Experts warn that this step could harm conscientious payers and undermine trust in the housing and utility system.
With the growing public debt for housing and utility services, management companies (MCs) are advocating for the return of selling these debts to collection agencies. They believe this initiative will help address cash flow issues and improve building maintenance. However, experts caution that transferring debts to third parties could pose risks to diligent residents and erode public trust in the housing and utility sector.
The return of collectors could hit conscientious residents and undermine trust in housing and utility services.
The Association of Real Estate Management Companies (AKON) submitted appeals to the Ministry of Construction and the State Duma on July 23, proposing amendments to the Russian Housing Code. They insist on reinstating the right for management companies to transfer overdue housing and utility payments to third parties, including collection agencies. This practice was banned in 2019 to protect citizens from unscrupulous debt collectors. The primary reason for the current initiative is the acute shortage of financial resources for MCs, as they are obliged to pay resource suppliers even if residents fail to make their payments.
The situation with utility debt in Russia remains critical: by 2023, it approached almost 900 billion rubles. Notably, up to half of this amount is directly attributable to management companies, rather than resource-supplying organizations. MCs are forced to pay for consumed resources regardless of collection rates, leading to an accumulation of accounts receivable on their balance sheets. This hinders the financing of ongoing repairs, courtyard maintenance, and general upkeep of buildings. Ultimately, the financial burden of non-payers falls on the shoulders of conscientious residents.
Nevertheless, the proposal to lift the ban on assigning debts to collectors raises significant concerns. Critics warn that such changes could bring back negative practices that previously led to legislative restrictions. Lawyers emphasize the high risks associated with transferring debts to unscrupulous agencies and believe that this measure contradicts the fundamental purpose of debt collection legislation, which was initially designed to protect citizens from excessive pressure.
One of the primary negative consequences could be a deterioration in communication between residents and management companies. Previously, MCs were motivated to engage in dialogue with debtor residents, offering reminders, payment plans, and explaining potential consequences. However, Pavel Sklyanchuk, a member of the expert council under the State Duma Committee on Housing and Utilities, warns that legalizing debt assignments could lead to MCs simply «selling» problematic clients to collectors, thereby avoiding complex negotiations and losing the incentive for constructive communication.
Furthermore, there is a risk of undermining trust in the entire multi-apartment building management system. Mass involvement of collectors by management companies might be perceived by residents as MCs abandoning their responsibility for service quality and transparent communication, especially when disputes arise concerning billing accuracy or debts inherited from previous apartment owners.
A particular concern is the lack of specific consumer protection mechanisms exclusively for the housing and utility sector. As Sklyanchuk highlights, the existing universal law on debt collection merely sets general limits on the number of calls and meetings but does not account for the specifics of utility debts. This becomes problematic when arrears arise due to calculation errors, retroactive charges, or tariff disputes; in such situations, universal measures may prove insufficient.
Simultaneously with this discussion, the Ministry of Construction has launched an experiment for online debt recovery through the State Information System for Housing and Utilities (GIS Housing and Utilities). Since July 1st, a new digital mechanism operates in 17 regions of Russia: debt information is transferred from MCs to the GIS Housing and Utilities, then proceeds to the Rosreestr (Federal Service for State Registration) and the «Pravosudie» (Justice) system for the issuance of a court order. The goal of this mechanism is to simplify the collection process, reduce costs, and accelerate fund recovery, while ensuring data confidentiality until a court decision is obtained. However, this project is still in its experimental phase and will continue until the end of June 2026.
According to Sklyanchuk, foreign practices are unlikely to be applicable to Russian realities. Western countries have stricter and faster procedures for eviction and service disconnection, while developing countries have different standards. «We need to find our own path,» the expert states, suggesting that instead of assigning debts to third parties, the focus should be on improving communication between management companies and residents.
Market participants unanimously acknowledge the need for reforms, but the choice of implementation methods sparks debate. Pavel Sklyanchuk believes that management companies should invest more actively in their own claims departments, conduct outreach, and utilize public relations and social advertising. «Even simple slogans, like `Pay for water – sleep peacefully,` can help improve payment discipline,» he notes. Thus, the proposal to transfer debts to collectors is not a panacea but rather points to a deeper issue: a chronic deficit of effective management and comprehensive dialogue with property owners.
Expert Opinion:
Pavel Sklyanchuk, a housing and utility expert at the State Duma Committee on Construction and Housing and Utilities, notes that assigning debts to collectors is unlikely to affect conscientious payers, as it would be an extreme measure applied only when other methods fail. He does not anticipate a mass sale of debts, as collectors acquire them at a discount, and MCs will strive to resolve issues independently. Sklyanchuk emphasizes the lack of specialized mechanisms for the utility sector beyond the general debt collection law. The expert expresses concern that if this practice is reinstated, MCs might completely cease dialogue with debtors, preferring to hand over cases to collectors, despite currently aiming for constructive interaction. In his view, the solution lies in improving communication, educating, and actively involving property owners. He also points to the absence of successful foreign models for utility debt collection, stressing that Russia needs to develop its own approach.
