Anonymous
Anonymous asked in 政治及管治法律及道德 · 6 years ago

單位4年前已賣,但發現自動過數戶口一直比人收緊管理費(急)。

小弟從事物業管理行業,近日收到一個前業主表示佢四年前已經賣左個單位,之後出左國。到近日回港先發現原來呢4年入面一直比我地管理公司收緊管理費。

Q1:即係佢有機會幫緊第二手業主交緊管理費,但係我地角色只係收管理費點會理佢地邊個交。

Q2:佢搬走左理應應該自己CUT左個AUTO PAY。咁如果真係發現佢幫緊第二手業主係呢4年交緊管理費(我諗都應係有9萬),佢有咩途徑可以追討返第二手業主?<呢個係我想比個建議佢

Q3:成個事件入面,我地管理公司除左CHECK返佢所講件事是否屬實之外,仲有咩係應該要做,咩係唔應該干涉?

希望各位同行或專業人士幫忙解答,感激。

5 Answers

Rating
  • Gary
    Lv 7
    6 years ago
    Favorite Answer

    1. Is there a question?

    2. None - the issue is it was not the fault of the new owner, but the property management (your company).

    The property management should have been notified 4 years ago regarding the transfer. In this case, the property management has a duty to make sure that the management fee is collected properly (like prior arrangement has been canceled and new arrangement has been set).

    Also - although this incident is related to the transfer, it is caused by the transfer. In conclusion, the property management will be liable for negligence.

    3. You should make this incident into 2 separate issues:

    a. Previous owner was charged by mistake.

    b. Current owner has failed to pay for management fee for 4 years.

    Once you have verified the fact, your company should contact the owners separately based on the issues above and proceed accordingly (refund and collection).

    Also - please report to your company's legal department as well (as this can lead to possible lawsuits).

    One side note - it is hard to believe the current owner failed to address the issue for 4 years:

    - Like other utilities (water, electricity, etc.), not receiving the bill does not mean you don't have to pay.

    - It is hard to believe that there is no increase in management fee for 4 years. Hence, the current owner should have received notices regarding management fee. In other word, the current owner knew the mistakes for a long time.

    2014-07-23 13:33:50 補充:

    Alfred Yiu:

    In common sense, you may be right, but definitely not legally.

    Regardless if the amount has applied towards the payment of management fee or not, the property management has mistakenly collected money from the previous owner. So the property management is definitely on the hook.

    2014-07-23 13:35:20 補充:

    However, if the property management tells the owners to take care of their own problems, this will be the beginning of a nightmare, as both owners can sue back the management.

    Keeping both sides separated will definitely help to settle this issue. Putting them together will make a big case.

    2014-07-23 13:40:36 補充:

    Cecimak1995:

    In term of the stealing issue, this will never make a case.

    1. The current owner did not steal from the previous owner. The property management "did'.

    2. The only liability that the current owner has is fail to pay the fee, which is a civil matter.

    Stealing is a overstatement.

    2014-07-24 15:28:15 補充:

    Cecimak1995:

    1. I never said either owners can't sue on their own. It is about damage mitigation.

    In this case, the management has made 2 major mistakes. If both owners team up together, it will be potentially a great damage to the management.

    2014-07-24 15:37:20 補充:

    However, if the problem is separated, the damage can be controlled (Remember - the current owner has a very weak case in this case because he/she has the duty to pay).

    2014-07-24 15:39:23 補充:

    2. It is not stealing. End of story.

    Based on what you have mentioned, the key of Section 18 is not subpart 1, but 2 - the definition of pecuniary advantage (金錢利益). None of Section 18(2) definition meets this case.

    2014-07-24 15:42:28 補充:

    How about other provision from the same Chapter? I concede that the current owner was dishonest, which make this a potential theft case. However, the current owner has not appropriated the money. At the least, the management thought the current owner was the one paying. Simply - not enough evidence.

  • 眾位網友的意見都正確,故在下不再重複,祇就其他部分作出補充!

    問題一:如幾位網友所言,管理公司有疏忽的地方!

    首先你們並非收到以現金形式繳付的管理費,如以現金支付某一單位的管理費,那管理公司確能免責!因不論何人到管理署以現金指明交某單位的管理費,管理公司都無需核實!可是問題中的卻是以自動轉賬形式的繳費,那管理公司必然得知該單位的業權人已轉換,故無可能仍由舊業主的賬戶中支付管理費!

    故管理公司有責任聯絡及核實該安排是否有問題,不是有人交費照收了事!起碼要致電舊業主或向新業主查詢一下!故你表示管理公司祇管收費不會理會之說是難以成立的,如其他幾位網友所言,管理公司有面對法律訴訟的機會!

    2014-07-23 12:20:31 補充:

    問題二:一般情況下,自動轉賬的停止支付要由收取款項的一方提出,銀行才會處理,付款方是不能輕易地停止支付的!等同你簽了某健身公司的按月自動轉賬交會費,到你不想去時是可以隨時自行停止支付嗎?答案明顯是不可能的!

    問題三:管理公司當然要干涉怎能置身事外?要做的,當然是即時核實對方所言,如查證後確實過去幾年的管理費,仍然由舊業主的賬戶中支取,則除了第一時間停止繼續以自動轉賬方成支取管理費外,便是向新業主指出相關情況!

