Case analysis of property management contract disputes

Everyone who lives in the community hopes to get good property management and maintenance services. Therefore, many residential properties will sign property management contracts with residential residents. Although the contract is binding, it cannot avoid some disputes arising from inadequate property services. Let's look at a case of property management contract dispute and learn about the relevant knowledge of property management contract.

Case analysis of property management contract disputes

[case]

Plaintiff: Li xx

Defendant: aa property management co., ltd

The plaintiff is a resident of Room 602, Building aa Garden 18. On June 5438+1October 17, 2003, the plaintiff and the defendant signed an ss house management contract, stipulating that the plaintiff would use two motorcycle parking spaces located at the downstairs of SS 142 1 1425 to park motorcycles with Guangdong xzx and Guangdong xxx license plates respectively. At 8: 30 on1October 2/day12004, the plaintiff parked the Guangdong xzx motorcycle in the parking space numbered 1421downstairs of Building14, and found the motorcycle lost on the 23rd of the same month. The plaintiff immediately notified the defendant's security guard and reported the case to the public security organ. Acer police station in this district filed a case for investigation, but the case has not been detected so far. The plaintiff sued that according to the management contract between the original defendant and the defendant, the defendant was responsible for the management of ss residential area, and his duties included ensuring public order and strengthening the management of vehicles entering and leaving. According to Guangdong Property Management Regulations and Zhongshan Property Management Implementation Rules, the scope of property management includes vehicle parking and parking places, including security services. Therefore, the defendant has the legal obligation to manage the parking of vehicles and ensure their safety. At present, the defendant should be liable for compensation for the theft of the plaintiff's motorcycle due to his failure to manage the vehicle adequately. It is argued that the relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant is a vehicle parking contract, not a custody contract. Therefore, the defendant only has a general security obligation to the plaintiff's vehicle, but has no obligation to keep it. The defendant has set up doorposts at the four exits of the community to conduct 24-hour public security patrol, fulfilling the obligations stipulated in the management contract to ensure public order, strengthen vehicle access and berth management. And before the public security organ detects the case, it cannot be determined that the motorcycle was stolen in the community only by the plaintiff's statement. Therefore, the court is requested to reject the plaintiff's claim.

[referee points]

After trial, Zhongshan People's Court held that, firstly, regarding whether the plaintiff's motorcycle was lost in ss community, according to the plaintiff's statement, the plaintiff parked Guangdong t9f786 motorcycle in the parking space downstairs of Building 142 1 4 on the afternoon of June 23, 2004, and by June 23, 2004, the plaintiff's above statement was the same as that of the plaintiff. According to Article 73 of the Supreme Court's Provisions on Evidence in Civil Proceedings, under the condition that the case has not been detected, it should be recognized as a high probability fact, that is, the fact that the plaintiff Guangdong t9f786 motorcycle was lost in ss residential area. Secondly, regarding the legal relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant and whether the defendant should be liable for the loss of the plaintiff's vehicle, there is no custody contract between the two parties because the management contract signed by the plaintiff and the defendant has no unanimous meaning on the custody of the vehicle. The plaintiff, as the owner, pays the property management fee to the defendant on a monthly basis, and the defendant, as a property management company, provides the corresponding property management services according to the charging standards stipulated by the government, thus forming a contractual relationship of property management services. Vehicle management is a part of the property management service contract, and the defendant has a reasonable and prudent duty of care for the vehicles and other property in the community when performing the property management service contract. Although the defendant was equipped with security guards on duty and patrolling, and took certain safety measures, he failed to effectively register the vehicles entering and leaving and failed to fulfill his due duty of care. Therefore, it is responsible for the loss of the plaintiff's vehicle and should bear the corresponding civil compensation. The plaintiff himself did not take good care of his own vehicle and was also responsible for it. In view of this, the plaintiff and the defendant bear equal responsibilities, and the defendant should bear 50% of the civil compensation.

