What are the cases of property contract disputes and what are the common property contract disputes?

Property contract disputes have the following situations:

(a) the owner's vehicle was stolen in the community.

1. If the owner's vehicle is stolen in the community, the owner shall bear the burden of proof for the following matters:

(1) The fact that the car is parked in a parking space or garage;

(2) It has fulfilled its due preventive obligations, such as the integrity of door locks and alarm devices;

(3) the value of the vehicle.

2, the property company should bear the burden of proof is:

(1) Overall situation of community security. The overall situation is good, which can prove that the property company is not at fault in fulfilling its security obligations. If the overall situation is not good, as mentioned above, frequent fighting and theft can be determined that the property company is at fault.

(2) Whether various systems are sound and implemented.

(3) Necessary facilities, measures and relevant personnel. For example, whether the passage between the community and the outside world is set with a guard and a duty record, which is mainly used to prove that someone is on duty. From common sense, it is impossible to ask the doorman to register everyone who enters and exits.

(4) Whether the preventive measures set around the main passage, unified parking space or garage are in line with the contract, such as night patrol, electronic monitoring facilities, separate duty room and personnel on duty, etc. The degree of prevention should be equal to the service fee paid by the owner. Just as you can't ask luxury hotels and general guest houses to pay attention to the personal and property safety of guests, the obligation is the same.

(two) burglary and robbery occurred in the community, causing personal injury and property losses to the owners.

1. At this time, the property management company should generally prove that it has fulfilled the security obligations stipulated in the contract from the following aspects:

(1) Property service enterprise qualification;

(two) personnel engaged in security services have professional qualifications in accordance with the relevant provisions of the state;

(3) A sound security service system;

(4) Records or certificates of performing the duty of care according to the system, such as duty logs and major accident report records;

(five) measures to fulfill safety obligations, equipped facilities and necessary publicity.

(3) The owners are not at fault, and the property management company is not at fault.

In many cases, the vehicles in the community were stolen, the owners were injured, and the property at home was stolen and robbed. In many cases, the owner himself is not at fault, and the property management company can prove that it has fully fulfilled its duty of care in accordance with the contract, and there is no obvious fault. At this time, it is difficult for the owner to win the case and ask the property company for compensation.

Faced with this situation, the court can not simply dismiss the matter, but should do more legal publicity and mediation to achieve the purpose of the owner withdrawing the lawsuit or mediation between the two parties. Whether the property management company can not charge or charge less property service fees; For the owner, "the benefit belongs to the owner and the loss belongs to the owner", that is, the risk of property loss is borne by the owner himself, which is a principle generally observed in civil law. In this case, the compensation for the owner's personal and property damage can only be expected to be detected.

Second, the common property contract disputes

(1) First, what expenses are included in the property management fee. After the introduction of the autocorrelation regulation, the items included in the "property management fee" are different from those in the past, and some property companies often only indicate the word "property management fee" on their receipts to owners, which is easy to cause disputes among owners because of the vague concept. Another contradiction is that property management fees are not collected, which causes contradictions between owners and between owners and property management enterprises.

In terms of fees, the property management company should list all relevant fees on the receipt of the relevant property management fees paid to the owners, and cannot simply change the names of various fees into the names of "property management fees".

(2) At present, many owners' committees in residential areas often fail to clearly define the nature of property contracts when signing contracts with property management. Some communities have signed "service contracts" and some communities have signed "entrustment contracts".

It is reported that the confusion in this respect makes the current classification of the cause of action of the Supreme Court involve both service contract disputes and property management disputes; When accepting property management disputes, some cases are classified as service contract disputes, some as property management disputes, and some as damages and property ownership disputes.

When signing a property management contract, it should be noted that the nature of the contract should be a service contract, not an entrustment contract. The easiest way is to look at the name of the property contract first. If it is a service contract, the name of this contract is generally "property management service contract", not "property management entrustment contract". At the same time, in the terms of the contract, if it is an entrustment contract, it will generally be "Party A entrusts Party B", while the service contract will generally be "Party A provides services for Party B".