[Direct answer]Generally, it is required to pay. Elevators are auxiliary facilities and common areas of buildings, and their operating and maintenance costs should be shared by owners. According to Article 283 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021), the apportionment of expenses for buildings and their ancillary facilities shall be determined in accordance with the agreement, and where there is no agreement or the agreement is unclear, it shall be determined according to the proportion of the area of the owners' exclusive parts. Where the management rules, the owners' general meeting resolutions, or the property service contracts stipulate that the first floor shall not be apportioned or shall be apportioned less, the stipulations shall be implemented in accordance with the agreement; where there are no such stipulations, it is difficult for the first floor to refuse to pay on the grounds that it does not use the elevator. Where the owners refuse to pay, the property management company, the owners' committee, or the owners who have paid on behalf of them may legally urge them to pay or sue them. It is recommended to first check the apportionment agreement of the residential community before making a decision. For more details, please refer toLegal services for real estate transactions and construction projects.

1. Problem background and typical scenarios

After the elevator was installed and put into use, the electricity bills, maintenance fees, annual inspection fees, and repair fees increased month by month. The residents on the first floor and those on the upper floors often argued over the cost sharing: the residents on the first floor claimed that they never used the elevator and did not benefit from it; while the residents on the upper floors believed that the elevator was a common facility and the costs should be shared by everyone. Some residential communities signed cost-sharing agreements when installing the elevators, while others only had verbal arrangements from the homeowners' committee or the property management company. Some property management companies even included the elevator fees in the property management fees and collected them together. In the old residential communities in Beijing, it was not uncommon for the residents on the first floor to refuse to pay after the elevators were put into use because the cost-sharing rules were not clearly written at the time. The nature of the fees, the content of the agreements, and the cost-sharing standards are the three keys to resolving such disputes. For more information, please refer to the relevant rules.Beijing Henglu Law FirmPractical articles in the real estate field.

II. Key points of contention

There are four focal points of the dispute. Firstly, the nature of the elevator operating fees: whether they belong to the operating and maintenance costs of the common areas' ancillary facilities or are part of the property service fees, directly affects the charging entity and standards. Secondly, whether there are agreements: if there are clear provisions in the cost-sharing agreements during installation, management regulations, owners' assembly resolutions, and property service contracts, they shall be given priority in application; some residential communities stipulate that the first and second floors shall be charged at half the rate or exempted from fees. Thirdly, the validity of the first floor's defense: if there are no stipulations for discounts or exemptions, non-use generally does not constitute a legitimate reason for refusing to pay; if there are stipulations, they shall be handled in accordance with the agreements. Fourthly, the allocation standards: they can be based on the proportion of the exclusive area, or on the floor coefficient scheme. The standards must be determined through agreements or joint decisions of the owners, and the validity of the standards set unilaterally is questionable.

