Since September 11 in the Central district court of Nikolaev case on OSMD "White House" claim to City Council executive committee on decision No. 1081 cancellation of May 26, 2006 with which the executive committee of the City Council made the performer of services in water supply and water disposal not the producer (KP "Nikolayevvodokanal"), and asset holders of houses, i.e. ACOAH (association of co-owners of apartment houses) and ZhEKI was heard.
Despite an obvious nonsense of such decision, ZhEKI on the habit kept silent, and here OSMD возроптали. Especially as some OSMD already had a bitter experience, and to call it positive the madman wouldn't undertake even.
If in brief, the mentioned decision No. 1081 of 26.05.06 the executive committee of the City Council made the performer of services in the centralized supply by cold water and to water disposal of asset holders of apartment houses, i.e. OSMD or ZhEKI, instead of directly the producer of these services - a water utility.
In compliance with this document the staff of subscriber department of "Nikolayevvodokanal" ceased to change to residents of the book "for water" to residents who live in the houses which have become OSMD from houses of municipal property (these had books initially with open personal accounts), and also not to issue subscriber books to residents of houses who OSMD steel from ZhSK (at these books was never), and began to demand the conclusion of the separate contract with OSMD on subscriber services.
This lack of distribution of books, and also the requirement of a water utility to sign the separate contract with OSMD for subscriber services and became a reason for the claim which was filed a lawsuit by OSMD "White House" (Dekabristov St., 38/2).Though on the second and third court sessions representatives of other OSMD who prosecuted the case of the colleague (to cancel the executive committee decision) were and made public a set of interesting details of relationship between a water utility and OSMD.
There is a huge temptation to tell about business hearing that is called "in persons" that the water utility and Executive Committee of the City Soviet of People's Deputies position in the this case became clear. But it would be very ridiculous, and the problem everything is serious. Therefore we will try to state an essence of performances of the arguing parties briefly.
So, OSMD demanded to cancel this decision of executive committee as it contradicts the Law of Ukraine on OSMD, in compliance with which OSMD can't be the performer of services (it quite logically: OSMD doesn't make water, doesn't transport it and isn't her consumer).
However the water utility persistently referred to Art. 29 of the Law of Ukraine about zhilishchno - utilities, in compliance with which this decision of executive committee and was accepted. Sadly, but fact: the Ukrainian laws aren't always joined among themselves.
Therefore "Nikolayevoblenergo", "Nikolayevgaz" and тепловики took into account the Law of Ukraine on OSMD, the conclusion of the contract only with OSMD (that the water utility demands) didn't demand and didn't refuse subscriber books, and "reached" each subscriber and issued subscriber books.
The judge of the Central district court Vladimir Aleynikov wanted to hear the answer to one question from representatives of a water utility and the Executive Committee of the City Soviet of People's Deputies: why this decision No. 1081 was required to a water utility and the Executive Committee of the City Soviet of People's Deputies if none of citizens don't resist to pay for water according to vodokanalsky books if nobody refuses water utility services?
Representatives of a water utility and the Executive Committee of the City Soviet of People's Deputies had no answer to this question. Not to consider as the answer of the word of the representative of the Executive Committee of the City Soviet of People's Deputies that "this decision is made in borders of influence of the Executive Committee of the City Soviet of People's Deputies", and also words of the representative of a water utility what it "has no answer to the matter, formulate a question differently"?
But representatives of OSMD had an answer. The chairman of OSMD "Olviya" Vladimir Kutukov expressed opinion that this decision and the requirement to OSMD to sign contracts for subscriber services with a water utility were necessary to transfer to a water utility the relations between OSMD and a water utility to the "legal entity-to the legal entity" plane and to exclude the population from this chain. I.e.having recognized OSMD as the performer of services, the water utility starts demanding a payment for water consumption and water disposal of all house with OSMD and ceases to communicate with the population. So, even the 3rd hryvnia of debt on a payment for water or the water disposal which is registered for the house, become a reason for blackmail by a water utility of this OSMD and water shutdown to the house.
There are also the sad examples confirming justice of this assumption. It is a situation with OSMD "Our House" which decided to execute in due time the challenged decision of executive committee and signed the contract for subscriber services with a water utility (for today the given contract will dissolve). And as a result it turned out that OSMD undertook to collect a payment for water and water disposal from residents to pay a bill made out by a water utility that is called as "the uniform massif".
Here only, according to the chairman of OSMD "Our House" Vladimir Kirichuk, money for payment of account of a water utility didn't suffice as residents in full didn't pay for the consumed water and water disposal.
