The owner is prohibited by the property management from using the elevator and access control system in their unit due to unpaid property fees. On December 8th, in order to fully leverage the exemplary guiding effect of typical cases, unify the rules of judgment, prevent and resolve property disputes, safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the people, and maintain social harmony and stability, the Supreme People's Court released five typical cases of property service contract disputes to the public. The reporter noticed that in the case of "Zhang v. A Property Management Company Property Service Contract Dispute" released, the court clearly stated that the property service provider should adopt reasonable and legal methods to urge the payment of property fees, and shall not adopt methods such as restricting the use of the community access control system by owners beyond reasonable limits. The case shows that Zhang is a property owner of a certain community, and a property management company provides property services for the community. In September 2021, Zhang discovered that he had been banned from using the elevator and access control system in his unit due to unpaid property fees. After unsuccessful negotiations with a property management company, Zhang sued the company and demanded that they restore his use of the elevator and access control system. The trial court held that Article 944 (3) of the Civil Code of the People's Republic of China stipulates that property service providers shall not use methods such as stopping power supply, water supply, heating, or gas supply to demand payment of property fees. In this case, although Zhang owed property fees, a certain property management company should not urge the property fees by not activating the access card for the owner, which would prevent them from entering the unit door or using the elevator access control system normally. A property management company may seek legal recourse against Zhang's breach of contract for unpaid property fees. After being legally explained by the court, a property management company voluntarily resumed Zhang's use of the door prohibition system during the trial of this case. The Supreme People's Court holds that property owners should pay property fees to property service providers according to the agreement. However, in practice, situations where property owners delay or even refuse to pay property fees occur, and property service providers often use various methods to urge payment of property fees. The property service provider's collection of property fees through methods such as not activating access cards for owners and restricting the use of elevators is essentially based on their creditor's rights under the property service contract, which improperly restricts the owners' ownership of the building. It lacks legal basis and exceeds reasonable and necessary limits, often exacerbating the conflict between the two parties. The Supreme People's Court further holds that property service providers should use reasonable methods to urge the payment of property fees. If the owner fails to pay the property fees within a reasonable period after being urged, the property service provider may protect its legitimate rights and interests through mediation, litigation, or arbitration, but should not urge the payment in a way that affects the normal life of the owner. The judgment of this case clearly states that the property service provider should urge the payment of property fees in a reasonable and legal form, and safeguard the legitimate rights and interests of the owners in accordance with the law. (New Society)