    如眾位網友及在下所言,新業主必然知悉幾年無交管理費,那管理公司在向他表明情況後,應該將舊業主的聯絡方法交給他(但為保險計在提供資料前,應先知會舊業主及取得同意),請他們自行協商解決問題!

    2014-07-23 12:21:05 補充:

    如他們能達成協議解決問題當然最好!但不少人都會撒賴企圖推卸責任,如說不知情、以為不用交、管理公司無追等「低智」的借口!在這情況下,管理公司或舊業主可以提醒新業主,他的行為經已觸犯盜竊罪,可被刑事檢控,故請他最好是合作解決問題!

    按《盜竊罪條例》第 18 條「以欺騙手段取得金錢利益」指出,任何人不誠實地為自己取得任何金錢利益,即屬犯罪!如經公訴罪成最高刑罰是監禁十年兼留案底!

    不誠實的定義是 ,第一:以一個誠實普通人的合理常識標準,會覺得該行為是不誠實的!第二:被指控違法的人本身是知道及明白該一般的常識標準的!

    2014-07-23 12:21:24 補充:

    按問題中的情況去解說,即是說新業主明知無交管理費四年(是否知道有人代交,或管理公司無故無追收是另一回事),卻並無去了解及解決問題,更遑論自行支付管理費,則明顯是希望從中取得免交管理費的金錢利益!而任何一個正常的香港業主,都必然知悉要替名下物業繳交管理費用,故該新業主在明知故犯貪圖小利的情況下,有誤墮盜竊罪陷阱之嫌!

    2014-07-24 12:13:57 補充:

    Gary 網友,你好!多謝你的意見!

    在下對於你向 Alfred 網友發表的意見,並不認同!

    雙方業主不接觸由管理公司居中調停,不代表雙方業主不會向管理公司提告,他們縱無接觸甚至互不認識,仍然可以各自向懷疑失職的管理公司提告!故簡單地認為管理公司祇要能將雙方隔開便能減低應負的法律責任,是無意義的!

    另對於你向在下盜竊的意見認為是言過其實,不妨!這是你的個人意見!

    但請細看在下引用的法律條文的細節,新業主完全觸犯當中的規定,故被視為觸犯盜竊罪並非不可能的事!

    2014-07-24 12:15:11 補充:

    等同有人在街上拾得一個銀包,他明知應當交給警方卻未有這樣做並持有,經已觸犯拾遺不報可被控盜竊了!那能聲稱我不是從物主身上偷的而免去責任嗎?

    在這問題上道理相同,新業主明知有人代付管理費(不管是有意還是無意,不管是否知情),而自己從未意圖支付,即已屬不誠實取得財產的類別!因直接的受益人是他,雖然轉賬一事非由他所作出,但他有責任自行繳交管理費,而並非有人交及管理公司無追便了事!

    2014-07-24 12:16:40 補充:

    另如 Alfred 網友所言,管理公司收費後會發回收據(通常是放回單位信箱之內),那新業主幾年間未有付款卻收到已繳費收據,能說自己不知情?不知道出了問題導致無需承擔支付管理費的責任嗎?那他明知故犯卻不出面說明糾正,繼續享用舊業主和管理公司的失誤所帶來的金錢利益,還不算欺詐盜竊!

    相反管理公司祇是依從往常設定的自動轉賬收取款項,故管理公司要負的,祇是管理失職方面的責任,而並不需要負起盜竊的刑事責任!

    2014-07-25 11:43:55 補充:

    無所謂!個人意見而已!閣下有何想法悉隨尊便!

  • ?
    Lv 7
    6 years ago

    1.如果佢真係幫人交管理費但你地又照收無查清楚既話有可能會被業主所控告,但當然佢亦有責任所以你公司可能會俾果位業主告,然後索償番d管理費,律師費等等..

    2.佢可以要求你地提供第二手業主既資料俾佢以助佢追討番果幾年既管理費,佢亦可以去土地註冊處查冊睇番而家既業主係邊個,然後再向佢追討番列幾年既管理費,但唔等如佢唔會向你地管理公司索償.

    3.你應該盡量協助果位業主盡快追討番佢所幫人交既管理費,然後再同佢傾下可5可以唔告你地公司(即係嘗試和解).

  • 6 years ago

    業主換左人,但收錢仲係收緊舊業主,如果你答係唔知(事實上你地真係唔知),呢個係一個疏忽,舊業主係可以告你地,咁當然業主都有責任,於是就睇下邊個責任較大,按比例去分擔損失(等個官判).

    首先正常黎講,態度上都係要偏向幫舊業主,因為人地真係有損失,而新業主亦冇可能唔知,最後就係同新業主講番,希望佢地能夠和解,否則舊業主都痛路行,唯有係報警,咁就大家都唔好.

    你既角色係息事寧人,而唔係去判斷邊個岩定錯,企錯邊你就好鬼煩,要用一種深情既態度去攪,呢個表達方式,保安課程係冇教.

  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 6 years ago

    依常理,應該由佢自己向新業主追討,因為:-

    1.買賣樓個陣,呢d繳交管理費既事項新舊業主應當已作適當處理;

    2. 管理公司收到管理費後,發出收據,那獲發收據的新業主明知自己冇交費,但獲發收據亦應當早已加以善後;

    3. 所以呢個問題明顯涉及新舊業主的人為錯誤....佢地應該自行解決....所以舊業主應該自行向新業主追討。

Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.