Questions & Answers

No. Work on the fire safety system has been carried out regularly since building management changed hands. Between 2022 and 2026, a series of works were carried out in both buildings: relocating systems to common areas, alarm repairs, smoke detector replacement, design documentation, and replacing fire hoses and shut-off valves.

Routine servicing of the system is included in the base tariff (management fee) and is an integral part of the service. The repair reserve fund covers work that goes beyond routine servicing (larger repairs, design work, system restoration) — it isn't possible to cover everything from the tariff alone.

All work is recorded in handover certificates and included in the annual repair reserve fund reports.

No. The deficiencies in the fire safety system were identified long before the current manager. They are recorded in an independent fire safety audit report drawn up in 2016. When the buildings were taken over in 2022, it was found that the technical condition of the systems had not changed since then.

That's exactly why a new system design was developed, and a survey on restoring it is currently underway.

Day-to-day maintenance and repairs are carried out continuously. However, a full system restoration is a major undertaking whose cost exceeds the funds available in the reserve fund. Covering such expenses requires a co-owners' decision, made through a survey (vote).

The vote also protects the owners themselves — it lets them review the quotes and choose the most economically sound solution.

The detectors in the apartments physically work and transmit a signal, but the central control unit (addressable system) is currently not working and does not receive the detectors' signal. It should also be noted that these are only detectors — they don't have a separate audible alarm (siren) inside the apartment.

Each owner is responsible for fire safety within their own apartment. We therefore recommend installing an additional standalone smoke detector with an audible alarm in your apartment — it works independently of the central system and warns directly inside the apartment.

No. Automatic descent of elevators to the ground floor in the event of a fire is not permitted under the regulations. Warnings are posted at the elevators stating that they must not be used in a fire and that the stairs must be used instead.

Stay calm and assess the situation. Use the stairs, not the elevator, to evacuate. In the event of a real threat, call 112. The manager is setting up a separate information channel (a WhatsApp group for each building) where information about alarms and emergencies will be posted.

Yes, that's correct. That is exactly why, in 2022, the system was moved from a privately-used space to a common area. Because of its previous location, immediate access to the control panel could not be guaranteed when needed. The relocation was a substantial job that involved installing new cabling.

Fire safety regulatory requirements have changed over roughly 20 years. Modern standards require, for example, the use of fire-resistant cabling, while the control equipment of the existing system is technically obsolete and no longer manufactured.

The replacement covers the entire chain of the system — detectors, cabling, the control panel, and the audible alarm. The system cannot be "partially fixed" — it must be fully restored to the current standard. So this isn't cosmetic repair, but building a new system according to the design that has been developed. The reasons are explained in the documents attached to the survey.

Several bids were received, two of which exceeded EUR 100,000 per building. The contractor was chosen based on price and familiarity with the site — specifically, taking into account knowledge of the building's low-voltage network specifics, which is essential for quality execution of this kind of work.

No. The current design and survey concern the automatic fire detection and alarm system (UATS) — detectors, cabling, control panel, and audible alarm.

Smoke extraction is a separate part of the fire safety system that is not included in this project. It's a standalone matter to be addressed separately at a later stage.

The regular fee (within the base tariff) covers servicing of the existing systems — maintaining the automatic fire detection and alarm system (UATS) and the smoke extraction system in their current condition. This includes monthly inspections, responding to calls and signals, participating in VUGD inspections, training, and similar tasks.

It does not include repairing or replacing the system — those are separate works, funded from the repair reserve fund or by a co-owners' decision.

Yes, always. Several bids are always evaluated for large-scale structural work. For restoring the UATS system, the manager requested quotes from several contractors (AP Help, FN Serviss, and BSafety) and compiled the information on the bids.

According to the manager, two bids were more expensive and one was comparable; AP Help was chosen because the company is familiar with the site's infrastructure (low-voltage networks), which matters for the quality and safety of the work.

No. Identical types of work (for example, replacing intercom units or control boards) recur in the reports because they were carried out for several different elevators and in both buildings — it isn't one line item duplicated, but separate work on separate elevators.

The initial inspection in 2022 found elevator wear, including worn bearings, and a need to equip the elevators with intercom units. This work was carried out gradually over the following years.

Elevators are complex engineering equipment, and their repair involves specific parts and certified work. Replacing individual assemblies (such as the hoisting mechanism or control station) is significant in cost. Work is planned gradually according to what the reserve fund allows.

