if property management fees increase, do owners have to pay?
2024-09-25
한어Русский языкEnglishFrançaisIndonesianSanskrit日本語DeutschPortuguêsΕλληνικάespañolItalianoSuomalainenLatina
"judge guan, i have successfully paid the property management fee. thank you for safeguarding the legal rights and interests of the neighbors." uncle chen on the other end of the phone seemed a little excited, and the presiding judge guan junjun on the other end of the phone finally felt relieved. this property management dispute that had lasted for several years finally came to an end.
property fee hike leads to conflict
the story dates back to 10 years ago. in july 2014, uncle chen bought a house in a community in liwan district, guangzhou, and moved into his new home happily. however, as time went by, uncle chen found that the services provided by the ying property management company in the community could not meet the needs of the owners. the greening was not done well, the fire protection was not in place, the guards were often absent from their posts, and no one cleaned the building. he complained to the ying property management company many times, but the rectification effect was not good, and the community had not established an owners' committee, so uncle chen's complaints were not taken seriously.
in january 2020, ying property management company notified the owners of the community that starting from the next month, the property management fee will be increased from 1.75 yuan/month/square meter to 1.80 yuan/month/square meter.
the increase in property fees became the fuse, which completely triggered the conflict between uncle chen and ying property management company. in a fit of anger, uncle chen stopped paying property management fees to ying property management company. during this period, he also had to share water and electricity fees, garbage disposal fees, elevator maintenance fees, replacement of roof water and air duct fees, replacement of fire equipment fees, and installation of monitoring fees for the building, but uncle chen refused to pay.
ying property management company repeatedly urged uncle chen to pay the fees, but uncle chen always believed that ying property management company neither provided supporting services nor provided a basis for raising the property management fee, and unilaterally announced the price increase, which seriously violated his right to know and right to supervise, and that ying property management company was the party at fault.
after several unsuccessful mediations, ying property management company sued uncle chen in the guangzhou liwan district people's court, requesting the court to order uncle chen to pay the relevant fees according to the price agreed in the contract.
clarify the facts and find the crux
"we signed a property service contract with the developer and provided property services as agreed. however, since january 2020, uncle chen has been in arrears with property service fees, water and electricity charges, and other fees. we have urged him to pay many times but to no avail. his failure to perform as agreed in the contract is a breach of contract. not only must he pay the arrears as agreed, but he also needs to pay liquidated damages." at the trial, the property management company said righteously.
"ying property management company often fails to provide services and the contract they signed with the developer has never been publicized. all the owners have never heard of it. this contract has neither binding force nor legal effect for all the owners who have not signed, authorized, or informed of it. it is an invalid contract!" uncle chen was not to be outdone and argued his case.
judge guan junjun listened patiently to the appeals of both parties, on the one hand persuading them to understand and accommodate each other, and on the other hand worked hard to clarify the facts.
after the trial, it was found that the key to resolving the conflict lies in whether the "preliminary property management entrustment contract" signed by the developer and the property company is valid.
it turned out that the community had not established a homeowners' committee, and the developer xin company and ying property company had successively signed two "preliminary property management entrustment contracts", one in march 2015 and the other in february 2020.
both contracts stipulate that the property management services for the properties, municipal public facilities, public areas and green areas in the community shall be provided by ying property management company. if the community legally establishes an owners' meeting and signs a "property management entrustment contract", this "preliminary property management entrustment contract" will be automatically terminated. in the contract signed in february 2020, the two parties agreed that the management fee would be increased from 1.75 yuan/month/square meter to 1.80 yuan/month/square meter.
the evidence shows that the newly signed contract was not approved by the owner.
according to the civil code, changes in property service charging standards are major matters involving the common ownership and joint management rights of property owners. any price increase decision that is not approved by the owners through a vote will have no legal effect on the owners.
interpretation of the law: understanding contradictions
during the trial, judge guan junjun patiently explained the law to both parties: "the relationship between the property company and the owner is complementary. property service is a public service, and the service objects are all the owners of the entire community. the property management fee paid by a single owner is actually an integral part of the property management fee of the entire community. as the property service company of the community, ying property company has the contractual obligations and responsibilities to provide various service management and improve the service level of the public areas of the community, and shall not infringe the legitimate rights and interests of the owners of the community. the owners should also pay the property management fees in a timely manner to ensure the normal development of the property management services in the community, which will also help to ensure the quality of property services to a certain extent. uncle chen believes that the property company has service defects, and can also propose to negotiate for improvement, or establish an owners' meeting to decide whether it is necessary to re-select a new property service company, but should not refuse to pay the property management fee for this reason. ying property company should also perform its contractual obligations in accordance with the contract, and actively negotiate and improve the relevant management issues reflected by the owners to avoid the intensification of conflicts and affect the performance of the property service contract. both parties should perform their respective obligations in accordance with the principle of honesty and mutual trust, support, cooperate and understand each other, and jointly create a beautiful, harmonious and safe living environment in the community."
finally, the court ruled that uncle chen should pay the overdue property management fee to ying property management company at the price of 1.75 yuan per month per square meter. the cost of daily maintenance of the community property management, such as water and electricity fees, garbage disposal fees, elevator maintenance fees, replacement of roof water and air duct fees, replacement of fire equipment fees, and installation of monitoring fees, was previously paid by the property management company, and uncle chen should also share it in proportion.
as for the liquidated damages claimed by ying property management company, although it provided basic property services, there were indeed defects. at the same time, there was also a dispute between it and the owner due to the increase in property fee standards. therefore, uncle chen’s late payment of property service fees and other fees cannot be deemed as intentional breach of contract, and the court did not support it.
at this point, the "disturbance" has finally come to an end. "when the majority of owners encounter issues involving decisions and voting on major matters within the building zoning, they should follow the legal provisions of article 278 of the civil code, actively exercise their rights, rely on the owner's self-governance system and the organization of the property management committee, or hold a general meeting of owners for voting under the guidance of grassroots organizations and competent administrative departments, so as to reach a consensus within the framework of the rule of law, reduce disputes, and avoid litigation. property services are related to people's livelihood, and people's livelihood is connected to people's hearts. only by properly resolving disputes and contradictions between owners and property management can we effectively improve people's happiness and satisfaction." judge guan junjun said.
text｜reporter li qiuling correspondent xu yiling
