Fights for free parking continue in Moscow courtyards

The former apartment building of the vodka king of the Russian Empire, Peter Smirnov, located in the center of Moscow, on the street. Pyatnitskaya found himself at the epicenter of the scandal. A number of residents of an old mansion with 12 apartments are in an excited state not from alcohol fumes. The tension level was raised for them by the chairman of the HOA board, who decided to install a barrier “for other people’s cars.” The trouble is that most of the owners of the premises suffered. They were deprived of the legal right to park in their yard. Similar conflicts break out constantly in the capital and other large cities of the country. What to do if a barrier one day appears near your house in front of the hood of a car, MK looked into it.

The scandalous story surrounding the old mansion on the street. Pyatnitskaya, 65/10, started a year and a half ago. When one fine summer day a barrier appeared in front of the gate and arch leading to a cozy Moscow courtyard. For a pensioner, group II disabled person Valentina Andreevna Izosimova, who owns property in this residential building, and other residents, this event did not bring joy. Firstly, no one informed about the innovation in advance. Each time the elderly woman approached her house, she had to look for a free space in a paid parking lot. Secondly, the watchman, referring to the order of the head of the management company, demanded a fee for admission and a contribution to the Zamoskvorechye HOA, which was spent on erecting a barrier and connecting video cameras.

An ill pensioner entrusted her granddaughter Anastasia Starodubova with resolving the parking issue. In addition, the girl had a commercial interest here, since she organized a small business for her grandmother in a non-residential building, opening a coffee shop on her “squares”. A young businesswoman brought 12.5 thousand rubles on behalf of her grandmother. and asked for a receipt confirming the receipt of money. The answer from the chairman of the Zamoskovorechye HOA, Yulia Pirogova, puzzled her, to put it mildly: “But there won’t be a receipt.”

– How can it not be? You’re not going to put the money in your pocket, are you? – Anastasia was surprised.

“Who are you to ask me such questions,” the chairman of the HOA knitted her eyebrows.

– I know my rights. “No documents, no money,” Anastasia snapped.

The unpleasant incident forced the girl to study the laws more deeply. It turned out that the management organization on whose balance sheet Smirnov’s house is located is the State Budgetary Institution “Zhilishchnik of the Zamoskvorechye District”. It was this organization that was chosen by the owners of the premises at the general meeting. It is from her that residents receive a Unified Payment Document every month. According to the Moscow apartment building management portal, the Zamoskvorechye HOA has nothing to do with managing the building 65/10 on the street. Pyatnitskaya does not have one. The general house council is headed by other people.

After Pirogova rejected the offer to “agree humanly” and provide passage for pensioner Izosimova’s car to the local area, the conflict between the parties flared up with renewed vigor. The Moscow Housing Inspectorate (MZHI), the police and the prosecutor’s office virtually ignored Anastasia’s complaints about the actions of the head of the Zamoskvorechye HOA. In response, Yulia Pirogova, having secured the support of one local deputy, bombarded the supervisory authorities with complaints about Anastasia’s business partners who allegedly violated sanitary standards in the cafe. But the controllers just shrugged their shoulders, since the cafe does not have a kitchen; the staff simply heats up the pies and sells takeaway coffee. Then Pirogova filed a lawsuit complaining about the illegal redevelopment of non-residential premises used by Anastasia and her partners. This didn’t work. Young entrepreneurs simply took the formalities to their logical conclusion – everything was documented, as required by law.

Opponents were also not asleep. After sewerage leaked into the basement with the appearance of odors unusual for a cafe, they found out through the BTI that Ms. Pirogova, who lives above the establishment, moved the bathrooms without approval and reconstructed her apartment. MZhI also received a complaint against Pirogova regarding an unauthorized gas pipeline, which threatened the safety of residents of a 5-story building. Most likely, the exchange of “injections” at the legal level will continue.

As the owner of the premises of the house, Igor Izosimov, the son of Valentina Andreevna, said: “Pirogov does not allow the owners’ cars into the yard. With the exception of their relatives and close associates. We wrote a statement to the police and prosecutor’s office. But no one wants to deal with this issue.” The chairman of the Zamoskvorechye HOA has his own arguments: “Parking spaces in the yard are limited. Yes, we do not let through the cars of those who own non-residential premises in our building. The prosecutor’s office even answered them, saying, “Go, goodbye.” The first priority category for us is the residents who live in the house.”

There are several reasons for such conflicts. Firstly, the chronic shortage of free car parking in the center of Moscow is becoming more noticeable every year. There are many times more local residents who own cars than there are parking spaces. It is not surprising that in the evenings in the courtyards of residential complexes you can sometimes observe small human dramas, where drivers swear and sometimes even fight for a place to sleep their car.

Secondly, the desire of the capital’s authorities to restore order in the city center by creating paid zones for parking lots has not made ordinary car owners any kinder. The pleasure of parking a “steel horse” inside the Boulevard Ring today costs a pretty penny. For example, for 1 hour of “rest” of the car in a paid parking lot on the street. Pyatnitskaya, 58, you need to pay 380 rubles. In other places the price tags are even higher. Car owners who forgot to pay for a paid service in street parking will quickly receive a recovery from a tow truck driver and a hefty fine of 5 thousand rubles. As a result, automatic barriers began to appear at the entrances to courtyards. Moreover, as the above story shows, not always on legal grounds.

MK’s attempt to at least approximately calculate the number of such conflicts in the capital ended in failure. Since none of the government bodies and public organizations maintains such statistics. However, we learned what to do if one day, driving into your home yard, you see a new barrier.

As lawyer Arkady Lee explained, the procedure for installing barriers to restrict entry into the adjacent territory of an apartment building is regulated by the Housing Code of the Russian Federation (LC RF), legal acts of the constituent entities of the Russian Federation and local authorities. Thus, in the capital, the Moscow Government Decree No. 428-PP dated July 2, 2013 “On the procedure for installing fences in residential areas in Moscow” is in force.

The Housing Code of the Russian Federation has vested the owners of apartment building premises with very significant rights to manage the local area. In Moscow, regardless of the area of ​​residence, property owners and residents of apartment buildings can decide to install barriers at the entrances to the courtyard and receive co-financing from the Moscow government for their installation in the amount of 100 thousand rubles. for each barrier. The procedure for their installation involves obtaining approval from the council of deputies of the municipal district.

“It is obvious that the installation of the barrier mentioned in this story violates the specified norms of the current legislation. Moreover, the rights of each individual owner of the premises are violated. Consequently, every owner of the premises in the house on the territory of which this barrier is installed can apply for the protection of their rights in the prescribed manner,” the lawyer noted. In this case, he advised the owners whose rights were violated by the illegal installation of a barrier to first submit a written statement to the council of deputies of the municipal district, as well as the district government of Moscow. The application can be accompanied by photographs confirming the illegal installation of the barrier, and other relevant documents (for example, documents on the applicant’s ownership of the premises). The application must indicate the applicant’s last name, first name and patronymic, his address, and telephone number. The application must be submitted in two copies, the second copy must be marked as having received the application. A written response must be given to the appeal within a month.

Any actions or decisions of state or municipal bodies, homeowners associations, taken in violation of the rights of owners of apartment buildings are illegal and can be challenged in court. Also, disputes regarding the dismantling of illegally installed barriers are resolved in court, Arkady Lee concluded.