Česky English Deutsch Francais

Results of the 2010 Questionnaire Survey in the Developments of Selected Towns’ Municipal Housing Stock

For the Ministry for Regional Development, Dwelling Policy Dept.: Ms. Blanka Burdová, MSc

For the Institute for Spatial Development: Ms. Dana Chlupová, MSc, Ms. Marie Polešáková, MSc, PhD, Ms. Ludmila Rohrerová, MSc

In 2010, the Brno Institute for Spatial Development carried out the 11th questionnaire survey of the development of municipal housing stock, collecting and updating the necessary data and information on the municipal housing stock for the Ministry for Regional Development (hereafter the “MinRD”). Based on the agreement with the assignor of the research - the Dwelling Policy Department of the MinRD - this year’s research has taken into consideration the same sample of towns as in 2009. So, addressed was Prague including its selected districts, the 23 statutory cities (status as per the date of the task submission), and 30 other towns - "Map of Addressed Towns". This year the map has been updated in accordance with the applicable classification of towns to size categories, i.e. for this purpose the towns have been classified, as to size, according to the Message of the MinRD No. 180/2009 Coll. applicable for the years 2010 to 2012. As in previous years, the questionnaire survey was aimed at the exploration of 5 kinds of data, which are usually not explored by the Czech Statistic Office: I.e. the privatisation of the municipal housing stock, shifts within the municipal housing stock, payments for the usage of the municipal housing stock, maintenance costs of the municipal housing stock, and additional data.

The additional part of the questionnaire focused on questions about the rent of municipal dwellings and the rent of municipal dwellings for selected resident groups and the related filing system of the demand for such dwellings, as well as whether the criteria of their allocation, and for their allocation to selected resident groups, have been determined. Other questions explored methods to decrease the numbers of rent debtors and the amounts of rent and service debts. Also scrutinized were whether municipalities offered indemnity to those who left their dwellings and whether the private sector participated in the financing of newly built dwellings in 2009. As 2010 was declared the “European year of poverty and social exclusion abatement” and that this topic included the issues of dwelling, i.e. exclusion from dwelling and homeless status, and as last year studies were drawn up focused to the exclusion from dwelling and homeless status on EU level, in the framework of European social protection and social integration strategy, the question was newly included last year whether municipalities have elaborated (or have been preparing) a document attempting to solve the described issue. Also, the respondents could indicate their recommendations as to what the questionnaire should be aimed at next year.

The responding municipalities/city/town districts, addressed by the research this year, have maintained a total of 192,970 municipality dwellings, representing only 5.0 % of the total of 3,827,678 dwellings of permanent inhabitation in the Czech Republic (2001 census) (hereafter the CzR), however, at the same time, approximately 42 % of all the total of 457,451 municipal dwellings in the CzR (status as per December 31st, 2009). The numbers of dwellings assessed in the questionnaire investigation differed in relation to the topic assessed, mostly being lower than the overall number of the dwellings owned by the addressed cities/towns, as not all respondents have replied to all questions and not all replies could have been included in the respective topic.

The main objective of the research was to investigate the actual results of the ongoing privatisation of municipal dwellings, started in 1991, till the end of 2009.

Municipal housing stock privatisation in selected towns and cities

The development of the privatisation, between its start with the transfer of the housing stock from the State to Municipalities in 1991 and 31 December 2009, is shown in Diagram 1, Development of the municipal housing stock privatisation in selected towns, 1991 to 2009.

The Diagram indicates that of all the dwellings transferred to the ownership of the Municipalities in 1991, at an average 46.2 % were privatised before the end of 2001, 51.0 % of them before the end of 2002, 55.1 % before the end of 2003, 59.9 % before the end of 2004, 63.4 % before the end of 2005, 66.8 % before the end of 2006, 70.0 % before the end of 2007, before the end of 2008 privatized were 71.8 %, and 73.7 % were in question before the end of 2009.

The development of the total of municipal dwellings in the towns and cities under observation (including new constructions) between 1991 and 2009 and the supposed situation after the privatisation is shown by Diagram 2, Total number of municipal dwellings in cities/towns under observation (including new constructions) between 1991 and 2009 and the supposed situation after the privatisation of the municipal housing stock.

The percentage of the dwellings, which the Municipalities intend to keep in their ownership, is related to the overall number of dwellings transferred from the State to the Municipalities in 1991.

Diagram 1

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 1

Note:

The data in the Diagram were obtained from 9 respondents in Prague;
in Brno data provided by the City Council for the whole city were assessed;
in Ostrava data from 14 respondents were assessed;
for Ústí nad Labem data were assessed from 3 respondents;
in Pilsen data provided by the City Council for the whole city were assessed;
in other towns ranking to the category populated 50,000 and above data from 11 respondents were assessed;
in other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 assessed were data from 14 respondents;
in other towns from the category populated 2,000 to 9,999 data were assessed from 10 respondents.

Diagram 2

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 2

Note to Diagram 2:

Expected numbers of municipal dwellings after the finalisation of the municipal housing stock privatisation are specified as per the latest date of the privatisation finalisation, as specified by respondents of a given group of towns.

Supposed figures for Prague as in 2015 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Districts of Prague 5), supposed figures for Brno as in 2015 (as the latest date, mentioned by the Brno - Židenice and Brno - Bystrc Districts), supposed figures for Ostrava as in 2015 (as the latest date, mentioned by the District of Michálkovice, and the District Jih), supposed figures for Ústí nad Labem is not specified (the District Severní Terasa has finished the privatisation in 2008), supposed figures for Pilsen as in 2009 (as the latest date for the privatization finalization pursuant to Statute No. 72/1994 Coll., mentioned by the Municipality for the whole city), supposed figures for towns populated 50,000 and above as in 2012 to 2013 (as the latest date, mentioned by the town Zlín), supposed figures for towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 as in 2023 (in question is the latest term of the privatisation end as specified by the town Kyjov), supposed figures for towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 as in 2015 (as the latest date, mentioned by the town Velká Bíteš).

The data in the diagrams have been acquired:
in Prague - assessment of data from 9 respondents;
in Brno - assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava - assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in Ústí nad Labem - assessment of data from 3 respondents;
in Pilsen - assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 11 respondents;
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 10 respondents.

New constructions

Of the total number of municipal dwellings constructed between 1991 and the end of 2009, 64.2 % were built between 1991 and the end of 2002, 9.8 % during 2003, 6.8 % during 2004, 8.9 % during 2005, 2.8 % during 2006, 5.2 % during 2007, 0.9 % in the course of 2008, and 1.4 % during 2009.

Diagram 3, Number of newly constructed (approved) municipal dwellings in the cities/towns under observation between 1991 and December 31st, 2009 shows the totals of newly constructed dwellings between 1991 and 2009, per 1,000 residents, in Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, Pilsen, and in the three size categories1) of the rest of towns under observation. (For Prague, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, and three size categories of other towns data only for selected city/town districts or selected cities/towns were used for the diagram so that they would correspond with the sample of respondents used on the assessment of other queries of the privatization sphere. In the case of Prague data have been thus distorted as the dwellings built by the city council have not been included. For the whole city of Prague the number of newly constructed municipality dwellings amounts 11.00 dwellings per 1,000 inhabitants for the period between 1991 and December 31st, 2009.)

Diagram 3

Data for selected cities/towns or city/town districts.

Diagram 3

Note:

Specified figures are only approximate. Some municipalities disregard subsidized dwellings which are more than 50 % co-owned by themselves.