Modernizing the elevator control system is being considered. It is a large-scale project whose financing must be decided separately, taking other priorities into account (such as restoring the fire safety system).

The freight elevator periodically undergoes repair work (such as bearing restoration), during which it is taken out of service for the duration of the work. Once the work is completed and accepted into operation, the elevator resumes service.

Elevators must not be used in the event of a fire — the stairs must be used instead. Automatic descent of elevators to the ground floor is not permitted under the regulations. See the "Fire Safety" section (question UGD-05) for more detail.

The noise is caused by wear in the elevators' mechanical assemblies (hoisting mechanism, cables, control station). It can only be fully eliminated by replacing the relevant assemblies or the control system, which is a large and costly job to be planned according to funding priorities.

The elevators currently operate independently of one another, and calls are not coordinated between them. To "link" the elevators under joint control would require replacing the elevator control equipment — a project with significant costs that must be decided on separately. The manager has looked into the technical options and costs.

Interior refurbishment of the elevator cabins is under discussion. It's a matter of funding priorities — the works most critical to safety are addressed first, while cosmetic improvements are planned according to available funds.

Elevator repairs (including replacing intercom units and work needed for safety inspections) are financed from the repair reserve fund and reflected in the annual reports. Exact amounts can be found in the reserve fund reports.

Yes, that's possible, and the matter is under discussion. However, it should be noted that the elevator systems were designed to a somewhat non-standard specification when the buildings were built, so there are difficulties sourcing spare parts, including button panels.

According to some estimates, one chrome cover plate for 3 buttons costs around EUR 100–150. It is therefore a matter of spending priorities and available funds.

The fee covers providing on-site staff around the clock in both buildings — it covers not only wages but also taxes, social guarantees, staff replaceability, and organizing the service. It is not a fee "for one person", but for a continuous service.

The fee for on-site staff services is split between owners according to the methodology set out in the management agreement (proportional to floor area). The calculation method is specified in the agreement.

Market prices for an equivalent service have been assessed — they are roughly 2–3 times higher than our current costs. The current arrangement is therefore cost-effective. At the same time, improving service quality also means factoring in rising costs.

Yes, on-site staff have a set procedure, including for a fire alarm. Once the fire safety system is restored, the procedure will be updated accordingly to match the new system.

The video surveillance system has been restored. Restoration was technically complex, as it required relocating servers and installing new cabling to the on-site staff's workstations, while also integrating the solution with the existing infrastructure.

Access to the grounds and buildings is provided by on-site staff, an access control system, a barrier, and video surveillance. Residents are encouraged to report suspicious situations to the on-site staff.

The properties are very large, and while it isn't always noticeable day to day, conflict situations do occur. Properties without a physical presence carry a higher risk — particularly regarding fire safety. At the same time, both the Society and the manager evaluate the usefulness of the service, so changes may be possible in the future.

Camera placement is limited both by cost and by data protection (GDPR) requirements — video surveillance in common areas must comply with regulations. Expanding the system in the future is possible if costs are agreed and compliance with data protection requirements is ensured.

No. Neither the Society nor the manager can make such a decision — it affects the common property (undivided shares), so only the co-owners themselves can decide on it.

The matter is being discussed in two contexts: (1) making the parking lot available for short visits, since residents and guests don't always follow the parking rules and leave cars for longer than allowed (more than 4 hours); (2) as a possible source of additional reserve fund income — operator companies install the technical equipment at their own expense (residents don't pay for it), but claim a share of the parking revenue.

In any case, the final decision is made only by the co-owners through a vote.

There are many apartments, and past experience shows: without a construction waste container, residents leave bulky and renovation waste next to the regular household bins or elsewhere on the grounds. That creates mess and still requires separate removal. The container is therefore kept as the most practical solution. The cost is relatively small and varies depending on how often it's emptied.

No. The containers are used for our buildings' needs, including planned basement and grounds cleaning work. In certain cases, the container has been full precisely because of this kind of building maintenance work.

Reserve fund contributions for the underground parking are made according to the tariff approved in the management agreement. However, these contributions are not kept in a separate fund — they are an integral part of the overall reserve fund. There is no separate underground parking fund.

The parking is maintained, and works (such as lighting or surfacing repairs) are financed from the overall reserve fund according to available funds. Some parking spaces are privately owned and registered in the Land Register.

