The house is leaking, so you can't refuse to pay the property fee.
Some property buyers found that the house had quality problems after buying a house and refused to pay property fees. So, is this correct?
Last year, Mr. Li bought a house and moved in. Soon after, he found that there was water seepage in the ceiling during the rainy season. Although the property management company promptly informed the original construction unit to carry out waterproof treatment, Mr. Li still thought that the house decoration was damaged, which affected the residence, and he no longer paid the property management fee on this ground. If the two parties fail to negotiate, the property company applies for arbitration and asks Mr. Li to pay the property fee and bear the late payment fee. Mr. Li believes that his behavior belongs to the offset behavior permitted by law and insists on not paying the property fee.
In this regard, the arbitral tribunal held that the relationship between Mr. Li and the developer belongs to the commercial housing sales contract, and the developer has obligations such as maintenance compensation due to housing quality problems. However, the relationship between Mr. Li and the property management company belongs to the property service contract, and they are not the same legal relationship. Moreover, the property management company informed the developer of the water leakage problem in time and got maintenance, fulfilling the corresponding responsibilities. Therefore, it is inappropriate for Mr. Li to advocate offsetting property fees on the grounds of housing leakage. Finally, after mediation, Mr. Li paid the arrears of property fees to the property company.
If the sales agreement is terminated, the agency fee will be paid as usual.
Buying and selling houses through intermediaries, buyers and sellers finally reach an agreement and sign a sales contract. However, in the end, the buyers refused to pay the agency fee because they could not get the loan and failed to reach the actual transaction. Is this legal?
At the end of the year, Ms. Wang sold her house and garage in a residential area to Mr. Zhang through a housing agency, and agreed in the contract that Mr. Zhang would pay the intermediary service fee to the intermediary company. After the contract was signed, Mr. Zhang negotiated with Ms. Wang to terminate the house sales contract on the grounds that he could not apply for a bank loan. Since then, the intermediary company has repeatedly urged Mr. Zhang to pay the intermediary fee, but he has always refused to pay on the grounds that he has not achieved the purpose of buying and selling houses. In the case that the intermediary company failed to urge many times, the intermediary company applied for arbitration and asked Mr. Zhang to pay the agency fee.
Finally, the arbitration tribunal held that the intermediary company contributed to the establishment of the house sales contract, and the termination of the contract was not caused by the intermediary company, so Mr. Zhang should pay the remuneration according to the contract. In order to protect their legitimate rights and interests, when signing the agreement, both parties to the transaction can stipulate in detail who will pay the agency fee when the agreement cannot be fulfilled or dissolved, whether to pay or exempt all fees, etc.
Housing sales and loan disputes cannot be confused.
Last year, Ms. Wang signed a house sales contract with Mr. Wu, and Ms. Wang bought a set of commercial housing in a residential area from Mr. Wu, with a total price of 400,000 yuan. According to the contract, Ms. Wang paid the house price in one lump sum, and Mr. Wu assisted in the transfer of house property rights. Finally, Ms. Wang initiated arbitration because Mr. Wu could not fulfill his obligation to assist in issuing the certificate on time.
Finally, the arbitral tribunal found that this commercial house only sold for 400,000 yuan, which was significantly lower than the housing price in the same period in the region. Finally, Mr. Wu admitted that due to financial difficulties, he borrowed 6,543,800 yuan from Ms. Wang. Signing the house sales contract is just a formality, and he still has some debts to pay. Fearing that the house would be auctioned, he protected Ms. Wang's creditor's rights in the form of buying and selling houses.
Finally, this dispute was settled through mediation of private lending disputes. The difference between the price of the commercial housing sales contract signed by both parties and the market price is obvious. The relationship between the two parties, called the house sales contract, is actually a private lending relationship. The arbitration tribunal explained to Ms. Wang in accordance with the law that it should perform according to the true meaning of the parties and change the legal relationship. If Ms. Wang insists on the arbitration request that the relationship of the house sales contract remains unchanged, her request should be rejected.
(The above answers were published on 2016-12-01. Please refer to the actual situation for the current purchase policy. )
Click to view more real estate information.