The Diagram 3 has included:
in Prague assessment of data from 9 respondents;
in Brno assessment of data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in Ústí nad Labem assessment of data from 3 respondents;
in Pilsen assessment of data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 11 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 14 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 10 addressed respondents.

The structure of the municipal dwellings, newly built in 2008 and in 2009, is shown in Chart 1, Structure of newly constructed municipal dwellings approved in 2008 and in 2009.

Chart 1 Structure of newly constructed municipal dwellings approved in 2008 and in 2009

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Cities/towns % of newly constructed municipal dwellings, accepted in 2008 % of newly constructed municipal dwellings, accepted in 2009
in newly constructed buildings in reconstructed buildings in newly constructed buildings in reconstructed buildings
Prague 0,0 100,0 3,4 96,6
Brno - City Council for the whole city 70,7 29,3 0,0 100,0
Ostrava x x 93,0 7,0
Ústí nad Labem 0,0 100,0 x x
Pilsen - City Council for the whole city 0,0 100,0 0,0 100,0
Cities/towns populated 50,000 and above 92,9 7,1 85,3 14,7
Towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 0,0 100,0 0,0 100,0
Towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 0,0 100,0 0,0 100,0
Mean value 59,5 40,5 54,9 45,1

The Chart 1 has included:
in Prague assessment of data from 9 respondents;
in Brno assessment of data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in Ústí nad Labem assessment of data from 3 respondents;
in Pilsen assessment of data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 11 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 14 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 10 addressed respondents.

Developments of the total of municipal dwellings between 1991 and 2009

Between 1991 and the end of 2001, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 43.8 %, between 1991 and the end of 2002, the decrease was of 48.2 %, between 1991 and the end of 2003, the decrease was of 52.0 %. Between 1991 and the end of 2004, the decrease was of 56.5 %, between 1991 and the end of 2005 the decrease was 59.6 %, between 1991 and the end of 2006 the decrease was 62.9 %, between 1991 and the end of 2007 the decrease was 65.9 %, between 1991 and the end of 2008 the decrease reached 67.7 %, and between 1991 and the end of 2009 the decrease of the total of municipal dwellings was 69.5 %. In the course of 2002, the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 7.9 %, as related to their number in 2001, in the course of 2003, there was a decrease of 7.3 % as related to 2002, in the course of 2004, the decrease was of 9.3 % as related to 2003, in the course of 2005, the decrease was 7.1 % as related to 2004, in the course of 2006, the decrease was 8.1 % as related to their number in 2005, in the course of 2007 the total number of the municipal dwellings decreased by 8.0 % as related to 2006, in 2008 the decrease of the total number of the municipal dwellings was 5.2 % as related to their number in 2007, and during 2009 the total number of municipal dwellings decreased by 5.7 % as compared to their total number in 2008.

Estimated termination of the privatisation of municipal dwellings

Most respondents have supposed to finish the privatisation of municipal dwellings in 2010 and 2011. The latest of the mentioned terms is the year 2015 (City District Prague 5, Brno - Židenice and Brno - Bystrc Districts, the Districts of Ostrava - Michálkovice, Ostrava - Jih, and the town Velká Bíteš) and 2023 (the town Kyjov - in this term expected is the privatisation of the dwellings built on the basis of subsidies from 2000 to 2003, where the municipality and the tenants participated in the construction; the subsidy included a condition that these dwellings could not be sold by the municipality within 20 years). Some respondents still have not fixed their deadlines.

25 respondents have already terminated the privatisation (or at least its 1st stage and now have reassumed the privatization again), i.e. the town Kroměříž finished the privatisation of the municipal dwellings in 1998; the town Třebíč has finished the 1st privatisation wave of the municipal dwellings in 1998 as well (the final term of the present wave has not been determined); the City District Prague 9 has finished the privatisation stage I in 1999 and the final term of the further privatisation stage has not been decided yet; the town Tišnov has finished a general privatisation in 2000 (now selling its dwellings to natural persons for market prices, after having announced its intent) and in this year also the town Teplice has finished the privatisation. In 2003 the privatisation has been finished by the District of Polanka nad Odrou in Ostrava. In this year also the Prague District 8 has finished the wave I of the privatisation (the finalization term of another wave has been specified for 2012), in 2004 the privatization of the municipal dwellings was finished in the City District Prague - Horní Počernice and in the town Třinec; in 2005 the City District Prague 11, the City District Prague 15; moreover, the City District Ostrava - Svinov, and the town Otrokovice (the dwellings are being sold within a public competition since 2006); in 2006 the City Council of the Capital Prague and the towns Liberec and Velké Meziříčí; in 2007 the City District Prague 2 and the town České Budějovice; in 2008 the City District Brno - Jundrov, City District Ústí nad Labem - Severní Terasa, the town Chomutov and the town Vodňany and in 2009 the city of Pilsen, which completed the privatization in compliance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll. (in fact, the city wishes to continue the reduction of the number of dwellings, however, does not specify in which manner); then also the town Děčín and the town Písek, which has specified that the privatization had been in fact finished and dwellings have been sold for market prices since 2009.

The privatisation has reached a highly advanced stage in Ústí nad Labem where 97.5 % of these dwellings have been privatised from the 1991 transfer to the end of 2009. In the city Pilsen 85.9 % of municipal dwellings were privatized by then and in the towns populated 50,000 and above the privatisation reached 84.9 % of municipal dwellings; in the city Ostrava it is 73.7 % of dwellings, in the capital Prague 73.2 % of dwellings, in the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999, 69.6 %. In the towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 it is 67.5 %. The slowest pace of privatisation is in the city of Brno where mere 37.0 % of municipal dwellings have been privatised so far.

Share of municipal dwellings as related to all dwellings

The comparison of the numbers of municipal dwellings and the total of dwellings, as given by the censuses of 1991 and 2001, is shown in Diagram 4, Share of municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings in the cities/towns under observation in 1991 and in Diagram 5, Share of municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings in the cities/towns under observation in 2008, and 2009.

The per cent share of municipal dwellings, as compared to all dwellings in the cities/towns under observation, is gradually decreasing. In 1991, 39.1 % of all dwellings were municipal. 21.0 % were in question in 2001, 19.2 % in 2002, and in 2003, 17.9 % were municipal, in 2004, 16.5 %, in 2005, 15.1 %, in 2006, 13.8 %, in 2007, 13.2 %, in 2008, 12.5 %, and in 2009, 12.0 % of all dwellings were municipal.

Diagram 4

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 4

Note:

Numbers of municipal dwellings were compared to the total number of dwellings as per the 1991 census.

Diagram 5

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 5

Note:
Numbers of municipal dwellings were compared to the total number of dwellings as per the 2001 census.

Notes to Diagrams 4 and 5:
The both diagrams were calculated without Prague and they summarize data from the identical number of respondents.

The data were collected from:
Prague was not included to the Diagrams as the numbers of municipal dwellings had to be added up from the data provided by the Prague City Council and individual city districts that were, however, incomplete (included were the city districts Prague 1, 3, 5, 7, 10, 11, 13, Horní Počernice, and Letňany); in the 1991 census cell numbers of all dwellings cannot be added up for the City Council of the Capital Prague and for the city districts that provided us with responses related to the numbers of municipal dwellings (the administrative division of the Capital Prague has changed since 1991 census; we have got the total numbers of the dwellings only for the whole city).
In the city of Brno data were assessed for the whole city that were provided by the Brno City Council.
In Ostrava data were assessed from 14 respondents.
In Ústí nad Labem data from 3 respondents were assessed.
In Pilsen data were assessed for the whole city that were provided by the Pilsen City Council.
For the towns populated 50,000 and above data from 11 respondents were assessed.
For the towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 data from 14 respondents were assessed.
For the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 data from 10 respondents were assessed.

