Share building constantly surprises. Extending the period of construction, unreasonable cost increase, problems with the delivery of housing - oddly enough, but it becomes the norm, and suffer as a result people who have dared to build an apartment.
All these problems are not spared 40 -apartment building 10 - storey building on the street number 610 John Architect in Polotsk, which began in September 2012, local UKS. Promised to build a house to the March 15, 2013. But in late February sharers fait accompli that the timing of construction of flats extended. In May, the future tenants know that the house will be 9 social apartments, and after passing them, as reported by the UCL in letters " a debt."
"We reported two pieces of news in the house 9 social apartments and real estate investors, may need to pay about 18 % of the apartments. Apartments do not convey to us, and how funded social apartments, real estate investors, no information is provided. In October we were offered under the threat of termination of contracts to make additional payments of 45-80 mln in 7 days. Calculations and explanations are given. The reason for a rise in price at home as indicated in the letter UKS - appreciation of materials ", - told the interest holders.
Excerpt from a letter of a sharer to the editor
It turned out that, according to the Presidential Decree number 396, which regulates in detail the relationship between the share participant and developer, this cause a rise in price at home is not legitimate. However, even in court upholds payment UKS square meters on the acts of the work performed.
But even before the trial had people pass a large number of instances where could not solve exciting sharers question is why they are required to co-pay, and even 3 months after delivery at home ? The cost of the contract with the share participant initially overestimated lawfully (applies predictive index), so take into account all the economic risks of the builder and the price is not the beginning of the construction, and at the end.
Answer of DAEC
Answer prosecutors to check DAEC
Tricks of UKS
The contract with dolschikam UKS down the concept of " normal period of construction" and tries to interpret the law in their own way accuses sharers in disrupting deadlines home and requires them to compensate for the rise in the cost of construction in excess term. At the same time real estate investors are assured that all payments carried out in a timely manner.
UKS is also included in the definition of the actual cost of the contract, meaning that it is at this price will be paying interest holders.
"Since we have not concluded an agreement to increase the additional cost, so how can the actual cost to be 18% higher than the contract ? It is more than a contract can not be. Otherwise the picture is that UKS unilaterally decided to increase the cost of construction ", - the sharer said.
It turned out that the developer claims that suddenly find themselves contractor exceeded the estimated construction cost of almost 2 billion rubles.
"How can this be? By law, the smallest excess of the estimated cost - it's an emergency, and a mandatory examination should be carried out. No examination was conducted. This is even more puzzling given that a quarter of home owners - social housing, state-funded "- the sharer continues.
Future residents of the house began to wonder what the developer wants ? According to them, the options may be different from the payment by the people of public housing and ending assignment builder bonuses as additional income.
"Everybody understands the illegality, but UMS workers feel confident : the state behind them, and that the equity holders? Good law, which prohibits any abuse detail builder. What to do? - Says dolschitsa upset. - The situation is well thought UKS, and in most cases, the " performance " takes place on the "hurray" : after all, the housing problem is very serious, and people humbled head down, go to the terms of the UCL. "
Currently 16 families went to court Polotsk. There have been several hearings. Future forensic examination of the case. Explanation of the grounds on which the UCL requires surcharges, interest holders have not heard. Our lawyers report that real estate investors are absolutely right, but people still fear that the court's decision may not be in their favor : suing the state organization and the inclusion of administrative afraid of the moment.
reb.by
