At the moment, we are actively following the fate of an apartment building in Ogre, at 4 Draužijas Street, where 28 apartment owners were evicted from their homes because they received a notification that the building is unsafe for living and must be abandoned.
PHOTO. See which car was the most popular in the year you were born!
Russia confiscate factories from the Italians. Italy’s response move is filigree
Many don’t know this! Top 15 mistakes women make in sex
Read other posts
LA.LV contacted Kristīni Rozenberg, the authorized person of the house manager SIA “Āku projekti & Pārvaldīšana”, who is responsible for this house and communicates with its residents on a daily basis.
How is home condition assessment and home condition monitoring done?
First of all, it is important to remind that the residential building at Draužijas Street 4, Ogre belongs to the owners of the apartments in it, to their community. The owners of these apartments, first of all, had to inquire about the condition of the building in which they own the apartments.
Unfortunately, this is a typical situation in Latvia, when people imagine that they have privatized or bought only an apartment, but they have nothing to do with the stairwell, basement, roof, the general condition of the building structures, the adjacent land area.
If the attitude does not change, if apartment owners do not start to realize that they need to take care of the building as a whole, it can be predicted that such situations as in a particular house in Ogre will become more and more frequent in the future.
Were the residents informed in time about the condition of the house?
The owners of the apartments in the building have long been aware of the cracks in the building’s load-bearing structures, the poor technical condition of the basement covering, and the risk of the upper part of the ventilation shafts (roof part) falling. It would have been only logical if they had long ago called in a certified building specialist to make sure that such a building was safe for them to live in. And if the expert recommends carrying out construction strengthening works, the association of apartment owners would give a corresponding task to the building manager. Unfortunately, nothing of the sort has been done.
The manager has regularly carried out visual inspections of the technical condition of the building, the manager’s assessment – emergency condition – is recorded in the documents. The average service life of structural elements, finishes and engineering devices (lifetime terms) in this building has ended for almost all parts of the house, networks and communications.
The manager reported, wrote and informed the community several times about the established situation.
Since the house regularly owes the manager for the services performed and sometimes the payments are delayed for several months, the manager only carried out those repairs for which the community’s financial security was created.
The residents say that they agreed to the renovation three years ago, but no action has been taken by the manager. How will you comment on this?
The manager has offered to update the issue of the need to capitally renovate the building several times in the last four years. The manager organized general meetings of apartment owners, surveys, training seminars. In order to start the renovation project, the manager organized a voting poll and received in-principle acceptance with a quorum slightly above the majority of votes. But… In order to realize it, funding was needed for the development of technical documentation, but the apartment owners did not provide it, they did not propose or offer funding for the target savings, and financial support from the municipality was also not available.
Taking into account the poor technical condition of the building, due to which additional costs for emergency works occur on average every month, the manager repeatedly suggested to increase the savings fund contributions, but the apartment owners did not accept it.
For a long time, apartment owners were not even able to organize themselves.
Only last summer, after a long explanatory work, several general meetings and reports from the manager about the technical condition of the house, the house community finally agreed to found an association that would become the authorized person of the house.
In the fall of 2023, when creating the Management Work Plan for 2024, the manager scheduled the preparation of two technical documents, which are necessary for attracting funding in the Altum renovation program. As part of the plan, both the opinion of the technical study of the house and the energy audit were foreseen. The community agreed to cover the targeted payment. Initially, the Manager invested
their finances and community paid them back over a period of several months.
On February 1, 2024, we ordered a technical survey of the building. On April 23, 2024, in the construction information system with no. BIS-BV-59-2024-653 placed the construction technical survey opinion, which was developed by construction specialist Aivars Žagars, certificate no. 4-01423, sphere No.- 18-20-00358 (building construction management and construction supervision).
As part of the technical survey, it was found that “The building is considered unsafe and does not meet the essential requirements for mechanical strength and stability, use and fire protection for the building. Negative changes were detected in the technical condition of the building constructions, due to which there is a threat of a sudden unpredictable total or partial loss of working capacity. The technical condition of building structures is evaluated as emergency / pre-emergency technical condition:
1. Cracks in the construction of both walls of the staircase, in the pilasters adjacent to them – essentialpenetrating cracks in the silicate brick walls of the stairwells, cracks in the clay brick masonry pilasters, significant cracks in the mezzanines between the outer wall panels and the stairwells, which indicate that the building structures in the stairwells of the building are at risk of the durability, stability, and safety of the use of the building in general.
2. In the structure of the basement cover (above the old pumping station room), the concrete has split in local placeshas collapsed, its bearing capacity has significantly decreased, the actual bearing capacity of the cover structure is not known, safety is at risk.
3. Risk of falling in the upper part (roof part) of the ventilation shafts. Shafts do not ensure the integrity of building structures, because their parts have completely or partially separated.”
