Private floor heating causes water leakage. Can the downstairs owners not pay or pay less property fees?

In addition to claiming compensation from the upstairs owner, can the downstairs owner refuse to pay or pay less property fees because the upstairs owner illegally digs the building and changes the floor heating privately?

This is indeed a difficult question to clarify, because even the court has no clear answer.

As people's requirements for living environment become more and more personalized, there are more and more infringement disputes between neighbors in the community, and the property in charge of community management is often entangled and becomes a part of the dispute. Usually, the reason why property is involved in disputes is whether it is slow to fulfill its security obligations, and refusing to pay property fees is the most common way for owners to safeguard their interests. Then, in case of such disputes, can the owners not pay or pay less property fees? Recently, the different results of three judgments in two cases in Qingdao Xiaogang famous city community have attracted everyone's attention.

Today, Lou Ce Qian Lijun will talk about this matter, from which we may get a glimpse of the legal consideration of such issues.

20 17 1 month, Kerry Xiaogang Property Management (Qingdao) Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as Kerry Xiaogang Property) sued Li Moumou, the owner of the second phase of Xiaogang City, demanding that the owner pay the property service fee in arrears. After trial, the court found that Kerry Xiaogang Property failed to take effective management measures in time during the renovation of heating facilities in Li's upstairs neighbor, so there were defects in Kerry Xiaogang Property Service, so on March 20, 2065438+2007, the owner Li Moumou was sentenced to pay 80% of the property service fee payable.

In 2020, a judgment document showed that Qu Moumou, the owner of the fifth phase of Xiaogang City, refused to pay the property fee for the same reason and was also sued by Kerry Property to the court. The court of first instance of this case held that Kerry Property was responsible for the damage to the upstairs residents' houses caused by the illegal modification of heating facilities, and the first instance ruled that Qu Moumou paid 50% of the property service fee payable.

Also in the case of owner Qu Moumou, Kerry Property refused to accept the first-instance judgment and appealed. After hearing the case, the court of second instance held that Kerry Property had taken measures of stopping and safety management within its management authority, and the residents downstairs could claim compensation from specific infringers for their losses. Therefore, the first trial found that Kerry Property was responsible for the damage to the owner's house, and Qu Moumou paid 50% of the improper property service fee instead of 100% of the property service fee payable.

The three judgments and the three payment ratios are the same. The three judgments all think that the property management service is flawed, so the liquidated damages for overdue payment of property fees should not be paid, but the property service fee cannot be paid. The difference is the proportion of payment.

In the case of owner Qu Moumou, the court found that:

On September 1 2007, 2065438, Qu Moumou found that the roof of the house was leaking on the day of handling the house acceptance formalities, and the property staff informed the neighbors upstairs that it was caused by renovation. After that, Qu Moumou negotiated with the property management company and the upstairs neighbors in various ways, and finally sued the court until he lived in a new house from 2065438 to February 2009.

Kerry Property found the owner Qu Moumou digging the living room floor on July 1 day, 2065438 at the latest. On August 24th, I learned that the owner was making changes to the heating facilities, and it was not until September 1 Riqu that the water leaked. At this time, the renovation project was not completed. Kerry Property posted a notice of maintenance, renovation and rectification at the door of the upstairs household, and delivered the situation to Jimo Road Squadron of Shibei District Urban Management and Law Enforcement Bureau. There is no evidence to prove that Kerry Property stopped the parties involved in the illegal modification in person and took effective measures to prevent the illegal behavior from continuing.

The above facts, combined with the three judgments of the court, can actually see the basic judgment of the court: regardless of laws and regulations or property service contracts, Kerry Property has the obligation to correct and stop the owner's unauthorized modification of heating facilities. Kerry Property has posted a notice of maintenance and renovation at the door of the owner who changed the heating facilities privately, and reported the owner's illegal decoration behavior to the Law Enforcement Bureau. Within its management authority, it has taken stop measures and safety management measures. However, when the loss consequences of illegal decoration have been formed, Kerry Property did not take timely measures to prevent the loss from further expanding, so its management service was flawed.

As the direct victim of the upstairs owner's illegal digging and unauthorized modification of heating facilities, the downstairs owner can claim tort liability from the specific tortfeasor, but this cannot be used as a reason for refusing to pay all the property fees.

As for the proportion of property fees that can be paid less because of the defects of property services, it is difficult to have a clear and definite standard at present.