物业纠纷该注意哪些维权要点（法治聚焦）

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released five typical cases regarding property service contract disputes, aiming to address common issues such as property fee collection methods and difficulties in handover after contract termination, thereby promoting the resolution of civil disputes in the property sector and enhancing the protection of homeowners' rights [1][2]. Group 1: Property Fee Collection - Property service providers cannot restrict access to essential services like elevators and entry systems as a means to collect overdue property fees, as this violates homeowners' rights and lacks legal basis [2]. - The court ruled that property service providers must use reasonable and legal methods for fee collection, and if homeowners fail to pay after notification, providers can seek resolution through mediation, litigation, or arbitration, but not through actions that disrupt homeowners' daily lives [2]. Group 2: Handover Obligations - Property service providers are not entitled to demand payment for services after the termination of their contract if they refuse to vacate the property and fulfill handover obligations to the new service provider [3][4]. - The court emphasized that upon contract termination, the original service provider must exit the service area within a reasonable timeframe and cooperate with the new provider, failing which they cannot claim fees and may be liable for damages [4]. Group 3: Authority of Homeowners' Decisions - Original property service providers lack the standing to challenge decisions made by homeowners' assemblies regarding the appointment of new service providers, as they are not homeowners and thus not bound by such decisions [5][6]. - The court's ruling reinforces that decisions made by homeowners' assemblies regarding the hiring and firing of property service companies are legally binding on homeowners and do not extend to service providers, ensuring the integrity of homeowners' collective management rights [6].