The apartment is immaculately

with such a situation Here and understand the Judicial Board on civil cases of the Supreme court. More precisely, the attempts of the citizen to ensure that the apartment looked just like the picture shown to the future owner in the office of the seller.

Our story took place in Barnaul and was standard – a citizen invested in shared construction of apartment buildings. She had to get a one bedroom apartment. Apartment developer did provide, and even the timing of delivery was not compromised.

However, when a citizen came to take an apartment together with experts, they found that in the “kopeck piece” a lot of serious construction defects. According to estimates housewife, on their removal it will have to spend more than a quarter of a million rubles. To recover these costs, the firm did not agree. Proprietress to pay out of pocket additionally a very good money considered illegal. It ended up that the citizen went to court against the developer for damages, compensation for moral damage. In addition, the woman demanded a fine for failure to comply with voluntary requirements, put her on the law “On protection of consumer rights”.

the case was heard by the district court of Barnaul and partially granted the claim. She was awarded 262 319 rubles to eliminate construction flaws, moral damages, a penalty of 70 000 rubles, and the firm had to cover the costs of conducting pre-trial research and the costs of the representative.

With such a solution is not agreed construction firm and appealed the decision of the district court in the Altai regional court. Appeal the decision of colleagues was canceled and sided with the developer. The regional court decided that the owner of apartment has not proved the fact of application to the developer with a statement on the voluntary satisfaction of claims in the pretrial order, and immediately went to court. This means that the company could not recover the penalty for failure to comply with the requirements of the consumer.

Now the plaintiff appealed the decision to the Supreme court. Judicial Board on civil cases of the Supreme court reminded about your Plenum “About consideration by courts of civil cases on disputes on consumer protection”. It ran fine with meeting customer requirements is the responsibility of the court. Provided that the claimant has refused the claim as the result of voluntary satisfaction of his requirements by the defendant in the proceedings. And since our plaintiff in his demands refused, the court could not deny her recovery of penalty from the Builder.

the Supreme court did not agree with the withdrawal of the appeal for compliance with pretrial procedure in such disputes, neither the law on participation in shared construction, nor the law on the protection of consumer rightsexecutives do not provide for such obligations of the interest holders before the filing of the claim. In the end, the Supreme court reversed the decision of the regional court to cancel the fine and told him to consider this matter again.

the Rules of the penalty from the developer simple and fit in several items.

It’s about the fine goes into the law “On protection of consumer rights”. The penalty is 50 percent of the amount awarded by the court in favor of the consumer.

the Court may reduce the penalty at their discretion. The amount of the fine as penalty, shall be recovered in favor of the consumer.

Compliance with the pretrial order requirement from the developer is optional.