This should only be RM50, and placed under disbursements, as it will be paid to the developer. They can't bill you separately for this. Other fees are standard.

Unless the firm is located far from the land office, RM200 for transport is quite high.

Company search is RM15, while bankruptcy search is RM12/pax.

Dear experts,

I have a question here:
Currently I am in the legal process of buying a property but I am facing a problem here. My bank already paid the redemption sum to the owner bank to redeem the title. But now my lawyer said they stuck to register the title because the owner keeps delaying to provide some documents. It has been two months already. May I know is there any due date for this? What can I do as a purchaser right? Thanks for your help.

This post has been edited by nnu: Feb 11 2011, 06:25 PM

If the owner is one nasty person, make sure to have him sign off something that says that he is fully responsible for the delay and you will not be responsible for any late charges. To my knowledge, charges that might imply due to the delay are penalty on the MOT and overdued S&P.

The completion date of the transaction would be automatically extended due to the delay by the vendor. Do find out specifically what the pending documents are. Perhaps it's the quit rent or assessment receipts which you can pay for it yourself in advance and later contra it from the balance purchase price.

hi..

my brother just bought a secondhand penthouse for rm730000. this is not his 1st home purchase. anyway, i heard that his lawyer's fees including stamp duties etc is approximately rm32000. is that normal??

You can calculate the legal fees and stamp duty here:
http://www.elawyer.com.my/legal_calculator_info.php

This post has been edited by dariofoo: Feb 14 2011, 10:26 AM

Hi all,

I have a question pertaining to facilities in which as a housebuyer/resident in strata-title property has to access.

Is there an act/guideline in which a developer have to provide certain facilities in a property and the JMB continue to honour it?

My question is about car wash bay for residents' use, an option or is a given right? This ties back to other facilities such as whether swimming pools, recreational parks, badminton/basketball/tennis courts, a must in condominiums/apartments?

Apppreciate any advice on this matter.

Car Wash Bay/Facilities thread

This post has been edited by SA6YEuro: Feb 14 2011, 11:11 PM

Greetings,

Interesting question.

First and foremost, there is NO specific 'given right to purchasers' or compulsion for the developer to include such facilities/amenities in their developments. Everthing which the developer is obliged to provide would be stated in the S&P executed with the purchasers. There will be an annexure/schedule detailing the common property which is to be included in the development. Whatever is provided for in the scheduled must be done by the developer. If not, it is just their discretion whether to provide same or otherwise.

What is the meaning of 'common property'?

Let's look at Section 2, Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007. This is the Act which governs JMBs.

Section 2 states:

"common property ", in relation to a development area, means so much of the development area as is not comprised in any parcel, such as the structural elements of the building, stairs, stairways, fire escapes, entrances and exits, corridors, lobbies, fixtures, and fittings, lifts, refuse shutes, refuse bins, compound drains, water tanks, sewers, pipes, wires, cables and ducts that serve more than one parcel, the exterior of all common parts of the building, playing fields and recreational area, driveways, car parks, and parking areas, open spaces, landscape areas, walls and fences, and all other facilities and installations and any part of the land used or capable of being used or enjoyed in common by all the occupiers of the building;

If it is provided for in the agreement, then yes, the developer must act on it and provide it for the purchasers.

Thereafter, it would be the duty of the JMB (when it is formed) to maintain such common property.

Section 8 of the Act defines the duties and powers of the JMB:
(1) The duties of the Body include the following:

(a) to properly maintain the common property and keep it in a state of good and serviceable repair;

(b) to determine and impose charges that are necessary for the repair and proper maintenance of the common property;

© to insure and keep insured the building to the replacement value of the building against fire and such other risks as may be determined by the Body;

(d) to apply insurance moneys received by the Body in respect of damage to the building for the rebuilding and reinstatement of that building;

(e) to comply with any notices or orders given or made by the local authority or any competent public authority requiring the abatement of any nuisance on the common property, or ordering repairs or other work to be done in respect of the common property or other improvements to the property;

(f) to prepare and maintain a register of all purchasers of the building;

(g) to ensure that the Building Maintenance Fund is audited and to provide audited financial statements for the information to the purchasers;

(h) to enforce house rules for the proper maintenance and management of the building; and

(i) to do such other things as may be expedient or necessary for the proper maintenance and management of the building.

(2) The powers of the Body shall include the following:

(a) to collect from purchasers maintenance and management charges in proportion to the allocated share units of their respective parcels;

(b) to authorize expenditure for the carrying out of the maintenance and management of the common property;

© to recover from any purchaser any sum expended by the Body in respect of that parcel in complying with any such notices or orders as are referred to under paragraph (1)(e);

(d) to purchase, hire or otherwise acquire movable or immovable property for use by the purchasers in connection with their enjoyment of the common property;

(e) to arrange and secure the services of any person or agent to undertake the maintenance and management of the common property of the building;

(f) to make house rules for the proper maintenance and management of the building; and

(g) to do all things reasonably necessary for the performance of its duties under this Act.


Very general terms indeed. Nothing to compel the JMB to provide such facilities for the purchasers as well. At the end of the day, it's just discretion of the JMB. The JMB is a committee which is appointment by the purchasers via an AGM. What it does reflects the needs and wants of the majority, if not all, of the purchasers. If one is unhappy with the present composition of the JMB, one can contest for a post in the commitee and run changes.

