Managers complain to the Federal Antimonopoly Service about the monopoly position of the GBU Zhilischnik company

The residential building management segment in Moscow and St. Petersburg is monopolized, according to the Association of Real Estate Service Market Participants. She asked the FAS to intervene in the situation and eliminate the antimonopoly violation. It consists in the fact that, contrary to the rules in the capital, the State Budgetary Institution “Zhilischnik” occupies more than 60% of the market, and housing and communal services in St. Petersburg – 53%. Developers, often managing their own new buildings, are also in favor of competition. But due to low margins and business complexity, more than 1,000 management companies across the country have so far been unable or unwilling to renew their licenses.

At the disposal of Kommersant was sent on June 10 to the head of the Federal Antimonopoly Service (FAS) Maxim Shaskolsky a letter from Sergei Krekov, the head of one of the structures of the Association of Participants in the Real Estate Services Market (AKON), with a request to eliminate violations of antimonopoly law in the housing management market. In the appeal, special emphasis is placed on the State Budgetary Institution “Zhilischnik” in Moscow and LLC ZhKS in St. Petersburg, “occupying a dominant position in their cities.”

With the legally allowed share of one company in the industry no more than 50% in Moscow, Zhilischnik GBU accounts for 66% of the total area of ​​​​the urban housing stock of the market, in St. Petersburg, housing and communal services – 53%, the letter states

According to the GIS housing and communal services, there are 35,000 apartment buildings in Moscow now, and 24,000 in St. Petersburg.

The Federal Antimonopoly Service and the Department of Housing and Public Utilities of Moscow, which oversees the State Budgetary Institution Zhilischnik, did not respond to Kommersant’s requests. The Housing Committee of St. Petersburg, which subordinates the housing and communal services, told Kommersant that the company’s share in the city’s market is 31.6%.

As a rule, GBU Zhilischnik and ZHKS have old housing stock, and new buildings are most often operated by management companies created by the developers themselves, says Denis Konovalenko, managing partner of Prime Life Development. However, now, according to Sofya Volkova, a lawyer at the Asterisk law firm, more and more Moscow new buildings, mainly in the mass segment, are being transferred to the management of the State Budgetary Institution Zhilischnik. The management of the old housing stock is unattractive for the management company, since the cost of its maintenance is much higher than that of new buildings, notes the interlocutor of Kommersant among developers.

An important reason for the transition of new buildings under the management of the State Budgetary Institution Zhilischnik was the shortage in the market of professional management companies, says Valentina Tugusheva, Deputy General Director for Legal Affairs of the Astrum-Moscow Management Company (part of the Granel Group of Companies).

But Denis Konovalenko is sure that if the market share of this company decreased, then there would be those who would like to manage houses from among developers and homeowners associations. However, a rather big niche has already been vacated for them. Vladimir Koshelev, deputy head of the State Duma committee on construction and housing and communal services, recently stated that more than 1 thousand UK companies throughout Russia, whose licenses expired on June 1 this year, could not renew them.

It is possible that many management companies themselves decided not to renew licenses, since, according to Ms. Tugusheva, “the margin in this segment is negligible and is at the level of a few percent.” At the same time, the business itself is labor-intensive and bureaucratized. The management companies are forced to recover the high debt of apartment owners for housing and communal services through the courts, which requires additional costs, and the inability to promptly hold a general meeting of residents delays the quick resolution of pressing issues, the expert explains.

Home management services are a painful topic for citizens. Constant conflicts cause not only consumer dissatisfaction with the quality of house maintenance, but also frequent falsification of decisions of the general meeting of apartment owners when a house is transferred from one management company to another, notes Sofya Volkova. “At one time, permanent scandals in Moscow due to the poor quality of service for apartment buildings forced the mayor’s office to consolidate the management of this process in the hands of the State Budgetary Institution Zhilischnik,” says the interlocutor of Kommersant in this market, not excluding that it was the same in Petersburg. Given these circumstances, Ms. Volkova doubts that the complaint of the ACON structure to the FAS will be satisfied.

Daria Andrianova