news

한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina

On August 18, The Paper published an article titled "Xi'an Gemdale Property Services was accused of breaking into the owner's vacant villa and occupying it. The owner said: I only received 50,000 yuan out of the negotiated compensation of 100,000 yuan." The article reported that staff of Xi'an Gemdale Property Services was accused of occupying the owner's vacant villa without the owner's permission.

Mr. Bai's family owns a townhouse in Xi'an Jindi Jiuxi Community. For various reasons, it has not been renovated and is vacant. One day in May this year, Mr. Bai found that the room in the villa was piled with trash cans, cleaning tools, waste paper boxes and other items, and the property staff had laid foam mats on the floor to rest. Mr. Bai suspected that the property staff had pried open the lock of the door connecting the basement to the garage and entered the room, and had occupied it for a long time.

After the report was published, Xi'an Gemdale Property Management provided two different responses to The Paper on August 18 and 19. The first response stated that because there was no public garbage collection point in the community, the owner's basement parking space was used as a temporary garbage storage area for nearly a month. The cleaner saw that the house was vacant and piled the empty garbage cans on the first floor of the villa. The second response did not mention the above reasons and the details of using the basement parking space as a temporary garbage storage area. It only stated that the cleaning business was outsourced, the sliding door of the yard was not closed, and the cleaner privately placed the idle garbage cans temporarily in the house. Both responses denied intentionally occupying the owner's house, and the second response denied picking the lock.

In addition, regarding the owner's claim of receiving 50,000 yuan in compensation, the property manager involved stated that the previous transfer of 50,000 yuan to the owner was his personal behavior and the company was not aware of it.

Two different responses

After the report was published by The Paper, relevant personnel from Xi'an Golden Land Property Management Co., Ltd. accepted an interview with The Paper and provided two written responses.

On August 18, the first reply provided by Xi'an Golden Land Property was titled "Explanation on the Handling of Jiuxi XXXX Complaints", and the signing department was "Xi'an District 1 Operation Center", and the date was August 14.

Regarding what happened, the statement said: "On May 9, 2024, owner No. XXXX complained that the property service center placed a trash can in his vacant house and that cleaning staff rested in the house. The owner believed that the property seriously damaged his own interests. According to the company, the Jiuxi project has no public garbage collection point, so the owner's basement parking space has been used as a temporary garbage storage area for nearly a month. However, the cleaning staff saw that the house was rough and vacant, so they piled the empty trash cans and sundries in the owner's home on the first floor for the convenience of work, and took a lunch break at noon to cool off. The real situation is not what the owner said that he deliberately occupied the house for a long time as a garbage treatment station."

On August 19, Xi'an Gemdale Property provided The Paper with a second written reply titled "Explanation on the Gemdale Jiuxi Project". The explanation described the incident as follows: "On May 9, 2024, the owner of XXXX household in the Gemdale Jiuxi project complained that the property service center had placed idle trash cans in his vacant rough-finished house and that cleaning staff were resting in the house. The owner believed that the property had seriously damaged his own interests. The cleaning business of the Gemdale Jiuxi project was outsourced to a third-party professional cleaning company. It was learned that the cleaners found that the household was an empty rough-finished house and the sliding door of the yard was not closed. The cleaning staff privately placed the idle trash cans in the area temporarily in the household and placed a waste cardboard box on the ground for a rest at noon. As for the owner's statement that our company occupied his vacant house, used the vacant house as a garbage room, and took destructive measures such as prying the locks of the house, our company has confirmed from multiple parties that this is inconsistent with the facts stated."

Xi'an Golden Land Property did not provide any explanation for the differences in the two replies.

The two sides have major differences

In addition to the content about what happened, both written replies introduced the negotiation process between the property and the owner to resolve the matter. The content of this part is basically the same: due to the large differences between the two parties, multiple negotiations were fruitless.

In addition, the reply also stated that on May 29, the owner reported the case to the police on the grounds that the property management company deliberately occupied the house and damaged property. The reply was attached with the police's decision to terminate the case investigation made on July 23: Because there was no illegal fact in the case of Bai's property being damaged, the investigation was terminated.

The reply shows that the two parties last negotiated on June 20. "The property service center, the owner, the community police, the property management association, and the community staff negotiated the complaint again. The property service center proposed a compensation plan within a reasonable range: (1) to compensate the owner for one month's rent (RMB 18,000) and one month's property management fee (RMB 1,075), totaling RMB 19,100; (2) to repair all damages to the owner's doors, windows, floors, etc. for free; (3) to conduct air quality testing in the owner's home and to conduct comprehensive disinfection of the owner's home every month for one year. However, the owner requested that in addition to the compensation agreed by the property, additional mental compensation be given, including 10 years of property management fees for the Jindi Jiuxi community, approximately RMB 129,000, and 5 years of property management fees for the Jindi XX community where the owner lives, approximately RMB 60,000, totaling RMB 189,000. The two compensations totaled RMB 208,100. As for the mental compensation proposed by the owner, we cannot agree because it exceeds the reasonable range. The property service center, the police, and the community staff suggested that the owner could resolve the matter through legal proceedings."

