Separate act page
Court refused recovery of charges for unaccounted-for water: the charge was not proved
Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance
KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS · 80180884
Entry into force has not been reverified
Participants and roles: Claimant KORTERIÜHISTU NARVA UNISTUS — sought debt and late-payment interest.; Defendant XX — challenged the additional water charge.
How it started · editorial summary
The apartment association NARVA UNISTUS did not prove grounds for allocating additional water costs to one owner. All monetary claims against defendant XX were dismissed.
The dispute and the court’s decision
The association linked the debt to a meeting decision of 29 April 2013 charging one owner 300 euros for alleged unaccounted-for water consumption. It claimed that faulty plumbing allowed water to drip without being recorded by the meter. The defendant denied these allegations and challenged both the inspection reports and the calculation.
The initial claim sought 398,27 euros in debt, 51,67 euros in late-payment interest and further interest of 0,07% per day. At the hearing, the association sought 297,95 euros in principal and 130,03 euros in interest. The court found that the disputed balance related to the additional water charge, while the defendant had paid the other charges, which the claimant did not dispute.
To recover the money, the association had to prove the total water costs and the basis for allocating them among owners. Invoices and an approved report alone were insufficient. The total costs and allocation data were not submitted to the court. Nor did the meeting minutes explain why the 300 euros was charged only to the defendant. The court regarded the theory of collecting water drop by drop as speculative: the volume of such consumption had not been proved.
In its reasons, the court discussed the meeting decision’s conflict with the rules on allocating costs, but then stated that it could not establish the decision’s nullity — absence of legal effect from the time of adoption — because the defendant had not brought a separate claim within the time limit identified by the court. The operative part does not set aside the meeting decision: it dismisses all recovery claims.
Costs were allocated to the association. The court identified no costs reimbursable to the defendant and therefore awarded no specific sum to the defendant.
The judgment names the association as the apartment association NARVA UNISTUS (now — Narva linn, Kosmonaudi tn 9, Linda tn 7 korteriühistu).
Outcome of this decision
Dismiss all claims by the apartment association NARVA UNISTUS against defendant XX. Leave costs to the association; there are no costs reimbursable to the defendant.
Translation of an anonymised, abridged excerpt from Estonian
3. There are no procedural costs reimbursable to XX.