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

The fee standard is determined by the effective agreement and is the basic judgment of Henglue Law Firm in handling similar cases. Attorney Tian Jiaoyan once represented a dispute case of pre-sale contracts for commercial housing: On April 30, 2021, Zhang Quan signed the "Beijing City Commercial Housing Pre-sale Contract" with Beijing A Real Estate Development Co., Ltd. to purchase a house at No. 302 in a certain residential area, with a floor area of 99.41 square meters and a total price of 6,841,972 yuan, and agreed to deliver the house before June 15, 2023; the supplementary agreement signed on the same day stipulated that if the seller delayed the delivery due to its own reasons, a 90-day grace period would be granted, and after the expiration of the grace period, the buyer would pay the breach of contract penalty at a rate of 0.01% of the total price paid per day. However, A Company failed to send the move-in notice until February 27, 2024, and the buyer completed the move-in on March 5, with a delay of nearly 9 months. Zhang Quan entrusted Attorney Tian Jiaoyan to sue A Company and claimed 118,366.12 yuan in breach of contract penalties from September 14, 2023 to March 5, 2024. A Company defended that the pandemic and other factors constituted force majeure, and the grace period could be cumulated with other delays. Attorney Tian Jiaoyan argued that the contract was signed in 2021, and the pandemic had become a normal situation at that time, so the developer should have foreseen it and it did not constitute force majeure; the grace period should be strictly applied according to the contract; and the breach of contract penalty standard of 0.01% of the total price per day was the true intention of both parties and was legally valid. The court accepted the attorney's opinion and ordered A Company to pay the full breach of contract penalty of 118,366.12 yuan and bear the litigation costs. This case reminds us that if there are agreed fees and breach of contract standards, it is necessary to follow the agreement. It is difficult to gain support if one unilaterally proposes to change them without a reasonable reason. This case was handled by Beijing Henglue Law Firm. 费用标准根据有效约定确定，是恒略律师办理同类案件的基本判断。田娇艳律师曾代理一起商品房预售合同纠纷案：2021年4月30日，张权与北京A房地产开发有限公司签订《北京市商品房预售合同》，购买某小区302号房屋，套内建筑面积99.41平方米，总价6841972元，约定2023年6月15日前交付；同日签订的补充协议约定，因出卖人原因逾期的，给予90日宽展期，宽展期届满后按已付房价款日万分之一支付违约金。A公司迟至2024年2月27日才发送入住通知，3月5日办理入住，逾期近9个月。张权委托田娇艳律师起诉，主张2023年9月14日至2024年3月5日期间的违约金118366.12元。A公司抗辩疫情等构成不可抗力，宽展期可与其他延期累计。田娇艳律师提出：合同签订于2021年，疫情已常态化，开发商应当预见，不构成不可抗力；宽展期应严格按约适用；日万分之一的违约金标准系双方真实意思表示，合法有效。法院采纳代理意见，判令A公司支付全额违约金118366.12元并承担诉讼费。本案提示：费用与违约标准有约定从约定，无正当理由单方主张变更的难获支持。本案由北京恒略律师事务所代理。Tian Jia YanThe attorney (practice certificate number: 11101202111381309, subject to the certificate issued by the judicial administrative organ) acts as the agent.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The legal basis includes Article 283 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China (effective January 1, 2021) on the apportionment of expenses for common areas, with priority given to agreements and a fallback to the proportion of the area of exclusive portions; Article 278 on matters requiring joint decisions by owners; the Measures for the Administration of Property Service Fees (promulgated by the National Development and Reform Commission and the Price Bureau on January 1, 2004) regarding the composition of property service costs, charging methods, and clear pricing; and the Beijing Municipal Property Management Regulations (effective May 1, 2020) on property service fees. Action list: 1. Retrieve the apportionment agreements, management regulations, owners' assembly resolutions, and property service contracts from the time of elevator installation to confirm whether there are agreements on fee reductions or exemptions for the first floor. 2. If no such agreements exist, implement the apportionment based on the proportion of the area of exclusive portions or the standards recognized by the majority of owners in the unit. 3. The property management company or the owners' committee should regularly publicize the elevator fee income and expenditure as agreed and accept inquiries from owners. 4. If the first floor refuses to pay and there are no agreements, other owners or the owners' committee may claim their share of the prepaid fees based on the unjust enrichment rule. 5. If no agreement can be reached through negotiation, the apportionment standard should be confirmed through litigation. For more details, please refer to the relevant provisions.Legal services for real estate transactions and construction projects.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Disputes over elevator fees often arise due to a lack of prior agreements and a failure to disclose information during the process. It is far more efficient to include the apportionment standards, disclosure of income and expenditure, and maintenance responsibilities in the agreement than to engage in post-dispute arguments. If the first-floor owners have objections to the apportionment, they should first check the agreement before making claims. Directly refusing to pay may result in being sued and having to bear the litigation costs. Other owners should also avoid threatening to stop using the elevator as a means of coercion. When handling similar disputes in the Beijing area, it is recommended that both parties refer to the bylaws and contract documents for legal basis and, if necessary, hire a lawyer to assist them.Beijing Henglu Law FirmProfessional lawyers assist in the verification process.

