Real Estate Perspective... Does the property company need to bear the responsibility for the loss of decoration downstairs caused by the blockage of the pipeline and the return of water?

Published:

2022-11-04

1. Introduction The disputes caused by pipeline blockage are increasing day by day, and the phenomenon of the owner's public sewer pipeline blockage is particularly prominent. Blocking the return water will not only cause the blockage of the house to soak, but also leak to the adjacent residents, causing the loss of decoration downstairs. In view of this kind of water leakage incident, the owner sued the court and asked the upstairs residents and the property company to bear the liability for damages. The property company believes that the pipeline blockage is located in the exclusive part of the owner's house, which does not belong to its service scope and has no management and maintenance obligations. In that case, does the property company need to bear the responsibility for the decoration loss of the owner downstairs? 2. Cases and Referee's Point of View The (I) property company has the obligation to maintain and maintain the sewage pipeline. If it fails to prove that it has fulfilled the obligation of maintenance and maintenance, and is at fault for the occurrence of the damage consequences, it shall be liable according to the degree of fault. Case 1: Dispute over Compensation for Property Damage by Han Yanzhong and Chen Zenghuai (Weihai Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province [2022] Lu 10 Min Zhong No. 1550) Referee's point of view: Yintan Property Company, as the property management company of the residential area where Chen Zenghuai lives, maintains, repairs, serves and manages the public facilities and equipment of the community. Although the sewage pipe is located in the owner's home, it cannot be used by one owner alone, so it cannot belong to the owner's exclusive part and should be a common part. In this case, the vertical main road located in the owner's home is the main drainage pipe used by the residents of the building involved in the lawsuit, which should belong to the public facilities maintained and managed by Yintan Property Company. Yintan Property Company's defense claim that the pipeline involved in the case belongs to the owner's exclusive part is unfounded in law and will not be supported. Silver Beach Property Company has the obligation to maintain and maintain the common drainage pipes involved in the above case. At present, Yintan Property Company has not submitted relevant evidence to prove that it has fulfilled the above-mentioned maintenance and maintenance obligations and is at fault, and should be liable for compensation for Chen Zenghuai's property losses. The court of second instance upheld that the blocked sewage pipeline was a common part. As the property service provider, Yintan Property Company has the maintenance obligation and shall be responsible for improper maintenance for the damage consequences involved in the case. In this case, the cause of the pipeline blockage could not be found out. The accident occurred in winter. The existing evidence showed that the property company did not take thermal insulation measures for the sewage pipeline. There was no other evidence to prove that it had fulfilled its maintenance and maintenance obligations and was at fault for the loss. The court considered that it should bear 50% of the responsibility for the accident based on the evidence in the case and life experience. Case 2: Dispute over Property Damage Compensation between Zhang Xiaoyan, Fan Kai and Inner Mongolia Nailun Property Service Co., Ltd. (Inner Mongolia Autonomous Region Higher People's Court [2020] Neimin No. 90) Referee's point of view: Nailun Property Company, as a property service enterprise in the residential area where Zhang Xiaoyan and Fan Kai live, has the obligation to maintain and repair the water supply and discharge pipelines to ensure the smooth flow of public water supply and discharge pipelines. Drainage through pipelines is the right of all residents. The normal discharge of sewage by residents through public sewer pipelines does not necessarily lead to pipeline blockage. As a property service enterprise hired by the owner, Nailun Property Company, if it can actively perform its daily dredging and inspection obligations, the damage in this case will not necessarily occur. In the previous trials in this case, Nailun Property Company did not submit evidence to prove that it performed this duty. Nailun Property Company did not fully perform its daily maintenance and management duties, resulting in the loss of 103 room due to the overflow of sewage from the 203 room kitchen. Nailun Property Company proposed that the upstairs residents should be responsible, but did not provide evidence to prove it. Although Nailun Property Company carried out some investigation work after finding the water leak and also notified Zhang Xiaoyan to go home for inspection, it did not take further appropriate measures such as notifying the residents upstairs to stop using the water pipes and dredging the water pipes in time to reduce the damage consequences when there was a great possibility of blockage of the water pipes after the investigation. Nairun Property Company is at fault for failing to properly perform its legal and contractual obligations, and there is a causal relationship between the behavior and the result of the damage. As the person responsible for the management of public facilities in the community, it should be mainly liable for the damage. In this case, Zhang Xiaoyan's 203 room and Fan Kai's 103 room were uninhabited for a long time, and the water supply and discharge were not blocked in the self-use part of Zhang Xiaoyan's house. The reason for the story was that the public water supply and discharge pipes were not blocked. As the manager of public facilities, Nailun Property Company did not submit evidence to prove that it fulfilled its obligation to dredge the pipes and assumed the main responsibility for the accident. (II), if