The flower bed layout was changed for practical reasons — wind was blowing soil out of the open bed. We acknowledge, however, that such changes should have been agreed in advance with the residents who had invested in the plants. Similar work will be announced in advance going forward.

The facades of both buildings are regularly inspected, and damaged panels are secured. These inspections and repairs are usually financed from the reserve fund.

However, in strong storms and wind, panels can be damaged, creating a risk of falling and a hazard to residents. In such emergency situations, the manager is entitled to carry out repairs immediately and include the cost in residents' monthly bills.

A full replacement of the entrance doors is significant in cost and is planned according to funding priorities. In the meantime, door repairs are carried out (adjusting and replacing hinges, closers, and mechanisms).

Cleaning quality is an ongoing operational matter that the Society regularly discusses with the manager. There have been staff changes at certain periods. Please report specific problem spots directly to the manager so they can be resolved promptly.

The grounds belong to the co-owners in undivided shares. Introducing paid parking changes how the common property is used and how income is generated from it, so it requires the consent of all co-owners. That is why neither the Society nor the manager can make such a decision unilaterally.

That's possible (e.g., sunken containers), but such a solution requires reserve fund money and a suitable location on the grounds. The solution is being considered.

Basic landscaping work is carried out by the manager's own resources — minor improvements are included in the standard estimate. More substantial landscaping improvements are planned separately, according to available funds.

This is a matter of safety for residents, passers-by, and the property. A damaged or loose facade panel creates a risk of falling and an accident hazard, so inspecting and securing the panels is a necessary, not optional, task.

Furthermore, since the buildings belong to the co-owners in undivided shares, responsibility — including for safety — rests jointly on all co-owners. Timely securing of the panels is therefore in the common interest of all co-owners.

No. All reserve fund expenses are tied to specific building maintenance and repair work and are reflected in the annual reports. The reports and supporting documents can be reviewed with the manager.

The fund goes negative when, in a given period, major, urgent work is carried out whose cost exceeds the accumulated funds — for example, electrical wiring and grounding inspections, critical facade repairs, elevator safety work, or developing the fire safety design. Such expenses are reflected in the reports.

The management fee covers the day-to-day management and maintenance of the buildings according to the management agreement and estimate (Annex No. 1) — administration, maintaining common areas and grounds, servicing building systems, emergency services, and so on. Utilities and additional work are itemized separately.

Because the reserve fund is built up from more than just apartment floor area. Under the management agreement, contributions to the fund are also calculated for exterior spaces (balconies and terraces), storage rooms, and underground parking spaces.

So multiplying the tariff by apartment floor area alone gives a result lower than the actual figure — that doesn't mean there's a discrepancy, it simply means the other items aren't included in that calculation.

Yes. This falls under the co-owners' limited authorization (2022) — within it, and by a separate decision, the Society may assess, agree, and approve the documentation needed to carry out repair work, including design documents, and the related costs. This is not a blanket authorization to handle the fund — a separate, signed Society decision was adopted for developing the fire safety design.

Funding the construction of the system itself (the larger-scale costs), however, requires a co-owners' vote — which is currently underway.

The management fee and reserve fund contributions are set out in the management agreement and estimate. Compared with the previous manager, the current management fee is lower, and a reserve fund is additionally being built up, which didn't exist before (see the comparison in question FIN-14).

The tariff is not fixed — electricity is purchased at the market price, so the charge fluctuates depending on the market and actual consumption (for example, consumption by the elevators and common areas). State support with a fixed tariff was in effect until mid-2023. Co-owners can decide on fixing the tariff, but the manager cannot arrange a separate supplier different from other properties.

Management plans and reserve fund reports are sent to owners by e-mail, are available in the Bill.me customer portal (under "Documents"), on notice boards, and in the Construction Information System (BIS). Supporting (source) documents can be viewed by contacting the manager.

At the time the buildings were taken over in 2022, outstanding debts to utility providers were identified. The buildings currently have no outstanding debts to water, heating, or other utility providers. The manager ensures continuous settlement of payments, although not all owners pay on time.

Certain maintenance and repair works are carried out by companies contracted by the manager. Prices and volumes of work are reflected in the reports, and price surveys with multiple bids are conducted for larger works. Costs for specific works and the choice of contractor can be reviewed with the manager.

The law provides that the manager may immediately carry out, and add to bills, only urgent, mandatory repair work (such as fixing an emergency). Other work is financed from the reserve fund (if funds are sufficient), or the co-owners' consent must be obtained through a vote.

