How to claim for the stolen battery car in the community?

1. If the owner signs a property management agreement with the property, the property shall be liable for compensation;

2. If the merchant has not signed a property management agreement with the property management company, there is no custody contract relationship between the owner and the property management company, and the property management company has no obligation to look after the vehicle for the owner, so it will not be liable for compensation.

According to Article 35 of the Property Management Regulations, the property service enterprise shall provide corresponding services in accordance with the stipulations of the property service contract. The realty service enterprise fails to perform the realty service contract, causing personal and property safety damage to the owner, and shall bear corresponding legal responsibilities according to law. "

Second, the enterprise behavior of losing the battery car:

You can communicate with the property first, whether to sign the property service agreement, and if you have signed it, you can defend your rights through legal means; If it is not signed, the property does not need compensation, then it can be negotiated privately with the property. The proof of not paying the property fee is the service agreement signed by the owner and the property.

Extended data:

Case:

The electric car community was stolen and the owner sued the property.

Mr. Wang lives in a residential area in Haikou, and pays the 20 yuan electric car storage fee to the property every month. On July 4th last year, he replaced an old electric car with a new one worth 3008 yuan.

On August 12 of the same year, he parked the new electric car that he had just ridden for more than a month at the stairs of the community, but he was swaggered out of the gate by the thief in the early morning of the next day, during which the security guard released it without verifying the identity of the strange man and registering the electric car. Mr. Wang believes that the property has not fulfilled its custody obligations and sued the property company for a claim of 4380 yuan.

1. The trial ordered the property to assume full liability for compensation.

The court of first instance held that Mr. Wang had paid the electric vehicle storage fee to a property company on time, and the property should provide the vehicle storage obligation as agreed. A strange man who is not a resident of the community pushed Mr. Wang's electric car out of the community gate and rode it away, but the security guard of the property company did not verify his identity or register the vehicle he was riding.

Therefore, the loss caused by the loss of electric vehicles should be borne by the property company. Wang spent 3008 yuan to buy an electric car, and the court of first instance ruled that the property company compensated Wang for the loss of 3008 yuan.

After the verdict was pronounced, the property company refused to accept the verdict and appealed to Haikou Intermediate People's Court, claiming that there were two electric car parking spots in the residential area * * * *, and the property company had posted "warm tips" for many times, asking the owners to put electric cars and bicycles in the above two places.

Please do not park your vehicle in public areas such as stairs to avoid vehicle loss. Mr. Wang lost the electric car parked downstairs in the community, and the property should not be liable for compensation.

Second, the trial allows the owner to bear 70% responsibility.

Haikou Intermediate People's Court held that Mr. Wang was a residential resident managed by a property company, and he paid the property management fee and electric vehicle storage fee to the property company on time, and there was a de facto property service contract relationship between the two parties. The property management company failed to fulfill the necessary security measures and corresponding security obligations when registering personnel and vehicles, and should bear 30% of the compensation liability for the losses caused by the theft of Wang's electric car.

Because Mr. Wang did not put the electric car in the parking place designated by the property, he was at fault for the loss caused by the theft of his electric car and should bear 70% responsibility. The original judgment was unclear about some facts, and the applicable law was improper, so it should be corrected. Recently, Haikou Intermediate People's Court made a judgment and ordered the property to compensate Wang for the loss of electric vehicles by 902.4 yuan.

Baidu Encyclopedia-Property Management Regulations

People's Daily Online-The owner sued the property for 4380 yuan for the theft of the electric car community.