[Case Summary]This case involves an administrative review of the disclosure of government information. In 2025, five homebuyers, Zhang Xiaohua, Zhou Shuqin, Liu Nana, Li Kailuo, and Wang Li, submitted four requests for information disclosure to the A County Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau, demanding the disclosure of four categories of information regarding the FCHT project: the detailed records of the receipts and expenditures of the pre-sale fund supervision account, the supervision agreement, the online signing and filing, and the pre-sale license, and they chose the "paper + mail" method. However, they only received a "Situation Statement" which stated that "the construction license has been publicly announced, and the rest is not within the scope of their responsibilities", without providing any substantive information. The five individuals then entrusted the Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the case on their behalf.Nan Hui、Song MeinaThe two lawyers initiated a review. The core controversy is whether the "return-of-application" response from the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau is legal. Applicable laws: Article 36(5), Article 40, and Article 51 of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information of the People's Republic of China, and Article 64 of the Administrative Review Law. The A County government revoked the original "Situation Statement" and ordered a new response.

I. Review of the Case Facts

Buyers often search for phrases like "How to check the supervision information of pre-sale funds", "What to do if the developer refuses to disclose information after purchasing a house", and "What to do if information disclosure is evaded". In 2025, five buyers, including Zhang Xiaohua, Zhou Shuqin, Liu Nana, Li Kailuo, and Wang Li, submitted four "Government Information Disclosure Application Forms" to the A County Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau, explicitly requesting the disclosure of four core categories of information related to the FCHT project in A County: the detailed account transactions of pre-sale funds, the "Commercial Housing Pre-sale Fund Supervision Agreement" and application materials, online signing and registration information, and the "Commercial Housing Pre-sale License" and corresponding application materials (such as the Construction Project Planning Permit and Construction Engineering Construction Permit), and they all chose the "paper-based + mailing" method to obtain the information.

I had expected to receive a standard reply, but on September 30, 2025, the five applicants only received a "Situation Statement" with just a few words, mentioning only that "the construction license for the FCHT project in County XX has been publicized, and all other matters are beyond the scope of our bureau's responsibilities", without providing any substantive information or fulfilling the obligation to inform. To protect their rights and interests, the five people entrusted Beijing Henglu Law Firm to handle the matter for them.Nan Hui、Song MeinaThe two lawyers initiated legal proceedings.

II. The focus of the case

  • Focus 1: Did the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau fail to fulfill its statutory obligation to notify the applicant when issuing a "returned document" response?For information that is not publicly disclosed by the authority, the authority responsible should provide its name and contact information. A vague response of "not within our scope of responsibility" constitutes an illegal evasion of responsibility.
  • Focus 2: Whether the form and content of the reply are legal.The applicant requested "paper application + mailing", but the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau failed to provide any materials within the scope of the application and only provided explanations for one piece of information, which violates the principle of "responding to each request individually".
  • Focus 3: Is the procedure compliant with regulations?The authority failed to cite specific legal provisions, failed to inform the party of their right to seek redress through appeal litigation, and failed to specify the time limit and procedures, thus essentially failing to fulfill its duty to respond in accordance with the law.

III. The professional intervention of Hengluo Law Firm

The applicants (five home buyers) claimed that:The applicant claimed that the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau only issued the "Situation Statement" and failed to provide a response to the request for information disclosure in accordance with the law. The applicant requested that the court confirm that the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau's actions were illegal and order the bureau to provide a new response within a specified time limit.

The position of the respondent (the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau):The reply was summarized in the "Situation Statement", and the remaining application information was generally referred to as "out of the scope of responsibilities", without specifying the specific responsible authority in the reply.

