A Program for an ОСИ in Kazakhstan: What It Actually Needs to Do
Most software pitched to an ОСИ chairman in Kazakhstan is a generic property-management tool with a Russian-language UI and a Kazakhstan flag on the landing page. That is not the same as software built around what the law actually obliges an ОСИ to do. Here is what the requirements list looks like when it starts from the statute instead of from a generic feature checklist.
Three contributions, not one number
Art. 34-1 of the Law on Housing Relations obliges owners to pay three separate contributions: a current contribution (set per square metre, no lower than the local minimum, spent on repairs, fire safety and common-area utilities), an accumulative contribution (at least 0.005 MRP per m² per month, ring-fenced for capital repair, non-pledgeable), and a targeted contribution, which is optional for the assembly to levy but, once levied, compulsory for every owner to pay. A program that tracks "dues" as one undifferentiated line item cannot actually show a chairman whether the capital-repair fund is where the law says it has to be, or answer an owner who asks why a targeted contribution showed up on their bill this month and not last month.
Two accounts, opened on the building itself - but not always
The law is specific about where the money sits: a current account for management money and a savings account for capital repair, both opened within 15 calendar days. When a management company or КСК opens them, the law requires opening them on the condominium object itself rather than pooling them at the operator (arts. 34-2, 51-5, 51-6). There is an exemption: buildings of fewer than 36 units run under НСУ can operate without either account and without engaging a management subject at all (art. 48, para. 2) - for a program, "two accounts" is not a universal requirement but depends on the building's size and management form. Capital-repair money can be spent only on an assembly resolution and cannot be pledged against owners' debts. A billing program that reflects this split - rather than one balance per building, undifferentiated - is showing the chairman the actual legal shape of the money, not just a total.
Receipts residents can pay the way they already pay
Kazakhstan residents already pay recurring bills through Kaspi and Halyk. Halyk acquiring can be integrated directly into billing, so ОСИ or НСУ dues clear straight through Halyk Homebank. Kaspi is a rail residents already use on their own initiative - a program should reconcile those payments against the right apartment and period, not claim an integration that does not exist. Either way, a receipt a resident actually reads (not a bank statement line they have to decode) is most of what "billing" means to the person paying it.
Owner voting that follows the actual rules
Art. 44 of the Law on Housing Relations lets owners vote through a digital object, running seven days to two months from the meeting announcement, with results counted into the totals of both in-person and absentee meetings. Residents do not need a national digital signature to vote - only identification, which the regulation leaves the platform to design. Who actually needs a digital signature, when the protocol is drawn up electronically, is where the law and the order diverge: Order № 163 (para. 24) names the chairman, the secretary and the house council, while art. 42, para. 15 of the Law names the chairman, the secretary and the meeting's initiator. The two acts name different signer sets, so a program should record every signer the ОСИ chooses rather than assert one definitive list. A program that gets the identification-versus-signature split backwards - asking residents for an ЭЦП they do not need, or skipping the identification step the regulation does require - is either scaring off adoption or cutting a corner the chairman is exposed on.
Built for the entity that actually runs the building
НСУ and ОСИ are forms of management the owners choose. Underneath either one sits a management subject - a management company or a cooperative of apartment owners (кооператив собственников квартир, still abbreviated "КСК" in the statute) - engaged under contract with the ОСИ chairman, or on the strength of an assembly protocol under НСУ, and required to notify the housing inspectorate within three working days of taking on or dropping a building. A program built only around the word "ОСИ" and not around whoever actually runs the building day to day is solving half the problem: the chairman holds the mandate, but the КСК or management company is who residents call when something breaks.
Sources: Law of the Republic of Kazakhstan "On Housing Relations" (arts. 34-1, 34-2, 42, 44, 51-4, 51-5, 51-6), and Order No. 163 of the Acting Minister of Industry and Infrastructure Development, 30 March 2020 (приказ и.о. Министра индустрии и инфраструктурного развития РК № 163 от 30.03.2020), current redaction, both via adilet.zan.kz, accessed 2026-09-07.
Frequently asked questions
Is a spreadsheet enough for an ОСИ's accounts, or does a program change something a chairman is legally on the hook for?
A spreadsheet does not enforce the split the law requires: current money, capital-repair money and targeted-contribution money have different rules on where they sit and how they can be spent (art. 34-1, 34-2 of the Law on Housing Relations). A program that keeps those three separate by construction is closer to what the chairman is actually accountable for than a single tab of numbers.
Does an ОСИ program need to integrate with Kaspi and Halyk?
Residents already pay through both. Halyk acquiring can be wired directly into billing so dues clear through Halyk Homebank; Kaspi is a rail residents already use on their own, which a program should account for in reconciliation rather than claim to replace.
What does the law actually require an ОСИ's digital tools to do around owner voting?
Support a vote that stays open 7 days to 2 months, identify the voter without demanding a national digital signature from them, keep a numbered list of who voted, and let the protocol's signers sign it electronically if that is how the building wants to store it. The law and the order name different signers here: Order № 163 (para. 24) lists the chairman, secretary and house council, while art. 42, para. 15 of the Law names the chairman, secretary and the meeting's initiator. A program should record every signer the ОСИ chooses rather than assert one definitive list (Law on Housing Relations, arts. 42, 44; Order № 163).
Is КСК support still relevant if a building runs НСУ or ОСИ?
Usually yes. НСУ and ОСИ are the two forms of management the owners choose; a КСК is a management subject that either can hire under contract to actually run the building. A program built only around "ОСИ" and not around the subject doing the day-to-day work misses the entity most residents actually deal with.