This developer balance sheet pretty bad my friend told me.

Sidek Teoh, MEH is using the SPA lawyer to go against buyer? but buyers also apointed Sidek Teoh, so sidek teoh should against or protect which party?

funny hor.
6.2. why does one needs permission to enter a development that has been VP'ed (albeit in stages/components)?
6.4. notice the key word used was renovation. meaning it must be completed before undergoing renovation. does it looks like it's completed and VP'ed as per building plans? hhmmmmm.
6.5 mentioned block e so it's assumed entire block e is vp'ed? common area covers a vast area. if there are items under common area not complete, then technically block e cannot get cpc. eg. facade is common area. so long there's opening or windows not fixed, it's still incomplete. so, question is are there any common area that is not complete that can void the certificate?

just saying yo!

Isn't that too later already?
You should have your lawyer, looking thru the SPA and highlight any dodgy clause to you, before you sign.

I fail to understand why "Mr Lim" the non-owner is tanking the developer and doing all the exposé whereas very little owners have come forward with their own photos and complains.

Even in this thread I don't notice any actual owners are giving their side of story(ies). Majority comments are from outsiders which are non-owners.

As a non-owner, Mr Lim is even proceeding to attend to the LOD and seemed prepare to fight for the "truth". I may understand his stance and action if he's an actual owner and is suffering for potentially huge financial losses, but by just exposing the photos which went viral after 2 days, he could've just retracted it with apology and move on with his life without any harm to his pocket.

Yet, where are all the owners?

No matter which stance the owners take ie. 1. Pray developer complete it sooner rather than later or 2. Persuing the developer via legal channel, it's a lose-lose situation.

If they chose 1. and keep quiet, developer may be more daring and delay it even further, but there's a chance that it will eventually complete anyway. Owners suffer temporary losses of loan repayment while waiting for their units to be completed properly.

While if they proceed with option 2. by going through legal means, developer will too, counter with their papers that most - if not all - owners have signed without actually understanding it and are usually sided towards the vendor. Worst case scenario, developer found guilty and ruled to pay huge compensation, they may pack up, declare company bankruptcy and there goes the buildings in an abandoned state.

It's a huge dilemma for owners, I couldn't decide myself which route I will take if I'm one at the moment. I just don't understand why a non-owner is going public and yet still not backing down despite developer's LOD in which he will suffer potential financial losses for something that he's not even involved in. Getting the photos viral for a few days is really a good enough wake up call for owners, but why he is continuing to fight for a battle that is not even his?

Ya, seriously. With Empire City such a huge project, it is damn easy to cut corners if they want to. From concrete mix of poorer grade to fewer steel rebar per rebar column. All this is already covered up. When people starts moving in and the building starts to have real load, it would starts to crack. If this one building cracks bad enough, do you have the guts to stay in nearby towers?

Then we really become known as Banglasia. Only Bangladesh and Turkey have buildings collapse because of corruption or shoddy workmanship.

funny hor.
6.2. why does one needs permission to enter a development that has been VP'ed (albeit in stages/components)?
6.4. notice the key word used was renovation. meaning it must be completed before undergoing renovation. does it looks like it's completed and VP'ed as per building plans? hhmmmmm.
6.5 mentioned block e so it's assumed entire block e is vp'ed? common area covers a vast area. if there are items under common area not complete, then technically block e cannot get cpc. eg. facade is common area. so long there's opening or windows not fixed, it's still incomplete. so, question is are there any common area that is not complete that can void the certificate?

just saying yo!

if according to CIDB's  construction rules any visitor to the construction site must get S.O's (superintendent officer) approval and with valid CIDB green Card. even there are some units already VPed but in general that area still is a construction site so S.O have the right to expel anyone to get in the site.

In term of procedure developer can VP without problem, provided the architect & Engineer have issued  the CPC & CCC.

so I think the best for buyer is question the code of conduct of professional of the architect & Engineer and go through LAM & BEM to ask them conduct a visit to this project to find out the CPC, CCC & VP status for this project and investigate the architect & Engineer.

if according to CIDB's  construction rules any visitor to the construction site must get S.O's (superintendent officer) approval and with valid CIDB green Card. even there are some units already VPed but in general that area still is a construction site so S.O have the right to expel anyone to get in the site.

In term of procedure developer can VP without problem, provided the architect & Engineer have issued  the CPC & CCC.

so I think the best for buyer is question the code of conduct of professional of the architect & Engineer and go through LAM & BEM to ask them conduct a visit to this project to find out the CPC, CCC & VP status for this project and investigate the architect & Engineer.

if according to CIDB's  construction rules any visitor to the construction site must get S.O's (superintendent officer) approval and with valid CIDB green Card. even there are some units already VPed but in general that area still is a construction site so S.O have the right to expel anyone to get in the site.

In term of procedure developer can VP without problem, provided the architect & Engineer have issued  the CPC & CCC.

so I think the best for buyer is question the code of conduct of professional of the architect & Engineer and go through LAM & BEM to ask them conduct a visit to this project to find out the CPC, CCC & VP status for this project and investigate the architect & Engineer.

