The owner of the community said that he stacked items containing multiple collectible banknotes in the corridor at the entrance of his house, and later found that the items were missing. After verification, it was found that the community property company had cleaned up and sold it, so he sued the property company to the court, demanding compensation for the property. Loss of 3000 yuan.
After hearing the case, the Haidian Court ruled to reject all the owners' claims.
The plaintiff, Mr. Sun, claimed that, in order to facilitate the housework, his lover put the books he had kept for many years in the sorting box, and temporarily placed them in the corridor at the entrance, but his lover did not know that there were many collections of the fourth page in the books with a face value of 100. Yuan Renminbi.
After that, he went shopping with his lover and found that the sorting box was missing when he returned home, so he called the police. After on-site inquiry by the police at the police station, he learned that the staff of the property management company cleaned up the sorting box and sold it as waste. The property management company refused to take any damages. compensation.
Mr. Sun believed that the property company failed to fulfill its obligation to inform and cleaned up the sorting boxes temporarily placed in the corridor at the entrance, which seriously violated his legitimate rights and interests, so he filed the above-mentioned petition with the court.
The defendant property company argued that it did not agree with Mr. Sun's claim.
First of all, Mr. Sun signed the "Occupancy Agreement" when he checked in. The agreement clearly stipulated that the resident shall not occupy public facilities such as stairwells and passages and affect the normal use of others.
Mr. Sun should abide by the content of the agreement, and if he causes losses due to stacking personal items in violation of the agreement, he should bear the consequences.
Secondly, a resident of the community was caught on fire before, and the property notified the fire and posted a notice on the door of the community unit, informing everyone that they would start to clean up all aspects of illegally stacked items in public spaces such as public corridors in the community building.
Later, the company personnel found that there were people stacking double-door wardrobes in the corridor at Mr. Sun's entrance. Since they could not be moved at all, they took pictures, but did not clean up any items in this corridor.
Afterwards, Mr. Sun approached the company manager to report the lost property, but the company did not take away and sell the said items.
To sum up, Mr. Sun's claims are inconsistent with the facts and have no legal basis. The losses he stated are caused by his own reasons and have nothing to do with the company.
After the trial, the court held that, in order to maintain the normal life order of the community, eliminate the hidden fire hazards in the community, and protect the life and property safety of the community owners, the property company notified the community owners in advance to take back the items stacked in the corridor, in front of the building, and behind the building by themselves. Under such circumstances, the debris still stacked in the public area in the community should be cleaned up as unowned property. This rectification act falls within the scope of legitimate performance of duties and does not infringe on the legitimate property rights and interests of the community owner.
As the owner of the community, Mr. Sun should cooperate with the property company to clean up and rectify the security of the community.
Mr. Sun now claims that the property company illegally punished the stored property in the process of cleaning up the items stacked in the corridor, causing him an economic loss of 3,000 yuan. He did not provide sufficient evidence, and it did not match the facts found by the court. Therefore, the court filed a lawsuit against Mr. Sun. request, not supported.
The court finally dismissed all of Mr. Sun's claims.
After the verdict was pronounced, neither party appealed, and the verdict is now in effect.
(The characters in the text are all pseudonyms) This group of texts / Wu Kun (Beijing Haidian Court)
Judge's statement
At present, similar to the situation in the community where Mr. Sun lives in this case, it is very common for residents to place shoe cabinets in front of their homes and stack items in corridors. This situation does not comply with relevant regulations and is prone to property disputes.
The common part of the building shall not be occupied at will
Article 271 of "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that the owner shall have the ownership of the exclusive part of the building, such as the residence and the commercial house, and enjoy the rights of co-ownership and joint management of the common part other than the exclusive part. .
Article 3 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Disputes over Differential Ownership of Buildings stipulates that public passages such as passages, stairs, and lobbies, auxiliary facilities and equipment such as fire protection and public lighting, refuge floors, and equipment floors Or structural parts such as equipment rooms should be identified as common parts.
It can be seen that, except for the exclusive part, the common part of the building is jointly owned by all the owners, and the owner cannot occupy it at will.
In this case, Mr. Sun stacked double-door wardrobes and other items in the corridor, which was privately occupied by the common part and violated the legitimate rights and interests of other common owners.
Occupy at will or bear legal consequences
Article 286 of the "Civil Code of the People's Republic of China" stipulates that the owners' meeting or the owners' committee shall be responsible for any damages caused by the arbitrary disposal of garbage, the discharge of pollutants or noise, the breeding of animals in violation of regulations, the construction of illegal structures, the occupation of passages, and the refusal to pay property fees. Acts against the legitimate rights and interests of others have the right to request the perpetrator to stop infringing, remove obstacles, eliminate danger, restore the status quo, and compensate for losses in accordance with laws, regulations, and management statutes.
If the owner or other actor refuses to perform the relevant obligations, the parties concerned may report or make a complaint to the relevant administrative department, and the relevant administrative department shall handle it according to law.
In addition, the stairwells of residential buildings, especially high-rise buildings, are generally fire passages. For those who place personal items to occupy the passages, it is very easy to cause fire risks, or they may bear corresponding legal liabilities.
According to the "Fire Protection Law", no unit or individual may occupy, block or close evacuation passages, safety exits or fire truck passages.
Individuals who occupy, block, close evacuation passages, safety exits, or otherwise obstruct safe evacuation shall be given a warning or a fine of not more than 500 yuan; if a unit violates the above provisions, it shall be ordered to make corrections, and a fine of not less than 5,000 yuan but not more than 50,000 yuan shall be imposed.
In this case, Mr. Sun may have to bear corresponding legal liabilities for violating the above regulations by stacking items in the corridor.
Owners should also actively fulfill their obligations as owners
In this case, in order to eliminate the hidden fire hazards in the community and protect the life and property safety of the community owners, the property management company notified the community owners in advance to clean up the personal items stacked in the corridor by themselves, which is a necessary measure to perform property management.
The owners of the community actively cooperated with the clean-up according to the notice and ensured the smooth flow of fire escapes, which not only fulfilled the obligations of the owners, but also guaranteed the safety of their own lives and properties.
After receiving the notice, Mr. Sun still did not clean up the relevant items. This behavior did not comply with the relevant regulations, would affect the normal passage of others, and would also cause the risk of damage to his own property, which is really inappropriate.
As for Mr. Sun's claim that the property loss was caused by the property company's cleaning up, the court could not support it because Mr. Sun did not submit sufficient evidence to prove that the loss was related to the property company and could not prove the specific loss.