles. and additional charges for water consumption for 2012 at the rate of 5 cubic meters. water per person, instead of the norm of 7.5 cubic meters. m. According to the act No. 20120198, the measurement of the residual magnetization of water metering devices dated 02/08/2013 LLC "Measurement Center No. 1" by metrology specialist Lyakhom I.S. measurements of the residual magnetization of the water meter SVK-15-3, installed at the address: . Ulyanovsk, travel<АДРЕС>, installation site - toilet. According to the test data, the excess of the factory level of magnetization of the water meter was 110 µT. From the conclusion of the commission it follows that the water meter was subjected to artificial magnetization, which is an unauthorized interference in their work. In this connection, the HOA "Zavolzhsky" on February 8, 2013, an act was drawn up to recalculate the amount of payment for utility services of cold water supply, in connection with unauthorized interference in the operation of individual (apartment) water meters at the address: Ulyanovsk, proezd<АДРЕС>, owner Pankov M.P. Thus, according to the certificate of the HOA "Zavolzhsky" on the existing debt in connection with unauthorized intervention in the cold water meter, the debt for the period from January to December 2012 amounted to 2069 rubles. 76 kopecks, for checking the meter for payment - 350 rubles. The defendant refuses to pay this debt. They ask to recover from M.P. Pankov. in favor of the HOA «Zavolzhsky» arrears in payment for utilities in the amount of 2069 RUB. 76 kop. for the period from January 2012 to December 2012 in connection with unauthorized interference with the cold water meter, the amount for checking the water meter in the amount of 350 rubles, legal expenses incurred related to the payment of the state fee in the amount of 400 rubles, the provision legal services in the amount of 4000 rubles.

The representative of the plaintiff HOA «Zavolzhsky» - Levushkina The.A. at the hearing, the claims were supported by the arguments set forth in the statement of claim, and additionally explained that at the beginning of 2013 in the house<НОМЕР>by pr-du<АДРЕС>it was found that there is a large loss of cold water throughout the house. The difference in the readings of a common house water meter with the readings individual devices accounting for water diverged significantly. In this connection, it was decided to check the individual cold water metering devices in the apartments. An announcement was posted at the entrances of the apartment building that the inspection would take place from February 07 to February 11, 2013, all residents were notified of the upcoming inspection. Before raising the issue at a meeting of the residents of the house about checking the magnetization of water meters, she repeatedly applied on this issue to the Administration of Ulyanovsk and to the deputies, where she was advised to apply to Measurement Center No. 1 LLC, since this organization the only one in the city that has a microteslameter device that determines the level of magnetization. Therefore, an agreement was concluded with this organization. According to the results of the inspection, it was found that in 30 apartments of a residential building, cold water metering devices have supermagnetization. In several apartments of a residential building, checks of cold water metering devices were not carried out, since the tenants did not let the commission into the apartments. By decision of the general meeting, in those apartments where it was found that the cold water meters are supermagnetized, utilities were recalculated in connection with unauthorized interference with the operation of the cold water meter, and they were also charged an amount for checking the meter in the amount of 350 rubles. All residents of the house were obliged to change cold water metering devices to anti-magnetic ones. Residents of 27 apartments paid this debt, residents of three apartments, these are Krut N.N., Pankov M.P. and Krutova A.M., they refused to pay this debt. Several tenants were not allowed into their apartments for inspection. In addition, she added that the check in the defendant's apartment was carried out on 08.02.2013, when checking the water meter by the representative of LLC Center for Measurements No. 1, Lyakhom AND.C. the defendant had a magnet on the pipe. She herself was in the corridor at the time of the check. The report on the discovery of the magnet was drawn up a few days later.

