On October 30, Beijing's Chaoyang District Court dispatched about 100 bailiffs and judges to 13 residential districts to enforce an earlier decision ordering the proprietors of 57 households to pay their property management fees. Sixteen house owners who were already in arrears and refused to pay were detained for 15 days.

 

For effect, the court invited television crew and journalists to cover the event.

 

The repercussions of the event are still felt one month later.

 

On November 26, the court enforced another decision in similar fashion.

 

 

From November 25 to 29, Beijing News distributed 100 questionnaires to residents involved and received 82 valid replies.

 

According to the survey results published in the paper on November 30, 65.9 percent of respondents said they were not satisfied with services provided by the property management companies. Even after having been forced to pay the management fee, 73.2 percent of respondents said the companies didn't improve their services, while 68.3 percent believed the incident worsened their relationship with the management companies.

 

Beijing's real estate boom has seen a corresponding increase in the number of lawsuits involving property management disputes. Of some 7,000 such cases, property management companies won more than 90 percent. Dissatisfied with the companies' poor service, and disregarding the "unfair" court decisions, many householders continue to withhold payment of management fees in retaliation.

 

Although it can be said that the court was merely lawfully enforcing a court order, questions have arisen with regard to its reasonableness. The China Economic Times on November 23 published a discussion on the subject.

 

"The court made residents pay by force, making examples of them as a warning to others," Zhang Ming, vice secretary-general of Beijing Consumers' Association, was quoted as saying.

 

"This violates the principle of impartiality of the law. There are many other instances where one could argue the courts ought to use force: ordering employers to pay migrant workers their salaries, for instance. But the courts haven't done so."

 

There are many ways to enforce a court order: freezing bank accounts, for example.  

 

"The Chaoyang court might have acted lawfully, but it was inappropriate for them to have ordered residents to be dragged out of their homes in full view of everyone, especially in the presence of the media," Wang Zhong, vice president of civil court at Beijing's No.1 Intermediate People's Court, said, commenting on the controversial case.

 

Qiu Baochang, a lawyer from Beijing Jiahui Law Firm, points out that court actions aren't necessarily a solution to the problem. This is because the root of the problem lies in shortcomings of the regulations in force.

 

A property developer decides on the property management company for a particular project and determines the management fee residents are to pay. A property management contract is then drafted and presented to potential buyers as a supplement to the sale contract. House-buyers have no say in the matter. Moreover, there is usually no evaluation or supervision mechanism for the services provided by the property managers.

 

The property management entrustment contract stipulates that owners must pay the management fee regularly, but doesn't specify under what circumstances they can refuse payment. It's an unfair contract that sabotages residents' chances in court, according to Li Renyu, dean of Beijing Technology and Business University's School of Law.

 

"In terms of legal knowledge and proceedings, individual proprietors are in weak bargaining position compared with the well-organized property developers and property management companies," Li said. "To tackle the problem at the root, the current model of property management needs to be perfected in line with a fair and reasonable principle to take into account the interests of both sides."

 

China Youth Daily reported on November 15 that an open letter written by Beijing lawyer Li Jingsong published on the Internet urging Chaoyang court's president to take the blame and resign, has received much public support.

 

It was revealed that residents were not informed in advance that the court would be using such measures of enforcement. The court claims they posted an announcement, but law experts argue that each and every resident ought to have been notified; a circular ought to have been delivered to every door.

 

According to property management regulations, residents are theoretically at liberty to set up committees to oversee the work of property management companies. They can even elect to appoint a new one.

 

But, as China Newsweek revealed, residents of the 13 districts involved in the court case had been wrangling with their property management companies for four years. Further, their applications to set up residents' committees were repeatedly refused by the authorities.

 

The China Economic Times reports that Beijing currently has over 3,000 residential districts and 2,458 property management companies. But because of poor organization and a lack of funds, only 339 residents' committees were established in the first six months of the year.

 

(China.org.cn by Shao Da, December 2, 2005)