On the Property Management Services Ordinance of Hong Kong: concerns and implications

Abstract

PurposeThis paper aims to examine the concerns and implications of the recently enacted Property Management Services Ordinance (Cap. 626) (PMSO) of Hong Kong.Design/methodology/approachA review was undertaken to identify the characteristics of the property management-related legislation of common law jurisdictions similar to Hong Kong, which include Australia, Canada and the United Kingdom. Then, the development of the property management-related ordinances in Hong Kong and the key features of the PMSO were examined. Finally, a case study was conducted to demonstrate the potential problems of the PMSO.FindingsThere are various kinds of legislative controls on property management services in the above common law jurisdictions. The PMSO, which is the first to regulate property management services providers through a licencing system and introduce control on training and professional development, imposes limits on freedom of contract and self-regulation of professionals. Potential problems with the implementation of the PMSO are also revealed.Research limitations/implicationsThis research analyses four common law jurisdictions. Property management services contracts in these jurisdictions are subject to governance by their case laws and market operations.Practical implicationsBy virtue of the new licencing system of the PMSO, property management services contracts in Hong Kong become a new kind of specific contracts.Originality/valueThis paper illustrates the relationship between freedom of contract and public benefit. It contributes knowledge to the area of government policy formulation in property management.