Court Rules Property Management Must Allow EV Charger Installation in Long-Term Rented Parking Spot

The Beijing No.1 Intermediate People's Court recently issued a final judgment in a case where a homeowner sued a property management company for refusing to cooperate with the installation of a private charging station for a new energy vehicle. Li Mou had signed a "Ground Motor Vehicle Parking Management Agreement" with a property management company, granting him exclusive use of a parking space in the residential community for two years. After purchasing a new energy vehicle, Li applied to install a private charging station at this parking space. However, the property management company refused to issue a consent certificate for the installation, citing reasons including the existence of 18 public charging stations already in the community, the need for approval by an owners’ assembly for any additional installations, and alleged safety concerns. Li subsequently filed a lawsuit, demanding that the property management company fulfill its obligation to cooperate. The court of first instance held that installing a charging station involved common areas owned collectively by all owners and thus constituted a “major matter concerning co-ownership and joint management rights” under China’s Civil Code, which requires collective decision-making by the owners. Since no such decision had yet been made by the owners as a whole, the court dismissed all of Li’s claims. Dissatisfied with the ruling, Li appealed. The appellate court found upon review that Li had enjoyed lawful and exclusive use of the parking space for over one year and that installing a charging station was a reasonable measure to meet his daily charging needs, constituting a legitimate extension of his parking space usage rights. Moreover, relevant national and Beijing municipal regulatory documents explicitly encourage the development of charging infrastructure in residential communities and require property management companies to provide cooperation. The local power supply authority also confirmed that the parking space met the technical requirements for installation. The court further determined that the installation of a private charging station would have limited construction impact, would not alter the designated purpose of the parking space, and did not amount to a major reconstruction or renovation of common areas—thus falling outside the scope of matters requiring collective decision-making by all owners. Although public charging stations existed in the community, they differed fundamentally from private stations in terms of convenience and electricity pricing, and therefore could not be used to negate the homeowner’s legitimate rights. The property management company failed to present effective evidence demonstrating either majority owner opposition or non-compliance with safety standards, and thus bore the adverse consequences of its failure to meet its burden of proof. Ultimately, the appellate court overturned the first-instance judgment and ordered the property management company to issue, within seven days of the judgment taking effect, a consent certificate permitting Li to install a private new energy vehicle charging station, and to fulfill ancillary obligations such as on-site inspection and construction coordination. The judgment also noted that, in order to minimize the impact of scattered installations on common areas, homeowners and property management should follow principles of centralized layout and zoned allocation, integrating dispersed charging demands into designated charging zones planned accordingly.