Didn't suffice on payment of the vodokanalsky account and that money which the chairman of this OSMD took from a rent and the OSMD reserve fund. And the water utility disconnected water to the house, and the claim about collection of debts from this OSMD in parallel filed a lawsuit. The economic court of area recognized water utility requirements competent.
However, according to the chairman of OSMD "Our House" V. Kirichuk, it has no means to pay this bill, and even the executive service won't be able to force it to pay because it has no money because it has to not personally, and OSMD.
I added a picture and the chairman of OSMD "Innovator" Irina Kostryukova who told that it has the letters signed by the director of KP "Nikolayevvodokanal" by Vasily Telpis in whom he demands a separate payment for the contract on subscriber services and for a number of additional contracts which OSMD "Innovator" has to sign with a water utility in compliance with the challenged decision No. 1081.
Moreover, according to I.Kostryukova, the water utility wishes to shift everything from the sore head on healthy, i.e. the work with debtors - to OSMD: the pier, let OSMD from them beats out debts, and the water utility without hassle only will receive money - a tariff - that on water and water disposal for OSMD and ЖЭКов is identical. So, in the house where OSMD "Innovator" is created, in one of apartments 21 persons are registered, and water to this apartment "is cut off".
However residents of this apartment who treat a large family (so, to them anybody can't apply any measures of influence), were connected to water supply. And if OSMD "Innovator" passes to payment to a water utility on the uniform all-house counter (as that is demanded by a water utility), the payment for the consumed water these "cheapskates" should be scattered on all, or to withdraw from a rent.
And the chairman of OSMD can't go to it and considers that the water utility as it does, for example, "Nikolayevgaz" to which residents of this apartment have to for today nothing has to "to work" with debtors. By the way, almost in each house there are here such "cheapskates", not wishing to pay for the consumed services.
So why to beat out from them debts chairmen of OSMD, instead of directly producers of services have to? Or - why other residents have to pay for "cheapskates"?
In the course of the legend of publicity of these details of relationship between a water utility and OSMD became obvious that the decision No. 1081 the water utility wants to get rid for someone else's account of problems, but also, wants also to receive additional resources. But, except this circumstance, there is one more which caused additional questions in the judge.
The judge V. Aleynikov studied one more decision of the Executive Committee of the City Soviet of People's Deputies (it is accepted in September of the same year, as the "fatal" decision on a water utility), in compliance with which, for example, the Nikolaev combined heat and power plant is recognized by the performer of services. And therefore the judge became interested in such neravnopravnost: why the combined heat and power plant, the producer of services of heat, is recognized by their performer, and a water utility, the producer of service in water supply and water disposal, - No.
I amused the answer of the representative of the Executive Committee of the City Soviet of People's Deputies who told that "the combined heat and power plant didn't resist to recognition by its performer of services". From this answer of the representative of the city power it is possible to draw a conclusion that the water utility very much even resisted to recognition by its performer of services, and at OSMD as chairmen of OSMD reported, anybody and didn't ask though to ask a consent it is necessary under the law.
Piquancy to consideration of the this case was added also by date of a publikovaniye of the challenged decision of executive committee in official body of the City Council, the Evening Nikolaev newspaper, - on October 23, 2008, i.e. more than two years later after adoption of this decision by City Council executive committee. It granted the right to the management of OSMD Association of.Nikolaev (to the head Alexander Repin and the executive director Mikhail Antonenko) to claim that the executive committee broke an order of adoption of regulatory acts (this decision concerns to that, consider in Association) - adopted the regulatory act unofficially, without its obligatory publication in the press and without carrying out public hearings.
Therefore A. Repin who is besides the chairman of OSMD "White House", asked court to cancel the decision of executive committee of the City Council No. 1081 of 26.05.2006 to continue discussion "on a subject in the Executive Committee of the City Soviet of People's Deputies" - for development of the normal decision tripling all. Other representatives of OSMD who were present on court sessions (though them could be more, than 10, - residents got to the described situation with a lack of distribution of books 180 OSMD) joined a request of OSMD "White House" also.
In the morning on October 27 the judge V. Aleynikov announced the decision: to recognize illegal the decision of executive committee of city council No. 1081 of May 26, 2006 and to cancel it. That with pleasure chairmen of OSMD though it will enter validity at best in 10 days - if "Nikolayevvodokanal" apprehended and the Executive Committee of the City Soviet of People's Deputies won't exercise the right of the appeal.