The court explained whether the absence of a contract and non-residence exempt from payment for utilities

The Commercial Court of Kyiv considered case No. 910/5518/26 regarding a claim for debt recovery for services of heat energy supply, hot water supply, subscriber service, as well as inflation losses and three percent annual interest. The court examined whether the absence of a concluded contract, registered residents, and actual residence in the apartment exempts the apartment owner from the obligation to pay for housing and communal services.

Essence of the case

The service provider of heat energy and hot water supply filed a claim with the Commercial Court of Kyiv to recover debt from the apartment owner for housing and communal services, subscriber service, inflation losses, and three percent annual interest. The claimant requested to recover over UAH 44,000, citing that the defendant had not paid for the provided communal services for a long time.

The claimant stated that it supplies heat energy and hot water to the apartment building based on the relevant license. Standard individual service contracts were published on the official website of the provider as public adhesion contracts in accordance with the Civil Code of Ukraine and the Law "On Housing and Communal Services." At the same time, the apartment owner did not submit an adhesion application, but according to the claimant, this alone does not exempt him from the obligation to pay for the received communal services.

According to the case materials, ownership rights to the apartment were registered to the defendant in December 2021. At the same time, according to the extract from the territorial community register, there were no persons registered as residing at this address.

The claimant explained that the building lacks a commercial hot water metering unit, and the defendant did not inform the provider about the installation of an apartment hot water meter or the number of registered or actually residing persons. Under these circumstances, charges for hot water supply were made according to the consumption norm with a minimum calculation for one person, in accordance with the legislation. The claimant also noted that the defendant had not paid for heat energy and hot water supply since March 2024, and subscriber service since November 2021, resulting in debt including payment for heat energy, hot water supply, subscriber service, inflation losses, and three percent annual interest.

Opposing the claim, the defendant argued that the claimant did not provide proper evidence of the actual volume of supplied heat energy and hot water, did not provide the calculation algorithm, commercial metering unit readings, documents on heat energy distribution among consumers, invoices and invoice-acts, or other documents that would allow verification of the debt amount. Furthermore, the defendant emphasized that no one lived or was registered in the apartment, so the charges for hot water supply are unfounded. He also believed that no contractual relations arose between the parties since he did not sign an adhesion application, did not pay invoices, and did not actually consume the services.

In response, the claimant stated that the absence of a written contract does not exempt the consumer from the obligation to pay for actually received communal services. He also pointed out that centralized heat supply is provided to the entire apartment building, not to an individual apartment, so non-residence alone does not terminate the payment obligation. The claimant emphasized that the defendant did not submit applications for disconnection from the networks, did not inform about changes in the number of registered or actually residing persons, did not claim about the quality or volume of services provided, and did not request recalculation. The claimant also noted that invoices were formed according to legal requirements and were monthly communicated to consumers by placing them in the building’s mailboxes.

Position and conclusions of the court

After examining the case materials, the Commercial Court of Kyiv established that the claimant is the proper provider of heat energy and hot water supply services to the building where the disputed apartment is located, and the defendant is its owner. According to the Law of Ukraine "On Housing and Communal Services," the owner of immovable property is the individual consumer of communal services and acquires the corresponding rights and obligations in the housing and communal relations sphere.

The court noted that housing and communal services are provided on a contractual basis, and an individual contract is considered concluded if, after the publication of its text, co-owners of the apartment building did not choose another model of contractual relations and did not conclude a separate contract with the provider. The fact of joining such a contract can be not only signing an adhesion application but also other actions indicating acceptance of its terms, including the fact of receiving the service.

At the same time, the court emphasized that even the absence of a written contract alone does not exempt the consumer from the obligation to pay for housing and communal services. This legal conclusion is established in the practice of the Supreme Court, which repeatedly stated that the consumer is obliged to pay for actually received services regardless of the formalization of contractual relations in written form.

Evaluating the defendant’s arguments about the lack of evidence of heat energy supply, the court found that the claimant provided proper and admissible evidence of the operation of the centralized heat supply system, the commercial metering unit, connection of the building to heat networks, readings of the building meter for the disputed periods, documents on the start and end of heating seasons, and other documents confirming the provision of services. Additionally, the court considered documents regarding temporary inoperability of the commercial metering unit and confirmed that charges for the relevant period were made according to the procedure established by law.

Referring to the legal conclusions of the Supreme Court, the commercial court stated that the consumer’s right to receive quality housing and communal services is inseparably linked to his obligation to pay for such services. At the same time, the absence of a contract is not an independent ground for exemption from payment if the services were actually provided.

The court also rejected the defendant’s arguments that no one lived or was registered in the apartment. It noted that the legislation provides a special procedure for exemption from payment for certain communal services in case of temporary absence of residents. For this, the owner must apply to the provider with the appropriate application, provide documents confirming the absence, and in certain cases ensure disconnection and sealing of internal apartment networks.

As established by the court, the defendant did not apply to the communal service provider with applications about non-residence in the apartment, did not notify about the desire to terminate or limit the receipt of services, did not submit documents for recalculation, and did not perform other actions that the law associates with the possibility of exemption from payment. The defendant also did not submit claims regarding non-provision or poor quality of services. Under these circumstances, the court concluded that there are no grounds to exempt the defendant from payment for communal services, and the services provided by the claimant are considered properly, timely, and fully rendered.

Evaluating the defendant’s objections, the court noted that the mere fact of non-residence in the apartment does not indicate termination of the obligation to pay for heat energy. The owner of immovable property is obliged to maintain his property, and the receipt of communal services by the apartment building creates corresponding obligations for the owners of premises unless otherwise provided by law.

The court found that the case materials confirm the operation of the centralized heat supply system in the disputed building and the provision of services by the claimant throughout the claimed period. This was confirmed, in particular, by acts of registering the commercial metering unit, acts of readiness for operation in heating seasons, reports of the building commercial metering device readings, orders for connection and disconnection of the building from heat supply, and other documents recognized by the court as proper and admissible evidence.

The court separately addressed the defendant’s arguments regarding the absence of registered residents and non-charging for hot water supply. The court noted that current legislation provides a special procedure for exemption from payment for certain communal services in case of temporary absence of consumers. For this, the owner must apply to the service provider with the appropriate application, provide documents confirming absence, and in cases provided by law, ensure disconnection and sealing of internal apartment networks. However, the defendant did not take such actions.

Moreover, the court established that the defendant did not notify the communal service provider about non-residence in the apartment, did not submit applications to terminate or limit service provision, did not submit documents for recalculation, and did not notify about changes in the number of registered or actually residing persons. Also, there is no evidence in the case materials of the defendant filing complaints about poor quality or non-provision of services.

The court concluded that the defendant’s arguments about the absence of contractual relations, non-residence in the apartment, and non-charging for certain services do not refute the owner’s obligation to pay for housing and communal services actually provided to the apartment building. At the same time, the mere absence of a written contract or registered residents is not sufficient grounds for exemption from fulfilling such an obligation.

Having evaluated all evidence provided by the parties collectively, the commercial court concluded that the claimant proved the fact of service provision, the correctness of the charges made, and the existence of debt by the defendant. Therefore, the court recognized the claims as justified and subject to satisfaction, imposing on the defendant the obligation to pay the debt, inflation losses, three percent annual interest, and court costs in accordance with the law.

Subscribe to our Telegram channel t.me/sudua and to Google News SUD.UA, as well as to our VIBER and WhatsApp, Facebook page and Instagram to stay informed about the most important events.