The Residential Housing Code: The Rich to Live at the Expense of the Poor

The "House" is preparing amendments to one more law.

At the current fourth session of the so-called "House of Representatives", it will consider the draft law "On amendments and changes to some laws of Belarus on legal regulation of housing relations".

Lawyer and editor of statut.by Aliaksandr Horbach told Salidarnasts that one low- profile detail in the project can cause great repercussions.

– Pay attention to the article of the Residential Housing Code, which refers to obligations of a member of the joint ownership on expenses for maintenance of the common property. It is noteworthy that common house ownership mean for us condominiums and Housing Consumers' Cooperative (HCC), although in reality about 90% of residential properties belong to common house ownership after the privatization.

Now this norm is included in Article 166 of the Residential Housing Code and sounds as follows: "The participant of the common house ownership shall bear costs for maintenance, current repair and overhaul of the common property pro rata to his share in the right to common ownership of this property, unless otherwise provided by law."

And the draft version of the Residential Housing Code now stipulates: "The participant of the common house ownership shall bear costs for maintenance, current repair, overhaul, maintenance of the elevator, electricity supply) of the common property in the manner provided by legislative acts".

That is, the notion of proportions disappears!

After all, it is the core principle in the common house ownership. Thus, in accordance with current standards of the RHC, at the general meeting of participants in the common house ownership each participant has a number of votes proportional equaled to his share in the right of ownership to the common property; that is, actually equaled to the apartment area. Thus, the owner of the smaller apartment has fewer rights than the owner of the larger one.

Costs for maintenance of this common property were proportional to the size of the share of ownership of it; by the way, it included not only payments for some housing and communal services, but contributions to the same condominiums and housing co-operatives. That is, it would make sense that those who have more voices bear more expenses.

Now the draft edition of the Residential Housing Code preserves proportions only in the number of votes of participants in joint house ownership. It turns out that owners of large apartments decide upon everything at common meetings, including decisions upon the fate of common property. But! payments for maintenance of common property are equal. That is, figuratively speaking, the rich will live at the expense of the poor.