Homebuyer Wins Refund of 1200 RMB Water Meter Fee in Unjust Enrichment Case

Homebuyer Wins Refund of 1200 RMB Water Meter Fee in Unjust Enrichment Case

Case Overview
A Chinese court ordered a real estate developer to refund 1200 RMB collected from homebuyers as a water meter fee, plus interest, finding the charge constituted unjust enrichment. The developer had imposed the fee on buyers of government-subsidized affordable housing units after the official price had already been approved by regulators.

Case Background and Facts
Mr. Ge and Ms. Fu, residents of an affordable housing community in Eastern China, purchased their apartment from Zhejiang Economic Housing Development and Construction Company in 2003. During the handover process, the developer charged them 1200 RMB under the label of a water meter collection fee. The buyers paid the amount without objection at the time. Seven years later, in 2010, the couple learned from community notices that other homeowners had successfully challenged this charge in court. They discovered the fee had been deemed improper by the provincial pricing authority. The buyers then filed a lawsuit demanding the return of the 1200 RMB plus interest calculated from April 2003.

Court Proceedings and Evidence
The case was heard in a district court in Eastern China. The buyers presented their purchase contract, property ownership certificate, and the invoice showing the 1200 RMB payment marked as water meter fee. They also submitted a court judgment from a similar case involving the same developer. The developer argued the claim was time-barred by the two-year statute of limitations and that the fee was justified by actual cost increases. The developer submitted evidence including original construction plans showing no smart water meters, a government price approval document from 2001, engineering change orders from December 2001 adding the meters, completion drawings, and cost verification reports showing actual per-unit costs of 1318.89 RMB.

Court Findings and Judgment
The court identified two key issues. First, whether the developer’s collection of the water meter fee constituted unjust enrichment. The court held that water supply facilities are basic infrastructure that a developer must provide as part of its contractual obligations. Since the purchase contract contained no special agreement requiring buyers to pay separately for water meters, the purchase price already covered such costs. The provincial pricing authority had already determined the developer’s collection of this fee was an improper price increase. Second, regarding the statute of limitations, the court applied the rule that the limitation period for unjust enrichment claims begins when the claimant knows or should know of the unjust enrichment and the identity of the obligor. The developer failed to prove the buyers knew or should have known the fee was improper at the time of payment. The court accepted the buyers’ claim that they only learned of the issue in 2010 when notices appeared in their community. The court ordered the developer to refund the 1200 RMB plus interest at 5.76 percent per annum from April 18, 2003 until payment.

Key Legal Principles
The court applied the principle that unjust enrichment occurs when a person obtains benefits without legal basis, causing loss to another. The developer had no contractual or legal basis to charge separately for water meters after the government had approved the housing price. The court also clarified that the statute of limitations for unjust enrichment claims runs from when the claimant discovers or should discover the unjust enrichment, not from the date of payment.

Practical Insights
This case demonstrates that developers cannot impose additional charges on homebuyers for basic infrastructure after obtaining government price approval. Homebuyers who paid such fees may seek refunds even years later, as the limitation period only starts when they learn the fee was improper. Buyers should review government pricing approvals and consult with other homeowners who may have challenged similar charges.

Legal References
General Principles of the Civil Law of the People’s Republic of China, Article 92
Supreme Peoples Court Opinions on Implementing the General Principles of the Civil Law (Trial Implementation), Article 131

Disclaimer
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified attorney for specific legal matters.