最高法发布典型案例，回应物业领域群众关注的问题

Core Viewpoint - The Supreme People's Court has released five typical cases regarding property service contract disputes to address common issues such as property fee collection methods and difficulties in handover after contract termination, aiming to prevent and resolve conflicts in the property sector effectively [1] 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 legal provisions and exceeds reasonable limits [2] - The Civil Code stipulates that property service providers must use lawful and reasonable methods for fee collection, and if owners fail to pay after notification, providers can resort to mediation, litigation, or arbitration without affecting the owners' normal living conditions [2] Group 2: Handover Obligations - Property service providers are not entitled to charge property fees after the termination of their service contract if they refuse to vacate the property and fulfill handover obligations to the new service provider [3][4] - The Civil Code mandates that upon contract termination, the original service provider must exit the property within an agreed or reasonable timeframe and assist in the handover process, failing which they cannot claim fees and may be liable for damages [4] Group 3: Authority of Owners' Decisions - Original property service providers lack the legal standing to challenge decisions made by the owners' assembly regarding the appointment of new service providers, as they are not considered owners and thus not bound by such decisions [5][6] - The Civil Code emphasizes that decisions regarding the appointment and dismissal of property service companies must be made collectively by the owners, and such decisions are legally binding on the owners but not on external parties like service providers [6]