The Civil Code makes it clear that you have to pay elevator fees for living on the first floor!



Page view:

The Civil Code makes it clear that you have to pay elevator fees for living on the first floor!

Should I pay the elevator fee for living on the first floor?

Listen to the law!

Aunt Wang always feels particularly wronged when she mentions the elevator fee that she has to pay to the property every month. It turns out that Aunt Wang's family lives on the first floor of a residential area, so she doesn't need to take the elevator to go upstairs at all. There is also a parking lot on the ground floor. Aunt Wang said that she didn't even have a car to share the elevator fee on the negative floor!

Owners living on the first floor like Aunt Wang will have similar confusion. At present, there are two main views on whether the owners on the first floor need to pay elevator fees:

The first opinion is that

Residents on the first floor do not need to pay elevator fees, because residents on the first floor do not use elevators, which will not lose electricity and will not affect the service life of the elevator itself, so it is obviously unfair to let residents on the first floor pay elevator fees;

The second opinion is that

Residents on the first floor need to pay the elevator fee, because the elevator is a common part of the community, everyone has the obligation to maintain the elevator, can not refuse to perform the obligation to maintain the normal operation of the elevator on the grounds of not taking the elevator.

So which of the above two opinions is the most reasonable?

legal analysis:

according to our countryCivil CodeIt is stipulated that the owner shall enjoy rights and assume obligations to the common parts other than the exclusive parts of the building. From this legal regulation, it can be seen that the elevator, like the flowers, trees, street lamps, fountains, etc. in the residential area, is shared by all owners, and the elevator operation service will not significantly reduce the operation and maintenance cost of the elevator because the residents on the first floor do not take the elevator, so the residents on the first floor should bear the elevator fee as the residents on other floors.

In addition, accordingArticle 6 of the Interpretation of the Supreme People's Court on Several Issues Concerning the Specific Application of Law in the Trial of Property Service Dispute CasesIt is stipulated that the property service company has provided services in accordance with the contract and relevant regulations, and the owner only has not enjoyed or does not need to accept the relevant property services as a defense, the people's court will not support the owner's reasons.

There are many owners in the same situation as Aunt Wang, and there are some in Beijing.:

In November 2009, Mr. Gu, the owner of the first floor, refused to pay the elevator fee on the grounds that he did not use the elevator. The Beijing No. 1 Intermediate People's Court ruled that Mr. Gu paid the property company in full.

The court held that the property contract did not stipulate the relevant content of not paying the elevator fee on the first floor, and Mr. Gu lacked factual and legal basis for the reason that he had not used the elevator and should not pay the fee.

Although he lives on the first floor, because he signed the property management agreement that "all owners should pay elevator operating expenses", in April 2010, Mr. Tian was ordered by the Beijing Tongzhou District Court to pay elevator fees to the property company.

Therefore, through the above legal provisions and jurisprudence, it can be seen that the owner of the first floor should pay the elevator fee..

Why should I pay?

Perhaps many people, especially the owners on the first floor, are still unconvinced although they know the provisions of the law.

What is the reason or reason why the law stipulates that the owner of the first floor should also pay the elevator fee?

How can we prove that such a provision is good law and not bad law?

The reasonableness of the first floor owner's elevator fee should be at least the following three points:


Proper understanding of the potential role of common parts

It is possible that the owner never uses a common part, which does not deny that the common part may realize potential and intangible functions for the owner.

Take the elevator.Although the first floor owner has never actually used the elevator, this does not mean that the owner may benefit from the normal use of the elevator.. Such as the realization of the role of the roof platform, the first floor owners may need elevators in the future; and for example, the outer wall of a building is a common part of the building, and billboards hanging on the outer wall can bring rental income to the owners (note: or advertising in the elevator).

Advertisers like to hang billboards on the top wall in order to expand the radiation vision of advertising and enhance the advertising effect. The billboard is generally carried by the elevator, the first floor owners although they do not directly use the elevator, but the rent is obtained through the elevator (note: this part of the income belongs to all owners), so that through the indirect use of the elevator to obtain income, to achieve the right. And so on.

At this point, the elevator fee paid by the first floor owner can be understood as the fee paid for the purchase of the option. This is one of the reasons why the owner of the first floor should pay the elevator fee.


The payment is one of the considerations for the owner to acquire ownership of the proprietary part.

Even if the owner of the first floor promises to waive the rights that may be acquired by the elevator, he should still pay the elevator fee, which is one of the consideration that the owner should pay for the ownership of the exclusive part.

Why do you say that? We all know that the price of a building and its changes include not only the bricks and tiles needed to build the building, but also the land use fee, floor area ratio, location environment and other factors.Building a building in the same location, the price of low-rise, multi-storey and mid-rise buildings will not necessarily be the same..

Because different floors will have different effects on living behavior, living psychology, overall environment, building structure, etc. This is also the reason why the prices of different floors of the same building are not the same. Different prices are the consideration paid for different floors. The actual price paid for the purchase of the house on the floor is not the full price to be paid, and the elevator fee paid, etc., is the consideration for the purchase of the house on the floor that has not yet been paid.

Simply put, low-rise and multi-storey buildings may not need elevators at all, let alone elevator fees, and at least the price of mid-to-high-rise buildings also includes the cost of installing elevators.In other words, if the elevator is not installed, the price of the lower floor of the building may be much higher than when it was installed, because no one wants to climb the stairs to the upper floor every day..That's why you can get a first-floor house at the current price.Otherwise, you may not be able to live on the first floor at all. Although you bought the first floor, maybe you really don't need to go upstairs, and you never went upstairs until the building was lost, but the price of the first floor only includes part of the price such as the cost of installing the elevator. The cost of depreciation and other expenses for elevator damage has not been included in the property price, so it is still necessary to continue to pay the outstanding consideration.


A holistic approach to the rights and obligations of a particular common part

The common part of the building is not only the elevator, but also the exterior wall, the roof platform, the corridor, the underground space and many other parts. In the case of a particular owner, the benefits received for some common parts are greater than the costs paid, but the costs paid for some common parts are greater than the benefits received. As there are many common parts of a building, as far as a particular owner is concerned,It is not possible to fully quantify the benefits and costs paid for each part, and more often than not, the benefits and costs to be paid for all or most of the common parts can only be shared in order to achieve overall equity.

For example, the roof platform can be placed solar water heaters, drying objects, sports and many other functions. Assuming that the owner of the highest level believes that the roof belongs only to the owner of the highest level and has nothing to do with the other floors, and that all the proceeds from the roof platform belong to him, then the owner of the first floor must feel the most unfair. Because as long as the floor is larger than two floors, the owner of the first floor will never be able to enjoy the rights and interests of the roof platform.

And accordingArticle 3, Paragraph 1, Item 1 of the Interpretation on Trial of Cases of Differentiated Ownership of Buildings (Fa Shi [2009] No. 7)The roof of the building is a common part, thus protecting the interests of the first floor owners. In this way, although the owner of the first floor paid the elevator fee, he also received the benefits of the roof and achieved fairness as a whole. And there are many such examples.

Therefore,The common parts of the building, the exclusive part and the common parts are interrelated and inseparable, and the enjoyment and commitment of rights and obligations need to be measured in an all-round way, rather than being completely separated on a case-by-case basis.Of course, in order to reduce disputes and improve transaction efficiency, we should support the principle of proportionality as far as possible to enable owners to enjoy rights and assume obligations, so as to achieve maximum fairness.

Article source: Sohu

If there is infringement, contact Li delete


AVIC Elevator Equipment, AVIC Elevator, Elevator Sales, AVIC Elevator Sales, Elevator Maintenance