Mi történik, ha nem kap a fogyasztó értesítést a kötelező ellenőrzés időpontjáról? Köteles-e az ellenőrzés meghiúsulása miatt kirótt büntetést megfizetni?

In cases before the Arbitration Board of Budapest, consumers have reported several times that the public services carrying out the chimney sweeping did not act correctly regarding  the notification of the dates of the inspections.  What can consumers do in such situations? Usually the applicants are not familiar with their legal opportunities, therefore it is necessary to strengthen consumer awareness in such cases. Once a consumer indicated in his application that the service always sent the notice about the annual inspection date by pos. In 2015, however, the business did not apply this method to the consumer’s property. They referred that in the suburbs, they publish this information via posters. The owners of the neighboring house however, testified that the statement does not correspond to the truth, since they received the message in their mailbox. In the period of the second notice, the consumer was in the property and the bell was working. Despite this, the employees of the company did not arrive between 10:00 AM to 14:00 PM. Then he immediately called consumer service, but it was not available. Therefore, the next day he complained by telephone. In the third compulsory inspection, which is only available against payment, they managed to get into the property easily. The consumer turned to the Arbitration Board of Budapest, and during the process, he challenged that the surcharges imposed in connection whith the third inspeciton would be legitimate (4 262 HUF) since there was no reason for this inspection. During the process, the business challenged the consumer’s claims, stated that it was in accordance with the law to notify the owners via posters in that area about the first inspection date. Then they tried to get into the consumer’s property for the second time, he was not at home, and as the third inspection is for a spare fee, it was a legitimate claim from the business. What does the law say in this case? The Act XC. of 2012 on chimney sweeping services states that the public service must carry out the inspection of chimneys in periods, within the framework of linework. The public service carries out the periodic inspection and – if necessary - cleaning without order, and in a scheduled linework, on the basis of prior notice of the user of the property. If the indicated date is inadequate, the public service sets out a second date within 30 days from the first date. The public service has to be availed by the user of the property. The 14/2013. (III. 18.) Regulation of the City Council of Budapest on chimney sweeping public service states that the notification for the first date has to be placed in visible places, on posters in residential areas. The notification is correct if it states the working time precisely on a calendar day within a four-hour period. The owner of the property is required to pay an extra fee for the third inspection, which is equal to the price of the public service activity if the public service complied it’s laid down obligation of notification, but the work could not be carried out at the time of the first two check as a result of the wrongful conduct of the property owner. The public service is entitled to invoice the penalty within 30 days from the assigned day of the work. If the public service can not carry out the periodic inspection and cleaning on the second assigned date (provided by the Regulation) it is entitled to charge a surcharge fee after the periodic inspecition and the additional cleaning. The 63/2012. (XII. 11.) Regulation of the Ministry of the Interior 3. § (6) section states that the second notice have to be numbered, addressed, held on a strict tracink two copies receipt, certified by witnesses, photographic recording, signed by the user or the owner, or proven,by other ways placed into the mailbox, if it is not possible, then a visible notice has to be placed on the gate or on the door. In this specific case, the company could not prove that the first and the second notice was appropriate, therefore the third notification has not been sent because of the fault of the consumer. Moreover, the service has not been able to demonstrate that at the time of the second notification they haven’t been able to get into the property because of the consumers fault. They could not provide any statement, any witnesses nor any documented evidence in the proceedings to prove this. Based on all this, a recommendation was made to cancel the surcharge. Consumers should know that not only rights but also obligations apply to public services. Such an obligation is to carry out the inspeciton. If they are unable to fulfill this obligation because of the wrongful conduct of the owner or the user of the property, in case of a dispute they must provide evidence to prove this fact, for which they even involve the neighbours as witnesses. What should consumers be aware of? Always preserve the notifications from the service providers about the chimney sweeping! This can be an important evidence in the debate to determine the regularity of the notices. If the service’s employees do not appear at the time they marked for the inspection, you shall promptly notify the consumer service verbally, by phone or in a written complaint. It is fortunate if the neighbours or other witnesses can prove the fact of the failed inspection. Image removed.