Parková čtvrťRetention tank with sewage
A wrongly connected riser led sewage into the rainwater system and the irrigation sprayed it over the greenery where people and children walk. Nozzles and hoses were only flushed, not replaced. Flushing is not a repair.
What the current chair and management company are not dealing with.
Seven things left unresolved in the building. All documented by correspondence or file.
Serial condensate drain defect
A bursting pump or hose in the ceiling → soaked walls and ruined ceilings. One unit in summer 2025, at least five more households this year across the buildings. The serial nature is known and nothing preventive is done.
Entrance doors
The fault returned six times and affects several entrances. Unless slammed, the doors do not latch, making the chip system and video intercom effectively useless.
No as-built documentation
The developer confirmed in writing it has the documentation and refused to hand it over. It is not among the documents passed to the manager. Without it, repairs cannot be planned nor defects claimed. Keeping it is a legal duty.
Heat we do not want
Corridors measured at 24–27 °C against a design of 15 °C; underfloor heating in flats loses its function. The heat supplier admitted in writing that the contracted output does not match the building’s needs.
Cleaning, waste, garden
Cleaning invoices do not match the contract. Containers are invoiced without orders. The garden contract ended 05/2026; the tender has been “in progress” for three months.
Two million into the repair fund
The call to pay CZK 2 million came when none of the above disputes had been resolved and no billing for the previous year existed.
Documented
What the authorities and the other side confirmed.
Not our opinions. Written statements by third parties, verifiable by file number.
The hygiene authority never approved the tank remediation
The hygiene station confirmed it had no contact with the developer, assessed nothing, measured nothing and issued no opinion. Owners were told it had approved the remediation.
HSHMP 36423/2026 · HSHMP 39210/2026
No inspection report exists; the matter goes to a fine
The environment department confirmed no on-site inspection report exists and is referring the matter as an offence under the Water Act.
UMCP3 417375/2026
Recommended measures were not carried out
The notice of 18 May 2026 recommended an accredited soil analysis and disinfection of the irrigation pipes. Neither happened.
UMCP3 302249/2026
The car park has no meter of its own
The operator confirmed in writing it did not set up its own metering point and the car park’s consumption ran through the association’s meters, contrary to the explicit contract wording.
Written statement, forwarded by the manager
The developer holds the documentation and will not release it
The developer’s written statement confirms it holds the as-built documentation and refuses to hand it over.
Statement of 2 Jul 2026
Contracted heat output does not match the building
The heat supplier admitted in writing that the contracted output does not match the building’s actual needs and proposed redistribution among metering points.
Statement of 29 Jun 2026
What is wrong with the 2025 billing.
Six things. For each we state the basis: a statute, a contract or a written statement by a third party.
01
It came 70 days late
The 2025 service billing was generated on 9 July 2026. The statutory deadline under § 7 (1) of Act No. 67/2013 expired on 30 April 2026. As late as 15 June 2026 the manager sent advance-payment reminders without mentioning the billing. It did not exist.
Basis: § 7 (1) and § 13 of Act No. 67/2013; Art. XIII (2) of the statutes.
02
The late-payment penalty should not come from the building’s fund
The delay was caused by the manager, who is also the statutory body. Formally the association owes the penalty, and the manager decides whether to claim it from itself. Without a change of leadership we pay the penalty to ourselves.
Basis: § 159, § 437 and § 2913 Civil Code (conflict of interest and recourse).
03
The building pays the commercial car park’s electricity
In Art. 5.1.2 of the easement agreement of 29 May 2024 the car-park operator undertook to pay its energy and set up its own metering point. Two years later it has none. Car-park technology, lighting and ventilation of the basement run through the building’s meters – and flat owners bear the cost.
Basis: Art. 5.1.2 of the easement agreement; operator’s written confirmation; switchboard diagram RG-CDE-01.
04
And the billing is still not corrected
The manager refused a corrected billing citing missing sub-meter readings. The accounting period does not remove the duty to charge owners only their actual costs, and sub-metering is not the only admissible method: consumption can be estimated from installed load and operating profile.
Basis: Act No. 67/2013; manager’s reply citing § 3 (1) of Act No. 563/1991.
05
Easement fee and who bears operating costs
The easement fee is CZK 10,000 + VAT per year for exclusive use of part of the common areas where a third party runs a paid car park. The dispute is not whether it is paid, but how low it is relative to the benefit and who bears energy, cleaning and maintenance the contract expressly assigns to the operator. The 2025 billing shows owners pay them.
Basis: Art. 5.1.1 and 5.1.2 of the easement agreement; 2025 billing.
06
Air-conditioning and heat recovery without prescribed advances
The statutes allow charging these energies to owners of the affected equipment, but assume advances prescribed in advance and billing by actual consumption where measurable. Equal split is only a fallback. Why were no advances prescribed and why equal split when the units have meters?
Basis: Art. XII (3) of the statutes; manager’s admission that no advance was prescribed.
Five minutes, your own paper
Check your own billing.
1Date of issue. It should have arrived by 30 April 2026, by law and by Art. XIII (2) of the statutes.
2Item “Common-area electricity”. You pay a share by flat size. It includes the commercial car park’s consumption.
3Number of persons for your unit. If you did not report it, the statutes set it by layout: 1+kk = 1, 2+kk = 2, 3+kk = 4, 4+kk = 5. Is yours right?
4Air-conditioning and heat recovery. Was an advance ever prescribed for this item, and is it billed by actual consumption or split equally?
Objections must be raised within 30 days of delivery. For the 9 July billing that period has passed for most owners. In that case you file a request for supporting documents and a complaint of incorrectness.
Why does the manager not act?
We do not know what happens in their office and will not guess. We do know how it looks from outside:
Construction-defect claims are not filed.
The car-park contract has gone unenforced for two years in the part that costs the building money.
Nobody verified the missing metering point for two years.
Factual questions are answered with an offer of a meeting, not a document.
The explanation that makes sense to us is structural: a professional manager lives on repeat business from large developers. Standing up for owners against such a client is against its own interest. It need not be bad faith: it is enough that the incentives point elsewhere.
And one thing holds regardless of motive: one company is today the statutory body, the building manager, the purchaser of supplies and the one assessing complaints about its own work. This is not a question of one party’s good will. It is a question of separating roles.
If there is another explanation, we would like to hear it. There will be room for it at the meeting.