The representative of the plaintiff HOA "Zavolzhsky" Petrova M.Yu., acting by power of attorney dated 04/01/2013, at the hearing supported the claims on the arguments set forth in the statement of claim and explained that during the inspection of metering devices at the address: Ulyanovsk, pr -d<АДРЕС>, unauthorized intervention in the cold water meter was detected, namely, the cold water meter had supermagnetization, in addition, a magnet was found on the pipe near the meter. Due to the identified violations, the payment for cold water supply was recalculated according to the consumption standard, and not according to the readings of the meter. Believes that the requirements of the HOA "Zavolzhsky" are reasonable and legal. Since the acquisition of the apartment, the defendant, as the owner, must bear the burden of maintaining it. The members of the HOA themselves turned to the chairman with a request to find an opportunity and means to determine the cause of the loss of a large amount of water. She asked to satisfy the claims.

defendant Pankov M.P. At the hearing, he did not agree with the claims, he explained to the court that he and his wife live in this apartment, the owner of which he is. His daughter rents an apartment and lives on the Lower Terrace. His son has been living in Germany for several years. The water meter in his apartment was checked on 02/09/2013, on Saturday, since on working days he goes to his daughter and sits with his grandchildren. He himself personally called Levushkina V.A. and asked her to come check the device at the weekend. On Saturday morning, he called her again and told her that he was at home waiting for them. When the commission arrived, he immediately began to show them where the water meter was installed. Levushkina V.A. at that time was in the corridor, he and the accountant Soboleva R.F. stood next to the toilet. Suddenly, a representative of Center for Measurements No. 1 LLC took out a magnet from somewhere and said that it was allegedly installed on a pipe. He became indignant and did not understand where the magnet could come from. He immediately began to say that a magnet had been planted on him. At the same time, the representative of Center for Measurements No. 1 LLC did not make any more measurements, he did not see the device in his hands. He asked the representative of Center for Measurements No. 1 LLC to check the meter carefully, turn on the water, but he did nothing. Act Levushkina V.A. did not draw up with him, although he asked to give him an act. He did not sign the act. He was able to receive the act only a few days later and immediately discovered that the act was drawn up on 02/08/2013, that is, the day before the check. He believes that the HOA "Zavolzhsky" violated the procedure for conducting an audit. After he was accused of unauthorized intervention in the water meter, he called specialists from the Ulyanovsk CSM, they checked the device and issued him a certificate of verification of the water meter HVS SVK-15-3 (serial number 1014005221901) dated 05/30/2013 . The device was found fit for use.

Third person Pankova G.S. at the hearing with the claims was not agree, considers them unlawful. She explained that she and her husband live in the apartment together. Their water meter is in working condition, they did not put magnets on it, perhaps they planted it on them.

Third person Pankova T.M. at the hearing with the claims was not agree, considers them unlawful. She explained that her parents, who are pensioners, live in the apartment. In fact, representatives of the HOA did not check the water meter in the parents' apartment, she does not know where the magnet on the pipe could come from, she assumes that it was thrown on purpose. In addition, the act was not drawn up in the presence of the parents, the father was not allowed to sign it, there are discrepancies in the date of drawing up the act and the actual day of the check. To date, the water meter has been re-tested by specialists from the Ulyanovsk CSM and found to be suitable. There are no legal grounds for recalculation. The integrity and seals on the metering device were not violated.

third party Pankov Oh.M. at the hearing did not appear, the time and place of the hearing was duly notified.