After the verdict was pronounced in the first instance, the defendant refused to accept it and appealed to the Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court. The Zhongshan Intermediate People's Court held that the facts ascertained and the judgment made by the Zhongshan People's Court were not improper and upheld the original judgment.

[analysis]

This case is a typical property management service contract dispute case, and the key lies in the determination of the nature of the legal relationship between the two parties and whether the vehicle is lost in the community. The following analysis, with a view to hearing such cases.

The nature and characteristics of property management service contract and the scope of property manager's safety responsibility.

The word "property" means "property, assets, possessions and real estate", which is a broad category. From the perspective of property management, property refers to all kinds of houses and their ancillary equipment, facilities and related venues. The so-called "property management", according to the provisions of Article 2 of the State Council's "Property Management Regulations", refers to the activities in which the owner selects a property management enterprise, and the owner and the property management enterprise repair, maintain and manage the house, supporting facilities and related sites in accordance with the property service contract, so as to maintain the environmental sanitation and order in the relevant areas. Among them, the property service contract refers to a written agreement that the property management enterprise accepts the appointment and entrustment of the community owner or the owners' committee to provide property services and the owner pays the service fee. It clarifies the respective rights and obligations of property management enterprises and owners, is a legal document to establish the relationship between owners and property management enterprises, is the protection of owners' rights, and is at the core of the whole property management activities. As far as this case is concerned, the ss residential management contract signed by both parties stipulates the scope and criteria of activities of both parties and establishes the contractual relationship of property management services. The contract clearly stipulates that the defendant's duties include ensuring public order and strengthening vehicle access management. According to Guangdong Property Management Regulations and Zhongshan Property Management Implementation Rules, the scope of property management includes vehicle parking places, and the content of property management includes security services. Therefore, the defendant has the obligation to manage and ensure the safety of the vehicles parked by the plaintiff. However, it cannot be considered that the defendant has the obligation to borrow these agreements and regulations to keep the plaintiff's car, but should be dialectically analyzed.

First of all, according to Article 47 of the State Council's Property Management Regulations, "Property management enterprises shall assist in the safety precautions within the property management area". It can be seen that the security function of property management is defined as "assistance" by the relevant administrative laws in China, and property management enterprises themselves cannot independently undertake the security work within their jurisdiction. Therefore, security can not replace the police. Owners can only increase the safety factor by agreeing on better services with property management companies, and never idealize property management as a safe.

Secondly, property management contract is a kind of entrusted service contract, which is different from custody contract. The nature of security service in property management is a group of security services to prevent group governance, and it is social security in a broad sense. Security guards are not bodyguards, as long as they fulfill the general duty of care of managers, and they cannot be required to ensure the safety of all people and property in the area. On the other hand, the custody contract is different, it is the supervision of specific property, and it requires managers to fulfill greater duty of care.

Thirdly, from the composition of property management fees, there is a big gap between the security fees paid by the owners and the level of security services required. Obviously unfair. According to the principle of fairness and the principle of equality of rights and obligations in civil law, owners cannot ask property management companies to provide seamless security services by paying meager security premiums.

To sum up, as far as this case is concerned, although the defendant has no obligation to keep the plaintiff's vehicle, based on the property management service contract relationship between the two parties, the defendant has the obligation to manage and ensure the safety of the plaintiff's vehicle, but the defendant failed to effectively register the vehicles entering and leaving and failed to fulfill his due duty of care. Therefore, the defendant has a certain responsibility for the loss of the plaintiff's vehicle and should bear the corresponding civil compensation. According to the principle of fairness and reciprocity of rights and obligations, it is reasonable for the defendant to bear 50% of the compensation liability for the plaintiff's lost vehicle.

(The above answers were published on 20 14-06- 13. Please refer to the actual situation for the current purchase policy. )

Click to receive the red envelope for viewing the house, and directly receive 100 yuan in cash.