[Direct answer]In the Beijing area, regarding the price adjustment process: The increase in property fees is a matter decided by the owners collectively, and it must be subject to the owners' joint decision-making process (with more than two-thirds of the voting participants and their exclusive areas participating, and the majority of the voting participants agreeing) or in accordance with the price adjustment mechanism stipulated in the property service contract; if the property company and the developer raise prices on their own, the increased portion will not be effective for the owners—the owners have the right to pay according to the original standard, and they can request a refund for the overcharged portion. However, it should be noted that if the owners continue to pay according to the original standard after the price adjustment through legal procedures, they will constitute a breach of contract, and they cannot refuse to pay the property fees out of anger.

I. Problem background and typical scenarios

The property management fee in the residential community is 2.3 yuan per square meter, but the property management company suddenly announced an increase to 2.8 yuan in a notice - "those who don't pay will have their access cards and elevators suspended". This kind of confrontation is most common in old residential communities and those with pre-sale property management contracts. The pre-sale property management contracts are signed between the developers and the property management companies, and the owners have never participated in the process. When the property management company wants to raise the fees, it's too troublesome to go through the owners' assembly process, so the easiest way is to simply post a notice of the price increase. The owners' counterattack lies precisely in the word "procedure".

II. Key points of dispute

First, what is the nature of the adjustment of property fees? Second, what are the thresholds for a legal adjustment process? Third, what are the legal risks of refusing to pay? Fourth, what are the paths for the return of overcharged fees?

III. Professional analysis by Henglue Lawyers

First, defining the nature of the issue: The property service fee standards (including adjustments to fee standards and billing methods) concern the common interests of all owners. The Civil Code includes "using common areas for commercial activities" and "other major matters concerning common ownership and shared management rights" in the scope of owners' joint decisions, and property service providers are not allowed to unilaterally increase fees. The Beijing district court's ruling is clear: Property fee adjustments belong to major matters that should be decided by owners collectively. If the property company raises fees without following this procedure, it lacks legal basis, and owners can continue to pay according to the original standards. Previous cases where developers signed a second contract with property companies to raise prices in early-stage residential communities are also invalid. Owners are not parties to the contract, and price agreements they have not participated in are not binding on them. Second, the threshold for legal procedures: Article 278 of the Civil Code stipulates that owners' joint decisions should be made by owners who own more than two-thirds of the exclusive area and account for more than two-thirds of the total number of owners. Property fee adjustments are general matters, and owners who participate in the vote and agree to the adjustment by a majority of their exclusive area can make the decision. In practice, this is accomplished through owners' meetings, written consultations, and electronic voting (such as the Beijing Owners' APP), with the resolution archived. If there are contractual provisions on price adjustment mechanisms (e.g., linking to CPI or adjusting service levels), those mechanisms should be followed, also with public disclosure and consultation processes. Third, the risk boundaries of refusing to pay: For unauthorized price increases, paying according to the original standards is fulfilling the contract and does not constitute a breach of contract. For legal price adjustments, owners who continue to pay according to the old standards after the new standards take effect can be sued by the property company, and if they lose the case, they must bear default penalties. Refusing to pay in full (even the original standards) is unwise under any circumstances: Defending property service deficiencies with "service not meeting standards" requires evidence, not a universal excuse for refusing to pay. Full refusal is likely to result in a loss and additional breach of contract penalties. The correct approach is to pay the full amount according to the original standards, file written objections to the price increase, and report the matter to the district and housing management departments. Fourth, the return path: Owners who have paid according to the increased standards can request the property company to refund the overpaid fees. Collective action is the most efficient: Owners' committees can negotiate on behalf of all owners, or individual owners can file lawsuits together. The statute of limitations is three years, and monthly overpayments add up to large sums. At the same time, complaints should be filed with the property supervision channels of the housing and urban-rural development departments, as administrative pressure often takes effect faster than litigation. Fifth, long-term mechanisms: Establishing owners' committees, signing formal property service contracts, and writing the fee standards and adjustment conditions into the contract - the root of property fee disputes lies not in individual victories or defeats, but in governance structures. For residential communities without owners' committees, the district can first guide the establishment of property management committees as a transitional measure. Beijing's administrative supervision of property fees is relatively complete. Price increases that violate procedures cannot stand up to either administrative complaints or judicial reviews.

IV. Practical suggestions and legal basis

The first step is to check the procedures: Is there a procedure for owners to jointly decide on the price increase, or is there a contractual price adjustment mechanism to support it? The second step is to pay according to the original standards: Pay the full amount according to the original standards to avoid breaching the contract, and raise written objections to the price increase. The third step is to demand a refund: Claim a refund for the overpaid amount based on records, with a statute of limitations of three years. The fourth step is to establish a mechanism: Promote the homeowners' committee or property management committee to formalize the price adjustment procedures into a contract. Main legal basis: Articles 278 and 944 of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China, and relevant rules of Article 11 and Article 12 of the Regulations on Property Management; the specific application shall be subject to the currently effective provisions.

5. Henglu Law Firm's Reminder

Three sentences about property fees: Raising prices is a matter decided by all owners, and the property management company has no right to unilaterally increase the fees; paying according to the original standard does not constitute a breach of contract, but refusing to pay out of anger will definitely lead to losses; and the overpaid fees can be refunded within three years, with collective action being the most efficient way to resolve disputes. Those involved in property fee disputes can seek help through legal channels.Property sales and construction projectsYou can combine the review of property service contracts with the overall solution for service acquisition.Business and contract disputes in enterprisesFor reference, you can refer to the guidelines on the establishment of homeowners' committees and decision-making proceduresSpecialised legal servicesFor disputes over the rights to the common areas of a residential community, you can refer to the relevant provisions in the Property Law of the People's Republic of China.Divorce litigation and family disputes板块。

VI. Frequently Asked Questions

Q1: The property management company said the price increase is due to rising costs. Can they just raise the prices directly?

No. The increase in costs is just a reason for price adjustment, and it is still necessary to follow the procedure of joint decision-making by the owners or the price adjustment mechanism stipulated in the contract.

Q2: Will my water and electricity services be suspended if I pay according to the original standard?

No. It's illegal for property management companies to collect property fees by cutting off water and electricity, and you can file a complaint with the housing and construction department and claim compensation for the losses caused by this.

Q3: Is the price increase in the preliminary property contract valid for the owners?

Invalid. The owner is not a party to the contract, and any changes to the charging standards made without the owner's joint decision shall not be binding on the owner.

Q4: How can I get back the overpaid property fees?

Return the money upon written request based on the payment records. If the money is not returned within three years, legal action will be taken against the party concerned. It is more efficient for the homeowners' committee to lead the collective claim for the return of the money.

Q5: Can I refuse to pay if the quality of property services is poor?

The risk of refusing to pay in full is high. You can claim a reduction or exemption for services that do not meet standards, but you need to provide evidence of the service defects and the corresponding amount. It's more practical to claim a partial reduction or exemption.

This article is written based on the common judicial interpretations in the Beijing area. If the case occurs in other regions, it is recommended to consult local lawyers to verify the regional differences.

VII. Relevant public cases (for reference only, not handled by our firm)

The following cases are all sourced from the official websites of courts at all levels, judicial authorities, and authoritative media, and are not related to the cases handled by our firm. They are provided solely for reference in understanding relevant adjudication rules and do not constitute opinions on specific cases.

[Case No.]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The judicial cases announced by the Beijing Municipal Commission of Housing and Urban-Rural Development
[Judicial Summary]Li v. A Property Management Company: The property management company increased the property management fee from 2.3 yuan to 2.8 yuan without going through the joint decision-making process of the owners. The court held that the adjustment of the property management fee concerns the common interests of all owners and constitutes a major matter that should be decided by the owners collectively. The unauthorized increase lacked legal basis, and the court supported the property service fee at the original standard of 2.3 yuan.
[Source]The official website of the Beijing Municipal Commission of Housing and Urban-Rural Development (2023-04)

[Case Number]The case number has not been made public.
[Trial Court]The People's Court of Liwan District, Guangzhou City (Typical Cases of the Guangdong High Court)
[Judicial Summary]In the case of a certain property company suing Chen *: The developer and the property company signed a second preliminary property service contract on their own, raising the property fee from 1.75 yuan to 1.80 yuan. The court held that the change of the property service fee standard belongs to matters decided by the owners jointly, and the price increase agreement without the resolution of the owners' meeting does not have legal effect on the owners. The court ruled that Chen * should pay according to the standard of 1.75 yuan, and the second-instance court upheld the ruling.
[Source]Guangdong Legal Network (2023-11)

If you are facing similar problems, it is recommended that you consult a professional lawyer as soon as possible with evidence materials, so as to avoid missing the statutory time limit. →Legal services for real estate transactions·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 you encounter disputes, please consult a practicing lawyer in time.