The representative of the third party of the limited liability company Center for Measurements No. 1 (hereinafter referred to as LLC Center for Measurements) Lyakh I.S. did not appear at the court session, he was duly notified of the time and place of the hearing. In the previous court session, he believed that the claims are legal, additionally explained to the court that their organization specializes in fixing unauthorized interference with the operation of water meter meters, namely the impact on them of a third-party magnetic field in order to distort its readings.The meter consists of poured brass steel, in which a plastic impeller is located , and a plastic counting mechanism.In the impeller of the pouring part and in the rotating clutch of the counting mechanism there are 4 cylindrical magnets (2 in each part), due to which rotation is transmitted from the impeller to the counting mechanism clutch.Brass and plastic, when exposed to a magnetic field, are not magnetized in view of their physical properties. That is, the magnitude of the value of the magnetic field on the meter case, which was not influenced by external magnetic fields, is a constant value, and it can be measured (for SGV-14 meters, no more than 40 μT). When a third-party magnetic field begins to act on the counter, which in its magnitude exceeds the field that the magnets create in the impeller to transfer rotation to the clutch, the clutch stops rotating and the counter ceases to perform its function. The degree of stop of the counter depends on the magnitude of the external magnetic field. Between the brass part and the counting mechanism there is a gasket that seals the brass part, and the sealing occurs with a retaining ring, which is made of steel. When a third-party magnetic field is applied to the meter, the retaining ring, due to its physical properties, is magnetized, and the level of the magnetic field on the meter body begins to exceed the factory level. The level of the magnetic field can be measured with a magnetometer and compare the factory critical values and the values after exposure to a third-party magnetic field. The factory critical values of the magnetic field on the meter case are constant, regardless of the batch of meters, because otherwise, if the magnetic field level is significantly exceeded, the device can be read as defective from the factory, since, due to the principle of its operation, it will show the incorrect number of cubic meters of water, passed through it. The meters themselves cannot become magnetized during operation without the influence of a third-party magnetic field. The residual magnetization is measured using an MF-24FM magnetometer. To carry out the measurement, the magnometer was applied to the surface of the water meter under the sealing ring, since this is where the retaining ring is located. The whole essence of the measurements comes down to a direct measurement of the level of residual magnetization of the retaining ring, it is she who shows whether the counter was affected by an external magnetic field or not. In addition, he noted that the MF-24FM magnetometer is included in the register in State Register measuring instruments under No. 39120-08 and, therefore, can be used in the areas of state regulation if there is a valid verification certificate issued by an organization accredited for this. Based on the certificate No. 02/13 on verification of the measuring instrument dated February 21, 2013, issued by the State Center for Testing Magnetic Measuring Instruments FSUE SPETSMAGNIT, microteslameter-gradientometer MF-24FM serial No. 1302019 based on the results of the verification (protocol No. 02/13 dated February 21, 2013 recognized as fit for use (another check no later than 02/21/2014) He also explained that of all the apartments he checked, in one of the apartments, namely Pankov M.P., he found a magnet on the pipe, which he then handed over to Levushkina V .A. In this apartment, he also measured the residual magnetization of the water meter, which he reflected in the act.

The representative of a third party OOO Center for Measurements No. 1 Chernov SA, acting on the basis of a power of attorney dated 05/21/2013, did not appear at the hearing, he was duly notified of the time and place of the case. In the previous court session, he believed that the claims of the HOA “Zavolzhsky” were legitimate.

The representative of the third party OOO Center for Measurements No. 1, Lyakh S.M., acting on the basis of a power of attorney dated 21.05.2013, did not appear at the hearing, and was duly notified of the time and place of the case. In the previous court session, he believed that the claims of the HOA “Zavolzhsky” were legitimate.

The magistrate considers it possible to consider the case in the absence of non-appearing participants in the process in accordance with Art. 167 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation.

After listening to the explanations of the parties, witnesses, having studied the written materials of the case, the court came to the following.

Based on Art. 9 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, citizens exercise their civil rights at their own discretion.

Civil law, in particular Art. 12 of the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, methods of protection are provided civil rights, however, this list is not exhaustive.

The possibility of judicial protection of civil rights is one of the guarantees of their implementation. The right to judicial protection is a right guaranteed by Art. 46 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation.

Thus, each of the parties presents to the court evidence of the validity or groundlessness of the claims and objections.

The court established legally significant circumstances to be proved by the parties.

In accordance with Art. 30 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the owner of the residential premises bears the burden of maintaining this premises.

Based on Art. 153 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the owner of a dwelling has an obligation to pay for the dwelling and utilities from the moment the right to the dwelling arises.

