Recently, the People's Court of Tianqiao District, Jinan City, Shandong Province, after trial, ruled that Mr. Tang should pay the property management company a property fee of 11951.1 yuan for the period from 2018 to 2022. In 2018, Mr. Tang's home was stolen and only after reporting to the police did he realize that the surveillance footage of the community had already been damaged and had not been repaired. Mr. Tang believes that damaged community surveillance is the main cause of theft at home, and also lost an important clue for the police to solve the case. After unsuccessful negotiations with the property management company regarding compensation, Mr. Tang has not paid any property fees. In 2022, the property management company sued Mr. Tang to the court for not paying the property fee. After the court heard the case, it was held that the property management company provided property services and the community owner should pay the property fees as agreed. Mr. Tang argues that the property services provided by the property management company have flaws. Due to the overall and public nature of the property services provided by the property management company, which concerns the vital interests of all property owners in the community, if individual property owners are allowed to refuse to pay the property service fee based on their personal feelings or general flaws in the property management service, it will result in insufficient operating expenses and reduced service enthusiasm of the property management company, Causing property service enterprises to be unable to maintain normal property service levels, resulting in a decrease in service quality, ultimately harming the interests of other homeowners who pay property service fees normally, and even all homeowners. Based on this, Mr. Tang's defense does not constitute a legitimate reason for his refusal or underpayment of property fees, and the court will not accept it. In summary, the court ruled that Mr. Tang paid property management fees of 11951.1 yuan to the property management company for the period from 2018 to 2022. The judge stated that within the community, the property management company faces a whole composed of all owners, and its services have a holistic and public nature, which is related to the vital interests of all community owners. The will of an individual should not be used as the criterion for evaluating the quality of services, but rather the collective will of all owners should be comprehensively considered. Therefore, individual owners' subjective perception of service defects cannot be used as a legitimate reason for refusing to pay property fees. Owners can legally defend their rights through tort liability litigation or other contract breach litigation for any rights damage caused by the property management company. When most homeowners are dissatisfied with the services provided by the property management company, they can jointly decide to dismiss the property management company in accordance with legal procedures. In the process of serving property owners, property management companies should further standardize management, timely and accurately disclose the service scope and fee standards, communicate more with property owners, fully listen to their opinions, actively accept their supervision, and strive to improve the service experience of property owners. Owners should pay property fees in a timely manner while enjoying property services. If there is a breach of contract by a property management company, rights should be protected through legal means and cannot be dealt with simply or roughly by refusing to pay property fees. (New News Agency)