The final adoption of the price adjustment plan should follow the principle of reasonableness and good faith and be approved by the owners of “more than half”
Civil Code School
Guangzhou Daily News (all media reporter Wei Lina correspondent Liu Hui) A property company in a community notified the property fee to increase the price, and said that "more than half of the owners have agreed to adjust the price."
The industry claimed that a certain person refused to accept the payment standard and refused to pay the property fee, and was sued to the court.
The Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court concluded the case a few days ago, arguing that the property company's price adjustment procedure was improper, and the owner paid the arrears according to the original property fee standard.
Property says agreeing to price increases has been "more than half"
Owner refused to pay property fee
A property committee has not yet been established in a community in Guangzhou. The property services for more than 200 houses and shops in the community are provided by a property service company selected by the developer. The property service fee is charged at a monthly rate of 1.6 yuan/square meter.
In September 2018, the property company unilaterally issued an announcement saying that it had reached an agreement with most residential owners to charge residential management fees at the standard of 1.85 yuan/square meter without holding a general meeting of owners to solicit the opinions of the owners. Sign the relevant documents at the management office before October 31.
Two months later, the property company issued another announcement saying that the owners who agreed to adjust the price to 1.85 yuan/square meter have reached "double over half", and then the property fee will be implemented according to the standard of 1.85 yuan/square meter.
The community industry claimed that a person refused to pay the property fee because he was not satisfied with the payment standard, and the property company took Zhang to court to recover the arrears of the property.
In order to prove the legitimacy of the price adjustment procedure, the property management company submitted to the court the "Statistical Form of Contracts for Owners Agreeing to Price Adjustment" and 196 agreements signed with the owners with the same format and content.
The court found that: all the above agreements were not attached with copies of real estate certificates and ID cards; the area of the property was not specified; the signatures of some of the agreements were incomplete or scribbled and could not be read clearly, or the word "generation" was written after the signature; Some of the agreements were signed after the property company issued a price adjustment announcement.
In this regard, the property management company explained that: the above-mentioned price adjustment agreement was signed after its staff came to communicate with each owner, and some of them were signed by the owner's family; Therefore, the owner's identity and real estate certificate were not checked one by one.
Court says property company's price adjustment procedure is inappropriate
The owner pays the arrears according to the original property fee standard
After the trial, the court held that the community involved in the case has not yet held a general meeting of owners, and is in the early stage of property service.
According to the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China", "Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Property Service Dispute Cases", "Property Management Regulations" and "Guangzhou Property Management Regulations" and other relevant regulations, the adjustment of property fees belongs to the whole group. For "other major matters related to joint ownership and joint management rights" jointly decided by the owners of the community, the price adjustment procedure shall be proper and orderly, and shall be subject to reasonable supervision.
Before the price adjustment, the property service company shall publicize the audit report and price adjustment plan of the property operation in the previous year to all the owners. Whether the final plan can be passed shall be jointly decided by all the owners. Only if the owners with more than half of the area and more than half of the votes) agree, the price can be adjusted successfully.
In this case, before the price adjustment, the property company did not publicize its audit report on the property operation of the previous year in advance, nor informed the relevant administrative departments. Instead, it unilaterally made relevant versions of the agreement and signed them one by one, and the process of signing the contract was not sufficient. Verify the identity of the owner. For some agreements, the signature and handwriting are illegible, incomplete or signed by others.
The above operation mode of price increase is completely dominated by the property management company, which cannot fully reflect the negotiation process between the owner and the property management company, and lacks the supervision of the relevant administrative departments. Manage the right to know and the right to choose in matters of major public interest.
After the second instance trial, the Guangzhou Intermediate People's Court found that the property company's price adjustment procedure was improper, and ruled that Zhang should pay the property arrears according to the original property fee standard.
Judge's statement
Reasonable adjustment of fee standards should also follow due process
Guangzhou Intermediate Court judge Liu Hui said that with the popularization of property services, property disputes frequently occurred, among which disputes over property fee price adjustments were particularly sensitive and prominent.
The owner often wonders: "The service level remains the same, why does the property fee increase every year?" But the property company always says: "It has been losing money, and if it doesn't increase the price, it will have to leave!" What is right and wrong?
In this regard, the judge reminded that property service charges should follow the principles of quality and price, fairness and openness, and reasonable and honesty.
On the one hand, property service charges are the basis for maintaining the normal operation of property service companies and community property management.
Owners who enjoy property services should pay the corresponding consideration, that is, property fees.
On the other hand, for the increase in property costs due to the increase of service items, the improvement of service quality, and the increase in costs, the property company has the right to request a reasonable adjustment of the cost standard, but it should follow the principle of due process, fully negotiate with the owner according to legal procedures, and pay If the owner agrees, otherwise it will be regarded as an unauthorized adjustment and cannot be supported by the law.