the evidence provided by the property company is not sufficient to prove that the management obligation has been reached before the incident, or there are other faults that cause the damage, it shall also be liable for damages. Case 1: Zhao Jinsheng, Rushan Haojie Property Service Co., Ltd. and other civil judgments of second instance on property damage compensation disputes (Weihai Intermediate People's Court of Shandong Province [2022] Lu 10 Min Zhong No. 17) Judging from the agreement of the "Property Management Service Contract for Daqing Yiyuan Community and Jingyuan Community in Rushan City", Haojie Property, as the property management company of the community involved in the case, shall perform the maintenance of the building and its ancillary facilities, The statutory and contractual obligations of property services such as environmental sanitation and related order management and maintenance. In the first instance, Haojie Property recognized the company's obligation to maintain the pipeline involved, and the pipeline involved could not be determined by identification and other means because it had been unblocked. Therefore, Haojie Property claimed that it had no obligation to maintain and manage the pipeline involved, and the court did not support it. Evidence provided by Haojie Property can also confirm that the pipelines involved have been corroded for a long time and have been blocked many times since 2019. Although Haojie Property claimed that it had already maintained and overhauled the pipelines involved, it provided an on-site maintenance video, but the video was used to dredge the pipelines involved after the incident, and other evidence provided by Haojie Property was not sufficient to prove that it had fulfilled its obligations of prompting, maintenance and management before the incident. Therefore, the court of first instance found that Haojie Property did not timely maintain and repair the pipelines involved and fundamentally eliminate the faults, and did not timely find out the soaking conditions in the homes of Suo Yongxiang and Li Hong. It was at fault for the occurrence of damage consequences and should appropriately bear the liability for damages. There was nothing wrong with it, and the court maintained it. During the first instance of this case, the court found that the sewer involved in the case had been blocked, but the property company did not completely eliminate the fault, and the maintenance records provided by the property company after the incident were not enough to confirm that it had fulfilled its prompt, maintenance, and maintenance before the incident. Management obligations. During the second instance, although the property company provided the water supply and drainage inspection and maintenance records of the residential area involved in the case, it did not provide it in the first instance, which is not new evidence, and the property company did not give a reasonable explanation, so the court of second instance did not accept it. Case 2: Civil Judgment of First Instance on Property Damage Compensation Dispute between Zhang Jianxin, Wei Rongfang and Shanghai Wanya Property Management Co., Ltd., Gu Nanhong (Shanghai Pudong New Area People's Court [2020] Shanghai 0115 No. 31086 Minchu) The referee's point of view: the leakage area is the lowest exit of the drainage riser of the whole building. although the defendant wan ya property provided its regular inspection records of dredging the sewer pipe, it could not prove that it kept the main sewer pipe unblocked all the time, especially failed to find out the hidden danger of leakage caused by the residents' conversion of laundry into cloakroom in time. therefore, the hospital believed that wan ya property company failed to fulfill the relevant maintenance and maintenance agreements of the property service contract, the plaintiff shall also be liable for the losses. In this case, the plaintiff, defendant Gu Nanhong and Qiu Tianhao all converted the laundry area of the north room into a cloakroom. Although the property company provided regular inspection records for dredging the sewer pipes, it did not earnestly fulfill the relevant maintenance and maintenance agreements of the property service contract, and promptly discovered the hidden risks of household decoration and reconstruction, and was at fault for the occurrence of this water leakage accident. Bear the corresponding responsibility. (III) the property company proves that it has fulfilled the obligation of proper maintenance and communication and coordination, and that there is no fault in the occurrence of the damage consequences, it shall not be liable. Case 1: Dispute over Compensation for Property Damage by Li Gang and Zheng Pengcheng (Shouguang Municipal People's Court of Shandong Province [2022] Lu 0783 Minchu No. 2910) Referee's point of view: For the plaintiff's claim of fault liability based on the negligence of the maintenance and repair duties of Zhongnan Property Company. After examination, the court held that if the perpetrator infringes upon the civil rights and interests of others by fault and causes damage, he shall bear tort liability. The proof of the property company is sufficient to prove that it has fulfilled its obligations of proper maintenance and communication and coordination, and there is no fault in the occurrence of the consequences of the damage, so the plaintiff claims that it is liable for compensation, and the rationale is insufficient, and the court does not support it. In this case, after the property company found water seepage, it contacted the owner in time, dredged the pipeline, and cleaned up the blockage as leftovers and oil stains. During the trial, the property company provided a copy of the house purchase contract, the owner's management manual, WeChat chat records, photos, and regular dredging records to prove that it has fulfilled its obligations of proper maintenance and communication and coordination, and is not at fault for the damage results and is not responsible. Case 2: dispute over compensation for