The owner of the property owner refused to pay the property fees and was sued and sentenced!

The neighboring neighborhood changed its entrance door, which caused it to be inconvenient for entry and exit.

After many complaints to the property, it failed,

The man chose to refuse to pay the property fees, and was sued by the property company to court.

Recently, the People\’s Court of Yanfeng District, Hengyang City

reviewed this property dispute case.

Basic case

Yang is the owner of the X District, Hengyang City. In 2015, he and the plaintiff signed a copy of the \”Early Property Service Agreement in Hengyang X District\”. In October 2016, Yang completed the house collection process and made a reservation for 12 months of property fees.

And after taking over the house, Yang discovered that the neighboring town had privately changed the entrance door to open during the renovation period, which not only blocked the fire escape, but also affected the normal passage of Yang. Yang repeatedly reported the situation to a certain property company, asking him to urge the neighborhood to carry out rectification and restore the entrance door to its original state, but there was no result.

Certificate submitted by Yang

Yang believed that a certain property company should be responsible for the matter, so he chose to use rejection Save property fees protest in a way. In the following years, a certain property company repeatedly urged Yang to pay the property fees but failed, so he filed a lawsuit in court, asking for a ruling order for Yang to pay the property fees and the settlement totaling 9,625.52 yuan.

During the court hearing, Yang Mou stated that a certain property company did not manage and supervise the management and supervision of the property management in accordance with the terms of property services, nor did it take stop measures, which was considered a contract. First, to harm one\’s own legal rights, please ask the court to return the property company.

A certain business company said that they had communicated with the owners who had privately changed their household registrations many times and withheld the other party\’s decoration deposit, but the owner refused to make any rectifications and had as much as possible to find the corresponding management rules. .

A business company communicates with the main chat records

Court Judgment

Yanfeng, Hengyang City The district people\’s court held that a contract established in accordance with the law is protected by law and the parties to the contract shall fully fulfill their duties in accordance with the agreement. In this case, the plaintiff and the defendant signed the \”Preliminary Property Service Agreement\” on the basis of equality, mutual benefit and unanimous agreement. It is a true expression of intention by both parties. The content does not violate the compulsory provisions of national laws and administrative regulations and should be legal and valid. The plaintiff has provided property services to Country Garden District in accordance with the contract. As the manager of the district, the defendant should hand over property services to the plaintiff according to the contract.

In this case, a certain property company, as a service company, has no legal rights to the owner\’s illegal behavior. Yang should maintain his own rights through legal means without refusing to pay for property fees. At the same time, Because a certain property company has problems such as inadequate supervision of the behavior of others destroying public parts of the house and building, and inadequate response to the owner of the problem, the court deducts 10% of the property fees of the company at its discretion, and requires Yang to pay the property company a deposit. The court partially supported the lawsuit for property fees.

In particular, the court ruled that Yang paid a property fee of 7,307.85 yuan for a property company. After the judgment, both parties accepted the interest.

Judge said

The property company and the owner are related to the service and the service, but the contradiction between the Chinese owner and the property company has never stopped. From a legal perspective, the property company lacks direct legal power. , some improper behaviors of owners cannot be imposed. As citizens\’ legal awareness and evidence awareness gradually become stronger, there are more and more reasons for owners to exercise their rights of resistance in terms of whether to pay property fees and how to pay property fees.

The judge reminds: When a business owner encounters similar problems, he should rationally lie in the scope of responsibility of the property company and not blame all responsibility on the property company and refuse to pay the property fees. At the same time, when a property company encounters problems, he should also In a timely and effective manner, communicate with many departments such as owners and communities to avoid unnecessary misunderstandings and disputes.

Reposted from: People\’s Court of Yanfeng District, Hengyang City

Author: Qi Qian

Source: Hunan High Court