ULYANOVSK, Russia – Homeowners in Ulyanovsk are finding their repair funds frozen by regional operators, creating a frustrating stalemate where money is available but cannot be used for essential home upkeep.
Funds Locked: Homeowners Denied Access to Capital Repair Money
Residents of apartment buildings with dedicated capital repair accounts are increasingly clashing with regional operators who refuse to permit the use of these funds for what are deemed “current” repairs, even when the need is pressing and affects the structural integrity of the buildings.
- Homeowners can’t access their own repair funds for necessary work.
- Regional operators cite regulations that differentiate between “current” and “capital” repairs.
- A building on Robespierre Street faces foundation issues due to wastewater infiltration.
- Disputes are common across Ulyanovsk for buildings with special repair accounts.
- A recent meeting convened to find common ground between residents and operators.
Why can’t homeowners use their own repair money for pressing needs? This question is at the heart of a growing conflict in Ulyanovsk, where buildings with capital repair funds are facing critical issues that fall into a regulatory gray area.
The Robespierre Street Dilemma
Take, for instance, house No. 128 on Robespierre Street. This typical five-story building, while not ancient, suffers from severe shrinkage and cracked tiles, particularly in the seventh entrance. Pavel Galaktionov, chairman of the house council, explained the cause: foundation damage from wastewater or storm runoff.
“They lowered a video camera into the pipe, looked. There is a destruction,” Galaktionov stated. “It is urgent to ensure waterproofing the foundation, protect it from water ingress! And we have a blind area – one name, it is practically absent, instead of it the grass grows near the walls of the house. Our house has funds for repairs in a special account, but they are not allowed to use them.”
When Galaktionov approached the regional operator, the Fund for Modernizing the Housing and Communal Complex of the Ulyanovsk region, he was denied permission. The reason cited was that the scope of work—repairing the blind area—was too small, falling below the 30% threshold for capital repairs.
This situation isn’t isolated. Similar disagreements plague Ulyanovsk, affecting many buildings that manage their own overhaul funds. To address these issues, a meeting of the Presidium of the Coordinating Council of Owners was held on June 23, bringing together all involved parties.
Navigating the Regulations: GOST vs. Reality
The Decree of the Government of the Ulyanovsk Region, dated December 28, 2023, No. 754-P, lists the blind area as part of the facade work for major repairs. However, the interpretation of these guidelines is where the conflict arises.
Andrei Prosherkin, director of housing modernization for the housing and communal services, explained the operator’s stance: “If we have approached the planned overhaul, we must make the entire facade 100%… As a separate type of work, the restoration of the blind area, in our opinion, refers to the current repair.”
He elaborated, “If we consider in a context of major repairs, then we take the calculation of the entire facade, from which the blind area takes less than 30%. I do not understand, for example, how can you carry out a partial overhaul of the roof?! So here, there is an approved type of work on major repairs – the facade, respectively, and it must be done entirely.” Prosherkin argued that piecemeal repairs, even if necessary, would lead to the building constantly cycling through the regional overhaul program.
The regional operator’s position is rooted in maintaining a clear distinction between capital and current repairs. Mixing them, they argue, could turn essential overhaul programs into perpetual minor repair cycles, defeating their purpose.
According to GOST R 56535-2015, current repairs are part of routine maintenance and are funded by monthly owner contributions, with the volume not exceeding 30% of the property being repaired. Capital repairs, as defined by Federal Law No. 185 of July 21, 2007, involve fixing or replacing worn structural elements to improve operational characteristics, funded from the capital repair fund when exceeding current repair volumes (GOST R 51929-2014).
This formal division explains the operator’s reluctance to approve expenditures below the 30% threshold for capital repair funds, fearing accusations of misappropriation of funds.
Program Failure and Judicial Precedents
Residents, however, feel their position is equally valid. Regardless of classification, all repairs are ultimately funded by the owners. When funds are set aside in a special account, residents want the flexibility to use them in their own best interest. While regional operators and GOST recommendations are guiding principles, they aren’t necessarily absolute prohibitions, especially when judicial practice offers different interpretations.
Andrei Vorozhets, deputy chief housing inspector of the Ulyanovsk region, pointed to court decisions that have favored residents. “The Agency of State Construction and Housing Supervision of the Ulyanovsk Region has practical examples of resolving such issues in court,” Vorozhets said. He recalled a case where a management company replaced windows in building entrances and attempted to classify it as a major overhaul.
“However, the court sided with the Criminal Code, since there was a decision of the general meeting of owners, where they voted for the overhaul – ‘replacement of window blocks’,” Vorozhets explained. “Although in the facade these work also occupy less than 30%. The court decided that the owners have the right to replace the windows, and the point!”
All parties agreed that overhauling an entire facade at once is often prohibitively expensive. A potential solution involves owners making a collective decision for phased work and entering into long-term contracts, which could simplify payment approvals with regional operators.
Towards a Realistic Overhaul Program
Denis Sedov, chairman of the Committee on Housing and Communal Economy of the Legislative Assembly of the Ulyanovsk Region, stressed the need to avoid lengthy legal battles. “No need to drive people to the courts! This is the last stage when the dispute is at a dead end,” Sedov stated.
He acknowledged the Housing and Public Utilities Modernization Fund’s constraint on allowing improper fund expenditure but emphasized the need for tools to resolve such disputes. “We have methodological recommendations that the Fund already uses, but they are not public and not approved at the regional level,” Sedov noted.
“It is necessary to take into account the current judicial practice, it is imperative to attract prosecutor supervision. It is necessary to summarize all this information and develop clear criteria,” he urged. Sedov criticized the current regional overhaul program as being hastily developed (“on the knee”) and called for its update to reflect reality, including comprehensive technical inspections of all buildings.
Funding for these inspections is a key issue. Sedov cited the Nizhny Novgorod region’s model, where a separate budget program exists, and the practice of owners funding their own technical inventories. This would allow for overhaul programs based on the actual condition of buildings.
Without a thorough technical inventory, Sedov believes the imbalance between capital and current repairs will persist. He also highlighted the lack of a clear prioritization system for repairs, leading to situations where buildings might replace windows as an overhaul while the roof is leaking, a seemingly illogical allocation of owner funds. The problem of elevator replacement in buildings with special accounts, where funds might have been advanced for other work, remains particularly complex.
