After the water supply accident, the owner of the flooded facility crossed the NPC to My Home as needed.

“Due to lack of due diligence and inadequate performance of direct management services by Mano Būstas NPC, illegal actions, failure to ensure the proper condition of the building and its engineering networks, it filled with water and damage was caused “, the Vilnius Regional Court set.

The panel of judges chaired by Judge Andrutė Salvador announced that it would uphold the unfavorable decision of Mano Būstas NPC (formerly the Home Care Center), which had been taken by the Vilnius City District Court in November. The court ruling entered into force from its publication.

With this decision, the administrator of the housing building is obliged to pay more than 9.5 thousand euros in damages and almost 2 thousand euros to the owner of the premises affected by the water supply accident. Segregated costs in euros.

A woman with a non-residential premises in one of the capital’s apartment buildings filed a claim for damages in court. Their lawsuit indicated that a dental laboratory was installed at these facilities, and in 2019. March 26 an apartment in an apartment building had a common water supply pipe under the floor. This apartment was on top of the laboratory facilities.

“During the accident, the non-residential premises of my property and the personal property in them were flooded,” the lawsuit says.

According to the woman, the water supply accident was liquidated that same night by the emergency service of the administrator of several apartments “Mano Būstas NPC”, and later the repair work of the pipes was carried out.

The apartment, which was missing the floor of the water pipe, was state-owned, it was administered by the Property Bank under the right of trust, for which the injured woman jointly and severally claimed damages from the owner of the apartment and to the property manager. the apartment building. However, the court ruled that the owner of an apartment whose plumbing was missing and caused an accident should not be held liable because it had not been established that “the source of the apartment’s flooding could be exclusively within the state-owned apartment.” , nor “guilt and illegal actions”, a dangerous and damaging effect on the property of a managed apartment ”.

However, according to the court, full responsibility for the plumbing accident and the damages caused by it rests with the manager who oversaw the apartment building.

Examining the data of the case, the judges found that the house where the accident occurred was built in 1940, rebuilt in 1999, and the plumbing in the house is old, rusty, the water supply pipes are severely damaged by corrosion.

“The NPC of my house did not provide data on the maintenance of the house, including its pipes, annually as required by the Building Regulations (STR),” the court said six months after the plumbing accident in the Building Maintenance Act. . It is stated that the hot and cold water supply networks are in satisfactory condition, part of the pipes will not be replaced.

The defendant (“My Housing NPC”), knowing the technical condition of the plumbing in the house, had to be vigilant, constantly monitor the possible dangers of plumbing accidents and was obliged to inform the co-owners of the building or their representatives. performed the functions and duties assigned by the acts correctly, did not submit ”, – according to the court,“ My Housing NPC ”did not ensure the good condition of the building and its engineering networks, which resulted in flooding of water and damage to one of the owners of the house.

According to the court, the pipe was missing in a place that could only be reached by cutting through the floor of a state-owned apartment.

“Having evaluated the totality of the evidence in the case, the court determined that the defendant did not ensure compliance with the mandatory requirements under the STR, the Model Provisions for Condominium Management, – committed illegal acts causally related to the damage.” highlighted the judge A. Salvador, headed by a college.

According to the court, the Mano Būstas NPC company, as the supervisor of the objects of common use of the apartment building, had to ensure the correct implementation of its maintenance: “It had to guarantee that the maintenance of the systems was carried out both preventive maintenance and corrective.

In addition, according to the court, the apartment building manager was obliged to determine the status of the pipeline in a timely manner and inform the owners of the apartments and other apartment building facilities about the need to change them.

“The evidence in the case confirms that the defendant, as the administrator of the house, was and should have been aware of the state of the house plumbing even without a separate notice from the residents,” the judges emphasized that the Building Maintenance established that the hot and cold water networks were in satisfactory condition, part of the pipes should not be changed.

“The appalling condition of the pipeline is confirmed by the photographs presented in the case, the material registered by the bailiff and the testimony of witnesses,” said the Vilnius Regional Court, which examined the civil case. – The defendant, aware of this information and of the fact that the house dates from 1940, construction, the pipeline was rebuilt 20 years ago, since the administrator of the house, responsible for the maintenance of the objects of common use, had to take timely preventive measures, constantly monitor the condition of the pipes, anticipate possible emergencies and contact the building owners, organize pipeline repairs. “

According to the judges, “My Housing NPC” did not provide any evidence that it had contacted the co-owners of the house regarding the organization of the repair work on the objects of common use (pipeline).

“On the contrary, the court of first instance, after evaluating the evidence provided by the defendant, concluded that the defendant had not proven that the house was serviced annually as required by the provisions of the RTS approved by the Minister of the Environment,” he said. the Administrator of various departments.

Furthermore, according to the judges, My Housing NPC also failed to provide evidence that its employees approached the state apartment facilities and wanted to inspect the condition of the pipes.

According to the judges of the court of appeals, “the court of first instance, having fully assessed the evidence of the case, the arguments of the parties and correctly applied the relevant legal norms and without deviating from the established jurisprudence, rightly considered that the the damage has been caused by the defendant’s mismanagement ”.

“The accused violated the obligation to organize the administration, maintenance and other administration of the objects of common use of the house,” said the court.

At the time, representatives from My Housing NPC explained to the court that they did not agree with the company’s claim for damages, that the owner of the state-owned home should take responsibility. In their appeal against the decision that negatively affected the company, they emphasized that the court had not even presented any arguments about the department owner’s obligations to properly maintain and care for the facilities and the general engineering equipment therein.

“Some of the general-purpose engineering equipment is installed in the resident-managed facilities, so the company has no real chance to ensure the condition of the general-purpose engineering equipment without the help and cooperation of the facility managers. “, He said. the apartment manager.

Their representatives stated that “this house was properly maintained and all known deficiencies were rectified and sources of possible threats were eliminated.”

According to the lawyers of Mano Būstas NPC, “part of the general engineering team is installed / installed in the premises of private property of the co-owners of the apartment building – apartments, therefore the legislation stipulates that the owners (users) of apartments and other premises must manage, maintain adequately to repair or otherwise manage, to ensure that the engineering team in their facilities complies with the mandatory requirements for the use and maintenance of structures, notifying the administrator of the objects of common use or people who carry out regular maintenance, as well as the obligation without violating the legal acts and others of the floors and other premises, the interests of the owners in the use of public facilities ”.

“The appointment of a house manager does not remove the obligation of the owners (users) of the flats and other premises to properly manage, maintain, repair or manage public facilities; in this case, the manager did not have the ability to manage the building at all.as the owner and could not do business without physical effects, – indicated in the charge transmitted by the company to the court.- It is clear that some functions, such as plumbing, including those of the premises occupied by the owner or obviously invisible alterations are not carried out by the administrator on his own initiative, but only after the apartment owners and other premises notify the defects., failures “.