The following was received from a concerned reader:
Dear High rise building unit owners in MBPJ' area:
We believe that you, like us, would have experienced numerous problems when seeking the help of COB to enforce the ACT 663 diligently n professionally.
Here is our experience:
1.Pn Maria, the COB Officer, seems to act more like a little Napoleon'
Her objective seems to only be to frustrate every complaint made to her.
2.The Dato Bandar seems to condone her actions or, should we say, inaction.
3.Our patience n respect to Dato Bandar n Maria of COB has been tested severely and we have been treated like fools.
4. In a recent meeting, Pn Maria even admitted she took no action on complaints as Act 663 does not give COB powers to punish those who don’t follow COB directives! Hence she is waiting for the Act to be amended(!) before she could take any action.
We therefore call on all parties affected by COB, MBPJ to work as a team and propose the following action to be taken collectively:
1.prepare a memorandum or send your complaint to Menetri Besar,all exco members,all ADUNs n all MPs,maybe PM n Sultan of Selangor seeking out our legitimate complaints that have been ignored.(extend a copy of your complaint letter to us).
2.If we do not get any response in,say, 2 weeks we will get a police permit to organize a picketing in front of MBPJ to request for ENFORCEMENT & call for a press conference.
3.Report to Police n MACC n request them to investigate Maria n Dato Bandar for possible dereliction.
This is my complaint letter to PCB and MB and some others Exco.
Sunday, April 4, 2010
CAR PARK PROBLEM.....any useful advice
Hi,
I am so so happy to come to know about your organisation, as i have been having this car parking problem since i have the key to the condominium. I have been given a car park lot number 1103 in 2003. Since then i have problem parking my car on this lot due to the fact that some one else with car numbers WHQ 4362, another resident claimed she had paid for the same unit. I have in many occasion wrote to the Maintenance Office, submitted the complaint. Nothing has been solved. As my tenant always ask to park some where else during this 7 years period, she had not compliant to me until i have a new tenant recently. I have againg approached the BMO, calling, emailing and now have email to MK Land ( the developer) for their attention for the same issue. I really hope someone could help me here, as i have been trying many times in the past to solve this issue peacefully, but it seems this doesn't work. I need your help and advise, please !
Many thanks,
Miss Yoke Loh
email : yokeloh@aol.com
Perdana Kondominium Exclusive,No 15, Jalan PJU 8/1, 47820, Petaling Jaya.
The BMO : Property management Office, Bandar Damansara Perdana, 47820, PJ
e mail jmbpect@gmail.com
The MK Land Holding BHD : 19, Jalan PJU8/5H, Perdana Business Centre, Bandar Damansara Perdana, 47820, PJ
I am so so happy to come to know about your organisation, as i have been having this car parking problem since i have the key to the condominium. I have been given a car park lot number 1103 in 2003. Since then i have problem parking my car on this lot due to the fact that some one else with car numbers WHQ 4362, another resident claimed she had paid for the same unit. I have in many occasion wrote to the Maintenance Office, submitted the complaint. Nothing has been solved. As my tenant always ask to park some where else during this 7 years period, she had not compliant to me until i have a new tenant recently. I have againg approached the BMO, calling, emailing and now have email to MK Land ( the developer) for their attention for the same issue. I really hope someone could help me here, as i have been trying many times in the past to solve this issue peacefully, but it seems this doesn't work. I need your help and advise, please !
Many thanks,
Miss Yoke Loh
email : yokeloh@aol.com
Perdana Kondominium Exclusive,No 15, Jalan PJU 8/1, 47820, Petaling Jaya.
The BMO : Property management Office, Bandar Damansara Perdana, 47820, PJ
e mail jmbpect@gmail.com
The MK Land Holding BHD : 19, Jalan PJU8/5H, Perdana Business Centre, Bandar Damansara Perdana, 47820, PJ
Sunday, March 28, 2010
How many to a unit?
By LIM CHIA YING
CAN a Joint Management Body (JMB) restrict the number of occupants living in a condominium or apartment unit? Or is it illegal for them to do so despite what the JMB says it is looking into the interest and welfare of other owners at large?