Numbers of dwellings the Municipalities intend to keep in their ownership in future

The Municipalities intend to hold in their ownership 20.1 % of the dwellings (as related to those transferred to their ownership in 1991).

As related to the number of dwellings the Municipalities owned as per 31 December 2009, they intend to keep 65.9 % of the dwellings (the number of dwellings the Municipalities owned as per 31 December 2009 is the sum of those dwellings that remained, to the Municipalities, after the privatisation of the housing stock transferred to them in 1991 and of newly built municipal dwellings).

General comments on the results of the municipal housing stock privatisation:

  • The respondents’ answers indicate that if the tenants show lack of demand for the municipal flat or house they live in, the dwellings are often offered and sold to third parties, or they consider such a possibility.

Housing policy concepts

  • By its Resolution No. 19/12 of June 24th, 2004, the Municipality of Prague has designed and acclaimed the “Concept of the housing policy for 2004 and the oncoming period”, the duration of the document not being specified, a part of this concept being a division dealing with the social dwelling;
  • The Municipality of Brno has designed its “Housing strategy of the Brno City”. The document was acclaimed in 2001 to be valid till 2011 (updated in 2009), a part of this document being a division dealing with the social dwelling. Furthermore, the Municipality of Brno has processed the document “General Dwelling Plan of the Brno City” applicable since 1997 (last updated in 2008), which will be henceforth updated every four years, a part of this document being a division dealing with the social dwelling;
  • The Municipality of Ostrava has not drawn up any dwelling concept for the time being, but it is being prepared; ordered has been the Concept of dwelling in the city of Ostrava;
  • In Ústí nad Labem three city districts state they have not elaborated any dwelling concept, nor is any document of such kind being prepared; one city district has not specified any response to this question;
  • The Municipality of Pilsen has designed the “Amendment and new directions of the housing policy of the City of Pilsen”, in force since 1999, of unlimited validity, the division dealing with the social dwelling not being a part of this document; the housing concept is also a part of another document “Rules for handling with dwellings and non-dwelling premises owned by the city of Pilsen - Directive No. QS 63-05”, adopted in 2007 and with unlimited applicability, a part of this document being also a division dealing with the social dwelling;
  • Of the other town category, 25, i.e. 51 %, have designed and acclaimed their housing concepts or other documents, independent or as parts of other documents (Liberec, Havířov, Zlín, České Budějovice, Pardubice, Kladno, Karviná, Přerov, Jablonec nad Nisou, Třebíč, Tábor, Příbram, Znojmo, Cheb, Písek, Hodonín, Uherské Hradiště, Svitavy, Český Krumlov, Velké Meziříčí, Kdyně, Polička, Holice, Zruč nad Sázavou, and Brtnice). Two other towns, i.e. 4 %, have only been working on preparation of their documents (Frýdek-Místek, and Prostějov). 18 other towns, i.e. 37 %, have not had such a document and even have not been preparing it at all (Most, Opava, Karlovy Vary, Teplice, Jihlava, Chomutov, Mladá Boleslav, Česká Lípa, Třinec, Kroměříž, Otrokovice, Kyjov, Lanškroun, Tišnov, Dačice, Vodňany, Velká Bíteš, and Valtice); four respondents, i.e. 8 %, have not responded to this question (Olomouc, Hradec Králové, Děčín, and Broumov).

Chart 2, Prices in CZK/m2, for which dwellings are being sold in 2010, or possibly the prices applied in 2009 on condition the privatisation has been already ended in 2009 indicates the lowest and the highest prices reported by individual respondents:

Chart 2 Prices in CZK/m2, for which dwellings are being sold in 2010, or possibly the prices applied in 2009 on condition the privatisation has been already ended in 2009

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

City/town 2010
Lowest price in CZK/m2 specified by respondents Highest price in CZK/m2 specified by respondents
Prague 2,800 (City District Prague 9) 21,700 (City District Prague 5), or 11,000 - 23,000 on individual valuation of every dwelling (City District Prague 3)
Brno 2,096 (City District Kohoutovice) 14,000 (Brno City Council)
Ostrava 1,610 (City District Petřkovice) 18,251 (City District Jih)
Ústí nad Labem None of the respondents specified concrete price None of the respondents specified concrete price
Pilsen 2,500 (data for the whole city for 2009) 2,500 (data for the whole city for 2009)
Other cities/towns populated 50,000 and above 1,042 (Most), or 900 without land (Karlovy Vary) 12,500 (Pardubice), or 18,022 (Zlín - so called direct sale through "closed envelope method")
Other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 700 (Příbram) 10,200 (Hodonín), or 17,800 (Tábor - vacant dwellings)
Other towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 2,441,44 (Velká Bíteš) 10,000 (Zruč nad Sázavou, Brtnice - vacant dwellings)

Reactions to the questions concerning the fact how the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU, in May 2004, and therefrom following necessity to adhere to the Community law in the field of public support, influenced the housing stock privatisation process.

The respondents have responded to the question whether the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU, in May 2004, and therefrom following necessity to adhere to the Community law in the field of public subsidy, influenced the housing stock privatisation process in their municipality, as follows:

  • 35 % of the respondents stated this fact did not influence the process of the housing stock privatisation in their municipality on the instant. Out of which 100 % of the respondents stated it was not necessary to apply any change and none of the respondents stated this fact did not influence the privatisation on the instant, however, they were preparing a change of existing conditions.
  • 29 % of the respondents stated this fact influenced the privatisation process. Out of which 44 % of the respondents stated the privatisation was discontinued, however, conditions were modified so that they would comply with the EU law in the field of public subsidy. 41 % of the respondents stated the privatisation was under way only in the form of the sale of individual dwellings to natural persons who were living in such dwellings. None of the respondents stated the privatisation was discontinued, but only after verification of conditions (in the Economic Competition Protection Authority) and they were preparing a change of the conditions. None of the respondents stated the privatisation was totally discontinued. None of the respondents stated the privatisation was suspended and where municipal dwellings would be privatised, then only for a market price; 16 % of the respondents have specified another contingency.
  • 2 % of the respondents provided, at once, two or more of the offered responses in the questionnaire. From such responses may deduced that the accession of the Czech Republic to the EU, and the related necessity to comply with the community law in the field of public support, did not influence the privatisation, since the privatization method had not been in conflict with the community law in the field of public support even prior to the Czech Republic's accession to the EU (the sale of single dwellings to private persons that have been living therein, the sale for market prices, etc.).
  • 21 % of the respondents have already suspended the privatisation or did not privatise in the respective year, or do not intend to privatise at all.
  • 11 % of the respondents refer to a relevant Town Council in this matter (the City Council of Brno), or a City Council (the City Council of Ostrava) refers to individual City Districts.
  • 3 % of the respondents did not specify any response to this query.