The buildings are accounted for separately. Differences arise from differing payment dynamics (the share of debtors), apartment structure, and consumption differences. So each building's reserve fund balance and expenses can differ.

A document with a detailed tariff calculation and description is available on the Society's website, along with the management agreement and estimate, which set out all the floor areas and contribution amounts.

At the point when the owners decided to change managers, the comparison of certain line items was as follows:

The current management fee is lower, and a reserve fund is additionally being built up, which didn't exist before.

The base tariff (management fee) covers the day-to-day management and maintenance of the buildings according to the estimate — cleaning common areas and the grounds, maintaining building systems (heating, water, sewage, electricity), servicing the fire safety and low-voltage systems, ventilation maintenance, a 24/7 emergency service, accounting and legal support, and the manager's services.

Utilities based on actual consumption are covered separately (in addition, or from the reserve fund), as are larger repairs, restoration, and capital works that go beyond routine maintenance. A detailed breakdown is set out in the management estimate.

Yes. Several bids are always evaluated for large-scale work. For example, quotes for restoring the UATS fire safety system were requested from several contractors (AP Help, FN Serviss, and BSafety), and the manager compiled the information on the bids. See question UGD-13 in the "Fire Safety" section for more detail.

No. There is currently neither building insurance nor residents' civil liability insurance. A survey was held on this, but quorum was not reached, so no decision was adopted under the law.

The manager cannot insure the buildings on a compulsory basis, since it isn't a mandatory action. The survey can be organized again on the residents' initiative.

The Society's authority is narrow and specific. The co-owners' authorization was given once, for a specific purpose — to sign a management agreement with the manager on terms that had been set out in advance in a survey and that every owner could review at the time of the vote.

The Society does not sign new contracts, does not manage or hold the reserve fund, does not agree to new tariffs, and does not amend the management agreement — all of that requires a decision by the co-owners' community (a majority vote).

The Society can discuss work priorities with the manager and approve individual works. It does not sign off on every small job — the Society only decides on specific, individual expenses where doing so is useful.

No. The Society operates according to its statutes and the co-owners' decisions. The most significant matters are decided by a co-owners' vote. The Society is open to every co-owner, and anyone can get involved in its work.

Any owner of real estate can join the Society — by submitting an application, which the Society reviews and decides on. Joining and membership are free. The Society funds its activities only from members' voluntary donations.

At the same time, you don't have to be a member of the Society to get involved and participate — staying in contact with the Society is enough; in many ways it's more of a formality. What matters most is the willingness to get involved in resolving building matters.

No. The Society's board work is carried out without compensation.

Yes, the previous manager filed a claim (for damage to honor and dignity). The court dismissed most of the claim. The case was concluded and closed in 2023.

The Society provides factual information based on documents, and it does so through official channels (the website, notices, responses to submissions). We recommend addressing questions that need an official answer directly to the Society or the manager — the response will be accurate and documented.

The Society is a registered legal entity with statutes, authorization, and responsibility, which any co-owner can join and which already represents the co-owners. A "building elder" is a separate role without such formal status. Any matter can be handled within the Society, without creating parallel structures.

The Society's contact information is available on the Society's website and on the buildings' notice boards. You can also contact the Society through the manager.

The manager's original appointment was tied to the regulatory conditions of that time. Later, the regulations in force for changing managers effectively required a very high number of votes, which for a long time made changing the manager practically impossible. That is why changing building management at the time required considerable work to coordinate the co-owners.

No. The Society does not receive compensation from either residents or the manager. There is no commercial or financial relationship of any kind between the Society and the manager. The Society's work is carried out in the co-owners' interest, without compensation.

No. Under the law, not voting is always counted as a vote "against". A decision requires quorum and a majority vote. It is therefore important to take part in votes — passivity effectively acts as a vote "against".

Very small ones. Funds are spent on maintaining the website, minimal administrative costs, and similar items. The Society does not manage the reserve fund and does not receive the management fee.

In principle, yes — for a serious matter, the Society will forward it to the manager. However, please bear in mind that the Society receives no compensation and does not operate as a round-the-clock customer support service.

For that reason, urgent technical matters (such as repairs, emergencies, bills, or maintenance) are best handled directly with the manager — the response will be faster and more precise. The Society does not act as an "on-site representative of the manager".