Last month, the issue became contentious between two parties of the Le Chateau 2 condominium in Taman Seputeh - the JMB and a college.
Both were at loggerheads over the number of people allowed to stay in a unit, when the JMB imposed its in-house ruling of limiting just five people per household as decided during its annual general meeting (AGM) last year.
In discussion: This filepic shows the college representative Maran (facing camera, second from right) talking to some of the JMB members and residents.
That ruling did not go down well with the college which is renting some of the units of the condominium for its students, and had placed between eight and 10 students per unit.
The JMB said the policy was introduced following issues like overcrowding, noise, and misbehaving of the students while the college management demanded that such in-house ruling cannot override the tenancy agreement which was signed in 2006, and that they even have authorities’ approval on this.
Based on this case study, StarMetro spoke to some other parties who gave mixed views.
An apartment JMB president in Subang Jaya Lim Ai Yim, thinks there is a need to control the number of people in condominiums or apartments because they would inevitably turn into student hostels or hostel for factory workers.
“In my place, too, we’ve got about 30 units per block that have been rented out to factory workers, in different floors.
“In one instance, a unit had between 17 and 20 people, and because they work two shifts, you cannot detect them.
“The college had signed a contract with the developer but this was not made known to our residents association then.
“When you have large groups of students or workers, there is a tendency of facilities being monopolised and whatever damages done are repaired using our own JMB maintenance fund,” said Lim.
She said there was no reason why house rules could not be changed, subjected to JMB as per requirements as certain policies could not stay on forever since there would be issues cropping up from time to time.
“It is not healthy for condo or apartment units to be turned into hostels because ideally, three rooms can accommodate just six people or four rooms eight.
“But JMB has no right to impose that limitation on immediate family members,” said Lim.
She added that such in-house ruling should be carried out properly and with consultation like calling for an AGM to see if there were objections because disputes could arise in future and the unit owner could sue the JMB.
Another JMB chairman of a condominium in SS2, Petaling Jaya, who wanted to be known as just Ng, said the restriction of tenants was a way of taking care of the overall welfare of owners.
“In our case, too, the developer did sign a contract with a college whereby five units was rented out to more than 30 students, but we later set our own ruling to stop that.
“When you have more tenants, the wear and tear in common areas increases and that’s when it eats into our JMB maintenance funds.
“It’s a case of when companies or colleges just want to save cost hence putting so many people in one unit,” he said.
“But of course if it’s a big family consisting of immediate family members, we don’t have such restrictions.”
He said it was not illegal for the JMB to have such a ruling, claiming that there was such a bylaw that provided for the management committee (MC) to follow, but the other party (college or company) had to be informed of the policy first.
The Le Chateau 2 JMB chairman, Foong Chin Fee, reiterated that his committee had been vested with the power by the Commissioner of Buildings (CoB) to implement such house rules within their own fenced property.
“I don’t think we are doing anything illegal, as we have sought legal advice and know of other condos elsewhere imposing similar policies.
“The CoB is well aware of our action as we have deposited a copy of our ruling with them,” he said.
The Housing and Local Government Ministry, when contacted, said under Act 63, the JMB has the right to impose house rules for proper management and maintenance of the building as long as they are not contradictory to existing national laws.
When asked about the aforementioned case, a source said it was not a straight-forward thing to tackle as students were under the jurisdiction of the Higher Education Ministry, and for factory workers, the Human Resource Ministry. The guidelines should probably come from them.
“There are two different interests to look at here — one being business (as with the college), and the other being the residents or owners themselves.
“We have to see if the contract signed is in line with the status of land ownership which the building sits on, whether it is commercial (service apartment) or residential,” the source said.
The National Housebuyers Association (HBA) honorary secretary-general Chang Kim Loong, when contacted, said JMB could not simply impose any limitation to its whims and fancies as any house rules must conform with existing laws.
“Under the Building and Common Property Act, whatever house rules cannot intervene with existing local council laws, and must be consistent with their bylaws as local authorities will have taken into consideration issues like noise and so on,” Chang said.
Local government expert Derek Fernandez said under the Local Government Act 1976, the minimum requirement for living space is 350 cubic ftt per person, and this is applicable across all local authorities.
“The JMB cannot infringe the rights of property owners restricting the number of occupants as long as the above minimum space under the Act is adhered to.
“The onus is for both parties - the college and the JMB in this case - to adhere to this 350 cubic feet policy,” he said.
CAN a Joint Management Body (JMB) restrict the number of occupants living in a condominium or apartment unit? Or is it illegal for them to do so despite what the JMB says it is looking into the interest and welfare of other owners at large?
Last month, the issue became contentious between two parties of the Le Chateau 2 condominium in Taman Seputeh - the JMB and a college.
Both were at loggerheads over the number of people allowed to stay in a unit, when the JMB imposed its in-house ruling of limiting just five people per household as decided during its annual general meeting (AGM) last year.
In discussion: This filepic shows the college representative Maran (facing camera, second from right) talking to some of the JMB members and residents.
That ruling did not go down well with the college which is renting some of the units of the condominium for its students, and had placed between eight and 10 students per unit.
The JMB said the policy was introduced following issues like overcrowding, noise, and misbehaving of the students while the college management demanded that such in-house ruling cannot override the tenancy agreement which was signed in 2006, and that they even have authorities’ approval on this.
Based on this case study, StarMetro spoke to some other parties who gave mixed views.
An apartment JMB president in Subang Jaya Lim Ai Yim, thinks there is a need to control the number of people in condominiums or apartments because they would inevitably turn into student hostels or hostel for factory workers.
“In my place, too, we’ve got about 30 units per block that have been rented out to factory workers, in different floors.
“In one instance, a unit had between 17 and 20 people, and because they work two shifts, you cannot detect them.
“The college had signed a contract with the developer but this was not made known to our residents association then.
“When you have large groups of students or workers, there is a tendency of facilities being monopolised and whatever damages done are repaired using our own JMB maintenance fund,” said Lim.
She said there was no reason why house rules could not be changed, subjected to JMB as per requirements as certain policies could not stay on forever since there would be issues cropping up from time to time.
“It is not healthy for condo or apartment units to be turned into hostels because ideally, three rooms can accommodate just six people or four rooms eight.
“But JMB has no right to impose that limitation on immediate family members,” said Lim.
She added that such in-house ruling should be carried out properly and with consultation like calling for an AGM to see if there were objections because disputes could arise in future and the unit owner could sue the JMB.
Another JMB chairman of a condominium in SS2, Petaling Jaya, who wanted to be known as just Ng, said the restriction of tenants was a way of taking care of the overall welfare of owners.
“In our case, too, the developer did sign a contract with a college whereby five units was rented out to more than 30 students, but we later set our own ruling to stop that.
“When you have more tenants, the wear and tear in common areas increases and that’s when it eats into our JMB maintenance funds.
“It’s a case of when companies or colleges just want to save cost hence putting so many people in one unit,” he said.
“But of course if it’s a big family consisting of immediate family members, we don’t have such restrictions.”
He said it was not illegal for the JMB to have such a ruling, claiming that there was such a bylaw that provided for the management committee (MC) to follow, but the other party (college or company) had to be informed of the policy first.
The Le Chateau 2 JMB chairman, Foong Chin Fee, reiterated that his committee had been vested with the power by the Commissioner of Buildings (CoB) to implement such house rules within their own fenced property.
“I don’t think we are doing anything illegal, as we have sought legal advice and know of other condos elsewhere imposing similar policies.
“The CoB is well aware of our action as we have deposited a copy of our ruling with them,” he said.
The Housing and Local Government Ministry, when contacted, said under Act 63, the JMB has the right to impose house rules for proper management and maintenance of the building as long as they are not contradictory to existing national laws.
When asked about the aforementioned case, a source said it was not a straight-forward thing to tackle as students were under the jurisdiction of the Higher Education Ministry, and for factory workers, the Human Resource Ministry. The guidelines should probably come from them.
“There are two different interests to look at here — one being business (as with the college), and the other being the residents or owners themselves.
“We have to see if the contract signed is in line with the status of land ownership which the building sits on, whether it is commercial (service apartment) or residential,” the source said.
The National Housebuyers Association (HBA) honorary secretary-general Chang Kim Loong, when contacted, said JMB could not simply impose any limitation to its whims and fancies as any house rules must conform with existing laws.
“Under the Building and Common Property Act, whatever house rules cannot intervene with existing local council laws, and must be consistent with their bylaws as local authorities will have taken into consideration issues like noise and so on,” Chang said.
Local government expert Derek Fernandez said under the Local Government Act 1976, the minimum requirement for living space is 350 cubic ftt per person, and this is applicable across all local authorities.
“The JMB cannot infringe the rights of property owners restricting the number of occupants as long as the above minimum space under the Act is adhered to.
“The onus is for both parties - the college and the JMB in this case - to adhere to this 350 cubic feet policy,” he said.
Monday, March 8, 2010
THE Selangor government has embarked on a mission to rectify lift problems in local flats with a budget of RM1.66mil for three locations in the first
THE Selangor government has embarked on a mission to rectify lift problems in local flats with a budget of RM1.66mil for three locations in the first phase.
The three locations that have been identified for the project are Desa Mentari in Petaling Jaya, Permai Indah in Pandamaran and Taman Ampang Mewah in Ampang.
This was revealed by state housing building management and squatters committee chairman and Chempaka assemblyman Iskandar Abdul Samad during a site visit to the Taman Ampang Mewah low-cost flats recently.
“The first phase involves five areas but we have only identified three; the cost of RM1.66mil is for 41 lifts in the three areas,” he said.
Not in use: Note the missing buttons on the panel outside the lift and a motorcycle parked in front of it.
He added that the areas were chosen because they were in dire need of new lifts or repairs.
The project will be spearheaded by the Selangor State Development Corporation (PKNS) and work in the three areas is scheduled to begin within two weeks. It is expected to be completed in four months.
“Our aim is to finish at least one lift by April 15 in each of the three areas, which are considered to be the worst affected,” he added.
The Taman Ampang Mewah flats is a 10-year-old development with three blocks. Each block has two lifts but only one of the six lifts is working, forcing the residents to climb up the stairs of the 14-storey blocks every day.
During the site visit, StarMetro said the buttons were missing from the operating panel outside one of the lifts that are not working, and motorcycles were parked in front of it.
Iskandar added that the government would conduct awareness campaigns on the need to safeguard the lifts.
In his speech, he urged parents to advise their children on the need to take care of the lifts after the work had been completed.
“The residents have to change their attitude.
“They must work together to take care of the amenities to ensure they will live in a conducive environment,” he said.
According to resident Azizah Ibrahim, 50, who lives on the 14th floor, many of the electrical cables had been stolen by drug addicts.
“The motor room is upstairs and a grille has been fitted there, so we don’t know when they are breaking into the room,” she said.
She suggested that the Joint Management Body (JMB) fit a grille on the 14th floor instead.
“If they fit it there, we will hear them when they go upstairs and can immediately report their wrongdoings.
“It’s scary to see four men high on drugs walking up and down, especially when I’m caring for my young grandchildren at home,” she added
The three locations that have been identified for the project are Desa Mentari in Petaling Jaya, Permai Indah in Pandamaran and Taman Ampang Mewah in Ampang.
This was revealed by state housing building management and squatters committee chairman and Chempaka assemblyman Iskandar Abdul Samad during a site visit to the Taman Ampang Mewah low-cost flats recently.
“The first phase involves five areas but we have only identified three; the cost of RM1.66mil is for 41 lifts in the three areas,” he said.
Not in use: Note the missing buttons on the panel outside the lift and a motorcycle parked in front of it.
He added that the areas were chosen because they were in dire need of new lifts or repairs.
The project will be spearheaded by the Selangor State Development Corporation (PKNS) and work in the three areas is scheduled to begin within two weeks. It is expected to be completed in four months.
“Our aim is to finish at least one lift by April 15 in each of the three areas, which are considered to be the worst affected,” he added.
The Taman Ampang Mewah flats is a 10-year-old development with three blocks. Each block has two lifts but only one of the six lifts is working, forcing the residents to climb up the stairs of the 14-storey blocks every day.
During the site visit, StarMetro said the buttons were missing from the operating panel outside one of the lifts that are not working, and motorcycles were parked in front of it.
Iskandar added that the government would conduct awareness campaigns on the need to safeguard the lifts.
In his speech, he urged parents to advise their children on the need to take care of the lifts after the work had been completed.
“The residents have to change their attitude.
“They must work together to take care of the amenities to ensure they will live in a conducive environment,” he said.
According to resident Azizah Ibrahim, 50, who lives on the 14th floor, many of the electrical cables had been stolen by drug addicts.
“The motor room is upstairs and a grille has been fitted there, so we don’t know when they are breaking into the room,” she said.
She suggested that the Joint Management Body (JMB) fit a grille on the 14th floor instead.
“If they fit it there, we will hear them when they go upstairs and can immediately report their wrongdoings.
“It’s scary to see four men high on drugs walking up and down, especially when I’m caring for my young grandchildren at home,” she added
Friday, February 19, 2010
Liquidators?
Group in a dilemma over five-storey building
By CHOONG MEK ZHIN
mekzhin@thestar.com.my
A five-storey building in front of Sunrise Park Apartment has been causing a headache for the Joint Management Body (JMB) of the apartment and the foremost issue being whether or not the building was even under its jurisdiction in the first place.
“We do not know who developed or owns the building. Currently, the ground floor is occupied by businesses and the upper floors by foreign workers,” JMB chairman Yong Wee Tat said.
Yong said some people from the building throw their rubbish at the collection area of their apartment, particularly the blocks behind.
“The building’s rubbish disposal system is not good.
“They have a place in the building where they are supposed to throw their rubbish but no collector ever goes there to pick it up,” Yong said, adding that they feared the rubbish would attract rats and cockroaches.
The lane between the apartment’s wall is very narrow, with one side allotted for parking, further narrowing the space and making it difficult for rubbish collection lorries to pass through.
Yong said the JMB was formed in May last year and since then they had written three letters to the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ), requesting information about the building.
“We want to know who developed the building and if it is built as a shoplot office or shophouses because it could be used for the wrong purposes,” Yong adding that they needed to know who is to be responsible over any untoward incident at the building.
He added that Kumpulan Bertiga Development Sdn Bhd, the developer of their apartments, had gone into liquidation seven years ago and since then, apartment residents have been paying their maintenance fees to the liquidator company.
“We have had many problems pertaining to poor maintenance that have never been addressed such as one of the elevators being out of order for years, badly built roads within the apartment grounds and the exterior walls that need painting,” Yong said.
The JMB was formed due to the suggestion of the area’s MPAJ councillor Tan Hua Meng whom the residents had turned to when they had had enough.
“During the annual general meeting, there was no presentation of a financial report and we do not know how the previous maintenence fees we paid was used.
“The liquidator, however, claims that we owe them about RM600,000 in fee arrears,” he said.
Since the JMB took over maintenance of the now 15-year-old apartments, they discovered that the components that is needed to run the elevator had disappeared and all that is left is the elevator box in the shaft.
“We have since locked the rooftop and carefully maintained the only lift that remains,” Yong said.
The apartments consist of two low-cost apartment blocks and one medium-cost apartment block with the former having to pay RM33 in maintenence fee and the latter RM47 every month
By CHOONG MEK ZHIN
mekzhin@thestar.com.my
A five-storey building in front of Sunrise Park Apartment has been causing a headache for the Joint Management Body (JMB) of the apartment and the foremost issue being whether or not the building was even under its jurisdiction in the first place.
“We do not know who developed or owns the building. Currently, the ground floor is occupied by businesses and the upper floors by foreign workers,” JMB chairman Yong Wee Tat said.
Yong said some people from the building throw their rubbish at the collection area of their apartment, particularly the blocks behind.
“The building’s rubbish disposal system is not good.
“They have a place in the building where they are supposed to throw their rubbish but no collector ever goes there to pick it up,” Yong said, adding that they feared the rubbish would attract rats and cockroaches.
The lane between the apartment’s wall is very narrow, with one side allotted for parking, further narrowing the space and making it difficult for rubbish collection lorries to pass through.
Yong said the JMB was formed in May last year and since then they had written three letters to the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council (MPAJ), requesting information about the building.
“We want to know who developed the building and if it is built as a shoplot office or shophouses because it could be used for the wrong purposes,” Yong adding that they needed to know who is to be responsible over any untoward incident at the building.
He added that Kumpulan Bertiga Development Sdn Bhd, the developer of their apartments, had gone into liquidation seven years ago and since then, apartment residents have been paying their maintenance fees to the liquidator company.
“We have had many problems pertaining to poor maintenance that have never been addressed such as one of the elevators being out of order for years, badly built roads within the apartment grounds and the exterior walls that need painting,” Yong said.
The JMB was formed due to the suggestion of the area’s MPAJ councillor Tan Hua Meng whom the residents had turned to when they had had enough.
“During the annual general meeting, there was no presentation of a financial report and we do not know how the previous maintenence fees we paid was used.
“The liquidator, however, claims that we owe them about RM600,000 in fee arrears,” he said.
Since the JMB took over maintenance of the now 15-year-old apartments, they discovered that the components that is needed to run the elevator had disappeared and all that is left is the elevator box in the shaft.
“We have since locked the rooftop and carefully maintained the only lift that remains,” Yong said.
The apartments consist of two low-cost apartment blocks and one medium-cost apartment block with the former having to pay RM33 in maintenence fee and the latter RM47 every month
Monday, February 8, 2010
From Down South
ANyone has any comments on this?
Dear Sir,
Recently we had a meeting with the management of developer on the issue of having an office to run the daily operation of JMB. JMC memebers are of the view that developer should have built an office for us but the developer management said they had no obligation to bouild an office for since there is no rule or regulation stating so.
Is there any advice from you on this issue? Or is there any act or regulation that we can refer to as a supporting document so that we have better grounds to request for an JMB office from the developer?
Dear Sir,
Recently we had a meeting with the management of developer on the issue of having an office to run the daily operation of JMB. JMC memebers are of the view that developer should have built an office for us but the developer management said they had no obligation to bouild an office for since there is no rule or regulation stating so.
Is there any advice from you on this issue? Or is there any act or regulation that we can refer to as a supporting document so that we have better grounds to request for an JMB office from the developer?
Thursday, February 4, 2010
How many to a unit? Condo = student"s hostel?
College and condo management in a dispute
Story and photo by LIM CHIA YING
chiaying@thestar.com.my
SPARKS flew when the Le Chateau 2 condominium Joint Management Body (JMB) and Nirwana College clashed over the maximum number of students that should be allowed to stay in the condo units.
The dispute arose after the JMB reintroduced the use of residents’ cards on Tuesday which limited only five people per household as decided by the annual general meeting held by the JMB last year.
Nirwana College, which is renting some of the units at Le Chateau 2 for its students, had placed between eight and 10 students per unit.
This has become the cause of contention with the Le Chateau 2 JMB after its new policy was set.
The JMB claimed that the overcrowding of units created a nosiy atmosphere for the rest.
They also alleged that some of the students misbehaved by gathering at the corridors particularly late at night.
On Tuesday evening, students who came back from their classes found that they could not enter the condominium premises, and sat stranded outside the compound.
In discussion: Maran (facing camera, second from right) talking to some of the JMB members and residents.
A student, who declined to be named, said they were from outstation, and had thought it was a hostel for students instead of a condominium.
JMB chairman Foong Chin Fee said the house rule was implemented on Jan 25 after it was unanimously agreed during their September AGM that there will be no more than five people to an apartment.
“Our JMB then issued residents card from October last year to Jan 1 this year. And when the house rule was implemented on Jan 25, a group of about 10 men stormed in to intimidate and threaten us.
“We lodged a police report at the Brickfields police station that same evening with a footage of the incident on our CCTV,” said Foong.
During Tuesday’s confrontation, a few men in blue had stationed themselves inside the condominium while awaiting the arrival of the college management.
As soon as one of the college representatives arrived, he told the students to go inside the condominium.
The man, who identified himself as the college managing director Maran A.K.Kannan, said the Deputy Housing Minister in 2006 had already decided on this particular issue and claimed that the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) had also agreed that a small apartment unit will house eight people while a bigger one houses 10.
“The DBKL came to measure the built-up area of the apartment and this issue had been resolved then. We have a letter issued by them on this,” he said.
Maran, who came together with his administration and operations director S.N.Thanabalan, said the students are from poor families hence the college was helping to rent the units on their behalf.
“We have also signed the tenancy agreement in 2006 for this, so you cannot just bar my students from coming in,” he told the JMB members.
“If you wish, you can send us a lawyer’s letter and we will counter sue.”
Maran later said being a college, it was not cost-effective for them to just have five students per unit.
Foong said the JMB would still proceed with their house rule.
“If he claims to have the Housing Ministry’s approval letter, then he should have brought such an important document to show us today.”
When asked what happens to families with more than five members, he said the family concerned could write in to apply to waive the condition.
“We want to prevent our condominium from being turned into a students’ hostel,” he said.
Story and photo by LIM CHIA YING
chiaying@thestar.com.my
SPARKS flew when the Le Chateau 2 condominium Joint Management Body (JMB) and Nirwana College clashed over the maximum number of students that should be allowed to stay in the condo units.
The dispute arose after the JMB reintroduced the use of residents’ cards on Tuesday which limited only five people per household as decided by the annual general meeting held by the JMB last year.
Nirwana College, which is renting some of the units at Le Chateau 2 for its students, had placed between eight and 10 students per unit.
This has become the cause of contention with the Le Chateau 2 JMB after its new policy was set.
The JMB claimed that the overcrowding of units created a nosiy atmosphere for the rest.
They also alleged that some of the students misbehaved by gathering at the corridors particularly late at night.
On Tuesday evening, students who came back from their classes found that they could not enter the condominium premises, and sat stranded outside the compound.
In discussion: Maran (facing camera, second from right) talking to some of the JMB members and residents.
A student, who declined to be named, said they were from outstation, and had thought it was a hostel for students instead of a condominium.
JMB chairman Foong Chin Fee said the house rule was implemented on Jan 25 after it was unanimously agreed during their September AGM that there will be no more than five people to an apartment.
“Our JMB then issued residents card from October last year to Jan 1 this year. And when the house rule was implemented on Jan 25, a group of about 10 men stormed in to intimidate and threaten us.
“We lodged a police report at the Brickfields police station that same evening with a footage of the incident on our CCTV,” said Foong.
During Tuesday’s confrontation, a few men in blue had stationed themselves inside the condominium while awaiting the arrival of the college management.
As soon as one of the college representatives arrived, he told the students to go inside the condominium.
The man, who identified himself as the college managing director Maran A.K.Kannan, said the Deputy Housing Minister in 2006 had already decided on this particular issue and claimed that the Kuala Lumpur City Hall (DBKL) had also agreed that a small apartment unit will house eight people while a bigger one houses 10.
“The DBKL came to measure the built-up area of the apartment and this issue had been resolved then. We have a letter issued by them on this,” he said.
Maran, who came together with his administration and operations director S.N.Thanabalan, said the students are from poor families hence the college was helping to rent the units on their behalf.
“We have also signed the tenancy agreement in 2006 for this, so you cannot just bar my students from coming in,” he told the JMB members.
“If you wish, you can send us a lawyer’s letter and we will counter sue.”
Maran later said being a college, it was not cost-effective for them to just have five students per unit.
Foong said the JMB would still proceed with their house rule.
“If he claims to have the Housing Ministry’s approval letter, then he should have brought such an important document to show us today.”
When asked what happens to families with more than five members, he said the family concerned could write in to apply to waive the condition.
“We want to prevent our condominium from being turned into a students’ hostel,” he said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