The respondents utilize the following methods how not to take the risk of providing prohibited public subsidy:

  • 22 % of the respondents sell dwellings only to natural persons, that live in such dwellings, in compliance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll., On the Ownership of Dwellings, as last amended.
  • 3 % of the respondents sell houses to legal entities for a market price.
  • 4 % of the respondents sell houses to legal entities for such a price so as the difference between a market and sale price of a house would not result in the infringement of the Commission Regulation (EC) No. 1998/2006 of December 15th, 2006 on the application of the Articles 87 and 88 of the Agreement on the support of the “de minimis”.
  • 3 % of the respondents sell houses to co-operatives, consisting of tenants that transfer the dwellings to the ownership of individual users on instant, and dissolve themselves (these are target based co-operatives as mediators of the sale of dwellings).
  • 8 % of the respondents use other procedures, for example the sale of dwellings, or houses, in the form of competitive bidding or public auction (some respondents use these sales methods only for selected dwelling categories, for example in the case of unoccupied or dislodged flats in the event the tenants have not met conditions for the privatisation of the dwellings); furthermore, the sale of dwellings for market prices to existing tenants, with a discount from the market price, is also applied.
  • 27 % of the respondents use two or more of the above-specified methods at the same time (the most frequent combination of the methods is the sale of the dwellings to natural persons that live therein, in compliance with the Statute No. 72/1994 Coll., and the sale of the houses to legal entities for a market price).
  • 21 % of the respondents have already suspended the privatisation or did not privatise in the respective year, or do not wish to privatise at all.
  • 9 % of the respondents refer to a relevant Town Council in this matter (the City Council of Brno), or a City Council (the City Council of Ostrava) refers to individual City Districts.
  • 3 % of the respondents did not specify any response to this query.

Out of the total number of 112 addressed respondents, 13 % consulted, in the previous period, the issue of compliance, with the Community law, of a provided public subsidy with the Economic Competition Protection Authority; 53 % did not consult this issue, 21 % of the respondents stated they had not been privatising (and therefore did not consult this issue), 3 % of the respondents did not respond to this question; 10 % of the respondents refer to a relevant Town Council in this issue (the City Council of Brno), or a City Council (the City Council of Ostrava) possibly refers to individual City Districts.

Results from the viewpoint of shifts within the housing stock, of payments for the use of the stock, and of maintenance costs, in selected towns

The results of the research in the shifts within the housing stock show that situations in larger cities (Prague, Brno, Ostrava, Ústí nad Labem, Pilsen) and smaller towns are not very different. The movements are rather insignificant, at an average of below 3 % of the total number of municipal dwellings. Such situation may be considered typical for the whole country.

  • The average number of tenants having exchanged their municipal apartments (the tenant is understood as one dwelling household) in 2008 was 1.2 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2009 it was 1.3 %.
  • The average number of rent transfers of municipal flats totalled 1.7 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2008, and in 2009 it was 1.7 % as well.
  • The average number of newly rented municipal apartments on the basis of selection of tenants according to social criteria, dwellings rented on the basis of selection of tenants according to their social expedience (teachers, medical and social services staff, local police staff, ...), dwellings rented for market rentals and other flats, was 2.8 % of the total number of municipal dwellings in 2008 and 3.0 % in 2009.
  • The number of legally vacant dwellings was 1.8 % of the total of municipal dwellings as per December 31st, 2008, while as per December 31st, 2009 it was 2.2 %.
  • The average number of notices to quit, without assent by the court pursuant to Sec. 711(2)(a) to (e) of the Civil Code (for example due to gross violation of demeanour, non-payment of rent and services, etc.), was 1.3 % of the total of municipal dwellings in 2008 and 1.6 % in 2009. Whereas in 2008 the number of executed notices to quit an apartment amounted to 0.4 % of the total number of municipal dwellings, the number of notices to quit where a tenant brought a legal action in respect of determining invalidity of the notice amounted to 0.2 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings, the number of cases where the court decided on the invalidity of the notice to quit amounted to 0.1 % of the total number of dwellings, and the number of tenants who did not respect the notice to quit, without assent by the court, amounted to 0.7 %. In 2009 the number of executed notices to quit an apartment amounted to 0.7 % of the total number of municipal dwellings, the number of notices to quit where a tenant brought a legal action in respect of determining invalidity of the notice amounted to 0.1 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings, the number of cases where the court decided on the invalidity of the notice to quit amounted to 0.04 % of the total number of dwellings, and the number of tenants who did not respect the notice to quit, without assent by the court, amounted to 1.0 %.
  • The number of filed motions for the Court consent to the notice to quit, pursuant to Sec. 711a(1)(b) to (d) of the Civil Code, amounted, at an average, to 0.1 % in 2008 and in 2009, at an average, as well 0.1 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings.
  • The mean number of cases where the court decided on the consent to the notice to quit amounted, at an average, to 0.1 % of the total number of municipal dwellings in 2008 and in 2009 it was 0.03 %.
  • In 2008 the average number of cleared dwellings (particularly ejected) was 0.4 % and it amounted to 0.4 % of the total number of municipal dwellings in 2009 as well.

The development of the numbers of debtors in rentals and/or in services between 2001 and 2009 is shown in Diagram 6, The development index of the number of debtors in respect of municipal dwellings between 2001 and 2009 (the year 2000 = 100). The development between the years 2001 and 2009 shows that as of 2000 the number of debtors was gradually decreasing as long as to 2008, except for the minor variation (increase) in 2004 in Prague, in 2004 and 2005 in Brno, in 2005 in Ostrava, in 2007 and 2008 in Pilsen, and in 2005 in the group of towns populated 10,000 to 49,999. However, in 2009 this trend has stopped in most towns/cities (except for Ústí nad Labem) and the number of debtors, in turn, increased. We may suppose that this was the influence of the financial crisis combined with a gradual deregulation of rentals, which corresponds with the realization that, in the last two years, the share of “short-term” debtors increased, compared to the total of debtors. As compared to 2000, the most significant decrease of the number of debtors occurred in Ústí nad Labem (by 77 %), and in Prague (by 67 %).

The development of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings in the cities/towns under observation between 2000 and 2009 is evident from Chart 3, The number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) between 2000 and 2009 (summarising table).

Diagram 6

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 6

Note:

Data on the debtors in Prague, Brno, and in Ústí nad Labem apply to selected districts only. Data on the debtors in Ostrava apply to the whole of the city, except for those debtors registered at the Municipal Office.

Chart 3 The number of debtors (in rentals and/or in price of services) between 2000 and 2009 (summarising table)

