Tennis courts should be restored in Sevastopol Komsomolsky Park

As is known, the renovation of the courts was carried out in 2017 to 2019, during which time several contractors were replaced, and all because of poor quality work, recorded by the balance holder of the State Budgetary Educational Institution of Additional Education “Center for Military-Patriotic Education of Students.” Hope for high-quality implementation of the “hard” coating appeared after signing an agreement with Fakel-Yug LLC, with a three-year guarantee until December 2022. However, already in February 2021, the repaired surface began to crack, with the service life of the updated sports facility being less than six months.

At first, the management of the “Center for Military-Patriotic Education of Students” carried on a long correspondence with the contractor, initiating the builders to eliminate the flaws, and then went to court, filing a claim, demanding that the defects be eliminated in accordance with the three-year guarantee specified in the contract.

In their opinion, the examination provided by the contractor and from which it followed that all the work was completed with high quality, does not correspond to reality.

As a result, another examination was ordered, which was performed by the Sevastopol Forensic Laboratory of the Ministry of Justice of the Russian Federation. Based on the latter, the initial expert opinion was considered inconclusive. The experts came to the conclusion that poorly performed work is a shortcoming of the work performed by Fakel-Yug LLC.

Experts indicated that the work related to the installation of hard coating, carried out by Fakel-Yug LLC under Agreement No. 1/25 dated October 25, 2018, relates to warranty obligations and is not a defect that arose during the operation of the transferred result of work— said in conclusion.

The court recognized the technological violations committed by the contractor during the repair and made a decision on the need to fulfill the warranty obligations undertaken by the contractor for the overhaul of the coating within a 30-day period.

During this time, he needs to dismantle 1345 sq. m of destroyed pavement, prime the reinforced concrete slab in the same volume and lay a multi-layer cake of the classic hard coating, including a two-layer finishing layer with markings.

True, the court decision stipulates that it comes into force only after a month from the date of adoption, unless an appeal is filed. Otherwise, the decision comes into force after the decision of the arbitration court of appeal.

The deadline for filing an appeal is one month from the date of the decision of the court of first instance.

Director of the Center Ivan Demidov has no doubt that an appeal will be filed, so for now he does not perceive the decision of the Arbitration Court as final. In his opinion, the contractor intends to play for time, which is confirmed by the previous course of events.

We are waiting for the court decision to finally come into force. But, since the contractor has the opportunity to appeal, it is likely that he will do so, and we will continue to litigate,” explained I. Demidov.

«Sevastopolskaya Gazeta» has repeatedly written about the concerns of the city’s tennis community regarding the condition of the tennis courts in Komsomolsky Park. Tennis veterans even asked to consider the issue of restoring the tennis courts of Komsomolsky Park on their own and then taking them into their own hands. They were ready to replace the playing surface of the courts, install tennis equipment; arrange external lighting of the courts and ensure full maintenance and service of the courts without attracting government subsidies. The initiative of the social activists was not accepted.

According to I. Demidov, in the current situation this is impossible.

State money was spent on the overhaul of the courts, which means that the paid work must be completed without fail. The search for other ways and the possible involvement of enterprising social activists in the repair of the courts would be possible only if the court decision were not in favor of the plaintiff.

source: «Sevastopol newspaper»