Hello, i'm ting ting, who brings you up to date every day, and i've got more to do with everything, and if you think this information is useful for your life, just ask for attention
When a house is purchased and occupied, the property charge is almost fixed monthly for each family. Whether it is just a small household or a large flat or villa, property costs are now collected in the vast majority of the country's sub-regions on a flat-metre basis. For decades, it was accepted that this was the right thing to do。
But very few have thought about one of the most realistic questions: is the services provided by the property, by the size of the house
Security patrols, district cleaning, greening maintenance, elevator maintenance, maintenance of public facilities, garbage removal, security... These services are intended for all owners of the entire district, and the size of a household does not affect the amount of work done by the property sector. Small-scale owners and large-scale owners enjoy almost identical property services but pay different property bills。
An increasing number of owners are beginning to question whether it would not be reasonable from the outset to charge the cost of the property at square metres. Is it industry practice or law? Today, in the context of the civil code, the local property bill policy, the reality of life, the logic of dissolving property billings in deep terms, the loopholes, inequities, and more rational ways of charging in the future, i have helped ordinary owners understand the life logic behind property billing and defend their rights and interests。
I. The current state of affairs: the “m2 fee” prevailing throughout the country is actually industry custom and not mandatory by law
Let me start by telling you the truth that 90 per cent of the owners do not know: our laws never make it mandatory for property to be charged according to the size of the building。
According to article 944 of the civil code, which regulates fees for property services, property fees are essentially the cost of purchasing public property services by the owners, which provide a uniform service for the communal areas of the subdistricts rather than a one-to-one service for the owner of the dwelling。
It is now the industry practice that has developed over the decades in the real estate sector and is not the only method prescribed by law. There are two current patterns of mainstream fees:
(a) first: the larger the area, according to the size of the building, which is now the prevailing pattern
Second: a flat is charged at a single price, regardless of the size of the house, with equal services and equal property fees。
Why is it that the whole country agreed to collect it by square metres? The core reasons are realistic: good accounting, good management, good pricing by developers and industries, direct application of space logic for house prices, and simple and roughness. However, in terms of fairness and human legitimacy, this model is highly flawed and increasingly controversial。
A simple example:
In the same district, owner a 89 needs two rooms and owner b 200 square floors。
Two people walk through the same gates every day, use the same elevators, green the same neighborhoods, enjoy the same security and clean up the garbage. The content, quality and frequency of the services provided by the property to both persons are identical。
For a year now, b owners pay more than twice as much as a owners. The same service, which doubles costs, is not fair in itself。
A lot of people say the big house is big, so it's worth more. The larger the share, the greater the share of public resources, the contradiction of logic itself。
Deep disassembly: property fees are based on square metres, 3 fatally unfair, and countless owners suffer
In conjunction with complaints from owners, property disputes and research, there are three main core anomalies in the area charge, each of which strikes the purse and the fair bottom line。
1. Services are non-differentiated, fees vary widely, small household owners suffer losses and large household owners are overburdened
Property services are divided into two parts: public service plus proprietary services。
Public services: security, cleaning, greening, elevators, roads, street lights, garbage disposal, maintenance of public facilities, which have nothing to do with the size of the house。
Specialized services: home maintenance, home economics, customized services, usually charged separately。
In other words, more than 95 per cent of our property payments are for public services. Since all public services were equal, why would they charge the area ladder
Small households, most of them ordinary wage earners, have to have the same services as large households, simply because of their small size; large households improve their own economic situation and bear the expense of double property。
In turn, the larger the size of vacant, long-term housing, the higher the cost of the property, the non-availability of the services for the owners, the full payment of the fees and the ongoing controversy。
Duplicate charges for share area, for which the owner pays for “no place of his own”
The stores now have a share area, elevator wells, corridors, halls, equipment rooms, wall areas, all of which are accounted for in the building area, and property charges are charged together。
The shared area is originally owned by all owners and the property is responsible for maintaining the shared area, essentially serving all owners. Owners pay for property in public areas, amounting to paying for their own public areas, and logically to double fees。
In particular, high-rise dwellings, with a share of 20 per cent - 25 per cent, are equivalent to a large sum of property bills paid annually by owners for spaces other than their own。
3. Catalysing, binding, rights-based and bargaining difficulties in the biological industry
On a flat-metre basis, property is directly tied to property fees and housing prices and areas, and pricing rights are largely in the hands of property and developers。
The larger the small areas and the greater the difference in household size, the higher the total cost of the property, the greater the profitability of the property. Owners wanted to negotiate and change the fee model, since it was difficult to reach a common view because of the differences between large and small household interests。
Small households feel that they have less to offer, large households feel that the fees are too high; ultimately, everyone is passively accepting the flat-metre charge, the property is firmly in charge and owners have difficulty defending their rights。
Iii. Inverse voices: why do many support a flat-metre charge? What's true logic
There are also a number of voices on the internet who believe that property costs should be collected on a space basis, and i'm trying to understand the three arguments of the proponents and give you a full view of the dispute。
First, the larger the house, the more it consumes public resources. Large households have a large population, families have access to small areas, elevators, garbage generation, and greater consumption of cleaning and security, which should be paid more。
Second, the higher the house price and the larger the area, the higher the owner's assets, and the greater the property costs would be in line with “who benefits more than who pays more”。
Thirdly, by household fees, small-scale owners take advantage of them, large-scale owners lose out, and prices for one household are prone to new contradictions。
Objectively, this logic is reasonable, but not absolute。
Many large households are empty, uninhabited for many years, producing no garbage and using no elevators; many small households have three or four members and are extremely densely populated. The mere measurement of the use of resources by area remains inaccurate。
Thus, the most equitable approach is not to be black or white, but to provide public services on a household basis and to account for personalized consumption。
Iv. National policy trends: multi-temporarily pilot reforms, and the cost-of-property model is changing dramatically
Many are unaware of the fact that in recent years, as people's lives have risen, many of the country has embarked on pilot property fee reforms to break the single “m2 fee” model and move towards a fairer one。
In 2025, the ministry of housing and development and the commission continued to carry out the reform of the marketing of property services, specifying that the fees for property services may be determined by agreement of the conference of owners in a variety of ways, including building area, condominium and household size。
In short, the law allows for a flat fee to be reversed by a vote of the general assembly of owners。
Currently, in parts of the cities of jiangsu, zhejiang, guangdong, sichuan and shandong, subdistricts have been converted into basic property fees on a household basis, with energy consumption, waste charges and public pool energy consumption actually shared。
That is to say, basic services such as greening of security and safety are paid the same amount by one household; elevator energy consumption, garbage disposal and public utilities are shared on the basis of actual usage, with equity and reasonableness。
The broad future trend is clear: property costs move from “one-size-fits-all” to a refined “basic household + energy consumption” model that is more responsive to the equitable needs of the people。
V. Most concern of ordinary people: what can we do as owners? 4 practical rights orientations
Many owners feel that the rules of charge are dead and they can't change themselves. In fact, if the method is correct, it will be possible to optimize the cost of the small area, and i'll sort out four ways in which ordinary people can land。
1. Establishment of a landlord's committee and convening of a general conference of owners to vote for a change in the form of fees
In accordance with the civil code, upon the establishment of an industrial commission, the sub-districts have the right to re-sign property contracts and to negotiate a fee model. It could be changed to a family-based fee or hybrid model with the consent of more than half the owners。
2. Distinction of property fee composition and rejection of public share duplicate fees
Property is required to disclose the details of property costs: basic services, public energy, waste removal, maintenance. The energy consumption of the share is accounted for separately from the duplicate collection of the building area property fee。
3. Active application for property deduction for vacant premises
The multi-location policy is clear: housing is vacant for more than six months, and a 70-90 per cent reduction in property costs can be applied. Many owners do not know that they have been paying in full and have spent more。
4. Refusal to raise the price of property bundles by requiring a clear code
The increase in the price of property is subject to the consent of the owner, and the unilateral increase in the price of property is invalid. In the event of unreasonable charges and tied charges, complaints can be made to the housing authority and the government hotline 12345。
Vi. Sustainable thought: how to push it, testing urban governance and social equality
Property costs, which appear to be minor matters, are by nature important for the well-being of the people and concern fixed monthly expenditures for hundreds of millions of families and equity of residence and governance at the grass-roots level。
A few decades ago, real estate had just begun, and people were used to following home prices and sizes, and property costs were flat and rough and fast to land。
But the times have changed, and the demand for fair, transparent and sophisticated services is increasing。
A set of 80 flats, and a 200-square improvement, with the same access to a sub-district environment, security services, services without discrimination and a large fee gap, is not in itself in keeping with modern concepts of equity。
The best model for the future must be a fair fee for basic public services at household level, energy consumption, waste, personalized services at actual usage。
Small household losses are avoided and large households are not overburdened, property revenues are stable, owners pay reasonable fees and win-win。
The reform of property costs is not just a change in the way the fees are charged, but rather an escalation of the concept of residency rights, human equity and governance at the grass-roots level. When more and more owners become aware of the problem and drive change in patterns, the cost of housing for ordinary people becomes more reasonable and the services of property become more transparent。
Vii. Topical discussion + account focus orientation
Discussion of this topic
1. Do you think it would be reasonable, or more equitable, to charge property fees on a flat scale
2. Are there any cases of excessive property charges and duplicate fees in your district
3. Do you support the transformation of the district into a basic property fee per household? A rational exchange of comments is welcome。
I am ting ting, who focuses on livelihood policy, property rights, housing and grass-roots governance, sharing practical rights-based approaches by breaking down the policy logic behind buying houses, property, community and family rights every day。
If you are concerned with housing costs, property disputes, ownership interests, community-based hotspots, it is important to focus on the continuous updating of property pits, owner rights, district governance and housing policy。
Disclaimer
This document is based on the civil code and the existing property fee policy, which is intended for the information of owners only; the specific fee model is based on the local housing sector regulations and the owner's general assembly resolution。
