Is only VP, nvr CCC yet as i understand the status till now , but everyone VP standard is diff.

**Of course i not saying their VP is perfect, but just base on the pictures Mr Lim shared. Is still a wrong info given to us**

But level 18th (belongs to hotel), Hotel VP and Resi VP is two diff thing.
**I won't expect everyone understand my statement, but its true tho**

VP without CCC?      

If accident happen then who is going to be responsible?

I'm just small practice architect here, I better don't answer your question as in all flame on me ..etc.

Seems more expert will explain to you better than me

aiya, too late in this topic. This must the biggest joke for property in 2016. Will the edge interview them.

I was told the VP here is using the "AkuJanji" method (since this is Non HDA) hence you might expect things very very differently. I've explained to some of those who follow me on my watsapp.

I would like to share what I know so far, as I have read my SPA.

First of all, this property does not fall under HDA because its commercial title hence, SPA does not follow HDA requirement. Basically means developer can draft the SPA the way they want to. In this case, the SPA is really loop-sided... I admit I did not read properly before I signed. Lesson learned.

The SPA has clearly stated the VP can be issued after CPC (certificate of practical completion) is out. CPC is issued by architect that says the building is completed. Basically to say the architect is verifying that the contractor has built the building according to Building Plan. CCC on the other hand, is the replacement of CFO which means the house is now fit to stay (i.e. all the relevant authority, TNB, Syabas, Architect..... says its DONE). Only standard SPA under HDA states CCC as requirement for VP. This is not under HDA.

But again, since the Architect of this project has issued CPC, developer has all the rights to VP but of course they are putting the reputation in jeopardy. Rightfully, I should be delivered a house that is fit to stay. And it seems some projects has VPed since September 2015 but the project has yet to obtain CCC. So, you cant do much besides wait and burn your wallet every month. I'm equivalently worried to as mine was VPed in January. Developer mentioned verbally CCC is expected for my block (Block D EC) 6 months after VP.

Looking at solely the SPA, Developer has done nothing wrong legally. As an owner, what I can do now is to hammer them with defects. Make their life difficult.

In the meantime, I'll source legal action if can once I have had a look at my unit and seek for more advice around.

What i mention above, i stand corrected.

I'm not knowledgeable on how this can go about, i'm just sharing what i knew, please feel free to add constructive ideas/opinions.

I'm not familiar with the CPC requirement. Logically it should follow the Building Plan as well as Schedule 4 of the SPA (Building Specification). Any architects or Building Engineer here?

What I understand so far is, since CPC is issued hence VP is allowed. But whether CPC is correctly issued or not, that is a separate case. And yes, I'm planning to write the LAM and PAM once I've seen my unit in 2 weeks time.

Another loop sided clause - VP is to deliver withing 42 months from (the later of) Building Plan approval date or SPA date. In this case, Building Plan is approved about 1 year after SPA signed. So we lost 12 months of LAD claim.

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!

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.

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.

Mr lim apologized. Developer brought him to wrong unit the other day...

Forget about that developer show the actual pic, like you guys will believe? From the day Lim posted, what i read thru here is... "people wants to listen something bad, dont even bother about the fact,  flame those who talking good about the dev, what is FACT? is the comments around here make all become so called facts"