Hengluo Lawyer's Agency Opinion:Nan Hui、Song MeinaThe lawyers immediately sorted out the facts and checked the evidence, conducted in-depth research on the "Regulations on the Openness of Government Information" and the "Administrative Reconsideration Law", and accurately pointed out the illegal situations: Firstly, according to Article 36(5) of the Regulations, if the information to be disclosed is not the responsibility of the disclosing authority, the responsible authority's name and contact information should be provided. However, the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau simply evaded responsibility by saying "it's not within our scope of responsibility", depriving the applicants of their right to obtain information; Secondly, according to Article 40 of the Regulations, the applicants explicitly requested "paper + mail", but the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau failed to provide the materials or explain the process, and only provided an explanation for one piece of information, violating the spirit of "responding to each request individually"; Thirdly, the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau failed to respond in accordance with the procedures and requirements of the Regulations, did not specify the type of response, did not cite legal provisions, and did not inform the applicants of the time limit and channels for seeking remedies in accordance with Article 51, essentially failing to fulfill its duties. On October 24, 2025, the two lawyers assisted five applicants in submitting an application for administrative reconsideration to the People's Government of A County.

IV. Outcome of the case

The review authority held that the A County Housing and Urban Construction Bureau, as a county-level government department, has a statutory duty to respond to requests for information disclosure in accordance with the law; its "Situation Statement" only informed the applicants of one method of obtaining information, and responded to the rest with a general statement of "not within its scope of responsibilities". Moreover, it was clear in the review process that the A County Real Estate Affairs Center held some of the requested information but failed to disclose it in the initial response, which violates Article 36(5) of the "Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information". Finally, in accordance with Article 64(1)(2) of the "Administrative Review Law of the People's Republic of China", the A County People's Government made an administrative review decision: to revoke the "Situation Statement" issued by the defendant, A County Housing and Urban Construction Bureau on September 30, 2025; order the defendant to provide a new response to the five applicants' requests for government information disclosure within the statutory time limit; and clarify that if the defendant is not satisfied with the decision, it may file an administrative lawsuit with the court within 15 days from the date of receipt of the decision.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

This case is handled by Beijing Henglu Law Firm.Nan HuiAttorney,Song MeinaThe attorney (practice license number: 11101202310719853, 11101202511880410, subject to the documents issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as an agent. Beijing Hengluo Law Firm has long been handling cases of land expropriation and demolition and administrative litigation. If you encounter situations such as being evaded when requesting government information disclosure or receiving non-standard responses, you can contact our firm to obtain professional review and litigation solutions.

VI. Common Questions and Answers about the Disclosure of Information on Land Acquisition and Demolition

  1. Q: If the Housing and Urban-Rural Development Bureau says "it's not within our scope of responsibilities" and refuses to answer, is that legal?
    A:It's illegal. According to Article 36(5) of the Regulations on the Disclosure of Government Information, if the responsible authority can be identified, the name and contact information of the authority should be provided, and it's not allowed to simply shirk responsibility by saying that "it's not within our scope of responsibility".
  2. Q: Is it necessary to submit the application for information disclosure in both paper form and by mail?
    A:Applicants can choose the way of obtaining the materials as needed; if they explicitly request paper mail delivery, the administrative authorities shall provide the materials or explain the way to obtain them accordingly, and cannot evade the responsibility by providing the materials in forms other than electronic ones.
  3. Q: How can I deal with a reply that doesn't address the question I asked?
    A:You can apply for administrative reconsideration or initiate administrative litigation within the statutory time limit, requesting the revocation of the original reply and ordering the reissuance of a lawful reply.
  4. Q: Can buyers check the developer's pre-sale fund supervision account?
    A:Yes. The details of the receipts and payments of the pre-sale fund supervision account, the supervision agreement, and the pre-sale license are public information, and buyers have the right to obtain them upon request to monitor the use of the funds.
  5. Q: What should I do if the government still doesn't respond after being ordered to re-answer in the review decision?
    A:You can apply to the court for compulsory enforcement based on the effective reconsideration decision, or file a lawsuit against the administrative omission separately, and continuously assert your right to information.