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

  Prague (selected districts) Brno (selected districts) Ostrava (all districts without City Council of Ostrava) Ústí nad Labem (selected districts) Pilsen (whole city) Other towns
populated 50,000 and above (selected towns) populated 10,000 to 49,999 (selected towns) populated 2,000 to 9,999 (all towns)
Share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings in cities/towns (city/town districts) under observation as per Dec 31st 2000 28,3% 18,6% 30,7% 58,5% 31,5% 31,7% 18,6% x
2001 24,7% 29,1% 29,6% 74,3% 27,3% 32,5% 19,5% x
2002 24,3% 17,3% 31,6% 75,0% 24,0% 32,9% 21,1% x
2003 22,5% 16,7% 31,3% 61,9% 18,9% 28,8% 21,0% 8,8%
2004 24,4% 18,1% 33,1% 93,1% 19,6% 20,6% 20,8% 8,7%
2005 17,5% 21,4% 41,5% 111,0% 28,1% 21,5% 22,9% 9,1%
2006 12,7% 19,5% 37,8% 85,2% 33,4% 21,5% 22,2% 11,2%
2007 12,9% 13,3% 41,4% 72,2% 41,6% 18,6% 19,7% 10,8%
2008 13,9% 12,7% 37,8% 97,7% 65,0% 17,8% 19,2% 12,5%
2009 19,0% 18,3% 45,4% 89,2% 70,2% 22,0% 24,5% 14,3%
Change index of the number of debtors 2001/2000 84,3 184,3 91,3 125,8 79,7 95,9 94,8 x
2002/2001 91,3 57,0 99,2 88,5 84,1 96,5 97,1 x
2003/2002 84,8 92,2 92,7 78,3 78,3 83,2 90,3 x
2004/2003 101,2 102,2 96,9 80,1 95,6 69,1 90,9 100,0
2005/2004 70,7 112,4 110,9 98,7 98,4 97,5 105,6 105,0
2006/2005 69,4 87,6 79,1 55,3 100,1 91,1 92,2 115,8
2007/2006 83,6 67,5 97,9 78,1 103,3 86,0 81,9 94,1
2008/2007 99,6 92,8 82,2 91,1 134,8 95,5 87,2 106,5
2009/2008 122,5 139,1 115,8 84,2 109,0 111,1 113,1 111,9

Note:

The share of the debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of the municipal dwellings has reached values higher than 100 % in some cities/towns, i.e. these towns have had either old claims against the debtors even in relation to dwellings sold to new tenants, who are not debtors any more, in the privatisation, or they have recorded more than one debtor per one dwelling.

From the table follows that, since 2000, in the cities/towns under observation (hand-in-hand with the proceeding privatisation) a great difference of the values of the indicator “share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings” occurs. In 2009 the share of the number of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings, in the cities/towns under observation, varied between 14.3 % (the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999) and 89.2 % (Ústí nad Labem). However, the predictive value of the indicator of the share of debtors (in rentals and/or in services) in relation to the total number of municipal dwellings is markedly influenced by an advanced stage of the privatisation of the municipal dwellings. Therefore this indicator is completed, in the table, by the “change index of the number of debtors”; in 2009 most towns/cities (except for the city Ústí nad Labem) indicated an increase of the number of debtors compared to the previous year. In the case of some towns/cities this is a rather long-term trend (for example in Pilsen and in towns populated 2,000 - 9,999). The highest annual increase of the number of debtors was recorded in Brno, namely by 39.1 % (index 139.1). The city Ústí nad Labem recorded an annual decrease of the number of debtors, namely by 15.8 % (index 84.2).

Diagram 7, Development indexes of the number of municipal dwellings and of debtors in the towns under observation between 2001 and 2009 (the year 2000 = 100) without the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 shows the relation between development of the number of debtors and the development of the number of municipal dwellings in the towns under observation between 2001 and 2009. It is clear from the diagram that, within the specified period of time, the number of municipal dwellings and the number of debtors was decreasing approximately at the same pace, whereas before 2002 the decrease of the number of debtors was only gentle, while in 2003 the pace of decrease of the number of debtors significantly accelerated and caught up with the pace of decrease of the number of municipal dwellings. However, in 2009 the number of debtors significantly increased, as compared to 2008, and the pace of decrease of the debtors approached the pace of decrease of the number of municipal dwellings. (The evaluation has not included the towns populated 2,000 to 9,999, out of which some were addressed first within the investigation in 2005; therefore data on the number of debtors for a longer period have not been available.)

The number of debtors in the municipal dwellings, in relation to the overall number of dwellings in the cities/towns under observation as per 31 December 2008, is given in the Diagram 8, Number of debtors in the municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings as per December 31st, 2008 and as per 31 December 2009 in the Diagram 9, Number of debtors in the municipal dwellings as related to the total number of dwellings as per December 31st, 2009.

Diagram 7

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts

Diagram 7

Diagram 8

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts

Diagram 8

Note:

Data on total dwellings, total municipal dwellings, and debtors in Prague, Brno, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected districts only, whereas the total number of debtors in Ostrava does not include only the debtors recorded by the City council. Data on total dwellings as per the census of 1st March 2001.

Diagram 9

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 9

Note:

Data on total dwellings, total municipal dwellings, and debtors in Prague, Brno, Ostrava, and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected districts only, whereas the total number of debtors in Ostrava does not include only the debtors recorded by the City council. Data on total dwellings as per the census of 1st March 2001.

The question of the numbers of “short-term” debtors (in rentals and/or in services) who did not meet the condition to be given notice to quit, by the lessor, without assent by the court pursuant to Sec. 711(2)(b) of the Statute No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code as last amended, was answered by rather a lower number of respondents only, as the most frequent system of evidence of debtors cannot easily identify “short-term” debtors. In general it may be stated that the share of the “short-term” debtors was relatively high both in 2009 as well as in 2008.

The average prescribed net rental per dwelling in 2008 was of 2,326 CZK/dwelling/month, while in 2009, 2,902 CZK/dwelling/month were in question. .

The average prescribed monthly payment for services per dwelling in 2008 was of 1,740 CZK/dwelling/month, while in 2009, 1,814 CZK/dwelling/month were in question.

So, the average monthly payment for the use of a municipal apartment was of 4,066 CZK/dwelling/month in 2008, while in 2009, of 4,716 CZK/dwelling/month.

Thus the 2009 payments for the both average prescribed net rental and average prescribed net payment for services increased, as compared to 2008, thus also the total amount to be paid for the use of an apartment.

The average debt on the net rental per a municipal apartment was of CZK 3,209 as by 31 December 2008, while of CZK 3,379 as by 31 December 2009.

The average debt on services in a municipal apartment was of CZK 2,442 as by 31 December 2008, while of CZK 2,588 as by 31 December 2009.

So, the average debt on the use of a municipal apartment was of CZK 5,651 as by 31 December 2008, while of CZK 5,966 as by 31 December 2009.

Thus the 2009 mean debts for the net rentals per one municipal apartment increased, as compared to 2008, whereas the total debts in payments for the services increased as well, thus increasing the total mean payment for the use of a municipal apartment. Such increase may partly be caused by the decrease in the number of municipal dwellings due to the privatisation of the housing stock.

The percentages of municipal dwellings for which applies the rental to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. is related, the number of municipal dwellings the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and to the financing of which a subsidy was provided to municipalities from the state budget or from state funds, and the number of municipal dwellings with contractual rent is shown in Diagram 10, Municipal dwellings by types of applied rentals, 2008 and Diagram 11, Municipal dwellings by types of applied rentals, 2009.

The Diagrams indicate that the shares of the dwellings the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and for the financing of which subsidy was provided to municipalities from the state budget or from state funds, and with the contractual rentals keep increasing gradually, while the share of the dwellings to which shall apply the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. has been gradually decreasing.

As related to the total number of municipal dwellings, the share of the municipal dwellings, for which applies the rental to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. shall apply, reached 81.4 % in the towns under observation in 2008 and 80.5 % in 2009.

As compared to the total number of the municipal dwellings, the share of the municipal dwellings, the construction or annex of which was approved after June 30th, 1993 and for the financing of which the municipalities were provided a subsidy from the state budget, was 7.0 % in 2008 and 7.3 % in 2009 in the towns under observation. Significantly higher is the share of this type of dwellings in Ústí nad Labem (20.8 % in 2008 and 23.7 % in 2009), in the category of towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 (22.2 % in 2008 and 22.6 % in 2009), in the category of towns populated between 10,000 and 49,999 (13.6 % in 2008 and 14.0 % in 2009) and in Pilsen (12.4 % in 2008 and 13.4 % in 2009).

