Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the property management company's restriction on homeowners' participation in parking space lotteries based on timely payment of property fees is invalid, emphasizing the need for collective decision-making among homeowners regarding shared resources [1][2][3]. Group 1: Legal Case Summary - The case involved a homeowner, Ms. Chen, who was denied participation in a parking space lottery due to late payment of property fees, which the property management company claimed was a necessary condition for participation [1]. - The property management company had issued four lottery notifications from 2021 to 2024, each requiring timely payment of property fees as a prerequisite for entering the lottery [1]. - The court found that the management of parking spaces is a significant matter that should be decided collectively by homeowners, and the property management company's unilateral restriction violated homeowners' rights [2]. Group 2: Court's Ruling and Implications - The court declared the property management company's condition linking property fee payment to lottery participation as invalid, reinforcing the principle of fairness and voluntary participation [2][3]. - The court did not support Ms. Chen's claim for compensation of 2,800 yuan for parking rental fees, as she failed to provide sufficient evidence of the incurred costs [2]. - The ruling highlights the importance of property management companies respecting homeowners' rights to shared resources and the necessity of establishing regular communication mechanisms with homeowners [3].

Core Viewpoint - The court ruled that the property management company's actions to clear the public area were legal and necessary to maintain community order and protect the rights of all homeowners, rejecting the compensation claim from Mr. Huang [1][2][3]. Group 1: Case Background - Mr. Huang planted flowers and built a "garden" on the public platform of his residence, leading to water leakage issues in Ms. Li's shop below, which she attributed to the roots of Mr. Huang's plants damaging the waterproof layer [1]. - After multiple requests for cleanup from Ms. Li, Mr. Huang refused to acknowledge responsibility, resulting in a stalemate [1]. - The property management company intervened and, with Mr. Huang's son's consent, conducted a cleanup, which Mr. Huang later contested as unauthorized [1]. Group 2: Court's Ruling - The court determined that Mr. Huang's extensive use of the public platform exceeded reasonable limits and caused neighbor disputes, obligating him to cooperate with the property management for cleanup [2]. - The property management's actions were deemed a legitimate exercise of their responsibilities, aimed at maintaining normal living conditions and protecting the rights of all residents [2]. Group 3: Legal and Community Implications - The judge emphasized the importance of property management services in ensuring the quality of life for residents and maintaining the cleanliness of shared spaces [2][3]. - The court highlighted that property management must adhere to legal regulations and contractual agreements while ensuring public interest, and homeowners must fulfill their obligations to avoid potential legal consequences [3].