Skip to decisions
Žuk — ANTON и JELENA

Legal archive: reviews of court practice concerning Narva apartment associations

This section contains analytical reviews and editorial summaries of publicly available court decisions concerning relations between apartment owners and apartment associations in Narva. The information has been prepared by the Žuk Kinnisvara team for informational purposes.

We explain complex legal acts in plain language. Our archive is continually updated.

We plan to add reviews of decisions of the Supreme Court of Estonia (Riigikohus) on important issues concerning relations between apartment owners and apartment associations.

Before making important legal decisions, always check the official status and full case text in the state register (Riigi Teataja / e-Toimik).

Subjects and subtopics

A subject describes the dispute; it does not establish a violation.

Additional parameters

Reset all
2-16-2463

Narva linn, Juhkentali tn 6 korteriühistu · 80236679

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayInstalments and payment schedules

Editorial summary

The court approved a three-month payment schedule and separate reimbursement of costs.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-2463/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Jaamaga: instalments approved by settlement

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Jaamaga KÜ · 80236679

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — Jaamaga KÜ; defendant — owner XX

Editorial summary

The court approved a three-month payment schedule and separate reimbursement of costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Jaamaga KÜ (now — Narva linn, Juhkentali tn 6 korteriühistu). Jaamaga KÜ claimed management charges and late-payment interest from owner XX. The parties agreed the outstanding balance after an earlier partial payment and payment over three months. Litigation costs of 325 euros are payable separately by 31 July 2016; current invoices remain a separate obligation. The court approved the settlement and discontinued proceedings without a separate judgment on the original claims. The same parties cannot bring the same claim again; breach of the settlement can lead to enforcement. By agreement, the appeal period was shortened to three days after service of the order. The order does not establish that future payments were made.

Outcome of this decision

The settlement was approved and proceedings discontinued. The balance is payable by instalments, with costs separately.
2-16-102866

Narva linn, Uusküla tn 1 korteriühistu · 80175825

Contracts and servicesWorks contracts and designPayment, advance payments and refundsApartment association bills, payments and debtsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

The court approved the agreed payment and late-payment interest, terminated the dispute and awarded the company a refund of half the court fee.

· RulingViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-16-102866/5Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Uusküla 1 and Katuse ABC: works contract dispute ended by agreement

Ruling · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Katuse ABC Osaühing · UUSKÜLA TN 1 KORTERIÜHISTU · 11336757 · 80175825

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant – Katuse ABC Osaühing; Defendant – UUSKÜLA TN 1 KORTERIÜHISTU

Editorial summary

The court approved the agreed payment and late-payment interest, terminated the dispute and awarded the company a refund of half the court fee.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Katuse ABC Osaühing brought a works contract claim against the apartment association Uusküla tn 1. The parties settled the dispute by an agreement which the court approved, terminating proceedings. The initial 914,75 euros had been claimed in payment order proceedings; following the association’s objection, the case was transferred to ordinary civil proceedings. The agreement records an acknowledged debt of 85,25 euros* and provides for payment to the company of 82,25 euros* by 15 April 2016, with early payment allowed. If the payment obligation is breached, the company may demand late-payment interest of 0,1% per day on the unpaid amount until payment. The parties waived claims under the former contract and acquired rights under the agreement. The company confirmed that it had no other claims against the association arising from the contract or the circumstances of this case. Each bears its own costs, and the parties have no mutual claims regarding their allocation. The company was awarded a refund of 22,50 euros, half the court fee paid, when the agreement enters into force. The court explained that breach of the terms could lead to compulsory enforcement and that the same dispute could not be brought again. Actual payment by the association or refund of the fee is not confirmed.