According to paragraphs 3 and 4 of the Rules for the provision of public services to owners and users of premises in communal houses and residential buildings (hereinafter referred to as the Rules), approved by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation No. 354 dated 06.05. relating to the provision of public services to citizens in an apartment building or in a residential building from the moment the right of ownership of the residential premises arises - to the owner of the residential premises and persons living with him. The consumer can be provided with utility services in the form of cold water supply, that is, the supply of cold drinking water supplied through centralized cold water supply networks and in-house engineering systems to a residential building (household), to residential and non-residential premises in an apartment building, to premises that are part of common property in an apartment building, as well as to a standpipe in the case when an apartment building or a residential building (household) is not equipped with in-house engineering cold water supply systems. At the hearing, it was established that Pankov<ФИО1>is a member of the HOA "Zavolzhsky" and the owner of the premises located at the address: Ulyanovsk, proezd<АДРЕС>, which is confirmed by a certificate of form No. 8 dated 03/22/2013. This circumstance was not disputed by the parties during the consideration of the case. By virtue of the norms set forth above, article 154 of the LC RF, payment for residential premises and utilities includes a fee for the maintenance and repair of residential premises and a fee for utilities (cold and hot water supply, sanitation, electricity, gas supply, heating); the specified norms of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation do not provide for payment by citizens of other services.

By virtue of Parts 5.11 of Article 155 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, members of a homeowners' association or a housing cooperative make mandatory payments and (or) contributions related to the payment of expenses for the maintenance, current and major repairs of common property in an apartment building, as well as payment of utility bills services, in the manner prescribed by the governing bodies of a homeowners association or the management bodies of a housing cooperative or the management bodies of another specialized consumer cooperative; non-use by owners, tenants and other persons of the premises is not a reason for non-payment of payment for residential premises and utilities; in case of temporary absence of citizens, payment for certain types of utilities is carried out taking into account the recalculation of payments for the period of temporary absence of citizens in the manner approved by the Government of the Russian Federation.

In accordance with clause 6.1 of the Charter of the HOA "Zavolzhsky", a member of the partnership is obliged to pay in a timely manner a fee for the maintenance and repair of a dwelling, to pay utility bills in a timely manner; to share in the costs and ensure the payment of contributions necessary to cover the costs associated with the maintenance, current and overhaul common property. According to Part 1 of Article 157 of the Housing Code of the Russian Federation, the amount of payment for utilities is calculated based on the volume of consumed utilities, determined by the readings of metering devices, and in their absence, based on the standards for the consumption of utilities approved by the authorities state power subjects Russian Federation in the manner prescribed by the Government of the Russian Federation. By virtue of the norms of clause 34 of the Rules of 06.05.2011 No. 354 (in force at the time of the occurrence of disputed legal relations), pay utility bills in a timely manner and in full, unless otherwise provided by an agreement containing provisions on the provision of utility services. In order to account for consumed utilities, use collective (general house), individual, common (apartment), room metering devices, distributors of an approved type that meet the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation on ensuring the uniformity of measurements and have been verified. Ensure verification of collective (general house), individual, common (apartment), room metering devices installed at the expense of the consumer within the time limits established by the technical documentation for the metering device, having previously informed the contractor about the planned date of removal of the metering device for its verification and the date of installation of the metering device based on the results of its verification, with the exception of cases when the contract containing provisions on the provision of public services provides for the obligation of the contractor to carry out Maintenance such metering devices. Allow representatives of the contractor (including emergency services workers), representatives of state control and supervision bodies to the occupied residential or non-residential premises to inspect the technical and sanitary condition of the in-house equipment at a time agreed in advance with the contractor in the manner specified in paragraph 85 of these Rules, but not more than 1 time in 3 months, to check the elimination of shortcomings in the provision of public services and perform the necessary repairs - as necessary, and to eliminate accidents - at any time. Thus, the legislation general principle payment for the services provided based on the volume of water, heat or electrical energy according to meter readings. It was established in court and is not denied by the parties that the defendant's apartment, located at the address: Ulyanovsk, pr-d<АДРЕС>equipped with an individual cold water meter, which is confirmed by a passport for an individual meter and a certificate of verification of the cold water meter dated 11/24/2010 and 05/30/2013, available in the case file. According to the decision of the general meeting, due to the large consumption of water in 2012, it was decided to sort out the chairman of the HOA "Zavolzhsky" with the current situation of water loss. Which was also confirmed at the hearing, questioned as a witness, the accountant of the HOA “Zavolzhsky” Soboleva R.F.

