The subject of prosecution obligation is incorrect. According to statistics, among the above cases, there are 6 cases in which the owner failed to sue the correct obligor, accounting for 35.3%. For example, some owners ask the industry Committee to provide the income and expenditure of residential parking fees, but the information is actually in the hands of property companies; For another example, some owners sued the property company for consulting the resolutions and meeting minutes of the industry Committee, which were actually kept by the industry Committee. Therefore, the judge suggested that car owners should carefully verify the custody of relevant materials before filing a lawsuit, and clarify the subject of obligation before filing a lawsuit to fully protect their rights and interests.
A few years ago, a residential area in Songjiang implemented the installation of stainless steel handrails at the door. At first, the owners thought it was a practical project of the government, and they didn't have to pay for it themselves. Later, they heard that this project is expected to use more than 560,000 yuan of maintenance funds. As a result, some owners reported the situation to the property department of the District Housing Authority and proposed to evaluate the project. In order to settle the contradiction, under the coordination of the street, three evaluations were carried out successively. The actual cost of the first appraisal is 320,000 yuan, the result of the second appraisal is 280,000 yuan, and the actual cost of the third appraisal is only 6.5438+0.9 million yuan.
The owner, Mr. He, took the Committee to court and asked the other party to publish the details of the maintenance fund income and expenditure in the past five years, the construction contract, construction drawing, invoice and audit report of the materials used in the tap water renovation project and handrail project, and the collection of parking fees, advertising income and housing rental income in the community from 2002 to 20 10.
The court held that the industry Committee should provide detailed accounts, engineering contracts and audit reports. As for the collection of parking fees, advertising income and housing rental income, Mr. He also has the right to know, but the parking fees and housing rental income are not collected by the industry Committee, and they are not the subject of obligation to announce the above matters. Mr. He also has no evidence to prove that the industry Committee has advertising income. In fact, the property management company is the main business entity. Therefore, Mr. He's petition was not fully supported.
In another case, the owner sued the industry Committee for consulting the detailed accounts of public income and the applicable detailed accounts of community construction expenses. However, the court held that the defendant's industry committee was not the main body that used the owner's position to operate, and the relevant account books were not kept by the defendant. The detailed accounts of public income should be in the property company. According to the relevant government documents, the construction fee of * * * is managed and used by the property service enterprise, and the accounts are also recorded by the property service enterprise, so the owner's application is not supported.
Myth 2: The scope of the right to know is infinitely expanded.
The improper expansion of the scope of the right to know is one of the reasons why the owner's appeal is not supported. For example, some owners claim to consult objective non-existent information, and some owners ask to consult the list of water tank cleaning expenses, invoices, water quality appraisal reports, etc. The above request is obviously beyond the scope of the legal right to know, and it is difficult to get support. Therefore, the judge suggested that the obligee should fully understand the scope of the right to know stipulated by law and judicial interpretation before prosecution, reasonably determine the litigation request, and prevent the unlimited expansion of the information acquisition boundary and increase the obligations of the provider when exercising the right.
What is the scope of the owner's right to know? Article 13 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Laws in the Trial of Disputes over Differentiated Ownership of Buildings stipulates that owners may request to publish and check the collection and use of maintenance funds for buildings and their ancillary facilities; Management regulations, rules of procedure of owners' congress, decisions of owners' congress or owners' committee and minutes of meetings; * * * * Property service contract, partial use and income; Layout of parking spaces and garages planned for parking in the building partition. Some owners' demands are obviously beyond this scope.
The owner of a residential district in Huangpu District sued the industry committee, and many litigation requests included consulting the financial audit report of the residential maintenance fund and the appraisal report of the decoration lobby. But in fact, the above report does not exist, and the court has no power to force one party to audit or review the price. Therefore, it is difficult for the court to support the owner's claim.
Many owners of a residential area in Xuhui sued the property company, and the litigation request needed to consult a lot of materials. Some repetitive requirements, such as residential property maintenance, renovation project, elevator maintenance and parking fees, advertising fees and other expenses and income. , should have been included in the residential special maintenance funds, property services funds and public income, should not be repeated. Of course, some of them are beyond the protection of the right to know. For example, they asked to see the "inspection report" of the annual inspection of lightning protection devices in residential areas and the records of "twice-a-year lightning protection device inspection" of property management companies. There is no evidence in the list of water tank cleaning expenses, invoices and water quality appraisal reports of relevant administrative departments.
Myth 3: irrational rights protection, excessive behavior
From some cases, it is found that some owners are dissatisfied with the management services provided by industry committees or property companies, and often express their opinions by posting posters, destroying public property, etc., and often intensify contradictions because of excessive persistence in litigation. For example, in four cases, the owner knew all the information of the application during the trial, but refused to accept the mediation of the court, and still insisted that the subject of the court's judgment obligation post and publish the above information again, which led to the intensification of conflicts between the parties. Therefore, it is suggested that the owner should exercise the right to know in a harmonious way, actively cooperate in the litigation process, and promote the settlement of disputes as soon as possible.
In June last year, a residential property company in Baoshan District began to publicize the price adjustment in the residential area, saying that the property fee had not been adjusted for ten years, and the company was overwhelmed and could not maintain the original service standard. It is planned to increase the price by 0.45 yuan per square meter from now on, and the industry Committee will sign a contract with the property company to compensate half of the public income of the property company. Owners learned that the industry committee set up a small treasury outside the account, and the maintenance fund of nearly160 thousand yuan suddenly dropped sharply, and asked the industry committee to disclose the account details and invoices in recent years to see where the money went.
However, under the excitement of the crowd, more than 40 owners sealed the door of the industry Committee and pulled out eye-catching banners in the community. But if this quarrel continues, the owners still can't see the accounts. Later, some owners sued the court and won the case, only to get back justice for everyone.
In a residential area in Jing 'an, the contradiction between several owners and industry committees is more prominent. In their view, the industry committee took advantage of the fact that most of the owners in this community were not in China, and hired property companies without reasonable and democratic elections. The financial information such as public income and management funds was not transparent enough. The industry committee posted notices on some major issues, but angry owners tore up the notices, thinking that they were exercising their rights, which would only make other owners unable to see the posted notices. There are also some owners who have applied for access to information. They did not inform the industry Committee, but posted "joint letters" directly on pillars, elevators and other places in the community hall, and some owners' signatures were forged. This is not conducive to protecting the owner's right to know. Later, the owner took the industry Committee and the property company to court, and the matter was satisfactorily resolved.
Myth 4: The right to know is not exercised in time.
Because the laws and regulations do not stipulate the preservation period of relevant materials, and some owners are not aware of rights protection, they fail to consult the materials in time, which leads to the fact that the materials cannot be provided for a long time and objectively cannot meet the requirements of the owners' right to know. In some cases, the owners filed a lawsuit several years later, even ten years later, asking for access to previous information, but it was difficult to get support because of the weakening interest relationship with the current owners. Therefore, the judge suggested that the owner should pay close attention to the information that should be disclosed in that year and actively consult it. If your right to know is not realized, you should seek judicial relief in time.
On 20 14, Mr. Shen sued the community industry Committee, claiming that he suddenly found unreasonable large expenditures in the accounts of the owners' meeting a few years ago and asked the court to order the industry Committee to publish the details of four income and expenditure accounts from 2008 to 2009. However, the current industry Committee of the community is newly established, and these accounts all occurred during the term of the previous industry Committee. In the written materials written by the industry committee to the court, the accounts of the last industry committee were audited on June+10, 5438, and no problems were found. The original industry Committee did not leave any information to check, and the current industry Committee can't find it.