Outcome of this decision

Approve the agreement and terminate proceedings. It records a debt of 85,25 euros* and payment of 82,25 euros* by 15 April 2016. Upon delay, late-payment interest is 0,1% per day on the unpaid amount until payment. Each bears its own costs; the company is refunded 22,50 euros in court fees when the agreement enters into force.
2-15-124629

Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80170236

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

The association withdrew its application before the claim was admitted; the court refused admission and did not refund the payment-order fee.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-124629/3Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Gerassimovi 4: claim not admitted and payment-order fee not refunded

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Gerassimovi 4 Narva · 80170236

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Gerassimovi 4 Narva; Defendant to the transferred claim — XX

Editorial summary

The association withdrew its application before the claim was admitted; the court refused admission and did not refund the payment-order fee.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Gerassimovi 4 Narva (now — Narva linn, V. Gerassimovi tn 4 korteriühistu) applied for an expedited payment order for debt, late-payment interest and costs. The claim against XX was transferred from Pärnu Maakohus to Viru Maakohus for civil proceedings. The court required the claim and grounds to be presented in the proper form and an additional state fee within 14 days. Before admission of the claim, the association stated that it was withdrawing the application and requested termination and a refund of 45 euros in state fees. No proper claim or supplementary payment was submitted. The court refused admission rather than accepting withdrawal of an already pending claim: the application is treated as not filed and the merits of the debt were not heard. The association bears the costs. The application is not served on the defendant. The 45-euro refund was refused. That amount was paid for payment-order proceedings and no supplementary civil-claim fee was paid; the court stated that the statutory grounds for refunding a payment-order fee did not apply. An interlocutory appeal against refusal to admit the claim was explained, to Tartu Ringkonnakohus through Viru Maakohus within 15 days after service, no later than five months after the order. Under a separate explanation in the act, refusal of the fee refund cannot be challenged by interlocutory appeal.

Outcome of this decision

Admission of the debt claim was refused and the association bears the costs. A refund of the 45-euro payment-order fee was refused. Refusal of admission may be appealed as stated; refusal of the refund may not. The merits of whether the debt existed were not determined.
2-15-118130

Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 4 korteriühistu · 80189253

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

After reporting full payment, the association withdrew its claim and the court terminated proceedings.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-118130/9Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kreenholmi 4: proceedings terminated after payment and withdrawal

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kreenholmi 4 · 80189253

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Kreenholmi 4; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

After reporting full payment, the association withdrew its claim and the court terminated proceedings.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kreenholmi 4 (now — Narva linn, Kreenholmi tn 4 korteriühistu) sought utility-payment arrears and late-payment interest from XX. After an objection in expedited payment-order proceedings, the dispute proceeded as a civil claim. The association agreed to reduce late-payment interest if principal was paid in full. The payment information recorded by the court developed in stages: principal and payment-order costs were paid first, and the association then reported payment of the entire remaining claim and procedural costs. It withdrew its claim. The court proceeded on the basis that the entire claim and requested costs had been paid, accepted the withdrawal and terminated proceedings without a merits judgment. This order makes no new debt award. No procedural-cost reimbursement claim was made on termination, and no separate monetary costs award was made. The court explained that the same claim against the same defendant on the same basis cannot be brought again after termination. An interlocutory appeal may be filed with Tartu Ringkonnakohus through Viru Maakohus within 15 days after service. No later acts are established by the source.

Outcome of this decision

The association’s withdrawal was accepted and proceedings terminated after full payment of the claim and costs as recorded in the act. No new sums are awarded; no costs claim was submitted. This is neither approval of a settlement nor dismissal on the merits.
2-15-7508

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 7 korteriühistu · 80162656

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsInstalments and payment schedulesLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

The association and company agreed on debt and two payments.

· Court orderViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-7508/17Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Debt settlement between a company and an association

Court order · Viru Maakohus · First instance

OÜ Reacilvia · KÜ KANGELASTE 7 · 11509534 · 80162656

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — OÜ Reacilvia; defendant — KÜ KANGELASTE 7

Editorial summary

The association and company agreed on debt and two payments.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ KANGELASTE 7 (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 7 korteriühistu). OÜ Reacilvia claimed debt and late-payment interest totalling 14,905.08 euros from KÜ KANGELASTE 7. The association contested the claim. The court approved a settlement: the association acknowledges 12,500 euros and must pay 6,250 euros by each of 30 January and 1 September 2016. The company waives late-payment interest. No mutual claims remain after that debt is paid. Proceedings were terminated; each party bears its own costs and waives appeal. On entry into force, 350 euros of the 700-euro state fee is to be refunded to the company. The order approves terms rather than establishing performance; the contract underlying the debt is not disclosed.

