About a year and a half ago, the residents of the building at 1a, Konechnaya Street turned to the Association of Management Companies and Homeowners.
Together with the Impost management company, they tried to solve the problem of the destruction of the retaining wall near the indicated five-story building, the flooding of the basement, and the application of a large layer of sand to the adjoining territory during precipitation.
Storm waters began to wash away the wall, the residents assumed that the reason for this was the development of the neighboring territory, earlier the rain outlets went into the ground and did not reach the house in such a volume. But after asphalting the adjoining territory of several new buildings, the catchment area increased significantly, and the slope was directed towards the five-story building.
In addition, part of the runoff flowed down the carriageway along Konechnaya Street to the houses.
The Association of Management Companies and Homeowners of Buryatia, together with the management company “Impost”, repeatedly held field meetings on the issue of flooding of an apartment building at 1a Konechnaya and the destruction of the retaining wall, requests were sent to the developer, the administration of Ulan-Ude and the prosecutor’s office. But it was not possible to solve the problem peacefully, the responsible persons refused to eliminate the violations.
In May 2021, the Association sent a second appeal to the prosecutor’s office. Based on the results of the audit, the prosecutor of the Oktyabrsky district of Ulan-Ude, in the interests of an indefinite circle of persons, filed a lawsuit imposing an obligation on the administration of Ulan-Ude, the Municipal Committee of Municipal Economy, Specialized Developer Best Plus LLC (hereinafter referred to as Best Plus LLC, the company) to fulfill work on the arrangement of storm sewers and drainage.
Sergei Gashev
During the court hearings, it was found that the Best Plus company, during the construction of new buildings nearby, adjacent to the five-story building along Konechnaya Street, committed violations. Namely, she ignored the design standards in terms of water disposal, and after two new buildings were put into operation and the courtyard entrances were asphalted, the resulting water flows are connected and run down a slope into the courtyard of the five-story building. Rainwater erodes the retaining wall and floods the adjoining area of the neighboring house.
The proceedings were completed in October of this year, as a result of which the court ruled: to impose a duty on the administration of Ulan-Ude, the Committee of City Economy of the Administration of Ulan-Ude within 12 months from the date of entry into force of the court decision: to lay an artificial road bump between the houses for diversion rainwater, storm drains, from the side of the retaining wall near the house along Konechnaya Street, 1a, install a rainwater inlet with a deepening with the withdrawal of rainwater to the carriageway of the road in the area of the pedestrian crossing, install linear trays along the road with a downward slope to the northern part of the road.
And also to oblige Best Plus to install an external storm sewer in trays near the new building at Terminal 4, according to the project documentation, which was approved by the state examination, but the work was never completed during construction.
“The administration of Ulan-Ude did not agree with the decision, and insisted that it was the residents of the houses themselves who should equip the storm sewer, so they turned to the Supreme Court to challenge the decision,” said Maksim Kireenko, General Director of the Association of Management Companies. “It is worth noting that the representative of the Best Plus company said in court that they were ready to fulfill their part of the obligations and also assist the city administration, but the authorities stood their ground – the residents themselves should solve the problems of residents.”
On February 9, the Supreme Court considered the case and upheld the court’s decision.