On May 02, 2024, the Ogre District Municipal Administration of the Central Administration of Ogre District (hereinafter referred to as the Building Board) with administrative decision no. BIS-BV-5.62-2024-911, the Building Board instructs:
1. Immediately stop operation of the Building;
2. Eliminate the danger, in accordance with the construction specialist’s instructions, taking into account the findings of the Construction Survey opinion, informing the Construction Authority of the results;
3. Use the means selected by Būves to enclose the building.
How often do such evictions take place, how does this procedure work? Don’t residents have to give advance notice so they can prepare to move out?
Such wording of the questions would be appropriate in a situation where the people living there were only tenants in a property owned by someone else (a natural or legal person, including, for example, the state or municipality). In this situation, the house belongs to the community of apartment owners, it has not taken care of the constructive condition of its house in a timely manner, it is the decision of the Building Authority that the building is dangerous for operation, people should not be in it, accordingly these consequences are directly binding on the apartment owners.
The manager is only a provider of management services, the manager cannot evict anyone from the property by force, but it should be expected that persons who will not comply with the decision of the Building Authority and will still stay in a building in a state of emergency will be held legally responsible.
Could you have notified us sooner? There must be a justification. As soon as there was justification – expertise with the opinion that the building is dangerous for the people living in it – it was important to act urgently.
The technical opinion, drawn up by a certified construction specialist, indicated the instability, insecurity, non-compliance with the requirements of the mechanical strength and stability of the structure. The decision on immediate evacuation is also taken by the Building Authority. Immediately after the meeting of the Building Board, which was organized in the municipality of Ogre region, the Building Board verbally informed the manager about the decision, the district municipality obliged the manager to convene an emergency general meeting of the house, which was also immediately carried out.
During the face-to-face general meeting held on the same day, the decision of the Building Board became available through the BIS system. At the general meeting, the head of the Construction Authority herself announced orally about the administrative act issued by the Construction Authority and its content. Also, the Building Board’s decision together with a notice from the manager was sent to all house owners the next day.
Here, it is also important to pay attention to what Būvvalde writes in its decision: “Taking into account the circumstances indicated in the Survey opinion, clarifying the opinions of the Addressees before the decision on the prevention of danger and the issuance of operation bans is not adequate. Also, Būvvalde points out that according to jurisprudence, hearing the opinion of the Addressee does not play a decisive role. The legislator has not authorized the institution to make considerations of usefulness in issuing a mandatory administrative act. When adopting a legal norm of the relevant content, considerations of expediency have been made by the legislator (see, for example, the judgment of the Department of Administrative Affairs of the Senate of the Supreme Court on 15.10.2010 in case No. SKA 86/2010). In the case of a mandatory administrative act, the hearing of the addressee’s opinion does not play a decisive role, as it cannot change the nature of the solution applicable to the mentioned circumstances previously determined by the legislator. Considerations of the usefulness of such a decision have been made by the legislator. In the opinion of the Construction Board, hearing the opinion of the addressees on the prevention of danger and partial prohibition of operation is useless. Expressing the opinion of the addressees cannot fundamentally change the content of the Building Board’s decision to be issued in accordance with the procedure provided by the legislator.”
How are similar cases handled elsewhere? The association of apartment owners hires construction experts and a construction company by itself or together with the manager, which can strengthen the structure of the building in the shortest possible time so that it is no longer considered dangerous to people’s lives. Until then, it is everyone’s choice where to stay, but not in a building in a state of emergency.
In other words, the manager is ready to be actively involved in solving the situation, but as a prerequisite for an effective result is the active participation of the apartment owners and the willingness to finance the work to be done.
Certain parallels in the current situation can be drawn with annual inspections of the technical condition of motor vehicles – if the expert assesses that the technical condition of the car is dangerous, it threatens the environment, human health, life or traffic safety, then the vehicle is not issued a technical inspection sticker and its operation is insufficient or damage prevention is prohibited. A tow truck must be called to move the car to the repair site. On the other hand, if you ignore it and continue to use such a car, the law provides for a penalty.
Unfortunately, in this situation, instead of urgently looking for a solution, part of the apartment owners of the particular building tend to blame everyone else for their long-term irresponsibility for their property. This is probably explained by the punishment they face for the illegal reconstruction of the apartments.
The construction survey revealed that load-bearing and non-load-bearing structures were arbitrarily changed in the apartments, re-planning of premises was carried out, without coordinated executive documentation with the building authority
and without the assessment of an architect or building specialist.
There are a number of known cases where a building in a state of emergency collapses. If the residential building is recognized as dangerous for operation in the expert examination, it is not necessary to raise an alarm, but to take active measures to prevent the dangers. Will those who are now ready to make a fuss about this case take full responsibility for endangering the lives of every person in this building? Moreover, the source of danger is not some external factor, but the long-term inability of apartment owners to treat their property economically, to invest in its safety.
In its decision, Būvvalde also emphasizes that its decision on “preventing the identified dangers and prohibiting the operation of the building until the danger is eliminated must be implemented immediately.” Challenging and appealing these decisions does not stop its operation.”
Themes
Tags: Ogres dangerous house saga manager blames residents carried arbitrary repairs interested condition staircase typical
-