Outcome of this decision

Two payments of 6,250 euros and waiver of late-payment interest approved; proceedings terminated, fee refund 350 euros.
2-15-8467

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12b korteriühistu · 80128292

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

After no response was submitted, the court awarded management-cost debt, late-payment interest and the association’s costs by default.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-8467/8Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Kangelaste 12b: management-cost debt and late-payment interest in a default judgment

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ KANGELASTE 12b · 80128292

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ KANGELASTE 12b; Defendant — XX

Editorial summary

After no response was submitted, the court awarded management-cost debt, late-payment interest and the association’s costs by default.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ KANGELASTE 12b (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 12b korteriühistu) brought a management-cost debt and late-payment interest claim against XX. The claim documents and costs schedule were personally served, but no response to the claim arrived on time. The court entered a default judgment without a descriptive section or reasoning. The claim was granted: principal and accrued late-payment interest were awarded. All procedural costs were imposed on XX; the association was awarded 335.00 euros, comprising a 250.00-euro state fee and 85.00 euros in legal fees. The operative part sets no new future late-payment interest. The judgment is immediately enforceable; receipt of money is not established. The defendant was informed of reopening by kaja within 30 days after service or, for public service, after learning of the judgment or enforcement proceedings. The claimant was informed of an appeal to Tartu Ringkonnakohus within 30 days after service, no later than five months after public announcement.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was granted by default: principal, late-payment interest and 335.00 euros in costs were awarded. The judgment is immediately enforceable. Continuing late-payment interest was not separately awarded; actual performance is not established.
2-14-18154

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu · 80183397

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayObligations of multiple owners

Editorial summary

Three owners are liable for a common debt; the court assessed costs separately.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-18154/44Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 10: joint and several award against three owners

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Võidu 10 · 80183397

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — KÜ Võidu 10; three defendants — owners XX

Editorial summary

Three owners are liable for a common debt; the court assessed costs separately.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Võidu 10 (now — Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 10 korteriühistu). KÜ Võidu 10 sought management charges and late-payment interest from three owners XX. The court found proper service on all defendants and a response period with a warning about the consequences of silence. No responses were filed. The court allowed the claim by default and awarded principal and accrued late-payment interest jointly and severally. This is a common obligation of the three defendants rather than three separate recoveries of the same sum. Costs were also awarded jointly and severally, but reduced: the court used the applicable fee and proof of payment and allowed two hours of necessary legal work. The judgment is immediately enforceable; actual payment was not established.

Outcome of this decision

The claim was allowed by default; debt, late-payment interest and reduced costs were awarded jointly and severally.
2-15-2902

Narva linn, Võidu prospekt 7 korteriühistu · 80189247

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayBills and justification of chargesContracts and services

Editorial summary

An established assignment does not replace proof of the late-payment interest calculation.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-2902/11Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Võidu 7: assignment of debt and inadequate calculation of some late-payment interest

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Auvõlg OÜ · KÜ Võidu 7 · 11901152 ·

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — assignee Auvõlg OÜ; defendant — owner XX; original creditor — KÜ Võidu 7

Editorial summary

An established assignment does not replace proof of the late-payment interest calculation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Võidu 7 assigned its management-charge claims against owner XX to Auvõlg OÜ. The court found the assignment, ownership and principal debt established; the new creditor could seek performance in place of the association. The defendant’s response was treated as a denial of the claim and the dispute was examined on its merits. The claim was allowed in part: principal, substantiated accrued late-payment interest and further late-payment interest of 0.07% per day on unpaid principal from 26 February 2015 until payment were awarded. Earlier late-payment interest was refused because the claim lacked a clear and unambiguous calculation. Costs were apportioned: 62% to the defendant and 38% to the company. The company was awarded 186 euros in state fees. An award does not establish actual payment.

