What should I do if I encounter a property dispute? Three cases to help you solve.

With more and more people buying their own property, the concept of "owner" has been deeply rooted in people's hearts. In contrast, people's requirements for property service enterprises are getting higher and higher, which leads to more and more property disputes.

In practice, disputes between owners and property are often two-way. Property sues owners, mainly to recover property fees; And the owner sued the property for various reasons.

The problem is that in reality, many disputes caused by owners' dissatisfaction with the property are actually not or not entirely the responsibility of the property. The author briefly analyzes this with several cases in reality.

Property in dispute with the owner has no right to power off.

Case:

A landlord's house suddenly lost power. The owner found the residential property service company and asked to check the cause of the power outage. But the property service company told him that the power outage was due to his default in property management fees.

After the consultation between the owner and the property service enterprise failed, the power supply management department was found, but after the staff of the power supply department arrived at the scene, the property service enterprise refused to open the door of the distribution room on the grounds that there was no work certificate.

The owner thinks that the property service enterprises use the convenience of management to intimidate them by means of power failure, which has brought great inconvenience to his life, so he takes the property service enterprises to court and asks the court to judge the property service enterprises to eliminate the obstruction of power supply, restore power supply, apologize to them, reduce the management fee for one month and compensate for economic losses.

After the trial, the court held that the defendant's property service enterprise was not a power supply department and had no right to take power outage measures against the plaintiff for any reason, otherwise it would constitute infringement.

The plaintiff's request to reduce the management fee for one month belongs to the scope of the property management contract between the two parties, which is not the same legal relationship with the infringement dispute in this case, and the plaintiff should claim rights separately.

The plaintiff's request for the defendant to apologize and reduce the management fee for one month was unfounded in the law and the court did not support it.

The plaintiff's request for compensation for economic losses, removal of power supply obstacles and restoration of power supply was supported by the court.

Comments:

As a property service enterprise, no matter what contradiction it has with the owner, it has no right to take power outage measures.

The responsibility of property enterprises is to provide quality services for owners, and measures that harm the interests of owners, such as water and electricity cuts, cannot be taken. Moreover, it is the responsibility of the power supply department to eliminate power outages, and property service companies should cooperate.

Disputes with neighbors belong to adjacent relations.

Case:

Yang lives in a bungalow in the street. Neighbor Liu installed a large range hood because he opened a restaurant, and his smoke outlet was located on the roof of Liu's own house.

The window on the second floor of Yangjia is just adjacent to the wall where Liu installed the range hood. The distance between them is about 1 m, forming a narrow road in the middle. Although people don't leave, it has always been the main ventilation channel of Yang Yi Building.

After Liu's restaurant officially opened, Yang found that there was always a smell of oil smoke in his room on the second floor, and once the window was opened for ventilation, the smell of oil smoke was even heavier.

After looking for the reason, Yang found that the exhaust port of the range hood in Liu's restaurant kitchen was too close to the window on the second floor of his house. As long as the range hood is on, smoke will leak into his room.

Yang asked Liu to discuss the problem of smoke emission, but Liu ignored it.

To complain about the property, the property management personnel can only come to persuade, but it has no effect at all.

As a last resort, Yang had to sue in court, asking Liu to rebuild the exhaust port of the range hood, stop the infringement and remove obstacles.

After the court accepted the case, it first presided over the mediation between the two sides, but the mediation was invalid because of the great differences between the two sides.

The final judgment of the court: the behavior of the defendant Liu's restaurant discharging lampblack has constituted damage to the legitimate rights and interests of the plaintiff Yang.

According to Article 18 of the General Principles of Civil Law, the defendant Liu should stop using the range hood in the restaurant.

Comments:

This case involves several aspects of adjacent relations.

Neighborhood relation can be called neighboring right from the perspective of rights.

The so-called neighboring right refers to the right of two or more owners, occupiers, users and beneficiaries of real estate to require the other party to provide necessary convenience when one party exercises the ownership or possession, use and income of all its real estate.

To correctly handle the adjacent relationship, we must follow the principle of "favorable production, convenient life, solidarity and mutual assistance, fairness and rationality" stipulated in Article 83 of the General Principles of Civil Law.

These principles are not only the principles for neighboring parties to correctly exercise neighboring rights and properly handle neighboring relations, but also the principles for people's courts to correctly handle neighboring disputes. Once the behavior of the other party infringes upon the legitimate rights and interests of others, it has the obligation to eliminate the obstruction.

If you are not satisfied with the previous property, you can hire it at the owners' meeting.

Case:

A property service enterprise is a wholly-owned subsidiary of the developer, and undertakes the prophase property management business of a residential district developed by the developer.

After the owner moved in, he repeatedly questioned the charging standard and service standard of the property management fee of the property service enterprise. The property service enterprise repeatedly proposed to the owners' meeting that the project suffered serious losses and wanted to raise the property management fee. The two sides are deadlocked.

Comments:

In this case, the direct reason why the owner and the property service enterprise don't understand each other is that the property service enterprise and the owner always lack the agreed property charging standards and service standards.

As there are many disputes between the property service enterprises and the owners in terms of property fees and service standards, after the establishment of the owners' meeting, the property service enterprises can be re-employed through bidding.

In practice, it is not uncommon for owners to have conflicts in the early stage.

As a housing construction unit, first of all, we should select a property service enterprise through bidding, and sign a preliminary property management service contract with the property service enterprise, and the relevant terms should be clearly agreed with the buyer in the sales contract;

Secondly, there should be clear property management clauses in the sales contract, including service content, standards, fees, liability for breach of contract and other major parts, so as to avoid unnecessary contradictions caused by unclear property management-related contents when the owner buys a house and questioning the service fees of the property service enterprise after the owner moves in;

Thirdly, when the first owners' meeting is held to select the property, the property service enterprise should fully communicate with the owners' meeting and clarify the terms of the property management contract;

Finally, the property service enterprises should determine the fees according to the service content and service standards.

After the promulgation of "Property Management Regulations", it is inevitable that construction and management should be separated, and developers and property service enterprises should operate independently. Property service enterprises must win the market through their own strength.

The owner may claim that the contract time is illegal.

Case:

Real estate enterprises set up property service enterprises with capital contribution, and the real estate enterprises use this special relationship to sign early property management contracts with them, and entrust the property service enterprises to implement property management in the community.

According to the agreement between the developer and the property enterprise, the entrustment period is 8 years, and the charge per square meter is 2.5 yuan, while the charge per square meter for the same property in the same community is only 1.2 yuan.

After the owners moved in one after another, they found that the management of the community was chaotic, the property service was poor, and the charges were much higher than other similar properties. The owners are dissatisfied with this, and contradictions and disputes continue.

Comments:

According to the "Property Management Regulations" and relevant laws and regulations, the term of the preliminary property management contract shall be counted from the time when the property service contract signed by the owners' committee and the property service enterprise takes effect, generally not exceeding 2 years.

In this case, the real estate development enterprise and its own property service enterprise set an eight-year entrusted management period, which obviously violated the legitimate rights and interests of the owners. According to the relevant provisions of the contract law, the agreement is invalid because it violates the mandatory provisions of the law.

(The above answer was published on 2015-12-11.Please refer to the actual situation for the relevant housing purchase policy at present).

For more real estate information, policy interpretation and expert interpretation, click to view.