Share This

Showing posts with label Strata property. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Strata property. Show all posts

Tuesday, August 27, 2024

Our upkeep culture needs a lift

 


Two boys were lost for hours – and were found in a lift after nine hours. Why did no one know? Or even bother about a stuck lift?

I WAS a rookie reporter when I was called to the now-condemned Pekeliling Flats in Kuala Lumpur – on the eve of Deepavali.

A man had been waiting for the lift. It was pitch dark as the lights were all out and the maintenance was very poor. He pressed the lift button and the door opened.

Assuming the lift was there, he stepped in. There was nothing but thin air. The man fell more than a dozen floors, and no one knew about it until a guard on the ground floor heard some moaning.

He checked. The man had survived the fall but he broke both his legs and many bones. If he had died, they may not have found him for days!

Immediately after the tragic accident, there was an outcry over how flats in our country needed proper upkeep and maintenance. And the leaders stepped in, promising changes. City Hall also promised improvements.

But then, there is this Malay saying: “Hangat-hangat tahi ayam.” Things soon cooled down and the matter was forgotten.

The Pekeliling Flats are gone now, and the area is about to be developed into a prime commercial centre. But one thing has not changed – our maintenance culture, or the lack of it.

On Monday, two boys aged 10 and 11 went missing. One of the boys, according to his aunt, had left his home at the Desa Petaling Flats at about 2pm to buy buns and meet his friend living at the nearby Pangsaria Apartments.

When they had not returned home at 10pm – eight hours later – the families got worried. Frantically, they put out alerts on social media. They also lodged police reports and a search was mounted. They searched, and so did the cops.

It was at 1am, some three hours later, that a security guard checked the CCTV and realised the boys had actually been trapped in a lift. They had been there for about nine hours and no one had known about it.

The boys said they had tried to call out, but no one replied or came to their rescue. It’s a good thing the boys were just exhausted, hungry and sleepy when they were finally rescued, with nothing more serious happening to them.

But what if something serious had happened? Who would take the blame?

What boggles the mind is: Why did no one know that the lift had been stuck for nine hours?

Did no one else need to use it for the full nine hours? Or have the residents got so used to the lift breaking down? This happens often in many flats, where “out of order” notices are hung outside lift doors.

After more than 40 years since that Pekeliling Flats incident, our maintenance culture still sucks.

In June this year, a video of a man carrying his wheelchairusing grandmother up the stairs at the flats where they live went viral. All four lifts in the flats in Setapak were out of order.

The man said he had complained to the apartment management and technician, but nothing was done. That is how bad things are.

Of course, in many cases, the residents themselves are to be blamed. They just do not care about the upkeep of the facilities they use.

The two boys, for instance, were no angels. But they exposed both problems – vandalism and apathy.

First, the two – for some unknown reason – stuck a slipper in the lift door, causing it to go into auto-lock mode. And then, while they cried for help, no one cared about a lift that was stuck for nine hours.

Like the boys, many residents in flats around the country find joy in vandalism, damaging the buttons, doors and electrical equipment.

There are 159 People’s Housing Programme (PPR) projects with 99,000 housing units nationwide. If each unit housed between four and five people, we are talking about close to 400,000 people who are using lifts every day.

In Kuala Lumpur and Selangor, there are said to be about 150,000 PPR residents. There are already many other social problems in these flats, including a lack of cleanliness, gangsterism and drug use.

They don’t need broken down lifts as well.

Residents in Kepong, for one, have long been complaining about faulty lifts at their PPR flats. They even resorted to writing to the King.

“We commonly hear about PPR lifts breaking down all around the country and in many cases, it is the lack of spare parts that causes downtime,” said an annoyed Kepong MP Lim Lip Eng.

“Why has the availability of spare parts to repair lifts not been made a priority?” he asked. Why indeed?

All local councils need to have spare parts parked somewhere central, along with technicians who can reach the flats quickly when called.

Then, there is cronyism in the choice of contractors, which leads to incompetent people getting the maintenance jobs.

In the case of the flats in Kepong, a contractor had failed to replace six of the lifts, say residents. Yet, the same contractor was re-appointed to replace 32 lifts across 12 blocks of flats there. Who made that call?

The Malaysian Elevators and Escalators Association (yes, there is such an organisation) agrees that the poor choice of contractors by management committees was the main reason for the problem. “They just want to save costs and do the minimum maintenance,” it says.

And why do they do that? Because there are residents who do not pay management fees, forcing the committees to cut corners. It is a vicious circle.

It is important that everyone plays their part. The government has set aside Rm100mil for flats maintenance, but that is simply too little. Preventive maintenance must come from the residents themselves.

DORAIRAJ NADASON newsdesk @thestar.com.my
 
 
Related posts:
 

Monday, October 29, 2018

Separate role for property managers

KUALA LUMPUR: Malaysian Institute of Professional Property Managers and Facility Managers (MIPFM) is suggesting property and facility management to be treated independently from valuation.

President Sarkunan Subramaniam said the bias towards valuers had to stop if property management is to progress in today’s fast-changing digital and technology capabilities.