In the period from 02/07/2013 to 02/11/2013 in the house No.<НОМЕР>on the way<АДРЕС>an inspection of individual cold water metering devices was carried out, about which the residents of the house were notified in advance, which was not disputed by the parties in the case.

On February 4, 2013, the chairman of the Zavolzhsky HOA, V.A. Levushkina, signed an agreement with Measurement Center No. 1 LLC to measure the residual magnetization of water meters in apartments. The place of measurements was residential building No. 2 along the Sirenevy avenue in Ulyanovsk. As follows from the case file, in the period from February 7 to February 11, 2013, Levushkina V.A., a representative of the Zavolzhsky HOA, a specialist of Center for Measurements No. 1 LLC and members of the commission, checked individual water meters for magnetization, that is, unauthorized intervention by residents, in the house<НОМЕР>by pr-du<АДРЕС>in Ulyanovsk. According to the act of measuring the residual magnetization of water meters dated 08.02.2013 No. 20120198, filled out by a specialist of Center for Measurements No. 1 LLC, it follows that in the defendant's apartment, when measuring the residual magnetization of water meters, the excess of the factory level of magnetization of the water meter is 110 μT. The measurements were carried out with an MF-24FM microteslameter-gradientometer. The act does not indicate that a magnet was found on the water meter in the defendant's apartment. In addition, the act was not signed by the owner of the apartment Pankov M.P. Interrogated as a witness at the hearing accountant HOA «Zavolzhsky» Soboleva R.F. explained that she was present when the water meter was checked for residual magnetization in the apartment of M.P. Pankov. The check was carried out by the specialist of LLC "Measurement Center No. 1" Lyakh I.S. He also found a magnet on the pipe near the cold water meter. Then I checked the device for residual magnetization. The excess of the factory level of magnetization of the water meter was 110 μT. Pankov M.P. became indignant, they drew up an act of verification and left. Pankov M.P. refused to sign the act of verification. On what day the check was carried out, she does not remember exactly, but it was definitely not a working day. A few days later, they drew up an act on the discovery of a magnet on a water meter in the apartment of M.P. Pankov.

This fact, namely the presence of magnetization on the water meter, was regarded by the HOA "Zavolzhsky" as unauthorized interference in the operation of the water meter and the owner's action aimed at distorting the readings of the water meter. In this connection, an act was drawn up to recalculate the amount of payment for utility services of cold water in connection with unauthorized interference in the operation of individual water meters. The recalculation was made according to the tariffs based on the number of people living in the dwelling. By virtue of part 3 of article 123 of the Constitution of the Russian Federation, legal proceedings are carried out on the basis of competition and equality of the parties. In accordance with Art. 56 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation, each party must prove the circumstances to which it refers as the basis for its claims and objections.