The share of the municipal dwellings with contractual rent was 11.5 % in 2008 and 12.1 % in 2009 in the towns under observation. A significantly higher share of such dwellings was in the category of towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 (21.4 % in 2008 and 22.1 % in 2009), in the category of towns populated between 10,000 and 49,999 (15.3 % in 2008 and 22.3 % in 2009), in Pilsen, particularly 44.1 % in 2008, however, in 2009 the number of dwellings with contractual rent decreased to 9.8 %. The lowest number of dwellings with contractual rent was in Prague (0.7 % in 2008 and 0.9 % in 2009).

Diagram 10

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 10

Diagram 11

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 11

The Diagrams 10 and 11 have included:
in Prague assessment of data from 8 respondents;
in Brno assessment of data from 20 respondents;
in Ostrava assessment of data from 14 respondents;
in Ústí nad Labem assessment of data from 3 respondents;
in Pilsen assessment of data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 13 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 16 addressed respondents;
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 10 addressed respondents.

Unilateral raise of rentals on the basis of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals from a flat and on the amendment of the Statute No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code, as last amended, and on the basis of the Announcement of the MinRD No. 180/2009 Coll. (on the basis of the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. the lessor is entitled to increase the rent once a year and, after that, always as per January 1st, or later, within period of time starting on January 1st, 2007 and ending on December 31st, 2010. For the dwellings in the Capital Prague, in the municipalities of the Central bohemian county with the population higher than 9,999 as per January 1st, 2009, in the towns/cities České Budějovice, Pilsen, Karlovy Vary, Liberec, Hradec Králové, Pardubice, Jihlava, Brno, Olomouc, Zlín this period of time, when the unilateral increase of the rentals may be applied by the lessor, shall end on December 31st, 2012):

Chart 4,The share of dwellings owned by municipalities (for that the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. shall apply), for which the system of the unilateral increase of rent was used in 2009, and Diagram 12, Respondents as per their response to the question whether they applied the maximum increase of rentals in 2009, indicate the attitude of the respondents to the unilateral increase of rent in 2009.

Chart 4 The share of dwellings owned by municipalities (for that the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. shall apply), for which the system of the unilateral increase of rent was used in 2009

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Town/city The share of dwellings owned by municipalities, for which the system of the unilateral increase of rent was used in 2009
0 - 24 % 25 - 49 % 50 - 74 % 75 - 99 % 100 %
Number of respondents Number of respondents Number of respondents Number of respondents Number of respondents
Prague 0 1 0 8 8
Brno 2 0 0 9 8
Ostrava 2 0 0 4 7
Ústí nad Labem 0 0 0 0 3
Pilsen 0 0 0 0 1
Other cities/towns populated 50,000 and above 3 0 2 2 8
Other towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 3 2 2 1 12
Other towns populated 2,000 to 9,999 1 2 1 1 5
Total 11 5 5 25 52
Share 11,22 % 5,10 % 5,10 % 25,51 % 53,06 %

Note:

Prague - 2 respondents did not specify any answer.
Brno - 3 respondents did not specify any answer.
Ostrava - 1 respondent (the City Council) did not specify any answer, 3 respondents do not have any own dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. would apply.
Ústí nad Labem - 1 respondent does not have any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. would apply.
Pilsen City - data for the whole city as delivered by the City Council of Pilsen.
Cities/towns populated 50,000 and above - 1 respondent did not specify any response, 3 respondents did not unilaterally increase the rent in municipal dwellings in 2009.
Towns populated 10,000 to 49,999 - 2 respondents did not specify any response, 3 respondents did not unilaterally increase the rent in municipal dwellings in 2009.
Towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 - 1 respondent did not respond.

The table shows that in 2009 more than a half of the respondents unilaterally increased the rent in all municipal dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied. In total, 8 respondents who own dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied, did not utilise the contingency to unilaterally increase the rent in 2009, i.e. the City District Brno - Vinohrady, City District Ústí nad Labem - Severní Terasa, Karlovy Vary, Děčín, Teplice, Mladá Boleslav, Příbram, and Kyjov.

Diagram 12

Data for all cities/towns or city/town districts.

Diagram 12

Note:

Ostrava City - 3 respondents do not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals would apply; therefore they have not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions.
Ústí nad Labem City - 1 respondent does not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals would apply; therefore it has not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions.
Pilsen City - data for the whole City provided by the City Council of Pilsen.

From the diagram follows that more than a half of respondents (56 %) utilised the maximum increase of the rent for all dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. applied, in 2009. Totally 14 % of the respondents used the maximum increase of rent, however, not for all dwellings. Further 23 % of respondents did not use the maximum increase of rent (including the respondents who did not increase the rent in municipal dwellings in 2009).

The highest share of respondents who did not use the maximum possible increase of rent in 2009 was in Brno, particularly 45 % of the respondents. The lowest share (32 %) of respondents, who used the maximum increase of rent for all dwellings, was in Prague. At the same time, in Prague there was the highest share of respondents (37 %) who utilised the maximum increase of rent only in selected municipal dwellings. It may be assumed that the city districts in Prague and the City Council of the Capital Prague, to which higher limit of a maximum possible rentals were applied by regulations, in many cases differentiate the rentals according to the quality of the dwellings, locality, social position of an applicant, or according to other aspects.

The interest of the cities/towns in the unilateral increase of the rent in 2010 is documented by the Diagram 13, Unilateral raise of rentals in 2010. From the diagram follows that in 2010 as much as 70 % of respondents used the contingency of the unilateral increase of the rentals in the municipal dwellings. Totally 4 % of the respondents did not specify any answer to this question and the remaining 26 % of the respondents did not raise the rentals unilaterally in the municipal dwellings in 2010. The lowest number of respondents to unilaterally increase the rent in 2010 is in Brno (45 %) and in Prague (47 %) - these are cities in which the rentals deregulation has been prolonged as long as to 2012.

Most of the city/town councils that unilaterally raised the rentals in 2010 have done so as early as in the 1st quarter, particularly most often as per January 1st, 2010 - see the Diagram 14, Respondents by the term of the unilateral raise of rentals in 2010.

Diagram 13

Data for all cities/towns or city/town districts.

Diagram 13

Note:

Ostrava City - 3 respondents do not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals would apply, therefore they have not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions.
Ústí nad Labem City - 1 respondent does not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals would apply, therefore it has not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions.
Pilsen City - data for the whole city as provided by the City Council of Pilsen.

Diagram 14

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 14

Note:

Brno City - the City Council replies this issue is in power of city districts.
Ostrava City - 3 respondents do not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals would apply, therefore they have not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions. The Ostrava City Council refers to city districts.
Ústí nad Labem City - one respondent does not own any dwellings, to which the Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on the unilateral raise of rentals would apply, therefore it has not been included in the evaluation of this range of questions.
Pilsen City - data for the whole city provided by the City Council of Pilsen.
Towns populated 50,000 and above - 1 respondent did not respond to this question.
Towns populated between 10,000 and 49,999 - 1 respondent did not answer this question.
Towns populated between 2,000 and 9,999 - 3 respondents did not answer this question.

