✔ 最佳答案
1. Is there a question?
2. None - the issue is it was not the fault of the new owner, but the property management (your company).
The property management should have been notified 4 years ago regarding the transfer. In this case, the property management has a duty to make sure that the management fee is collected properly (like prior arrangement has been canceled and new arrangement has been set).
Also - although this incident is related to the transfer, it is caused by the transfer. In conclusion, the property management will be liable for negligence.
3. You should make this incident into 2 separate issues:
a. Previous owner was charged by mistake.
b. Current owner has failed to pay for management fee for 4 years.
Once you have verified the fact, your company should contact the owners separately based on the issues above and proceed accordingly (refund and collection).
Also - please report to your company's legal department as well (as this can lead to possible lawsuits).
One side note - it is hard to believe the current owner failed to address the issue for 4 years:
- Like other utilities (water, electricity, etc.), not receiving the bill does not mean you don't have to pay.
- It is hard to believe that there is no increase in management fee for 4 years. Hence, the current owner should have received notices regarding management fee. In other word, the current owner knew the mistakes for a long time.
2014-07-23 13:33:50 補充:
Alfred Yiu:
In common sense, you may be right, but definitely not legally.
Regardless if the amount has applied towards the payment of management fee or not, the property management has mistakenly collected money from the previous owner. So the property management is definitely on the hook.
2014-07-23 13:35:20 補充:
However, if the property management tells the owners to take care of their own problems, this will be the beginning of a nightmare, as both owners can sue back the management.
Keeping both sides separated will definitely help to settle this issue. Putting them together will make a big case.
2014-07-23 13:40:36 補充:
Cecimak1995:
In term of the stealing issue, this will never make a case.
1. The current owner did not steal from the previous owner. The property management "did'.
2. The only liability that the current owner has is fail to pay the fee, which is a civil matter.
Stealing is a overstatement.
2014-07-24 15:28:15 補充:
Cecimak1995:
1. I never said either owners can't sue on their own. It is about damage mitigation.
In this case, the management has made 2 major mistakes. If both owners team up together, it will be potentially a great damage to the management.
2014-07-24 15:37:20 補充:
However, if the problem is separated, the damage can be controlled (Remember - the current owner has a very weak case in this case because he/she has the duty to pay).
2014-07-24 15:39:23 補充:
2. It is not stealing. End of story.
Based on what you have mentioned, the key of Section 18 is not subpart 1, but 2 - the definition of pecuniary advantage (金錢利益). None of Section 18(2) definition meets this case.
2014-07-24 15:42:28 補充:
How about other provision from the same Chapter? I concede that the current owner was dishonest, which make this a potential theft case. However, the current owner has not appropriated the money. At the least, the management thought the current owner was the one paying. Simply - not enough evidence.