Outcome of this decision

The new creditor was awarded principal and some late-payment interest; earlier late-payment interest was refused for inadequate calculation.
2-14-52886

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu · 80228958

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsBills and justification of chargesDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayPayment accounting and set-off

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-52886/42

Editorial summary

The association acknowledged an accounting error in the charges.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-52886/42Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Absence of debt and recalculation

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva · 80228958

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant — owner XX; defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva

Editorial summary

The association acknowledged an accounting error in the charges.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 21 korteriühistu). XX sought a declaration of no management-charge or utility debt to KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva. The association acknowledged an accounting error; the court allowed the claim on admission. No debt was established for 10 October 2012–1 May 2014 as of 1 June 2014, and the association was ordered to recalculate that period. This does not excuse future payments. Costs were imposed on the association because it gave cause for proceedings. The award was 505 euros: a 175-euro fee and 330 euros in representation costs. Requested legal costs were reduced by 400 euros for drafting claims signed by the claimant and an application absent from the file. Costs concerning alleged court delay were not imposed on the opposing party.

Outcome of this decision

No debt declared for the specified period; association ordered to recalculate and reimburse 505 euros in costs.
· Court orderTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-52886/10Read actAppeal

Separate act page

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva: refusal to admit a claim disputing a debt was premature

Court order · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva · 80228958

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant against the order — XX; claimant’s representative — XX; defendant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva

Editorial summary

XX disputed a debt charged by the association. The circuit court examined the refusal to admit the claim, rather than the correctness of the utility calculation.

The dispute and the court’s decision

XX sought a declaration that no debt was owed to KÜ Tallinna mnt 21 Narva and a recalculation of utility charges. XX argued that the association kept adding late-payment charges and applied payments to those charges first. The county court refused to admit the claim because it considered the grounds and debt calculation insufficient. The circuit court found the refusal premature. The purpose of the claim was clear, and a person denying a debt could have difficulty explaining the association’s own basis for charging it. The county court should have asked the association what made up the debt, when it arose and how payments were allocated. The refusal was set aside and the case returned for a fresh decision on admitting the claim. This order did not establish that no debt existed or require a recalculation. Costs were left for the final decision in the county court.

Outcome of this decision

The appeal against the order was allowed. The county court order of 6 October 2014 was set aside and the case returned for a decision on admitting the claim after obtaining the association’s position. The absence of a debt was not established.
2-15-105631

Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 9 korteriühistu · 80170532

Contracts and servicesTenancy and leaseApartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delayDamage and insuranceFire

Editorial summary

The court did not establish a rent exemption in exchange for repairs.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-105631/33Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Rent following a fire

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Kangelaste 9 · MTÜ Uus Võimalus · 80170532 · 80353936

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and landlord — KÜ Kangelaste 9; defendant and tenant — MTÜ Uus Võimalus

Editorial summary

The court did not establish a rent exemption in exchange for repairs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Kangelaste 9 (now — Narva linn, Kangelaste prospekt 9 korteriühistu). KÜ Kangelaste 9 leased non-residential premises to MTÜ Uus Võimalus. After a fire, the tenant disputed rent for September and October 2014, citing unusability and a promised rent exemption in exchange for repairs. The court found no proof of that agreement and held the termination notice non-compliant. The handover record and testimony established termination on 25 October 2014. Crediting 38.13 euros paid after the claim, the court awarded debt of 782.15 euros, accrued late-payment interest of 278.67 euros and 0.1% per day on unpaid principal from 7 November 2015 until performance. Collection costs of 40 euros and procedural costs of 1,268 euros were also awarded. This decides the particular contract and does not establish subsequent payment.

Outcome of this decision

Debt of 782.15 euros, late-payment interest of 278.67 euros and continuing late-payment interest, 40 euros collection costs and 1,268 euros procedural costs awarded.
2-15-105489

Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 23 korteriühistu · 80228941

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Editorial summary

The association obtained a default judgment for management-cost arrears, late-payment interest and procedural costs.

· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-15-105489/6Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Tallinna mnt 23: management costs awarded by default

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

KÜ Tallinna mnt 23 Narva · 80228941

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Claimant — KÜ Tallinna mnt 23 Narva; Defendant, owner — XX

Editorial summary

The association obtained a default judgment for management-cost arrears, late-payment interest and procedural costs.

