House Damaged by Rainwater Backflow: Is the Property Management Company Liable? Successful Case of a Shenzhen Real Estate Dispute

In June 2023, Shenzhen was hit by continuous heavy rainfall. In a residential community in Futian, homeowner Mr. Ding and his family were on a business trip out of town when a message from the property manager on his phone made his heart sink: "Your home is flooded." By the time he rushed back to Shenzhen and opened the door, the wooden flooring in the living room had already warped from soaking, the wallpaper was moldy, the bottoms of all the furniture were damaged, and the entire house was filled with a musty smell.

The property management's explanation only made him angrier: "The rainwater pipe is clogged because cement fell into it during your renovation. It has nothing to do with us."

Case review

Mr. Ding is an owner of a residential property in a garden community in Futian District. In mid-June 2023, heavy rainstorms hit Shenzhen consecutively. Due to a blockage in the public rainwater drainage pipe, rainwater backed up and flooded Mr. Ding's home, causing damage to the wooden flooring, wallpaper, furniture, and other areas. At the time of the incident, Mr. Ding and his family were not in Shenzhen, so the damage could not be controlled in a timely manner and further escalated.

After assessment, the total cost for house repairs, furniture loss, and rental expenses during the repair period amounted to approximately 69,000 yuan. Mr. Ding repeatedly negotiated compensation with the property management company but to no avail, as the company insisted that the blockage of the rainwater pipe was caused by cement mortar falling into it during Mr. Ding's renovation, and was unrelated to their management. Left with no choice, Mr. Ding entrusted a lawyer to file a lawsuit in court.

Case handling process

After accepting the commission, Guangdong Zhiming Law Firm assigned the case to Attorney Shen Jinlong's team. For cases of this kind—"act of God or man-made disaster"—the outcome hinges entirely on the evidence. The legal team devised a three-step evidence collection plan:

First, identify the cause of the blockage. The lawyer applied to the court to commission a professional institution to inspect the clogged rainwater pipe. The inspection report showed that the blockage consisted of a mixture of sediment, fallen leaves, and construction debris, and that the blockage was located at a bend in the public pipe, far from the outlet of Mr. Ding's home renovation pipe, making it impossible for the blockage to have been caused by renovation cement.

Second step: investigate the property management's maintenance records. The lawyer sent a legal letter to the property management company, demanding records of public facility inspections and unclogging operations over the past three years. The company could not provide complete records, offering only a single entry stating "one unclogging in October 2022," with no maintenance records for the following eight months. This gap became the critical breakthrough in the case.

Third step: secure evidence of losses. The lawyer guided Mr. Ding to retain all repair receipts and appraisal reports, and applied for a review of the reasonableness of rental expenses incurred during the repair period.

During the court hearing, the property management company insisted on its claim of "improper renovation by the owner," but failed to provide a reasonable explanation for the appraisal report and maintenance records. Attorney Shen Jinlong pointed out that as the manager of the public drainage facilities, the property management company has the obligation to conduct routine inspections and regular dredging. Its failure to perform any maintenance for eight months allowed blockages to accumulate continuously, ultimately leading to the overflow during the heavy rain, making its liability clear and unambiguous.

Legal Analysis

The legal basis of this case primarily involves two levels.

First, tort liability. Under Article 1165 of the Civil Code, a person who through fault infringes upon the civil rights and interests of another and causes damage shall bear tort liability. Article 1253 further stipulates that where a building, structure, or other facility, or an object placed or hung thereon, falls and causes damage to another person, the owner, manager, or user shall bear tort liability if they cannot prove they were not at fault. A property management company, as the manager of public facilities in a residential community, has a statutory duty of maintenance. If it cannot prove that it has fulfilled its reasonable maintenance obligations, fault shall be presumed.

Second, the obligations under the property service contract. Pursuant to Article 942 of the Civil Code, the property service provider shall, in accordance with the agreement and the nature of use of the property, properly repair, maintain, clean, landscape, and manage the common areas of the owners within the property service area, and maintain the basic order within the property service area. Public rainwater pipes are part of the owners' common areas, and the property management company's maintenance obligations are not exempted due to the owners' renovation.

Additionally, Article 3 of the Supreme People's Court's Interpretation on Several Issues Concerning the Application of Law in the Trial of Property Service Dispute Cases also clarifies that if a property service enterprise fails to perform or fully perform its obligations such as repair and maintenance as stipulated in the property service contract, and the owner requests it to bear liability for breach of contract, such as continued performance or compensation for losses, the people's court shall support such a request.

Judgment Result

After trial, the court of first instance found that the property management company had failed to properly maintain the public rainwater pipe and held it 70% liable for the damages to Mr. Ding's house, ordering the company to pay over 48,000 yuan in economic compensation (including house repair costs and rental expenses during the repair period). The property management company appealed, but the court of second instance upheld the original judgment.

After receiving the judgment, Mr. Ding sent a photo of it to the property manager, who did not reply. Later, Mr. Ding said to the lawyer over the phone, "It's not about the tens of thousands of yuan—it's about getting an explanation. If the property management collects fees, they must fulfill their responsibilities."

Case Notes

During Shenzhen's annual typhoon season, disputes over "flooded homes" tend to erupt in clusters. Attorney Shen Jinlong's team has summarized several practical tips:

For property owners: First, if you are not at home when a heavy rain warning is issued, contact the property management immediately to inspect the premises and keep records of phone calls and WeChat messages. Second, after the damage occurs, take photos and videos promptly to preserve evidence of the damaged items in their original condition. Third, before starting repairs, have a professional institution assess and determine the extent of the loss—do not rush into construction. Fourth, the property management's inspection records and drainage maintenance logs are key evidence, and you can apply for a court investigation order to obtain them.

For property management companies: inspection and maintenance records of public facilities must be documented. A single unclogging record or an inspection photo can serve as ironclad evidence for exemption or reduction of liability at critical moments. Many property companies lose lawsuits not because they lack justification, but because they fail to produce records.

If you are also facing similar disputes involving flooding, leakage, or pipe blockages, a Shenzhen real estate dispute lawyer can help you identify the responsible parties, preserve evidence, and calculate damages, so you can recover the compensation you deserve.

One more detail: before the appraisal agency issued its report, the property management company had also proposed a "settlement plan"—offering 3,000 yuan as "sympathy money" to close the matter. Mr. Ding was almost ready to accept it at the time, but his lawyer talked him out of it: "Your losses, based on an assessment, would be at least 50,000 yuan. 3,000 yuan wouldn't even buy back a single wooden floorboard." As it turned out later, that professional insistence was the right call.

Similar cases are not uncommon in Shenzhen. According to property service complaint data released by the Shenzhen Consumer Council, complaints about public facility maintenance consistently rank among the top three property complaints year after year. In judicial practice, courts generally take a cautious stance toward property companies' defense of "shifting responsibility due to owner renovations"—as long as appraisal reports prove that blockages originated from public areas or that maintenance records are missing, property companies are essentially required to bear primary liability. In 2022, the Nanshan District People's Court in Shenzhen ruled on a similar rainwater backflow case, holding the property company 80% liable for compensation due to its failure to provide dredging records from the preceding two years.

There is another detail that property owners easily overlook: the statute of limitations for such cases is three years, calculated from the date when the owner knew or should have known that their rights were infringed. Many owners put off filing a lawsuit until more than two years have passed. Although this is usually still within the limitation period, the evidence may already be lost—the repaired site, the cleaned-up blockage, the replaced pipes—all this first-hand evidence gradually disappears over time. Therefore, securing evidence immediately after the incident and starting the legal process as soon as possible is more important than anything else.