“I urge the Board of Valuers, Appraisers, Estate Agents and Property Managers to reconsider its decision and listen to the professional bodies.

“Giving a property management licence to one who has no or little experience in property management is dangerous,” he said.

Sarkunan was speaking at the MIPFM Conference 2018 on Bridging Property Management and Facility Management.

He said the current real estate degrees are skewed towards valuation subjects. Those who trained in predominantly valuation-based companies have little to no experience in managing properties.

Government valuers, having passed valuers test, are automatically handed the property management licence.

Sarkuanna, himself a valuer, is calling for objectivity. He said the diverse range of office buildings, mixed integrated projects and stratified residential projects must be matched with parallel top grade maintenance. Or their value may suffer.

“I will get a lot of opposition for my views but this is for the good of the real estate sector,” he said.

Sarkunan also highlighted the rife corruption in this field. “Corruption in procurement, kickbacks and side money is so prevalent that it has rusted performance, bringing many buildings to a grinding halt,” he said.

Sarkunan related the tale of two office blocks in Bangsar where seven out of its nine management committee (MC) members have resigned, the chairman among them.

Those who resigned were from Tower A, which the developer had earlier sold to private individual owners. Tower B belonged to the developer who had put the building under a real estate investment trust.

There was a cash surplus in the accounts. It seems that during the period when the developer was managing the property, the developer apportioned all surplus monies collected to the tower they retained. When the MC took over, it faced a defiant developer.

The Commissioner of Buildings has directed an extraordinary general meeting to be held.

In another case, a developer refused to pave the way for a joint management body (JMB) to be formed because it wanted to control the money collected, Sarkunan said. COB stepped in to resolve the issue.

Transparency International Malaysia president Datuk Seri Akhbar Satar said fraud and corruption is common due to the variety of goods and services involved.

Satar said that in 2010, Palm Court Condominium residents alleged that about RM144,000 was misappropriated. The committee agreed to take “appropriate measures” but refused an independent audit.

On Jan 31, 2017, members of a JMB were arrested by the Malaysian Anti-Corruption Commission for allegedly misappropriating RM1.5mil.

Satar said cases like these highlighted the need for a culture of integrity and transparency.

- The Star by Thean Lee Cheng

Related posts:

STRATA Property insights - Serious on strata

 

 

High-rise living in below par, need professionalism in managing the property



A strata property living nightmare: leakage

The party responsible is not your upstairs neighbour but the management




Malaysian Strata Management Act 2013 will be enforced from June 1, 2015 in Penang




By-laws governing strata property management in Malaysia, part 1

Third Schedule of Strata Management Regulation 2015




By-laws governing strata property management in Malaysia, part 2

General duties of a proprietors according to the Third Schedule of Strata Management Regulation 2015


  By-laws governing strata property in Malaysia, part 3

General prohibitions of a proprietor according to the Third Schedule of Strata Management Regulation 2015



  Service charges under strata title property in Malaysia

Criminalising non-payment of service charge under the Strata Management Tribunal

 


 

Saturday, August 29, 2015

Service charges under strata title property in Malaysia

Criminalising non-payment of service charge under the Strata Management Tribunal


A recent conversation with a relative on urban living raised a couple of interesting issues. One led to suggest that many high-rise buildings in Malaysia were fast becoming urban slums, of which I agreed, having noticed that although Malaysians have started living in stratified development properties, they express the devil-may-care attitude and expect “free lunch”. Clearly, there is a huge need for a paradigm shift in responsibilities with regard to community living.

This so-called freedom of not paying of service charges will come to an end with the establishment of the Strata Management Tribunal (SM Tribunal). It states that any parcel owner or tenant who fails to pay service charges, can be brought before the SM Tribunal with the implementation of the Strata Management Act 2013, Strata Management (Maintenance & Management) Regulations 2015 (June 2, 2015) and Strata Management (Strata Management Tribunal) Regulations 2015 (July 1, 2015). It is interesting to note that limitation is not applicable to the SM Tribunal and the maximum that can be claimed is RM250,000 per claim. Any non-compliance of an award (decision) of the SM Tribunal is now a criminal offence.

THE TRIBUNAL

“Any person who fails to comply with an award made by the Tribunal commits an offence and shall, on conviction, be liable to a fine, not exceeding RM250,000 or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years, or both, in the case of a continuing offence, to a further fine not exceeding RM5,000 for every day or part thereof during which the offence continues after conviction.” (Section 123)

The Tribunal shall consist of the following members who shall be appointed by the Minister:
 (a) a Chairman and a Deputy Chairman to be appointed from among the members of the Judicial and Legal Service; and 
(b) not less than 20 other members
to be appointed from among: 
(i) the persons who are members of or who have held office in the Judicial and Legal Service; or 
(ii) the persons who are admitted as advocates and solicitors under the Legal Profession Act 1976 [Act 166], the Advocates Ordinance of Sabah [Sabah Cap. 2] or the Advocates Ordinance of Sarawak [Sarawak Cap. 110], and who has no less than seven years’ standing, each appointed for a period of three years.

JURISDICTION OF TRIBUNAL

The Tribunal shall have the jurisdiction to hear and determine any claims where the total amount in respect of which an award of the Tribunal is sought, does not exceed RM250,000 or such other amount, as may be prescribed to substitute the total amount. 

Claim can be filed in relation to the following:

1. A dispute or complaint concerning an excercise or the performance of, or the failure to exercise or perform, a function, duty, or power conferred or imposed by Strata Management Act 2013 or the by-laws;
2. A dispute cost costs or repairs in respect of a defect in a parcel, building or landed intended for subdivision into parcels, or subdivided building or land, and its common property or limited common property;
3. A claim for the recovery of charges, or contribution to the sinking fund, or any amount which is declared by the provisions of this Act as a debt;
4. A claim for an order to convene a general meeting;
5. A claim for an order to invalidate proceedings of meeting where any provision of the Act has been contravened; 
6. A claim for an order to nullify a resolution where voting rights has been denied or where due notice has not been given;
7. A claim for an order to nullify a resolution passed at a general meeting;
8. A claim for an order to revoke amendment of by-laws having regard to the interests of all the parcel owners or proprietors;
9. A claim for an order to vary the rate of interest fixed by the joint management body, management corporation or subsidiary management corporation for late payment of charges, or contribution to the sinking fund; 
10. A claim for an order to vary the amount of insurance to be provided; 
11. A claim for an order to pursue an insurance claim; 
12. A claim for compelling a developer, joint management body, management corporation or subsidiary management corporation to supply information or documents; 
13. A claim for an order to give consent to effect alterations to any common property or limited common property; or 
14. A claim for an order to affirm, vary or revoke the Commissioner of Building’s decision.

The Orders that the SM Tribunal can make are:

1. Pay a sum of money to another party. 
2. Order the  price or other consideration paid by a party to be refunded to that party.
3. Order the payment of compensation or damages for any loss or damage suffered by a party.
4. Order the rectification, setting aside or variation of a contract or additional by-laws, wholly or in part.
5. Order costs to or against any party to be paid.
6. Order interest to be paid on any sum or monetary award at a rate not exceeding eight per centum per annum.
7. Dismiss a claim which it considers to be frivolous or vesatious.
8. Any other order as it deems just and expedient.
9. Make such ancillary or consequential orders or relief as may be necessary to give effect to any order made by the Tribunal.

EXCLUSION OF JURISDICTION OF COURT

Where a claim is filed with the SM Tribunal and the claim is within the Tribunal’s jurisdiction, the issues in dispute in that claim, whether as shown in the initial claim or as emerging in the course of the hearing, shall not be the subject of proceedings between the same parties in any court unless:

(a) the proceedings before the court were commenced before the claim was filed with the Tribunal; or
(b) the claim before the Tribunal is withdrawn, abandoned or struck out.

This means that a claimant has to decide in advance as to which forum he has to file a case because having filed a case in the SM Tribunal means he cannot file the proceed in the same courts or vice versa.

PERSONS ENTITLED TO FILE A CLAIM

This is a free for all Tribunal with many claimants and they are: 
(a) a developer; 
(b) a purchaser; 
(c) a proprietor, including an
original proprietor; 
(d) a joint management body; 
(e) a management corporation; 
(f) a subsidiary management
corporation; 
(g) a managing agent; and 
(h) any other interested person, with the leave of the Tribunal. Filing procedure is inexpensive, pay only RM20 and simply fill in the required forms. These forms have not been uploaded yet on the KPKT web site but requests can be made by email.

RIGHT TO APPEAR AT HEARINGS

At the SM Tribunal, no party shall be represented by an advocate and solicitor at a hearing unless, in the opinion of the Tribunal, the matter in question involves complex issues of law and one party will suffer severe financial hardship if he is not represented by an advocate and solicitor. A corporation or unincorporated body of persons may be represented by a full-time paid employee of the corporation or body. The Tribunal may conduct the proceedings in such manner as it considers appropriate, necessary or expedient for the purpose of ascertaining the facts or law in order that it may determine a claim.

FAST DISPOSAL OF CASES

The SM Tribunal shall make its award without delay and, where practicable, within sixty days from the first day of the hearing before the Tribunal commences. In making an order under subsection (3), the Tribunal shall have regard to: 
(a) the relevant provisions of this
Act; or 
(b) the interest of all parcel owners or proprietors in the use and enjoyment of their parcels or the common property or limited common property. The award given are final and binding on all parties to the proceedings and are be deemed to be an order of a court and be enforced accordingly by any party to the proceedings. However, any person dissatisfied with the decision of the SM Tribunal can, apply to the High Court challenging the award in the proceedings on the ground of serious irregularity affecting the awards which means an irregularity of one or more of the kinds which the court considers has caused substantial injustice to the applicant. 

With the establishment of the SM Tribunal there is hope for better maintenance and management culture to spur our quest to become a developed nation and zero nonpayment issues.

By Datuk Pretam Singh, thesundaily.com

Related posts: