The property management actually restricts residents' vehicles from entering and exiting the community.

This article is reprinted from Yangtze Evening News

Property management restricted homeowners’ vehicle access to the community

The court ruled that using such methods to collect parking fees constitutes abuse of management authority

The barrier gate in the incident community

Due to the homeowner’s failure to pay parking fees, the property management company, after a disagreement, restricted the homeowner’s vehicle access using methods such as “canceling automatic recognition for passage” and “requiring payment based on temporary parking standards.” Is this way of “collecting fees” legal? Recently, Taicang Court ruled on such a case.

Liu is a homeowner in a community in Taicang City, owning a property right to a parking space in the community. The property management company was the initial property service provider for the community, and the “Preliminary Property Service Contract” signed with the developer clearly states that property fees and parking fees are charged separately. When Liu purchased the property, he also signed a “Commercial Housing Sale Contract” with the developer, which specified the detailed parking fee standards.

However, starting from January 2025, Liu disputed the parking fee charges and stopped paying the fee. After multiple unsuccessful attempts to collect the fee, the property management company set Liu’s vehicle as a “temporary parking vehicle” in the community’s vehicle recognition system. Since then, each time Liu entered or exited the community and underground garage, his vehicle could not be recognized automatically, requiring manual gate lifting, and he had to pay a temporary parking fee to pass when leaving.

“Previously, the gate would lift automatically when entering or leaving, but now I have to wait for someone to open it, and I have to pay extra when leaving. It’s very inconvenient,” Liu said. He believes that the parking fee is included in the property fee he paid, and the property management company’s actions not only cause significant inconvenience to daily life but also infringe on his legal rights. Therefore, Liu filed a lawsuit with the Taicang Court, requesting the property management company to stop the infringement and issue an apology.

In response, a relevant person from the property management company stated, “We had no choice; the homeowner has not paid parking fees for a long time, and the company needs costs to operate, so we could only use this method to collect.” The person also said that they had communicated with Liu multiple times but had not reached an agreement.

After review, the court held that homeowners, as co-owners of the community’s public roads and owners of parking spaces, have the right to freely enter and exit the community and to use their parking spaces normally. The property management company’s setup of the vehicle recognition system was intended to facilitate residents’ access and maintain community order, not as a means to collect fees. Liu’s failure to pay parking fees as agreed constitutes a breach of contract, but the property management company should pursue rights through negotiation, reminders, or legal action, not by technical means restricting vehicle access. Setting Liu’s vehicle as a “temporary parking vehicle,” which hindered his access and required extra payment to leave, exceeded the reasonable scope of property services and constituted abuse of management authority, infringing on the homeowner’s legal rights. The court ultimately ordered the property management company to immediately lift the restriction on Liu’s vehicle and restore automatic recognition for passage.

The judge overseeing the case stated that property service companies must not restrict homeowners’ legal rights to access the community by means of their unpaid fees. Homeowners have co-ownership rights to the community’s public roads and exclusive use rights to their parking spaces. The right to freely enter and exit the community and to use parking spaces normally is a fundamental part of their legal rights. When property management companies seek to recover unpaid fees, their methods must be legal and reasonable, and they must not abuse management or technical means to restrict or interfere with homeowners’ basic rights. Meanwhile, homeowners should actively cooperate with property management requirements to jointly create a harmonious and orderly living environment.

Yangtze Evening News / Ziniu News Reporter Zhang Birong