Shared area has always been a controversial topic among home buyers. The shared area is defined as the common use area within the building area, such as corridors, elevators, public facilities, etc., which exists to meet the needs of residents for common ownership and sharing. However, in the eyes of many home buyers, the shared area has become an unbearable pain in their hearts. Therefore, when the news of the complete abolition of the shared area in 2024 broke, home buyers immediately boiled. They have questions: "Does this mean that we will no longer have to pay for unusable area?""Will the occupants of the purchased houses be compensated reasonably?"These issues have caused a wide range of discussions in society.
I would like to point out that the abolition of pooled area does not mean that we will no longer have to pay for unusable area. The total price paid by the buyer at the time of purchase includes the shared area in addition to the actual usable floor area. This is because the existence of a shared area gives the owner the right to enjoy shared facilities within the community. The cost of construction and maintenance of these facilities needs to be shared by all owners. However, in practice, there are big problems in the algorithm and charging method of the shared area. Some developers often enlarge the shared area in an unreasonable way, thereby increasing the total price and preventing buyers from obtaining reasonable use rights. They may include spaces that are clearly public facilities, such as swimming pools and gardens, in the pooled area, making buyers pay exorbitant fees for them. In addition, in the actual use of the common facilities of the community, some home buyers may not enjoy reasonable rights and interests. Therefore, the abolition of shared area may help to eliminate this inequity.
The question of whether the occupants of the purchased homes can be compensated remains a complex issue. According to the current laws and regulations of our country, once the purchase contract is signed, the buyer purchases a "right of use", rather than an absolute property right. This means that the buyer is aware of the existence of the shared area at the time of purchase, and there is no obligation to compensate each other. Therefore, whether or not they can be compensated will be a controversial issue for the occupants who have already purchased their homes. However, past cases have shown that when there is a major policy change, a series of cross-market regulatory measures are often adopted to mitigate the impact on the market and protect the rights and interests of housing consumers. Therefore, in the process of abolishing the shared area, whether to consider providing some form of compensation to home buyers to balance the market and maintain social stability will be one of the key decisions.
In order to better understand this topic, we can refer to some foreign cases. In Australia, for example, ** and developers have put in place a reasonable compensation scheme when pushing for the abolition of shared area. They provide a certain amount of cash compensation to the occupants of the house who have already purchased the house, or provide them with other benefits and services. In this way, they protect the rights and interests of home buyers on the one hand, and maintain the stability of the market on the other hand.
The abolition of pooled area is a complex and concerning issue. Although the abolition of the shared area may not allow buyers to get rid of the problem of paying for unusable area, it is also possible to provide some compensation for the residents who have purchased the house through the regulation of **. Only through in-depth and rational discussions, and home buyers, can we find a reasonable solution to meet the reasonable needs of the public and promote the healthy development of the housing market.