"Katos grupė", "NT patikra", apgauti namo pirkėjai ir Kauno rajono bebrynas

Summary

Reporter Skirmantas Malinauskas investigates a young couple’s attempt to buy and finish a house in Ržiai, Kaunas district. The house was advertised for €295,000. The couple says they paid a €40,000 advance after agreeing on roughly €40,000 of additional work.

They expected the seller to complete the agreed work, but say promised changes to partitions, flooring, and electrical installation were later rejected. Work stalled, and requested plans and other documents were not provided. They eventually sought to withdraw from the purchase and recover their money; the report says their claim was rejected.

The seller and main contact was Donatas Pocius, whom the report identifies as a Kaunas District council member and Social Democrat. Malinauskas presents a message in which Pocius allegedly suggested paying €2,100 in cash for paving work instead of a higher invoiced amount to avoid taxes. The report says the houses were owned by a business group associated with Katos and that the couple had little direct contact with the group.

Malinauskas also notes that Pocius’s public-interest declaration did not list a connection to Katos, and questions the potential conflict between his municipal role and involvement in local property sales.

The couple says they hired NT Patikra for an independent inspection before signing a revised agreement. According to their account, its expert, Vladimir Miroshnikovas, gave the house a largely positive assessment. Malinauskas later reports that Miroshnikovas had also prepared an expert conclusion for the builder concerning the house’s construction, raising a potential conflict of interest. The report argues that NT Patikra should have disclosed this connection and advises viewers to be cautious about relying on inspection reports.

A later review of property and construction records, as described in the video, raised further concerns:

• The property lies in a main gas-pipeline protection zone, where construction and other land uses are restricted. The report says the buyers were not told this in the advertisements or during negotiations.
• The original approved project showed a substantially different house from the one built, while the changes were treated as non-essential. Malinauskas cites experts who, according to the report, considered the changes fundamental enough to require a new building permit.
• The video questions the recorded completion level and the metadata of photographs used in cadastral documentation.

The couple tried to arrange an inspection by the State Territorial Planning and Construction Inspectorate but says it was postponed at short notice. Malinauskas criticizes the inspectorate’s handling of the matter and its head, Alberts Stanislovaitis, drawing on another case he had previously reported. He says other agencies, including the construction development agency and the consumer-rights authority, were more responsive and helped provide documents. The couple’s lawyer is pursuing questions about the construction and cadastral records.

The video also places the case in the wider context of Social Democratic politicians’ property dealings, citing earlier controversies involving Mindaugas Sinkevičius and Kaunas district officials. Malinauskas presents the young buyers’ experience as an example of how incomplete disclosure, alleged conflicts of interest, and weak oversight can leave consumers exposed.

The report’s allegations are presented as the journalist’s and buyers’ account; the video does not establish them as final legal findings.

Presenters and Contributors

• Skirmantas Malinauskas — Presenter and reporter
• Dominyka and Lukas — House buyers interviewed in the report