Recently, a three-year-long property management dispute has drawn widespread attention. Three years ago, the homeowners’ association of a residential community lawfully terminated its contract with the original property management company and hired a new one. However, after its departure, the former company sued several homeowners for unpaid fees accrued during the period it actually provided services. The court ruled that despite being dismissed, the company had established a de facto service relationship with the homeowners during its tenure, and thus was entitled to collect the outstanding fees. The court ultimately upheld the company’s claim and rejected the homeowners’ defense that payment was unnecessary because the company had already been replaced.This case clarifies that even if a property management company is dismissed or exits early, it retains the legal right to claim fees for the period during which it genuinely delivered services. It also serves as a reminder to homeowners that refusing to pay must be based on legitimate grounds—such as severely substandard service—not merely on the fact that the company is no longer in charge. The ruling sets an important precedent for regulating property handovers and protecting the rights of all parties involved.
近日，一起历时三年的物业纠纷案件引发广泛关注。某小区业主大会于三年前依法解聘原物业公司，并选聘新物业接管。然而，原物业公司在退场后仍向业主追索其服务期间（退场前）未结清的物业费，并将多名拒缴业主诉至法院。法院经审理认为，尽管物业公司已被解聘，但其在实际提供物业服务期间，与业主之间已形成事实上的物业服务合同关系，业主应支付相应费用。最终，法院判决支持原物业公司索要欠费的诉求，驳回业主以‘已被解聘’为由拒付的抗辩。此案明确了即便物业公司被提前解约或退场，只要其曾实际履行服务义务，就有权依法主张对应期间的物业费。同时提醒业主：拒缴物业费需有合法依据，如服务质量严重不达标等，而非仅因公司已退场。该判决对规范物业交接、保障各方合法权益具有典型意义。
原创文章，作者：admin，如若转载，请注明出处：https://avine.cn/2399.html