property damage between Bei Di and Beijing Purui Property Management Co., Ltd. (Beijing Higher People's Court (2021) Jingmin Shen No. 3670) Referee's point of view: on the question of whether Preh Property Company should be liable for the loss of water leakage in the house involved. According to the facts found out, house 304 has been reported for repair many times due to water leakage. after receiving the water leakage report, preh property company carried out various work such as inspection, coordination with the maintenance personnel of the heating company for investigation, water absorption treatment, etc. to alleviate and solve the water leakage situation of the house involved. It can be seen that Preh Property Company has taken active measures in a timely manner on the leakage of the houses involved, fulfilled the corresponding management, maintenance, inspection and other property service obligations, and achieved certain results. Combined with the application form for decoration of No. 404 and No. 504 houses and the evidence such as decoration acceptance and settlement form, it can be concluded that Preh Property Company has informed the matters needing attention in the relevant decoration behavior, and there is no case of neglecting to perform the property service obligations, and there is no need to be responsible for the leakage losses of the houses involved. In this case, the property company promptly took positive measures on the leakage of the house involved in the case, informed the matters needing attention in the decoration behavior, and fulfilled the corresponding property service obligations such as management, maintenance and inspection, so it did not need to bear the responsibility. 3. Summary Article 56 of the property management regulations of Shandong Province stipulates that "the contents of property services mainly include the following matters: (1) the use, management and maintenance of common parts of the property and common facilities and equipment; the maintenance of (II) public greening; the maintenance of environmental sanitation in (III) public areas; the assistance and management services for the maintenance of order and safety precautions in (IV) public areas; (V) the obligations of stopping and reporting prohibited acts in the use of property; (VI) the accounting management of property maintenance, renewal and renovation costs; (VII) property service files and the custody of property files; (VIII) other property service matters". It can be seen that the property company has legal obligations to manage and maintain the shared facilities and equipment in the community. The main drainage and sewage pipes used by the residents in the community belong to public facilities. The property company should manage and maintain them and ensure smooth flow. The "Standard for Property Management Service Level of Ordinary Residential Quarters" (for Trial Implementation) issued by the China Property Management Association stipulates that shared rain and sewage pipes shall be dredged once a year, and rain and sewage wells shall be inspected once a month/quarter/half a year according to different grade standards, and shall be cleared in time according to the inspection situation. Property companies should also refer to industry standards and be responsible for cleaning and dredging pipelines in the community. The "Property Service Contract" and "Preliminary Property Service Agreement" clearly stipulate the property service quality standards with reference to the property service level standards issued by various cities. For example, the property service agreement in Jinan City stipulates that the property service standards provided reach the five-star standard stipulated in the "Jinan City Ordinary Residential Property Service Grade Standard" (Jijiafei Zi [2012] No. 76), which specifies that the property company should check the rainwater pipes, septic tanks and other parts once a quarter and clean them twice a year to ensure smooth drainage and no blockage. Therefore, based on the contract, the property company should also assume the management and maintenance obligations of the public sewer. Article 35 of the "Property Management Regulations" stipulates that "property service companies shall provide corresponding services in accordance with the provisions of the property service contract. If the property service enterprise fails to fulfill the agreement of the property service contract, resulting in damage to the personal and property safety of the owner, it shall bear the corresponding legal liability in accordance with the law." therefore, if the property company fails to perform its obligations in accordance with the contract, it shall be liable for the property loss of the owner downstairs if it is at fault. 4. Risk Alert With the increasing number of similar disputes, property companies should pay attention to strictly in accordance with legal provisions, contractual agreements and industry standards to perform maintenance and management obligations, regularly dredge pipelines, clear them as appropriate, and keep regular maintenance records. At the same time, the property company should strengthen regular inspections and check the risk of water leakage, notify the relevant owners in time after finding abnormalities, and assist in dredging the pipeline to avoid further expansion of losses. In case of similar disputes, the property company shall do a good job in retaining relevant evidence, and effectively record and preserve the on-site cleaning process and the items cleaned up. If the lawsuit is involved in the later period, the property company can submit to the court regular pipeline dredging records, on-site photos, communication and coordination records, photos, videos and other evidence to prove that it has fulfilled its obligations to manage and maintain the pipelines involved before the incident, avoided its own risks, and also helped the court to better find out the facts of the case and the cause of the blockage, and clearly define the responsibilities of all parties.

Key words: