Purpose: This paper aims to examine the concerns and implications of the recently enacted Property Management Services Ordinance (Cap. 626) (PMSO) of Hong Kong. Design/methodology/approach: A 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. Findings: There 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/implications: This 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 implications: By virtue of the new licencing system of the PMSO, property management services contracts in Hong Kong become a new kind of specific contracts. Originality/value: This paper illustrates the relationship between freedom of contract and public benefit. It contributes knowledge to the area of government policy formulation in property management.
- Government policy
- Property management
ASJC Scopus subject areas
- Business, Management and Accounting (miscellaneous)