For a standard dwelling after the unilateral raise in 2008, the rental charges varied within the range from 12.37 CZK/m2 in the town Most to 70.00 CZK/m2 referred to in the City District Prague 4, in 2009, they varied between 13.00 CZK/m2 in the town Příbram and 95.46 CZK/m2 as specified by the City District Prague 7 and in 2010 the rentals for a standard dwelling reached the levels between 12.91 CZK/m2 in the town Most and 110.44 CZK/m2 as specified by the City Council of Prague. For lower quality dwellings the rentals after the unilateral raise in 2008 reached the levels between 7.89 CZK/m2 in the town Teplice and 54.82 CZK/m2 as referred to by the City District Prague - Řepy, in 2009, they varied between 7.89 CZK/m2 in the town Teplice and 76.53 CZK/m2 specified by the City Council of the Capital Prague and in 2010 the rentals for low quality dwellings reached the levels between 7.19 CZK/m2 in the town Děčín and 91.67 CZK/m2 as referred to by the city Council of the Capital Prague.

From the comparison of the rentals after the unilateral raise of 2010 and of the rentals in dwellings built with a state subsidy and with contractual rentals may be deduced that the highest dispersion of values, between the minimum and maximum amount of the rent in individual groups of towns/town districts/city districts, is recorded for the contractual rentals.

From the knowledge and comments of respondents to the issue of the unilateral raise of rentals may be collectively stated:

  • In 2010 the rentals were increased to the maximum level and, at the same time, it was approved that for the apartment houses where windows had not been changed and facades had not been thermally insulated and where original water and sewerage mains remain in place, a discount up to 32 % from the net rental would be provided as of January 1st, 2010;
  • On a gradual increase of the rentals higher investments in the dwelling assets may be performed; in the period of the “controlled” rentals funds were sufficient only for the sustainable maintenance; now funds suffice, for example, for a gradual changes of windows in all houses and for rehabilitation of electrical installations in common premises, etc.;
  • The unilateral increase has not been applied due to the final sale of the dwelling assets; for the dwellings to remain in the city/town property the rentals have already been on the market bases, or subsidised constructions are in question;
  • It is unclear what will happen after 2011; either an amendment of the Civil Code is missing, or - which would be better - a special new law on the rentals (towns/cities for which the prolongation till 2012 has not applied);
  • The maximum increase has not been utilised as it has reached the limit social tolerance, as cumulated with the payments for services;
  • The condition for the notice to quit, without approval by the court, is the triple unpaid monthly rent with a three-month notice period. Due to legal actions in respect of determining invalidity of the notice the period of time for the quit is extended by further months or up to years, before a court would decide; a tenant usually does not pay throughout the entire period and the due amount is increasing - i.e. all time limits related to the notice to quit should be fiercely reduced;
  • The deregulation of rentals is too slow and does not correspond to the housing market and rentals.

In most cases, towns manage their municipal housing stock through one or more specialized private businesses, hired by the municipality, entitled to a consideration for the management. In 2008, such type of care-taking was with 51.0 % of the total of municipal dwellings, while in 2009, 47.1 %.

The average monthly costs of the management of a municipal dwelling through a caretaker were of CZK 205.05 per dwelling/month in 2008, while of CZK 233.70 in 2009. The average costs for dwellings maintained directly by one of the Municipality’s departments were of CZK 186.25 per dwelling/month in 2008, while of CZK 217.15 in 2009. The mean costs of the management of the municipal dwellings increased as for the management of the municipal dwellings by means of a caretaker in 2009, as compared to 2008, the same as the mean costs for the management of the municipal dwellings, where the towns carried out the management through a respective department. At the same time, from the given data follows that if a town manages its dwellings by its own, through a respective department, it is cheaper for the cities/towns than the provision of the municipal dwellings management through a caretaker.

The average monthly costs of the management of municipal dwellings increased in 2009, compared to 2008, the same as the average income from rentals of municipal dwellings in 2009, compared to 2008. The average monthly management and maintenance costs of a municipal dwelling were CZK 1,989 in 2008, while CZK 2,113 were in question in 2009; the average monthly income from rentals of municipal dwellings was CZK 2,668 in 2008, while the amount CZK 3,057 was in question in 2009. The average costs of management and maintenance of municipal dwellings was lower than the average incomes from the rentals of municipal dwellings in both 2008 and 2009, whereas the difference between these two amounts increased in 2009, compared to 2008.

Diagram 15, Comparison of respondents by their responses to the question whether the incomes from rentals cover the maintenance costs of the municipal housing stock so as deterioration of its technical status would not occur, shows the evaluation of the responses of individual respondents to this question.

Diagram 15

Data for all cities/towns or city/town districts.

Diagram 15

Selected facts from the additional part of the questionnaire

The issue of letting municipal dwellings and of letting municipal dwellings to selected groups of residents:

  • Of all the 112 addressed respondents 77, i.e. 68.8 %, keep records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings, 35 of them, i.e. 31.3 %, do not keep records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings.
  • Of all the 112 addressed respondents 60, i.e. 54.0 %, keep records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents, 52, i.e. 46.0 %, do not keep records of applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents. From the total number of 60 respondents who keep records of the applications on the tenancy of the municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents 10, i.e. 16.7 %, keep these records within overall records, 46 of them, i.e. 76.7 %, keep these records separately, two, i.e. 3.3 %, keep these records both within the overall records as well as separately, and two respondents, i.e. 3.3 %, did not specify whether they kept the records of the applications for the tenancy of the municipal dwellings for the selected groups of residents either within the overall records or separately.
  • 43 respondents, i.e. 38.4 %, keep the both above-specified records of the applications for the tenancy and 18 respondents, i.e. 16.1 %, do not keep any of the above-specified records of applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling.
  • Individual respondents that keep records of the applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling for selected groups of residents keep them most often for the seniors, furthermore for disabled, persons with low incomes, other selected groups (the respondents refer to, for example, applicants for asylum - so-called integration dwellings; alternate dwellings after divorce; tenants that vacated a present dwelling due to health reasons, following after allocation of another dwelling of a same size, but in a lower storey; persons in need of a day care; children from a children's home or leaving foster care; young people aged up to 35 - the so-called starting flats), furthermore for public service professions (referred to are teachers, municipal police, National police, health care, employees of a city/town district and of statutory organizations) and unwed mothers and families with children.
  • The per cent share of the overall recorded applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling including the municipal dwelling for the selected groups of residents, for all respondents in total, was 26.7 % in 2008, while in 2009 it was 25.5 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings. In 2008 the per cent share of the overall recorded applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling for the selected groups of residents, for all respondents in total, was 7.9 % of the total number of the municipal dwellings, while in 2009 it was 7.2 % of the total number of municipal dwellings. The total of the recorded applications for the tenancy of the municipal dwelling for the selected groups of residents amounted to 30.0 % of the total number of all recorded applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling in 2008 and in 2009 it was 28.5 % from the total number of all recorded applications for the tenancy of a municipal dwelling.
  • The percentage of all the registered applications for municipal dwellings in 2008 and 2009 in all the categories of towns and cities, as related to total numbers of municipal dwellings, and such percentage in total, is shown in Diagram 16, Share of all registered applications for municipal dwellings as related to total numbers of municipal dwellings, 2008 and 2009.
  • The percentage of all the registered applications for municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents in 2008 and 2009 in all the categories of cities and towns, as related to total numbers of all dwellings, and such percentage in total, is shown in Diagram 17, Share of all registered applications for municipal dwellings for selected groups of residents as related to all registered applications for the tenancy of municipal dwellings - 2008 and 2009.

Diagram 16

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 16

Note:

Figures of Prague, Brno, Ostrava and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected city districts; data for Pilsen are data as provided by the City Council of Pilsen for the whole city;
in Prague assessment of data from 14 respondents (without the city districts Prague 3, 6, 8, 11, and 14);
in Brno assessment of data from 19 respondents (without the City Council, City Districts Černovice, and Tuřany);
in Ostrava assessment of data from 16 respondents (without the City District Stará Bělá);
in Ústí nad Labem assessment of data from 1 respondent (without the City Districts Město, Severní Terasa, and Střekov);
in Pilsen assessment of data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 8 respondents (without the City of Olomouc and the towns Liberec, Hradec Králové, Kladno, Most, Karviná, Karlovy Vary, and Teplice);
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 15 respondents (without the towns Mladá Boleslav, Příbram, Znojmo, Písek, Hodonín, Český Krumlov, and Lanškroun);
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 10 respondents (without the town Vodňany).

Diagram 17

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 17

Note:

Figures of Prague, Ostrava and Ústí nad Labem apply to selected city districts; data for Brno and Pilsen are data as provided by the City Councils for the whole cities;
in Prague assessment of data from 10 respondents (without the city districts Prague 1, 3, 6, 8, 11,14, City Districts Řepy, Horní Počernice, and Letňany);
in Brno assessment of data for the whole city as provided by the City Council;
in Ostrava assessment of data from 9 respondents (without the City Districts Hošťálkovice, Mariánské Hory and Hulváky, Michálkovice, Petřkovice, Proskovice, Stará Bělá, Svinov, and Třebovice);
in Ústí nad Labem assessment of data from 1 respondent (without the City Districts Město, Severní Terasa, and Střekov);
in Pilsen assessment of data for the whole city, as provided by the City Council;
in other towns - populated 50,000 and above - assessment of data from 7 respondents (without the City of Olomouc and the towns Liberec, České Budějovice, Hradec Králové, Kladno, Most, Karviná, Karlovy Vary, and Teplice);
in other towns - populated 10,000 to 49,999 - assessment of data from 12 respondents (without the towns Mladá Boleslav, Třebíč, Tábor, Příbram, Znojmo, Písek, Kroměříž, Hodonín, Český Krumlov, and Lanškroun);
in other towns - populated 2,000 to 9,999 - assessment of data from 6 respondents (without the towns Vodňany, Zruč nad Sázavou, Kdyně, Velká Bíteš, and Valtice).

  • Only a single respondent (the town Česká Lípa) specified it provided compensation money in the event the tenants returned a vacant flat.
  • Ways to decrease the numbers of debtors and the amounts of debts in rentals and services, in a comprehensive summary for all the respondents, are shown in Diagram 18, Methods to decrease the numbers of debtors and the amounts of debts in rentals and services in towns and cities under observation.
  • From the diagram follows that the most utilised methods to decrease the numbers of debtors and of the debts in rentals and services are termination of tenancy through notices to quit in compliance with the Civil Code, payment time-tables, and conclusion of new contracts for lease for a determinate period of time. As compared to the results of the previous year's investigation further increase was indicated of the share of respondents who used the following methods to reduce the number of debtors and to reduce the debts in rentals and services: Appointed workers visit the debtors in person and perform individual solutions of repayment of their debts in rentals; the use of the institute of a special beneficiary of social benefits; distrainment of movable assets.

Diagram 18

Data for selected cities/towns or selected city/town districts.

Diagram 18

As 2010 was declared the “European year of poverty and social exclusion abatement” and that this topic included the issues of dwelling, i.e. exclusion from dwelling and homeless status, the question was newly included last year whether municipalities have elaborated (or have been preparing) a document attempting to solve the described issue. From the 112 addressed respondents only 12 specified that the above mentioned document had been prepared (City District Prague 7, and the city Olomouc) or had already existed (The City District Prague 1, the City Council of Brno, City District Brno - Sever, the City Council of Ostrava, the towns Most, Karviná, Chomutov, Prostějov, Písek, and Český Krumlov).

The issues of municipal housing have been monitored through questionnaire surveys since 2000, then exploring data of 1998 and 1999. The 2001 survey explored data of 1999 and 2000, the 2002 survey did so for 2000 and 2001, in 2003 the situation in the years 2001 and 2002 was mapped, the 2004 survey pursued the development in the years 2002 and 2003, in 2005 the survey was focused on 2003 and 2004, in 2006 the investigation was focused to the years 2004 and 2005, in 2007 the investigation pursued the years 2005 and 2006, the 2008 investigation mapped the years 2006 and 2007, in 2009 the years 2007 and 2008 were investigated, and the this year's investigation mapped the situation in 2008 and in 2009. For the assignor of the task - the MinRD’s Dwelling Policy Department - such research is one of the ways to collect up-to-date information on municipal housing, for the Czech Statistic Office does not routinely record such data.

The research of the developments in the privatisation of the municipal housing stock offers the comparison of the dynamics of this process between its beginnings in 1991 and today, giving estimations of its prospects in future years. From this year's research (i.e. for 2009) followed that most respondents expected the termination of the process of the municipal dwellings privatisation in 2010 and 2011. The most distant dates of the privatisation finalization mentioned in this year’s research were 2015 and 2023 (this terms includes the privatisation of the dwellings that were constructed on the basis of subsidies provided between 2000 and 2003 where the municipalities and tenants participated in the construction of the dwellings; the subsidy included, among others, the condition that the municipality must not sell these dwellings within the period of 20 years).

The printed version of the final report of the 2010 questionnaire survey is available at the Dwelling Policy Department of the MinRD and at the Brno Institute for Spatial Development. A brief report from the research Results of the 2010 Questionnaire Survey in the Developments of Selected Towns’ Municipal Housing Stock is available on the Institute’s web site www.uur.cz under the phrases bytová politika a regenerace sídel, as well as monitoring komunálního bydlení, and also Municipal Housing Stock 2008 - 2009.

Following the requirements of the MinRD, the survey will be repeated at the beginning of 2011. Together with the task assignor, the questions in the questionnaire and the scope of addressed respondents will be updated.

The task “Monitoring of Municipal Housing”, comprehensively analysing the municipal housing stock, is an important part of the continuous activities of the Institute for Spatial Development, which means it is repeated annually on a regular basis. The results of this research are widely used by housing policy makers.

The assignor of the task - the Dwelling Policy Department of the Ministry for Regional Development - and the researching staff of the Institute for Spatial Development wish to thank all the respondents for their collaborative approach and the information with which they have contributed to the final report, making thus a coherent picture of the situation of the municipal housing stock in the Czech Republic.

Note

1) Statute No. 107/2006 Coll. on unilateral advance of rent from a flat and on the amendment of the Statute No. 40/1964 Coll., Civil Code, as last amended, and the Announcement of the MinRD No. 333/2006 Coll. on the classification of municipalities in respect of size categories according to the number of inhabitants, on the territorial classification of municipalities by grouping of cadastral districts, on the height of prices per 1 m2 of floor area of dwellings, on target values of monthly rents per 1 m2 of a dwelling floor area, on a maximum increment of a monthly rent and on the procedure when searching for a maximum rent increment for a concrete flat.

TOPlist
Kontakty Mapa stránek RSS Prohlášení o přístupnosti TOPlist
Poslední aktualizace stránky 9. 1. 2012 |© Ústav územního rozvoje - Ludmila Rohrerová, 2001–2021