If the shopping mall is often cut off from water and electricity, and the property management company fails to fulfill its obligations such as maintenance and cleaning, does the owner need to continue to pay the management fee? No, there are property owners in Guangzhou who have a dispute with the property management company over this, and as a result, they go to court to discuss the law. The reporter learned on the 23rd that after the case was tried by the Guangzhou Baiyun Court, it was decided that the property service fee should be paid to the property company.
On March 13, 2021, Mr. Wen and the property company signed the "Property Management Service Contract", stipulating that the property company would provide property management services to Mr. Wen, and the property management content includes the repair, maintenance and management of the common parts of the house building, the maintenance, maintenance, operation and management of equipment, etc. After the contract was signed, the property management company provided property management services for the hot pot restaurant operated by Wen.
Since July 2021, Wen has been in arrears with property service fees, water and electricity bills, and other expenses. From August to December of the same year, Wen repeatedly raised problems such as uncooled air conditioning, power outages, dripping, and flies in the store through WeChat, and asked the property management company to arrange repairs.
On March 7, 2022, the two parties terminated the "Property Management Service Contract" involved in the case, and then the property company sued the court, demanding that Wen pay more than 110,000 yuan in arrears of property services, water and electricity and other expenses and overdue liquidated damages.
Wen believes that the property company did not fulfill its obligations under the contract, and due to engineering problems such as air conditioning outlets, drainage outlets, and main electricity in the shopping mall, the commercial installation period of the store was delayed, and the shopping mall often cut off water and electricity, resulting in more than 620,000 yuan in decoration costs; After the opening of the hot pot restaurant, the air conditioner in the mall repeatedly failed, resulting in the temperature in the store being too high and dripping water; The sanitation situation around the hot pot restaurant was also very bad, and there was no response to the feedback to the property management company many times, which eventually led to the closure of the shop. Therefore, Wen filed a counterclaim, demanding that the property management company return the deposit and compensate for the decoration costs.
The Baiyun Court ruled in the first instance: Wen paid the property service fee and water and electricity fee 77017 to the property management company$51 and attorney's fee $5,600; Reject other claims of the property management company; Wen's other counterclaims were rejected.
The verdict is now in force.
The magistrate pointed out that in daily life, after a conflict arises between the owner and the property management company, it often adopts the method of refusing to pay the property fee to confront each other, which not only cannot resolve the dispute, but may even lead to conflict. According to the provisions of Article 509 of the Civil Code, Wen and the property company voluntarily signed the "Property Management Service Contract", which is legal and valid, and both parties should abide by the contract and perform it in good faith.
Judging from the WeChat communication between the two parties, Wen has repeatedly reported to the property company problems such as the unsatisfactory temperature of the air conditioner and asked the property company to repair it. Although there is no evidence to prove that the property management company has carried out a thorough rectification of the problems reported by Wen, the above problems are not enough to cause Wen to be unable to use the shop involved in the case, and it is not enough to affect the realization of the purpose of Wen's contract, so the property management company requires Wen to pay the outstanding property service fees and water and electricity bills, and the court supports it.
After Wen reported that there was a dripping situation in the shop, although the property management company informed Wen that it would try its best to arrange personnel to repair the air conditioner in the past, it did not provide evidence to support the repair of the above-mentioned air conditioner dripping and other problems, and did not fully perform the property management obligations, so the court did not support the property management company's request for Wen to compensate for the overdue liquidated damages for the property service fee.
As for Wen's counterclaim, because the contract involved in the case clearly stipulated that if the lessee defaulted on property fees and other expenses, the security deposit could be used to offset the arrears, and all the construction costs carried out by the lessee should be borne by the lessee alone, so the court did not support Wen's request. After deduction, Wen needs to pay a total of 77,017 property service fees and water and electricity bills to the property management company51 yuan.
Conflicts often arise between property management companies and property owners, who believe that the property management company has failed to provide ideal property services, such as untidy environment, untimely repair of public facilities, and disturbance of the people, etc., so they refuse to pay the property fees. In this case, although the property management company did not fully perform its property management obligations, it did not affect the realization of the purpose of the owner's contract, that is, the owner should pay the property fee if the owner could still enter and use the shop normally. At the same time, since the property management company has not fully fulfilled its property management obligations, it has no right to claim compensation from the property owner for the overdue liquidated damages for the property service fee.
The judge reminded that the property owner's refusal to pay the property fee needs to prove that the property management company has indeed had major defects in the performance of its obligations, and if he is dissatisfied with the services provided by the property management company, he should first formally request the property management company to take remedial measures or compensate for losses, etc., and should not refuse to pay the property management fee on this ground; At the same time, the property management company should also fulfill its management obligations in a timely manner, and in the case that its own service level is not up to standard, even if the owner owes the management fee, it has no right to require the owner to bear the overdue interest.
Text: Guangzhou**, New Flower City Reporter, Charter, Correspondent, Yun Faxuan.