About VP & CCC -
http://www.rehdainstitute.com/index.php?op...d=98&Itemid=102

‘Vacant possession’ is issued by the seller allowing the buyer to take possession of the property subject to the construction being duely completed as certified by the Architect for the buyer, water and electrical supplies having been connected to the said building, the buyer having made full payment under the law and that for housing it is accompanied with the CCC.

The Professionals Responsible for the Issuance of CCC
The CCC will be issued by the Professional Architect or Professional Engineer who is registered with the respective Board of Architects Malaysia (BAM) or Board of Engineers Malaysia (BEM) acting in the capacity of PSP.
For buildings which require intensive design input, the Professional Architect will function as the PSP while the Professional Engineer will be the PSP for the projects with high engineering input in nature.
For the bungalows which do not exceed 2 floors in height and 300 square metres in total built up floor area, the registered Building Draughtsman will perform the role of PSP and will issue the CCC.
The CCC can only be issued when all parties concerned are satisfied that the building construction have been supervised and completed full compliance with the provisions of the law and technical conditions as imposed by the LA in approving the Planning Permission and Building Plan.

Approval of Planning Permission and Building Plan
Under CCC, Planning Permission and Building Plan are still required for submission and approval by the LA.
While PSP’s major responsibility is to submit Building Plan, other plans can be submitted by the SP, that is either the Professional Architect or Professional Engineer.

not sure about malaysia but in singapore, i think VP same as Temporary Occupation Permit (TOP) term used in singapore

when it is consider TOP, means the premises should not be consider as Construction Site any more.

for example, you can hoard up the phase 2 construction area or block the lift from accessing to phase 2 which is still under construction. But you cannot consider the premises already got the TOP is under construction, if it is under consturction, it cannot get TOP/VP.

disagree boss. you cannot just issue VP for a particular unit. it must comes with safe passageway to your unit including common area and facilities.
so in this aspect, assuming some have already taken VP, it is therefore assumed the common corridor is open to public and owners and their visitors alike.

under what circumstances did Mr. Lim violate?

i am on the assumption that VP means those area are no longer designated as a construction site. you cannot vp a construction site.

furthermore, another block has also been vp-ed earlier. the letter mentioned the entire development. so again, it's technically incorrect to forbid someone to enter the entire development since it no longer belongs to the developer technically.

I think VP and TOP is something similar.
But the arguing point is whether the entire building  has already obtain CCC?
If CCC still yet to be issued  by the architect / engineer, it still consider as construction site.
As early someone has shared that this is commercial unit and it is stated in the SPA that it can VP without CCC.
That the reason this topic is getting  hotter and hotter because of unethical developer, architect n engineer.

I fail to understand why "Mr Lim" the non-owner is tanking the developer and doing all the exposé whereas very little owners have come forward with their own photos and complains.

Even in this thread I don't notice any actual owners are giving their side of story(ies). Majority comments are from outsiders which are non-owners.

As a non-owner, Mr Lim is even proceeding to attend to the LOD and seemed prepare to fight for the "truth". I may understand his stance and action if he's an actual owner and is suffering for potentially huge financial losses, but by just exposing the photos which went viral after 2 days, he could've just retracted it with apology and move on with his life without any harm to his pocket.

Yet, where are all the owners?

No matter which stance the owners take ie. 1. Pray developer complete it sooner rather than later or 2. Persuing the developer via legal channel, it's a lose-lose situation.

If they chose 1. and keep quiet, developer may be more daring and delay it even further, but there's a chance that it will eventually complete anyway. Owners suffer temporary losses of loan repayment while waiting for their units to be completed properly.

While if they proceed with option 2. by going through legal means, developer will too, counter with their papers that most - if not all - owners have signed without actually understanding it and are usually sided towards the vendor. Worst case scenario, developer found guilty and ruled to pay huge compensation, they may pack up, declare company bankruptcy and there goes the buildings in an abandoned state.

It's a huge dilemma for owners, I couldn't decide myself which route I will take if I'm one at the moment. I just don't understand why a non-owner is going public and yet still not backing down despite developer's LOD in which he will suffer potential financial losses for something that he's not even involved in. Getting the photos viral for a few days is really a good enough wake up call for owners, but why he is continuing to fight for a battle that is not even his?

Even in this thread I don't notice any actual owners are giving their side of story(ies). Majority comments are from outsiders which are non-owners.

different leh.

VP = developer give u possesion of the unit. In this case,happen before CCC.

TOP = Goverment issued permit to allow the building to be occupied.

OK, First of all, If this Mr.Lim is not owner, can he VP on behalf on his friend? May be BF/GF relationship... Why can't you think that he might actually supporting payment for his BF/GF thing as claim he is the one who settled the management fee.. He is the one who communicate with developer management for VP... Strange ahh? Hehe...

YOu can also suspect the developer / contractors not paying him for the product he supply to this site.. LOLz... But no matter how, from what I saw, I still think developer is @ the wrong site.