Deactivation of an electrical outlet at a parking space by a housing association despite the absence of a resolution. How to defend yourself?

In such a situation, we run the risk of decisions being made regarding our property against our will. Everything is fine if these decisions are made in accordance with the residents’ wishes and in line with the law.

However, it is becoming increasingly common for housing associations to make decisions on behalf of owners that are not based on a resolution and interfere with the right to use the property.

Reasons for deactivating electrical sockets

We will discuss this situation using the example of observed cases where electrical sockets located within the parking spaces of property owners (holders) of parking spaces in an underground car park have been deactivated. The most common reasons for deactivating electrical sockets are:

– complaints from residents regarding the improper use of ‘shared’ energy (e.g. charging electric cars);

– safety considerations.

Civil procedure – deactivation of electrical sockets

This article will outline a simple civil procedure that may be applied in similar cases. Specifically, it concerns possessory protection.

Why am I referring to the procedure under Article 344 of the Civil Code, rather than the provisions of the Act on the Ownership of Premises of 24 June 1994 (Journal of Laws 2021.1048, consolidated text), which regulate the management of common property, the rights and obligations of the housing community and property owners? Well, because this is a much simpler, and therefore faster, procedure, and moreover one with a broader scope of application, as it covers every possessor (and thus also tenants), not just owners.

Pursuant to Article 478 of the Code of Civil Procedure:

In cases concerning the infringement of possession, the court examines only the last state of possession and the fact of its infringement, without considering the defendant’s legal title or good faith.

However, pursuant to Article 344 § 1 of the Civil Code, according to which the possessor is entitled to claim restoration of the previous state and cessation of infringements against the person who has arbitrarily infringed possession, as well as against the person in whose favour the infringement occurred.

Deactivation of electrical sockets – proceedings

In the circumstances of the case under discussion, the Claimant is the possessor of the parking space and the associated socket, which he used without interruption until the date of deactivation of the electrical socket, which moment constitutes a breach of possession.

The aim of the proceedings is to restore the possessor’s control over the property to its previous extent. However, this concerns only the reversal of reversible changes. Where the infringement has not deprived the possessor of actual control, the claim for restoration of possession should correspond to the infringement committed, and the possessor’s claim must clearly specify the infringer’s obligation (cf. E. Gniewek, P. Machnikowski (eds.), Civil Code. Commentary. 10th ed., Warsaw 2021, commentary on Article 344).

It is therefore important to ensure that the claim is precisely formulated in the statement of claim, namely:

• specify the parking space (if possible, by referring to the land register number of the separate property or common property),
• explain the method of restoring possession;
• demand that further infringements be ceased in the future.

When opting for the possessory protection procedure, care must be taken not to exceed the time limit for bringing a claim specified in Article 344 § 2 of the Civil Code.

Should you require legal advice on the subject described in this article or any other matter, we recommend the services of HWW Hewelt Wojnowski Lindner i Wspólnicy.

Author: Przemysław Przyżycki, Legal Adviser

* The presentation of the above concept of defending the rights of a property owner should not be equated with the view that other possible legal responses are unfounded.

The content of this article reflects solely the author’s views. The author accepts no liability for the factual content herein or for the manner in which the information contained herein is used.