Xi'an Gemdale Property Management said in its second reply, "Recently, during the communication between the property management company and the owner, the owner again proposed that the property management company should give 300,000 yuan as compensation. We still cannot agree with the owner's compensation request that exceeds the reasonable range. Moreover, the owner refused to resolve the conflict through litigation and published a large number of false statements on the online platform. The Gemdale Jiuxi project manager communicated with many enthusiastic owners in the community about this matter. During this period, an enthusiastic owner was willing to assist the project manager in resolving the matter. The enthusiastic owner and the project manager privately communicated with the household for a solution in multiple rounds. The company has no knowledge of the specific compensation."

The property manager said that the previous compensation of 50,000 yuan was his own personal behavior

Regarding the question of how the property staff entered the owner's house, on August 18, a staff member from the brand department of Xi'an Golden Land Property said that after investigation, he learned that the owner had listed the house for sale, and the agent did not close the sliding door after taking people to see the house, and the cleaning staff entered the house through the sliding door that was not closed.

However, the staff of the agency involved told The Paper that the house information only appeared in the agency's internal database and was not displayed to the public. "The owner did not sign a contract for sale, so we could not take people to see the house." At the same time, the owner, Mr. Bai, denied that he had sold the house through an agency and denied that the sliding door was not closed.

On August 19, the person in charge of the Xi'an District Operation Center of Gemdale Property Management Co., Ltd. said in an interview with The Paper that the cleaning work of Jiuxi Community was outsourced to a third-party cleaning company. Because the garbage classification in Xi'an is relatively strict, the cleaning staff temporarily placed the garbage cans in the owner's vacant house to avoid community inspections. The person in charge denied that there was any lock picking, "They entered through the sliding door on the first floor that was not closed." He suggested that the owner go through the litigation procedure and the court's decision shall prevail.

Previously, Mr. Bai told The Paper that in early July, the property manager promised to compensate them 100,000 yuan and give them a parking space. On July 3, they received a transfer of 50,000 yuan.

Afterwards, the property manager told Mr. Bai on WeChat that the remaining 50,000 yuan would be paid before September 15, and that the issue of the parking space was also being negotiated with the real estate company.

On August 19, the property manager told The Paper that his promise to compensate was a personal act to reduce the impact on the company and resolve the conflict as soon as possible, and the company was previously unaware of his behavior. At the same time, he also said that Mr. Bai did not keep his promise and continued to post "false statements" on social platforms. On August 18, he asked Mr. Bai to return the 50,000 yuan he had already paid, but Mr. Bai refused to return it.

Lawyer: If the property occupies the house without authorization, it should bear the corresponding tort liability

Regarding this matter, Zhao Liangshan, a senior partner of Shaanxi Hengda Law Firm, believes that regardless of whether the property staff pried open the door without authorization or the sliding door of the house was already open, the property staff cannot occupy the owner's house. However, if the property staff pried open the door without authorization, it can be determined that they have a strong subjective malice.

Zhao Liangshan explained that the property management company has the obligation to protect the property of the owner from damage, and this obligation has been elevated to a legal obligation with the implementation of the Civil Code, rather than just a contractual obligation. Article 942 of the Civil Code clearly stipulates that the property management company shall properly repair, maintain, clean, green and manage the common parts of the property management company within the property management company's service area in accordance with the agreement and the nature of the property's use, maintain the basic order within the property management company's service area, and take reasonable measures to protect the personal and property safety of the owner. Accordingly, this legal provision has elevated the contractual obligations of the property management company to legal obligations, and the property management company has a legal obligation to take reasonable measures to protect the personal and property safety of the owner. In this case, the fact that the property management company failed to fulfill its duty to protect the property of the owner inevitably makes people think that the property management company is "stealing from the inside."

"Since it is illegal for the property management company to occupy the owner's house without authorization, it must bear the corresponding consequences." Zhao Liangshan said, "According to Article 1165 of the Civil Code, if a person infringes upon the civil rights of others due to fault and causes damage, he shall bear tort liability. As for the mental damages mentioned by the owner, there is no legal basis for them, because the law only supports mental damages when the life and health of citizens are infringed."

Zhao Liangshan said that the property management company's behavior in this matter was indeed puzzling, and it had overdrawn its own reputation and image. It would inevitably cause community owners to question the property management level. He suggested that the property management company actively deal with the issue.