news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

In August, many college graduates started their first rental life. How to protect rights if the formaldehyde in the house exceeds the standard? On August 16, the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing, announced a typical case. A college graduate often had nosebleeds after renting a "formaldehyde room". Later, he paid for two formaldehyde tests out of his own pocket. The results showed that the level was higher than the national standard. After unsuccessful negotiations with the housing rental company, the graduate sued the court. In the end, the court ruled that the housing rental company should return the house rent, service fees, and house formaldehyde testing fees totaling 7,119.67 yuan.

Housing rental company: does not agree to refund the rent for the lease period

A Beijing News reporter learned from the People's Court of Haidian District, Beijing that Xiao Tang graduated in June 2021. On June 25 of the same year, Xiao Tang signed a "House Lease Contract" with a housing rental company, agreeing to rent a house for living for a period of 7 months, and agreed on rent, service fees, deposit, etc. The payment method was one deposit and three payments. After the contract was signed, Xiao Tang paid the deposit, three months' rent and service fees to the housing rental company in full, totaling 23,819.16 yuan, and the housing rental company delivered the house to Xiao Tang on the same day.

When Xiao Tang first moved in, he did not smell any obvious pungent odor. But after moving in, he gradually developed respiratory discomfort and later had frequent nosebleeds. Xiao Tang began to wonder if the formaldehyde in the house exceeded the standard. So Xiao Tang spent 174 yuan to buy a formaldehyde detection service online. The test results showed that the formaldehyde concentration in the rented house was 0.16mg/m³, which was higher than the limit specified in the national standard GB/T18883-2002 "Indoor Air Quality Standard" (≤0.10mg/m³). Xiao Tang then contacted the housing rental company and asked for compensation.

The housing rental company required Xiao Tang to submit an air quality test report issued by a qualified agency with CMA air quality testing qualifications in accordance with the provisions of the "Housing Rental Contract". Therefore, Xiao Tang spent another 334 yuan to entrust an environmental monitoring company to conduct a CMA test on the indoor air quality of the leased house. The test report showed that the formaldehyde content in the air of the bedroom of the leased house was 0.13mg/m³, which was higher than the national standard.

On July 25, 2021, Xiao Tang informed the housing rental company of the test results and asked the company to immediately take back the house and refund all the rent, service fees, deposits and two test fees paid. However, the housing rental company stated that according to the contract between the two parties, Xiao Tang should submit a written objection to the air quality of the house and apply for formaldehyde testing within 3 days from the date of signing the contract. If the test report is submitted after 3 days and the test results exceed the national standard, only 10 days of rent from the date of signing the contract can be refunded at most.

The company later refunded Xiao Tang's entire deposit, as well as the rent and service fees after July 26, 2021, totaling 17,033.49 yuan, and the remaining water and electricity bills of 166.72 yuan, but refused to refund the rent, service fees and two inspection fees for the period of the lease.

Court: The company should ensure that the air quality of the house meets the living standards

Afterwards, Xiao Tang filed a lawsuit with the court, requesting the court to order the housing rental company to return all the rent, deposit, service fees and two inspection fees that had been paid.

After trial, the court held that the "House Lease Contract" signed by the two parties was legal and valid. The house involved in Xiao Tang's lease case was used for living. As the lessor, the housing lease company had the obligation to ensure that the leased house was safe and suitable for living. According to the facts that have been ascertained, the house involved in the case was tested by CMA, and the formaldehyde test value was 0.13mg/m³, which was higher than the standard value of 0.10mg/m³. It did not meet the conditions for safe living, and the purpose of the contract could not be achieved. The housing lease company constituted a fundamental breach of contract, and Xiao Tang had the right to terminate the contract accordingly. On July 25, 2021, Xiao Tang proposed to terminate the contract with the housing lease company, which was the exercise of the unilateral right of termination. After receiving the termination notice, the housing lease company had refunded the remaining rent, deposit, and service fee. Therefore, the "House Lease Contract" between the two parties was terminated on July 25, 2021.

The housing rental company raised an objection on the grounds that Xiao Tang did not raise an objection to the air quality within three days from the date of signing the contract as agreed in the contract. In this regard, the court held that, on the one hand, the "House Rental Contract" was a reusable contract prepared in advance by the housing rental company, which met the constituent elements of a standard contract; on the other hand, air quality problems would cause potential hazards to the human body, and it would be difficult for tenants to associate the physical discomfort caused by excessive formaldehyde with air quality problems in the short term. As a professional business entity engaged in house rental, the housing rental company should ensure that the air quality of the house involved in the case meets the living standards. Out of trust in the housing rental company, the tenants often only conduct air quality tests when obvious physical symptoms appear.

Therefore, the stipulation in the "House Rental Contract" regarding raising written objections to the air quality within three days from the date of signing the contract is suspected of exempting the housing rental company from or reducing its liability. In this regard, the housing rental company failed to provide evidence to prove that it had explained and reasonably reminded Xiao Tang to pay special attention to the above clause during the process of signing the "House Rental Contract" with Xiao Tang. Therefore, this clause did not become part of the contract, but did not affect the validity of other parts of the "House Rental Contract".

Xiao Tang lived in a house with excessive formaldehyde, and his living interests were lost and he may be potentially harmed. It was not improper for Xiao Tang to ask the housing rental company to refund all the house rent, service fees, and deposits that had been collected. Because Xiao Tang only submitted the invoice for the second inspection fee, the court did not support the first inspection fee, but supported the second inspection fee. The court finally ruled that the housing rental company should return Xiao Tang's house rent, service fees, and house formaldehyde inspection fees totaling 7,119.67 yuan.

After the verdict was announced, neither party appealed. The verdict is now effective.

(Xiao Tang is a pseudonym in this article)

Beijing News reporter Wu Linshu Editor Liu Qian Proofread by Zhang Yanjun