The Binding Problem of Property Fee and Elevator Card

Hello, please refer to Tianjin North Network News: Without the consent of the owner, the property owner installed a credit card device in the elevator, and the owner's magnetic card that failed to pay the property fee on time was not upgraded, which restricted his use of the elevator. This move caused dissatisfaction among the owners, and one owner sued the property company in court. A few days ago, after hearing the case, the Hexi District Court ordered the defendant property company to dismantle the credit card area of the elevator involved and restore the elevator to its original state.

Ma is the owner of a residential area in Hexi District of this city. During the construction, two elevators were installed at the entrance of the building where all his houses were located. One of the sightseeing elevators is equipped with a magnetic card swiping device, while the other passenger elevator is not equipped with a card swiping device. On June 5438+065438+ 10, 2009, the residential property reconstructed the passenger elevator of this department, and the card swiping equipment was installed in the passenger elevator, so the owner had to swipe the card to use the elevator normally. If the owners of the community do not pay the property fee normally, the property company will not upgrade the magnetic card, and the owners will not be able to use the elevator. Ma is extremely dissatisfied with this move by the property management company, and thinks that no one has the right to dismantle and change the original structure of the equipment without the approval of the relevant departments. This behavior has violated the legitimate rights and interests of the owner, so he filed a lawsuit and asked the property company to restore the original state.

Combined with the ascertained facts, the court held that the owner enjoys the ownership and use right of the parts and facilities used by the property according to law. The defendant's property management company signed a preliminary property service contract with the residential construction unit involved, and the defendant handled the property management acceptance handover with the construction unit according to the contract after the residential property was completed and accepted. The defendant shall manage the buildings and their ancillary facilities within the building division as agreed in the contract. The defendant did not get the owner's consent before the elevator transformation, and after the elevator transformation, the defendant refused to upgrade the magnetic card of the owner who failed to pay the property service fee on time, which restricted the owner's normal use of the elevator and violated the owner's right to use all its public facilities and equipment. The defendant's behavior has no legal basis. Therefore, the plaintiff claims that the defendant's claim to restore the reconstructed passenger elevator to its original state is reasonable and legal, and it is supported according to law. The defendant is now in charge of the management of the elevator, and the owner needs to upgrade the magnetic card at the defendant to use the elevator. The defendant did not submit enough evidence to prove that the elevator construction was entrusted by the developer, so he did not support the defendant's defense opinion that the elevator renovation was entrusted by the residential development and construction unit. The defendant argued that the plaintiff had no right to appeal and there was no legal basis, so it was not supported. The defendant claimed that the owner failed to pay the property fee on schedule and that the elevator was damaged, which was legally irrelevant to this case, and the defendant could claim his legitimate rights and interests in another case. In summary, the court made the above judgment. (Reporter Sun Qiming correspondent Xu Deli)