Residents upset over JMC spending
By STUART MICHAEL
RESIDENTS of Rosewood Court apartment in Bandar Tasik Puteri, Rawang, are upset with their Joint Management Committee (JMC) for spending more than RM30,000 over the last seven and a half months.
The Rosewood Court JMC account had a balance of more than RM29,000 when the current committee took office on March 15 this year.
Now, there is only RM4,872 left, according to the bank statement for October 2009.
Former Rosewood Court JMC chairman Suhaimi Abdul Majid, 46, said the present committee had bought a computer, tables, printers and unnecessary equipment for the office.
Only a third of the units occupied: The Rosewood Court apartments in Bandar Tasik Puteri, Rawang.
“It is unnecessary spending and a waste of funds. I would have spent the money on maintenance or saved it for other items, like cleaning drains, cutting grass, and repairing lights and cracks.
“We are unhappy that the JMC appointed a company, NHO Management, to maintain the property and although the JMC pays RM4,700 every month, there has been no maintenance work except for lighting in the compound and the cutting of grass.Moreover, it is using the JMC office without paying rental.
“We have so many professionals among us — Tenaga Nasional Berhad technicians, grass-cutters, engineers, technicians — who are willing to help us cut costs,’’ he said.
Resident Liliruhida Abdullah said they wanted to meet the JMC to discuss issues at least once a month or once in two months, but the committee refused.
“It seems like the JMC, the Selayang Municipal Council (MPS) and the MPS councillor in charge of the area do not want to listen to our problems, like cracks appearing on the walls, no proper lighting at the staircase, grass in our compound not being cut, dogs roaming freely and even chasing our school-going children, and absence of lifts.
“We want a JMC that will fight for our rights and not just ignore the issues we raise,” she said.
Another resident Nor Azean Abdul Hamid, 32, said she had faced a lot of problems since shifting from Kampung Kayu Ara in Damansara last year.
“Water seeps from the bathroom above my unit into my master bedroom and another room, and there is nothing I can do about it. Cracks have started to appear in my unit as well as other units, and we fear the apartment might collapse one day,” she said.
Khairul Anuar Salleh, 33, who has lived there for two years, said the JMC had not informed residents about the backdated TNB electricty bills nor tabled proper accounts on the matter.
“We want to know how the money was spent, and the exact figures,” he said.
Meanwhile, Rosewood Court JMC chairman Mohd Rosli Arshad said only 20-30% of tenants paid the maintenance fees.
“The maintenance fee is only RM45 monthly, and only about one-third of the 300 units are occupied.
“Our average collection is between RM1,000 and RM4,000 monthly and we have to pay NHO Management RM4,700 each month. We are supposed to pay RM5,000 monthly but RM300 is deducted as rental.
“We must bear in mind that NHO Management has to pay workers to cut the grass and clean the drains, as well as the clerk in the office who collects the maintenance fees.
“Because the money received from the maintenance fees is very little, we could only have the grass cut, the drains swept and the lights at the staircases fixed.
“At present, we are facing a shortage of funds because many of the residents refuse to pay the maintenance fees, so we hope they will pay up.
“We have written a letter to the developer five months ago, requesting that it bank RM50,000 into our account to repair the cracks on the wall and other problems. We are doing the best we can,” he said.
He added that the committee was considering the residents’ suggestion to have a meeting once a month or once in two months.
Tuesday, November 3, 2009
Tuesday, October 20, 2009
of Lavender, Dogs and the Smell...
Developer agrees to clean up the mess
By FAZLEENA AZIZ
THE developer of Vista Lavender in Puchong has agreed to channel its sewage discharge to a proper outlet.
According to Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) president Datuk Adnan Md Ikshan, the developer has agreed to resolve the matter after a recent meeting.
“We will wait until December for them to do the necessary work,” he said.
StarMetro had reported on the channelling of sewage discharge into the main drain which leads to the Klang River.
It is believed that the illegal activity had been going on at the site for more than five years.
According to residents, the overflow from a sewerage manhole in the basement of the 15-storey Block A is being diverted into the main drain.
The developer has built a concrete barrier around the overflowing manhole and created an outlet to channel the sewage into a main drain.
During the meeting, Adnan also spoke about the lack of cleanliness with regard to high-rise residential areas.
He said that the problems were caused by the attitude of the residents.
“You find them throwing rubbish everywhere like in the lifts, pathways and out the windows, which is not right,” he said.
He also spoke about complaints of stray dogs at high-rise buildings.
“We have spoken to the joint management bodies (JMBs) and they have said that action will be taken.
“MPSJ is willing to offer assistance in such matters because we know that most of these JMBs are barely a year old,” he said
By FAZLEENA AZIZ
THE developer of Vista Lavender in Puchong has agreed to channel its sewage discharge to a proper outlet.
According to Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) president Datuk Adnan Md Ikshan, the developer has agreed to resolve the matter after a recent meeting.
“We will wait until December for them to do the necessary work,” he said.
StarMetro had reported on the channelling of sewage discharge into the main drain which leads to the Klang River.
It is believed that the illegal activity had been going on at the site for more than five years.
According to residents, the overflow from a sewerage manhole in the basement of the 15-storey Block A is being diverted into the main drain.
The developer has built a concrete barrier around the overflowing manhole and created an outlet to channel the sewage into a main drain.
During the meeting, Adnan also spoke about the lack of cleanliness with regard to high-rise residential areas.
He said that the problems were caused by the attitude of the residents.
“You find them throwing rubbish everywhere like in the lifts, pathways and out the windows, which is not right,” he said.
He also spoke about complaints of stray dogs at high-rise buildings.
“We have spoken to the joint management bodies (JMBs) and they have said that action will be taken.
“MPSJ is willing to offer assistance in such matters because we know that most of these JMBs are barely a year old,” he said
Monday, October 19, 2009
The saga continues...
JMC member denies abuse of power
IN StarMetro’s report “Condo residents in a fix” on Aug 8, one of the residents of South City Condominium claimed that they had been denied the right to vote.
In an interview, Khong Chee Seng, who chaired the AGM, and Joint Management Committee (JMC) member Kan Wai Hoong provided their side of the story.
In the article, one of the residents was quoted as saying, “An outsider (non-condominium owner) called Khong Chee Seng was hired to chair the annual general meeting (AGM). He said that there was no need for an election as the elected JMB can continue their term for three years.
“We did not agree but he said that it was illegal to have an election.”
Khong denied ever having said it was illegal to have an election.
“We don’t deny that the election of JMC members was on the agenda as it is a standard procedure under the laws of Malaysia.
“I even acknowledged that it was the right of a consumer to vote, as stated in Act 663 (or Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007), Section 11.2,” he said, presenting several documents pertaining to the duties and powers of a Joint Management Body.
However, he pointed out that in the Laws of Malaysia, under the heading of Joint Management Committee (JMC), “the committee shall consist of the developer and not less than five and not more than 12 purchasers, who shall be elected at the AGM of the Body and shall hold office for a period of not exceeding three years or until the dissolution of the body in accordance with section 15, whichever is earlier”.
“There would be an election, provided there is a vacancy in the JMC.
“Some residents claimed they had heard that some members would be resigning. They kept harping on the issue, telling the JMC to declare if there were any members resigning, but there was none,” he said.
It was mentioned in the article that residents had shown letters from the Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) in reply to their complaint on the AGM, in which the council requested the JMB to provide the AGM minutes and an explanation as well as relevant documents.
In a second letter to the JMB chairman, the council ordered the committee to set a date for the EGM, in accordance with sub-section 10(2)(b) of the Building and Common Property (maintenance and management) Act 2007 (Act 663).
Khong said he had not received any letter from the MPSJ.
On his role as the chairman of the meeting, he said he had been proposed as an independent chairman and it was cleared when he registered.
Meanwhile, Kan said there was no abuse of power.
On the residents’ claim that they had been denied the right to view certain documents, he said, “They have to submit an official letter for permission to view the documents.
“The JMC is curious as to why these residents did not bring up issues during the AGM, which was a platform for them to do so.
“None of them asked about the car park and sinking funds,” he said.
“I’ve been a housing activist for the past 12 years as well as an adviser to JMCs.
“I don’t deny there are people who love me and those who hate me when I raise certain issues.
“I hope that this issue can be an eye-opener, not only for condo owners but also others, including government authorities.
“The fault lies in a lack of unified interpretation of the law. Hence, education is of the utmost priority and I hope the Selangor housing board can come up with clear guidelines to prevent ambiguity and confusion.
“We don’t want consumers to be victims of the process,” Khong said.
IN StarMetro’s report “Condo residents in a fix” on Aug 8, one of the residents of South City Condominium claimed that they had been denied the right to vote.
In an interview, Khong Chee Seng, who chaired the AGM, and Joint Management Committee (JMC) member Kan Wai Hoong provided their side of the story.
In the article, one of the residents was quoted as saying, “An outsider (non-condominium owner) called Khong Chee Seng was hired to chair the annual general meeting (AGM). He said that there was no need for an election as the elected JMB can continue their term for three years.
“We did not agree but he said that it was illegal to have an election.”
Khong denied ever having said it was illegal to have an election.
“We don’t deny that the election of JMC members was on the agenda as it is a standard procedure under the laws of Malaysia.
“I even acknowledged that it was the right of a consumer to vote, as stated in Act 663 (or Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007), Section 11.2,” he said, presenting several documents pertaining to the duties and powers of a Joint Management Body.
However, he pointed out that in the Laws of Malaysia, under the heading of Joint Management Committee (JMC), “the committee shall consist of the developer and not less than five and not more than 12 purchasers, who shall be elected at the AGM of the Body and shall hold office for a period of not exceeding three years or until the dissolution of the body in accordance with section 15, whichever is earlier”.
“There would be an election, provided there is a vacancy in the JMC.
“Some residents claimed they had heard that some members would be resigning. They kept harping on the issue, telling the JMC to declare if there were any members resigning, but there was none,” he said.
It was mentioned in the article that residents had shown letters from the Subang Jaya Municipal Council (MPSJ) in reply to their complaint on the AGM, in which the council requested the JMB to provide the AGM minutes and an explanation as well as relevant documents.
In a second letter to the JMB chairman, the council ordered the committee to set a date for the EGM, in accordance with sub-section 10(2)(b) of the Building and Common Property (maintenance and management) Act 2007 (Act 663).
Khong said he had not received any letter from the MPSJ.
On his role as the chairman of the meeting, he said he had been proposed as an independent chairman and it was cleared when he registered.
Meanwhile, Kan said there was no abuse of power.
On the residents’ claim that they had been denied the right to view certain documents, he said, “They have to submit an official letter for permission to view the documents.
“The JMC is curious as to why these residents did not bring up issues during the AGM, which was a platform for them to do so.
“None of them asked about the car park and sinking funds,” he said.
“I’ve been a housing activist for the past 12 years as well as an adviser to JMCs.
“I don’t deny there are people who love me and those who hate me when I raise certain issues.
“I hope that this issue can be an eye-opener, not only for condo owners but also others, including government authorities.
“The fault lies in a lack of unified interpretation of the law. Hence, education is of the utmost priority and I hope the Selangor housing board can come up with clear guidelines to prevent ambiguity and confusion.
“We don’t want consumers to be victims of the process,” Khong said.
Thursday, October 8, 2009
An Inspiration?
Watch this...put together by YB ISKANDAR, EXCO for Housing.....
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V87z8e9IAyE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=V87z8e9IAyE
Thursday, September 24, 2009
Developer's Response
WE REFER to the article “Medan Putra residents rejoice” (StarMetro, Sept 23, 2009) and would like to rebut some of the claims made against us.
