Everest Development 2 with a fine from the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection. What did he do?

Luc Williams

“We questioned numerous contractual clauses due to their abusive nature. Everest Development 2 took advantage of its position and imposed unfavorable conditions on consumers. Most of the prohibited provisions concerned irrevocable and non-expiring blank powers of attorney granted to the developer or its related companies. Meanwhile, the subject and scope The power of attorney granted should always be precisely defined so that the consumer can easily determine what he actually authorizes the entrepreneur to do and what the consequences may be,” said Tomasz Chróstny, president of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection, quoted in the Office's announcement on Monday.

1 million 185 thousand PLN 481 fine

Everest Development 2 is to pay a fine of PLN 1,185,000. PLN 481 – the Office reported. He added that the decision was invalid and the company appealed to the court.

The Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) informed that Everest Development 2 based in Poznań implemented, among others: such development projects as: the Zielone Wzgórze estate in Gostyń, the Radosne estate in Grodzisk Wielkopolski, the Modern estate in Koło, ul. Mateckiego in Poznań, Puchalskiego Park in Śrem, Leśny Zakątek housing estate in Wałcz and Słoneczna Polana in Zdrukewo. The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection (UOKiK) raised doubts about the provisions of the standard contracts used by the developer.

It was indicated that Everest Development 2 obliged consumers to grant powers of attorney, the scope of which was not precisely defined. The clauses did not indicate what exactly consumers were authorizing the attorney to do, what actions the attorney could take on their behalf and what the consequences of granting the power of attorney might be for the consumers' interests. The challenged provisions concern, among others: the indefinite and free placement of any advertising installations, also by companies related to the developer, representing consumers in administrative proceedings regarding investments on neighboring plots owned by the developer and companies related to him, and representing consumers in matters related to with the liquidation of the power line and the construction of a new high-voltage power line.

What else does the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection accuse the company of?

The President of the Office of Competition and Consumer Protection also questioned the nature of the powers of attorney. Everest Development 2 stipulated that all powers of attorney granted are irrevocable and do not expire upon the death of the principal. This means that the consumer, and then his heirs, were deprived of the ability to decide when the attorney should stop representing them, the Office reported.

Moreover, it was noted that the provisions of the Everest Development 2 standards oblige consumers not to raise objections to the future plans of the company or its related entities regarding the development of neighboring plots, the liquidation of a power line or the construction of cable lines and power poles on common property. Such provisions deprive consumers of the right to use legal remedies that they could use as co-owners of a common property in relation to the development of neighboring properties.

“After the decision becomes final, prohibited provisions should be treated as if they had not been included in the contracts at all,” the Office said.


Luc's expertise lies in assisting students from a myriad of disciplines to refine and enhance their thesis work with clarity and impact. His methodical approach and the knack for simplifying complex information make him an invaluable ally for any thesis writer.