By virtue of the norms of clause 80 of the Rules of 05/06/2011 No. 354, (in force at the time of the occurrence of disputed legal relations), accounting for the volume (quantity) of utilities provided to the consumer in a residential or non-residential premises is carried out using individual, common (apartment), room metering devices. Metering devices of the approved type and verified in accordance with the requirements of the legislation of the Russian Federation on ensuring the uniformity of measurements are allowed for use. Information on the compliance of the metering device with the approved type, information on the date of the primary verification of the metering device and on the calibration interval established for the metering device, as well as the requirements for the operating conditions of the metering device must be indicated in the accompanying documents to the metering device. In accordance with paragraph 7 of part 3 of article 1 of the Federal Law of June 26, 2008 No. 102-FZ “On Ensuring the Uniformity of Measurements”, measurements performed in the course of trade and barter operations fall within the scope of state regulation of measurement assurance. In accordance with Art. 5 of the Federal Law of June 26, 2008 No. 102-FZ “On Ensuring the Uniformity of Measurements”, measurements related to the scope of state regulation of ensuring the uniformity of measurements must be carried out according to certified measurement techniques (methods), with the exception of measurement techniques (methods) designed to perform direct measurements, using measuring instruments of an approved type that have passed verification. The measurement results must be expressed in units of quantities approved for use in the Russian Federation. Methods (methods) of measurements intended for performing direct measurements are included in the operational documentation for measuring instruments. Confirmation of the compliance of these methods (methods) of measurements with the mandatory metrological requirements for measurements is carried out in the process of approving the types of data of measuring instruments. In other cases, confirmation of compliance of measurement procedures (methods) with the mandatory metrological requirements for measurements is carried out by attestation of measurement procedures (methods). Information about certified measurement techniques (methods) is transferred to the Federal Information Fund for Ensuring the Uniformity of Measurements by legal entities and individual entrepreneurs conducting certification. Certification of methods (methods) of measurements related to the sphere of state regulation of ensuring the uniformity of measurements is carried out by legal entities and individual entrepreneurs accredited in the prescribed manner in the field of ensuring the uniformity of measurements. Water meters are metering devices for energy resources (cold water, hot water) and are measuring instruments for mutual settlements between the consumer and the management company. Regulatory documents for determining the suitability of water meters for use are GOST R 50601-93 “Impeller drinking water meters. General specifications”, MI 1592-99 “Water meters. Verification procedure”, GOST 6019-83 “Cold water vane meters. General technical conditions”, GOST 8.156-83 “GSI. Cold water meters. Methods and means of verification”. Analyzing these documents, these documents do not provide for tests and measurements for magnetization, therefore there is no information about the possible magnetization of meters or the residual value of magnetization. In these documents there are no requirements for water meters regarding the impact of external magnetic fields. In addition, these operations are not provided by manufacturers in the technological process of production of water meters (based on the letter of BETAR LLC, ref. 530 dated 03/25/2013), and accordingly, the standard of residual magnetization (factory level of magnetization) is not established by any of the above documents. From the explanations of Batsarov V.N., interrogated at the court session as a specialist, who is the head of the department for checking measuring instruments for measuring mechanical and geometric quantities of the Ulyanovsk CSM, it follows that measurements for residual magnetization were carried out using a measuring instrument - a magnetometer, which is not intended for similar measurements for water meters. This device is designed to measure the magnetic induction gradient of a constant magnetic field and is used to assess the level of residual magnetization of parts and assemblies of products, as well as to identify local magnetic poles using the fluxgate method in laboratory and workshop conditions of aircraft repair and aircraft building enterprises and other engineering industries. In the case under consideration, there are no certified or included in the operational documentation measurement procedures (methods). In addition, he believes that the submitted certificate of verification of the magnetometer cannot be recognized as valid, since it does not comply with PR 50.2.006-94 “Metrology Rules, State Measurement Assurance System. The procedure for conducting measuring instruments ", approved by the order of the State Standard of the Russian Federation "On approval of the Procedure for verifying measuring instruments" dated 18.07.1994 No. 125. The case materials contain written explanations of LLC Production and commercial company "BETAR", according to which, depending on the magnitude of the magnetic field strength , created by an external permanent magnet in metering devices - water meters of the SHV, SGV type that do not have antimagnetic protection, malfunctions may occur - going beyond the limits of the characteristics established by the standard: the specified error and sensitivity threshold (set in accordance with the class of the device), up to full stop the device. At the same time, there are no requirements for anti-magnetic protection of water meters in the legislation and state standards. In view of the foregoing, the letter from the manufacturer of the MF-24FM microteslameter on the possibility of using this device to measure residual magnetization, which is available in the case file, cannot serve as a basis for the provision of these services to the population by management companies and other legal entities.

