Buy a flat from companies that declare compliance with the law on joint construction (№ 214-FZ), no guards of the future tenants of the numerous problems. Developers are trying to reduce the statutory five-year warranty period, refusing to repair the apartment, even when the emergency due to poor quality of work performed there a few months after taking up residence. Federal Service and the Prosecutor have to prove the illegality of such "rules". Violations found in treaties with the future owners of the apartments has concluded entering into group RBI LLC "Building Systems". The inspectors found that the warranty period is calculated not from the transfer of the apartment holders, and the date the formal surrender of the state commission houses. The Arbitration Court ruled such conditions illegal and infringing on the rights of consumers. Similar practices to reduce warranty periods are used, and other developers in St. Petersburg. Administrative Law expensive contract case against the company, "Building Systems" district prosecutor's office instituted, which attracted the attention of the terms of contracts of participation in joint construction of an apartment house "privilege." In addition to reducing warranty period, they provided that in case of deficiencies interest holders had the right to require the developer only "gratuitous deficiencies within a reasonable time." Federal Service, has received submissions from the prosecutor's office, confirmed the violations. Indeed, according to the law warranty period should be calculated from the time when the buyer receives the goods (flat). Also, the consumer is delegated the right to decide what to do in case of marriage: to require its removal or grant a proportionate reduction of sales price or make repairs on their own, sought to misuse the builder the costs incurred. Total against the company were issued ten decisions to impose administrative fines. Challenging them, lawyers appealed to the RBI the freedom of contract - no one is forced to sign a shareholders containing limiting their rights documents. In addition, according to the developer, the Federal Service did not prove that the apartments were purchased by the citizens for their own use and not for them business. The Arbitration Court rejected all the arguments of the company. The servants of Themis came to the conclusion that the calculation of the warranty period from the date of signature authorization to enter into operation infringes on the rights of the consumer. Considered illegal and regulations restricting the choice of interest holders at its discretion, require the developer for reimbursement of removal of defects or commensurate reduction of the contract price. "Reason to believe that an apartment on the 5th floor of the house was purchased by an individual to implement it in business, there is no" - concluded the court. According to tradition, Market Arbitration Court, with other developers, such disputes have not yet been addressed, although identified in RBI illegal conditions are present in the contracts of most serving the St. Petersburg market of participatory construction companies. For example, City House Building Company (GDSK, is part of the LSR) also calculates the warranty period from the date of authorization to enter the house in operation, while another five months the developer takes to connect and run the hot water lifts (ie, the house is not is fully operational). Similar provisions are contained in the contracts offered by JSC "YIT St Petersburg." Sale of the "Baltic Pearl" the apartment developer also promises to repair only in case of violations of technical and town planning regulations, or SNIP project documentation for five years from the date of the house of the state commission. Companies themselves are not formally deny the existence of violations. For example, in GDSK journalist "Fontanka" explained that they would "analyze the jurisprudence on this issue and then make a decision." "Relationships between developers and participants of shared construction, which are covered by the law № 214-FZ are quite young to Russian law - says advisor on legal matters Natalia Savulidi. - To date, there is a formation practice relationship, which entails the need for changes in law or in equity instruments. " Why the developer fails to comply with existing law with the adoption of the rule of the warranty period, it is not explained. Director of Legal Affairs, LLC "Building Systems" Stanislav Mikhailov believes that on the final results and final position of the ship too early to say. The debate over the terms of the warranty period - not nit-picking supervisor. With problems such as family faced Kuzakovyh, bought from CJSC "Northern City" apartment in the house surrendered prematurely Avenue of the Enlightenment. After just eight months after receiving the keys they have exploded hot water supply riser, flooding hot water and a new apartment is located below the housing. The cause of the accident examination found a violation of the riser assembly (deviation of the vertical axis at the junction), but the developer refused to repair the damage, since the time of the accident year has expired from the date of the house of the state commission. The court, which asked the victim, sought in his favor compensation of material damage and pecuniary loss. Collective irresponsibility At the same time, participants of shared construction partly luck - they may require compliance with the warranty period, correction of defects, contact the prosecutor's office, receive support from Rospotrebnadzor etc. Such rights do not have buyers who agree to "bypass" scheme - for example, to participate in the construction of the unit by making contributions to housing cooperatives. In particular, analyzed by experts "Fontanka" model treaties HBC 'CDS-2 "(included in the structure of the" Center building in shares ") is not a word of assurance to the apartment and liability in the event of default of the contract on the part of the cooperative. "HBC has no obligations to its members to pass an apartment, and, accordingly, a citizen may not bring him any requirements related to shortcomings of housing", - says Stanislav Eugene, lawyer business practices of the company Rightmark group. Agree with it and a senior lawyer of Pen & Paper Valentine Beytsyuk: "If building a home contractor carried out, then bring it right to claim only the co-op. Influence the decision of its leadership buyer flats (a member of a cooperative) can? Only by initiating appropriate action at the general meeting. At such meeting the members of HBC may also decide on the management of the cooperative re-election, as it often initially "elected" the developer (aka contractor). If the house has built itself HBC, the claims on the quality of construction may be made directly to the cooperative as a legal entity. " The members of the cooperatives, there are other risks - being a non-profit organization, the cooperative does not have any equity, all of its assets and property owned by shareholders, that is, purchasers of the apartments. Even if one of them will win the court shall collect the amount due will be at the expense of himself and neighbors at home. Insolvency of the builder are not protected and interest holders have signed the treaty within the law № 214-FZ. He admits that the obligations of the developer can provide a bank guarantee, but does not require companies that receive hundreds of millions of rubles holders, enter into such agreements. Their own means they have little or no: according to the Incorporation, the authorized capital of the same LLC "Building Systems", as well as LLC "LEK V» (which builds the infamous luxury residential complex "Imperial" in the Novodevichy Convent) and many other major construction companies is only 10 thousand rubles, the company "Kvartira.ru North-West" - 100 000, the "Glavstroi St. Petersburg" - 5 million While most of these payables developers, as of the last reporting date, tens of millions of rubles. In addition, the shareholder, for example, within the structure of companies is a RBI registered company in Cyprus - to draw her to vicarious liability for intentional bankruptcy of the builder, even unlikely.
No comments:
Post a Comment