Our reporter Zhao Jiaxin - An owner who suffered a loss of more than 70,000 yuan in stolen money and goods due to the initial refusal of the property company to allow the installation of steel anti-theft nets, failed multiple times to negotiate compensation issues with the property company. The property company stated that if the court recognizes the amount of loss and the responsibility lies with them, they are willing to compensate.
Mr. He lives in Unit 2 of Building 40 in Oriental Flower City. He introduced that between 5 PM to 7 PM on October 30th, the thief climbed over the wall to the second floor, pried open the invisible anti-theft net at his home, and stole more than 20,000 yuan in cash and jewelry, with a total value reaching more than 70,000 yuan. Both the police and the neighborhood security had been to his house, examined the scene, but there was no further development after that.
Mr. He said that during the initial renovation, the property company prohibited the installation of steel anti-theft nets, so he had to install an invisible anti-theft net according to the requirements of the property company. This time, suffering from heavy losses due to theft, the property company should be held responsible for inadequate supervision and reasonably compensate for the loss. He approached the property company many times, but the other party was not willing to take any responsibility at all.
Yesterday morning, Director Li of Tianyuan Property Management Company, which is responsible for the property management of Oriental Flower City community, indicated that after their investigation, it was unlikely that Mr. He's house was burglarized: first, there were many people returning home during that period, and it was inappropriate timing for thieves to choose to break in; secondly, the invisible anti-theft net of Mr. He’s house was directly facing the kitchen next door, and any slight movement would have been noticed by the neighboring owners; thirdly, it was difficult to determine exactly how much was lost. From a humanitarian perspective, the company was willing to waive a certain period of parking fees for Mr. He, but if compensation was necessary, it could only be resolved through legal litigation. If the court determined that the company should bear the loss, regardless of the amount, they would compensate.
Mr. He claimed that he would definitely recover his losses through proper channels. If negotiation fails, he would have no choice but to sue in court.