In 2017, Southwestern University of Finance and Economics conducted a detailed survey and statistics on the number of vacant houses nationwide, and the survey results showed that the housing vacancy rate in China was about 22% at that time. This data undoubtedly reveals that there are a large number of vacant houses in our country. And in the past six years, as the number of commercial housing across the country has been increasing, the number of vacant homes is likely to have risen further. Recently, the "problem of collecting property fees for vacant houses" has once again attracted widespread attention from the society.
There are currently three main views on this hot issue in society: the first view is that vacant houses should pay the property fee in full, because although the house is vacant, they still enjoy the services provided by the property; The second view is that vacant houses only need to pay part of the property fee, because they are uninhabited and cannot fully enjoy the full services of the property; The third argument is more straightforward, insisting that vacant houses should not be subject to strata fees because they are uninhabited and do not enjoy strata services.
However, in real life, due to the uneven service quality of some community property service companies, many owners have become resistant to the payment of property fees. In particular, owners of vacant houses are even more reluctant to pay strata fees. For example, there is a property owner whose house has been vacant since handover, so he has never paid strata fees. However, when he went to the property to collect the title deed, he was told that he had to settle the strata fee first. This situation is obviously unreasonable, as there is no direct link between whether the landlord pays the strata fee and the title deed. However, the property manager insisted on this requirement, which undoubtedly exposed the tough service attitude and unsatisfactory service level of the property company.
In recent years, the conflict between property owners and property management companies has gradually escalated, and calls for the abolition of property have come and gone. The root of this contradiction lies in the serious mismatch between strata fees and strata services. Owners expect to receive a high level of service that matches the strata fees they can pay, but the reality is often disappointing. Property companies often charge a lot of money, but the quality of service is greatly reduced. The property management company believes that as long as the service is provided, the owner should pay on time. However, I believe that most property owners will be willing to meet their payment obligations if the utility company can provide a satisfactory service. However, there are three major problems in the current property industry, which need to be solved urgently.
1. The service attitude and quality of the property company are worrying.
As a service industry, property management companies should be owner-centric and provide high-quality services. However, in reality, there are many companies that put themselves above the owners and consider themselves managers. Not only do they have a lot of regulations that are unfavorable to the owners, but they also have a rude attitude towards the owners and a low quality of service. For example, some property management companies even use measures such as restricting water and electricity** to force property owners to pay property fees. This kind of behavior not only lacks professional ethics, but also seriously damages the rights and interests of the owner.
2. The charging of property companies is chaotic.
Many utility companies do not disclose the details of strata fees, leaving property owners in the dark about where and what they are used for. This has increased the owner's distrust of the property company, and also contributed to the breeding of arbitrary fees. The property management company should be open and transparent about the fees, so that the owners can clearly understand the whereabouts and uses of the property fees, so as to establish a relationship of trust between the owners and the property management company.
3. The problem of property companies encroaching on public revenue cannot be ignored.
The income from the common areas of the community, such as parking spaces, booth fees and elevator advertising fees, should have been shared by all owners. However, it is regrettable that most of the property management companies in the community have taken these profits for themselves, which seriously infringes on the rights and interests of the owners. The property management company should respect the rights and interests of the owners and reasonably distribute the public benefits to the owners, rather than taking them for themselves.
There are indeed these three obvious chaos in today's property management field, and these problems have made many property owners dissatisfied, and even the idea of abolishing property management companies. But can we really wipe the property company out of our lives entirely? Experts remind us that despite the growing calls to abolish property, the presence of a property company is still of indispensable value until a more desirable alternative service is found. In fact, we don't have a lot of dedicated and attentive property companies in our lives who provide vital support to the community, so we can't make rash generalizations.
Currently, there is no business model in the market that can completely replace property companies, which makes it impractical to abolish properties. It is worth mentioning that the Civil Code has given owners the right to change property management companies, and clearly requires property management companies to regularly disclose the details of property management fees, their usage and the distribution of income in the public areas of the community. These regulations not only protect the rights and interests of property owners, but also ensure that the benefits of the common areas of the community are fairly distributed to each owner.
Although it is not easy to abolish the property, as the state continues to strengthen the regulation and supervision of the property industry, we have reason to expect that the property industry will gradually get on the right track, and the service quality of property companies will also be significantly improved. Those property companies with poor service and poor attitude will eventually be eclipsed in the fierce market competition and eliminated by the owners.
Okay, let's dive into the hot topics right now. With the gradual standardization of the property management industry, the question of whether property fees should be paid for vacant houses has once again aroused social concern. Specifically, should the strata fees be waived entirely, partially waived, or paid in full on time? Historically, some regions have indeed introduced policies to reduce and exempt property fees for vacant houses, but the regulations of most provinces and cities still require vacant houses to pay property fees normally.
Nowadays, there is a conclusion on whether the vacant house should pay the property fee, because the Civil Code has a clear provision on whether the vacant house should pay the property fee:
The owner shall pay the property management fee to the property management service provider in accordance with the agreement, and if the property management service provider has provided services in accordance with the agreement and relevant provisions, the owner shall not refuse to pay the property management fee on the grounds that it has not accepted or does not need to accept the relevant property management services.The new regulations make it clear that even if the property is vacant, the property fee must be paid on time in accordance with the property contract. From what I've observed, those who argue that vacant houses shouldn't pay strata fees tend to be investors who invest in real estate. They tend to leave properties vacant in the hope of increasing their return on investment by reducing expenses. However, if vacant homes can be reduced from strata fees, this will undoubtedly further reduce costs for investors, which in turn may trigger more investment booms.
In addition, this practice is not fair to those who really need to buy a home. There is a certain cost for the property company to manage the entire community, and when there are a large number of vacant houses in the community and these houses do not pay the property fee, the income of the property company will not be enough to support the provision of high-quality services. This may lead to a decline in the overall quality of the community and a deterioration of the living environment. In order to maintain service levels, strata companies may choose to increase strata fees, but this will undoubtedly increase the burden on the owners who actually live there.
To sum up, the normal payment of property fees for vacant houses is not only reasonable, but also can effectively curb speculation in the property market and protect the rights and interests of real buyers. After all, even if the house is vacant, it still enjoys the management and services of the property company. Therefore, I believe that vacant houses should be subject to normal strata fees. What is your view on this issue?
Enjoy the New Year