The key facts

  • Marat Nuriev proposed eliminating the rule requiring a debtor to confirm receipt of a notice before utilities are shut off
  • Alexander Aksenenko called the idea unfair due to possible errors by management companies
  • Aksenenko proposed lowering the subsidy threshold from 22% to 15% of family income

Proposal to Simplify Shutoff of Services to Debtors

State Duma member Marat Nuriev called for simplifying the procedure for shutting off utility services to Russians with housing and utility debts. He proposed eliminating the rule under which a management company must warn the debtor before a shutoff and obtain confirmation that the notice was received. In Nuriev's view, 'courts take a very long time,' so restricting utility services without confirmation of receipt of the notice is the most effective way to combat debtors.

Criticism from the Relevant Committee

First Deputy Chairman of the State Duma Committee on Construction and Housing and Utilities Alexander Aksenenko told Gazeta.Ru that he does not support eliminating the confirmation of receipt of the notice. According to him, shutting off electricity, water, or heat is an extreme measure, and applying it 'blindly,' without confidence that the person has been warned, is unfair. He noted that errors and the human factor cannot be ruled out: citizens' complaints often cite management companies' errors, after which debts 'appear out of nowhere.'

Aksenenko's Position on Solving the Debt Problem

Aksenenko believes that the debt problem is not solved by tightening sanctions but requires two measures: increasing incomes and reducing the tariff burden, as well as putting the housing and utilities sector itself in order. He again proposed lowering the subsidy threshold from 22% to 15% of family income. In his view, as long as management companies do not account in detail for every ruble and tariffs rise faster than inflation, shutting people off 'without warning' shifts the industry's systemic problems onto citizens. Regarding those who do not pay for years despite having income and the ability to pay, he proposed acting through the courts. Aksenenko emphasized that eliminating the confirmation of the notice would hit everyone indiscriminately, including those who lost their jobs, fell ill, were left alone with children, or became victims of an error.