In addition, according to the addendum to the letter from the manufacturer AKA - CONTROL, the microteslameter - gradiometer MF-24FM (serial number 13002019) was manufactured by AKA-control LLC. This device was sold to the company Center for Measurements No. 1 LLC (legal address, Ulyanovsk, Ryabikova St., 39), which is confirmed by invoice No. 13 dated February 21, 2013. According to the certificate No. 02/13 on the calibration of the measuring instrument, the microteslameter - gradiometer MF-24FM (serial number 13002019) was recognized as fit for operation according to the results of the test dated 21.02.2013. The previous certificate of verification of the microteslameter - gradiometer MF-24FM LLC Center for Measurements No. 1 was not presented at the hearing. In this regard, it is also not possible to establish what device was used to check the residual magnetization of water meters in the apartments of residents, whether it was available at the time of the check and on what basis it was at Measurement Center No. 1 LLC, since according to the materials of the case According to information, the microteslameter - gradiometer MF-24FM was purchased by Center for Measurements No. 1 LLC only on February 21, 2013, while the check in the apartments was carried out from February 7, 2012 to February 11, 2013. It also follows from the explanations of defendant MP Pankov that he did not see how and with what device the check was carried out.

In addition, the court believes that in this case the procedure for checking individual metering devices and their serviceability was also violated. So, as mentioned above, the contractor has the right, at a time agreed in advance with the consumer, to verify the correctness of the consumer's readings of individual metering devices, their serviceability, as well as the integrity of the seals on them. From the above norm of the law it follows that the time of the inspection must be agreed with each consumer individually. During the consideration of the case, it was established that the time of the inspection was not agreed in advance with the plaintiff. Witness Soboleva R.F. at the hearing explained, that the exact date of the inspection in the apartment Pankova M.P. she does not remember, but the examination was not carried out on working days, that is, either 02/09/2013 or 02/10/2013 (the inspection period is from 02/07/2013 to 02/11/2013). It follows from the case file that the inspection report was drawn up on 02/08/2013, which in this case was disputed by the defendant MP Pankov. In addition, the report on the discovery of the magnet was drawn up a few days after the inspection. The defendant did not sign both acts, and there is no information that the defendant refused to sign the act.

The procedure for accounting for utilities using metering devices, the grounds for conducting checks on the condition of metering devices and the correctness of taking their readings on the day the case is considered is regulated by Decree of the Government of the Russian Federation dated 06.05.2011 No. 354 “On the provision of utility services to owners and users of premises in apartment buildings and residential buildings." By virtue of paragraph 85 of this Resolution, verification of the reliability of information provided by consumers about the readings of individual, general (apartment), room meters, specified in paragraph 82 of these Rules, if access to the residential or non-residential premises of the consumer is required for its implementation, is carried out by the contractor in the following order :

a) the performer sends the consumer in a way that allows determining the date of receipt of such a message, or delivers a written notice against signature with a proposal to inform the consumer of the date (dates) and time of admission of the performer convenient for the consumer to perform an inspection and explaining the consequences of the consumer's inaction or his refusal to admit the performer to metering devices; b) the consumer is obliged, within 7 calendar days from the date of receipt of the said notice, to inform the contractor in a way that allows determining the date of receipt of such a message by the contractor, about a convenient date (dates) and time for the consumer within the next 10 calendar days, when the consumer can ensure the admission of the contractor to residential or non-residential premises occupied by him for inspection. If the consumer cannot ensure the contractor's admission to the residential premises occupied by him due to temporary absence, then he is obliged to inform the contractor about other possible date (dates) and time of admission for the inspection;