The High Court decision in August allowed the registration of the Medan Putra JMB (JMB); however, this matter is now with the Court of Appeal.
The High Court did not decide to the effect that “To put it succinctly, a developer must set up a JMB before forming a Management Corporation, otherwise it is considered illegal and a new JMB must be formed”, as published in the article, nor did the High Court make any decision to the effect that the Management Corporation (MC) is illegal, as alleged and published.
In fact, there is no dispute or challenge that the MC, as stipulated in the Strata Titles Act 1985, has the authority to, inter alia, manage the condominium. On the other hand, as the MC was formed earlier than the JMB, the JMB should not be in existence.
The claim that “the condominium when run by the developer for eight years was dirty, had poor security, faulty lifts and cracked walls” is false and misleading.
The maintenance repairs and services for the condominium were provided efficaciously for the period mentioned.
It was only recently, since 2008, that some unauthorised persons allegedly running the JMB started collecting service maintenance and other charges illegally and, at the same time, informed purchasers not to pay the charges payable to the developer.
Such acts resulted in the interruption of services.
The monies collected by the aforesaid persons were not used to pay for the services, like cleaning, and other outgoings, such as water and electricity charges.
The claim that “some developers tried to challenge the new Act because they refused to hand over control of the management to the residents because the money collected for maintenance was lucrative” is false in so far as the Medan Putra Condominium is concerned.
It is also contrary to the more usual scenario in most condominiums, where there is invariably inadequate collection to meet the regular monthly expenditure for service maintenance and utilities, as is the case for Medan Putra Condominium.
The notion that the persons allegedly running the JMB represent and are supported by all the purchasers in the condominium is false and misleading.
Police reports had been lodged to show that numerous residents do not support and do not agree with the actions of those running the JMB.
LIM KHOON ONG,
Director,
Debir Desa Development Sdn Bhd
The High Court decision in August allowed the registration of the Medan Putra JMB (JMB); however, this matter is now with the Court of Appeal.
The High Court did not decide to the effect that “To put it succinctly, a developer must set up a JMB before forming a Management Corporation, otherwise it is considered illegal and a new JMB must be formed”, as published in the article, nor did the High Court make any decision to the effect that the Management Corporation (MC) is illegal, as alleged and published.
In fact, there is no dispute or challenge that the MC, as stipulated in the Strata Titles Act 1985, has the authority to, inter alia, manage the condominium. On the other hand, as the MC was formed earlier than the JMB, the JMB should not be in existence.
The claim that “the condominium when run by the developer for eight years was dirty, had poor security, faulty lifts and cracked walls” is false and misleading.
The maintenance repairs and services for the condominium were provided efficaciously for the period mentioned.
It was only recently, since 2008, that some unauthorised persons allegedly running the JMB started collecting service maintenance and other charges illegally and, at the same time, informed purchasers not to pay the charges payable to the developer.
Such acts resulted in the interruption of services.
The monies collected by the aforesaid persons were not used to pay for the services, like cleaning, and other outgoings, such as water and electricity charges.
The claim that “some developers tried to challenge the new Act because they refused to hand over control of the management to the residents because the money collected for maintenance was lucrative” is false in so far as the Medan Putra Condominium is concerned.
It is also contrary to the more usual scenario in most condominiums, where there is invariably inadequate collection to meet the regular monthly expenditure for service maintenance and utilities, as is the case for Medan Putra Condominium.
The notion that the persons allegedly running the JMB represent and are supported by all the purchasers in the condominium is false and misleading.
Police reports had been lodged to show that numerous residents do not support and do not agree with the actions of those running the JMB.
LIM KHOON ONG,
Director,
Debir Desa Development Sdn Bhd
Wednesday, September 23, 2009
A Positive Note
Court rules in favour of Medan Putra residents to form Joint Management Body
By STEVEN DANIEL
RESIDENTS and the Joint Management Body (JMB) of Medan Putra Condominium in Bandar Manjalara can now breathe a sigh of relief after a court decision ruled in their favour against the developer, said Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng.
He said the residents claimed that the condominium when run by the developer for almost eight years, was dirty, had poor security, faulty lifts and cracked walls.
“To solve their woes, the residents formed a Joint Management Body (JMB) in June 23, 2008 to take over the management of the building but was stopped by a court injunction by the developer,” he said.
Medan Putra JMB spokesman Gary Chan said the JMB was sanctioned on April 14. 2008 by the Commissioner of Buildings.
The JMB was registered on June 22, 2008 but the developer failed to attend a meeting with the residents even after sufficient notice was given.
Chan said High Court decision on Aug 10 clarified that under Section 4(1)(a) of the Building and Common Property (Maintaince and Management) Act 2007, the existence of the Management Corporation (MC) in April 12, 2007 does not relieve the developer of its mandatory obligation to establish a JMB
“To put it succintly, a developer must set up a JMB before forming a Management Corporation, otherwise it is considered illegal and a new JMB must be formed.
He said some developers tried to challenge the new Act because they refused to hand over control of the management to the residents because the money collected for maintenance was lucrative.
Meanwhile, the developer of the project, Debir Desa Development Sdn Bhd said they would be appealing for a stay at the Appeals Court on Oct 1.
Its director, Lim Khoon Ong, said they sought for a judicial review on several sections within the Building and Common Property (Maintaince and Management) Act 2007 (also known as Act 663) because they had other interpretations of the legislation.
“Under normal circumstances, most councils won’t consent to the formation of a JMB after MC is formed but in our case, the Commissioner of Buildings (COB) recognised JMB.
“This was the main reason why we challenged the COB and JMB as well as seek a clarification from the court on how the new act works,” he said
By STEVEN DANIEL
RESIDENTS and the Joint Management Body (JMB) of Medan Putra Condominium in Bandar Manjalara can now breathe a sigh of relief after a court decision ruled in their favour against the developer, said Segambut MP Lim Lip Eng.
He said the residents claimed that the condominium when run by the developer for almost eight years, was dirty, had poor security, faulty lifts and cracked walls.
“To solve their woes, the residents formed a Joint Management Body (JMB) in June 23, 2008 to take over the management of the building but was stopped by a court injunction by the developer,” he said.
Medan Putra JMB spokesman Gary Chan said the JMB was sanctioned on April 14. 2008 by the Commissioner of Buildings.
The JMB was registered on June 22, 2008 but the developer failed to attend a meeting with the residents even after sufficient notice was given.
Chan said High Court decision on Aug 10 clarified that under Section 4(1)(a) of the Building and Common Property (Maintaince and Management) Act 2007, the existence of the Management Corporation (MC) in April 12, 2007 does not relieve the developer of its mandatory obligation to establish a JMB
“To put it succintly, a developer must set up a JMB before forming a Management Corporation, otherwise it is considered illegal and a new JMB must be formed.
He said some developers tried to challenge the new Act because they refused to hand over control of the management to the residents because the money collected for maintenance was lucrative.
Meanwhile, the developer of the project, Debir Desa Development Sdn Bhd said they would be appealing for a stay at the Appeals Court on Oct 1.
Its director, Lim Khoon Ong, said they sought for a judicial review on several sections within the Building and Common Property (Maintaince and Management) Act 2007 (also known as Act 663) because they had other interpretations of the legislation.
“Under normal circumstances, most councils won’t consent to the formation of a JMB after MC is formed but in our case, the Commissioner of Buildings (COB) recognised JMB.
“This was the main reason why we challenged the COB and JMB as well as seek a clarification from the court on how the new act works,” he said
Wednesday, August 12, 2009
An Interesting Comment - SYABAS Water Migration Exercise
Syarikat Bekalan Air Selangor Sdn Bhd
Encik Mohd Azmi Md Nasir
Pengarah Wilayah Zon Selatan
Bahagian Wilayah
Tuan,
Kami merujuk kepada taklimat pada 12 hb August 2009 berkenaan prosedur pemindahan meter air di mana wakil wakil semua Goodyear Court 1-10 ada hadir bersama untuk mendengar dan memberi pandangan masing masing.
Pada pandangan kami kebanyakkan keperluan Syabas boleh di penuhi oleh ramai pengguna penguna (pemilik apartment) tanpa masaalah besar..
Tetapi sekira Syabas hendak menunggu hanya akan dapat memulakan proses migration apabila hanya semua atau hampir semua pemilik memenuhi semua syarat syarat Syabas pada pendapat saya ada lah tidak praktikal dan tidak menasabah dan akan memakan masa yang amat panjang dan hanya akan memaksa pihak pihak seperti MC dan "Service Provider" membuat kerja kerja yang tidak produktiv dan membuang masa semua pihak..
Sekira Syabas serius untuk memain peranan proaktif dalam Migration Process ini sepatutnya ia di implemantasikan secara berkelompok. Saya tidak nampak apa masaalah sebenarnya dari pihak Syabas melainkan hanya secara administrativ sahaja. Sekira ada masaalah masaalah yang releven saya harap Syabas dapat lah kemukakan kepada kami supaya dapat kita besama mengatasinya untuk keuntungan semua pihak.
Kami harap Syabas dapat menjalankan migration process ini secara berkelompok untuk mengelak persepsi pemilek pemilek bahawa Syabas sengaja hendak melengah lengahkan process migration ini semata semata untuk terus megutip hasil atas "commercial rate" selama lama yang boleh.
Sekian, terima kaseh.
Encik Mohd Azmi Md Nasir
Pengarah Wilayah Zon Selatan
Bahagian Wilayah
Tuan,
Kami merujuk kepada taklimat pada 12 hb August 2009 berkenaan prosedur pemindahan meter air di mana wakil wakil semua Goodyear Court 1-10 ada hadir bersama untuk mendengar dan memberi pandangan masing masing.
Pada pandangan kami kebanyakkan keperluan Syabas boleh di penuhi oleh ramai pengguna penguna (pemilik apartment) tanpa masaalah besar..
Tetapi sekira Syabas hendak menunggu hanya akan dapat memulakan proses migration apabila hanya semua atau hampir semua pemilik memenuhi semua syarat syarat Syabas pada pendapat saya ada lah tidak praktikal dan tidak menasabah dan akan memakan masa yang amat panjang dan hanya akan memaksa pihak pihak seperti MC dan "Service Provider" membuat kerja kerja yang tidak produktiv dan membuang masa semua pihak..
Sekira Syabas serius untuk memain peranan proaktif dalam Migration Process ini sepatutnya ia di implemantasikan secara berkelompok. Saya tidak nampak apa masaalah sebenarnya dari pihak Syabas melainkan hanya secara administrativ sahaja. Sekira ada masaalah masaalah yang releven saya harap Syabas dapat lah kemukakan kepada kami supaya dapat kita besama mengatasinya untuk keuntungan semua pihak.
Kami harap Syabas dapat menjalankan migration process ini secara berkelompok untuk mengelak persepsi pemilek pemilek bahawa Syabas sengaja hendak melengah lengahkan process migration ini semata semata untuk terus megutip hasil atas "commercial rate" selama lama yang boleh.
Sekian, terima kaseh.
Sunday, July 12, 2009
Teresa Kok - Raises Our Concern in Parliament
Ucapan Penangguhan YB Teresa Kok (Seputeh) di Dewan Rakyat Pada 29 Jun 2009
Demi menyelesaikan masalah pembeli rumah di projek perumahan strata, Akta Bangunan Dan Harta Bersama (Penyenggaraan dan pengurusan) 2007 [Akta 663] diwujudkan supaya pembeli dan pemaju boleh menyenggarakan harta bersama sebelum hak milik strata sesebuah bangunan dikeluarkan.
Walaubagaimanapun, banyak kelemahan berlaku sehingga menimbulkan pertelingkahan antara pemaju, pembeli dan Badan Pengurusan Bersama atau JMB selepas Akta 663 dilaksanakan. Akta 663 ini kelihatan tidak mampu menangani isu-isu penyenggaraan harta bersama di projek perumahan strata yang sangat kompleks.
Kelemahan Akta 663 yang ketara adalah seperti berikut:
i) Banyak peruntukan dalam akta ini menggariskan tanggungjawab pemaju dengan jelas tetapi kesalnya, akta ini tidak menetapkan peruntukan yang memberi kuasa kepada Commission of Building (COB) untuk mendakwa pemaju sekiranya pemaju tidak melaksanakan tanggungjawabnya seperti gagal membentangkan akaun audit projek dan sebagainya.
ii) Akta 663 terletak di bawah Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan manakala Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 [Akta 318] di bawah Kementerian Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar. Keadaan ini menyebabkan wujudnya keadaan di mana tiada penyelarasan di antara kedua-dua Akta berkaitan. Dengan itu, berlakulah pertindihan tanggungjawab antara JMB di bawah Akta 663 dengan pemilik asal atau pemaju semasa tempoh permulaan di bawah Akta 318, serta tanggungjawab pembeli untuk membayar caj perkhidmatan kepada akaun Kumpulan Wang Penyenggaraan Bangunan yang ditadbir di bawah JMB atau Kumpulan Wang Pengurusan yang ditadbir oleh pemaju.
Saya terima banyak keluhan daripada pembeli di mana JMB tidak dapat ditubuhkan di projek pemajuan mereka yang telah membuka buku daftar strata kerana peruntukan Akta 663 telah mengecualikan penubuhan JMB bagi kawasan pemajuan yang telah ditubuhkan Perbadanan Pengurusan (MC) di bawah Akta 318. Ini mengakibatkan hak pembeli untuk terlibat secara langsung dalam urusan penyenggaraan harta bersama tidak dapat diberikan.
Selain itu, perbezaan terma yang digunapakai antara Akta 663 dan Akta 318 juga mengakibatkan kekeliruan apabila JMB dan MC ditubuhkan.
Misalannya, Ahli Jawatankuasa Pengurusan Bersama terdiri daripada 5 hingga 12 orang di bawah Akta 663 manakala Majlis Perbadanan Pengurusan terdiri daripada 3 hingga 14 orang di bawah Akta 318. Justeru itu, kekaburan dalam Akta 663 perlu dimasukkan dalam Kaedah Akta 663 yang perlu diwujudkan segera oleh Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan.
Saya juga ingin menyarankan, tribunal atau mahkamah khas Pesuruhjaya Bangunan perlu diwujudkan supaya penguatkuasaan yang berkesan dapat dijalankan dan pertikaian yang melibatkan semakan perundangan dapat diselesaikan dengan cepat dan efektif.
Selain itu, saya mencadangkan kerajaan supaya mengambil inisiatif untuk menjadikan lif di projek pemajuan strata kos rendah sebagai infrastruktur dan aset kerajaan melalui kaedah pajakan dan diinsuranskan untuk mengurangkan beban pembeli yang tidak mampu membiayai kos penyenggaraan lif yang sangat tinggi disamping masalah vandalisme yang kerap berlaku.
Rentetan dengan isu pemotongan bekalan air dan elektrik yang hampir berlaku di semua projek pemajuan strata, saya mencadangkan supaya pindaan kepada Akta Industri Perkhidmatan Air 2006 [Akta 655] atau Enakmen Pembekalan Air 1997 dan Akta Bekalan Elektrik 1990 [Akta 447] dibuat dengan memasukkan peruntukan yang membolehkan pemakaian bil meter air dan elektrik harta bersama dicajkan terus kepada pembeli, supaya setiap pembeli bertanggungjawab terhadap penggunaan air dan elektrik kepada petaknya dan harta bersama, dan pemotongan bekalan air dan elektrik hanya melibatkan pembeli yang tidak membayar bil air dan elektrik.
YB Teresa Kok Suh Sim
Ahli Parlimen Seputeh
JAWAPAN :
Tuan Yang Di-Pertua.
Kementerian sedar mengenai beberapa kelemahan yang terdapat dalam peruntukan Akta 663 khususnya berkaitan peruntukan kuasa Pesuruhjaya Bangunan untuk mendakwa pemaju yang gagal melaksanakan tanggungjawabnya. Walaubagaimanapun, untuk makluman Dewan Yang Mulia ini, Akta 663 telah menyatakan beberapa peruntukan kuasa pendakwaan kepada Pesuruhjaya Bangunan terhadap pemaju seperti:
1 Seksyen S.5(5)
Kesalahan: Kegagalan menjalankan Mesyuarat Pertama oleh Pemaju
Penalti: Jika sabit kesalahan boleh dikenakan denda tidak melebihi RM 2,000.00 atau 3 bulan penjara.
2. Seksyen S.17(7)
Kesalahan: Kegagalan Pemaju menghantar penyata, laporan, akaun dan maklumat berkaitan Akaun Penyelenggaraan Bangunan seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Pesuruhjaya Bangunan.
Penalti: Jika sabit kesalahan boleh didenda tidak kurang daripada RM 10,000.00 dan tidak lebih daripada RM 100,000.00 dan tambahan RM 1,000.00 bagi tiap-tiap hari kesalahan yang diteruskan selepas sabitan.
3. Seksyen S.20
Kesalahan: Larangan mengutip Caj sebelum pembukaan Akaun Penyelenggaraan Bangunan dan Pemilikan Kosong
Oleh Pemaju atau Badan.
Penalti: Jika sabit kesalahan boleh didenda tidak lebih daripada RM 100,000.00 atau dipenjarakan tidak melebihi
satu (1) tahun atau kedua-duanya.
4. Seksyen S.21
Kesalahan: Kegagalan Pemaju (bagi projek siap sebelum dan pada 12 April 2007 dan Perbadanan Pengurusan (MC)
belum ditubuhkan) menyerahkan Akaun Penyelenggaraan yang di audit kepada Pesuruhjaya Bangunan.
Penalti: Jika sabit kesalahan boleh didenda tidak kurang daripada RM 10,000.00 atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh
tidak melebihi satu (1) tahun atau kedua-duanya.
5. Seksyen S.31
Kesalahan: Kegagalan Pemaju mendepositkan Kepada Pesuruhjaya Bangunan bagi Maksud membaiki harta bersama Selepas disiapkan.
Penalti: Jika sabit kesalahan boleh didenda tidak melebihi RM 5,000.00 dan tambahan tidak melebihi RM 50.00
setiap hari jika diteruskan selepas sabitan.
Tuan Yang DiPertua,
Kementerian juga sedar mengenai masalah pengurusan yang dihadapi oleh penghuni-penghuni rumah ber strata ini. Oleh yang demikian, Kementerian sedang melakukan beberapa usaha seperti berikut ;
1. Sedang melaksanakan usaha penambahbaikan Akta Bangunan dan Harta Bersama (Akta 663) dengan menubuhkan Jawatankuasa-Jawatankuasa berkaitan pindaan Akta 663 yang melibatkan Pertubuhan-Pertubuhan Bukan Kerajaan, Jabatan Kerajaan dan Pesuruhjaya Bangunan di Kawasan Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan.
2. Menubuhkan Jawatankuasa Bersama antara Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian dan Jabatan Perumahan Negara bagi menyelaraskan peruntukan undang-undang berkaitan pengurusan bangunan yang mempunyai Hakmilik Strata yang terdapat dalam Akta Bangunan dan Harta Bersama (Akta 663) dan Akta Hakmilik Strata (Akta 318). Antara keputusan Jawatankuasa Bersama tersebut adalah menghasilkan dua Akta yang lebih khusus. Akta 663 akan meliputi semua hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan pengurusan manakala Penyenggaraan Bangunan dan Harta dan Akta Hakmilik Strata akan hanya melibatkan hal-hal berkaitan hakmilik dan pendaftaran hakmilik. Ini bermakna penyelarasan akan dilakukan dengan cara lebih holistik termasuklah penyelarasan daripada segi ;
2.1 Interpretasi
2.2 Pentadbiran
2.3 Terminologi
2.4 Kaedah , peraturan, jadual
2.5 Kuasa pegawai, dan
2.6 Hal-hal lain.
3. Kementerian berpendapat cadangan penubuhan Tribunal pada masa ini tidak perlu kerana segala aduan dan semakan pertikaian boleh dikemukakan kepada Pihak Berkuasa Negeri masing-masing bagi mendapatkan keputusan.
4. Lif merupakan sebahagian daripada Harta Bersama dalam sesebuah kawasan pemajuan. Pada masa ini tiada hakmilik khusus dikeluarkan kepada mana-mana bangunan dan kawasan harta bersama. Oleh yang demikian, urusan pajakan lif tidak dapat dijalankan. Walaubagaimanapun, peruntukan sedia ada tidak menghalang Badan Pengurusan Bersama (JMB) memasukkan cadangan menginsuran lif sebagai salah satu perbelanjaan pengurusan kawasan pemajuan tersebut.
5. Bagi cadangan pindaan Akta Industri Bekalan Air 2006 (Akta 665) atau Enakmen Pembekalan Air 1997 dan Akta Bekalan Letrik 1990 (Akta 447), ianya terletak di bawah bidang kuasa Kementerian lain.
Demi menyelesaikan masalah pembeli rumah di projek perumahan strata, Akta Bangunan Dan Harta Bersama (Penyenggaraan dan pengurusan) 2007 [Akta 663] diwujudkan supaya pembeli dan pemaju boleh menyenggarakan harta bersama sebelum hak milik strata sesebuah bangunan dikeluarkan.
Walaubagaimanapun, banyak kelemahan berlaku sehingga menimbulkan pertelingkahan antara pemaju, pembeli dan Badan Pengurusan Bersama atau JMB selepas Akta 663 dilaksanakan. Akta 663 ini kelihatan tidak mampu menangani isu-isu penyenggaraan harta bersama di projek perumahan strata yang sangat kompleks.
Kelemahan Akta 663 yang ketara adalah seperti berikut:
i) Banyak peruntukan dalam akta ini menggariskan tanggungjawab pemaju dengan jelas tetapi kesalnya, akta ini tidak menetapkan peruntukan yang memberi kuasa kepada Commission of Building (COB) untuk mendakwa pemaju sekiranya pemaju tidak melaksanakan tanggungjawabnya seperti gagal membentangkan akaun audit projek dan sebagainya.
ii) Akta 663 terletak di bawah Kementerian Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan manakala Akta Hakmilik Strata 1985 [Akta 318] di bawah Kementerian Sumber Asli dan Alam Sekitar. Keadaan ini menyebabkan wujudnya keadaan di mana tiada penyelarasan di antara kedua-dua Akta berkaitan. Dengan itu, berlakulah pertindihan tanggungjawab antara JMB di bawah Akta 663 dengan pemilik asal atau pemaju semasa tempoh permulaan di bawah Akta 318, serta tanggungjawab pembeli untuk membayar caj perkhidmatan kepada akaun Kumpulan Wang Penyenggaraan Bangunan yang ditadbir di bawah JMB atau Kumpulan Wang Pengurusan yang ditadbir oleh pemaju.
Saya terima banyak keluhan daripada pembeli di mana JMB tidak dapat ditubuhkan di projek pemajuan mereka yang telah membuka buku daftar strata kerana peruntukan Akta 663 telah mengecualikan penubuhan JMB bagi kawasan pemajuan yang telah ditubuhkan Perbadanan Pengurusan (MC) di bawah Akta 318. Ini mengakibatkan hak pembeli untuk terlibat secara langsung dalam urusan penyenggaraan harta bersama tidak dapat diberikan.
Selain itu, perbezaan terma yang digunapakai antara Akta 663 dan Akta 318 juga mengakibatkan kekeliruan apabila JMB dan MC ditubuhkan.
Misalannya, Ahli Jawatankuasa Pengurusan Bersama terdiri daripada 5 hingga 12 orang di bawah Akta 663 manakala Majlis Perbadanan Pengurusan terdiri daripada 3 hingga 14 orang di bawah Akta 318. Justeru itu, kekaburan dalam Akta 663 perlu dimasukkan dalam Kaedah Akta 663 yang perlu diwujudkan segera oleh Kementerian Perumahan Dan Kerajaan Tempatan.
Saya juga ingin menyarankan, tribunal atau mahkamah khas Pesuruhjaya Bangunan perlu diwujudkan supaya penguatkuasaan yang berkesan dapat dijalankan dan pertikaian yang melibatkan semakan perundangan dapat diselesaikan dengan cepat dan efektif.
Selain itu, saya mencadangkan kerajaan supaya mengambil inisiatif untuk menjadikan lif di projek pemajuan strata kos rendah sebagai infrastruktur dan aset kerajaan melalui kaedah pajakan dan diinsuranskan untuk mengurangkan beban pembeli yang tidak mampu membiayai kos penyenggaraan lif yang sangat tinggi disamping masalah vandalisme yang kerap berlaku.
Rentetan dengan isu pemotongan bekalan air dan elektrik yang hampir berlaku di semua projek pemajuan strata, saya mencadangkan supaya pindaan kepada Akta Industri Perkhidmatan Air 2006 [Akta 655] atau Enakmen Pembekalan Air 1997 dan Akta Bekalan Elektrik 1990 [Akta 447] dibuat dengan memasukkan peruntukan yang membolehkan pemakaian bil meter air dan elektrik harta bersama dicajkan terus kepada pembeli, supaya setiap pembeli bertanggungjawab terhadap penggunaan air dan elektrik kepada petaknya dan harta bersama, dan pemotongan bekalan air dan elektrik hanya melibatkan pembeli yang tidak membayar bil air dan elektrik.
YB Teresa Kok Suh Sim
Ahli Parlimen Seputeh
JAWAPAN :
Tuan Yang Di-Pertua.
Kementerian sedar mengenai beberapa kelemahan yang terdapat dalam peruntukan Akta 663 khususnya berkaitan peruntukan kuasa Pesuruhjaya Bangunan untuk mendakwa pemaju yang gagal melaksanakan tanggungjawabnya. Walaubagaimanapun, untuk makluman Dewan Yang Mulia ini, Akta 663 telah menyatakan beberapa peruntukan kuasa pendakwaan kepada Pesuruhjaya Bangunan terhadap pemaju seperti:
1 Seksyen S.5(5)
Kesalahan: Kegagalan menjalankan Mesyuarat Pertama oleh Pemaju
Penalti: Jika sabit kesalahan boleh dikenakan denda tidak melebihi RM 2,000.00 atau 3 bulan penjara.
2. Seksyen S.17(7)
Kesalahan: Kegagalan Pemaju menghantar penyata, laporan, akaun dan maklumat berkaitan Akaun Penyelenggaraan Bangunan seperti yang dinyatakan oleh Pesuruhjaya Bangunan.
Penalti: Jika sabit kesalahan boleh didenda tidak kurang daripada RM 10,000.00 dan tidak lebih daripada RM 100,000.00 dan tambahan RM 1,000.00 bagi tiap-tiap hari kesalahan yang diteruskan selepas sabitan.
3. Seksyen S.20
Kesalahan: Larangan mengutip Caj sebelum pembukaan Akaun Penyelenggaraan Bangunan dan Pemilikan Kosong
Oleh Pemaju atau Badan.
Penalti: Jika sabit kesalahan boleh didenda tidak lebih daripada RM 100,000.00 atau dipenjarakan tidak melebihi
satu (1) tahun atau kedua-duanya.
4. Seksyen S.21
Kesalahan: Kegagalan Pemaju (bagi projek siap sebelum dan pada 12 April 2007 dan Perbadanan Pengurusan (MC)
belum ditubuhkan) menyerahkan Akaun Penyelenggaraan yang di audit kepada Pesuruhjaya Bangunan.
Penalti: Jika sabit kesalahan boleh didenda tidak kurang daripada RM 10,000.00 atau dipenjarakan selama tempoh
tidak melebihi satu (1) tahun atau kedua-duanya.
5. Seksyen S.31
Kesalahan: Kegagalan Pemaju mendepositkan Kepada Pesuruhjaya Bangunan bagi Maksud membaiki harta bersama Selepas disiapkan.
Penalti: Jika sabit kesalahan boleh didenda tidak melebihi RM 5,000.00 dan tambahan tidak melebihi RM 50.00
setiap hari jika diteruskan selepas sabitan.
Tuan Yang DiPertua,
Kementerian juga sedar mengenai masalah pengurusan yang dihadapi oleh penghuni-penghuni rumah ber strata ini. Oleh yang demikian, Kementerian sedang melakukan beberapa usaha seperti berikut ;
1. Sedang melaksanakan usaha penambahbaikan Akta Bangunan dan Harta Bersama (Akta 663) dengan menubuhkan Jawatankuasa-Jawatankuasa berkaitan pindaan Akta 663 yang melibatkan Pertubuhan-Pertubuhan Bukan Kerajaan, Jabatan Kerajaan dan Pesuruhjaya Bangunan di Kawasan Pihak Berkuasa Tempatan.
2. Menubuhkan Jawatankuasa Bersama antara Jabatan Ketua Pengarah Tanah Dan Galian dan Jabatan Perumahan Negara bagi menyelaraskan peruntukan undang-undang berkaitan pengurusan bangunan yang mempunyai Hakmilik Strata yang terdapat dalam Akta Bangunan dan Harta Bersama (Akta 663) dan Akta Hakmilik Strata (Akta 318). Antara keputusan Jawatankuasa Bersama tersebut adalah menghasilkan dua Akta yang lebih khusus. Akta 663 akan meliputi semua hal-hal yang berkaitan dengan pengurusan manakala Penyenggaraan Bangunan dan Harta dan Akta Hakmilik Strata akan hanya melibatkan hal-hal berkaitan hakmilik dan pendaftaran hakmilik. Ini bermakna penyelarasan akan dilakukan dengan cara lebih holistik termasuklah penyelarasan daripada segi ;
2.1 Interpretasi
2.2 Pentadbiran
2.3 Terminologi
2.4 Kaedah , peraturan, jadual
2.5 Kuasa pegawai, dan
2.6 Hal-hal lain.
3. Kementerian berpendapat cadangan penubuhan Tribunal pada masa ini tidak perlu kerana segala aduan dan semakan pertikaian boleh dikemukakan kepada Pihak Berkuasa Negeri masing-masing bagi mendapatkan keputusan.
4. Lif merupakan sebahagian daripada Harta Bersama dalam sesebuah kawasan pemajuan. Pada masa ini tiada hakmilik khusus dikeluarkan kepada mana-mana bangunan dan kawasan harta bersama. Oleh yang demikian, urusan pajakan lif tidak dapat dijalankan. Walaubagaimanapun, peruntukan sedia ada tidak menghalang Badan Pengurusan Bersama (JMB) memasukkan cadangan menginsuran lif sebagai salah satu perbelanjaan pengurusan kawasan pemajuan tersebut.
5. Bagi cadangan pindaan Akta Industri Bekalan Air 2006 (Akta 665) atau Enakmen Pembekalan Air 1997 dan Akta Bekalan Letrik 1990 (Akta 447), ianya terletak di bawah bidang kuasa Kementerian lain.
Sunday, July 5, 2009
Standing by YOU!
Come forward, buyers of abandoned condo urged
By FAZLEENA AZIZ
THE Platinum Damansara Buyers Pro tem Committee is urging more affected buyers to come forward in a bid to resolve problems surrounding the abandoned condominium project in Ara Damansara, Petaling Jaya.
According to the committee, the project developer got into difficulties and stopped construction in the middle of 2007 without informing the buyers.
In December 2007, the buyers received letters sent by a firm on behalf of the developer, proposing a takeover by an investor and requesting the buyers to forgo certain benefits offered when the units were initially sold.
By February 2008, the debenture holder had appointed a company as Receivers and Managers of the project.
The committee held a meeting with about 50 affected buyers, in the hope of seeking new avenues they could pursue.
Several issues were brought up by the committee members during the meeting in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, such as how the developer did not have a bank account and that only 30% of the project was completed based on overall assessment, as well as getting legal aid.
The main concern of the buyers was that most had already paid 80% of the cost of the units and were looking for a solution to reduce their instalment payments.
Committee chairman Lawrence Ang said they would be seeking the state government’s help on the matter.
He said they would also be meeting the officers from the National Housing Department tomorrow.
There are 674 affected buyers of the project.
Those who are affected and want more information can log on to http://platinumdamansara.org/.
By FAZLEENA AZIZ
THE Platinum Damansara Buyers Pro tem Committee is urging more affected buyers to come forward in a bid to resolve problems surrounding the abandoned condominium project in Ara Damansara, Petaling Jaya.
According to the committee, the project developer got into difficulties and stopped construction in the middle of 2007 without informing the buyers.
In December 2007, the buyers received letters sent by a firm on behalf of the developer, proposing a takeover by an investor and requesting the buyers to forgo certain benefits offered when the units were initially sold.
By February 2008, the debenture holder had appointed a company as Receivers and Managers of the project.
The committee held a meeting with about 50 affected buyers, in the hope of seeking new avenues they could pursue.
Several issues were brought up by the committee members during the meeting in Kuala Lumpur on Saturday, such as how the developer did not have a bank account and that only 30% of the project was completed based on overall assessment, as well as getting legal aid.
The main concern of the buyers was that most had already paid 80% of the cost of the units and were looking for a solution to reduce their instalment payments.
Committee chairman Lawrence Ang said they would be seeking the state government’s help on the matter.
He said they would also be meeting the officers from the National Housing Department tomorrow.
There are 674 affected buyers of the project.
Those who are affected and want more information can log on to http://platinumdamansara.org/.
The Light At The End Of The Tunnel?
Water meter migration mandatory in Selangor
By SALINA KHALID
THOSE who live in flats, apartments and condominiums will be able to enjoy the Selangor government’s free water benefit soon as the water meter migration has been made mandatory.
The Selangor government last week decided to make it compulsory for all high-rise developments to change the existing bulk water meters to individual meters.
“All developers, management agents, management corporations and joint management boards are required to iron out with Syabas all the problems they face which hinder the migration process.
“Any developer who refuses will be blacklisted by the state government,” Selangor Housing, Building and Squatter Management chairman Iskandar Abdul Samad said.
He said the decision was made by Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim during the Selangor Economic Action Com-mittee Meeting last week.
The free water policy, which was implemented by the state government after the March 2008 election, allows property owners to enjoy the first 20 cubic metres of water for free. However, the policy covers only those who have individual account billing using their individual water meters. The policy did not cover the majority of residents in high-rise buildings, which have bulk water meter system. It includes the low-income group staying in low-cost flats.
“Previously, Syabas would only allow the migration from bulk to individual water meter if all unit owners agreed to the migration. Syabas had also required all arrears to be settled before the migration,” Iskandar said.
Exemption from the 100% agreement by owners was only made when the owners were foreigners or in the process of selling their units.
Changing to individual water meters would allow owners to pay 57sen per cubic metre instead of the RM1.38 per cubic metre for apartments and condominiums and 80sen per cubic metre for low-cost flats that they are now paying. Currently, condominium residents have higher water bills as they are charged commercial rates as opposed to those with landed property, who pay a lower rate.
The accounts for the bulk meters are under the name of the management corporations (MCs) or the developers, so the rates are based on commercial rates.
A bulk water bill is sent to the management company, which in turn will charge the units for the amount of water used.
Problems arise when some of the residents fail to settle their water bills and accumulate arrears over the years, and water supply to the whole building is cut.
“Those who pay their bills on time will not have to worry about that problem as supply will only be cut to those who fail to pay their own bill, not on the bulk meter,” Iskandar said.
The fact that every one can get individual accounts was good news to many high-rise residents.
“We’ve been waiting for this. We’ve been asking the state government to make this water meter migration exercise mandatory.
“We are happy that it is finally coming true,” said Condominium, Apartment and High-rise Com-mittee (CAHC) pro tem chairman Tengku Nazaruddin Zainuddin.
He said they had received numerous complaints by condominium owners and residents on difficulties faced from the bulk meter issue.
Most of them, he said, could not switch to individual meters because of their failure to get the consent of all the residents.
He added that some MCs and developers were also not in favour of the migration. Many MCs are using the water meter as a bargaining tool to force owners to pay the maintenance fees, as MCs issued both bills together.
Haryati Hamzah, who lives in a medium-cost apartment in Damansara Damai, Petaling Jaya, said the move would enable her to save on her monthly bills.
The mother of four said her current water bill was more than RM50 per month. “We surely can use the money on something else, especially during the hard times now,” said the housewife.
By SALINA KHALID
THOSE who live in flats, apartments and condominiums will be able to enjoy the Selangor government’s free water benefit soon as the water meter migration has been made mandatory.
The Selangor government last week decided to make it compulsory for all high-rise developments to change the existing bulk water meters to individual meters.
“All developers, management agents, management corporations and joint management boards are required to iron out with Syabas all the problems they face which hinder the migration process.
“Any developer who refuses will be blacklisted by the state government,” Selangor Housing, Building and Squatter Management chairman Iskandar Abdul Samad said.
He said the decision was made by Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Abdul Khalid Ibrahim during the Selangor Economic Action Com-mittee Meeting last week.
The free water policy, which was implemented by the state government after the March 2008 election, allows property owners to enjoy the first 20 cubic metres of water for free. However, the policy covers only those who have individual account billing using their individual water meters. The policy did not cover the majority of residents in high-rise buildings, which have bulk water meter system. It includes the low-income group staying in low-cost flats.
“Previously, Syabas would only allow the migration from bulk to individual water meter if all unit owners agreed to the migration. Syabas had also required all arrears to be settled before the migration,” Iskandar said.
Exemption from the 100% agreement by owners was only made when the owners were foreigners or in the process of selling their units.
Changing to individual water meters would allow owners to pay 57sen per cubic metre instead of the RM1.38 per cubic metre for apartments and condominiums and 80sen per cubic metre for low-cost flats that they are now paying. Currently, condominium residents have higher water bills as they are charged commercial rates as opposed to those with landed property, who pay a lower rate.
The accounts for the bulk meters are under the name of the management corporations (MCs) or the developers, so the rates are based on commercial rates.
A bulk water bill is sent to the management company, which in turn will charge the units for the amount of water used.
Problems arise when some of the residents fail to settle their water bills and accumulate arrears over the years, and water supply to the whole building is cut.
“Those who pay their bills on time will not have to worry about that problem as supply will only be cut to those who fail to pay their own bill, not on the bulk meter,” Iskandar said.
The fact that every one can get individual accounts was good news to many high-rise residents.
“We’ve been waiting for this. We’ve been asking the state government to make this water meter migration exercise mandatory.
“We are happy that it is finally coming true,” said Condominium, Apartment and High-rise Com-mittee (CAHC) pro tem chairman Tengku Nazaruddin Zainuddin.
He said they had received numerous complaints by condominium owners and residents on difficulties faced from the bulk meter issue.
Most of them, he said, could not switch to individual meters because of their failure to get the consent of all the residents.
He added that some MCs and developers were also not in favour of the migration. Many MCs are using the water meter as a bargaining tool to force owners to pay the maintenance fees, as MCs issued both bills together.
Haryati Hamzah, who lives in a medium-cost apartment in Damansara Damai, Petaling Jaya, said the move would enable her to save on her monthly bills.
The mother of four said her current water bill was more than RM50 per month. “We surely can use the money on something else, especially during the hard times now,” said the housewife.
Tuesday, June 30, 2009
Gated and Guarded.....
Bill specifies terms and conditions
THE Gated and Guarded Communities Bill 2009 was drafted by the Tropicana Residents Association to allow the installation of barriers and/or boom gates at the entry and exit points to the area.
It also addresses the appointment of security guards to operate the barriers and/or boom gates and to patrol the community.
It also touches on several issues like the application for approval of a gated and guarded community.
The application for approval for new developments has to be made by the developer to the local authority before the development is approved.
It also said that the developer shall inform buyers of the conditions of such communities through provisions in the sale and purchase agreements, especially on matters relating to the cost of provision and maintenance of security services.
Application for approval of an existing gated and guarded community shall be made by the registered residents’ association (RA) only to the local authority, with consent of at least 51% of the registered owners.
The developer or the registered RA, if applicable, would have the power to fix and collect service charges for the provision of security services and facilities by the developer provided such charges are agreed to by at least 51% of the registered owners and approved by the local authority.
The bill also states that all payments for service charges, whether by the developer or RA, shall be deducted from the annual assessments paid by the owners to the local authority.
Among other issues addressed are the authorisation of security guards, use of guard dogs, powers of stopping, arrest and detention, power to stop vehicles, power to require the production of national registration identity card within the community, power to require the production and inspection of driving licence, 24-hour operation of barriers and boom gates, construction of guardhouses and erecting fencing.
THE Gated and Guarded Communities Bill 2009 was drafted by the Tropicana Residents Association to allow the installation of barriers and/or boom gates at the entry and exit points to the area.
It also addresses the appointment of security guards to operate the barriers and/or boom gates and to patrol the community.
It also touches on several issues like the application for approval of a gated and guarded community.
The application for approval for new developments has to be made by the developer to the local authority before the development is approved.
It also said that the developer shall inform buyers of the conditions of such communities through provisions in the sale and purchase agreements, especially on matters relating to the cost of provision and maintenance of security services.
Application for approval of an existing gated and guarded community shall be made by the registered residents’ association (RA) only to the local authority, with consent of at least 51% of the registered owners.
The developer or the registered RA, if applicable, would have the power to fix and collect service charges for the provision of security services and facilities by the developer provided such charges are agreed to by at least 51% of the registered owners and approved by the local authority.
The bill also states that all payments for service charges, whether by the developer or RA, shall be deducted from the annual assessments paid by the owners to the local authority.
Among other issues addressed are the authorisation of security guards, use of guard dogs, powers of stopping, arrest and detention, power to stop vehicles, power to require the production of national registration identity card within the community, power to require the production and inspection of driving licence, 24-hour operation of barriers and boom gates, construction of guardhouses and erecting fencing.
Monday, June 29, 2009
...and problems continue,...
Penduduk buat laporan polis
DAMANSARA – Penduduk Apartmen Flora Damansara semalam membuat laporan polis berhubung tindakan terhadap Jawatankuasa Pengurusan Bersama (JMC) dan juga pihak pengurusan bangunan yang didakwa gagal menjalankan tugas serta amanah dengan baik.
Pengerusi Persatuan Penduduk Flora Damansara, Abdul Hakim Amir berkata, pihaknya mengambil keputusan itu kerana memikirkan kepentingan awam apabila kedua-dua pihak tersebut dilihat tidak berminat untuk menyelesaikan masalah melibatkan blok di bawah pentadbirannya.
Menurutnya, kedua-dua pihak itu pernah dua kali dijemput secara rasmi melalui surat untuk menghadiri sesi dialog bersama penduduk, namun ia hanya dipandang sepi.
“Kita pernah mengadakan sesi dialog pada 25 dan 29 Mei lalu, namun tiada sebarang jawapan diberikan menyebabkan penduduk mula mempertikaikan kewibawaan kedua-dua badan itu.
“Banyak masalah perlu diselesaikan umpamanya kerosakan pam di Blok D yang semakin serius yang langsung tidak diberi perhatian sejak tiga tahun yang lalu hingga memaksa penduduk di 569 unit di situ hidup dalam tidak selesa.
Menurut Hakim, kerosakan pam yang tidak diberi perhatian itu menyebabkan koridor penduduk digenangi air setelah pam tidak berfungsi yang menyebabkan air tangki melimpah.
Katanya, pihak persatuan penduduk juga kesal kerana JMC dan pihak pengurusan bangunan menuduh penduduk melakukan vandalisme melalui memo yang ditampal di setiap blok.
“Ini merupakan satu fitnah kerana ia bertujuan untuk memburukkan dan menjatuhkan reputasi penduduk kerana tiada bukti kami merosakkan pam itu,” katanya
Dalam pada itu menurut Hakim, pihak Suruhanjaya Bangunan (COB) di bawah Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ) juga mengeluarkan arahan secara rasmi supaya pihak pengurusan bangunan mengemukakan akaun kira-kira kepada penduduk untuk diteliti.
Difahamkan pengurusan PAMA Services baru mengambil alih pengurusan bangunan blok C, D, E,F dan H dari Allied Property Management sejak April lalu.
DAMANSARA – Penduduk Apartmen Flora Damansara semalam membuat laporan polis berhubung tindakan terhadap Jawatankuasa Pengurusan Bersama (JMC) dan juga pihak pengurusan bangunan yang didakwa gagal menjalankan tugas serta amanah dengan baik.
Pengerusi Persatuan Penduduk Flora Damansara, Abdul Hakim Amir berkata, pihaknya mengambil keputusan itu kerana memikirkan kepentingan awam apabila kedua-dua pihak tersebut dilihat tidak berminat untuk menyelesaikan masalah melibatkan blok di bawah pentadbirannya.
Menurutnya, kedua-dua pihak itu pernah dua kali dijemput secara rasmi melalui surat untuk menghadiri sesi dialog bersama penduduk, namun ia hanya dipandang sepi.
“Kita pernah mengadakan sesi dialog pada 25 dan 29 Mei lalu, namun tiada sebarang jawapan diberikan menyebabkan penduduk mula mempertikaikan kewibawaan kedua-dua badan itu.
“Banyak masalah perlu diselesaikan umpamanya kerosakan pam di Blok D yang semakin serius yang langsung tidak diberi perhatian sejak tiga tahun yang lalu hingga memaksa penduduk di 569 unit di situ hidup dalam tidak selesa.
Menurut Hakim, kerosakan pam yang tidak diberi perhatian itu menyebabkan koridor penduduk digenangi air setelah pam tidak berfungsi yang menyebabkan air tangki melimpah.
Katanya, pihak persatuan penduduk juga kesal kerana JMC dan pihak pengurusan bangunan menuduh penduduk melakukan vandalisme melalui memo yang ditampal di setiap blok.
“Ini merupakan satu fitnah kerana ia bertujuan untuk memburukkan dan menjatuhkan reputasi penduduk kerana tiada bukti kami merosakkan pam itu,” katanya
Dalam pada itu menurut Hakim, pihak Suruhanjaya Bangunan (COB) di bawah Majlis Bandaraya Petaling Jaya (MBPJ) juga mengeluarkan arahan secara rasmi supaya pihak pengurusan bangunan mengemukakan akaun kira-kira kepada penduduk untuk diteliti.
Difahamkan pengurusan PAMA Services baru mengambil alih pengurusan bangunan blok C, D, E,F dan H dari Allied Property Management sejak April lalu.
Monday, June 22, 2009
More on 663 in parliament..
Puan Teresa Kok Suh Sim [ Seputeh ] minta MENTERI PERUMAHAN
DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN menyatakan bilakah Kementerian akan
membentangkan peraturan (regulations) yang sepatutnya terkandung
bahawa Building and Common Property (Maintenance & Management Act
2007). Apakah Pesuruhjaya Bangunan (Commission Of Buildings) boleh
mendakwa pemaju yang enggan mengikut arahannya berdasarkan
Seksyen 17(7) dalam akta tersebut.
DAN KERAJAAN TEMPATAN menyatakan bilakah Kementerian akan
membentangkan peraturan (regulations) yang sepatutnya terkandung
bahawa Building and Common Property (Maintenance & Management Act
2007). Apakah Pesuruhjaya Bangunan (Commission Of Buildings) boleh
mendakwa pemaju yang enggan mengikut arahannya berdasarkan
Seksyen 17(7) dalam akta tersebut.
Saturday, June 20, 2009
Current Developments in Selangor
In order to address some of the issues regarding the functions and effectiveness of the COB in the different PBTs in Selangor; the Selangor State Government has appointed PETUGAS KHAS 663 for each of the PBTs.
These officers will be based in the various PBTs and will assist the COB with the duties and responsibilities related to it. These same officers whilst being placed at the PBT, will also be reporting back to the EXCO incharge ie: YB ISkandar, the Exco for Perumahan.
Mr Lim Im Chee MPKJ
En Ahmad Syahmi MPK
En Mohd Ijhar MPS
En Nor Azman MPAJ
Mr Mak K W MBPJ
Mr Peter Chong MPSJ
For Information Only
These officers will be based in the various PBTs and will assist the COB with the duties and responsibilities related to it. These same officers whilst being placed at the PBT, will also be reporting back to the EXCO incharge ie: YB ISkandar, the Exco for Perumahan.
Mr Lim Im Chee MPKJ
En Ahmad Syahmi MPK
En Mohd Ijhar MPS
En Nor Azman MPAJ
Mr Mak K W MBPJ
Mr Peter Chong MPSJ
For Information Only
Wednesday, June 3, 2009
Our Concerns To Be Raised in Parliament
The following is a question that YB R SIVARSA the Member of Parliament for SUBANG will raise in Parliament at the coming session beginning on 16th June 2009.
Tuan R. Sivarasa [Subang] meminta Menteri Kerajaan Tempatan dan Perumahan menyatakan apakah rancangan yang sedang dan akan diambil oleh kementerian untuk mengatasi masalah pengurusan kediaman berstrata khasnya di pangsapuri kos rendah yang timbul akibat Akta 663 yang diperkenalkan dalam tahun 2007.
We look forward to the response from the Minister. We hope to be able to post the response here.
Meanwhile, we would like to say a big Thank You to YB Sivarasa for raising our concerns. We hope that the problems faced by Strata Titles Property owners will be given due attention by all concerned.
Tuan R. Sivarasa [Subang] meminta Menteri Kerajaan Tempatan dan Perumahan menyatakan apakah rancangan yang sedang dan akan diambil oleh kementerian untuk mengatasi masalah pengurusan kediaman berstrata khasnya di pangsapuri kos rendah yang timbul akibat Akta 663 yang diperkenalkan dalam tahun 2007.
We look forward to the response from the Minister. We hope to be able to post the response here.
Meanwhile, we would like to say a big Thank You to YB Sivarasa for raising our concerns. We hope that the problems faced by Strata Titles Property owners will be given due attention by all concerned.
Sunday, May 31, 2009
The Perils of a Mediator
In recent weeks, CAHC has been involved in an MC problem where we were invited in to assist as a “mediator”.
However, in this particular MC, the problems between the two factions of the Council Members have gone to a very personal level where common sense appears to have gone down the gutter. Thus, even the “mediators” are targeted.
If the mediator says something that seem to favour one side, the other would lodge complaints to whoever that will listen, against the mediator. The “mediators” involved here includes the Wakil Rakyat: complaints have been lodge with the party headquarters and even a threat to complaint to the Mentri Besar. Other “mediator” includes the local council where a lawyer’s letter was sent to the council by one faction.
The CAHC who is also a “mediator” has not been spared from these complaints either. Complaints against the representative of CAHC have been made to the COB and to the wakil rakyat. The complainant is of course the faction that felt that the CAHC representative had not spoken in their favour.
Here I would like to state that in all instances of people problems within either an MC or JMB/JMC, CAHC will always maintain a neutral stand; not siding either side. We will maintain our objectives of protecting the rights of the majority of owners.
Thus in the above case, we will stand firm in protecting the rights of the majority of the owners; whatever happens. Thus the owners should have no fear that we will abandon them. We will continue to stand by them and give our advice accordingly; even when we face verbal abuse and insults from unappreciative owners / council – committee members.
However, in this particular MC, the problems between the two factions of the Council Members have gone to a very personal level where common sense appears to have gone down the gutter. Thus, even the “mediators” are targeted.
If the mediator says something that seem to favour one side, the other would lodge complaints to whoever that will listen, against the mediator. The “mediators” involved here includes the Wakil Rakyat: complaints have been lodge with the party headquarters and even a threat to complaint to the Mentri Besar. Other “mediator” includes the local council where a lawyer’s letter was sent to the council by one faction.
The CAHC who is also a “mediator” has not been spared from these complaints either. Complaints against the representative of CAHC have been made to the COB and to the wakil rakyat. The complainant is of course the faction that felt that the CAHC representative had not spoken in their favour.
Here I would like to state that in all instances of people problems within either an MC or JMB/JMC, CAHC will always maintain a neutral stand; not siding either side. We will maintain our objectives of protecting the rights of the majority of owners.
Thus in the above case, we will stand firm in protecting the rights of the majority of the owners; whatever happens. Thus the owners should have no fear that we will abandon them. We will continue to stand by them and give our advice accordingly; even when we face verbal abuse and insults from unappreciative owners / council – committee members.
Monday, May 11, 2009
Christy continues ... where is the justice
Why is it that highrise dwellers are forced to pay commercial rates for electricity and water for the common areas. It is a residential complex with some shoplots which are non operational. It is understandable if commercial units are charged commercial rates but why the common areas are also commercial rates?
If there there is a flaw in the law then it must be made right for the benefit of our grandchildren and great great grandchildren.
If there there is a flaw in the law then it must be made right for the benefit of our grandchildren and great great grandchildren.
Christy Wrote......assessment rates
Dear Sir
As highrise dwellers we encounter having to pay a very high assessment fee compared to landed properties.
Poor people are now forced to dwell at highrises because landed properties are so exhobitant and yet our assessments many times more that landed properties.
Why is this so.
cahc replies:
please note condo/apartment owners do not pay higher rates: it is just that for the same rate we pay, we do not get the same services from our local council. For example: we still need to hire our own garbage collectors, people to clean the drains within our compound; we pay for our own lighting within our own compound.
The "higher" rates mentioned would probably be that you are paying commercial rates for your residential property. This is because what you bought is NOT residential but is "Commercial" property: ie Service Apartments.
The plot of land where your building is constructed is most likely to be commercial land. The developer chose to build residential property instead plus perhaps some shop lots. Thus you would be paying for commercial rates for your assessment and utilities.
Thus you were infact ill advised by your legal advisor when you signed the Sales and Purchase Agreement!
***Please note that together with the Voice of the People, APAC had managed to convince the MBPJ to reduce the assessment rates for Highrise by 25%; ie they now pay 6% instead of the previous 8% of the rateable value.
As highrise dwellers we encounter having to pay a very high assessment fee compared to landed properties.
Poor people are now forced to dwell at highrises because landed properties are so exhobitant and yet our assessments many times more that landed properties.
Why is this so.
cahc replies:
please note condo/apartment owners do not pay higher rates: it is just that for the same rate we pay, we do not get the same services from our local council. For example: we still need to hire our own garbage collectors, people to clean the drains within our compound; we pay for our own lighting within our own compound.
The "higher" rates mentioned would probably be that you are paying commercial rates for your residential property. This is because what you bought is NOT residential but is "Commercial" property: ie Service Apartments.
The plot of land where your building is constructed is most likely to be commercial land. The developer chose to build residential property instead plus perhaps some shop lots. Thus you would be paying for commercial rates for your assessment and utilities.
Thus you were infact ill advised by your legal advisor when you signed the Sales and Purchase Agreement!
***Please note that together with the Voice of the People, APAC had managed to convince the MBPJ to reduce the assessment rates for Highrise by 25%; ie they now pay 6% instead of the previous 8% of the rateable value.
Wednesday, April 29, 2009
Be a Part of our Parliamentary Process
The next session of Parliament will begin on the 15th of June.
Do you have any questions which you hope can be asked in parliament?
Please write to me: Peter Chong pet_luc2002@yahoo.com
I will than pass on these questions to the relevant MPs so that they can put in their written questions to the concerned Ministries.
Be a part of the Parliamentary and thus the democratic process. Together, let us help build a Better Malaysia.
Please submit questions by the 15th of May, latest.
Thank you.
Do you have any questions which you hope can be asked in parliament?
Please write to me: Peter Chong pet_luc2002@yahoo.com
I will than pass on these questions to the relevant MPs so that they can put in their written questions to the concerned Ministries.
Be a part of the Parliamentary and thus the democratic process. Together, let us help build a Better Malaysia.
Please submit questions by the 15th of May, latest.
Thank you.
Developers given three months to hand over strata titles
By FAZLEENA AZIZ
DEVELOPERS in Kuala Lumpur have been given three months to hand over strata titles to the respective owners or they stand to face legal action.
According to Kuala Lumpur mayor Datuk Ahmad Fuad Ismail, the drastic move is one of the many measures to resolve the strata titles problem.
He said the decision was made after the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) discussed the matter with the Housing and Local Government Ministry and the Land and Mines Office.
The penalty for failure to adhere to the ruling is a maximum fine of RM20,000 or a three-month jail term.
Fuad said under the Building and Common Property (Management and Maintenance) Act, a developer had to give the strata title to an owner within a year.
According to Fuad, so far only 75,665 strata titles have been given for residential and commercial properties in KL.
Of the 44,168 developers in KL, 40% are still having the strata titles while 30% were given to the joint management bodies (JMBs). The remaining 30% of owners already have their strata titles.
“We will also talk to the owners about the management fees so that the operations can be carried out smoothly,” Fuad said.
“Developers should be aware of the legal requirements to expedite the handing over of the strata titles. The mayor acts as the commissioner of buildings in resolving the matter as stipulated under the law,” he said.
Fuad said the developers were fast in releasing the titles of low-cost units but slow with high-cost developments.
Under the jurisdiction of the DBKL, there are 236,421 high-rise units, of which 209,882 are residential and 26,539 commercial.
DEVELOPERS in Kuala Lumpur have been given three months to hand over strata titles to the respective owners or they stand to face legal action.
According to Kuala Lumpur mayor Datuk Ahmad Fuad Ismail, the drastic move is one of the many measures to resolve the strata titles problem.
He said the decision was made after the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) discussed the matter with the Housing and Local Government Ministry and the Land and Mines Office.
The penalty for failure to adhere to the ruling is a maximum fine of RM20,000 or a three-month jail term.
Fuad said under the Building and Common Property (Management and Maintenance) Act, a developer had to give the strata title to an owner within a year.
According to Fuad, so far only 75,665 strata titles have been given for residential and commercial properties in KL.
Of the 44,168 developers in KL, 40% are still having the strata titles while 30% were given to the joint management bodies (JMBs). The remaining 30% of owners already have their strata titles.
“We will also talk to the owners about the management fees so that the operations can be carried out smoothly,” Fuad said.
“Developers should be aware of the legal requirements to expedite the handing over of the strata titles. The mayor acts as the commissioner of buildings in resolving the matter as stipulated under the law,” he said.
Fuad said the developers were fast in releasing the titles of low-cost units but slow with high-cost developments.
Under the jurisdiction of the DBKL, there are 236,421 high-rise units, of which 209,882 are residential and 26,539 commercial.
A Light at the End of the Tunnel?
Selangor will be resuming negotiations on water restructuring with the Federal Government despite past setbacks.
“The Energy, Green Technology and Water Ministry and Selangor have agreed to work together to find the best solution in the restructuring of the water services industry in the state,” said the Mentri Besar’s press secretariat in a statement here yesterday.
Both sides had also agreed to set up a joint task force, headed by the State Secretary, to find an amicable solution to all pending issues involving the exercise, which would include takeover of water assets from the four water concessionaires by Selangor, the statement said.
The commitment to find a solution was made by both the new minister Datuk Peter Chin and Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim during their first official meeting in Putrajaya on Monday
“The Energy, Green Technology and Water Ministry and Selangor have agreed to work together to find the best solution in the restructuring of the water services industry in the state,” said the Mentri Besar’s press secretariat in a statement here yesterday.
Both sides had also agreed to set up a joint task force, headed by the State Secretary, to find an amicable solution to all pending issues involving the exercise, which would include takeover of water assets from the four water concessionaires by Selangor, the statement said.
The commitment to find a solution was made by both the new minister Datuk Peter Chin and Selangor Mentri Besar Tan Sri Khalid Ibrahim during their first official meeting in Putrajaya on Monday
Friday, April 24, 2009
CONDO UNIT USED AS NEPALESE GUARD HOSTEL
Anyone with ideas or have experience to share?
Mr Lim wrote:
My neighbour unit had been turned into Nepalese Guard
> hostel and worst still it is overcrowded with at least 12
> and above staying in the unit of 3 rooms.
>
> My unit is affected by this unit since their bathrooms and
> cooking area are near and directly facing my unit.
>
> I reported to the management but our house rules did not
> state the maximum person to stay in a unit.
>
> It is very annoying and I am worried of the health
> conditions that might caused by the unit.
>
> I am very fustrated and currently looking for help else
> where.
>
> Can you advise anything can be done ? Our JMB also told
> me the same answer.
>
> My condo's house rules is not as detail as other
> condominiums.
>
> Please advise.
>
> Need help
Mr Lim wrote:
My neighbour unit had been turned into Nepalese Guard
> hostel and worst still it is overcrowded with at least 12
> and above staying in the unit of 3 rooms.
>
> My unit is affected by this unit since their bathrooms and
> cooking area are near and directly facing my unit.
>
> I reported to the management but our house rules did not
> state the maximum person to stay in a unit.
>
> It is very annoying and I am worried of the health
> conditions that might caused by the unit.
>
> I am very fustrated and currently looking for help else
> where.
>
> Can you advise anything can be done ? Our JMB also told
> me the same answer.
>
> My condo's house rules is not as detail as other
> condominiums.
>
> Please advise.
>
> Need help
Sunday, April 5, 2009
Legal action against errant developers
By LIM CHIA YING
LEGAL action will be taken against developers in Selangor who fail to call for a meeting of the Joint Management Body (JMB) under the Building and Common Property (Management & Maintenance) Act 2007.
Selangor Real Property and Housing Board executive director Datin Paduka Alinah Ahmad said the Selangor Land Office had identified several developers who had failed to call for a JMB meeting within the stipulated 12-month period.
In focus: The developers of apartments will be under scrutiny if they fail to form the JMBs.
According to Alinah, the developers were required to hold the meeting within 12 months of the implementation of the Act if the properties were completed and vacant possesion handed over before it came into effect.
For other properties, the JMB meeting would have to be organised within 12 months of the vacant possession hand-over.
The Act was passed by Parliament in December 2006 and was implemented on April 12, 2007.
Alinah was speaking to representatives of about 50 JMBs at a dialogue organised by Subang Jaya assemblyman Hannah Yeoh, the Zone 1 Residents Committee (JKP) and the Subang Jaya Municipal Council.
National House Buyers Association (HBA) honorary secretary-general Chang Kim Loong, who was one of the speakers at the dialogue, advised all buyers of stratified property to lodge complaints with the Land Office if the developers failed to apply for strata titles within six months of the issuance of the Certificate of Fitness.
Chang said there were still some teething problems and loopholes in the Act. He pointed out that there were no regulations within the Act and that the Commissioner of Buildings (CoB) lacked prosecutorial powers againts defiant developers.
“Problems often crop up during the transition period after the CF is given but before the strata title is issued.
“We have asked the Ministry to issue strata titles together with the CFs or the Certificate of Compliance and Completion (CCC).
“A special focus group is working on this at the moment,” Chang said.
Alinah added that a Management Corporation (MC) would automatically be formed once the strata title book was open.
“However, an AGM of the MC can only be called when 25% of the strata titles have been issued,” she said.
Alinah said she would also ask the Land Office to send letters to inform the CoB once 25% of strata titles for a particular development have been issued.
Chang had earlier pointed out that Seremban already had a similar procedure in place.
During the dialogue, the JMB representatives also brought up various issues they faced within their properties.
Yeoh explained that the dialogue aimed to get all the experts in one forum to discuss and iron out the issues. She added that she hoped this would also help the owners find out about their rights.
Also present were MPSJ Zone 1 councillor Theresa Ratnam Thong who acted as the dialogue moderator and MPSJ CoB director Tee Siew Bee.
LEGAL action will be taken against developers in Selangor who fail to call for a meeting of the Joint Management Body (JMB) under the Building and Common Property (Management & Maintenance) Act 2007.
Selangor Real Property and Housing Board executive director Datin Paduka Alinah Ahmad said the Selangor Land Office had identified several developers who had failed to call for a JMB meeting within the stipulated 12-month period.
In focus: The developers of apartments will be under scrutiny if they fail to form the JMBs.
According to Alinah, the developers were required to hold the meeting within 12 months of the implementation of the Act if the properties were completed and vacant possesion handed over before it came into effect.
For other properties, the JMB meeting would have to be organised within 12 months of the vacant possession hand-over.
The Act was passed by Parliament in December 2006 and was implemented on April 12, 2007.
Alinah was speaking to representatives of about 50 JMBs at a dialogue organised by Subang Jaya assemblyman Hannah Yeoh, the Zone 1 Residents Committee (JKP) and the Subang Jaya Municipal Council.
National House Buyers Association (HBA) honorary secretary-general Chang Kim Loong, who was one of the speakers at the dialogue, advised all buyers of stratified property to lodge complaints with the Land Office if the developers failed to apply for strata titles within six months of the issuance of the Certificate of Fitness.
Chang said there were still some teething problems and loopholes in the Act. He pointed out that there were no regulations within the Act and that the Commissioner of Buildings (CoB) lacked prosecutorial powers againts defiant developers.
“Problems often crop up during the transition period after the CF is given but before the strata title is issued.
“We have asked the Ministry to issue strata titles together with the CFs or the Certificate of Compliance and Completion (CCC).
“A special focus group is working on this at the moment,” Chang said.
Alinah added that a Management Corporation (MC) would automatically be formed once the strata title book was open.
“However, an AGM of the MC can only be called when 25% of the strata titles have been issued,” she said.
Alinah said she would also ask the Land Office to send letters to inform the CoB once 25% of strata titles for a particular development have been issued.
Chang had earlier pointed out that Seremban already had a similar procedure in place.
During the dialogue, the JMB representatives also brought up various issues they faced within their properties.
Yeoh explained that the dialogue aimed to get all the experts in one forum to discuss and iron out the issues. She added that she hoped this would also help the owners find out about their rights.
Also present were MPSJ Zone 1 councillor Theresa Ratnam Thong who acted as the dialogue moderator and MPSJ CoB director Tee Siew Bee.
Monday, March 23, 2009
Objection signatures and memo submitted to MBPJ
By TAN KARR WEI
RESIDENTS of Bandar Sri Damansara are firm on their stand to oppose any development on Meranti Hill along Persiaran Meranti.
About 200 residents staged a peaceful protest at the parking area of the Paradesa Rustica condominiums last Sunday, under the scorching afternoon sun.
“We saw what happened at Bukit Antarabangsa (referring to the Dec 6 landslide which killed five people) and we don’t want the same thing to happen here,” Paradesa Tropica joint management committee adviser Andrew Tan said.
During a public hearing at the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) headquarters last week, the residents found out that in addition to the 12 highrise blocks of 35 to 36 storeys, similar to those in the previous proposal, the developer had included a 0.79ha commercial lot in the plans.
“We are stressing again that Persiaran Meranti is a narrow road that can’t cope with the additional 7,000 cars projected from the development,” Tan said.
He said there was already soil erosion at several places around the hill and the Rustica condominium car park would be flooded whenever it rained heavily.
According to Subang MP Sivarasa Rasiah, under the Petaling Jaya Local Draft Plan 2 (RTPJ2), many development projects are being proposed for PJ.
“There are attempts to turn PJ into a city like KL but we don’t have the necessary road infrastructure and transport facilities to support the heavy traffic,” he said.
The residents also handed over a memorandum together with about 1,500 objection signatures to MBPJ councillor Chan Chee Kong, highlighting their concerns over the project.
Chan said that this was the third proposal that the MBPJ had received for the development and the council would look into the application after hearing the objections.
When contacted, a spokesman for the developer said they had followed all procedures and were only building on class 1 and 2 slopes.
“We will make sure that all the safety and engineering practices are carried out and had also given an undertaking during one of the objection hearings to compensate residents if anything happens during construction,” he said.
He added that the developer had heard residents’ grouses regarding density and had reduced the number of blocks from the initial 15 to 12.
RESIDENTS of Bandar Sri Damansara are firm on their stand to oppose any development on Meranti Hill along Persiaran Meranti.
About 200 residents staged a peaceful protest at the parking area of the Paradesa Rustica condominiums last Sunday, under the scorching afternoon sun.
“We saw what happened at Bukit Antarabangsa (referring to the Dec 6 landslide which killed five people) and we don’t want the same thing to happen here,” Paradesa Tropica joint management committee adviser Andrew Tan said.
During a public hearing at the Petaling Jaya City Council (MBPJ) headquarters last week, the residents found out that in addition to the 12 highrise blocks of 35 to 36 storeys, similar to those in the previous proposal, the developer had included a 0.79ha commercial lot in the plans.
“We are stressing again that Persiaran Meranti is a narrow road that can’t cope with the additional 7,000 cars projected from the development,” Tan said.
He said there was already soil erosion at several places around the hill and the Rustica condominium car park would be flooded whenever it rained heavily.
According to Subang MP Sivarasa Rasiah, under the Petaling Jaya Local Draft Plan 2 (RTPJ2), many development projects are being proposed for PJ.
