The final result is that the park property asked the Hangzhou girl to show them the invoice for buying a car, and then they compensated the girl 600 yuan, and the Hangzhou girl agreed. I think it is wrong for this Hangzhou girl to park her car in the carport for a long time but not use it, because the park property also said that there are too many cars in the carport to fit in. Hangzhou girl's car takes up space here, and I seldom use it. If everyone can park their unused cars in the carport, it will definitely affect other office workers who drive to and from work. The Hangzhou girl also said that the last time she used her car was a month ago, so it can be seen how long she used it.

Although the career of Hangzhou girl is not good, the park property has no right to sell Hangzhou girl's electric car. Because the ownership of this electric car belongs to the Hangzhou girl, not the park property. Park property should not be sold as zombie car just because electric cars occupy space, which is undoubtedly wrong. It can be said that there are some mistakes on both sides of time.

The behavior of girls in Hangzhou is equivalent to occupying a seat in the library, and occupying a seat for more than a month without studying. The behavior of the park property is to find the behavior of Hangzhou girls occupying seats and throw away the books she occupies. In this way, most people can understand the situation. If we are students at school and can't find empty seats anywhere in the library, will we be angry if we find that those seats with books are intact for a month?

However, if we are seat-occupying people, one day we suddenly remember that we still have a book occupying a seat in the library, and we will be angry if we want to find it back and find it thrown away. So I think both sides are at fault in this matter. Everyone should not blame the park property and support the Hangzhou girl. We should look at things more objectively and think from multiple angles, not just from the perspective of the parties.