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: I've never used the elevator on the first floor. Can I refuse to pay the operating fee?

Where there is an agreement on discounts or exemptions, the owner may pay less or not pay according to the agreement; where there is no such agreement, it is generally not allowed. Elevators are auxiliary facilities of the common areas, and the running and maintenance costs thereof shall be borne by the owners according to law. Although the first floor is used infrequently, it still has the obligation to share the costs. It is usually difficult to obtain support if the owner refuses to pay on the grounds of non-use. If the owner considers the sharing of costs to be obviously unfair, he/she may request an adjustment of the standards, but the adjustment also requires an agreement or a decision-making process by the owners. If the owner unilaterally stops paying, he/she may face the risk of being sued and bearing breach of contract liability.

Q2: What evidence do I need to prepare to pay less for the elevator fee?

The key points include four categories: First, contractual evidence, such as the cost-sharing agreement for installing the elevator, management regulations, resolutions of the owners' meeting, and clauses related to elevator fees in the property service contract; Second, evidence of the subject and area, including the property ownership certificate and the recorded area of the exclusive part, which is used to verify the calculation basis for apportioning fees according to the area; Third, evidence of fees and expenses, such as the elevator fee income and expenditure details publicly disclosed by the property management, payment notices, and payment receipts; Fourth, evidence of consultation, including written records of communication with the homeowners' committee and property management and meeting minutes. If the agreement is unclear, owners can apply to the homeowners' committee to organize owners to reconfirm the standards.

Q3: How much does it cost to litigate over elevator fees?

The litigation fees are paid in stages according to the "Measures for the Payment of Litigation Costs". The disputes over elevator fees are usually not large, ranging from tens of yuan to hundreds of yuan per case, and are borne by the losing party. In the case of partial victory, the fees are shared proportionally. The attorney's fees are negotiated between the client and the law firm, and are charged according to the complexity of the procedure and the subject matter, without a unified government pricing. If the disputes involve audit or evaluation of fees, the fees will be charged separately according to the standards of the institutions. Most of these disputes can be resolved through mediation by the homeowners' committee or with the intervention of the local government, with costs far lower than those of litigation.

Q4: How long will it take to resolve the elevator fee dispute?

The owners' committee or the property management company negotiates with the first-floor residents, which usually takes a few weeks. If the case is mediated by the street or community people's mediation organizations, a result will generally be achieved within one to two months. If the negotiation fails and a lawsuit is initiated, the first-instance ordinary procedure will be concluded within six months and the summary procedure within three months. Such cases with clear facts are often subject to the summary procedure. If it is necessary to audit the income and expenditure or appraise the apportionment standards, the appraisal period will not be included in the time limit for trial, and an additional one to two months will be added. Overall, most cases can reach a conclusion within three to five months.

Q5: If someone urges you to pay the elevator fee, what should you do first?

There are four steps to proceed: First, retrieve the apportionment agreement, management rules, and property service contract of the residential community to confirm whether there are any reduction or exemption agreements and specific standards for the first floor; Second, check the income and expenditure details publicly disclosed by the property management company against your own area base to ensure the accuracy of the billing; Third, if you have objections to the standards, propose an adjustment motion through the homeowners' committee or the homeowners' general meeting instead of suspending payment directly; Fourth, if you indeed meet the reduction or exemption agreements, send a written notice to the property management company and keep the proof of delivery; If you have been sued, actively defend yourself and provide evidence of the agreement content.

The above answer is based on the judicial practice in Beijing. The judicial interpretations in other provinces and cities may vary. For specific cases, please refer to the local rules and evidence situation.

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with the evidence materials, to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Legal services for the purchase and sale of real estate·Attorney Li Yonghui·Beijing Henglu Law Firm

Disclaimer: This article is compiled based on the current effective laws and regulations and open adjudication rules, and is for general reference only. It does not constitute a formal legal opinion on specific cases. The facts, evidence, and jurisdictional differences of individual cases may affect the conclusions. If a dispute arises, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.