“There are attempts to turn PJ into a city like KL but we don’t have the necessary road infrastructure and transport facilities to support the heavy traffic,” he said.
The residents also handed over a memorandum together with about 1,500 objection signatures to MBPJ councillor Chan Chee Kong, highlighting their concerns over the project.
Chan said that this was the third proposal that the MBPJ had received for the development and the council would look into the application after hearing the objections.
When contacted, a spokesman for the developer said they had followed all procedures and were only building on class 1 and 2 slopes.
“We will make sure that all the safety and engineering practices are carried out and had also given an undertaking during one of the objection hearings to compensate residents if anything happens during construction,” he said.
He added that the developer had heard residents’ grouses regarding density and had reduced the number of blocks from the initial 15 to 12.
Saturday, March 7, 2009
JMB and your voice...
JMB and Your Voice!
In the past two weeks, I have had to attend to problems between the JMC and the other owners, including even between JMC Chairman and committee members.
There are many instances where the Chairmanship has caused the “craze” of authority to climb to the head of the Chairperson. They seem to be like dictators, managing the committee and the property like the other owners are school kids.
There are instances where the Chairman decides to over-rule whatever decision that has been made at committee meetings, changing contents of the minutes as well as “punishing” committee members and owners for questioning him / her.
All these cannot be allowed to happen – owners must stand-up to these kind of dictatorial and irresponsible management styles. In a few instances, the other committee members choose to resign – which is the wrong thing to do. If they see something wrong, the other committee members should not resign, but instead they should stand-up and put their feet down.
They must be willing to raise the matter with the COB and more importantly, the COB ,must investigate and where necessary, to take action. COB cannot just ignore the matter and pretend it is not there and wait for it to go away!
I have seen instances where both husband and wife are involved in the committee – how can the COB even allow such things to happen. There have been instances where the husband is the chairman and the wife the treasurer and both are signatories to the account. On the other instance, the wife is the Chairman while the husband is the “managing agent” – whose appointment is also questionable. Even if the appointment is properly done – surely the COB must advise them against such a situation. Is there no one else to run the place?
What is more disappointing for me is the fact that committee members and owners are aware of such “compromising situations” and they choose to do nothing. Some even claim that they do not know what their rights are. Surely simple common sense would also tell you that such situations are not right.
Apartment and Condo living is a part and parcel of Malaysian Community. JMB issues are real and will not go away. If we choose to keep quiet and wait for the authority to do something, than I am sorry to say, we deserve whatever problems that come our way.
So please my dear friends, my appeal to you – STAND UP and PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS! Seek answers and solutions instead of just folding your arms and say; “Aiyah, its like that la – what to do!!!!” Lets Change It!
In the past two weeks, I have had to attend to problems between the JMC and the other owners, including even between JMC Chairman and committee members.
There are many instances where the Chairmanship has caused the “craze” of authority to climb to the head of the Chairperson. They seem to be like dictators, managing the committee and the property like the other owners are school kids.
There are instances where the Chairman decides to over-rule whatever decision that has been made at committee meetings, changing contents of the minutes as well as “punishing” committee members and owners for questioning him / her.
All these cannot be allowed to happen – owners must stand-up to these kind of dictatorial and irresponsible management styles. In a few instances, the other committee members choose to resign – which is the wrong thing to do. If they see something wrong, the other committee members should not resign, but instead they should stand-up and put their feet down.
They must be willing to raise the matter with the COB and more importantly, the COB ,must investigate and where necessary, to take action. COB cannot just ignore the matter and pretend it is not there and wait for it to go away!
I have seen instances where both husband and wife are involved in the committee – how can the COB even allow such things to happen. There have been instances where the husband is the chairman and the wife the treasurer and both are signatories to the account. On the other instance, the wife is the Chairman while the husband is the “managing agent” – whose appointment is also questionable. Even if the appointment is properly done – surely the COB must advise them against such a situation. Is there no one else to run the place?
What is more disappointing for me is the fact that committee members and owners are aware of such “compromising situations” and they choose to do nothing. Some even claim that they do not know what their rights are. Surely simple common sense would also tell you that such situations are not right.
Apartment and Condo living is a part and parcel of Malaysian Community. JMB issues are real and will not go away. If we choose to keep quiet and wait for the authority to do something, than I am sorry to say, we deserve whatever problems that come our way.
So please my dear friends, my appeal to you – STAND UP and PROTECT YOUR RIGHTS! Seek answers and solutions instead of just folding your arms and say; “Aiyah, its like that la – what to do!!!!” Lets Change It!
Tuesday, March 3, 2009
Govt must tackle high-rise poser
HIGH-RISE tenants are likely to face problems with water supply in the near future.
The Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 spells out that a joint management body (JMB) will be liable for all jointly owned properties including the pump house, water tanks and piping in the building. The problems start when consumers are not fully aware of this act and its function. In near future, it will be compulsory for high-rise tenants to have individual meters and pay directly to water companies.
However, these consumers still need to spend extra to maintain the rest of the jointly-owned water supply properties. This situation is different from landed properties as the responsibility of the water supply company lies up to the individual meters or to certain distance from the main pipe.
Now, the question is whether the JMB which comprises residents has enough funds to operate such jointly-owned properties. Secondly, how will the tariff be decided? This is because compared to landed property owners, high-rise residents receive fewer services while bearing the cost of common properties for water supply.
It is dangerous to leave the issue as it is. If the JMB fail to collect enough management fees, it may end up unable to maintain the properties well. And in many states, there are no JMBs for high-rise buildings.
The Housing and Local Government Ministry must coordinate with the Energy, Water and Communications Ministry to solve this problem. There should be a mechanism to manage these properties and not left to the consumers because they bought a high-rise property.
Piarapakaran Subramaniam
Fomca Environment Desk
The Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 spells out that a joint management body (JMB) will be liable for all jointly owned properties including the pump house, water tanks and piping in the building. The problems start when consumers are not fully aware of this act and its function. In near future, it will be compulsory for high-rise tenants to have individual meters and pay directly to water companies.
However, these consumers still need to spend extra to maintain the rest of the jointly-owned water supply properties. This situation is different from landed properties as the responsibility of the water supply company lies up to the individual meters or to certain distance from the main pipe.
Now, the question is whether the JMB which comprises residents has enough funds to operate such jointly-owned properties. Secondly, how will the tariff be decided? This is because compared to landed property owners, high-rise residents receive fewer services while bearing the cost of common properties for water supply.
It is dangerous to leave the issue as it is. If the JMB fail to collect enough management fees, it may end up unable to maintain the properties well. And in many states, there are no JMBs for high-rise buildings.
The Housing and Local Government Ministry must coordinate with the Energy, Water and Communications Ministry to solve this problem. There should be a mechanism to manage these properties and not left to the consumers because they bought a high-rise property.
Piarapakaran Subramaniam
Fomca Environment Desk
Monday, March 2, 2009
JMB Training Programme
Bengkel 663 Taklimat
Bengkel Akta 663 ini bertujuan untuk memberikan peserta-peserta panduan praktikal mengenai perundangan serta tugas dan tanggungjawab ahli-ahli dan ahli jawatankuasa Badan Pengurusan
***
Bengkel dan taklimat ini dijadualkan untuk selama 3jam dan melibatkan taklimat serta bengkel penyertaan peserta dan sessi soal-jawab.
***
Untuk memastikan penyertaan sepenuhnya oleh semua peserta, maka setiap sessi Bengkel – Taklimat dihadkan kepada 20 orang peserta (maksima)
***
Kos penyertaan hanya
RM50
seorang peserta (termasuk sijil penyertaan)
Untuk pertanyaan lanjut sila hubungi Tengku Naza: 012 284 9146, Peter 012 905 9948
Bengkel Akta 663 ini bertujuan untuk memberikan peserta-peserta panduan praktikal mengenai perundangan serta tugas dan tanggungjawab ahli-ahli dan ahli jawatankuasa Badan Pengurusan
***
Bengkel dan taklimat ini dijadualkan untuk selama 3jam dan melibatkan taklimat serta bengkel penyertaan peserta dan sessi soal-jawab.
***
Untuk memastikan penyertaan sepenuhnya oleh semua peserta, maka setiap sessi Bengkel – Taklimat dihadkan kepada 20 orang peserta (maksima)
***
Kos penyertaan hanya
RM50
seorang peserta (termasuk sijil penyertaan)
Untuk pertanyaan lanjut sila hubungi Tengku Naza: 012 284 9146, Peter 012 905 9948
Tuesday, February 10, 2009
More Security Problems...
I am a resident of Tiara Apartment, and standing for election for the committee members. At the present moment, we are facing one very critical issue whereby one of our residents ( a bachelor) who is staying alone in a rented unit, last night chopped a visitor's head with a "parang" ( suspected taken some form of drugs). The visitor is actually on the way up the staircase to visit a friend. He was overpowered by some residents and police, and was taken away to the police station.Whereby the victim was taken to the hospital. A check by the police found that in his car have another "parang" and some cable cutter and tools for break in. But today he was released, according to some neighbours. We as residents are worried of this man, said to be just released from jail 6 months ago. What can we do as residents to protect our safety of our family and children ? And what can the Joint Mgt Committee do in their capacity ?
Wednesday, January 21, 2009
Sinking Funds - sunken responses?
Mr Chew wrote:
I have a question regarding sinking fund, appreciate if you could advice me. I am currently one of the JMC member (form on Jan-08), on phase 1 (156 units, completed on sept-03) , the developer collected sinking fund since hand over of vacant possession but on Phase 2 (256 units, completed on nov-06) the developer only start to collect sinking fund on 3rd years onwards, as written in the Deed of Mutual covenants, so now the JMB is short of sinking fund on 1st & 2nd year. Question1) Is the developer have rights to waive sinking fund?2) if not, how can JMB recover the sinking fund money from developer?
I have a question regarding sinking fund, appreciate if you could advice me. I am currently one of the JMC member (form on Jan-08), on phase 1 (156 units, completed on sept-03) , the developer collected sinking fund since hand over of vacant possession but on Phase 2 (256 units, completed on nov-06) the developer only start to collect sinking fund on 3rd years onwards, as written in the Deed of Mutual covenants, so now the JMB is short of sinking fund on 1st & 2nd year. Question1) Is the developer have rights to waive sinking fund?2) if not, how can JMB recover the sinking fund money from developer?
Saturday, January 10, 2009
Nicholas Phuah wrote:
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL THE GUYS THERE. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
With reference to the above blog written by Mr. Chan, I would like to suggest the following:-
1. Check your house rules carefully to ensure that there are preventive and protective clauses. If not, urgently prepare additional clauses to tighten control.
2. While it may not be legal to prevent owners from renting out to any tenants, there are other laws and bylaws regulating the no of occupants per unit.
3. The JMC/MC can ensure that all owners and tenants must comply with the house rules.
4. The JMC/MC must be strong in ensuring the policy must be enforced. You must have a strong property manager and security to back you up.
HAPPY NEW YEAR TO ALL THE GUYS THERE. KEEP UP THE GOOD WORK!
With reference to the above blog written by Mr. Chan, I would like to suggest the following:-
1. Check your house rules carefully to ensure that there are preventive and protective clauses. If not, urgently prepare additional clauses to tighten control.
2. While it may not be legal to prevent owners from renting out to any tenants, there are other laws and bylaws regulating the no of occupants per unit.
3. The JMC/MC can ensure that all owners and tenants must comply with the house rules.
4. The JMC/MC must be strong in ensuring the policy must be enforced. You must have a strong property manager and security to back you up.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