The thing is, when the JMB commits to provide additional facitilies/amenities to be included as a common property like swimming pools, recreational parks, badminton/basketball/tennis courts, as you mentioned, the burden of maintaining it will be there. It is akin to giving themselves more work, so to speak. As you can see from the list of common property, it is quite extensive.

At the end of the day, it all boils down to the discretion of the developer/JMB - if they want to provide any additional common property, then there will be the extra burden of maintaining it to the expectations of the purchasers.

Thanks dariofoo. Appreciate the clarification.

I also came across this clause/act whilst searching in the National Home Buyers Association website. The similar but simplified clauses was also mentioned in my Deed of Mutual Covenants.

HBA Reference

However, I never thought it would be that general in nature.

For discussion, what if a developer stipulates that the property has "Full Condominium Facilities" in its POSM? Honestly, there is. What consist of the full condo facilities?

Because there is no clear written guideline in which the developer has to adhere to, the developer at its own right can dictate what they define/interpret as their own definition of full condominium facilities. Am I correct to make this statement?

In this case, the S&P acts as the legal binding agreement/checklist for housebuyers in terms of the developers fulfilment/obligation.

Hi dariofoo,

How are you?? got Huat during cny?

I again have few question,

1) I got a property and it is under Cons. Now I wish to sell it, how should I do?
2) The property its in master title and I already finance it.

Rgds

It's the same Act,bro


Yes you're right. What constitutes 'Full Condominium Facilities' would entirely be according to the interpretation and discretion of the developer. That is why a wise purchaser would be vary of such vaguely-defined promises stated in the POSM.

You must also note that contents in POSMs are not legally binding as it is merely an 'invitation to treat', and not an offer. The developer does not offer to sell the condo with such-and-such facilities to you. You make an offer to purchase the condo, and the developer accepts it. That is why advertisements are hyped-up. It is what we call 'mere puff'.

However, if the representation made in the POSM was so strong and convincing that it persuaded you to make the purchase in reliance of that representation, and you then suffered loss when the representation turns out to be false, then you have a right to sue.

That is what happened in this decided case where a Dato' purchaser dragged Kumpulan Sierramas to Court and successfully won damages against the developer and the security company for losses suffered when his home was broken into by robbers and he lost almost half a million ringgit worth of belongings.

In this case, the developer made promises about an advanced security system with electronic perimeter fencing and CCTV systems which subsequently failed to work. The Court held that the developer was liable based on those representations.

Read the case, it's very interesting:

 DATO_SOO_LAI_SING_v_KUMPULAN_SIERRAMAS__M__SDN_BHD___ANOR.pdf ( 29.03k ) Number of downloads: 35

Ok lor taiko. Surviving la in this dog-eat-dog world


1) Go see a lawyer and he will liase with the purchaser's lawyer to draw up an S&P for you. Doesn't matter whether property still under construction or otherwise. You can 'tumpang' the purchaser's lawyer as well.

As to the pros and cons of 'tumpang lawyer' and selecting your own lawyer, read the earlier posts in this thread as the issue has been discussed at length.

2) Doesn't matter. There's the Deed of Assignment (DOA) which needs to be reassigned to you once your loan has been redeemed. Then you assign it to the purchaser via a new DOA.

Bear in mind that you may be subject to a early settlement penalty by the bank. Make sure you figure out how much that cost as well. Plus RPGT/CKHT as you are disposing off the property within 5 years of purchase

Do the math first ya

---

Added on February 15, 2011, 6:28 pmBy the way, POSM means Point of Sale Materials, eg leaflets, advertisements, pamphlets, brochures, miniature model of development project,etc.

This post has been edited by dariofoo: Feb 15 2011, 06:28 PM

Thanks a lot dariofoo ..

i have a clearer picture now..

*Do the Math

Thanks

You're welcome,mate

Thanks dariofoo. Really appreciate your advise and the case is interesting. Pretty much of misrepresentation that led to negligence.

deleted

This post has been edited by sk2000: Feb 17 2011, 10:32 AM

No worries. I wouldn't say the misrepresentation led to negligence. Negligence was a totally different issue. The misrepresentation by the developer led the purchaser (the Dato') to commit himself to the purchase of the property. In this case, it was held to be more than a mere advertisement. It was more of a representation, a promise.

Subsequently the developer and the security company were held to be negligent and breached their duty to ensure that the necessary precautionary measures (as promised) were taken to protect the purchasers and their respective property.

Hi bro,... just peeping in here a bit and saw this case. One question though - did the developer and the security company pay the award the the plaintiff or did they do an appeal to another court ?

I'm trying to call the lawyer who handled the case for the developer and find out. I'm curious to find out as well.

There's no reported case in the law journals for the appeal, though. If it was overruled surely there ought to be written grounds of judgment by the Court of Appeal for such an important point of law.

UPDATE: Lawyer for the developer has confirmed that they filed an appeal in the Court of Appeal after the decision of the High Court, but then the appeal was withdrawn after the defendants made a settlement payment to Dato'

As to the quantum, of course she could not specify, but I'm sure Dato' would have gone like this after he received the cheque ->