c) if the consumer fails to fulfill the obligation specified in subparagraph b of this paragraph, the contractor re-sends a written notice to the consumer in the manner specified in subparagraph a of this paragraph, and the consumer is obliged, within 7 calendar days from the date of receipt of such a notice, to inform the contractor in a way that allows determining the date receipt of such a message by the performer, the information specified in subparagraph b of this paragraph; d) the performer, on the date and time agreed with the consumer in accordance with subparagraph b or c of this paragraph, is obliged to conduct an audit and draw up an audit report and transfer 1 copy of the report to the consumer. The verification act is signed by the performer and the consumer, and in case the consumer refuses to sign the act, by the performer and 2 disinterested persons; e) if the consumer did not respond to the repeated notification of the contractor or 2 or more times did not allow the contractor to enter the residential or non-residential premises occupied by him at the date and time agreed by the consumer, and at the same time, in relation to the consumer living in the residential premises, the contractor does not have information about his temporary absence in the occupied residential premises, the performer draws up an act on refusal of admission to the metering device. The act of refusal to allow the contractor to access metering devices located in the residential or non-residential premises of the consumer is signed by the contractor and the consumer, and if the consumer refuses to sign the act, by the contractor and 2 disinterested persons. The act indicates the date and time of the contractor's arrival for the inspection, the reasons for the consumer's refusal to allow the contractor to access the metering devices (if the consumer told the contractor about such reasons), other information indicating the actions (inaction) of the consumer that prevent the contractor from conducting the inspection. The contractor is obliged to transfer 1 copy of the act to the consumer;

f) the performer is obliged, within 10 days after receiving from the consumer, in respect of which the act of refusing admission to the metering device, is left, a statement of readiness to admit the contractor to the premises for verification, conduct an inspection, draw up an inspection report and transfer 1 copy of the act to the consumer. The verification act is signed by the executor and the consumer, and in case the consumer refuses to sign the act, by the executor and 2 disinterested persons. Thus, both the previous legislation and the legislation in force at the time of the consideration of the case oblige the contractor (Zavolzhsky HOA) to properly notify the consumer (in this case, the defendant) about the verification of the reliability of the information provided by consumers about the readings of individual metering devices, and during the inspection, draw up an appropriate Act with the delivery of one copy of the Act to the consumer.

In view of the foregoing, evidence of the exact date of the inspection, and even more so the agreement of this date with the defendant, the representative of the plaintiff at the hearing is not presented. The requirements of the law in this part of the HOA "Zavolzhsky" were not met. In connection with the foregoing, the court believes that the defendant's arguments about the violation of the verification procedure were confirmed at the hearing.

The presence and integrity of the seals on the measuring instruments (in this case, the cold water meter) is sufficient to protect them from unauthorized interference. Damage to any additional control signs while maintaining the integrity of the seals, as well as the determination of residual magnetization, does not in itself prove interference with the operation of metering devices. At the same time, the defendant MP Pankov at the court session re-submitted a certificate of verification of the cold water meter installed in his apartment, dated 05/30/2013, as a result of which the water meter was recognized as suitable for use. The check was carried out by the FBU “State Regional Center for Standardization, Metrology and Testing in the Ulyanovsk Region. The magistrate has no reason to consider the defendant's meter readings unreliable, underestimated, not corresponding to the actual volumes of water consumed, since the meter verification period has not expired, the meter meets the technical requirements for measuring instruments: the meter is based on the results of verification by the metrological service of the FBU "Ulyanovsk TsSM » recognized fit, approved for operation.

Analyzing the evidence presented, the court sees no reason to impose on the defendant Pankov MP. obligations to pay the debt accrued to him for the payment of utilities, as well as the amount for checking the water meter. Under such circumstances, the court believes that the plaintiff's claims are unfounded and their satisfaction should be denied in full. Based on the above and guided by Article.Article. 12, 56, 194 - 199 Code of Civil Procedure of the Russian Federation court,

To satisfy the claims of the Association of homeowners "Zavolzhsky" to Mikhail Petrovich Pankov for the recovery of arrears in payment of utility bills, the cost of checking the meter and court costs to refuse. The persons participating in the case, their representatives have the right to submit to the justice of the peace an application for drawing up a reasoned court decision, which can be filed: - within three days from the date of the announcement of the operative part of the court decision, if the persons participating in the case, their representatives were present at the court session ; - within fifteen days from the date of announcement of the operative part of the court decision, if the persons participating in the case, their representatives were not present at the court session. The decision can be appealed to the Zavolzhsky District Court of Ulyanovsk through the magistrate judicial district № 3 Zavolzhsky district of Ulyanovsk on appeal within a month from the date of production of the decision in final form.

World judge
E.V. Kireeva