The dispute and the court’s decision

KÜ Tallinna mnt 23 Narva (now — Narva linn, Tallinna mnt 23 korteriühistu) claimed management-cost arrears and late-payment interest from the owner XX. The claim was served personally; the court entered judgment by default for failure to respond, without a descriptive section or reasoning. The claim was granted: principal and accrued late-payment interest were awarded against XX. All procedural costs were imposed on XX; the association was awarded 211.54 euros* in costs. The operative part does not order continuing late-payment interest until payment. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security, but receipt of money is not established. The defendant was informed of kaja within 30 days after service of the judgment if there was a valid reason for the inaction. Where the claim was served otherwise than personally against signature or electronically, the source allows kaja without such a reason. The claimant was informed of an appeal to Tartu Ringkonnakohus within 30 days after service, no later than five months after public announcement. The act does not establish a subsequent review.

Outcome of this decision

Management-cost arrears, accrued late-payment interest and 211.54 euros* in costs were awarded by default. The judgment is immediately enforceable without security; continuing late-payment interest and actual performance are not established.
2-14-311

Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu · 80250416

Apartment association bills, payments and debtsDebt claimsBills and justification of chargesWater and sewerageCalculation of water chargesRepairs and shared propertyBasement, stairwell and shared roomsOrganisation and funding of repairsPayment accounting and set-offLate-payment interest and consequences of delay

Latest prepared act · · № 2-14-311/35

Editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

Related prepared acts from this case are also shown.

Acts in this casePrepared acts: 2
· JudgmentTartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal · № 2-14-311/35Read actAppeal

Separate act page

Repair and water-circulation charges

Judgment · Tartu Ringkonnakohus · Appeal

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing Mašuk · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: claimant and appellant — Puškini 45A Korteriühistu; defendant — Täisühing Mašuk

Editorial summary

The appeal court found sufficient evidence of the whole debt.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu claimed management charges from Täisühing Mašuk. The company disputed water-circulation, stairwell-repair and paving charges, relying on a separate entrance, and sought to offset courtyard-road costs. The county court awarded the admitted 257.26 euros, refusing the remainder and the set-off. The association appealed the refusal of 162.57 euros and costs; refusal of set-off was not reviewed. The circuit court considered meeting decisions, repair documents and the summer water-circulation methodology sufficient. A separate entrance did not remove common-cost obligations. The appeal succeeded: the total debt is 419.83 euros, including the earlier award. Costs in both instances were imposed on the company without fixing their monetary amount in this judgment.

Outcome of this decision

Appeal allowed; total debt 419.83 euros and costs in both instances borne by the company.
· JudgmentViru Maakohus · First instance · № 2-14-311/25Read actFirst instance

Separate act page

Proof of building charges and set-off for courtyard road expenses

Judgment · Viru Maakohus · First instance

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu · Täisühing MAŠUK · 80250416 · 10444548

Entry into force has not been reverified

Participants and roles: Association — claimant; Täisühing MAŠUK — defendant, non-residential unit owner

Editorial summary

Initially, part of the charges and the amount of the proposed set-off were not proved. The later appeal assessed the principal-debt evidence differently and awarded the full principal; the set-off was not reconsidered.

The dispute and the court’s decision

Puškini 45A Korteriühistu (now — Narva linn, A. Puškini tn 45a korteriühistu). Puškini 45A Korteriühistu sought 419.83 euros in principal and 6.34 euros in late-payment interest from Täisühing MAŠUK. The company admitted 257.26 euros, disputed water circulation charges and other items, and sought to set off 3 466.54 euros spent on a courtyard road. The court found invoices insufficient to prove all costs and their allocation. It accepted that the road works were necessary and that set-off was possible in principle, but the amount was supported only by the defendant’s calculation rather than cost documents. Later, on 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed.

Outcome of this decision

Initially, the admitted principal of 257.26 euros was awarded, the remaining claim and set-off were refused, and each party bore its own costs. On 16 October 2015, Tartu Ringkonnakohus reversed refusal of the remaining 162.57 euros in principal: total principal awarded became 419.83 euros instead of 257.26 euros. Täisühing MAŠUK bears all costs in both instances. Refusal of the set-off was not appealed or reviewed; this change did not award additional late-payment interest.