Source: Huangpu Court Reprinted from: Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court Special reminder: All works marked with "source" or "reprinted from" are reproduced from the media, and the copyright belongs to the original author and original source. The content shared is the author's

Source: Huangpu Court

Reprinted from: Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court

Special reminder: All works marked "source" or "reprinted from" in this number are reproduced from the media, and the copyright belongs to the original author and original source. The content shared is the author's personal opinion and is for readers' reference only and does not represent the views of this account.

Owners who have not paid property fees overdue

Can property service companies force owners to pay by

cutting off water and electricity?

How should owners protect their rights when they encounter water and power outages?

What are the legal provisions for such disputes?

Basic case information

In 2018, Lu purchased House 809 in a community in Huangpu District, Guangzhou from others, and obtained the real estate certificate for the house on May 8, 2018.

In June 2018, when Lu entered the site for renovation, he found that the house could not have electricity. He negotiated with Company A, the property management company of the community where the house is located, for many times, and then went to the local street management office to report the situation through letters and visits, but the problem could not be solved. Lu then filed a lawsuit with the People's Court of Huangpu District, Guangzhou, requesting an order to order Company A to cooperate with him in connecting the electricity to his house, and to compensate him for the period from May 2018 to December 2019 at the rate of 1,200 yuan per month. Vacant loss fee is 22,800 yuan.

Company A argued:

Lu and the original owner did not go to Company A to handle the property management handover procedures. Lu never signed a property service agreement with Company A, nor paid property management fees and property maintenance funds. There is no property between the two parties. Service contract relationship; Company A never made any changes to the water and electricity lines in Room 809 after taking over the property involved in the case, nor did it cut off the circuit of the house involved in the case.

Huangpu District Power Supply Bureau participated in this lawsuit as the third party and submitted evidence such as the "Guangzhou Power Supply Bureau Project Acceptance Notice" and the "Power Supply and Consumption Plan Agreement" to prove that the public low-voltage power supply was transferred to the public on December 26, 2008. The lines are connected to the electricity meters of each user in the community where room 809 is located.

Judgment result

The first-instance judgment of the People’s Court of Huangpu District, Guangzhou City: Company A shall compensate Lu for the vacancy fee of 20,700 yuan within five days from the date of the judgment.

After the verdict, Company A was dissatisfied and appealed.

The Guangzhou Intermediate People’s Court made a second-instance judgment: rejecting the appeal and upholding the original judgment.

Reasons for the Judgment

Company A is a property service company in the community where House 809 is located. Since Lu obtained the real estate certificate for House 809 on May 8, 2018 and became the owner of the house, the two parties established a property service contract relationship in accordance with the law. Lu has the right to Company A is required to provide relevant property services. The fact that Lu and the original owner did not go to Company A to handle the property management handover procedures does not affect the establishment of the relevant property service contract relationship between Lu and Company A. Company A claimed that there was no property service contract between the two parties on the grounds that Lu had not completed relevant property management handover procedures with the original owner and had not paid property management fees. This was unfounded in law and was not accepted by the court. As a property service company,

A Company shall provide relevant services to owners in accordance with the provisions of the property service contract and relevant laws, administrative regulations, and industry standards, and shall not interrupt the owner's normal use of electricity for any reason. In this case, according to the evidence provided by the Huangpu Power Supply Bureau, the power supply department has connected the public low-voltage power lines to the electricity meters of each user in the community where Room 809 is located. According to the actual conditions of ordinary communities, the areas where public low-voltage wires are connected to community users (such as meter rooms (boxes, cabinets), low-voltage distribution rooms (boxes, cabinets), etc.) are located in the public management area of ​​the community and belong to the management of property service companies. Within the scope, community users need the cooperation of property service companies and provide necessary services to connect to the public low-voltage power supply (electricity meter).Although there is no direct evidence to prove that Company A took measures to cut off power to the house involved in the case, combined with the evidence from the Huangpu Power Supply Bureau and the facts reported by Lu to the relevant street departments, it can be determined that Company A prevented the connection of water and electricity, causing Lu to be unable to use it. houses. Company A's behavior violated legal provisions and the basic obligations of property service companies, and infringed upon Lu's right to use Room 809. Therefore, Lu requested Company A to cooperate with him in connecting the electricity to Room 809. This was well-founded in law, and the court agreed. support. Lu confirmed that the house involved in the case has been powered on since March 26, 2020. This fact shows that Company A has connected the power supply to Room 809, so Lu’s request does not need to be processed anymore.

In this case, Company A, as a property service company, violated legal provisions and industry norms and prevented the owner Lu from connecting to water and electricity. As a result, the house involved in the case did not meet normal living conditions. As a result, Lu, as the owner, was unable to perform maintenance on the house involved in the case. Living or renting, resulting in vacant housing. According to the above-mentioned legal provisions, Company A shall be liable for breach of contract to compensate for losses due to its above-mentioned behavior. According to the liability for breach of contract in the property service contract, the compensation standard for property fees is obviously not enough to compensate for Lu's losses. It is more reasonable to consider the standard of not calculating the rent that Lu had to pay when renting a house of the same condition to others because he was unable to live in the house involved in the case during the power outage, or the rental income that could be obtained by renting out the house involved in the case to others. Lu’s request to calculate the vacancy loss of the house based on the market rental standard of the house involved in the case is well-founded in law and reasonable, and the court supported it.

According to the "Asset Appraisal Consultation Report" provided by Lu, it was determined that the rental value of the house involved in the case from 2018 to 2019 was 1,150 yuan/month. Lu had obtained the property rights of the property involved in the case on May 8, 2018, but he confirmed that there was no electricity when he was renovating it around June 2018. Because Lu could not clarify the specific time when the house involved in the case was without electricity, based on his statement, it was determined as appropriate that the house involved in the case had been cut off from power on July 1, 2018. The deadline for Lu’s request for vacancy fees was the end of December 2019. This time did not exceed the electricity supply time of the house involved in the case, and the court granted it. In summary, Company A should compensate Lu for the vacancy fee of 20,700 yuan (1,150 yuan/month × 18 months). The excess of Lu's request was insufficiently justified and the court would not support it.

The referee is based on

Article 36 of the "Property Management Regulations" stipulates: "The property service enterprise shall provide corresponding services in accordance with the provisions of the property service contract. The property service enterprise failed to perform the provisions of the property service contract, resulting in the owner's personal injury, If property safety is damaged, corresponding legal responsibilities shall be borne in accordance with the law. "

Article 45 of the "Guangdong Provincial Property Management Regulations" stipulates: "Property service companies shall provide property owners with services in accordance with the provisions of laws and regulations and the provisions of the property service contract. Provide services and cooperate with relevant government departments, subdistrict offices, and township people's governments to carry out community services and community cultural activities. "

Paragraph 2 of Article 82 of the "Guangzhou Interim Measures for Property Management" stipulates: "Property service enterprises shall not. Interrupting the user's normal water, electricity, and gas use on the grounds of the user's arrears in paying property management fees or other reasons. "

Article 3, Paragraph 1 of the "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Property Service Dispute Cases". Provisions: "If a property service enterprise fails to perform or does not fully perform its repair, maintenance, management and maintenance obligations stipulated in the property service contract or determined by laws, regulations and relevant industry standards, the owner shall request the property service enterprise to continue to perform, take remedial measures or Article 944 of the "Civil Code" that will be implemented on January 1, 2021 stipulates: "The property service provider shall not take measures to stop the power supply." , water supply, heat supply, gas supply, etc. to urge payment of property fees.”