Refer China: Foreign Owner Loses Suit Over Shanghai Villa Fees

Summary: An Australian homeowner in Shanghai sued to reduce fees, citing missing amenities and staffing issues. The court upheld the full fee payment, emphasizing contractual obligation despite service flaws.

Foreign Homeowner Loses Lawsuit in Shanghai Luxury Villa Dispute

Pic from the Internet. For reference only.

In the quiet, upscale enclave of Palm Beach Golf Villas in Shanghai's Fengxian District, a legal battle recently unfolded between a foreign homeowner and a property management company—a clash not just over fees, but over what counts as "value" in high-end residential living.

Check our latest video on China Visa and foreign-related knowledge!

Follow our channel for updates 👇

Mr. Zhuang, an Australian national who has lived in the neighborhood since purchasing his villa in 2008, stopped paying property management fees in 2020. The amount in question: ¥87,151.68 for 54 months of service, based on a monthly charge of ¥4 per square meter.

But Zhuang wasn't simply refusing to pay. Instead, he filed a highly detailed, data-backed defense, demanding a 30% reduction in fees. He pointed out questions about non-existent water features, understaffed security, and opaque handling of public funds.

A Legal Showdown in the Courtroom

The dispute made its way through two levels of the Chinese judicial system, with the Shanghai First Intermediate People's Court issuing its final ruling on October 31, 2025, under case number (2025) HU 01 MIN ZHONG No. 14360.

Zhuang's position was clear: if the promised services weren't delivered, why should he pay the full amount? In court, he delivered three core arguments:

Water Features That Don't Exist

He pointed to a listed "water feature energy fee" in the itemized charges, meant to cover the operation and maintenance of fountains. Yet the community had no fountains. He cited regulations from the Shanghai Price Bureau and claimed the fee was illegally imposed.

Security Staff Shortfall

Zhuang alleged that the villa compound had only four active security guards, despite needing eight to man two entrances 24/7. He used data on social insurance filings to argue that staff levels had been dropping for years—down from 81 in 2018 to just 16 in 2024.

Unexplained "Sponsorship Fee"

A contract revealed that a renovation company had paid ¥18,000 to the property manager in a deal involving the installation of gate barriers. Zhuang claimed this was public income derived from communal areas, which should have been disclosed and shared with homeowners.

The property management company, Tongfeng Property, pushed back. It denied under-staffing, said the "water feature fee" was part of a bundled pricing structure and never charged separately, and argued that any sponsorship fees were either never collected or properly handled under community rules.

The Verdict: Fee Obligations Stand

In the end, the court ruled against Zhuang. He was ordered to pay the full ¥87,151.68 in property fees. However, the court denied the company's claim for late penalties, noting the lack of bad faith on the homeowner's part and acknowledging minor service shortcomings.

Critically, the court did not directly rule on the precise number of security staff or the disputed sponsorship money. Instead, it emphasized that the property management contract was legally binding and that Zhuang had benefited from ongoing services—cleaning, maintenance, basic security—which were deemed sufficient to justify the fees.

The judges took a pragmatic stance: even if some services were imperfect, the issues didn't rise to the level of "fundamental breach" required to void or reduce fee obligations.

A Clash of Expectations and Legal Culture

The case offers insight into how expectations around service quality and accountability can differ—even within high-end residential communities. While Zhuang presented a detailed challenge rooted in contractual interpretation and performance metrics, the court evaluated the dispute through the broader lens of service continuity and legal obligations.

His arguments reflected a meticulous, data-driven approach that emphasized transparency and consumer entitlement. Meanwhile, the court focused on the sustained provision of essential property services and the importance of upholding existing contractual relationships—an approach in line with many similar rulings involving residential property management.

Rather than diving into every operational detail, the court assessed whether the core functions of the service contract had been fulfilled. In the absence of clear evidence of serious misconduct or fundamental service failure, it found no grounds to reduce the fees.

Source: 裁判文书网