Hi I came across the following on SW's FB:
"Dear All, I have just found out from the Facilities Management that according to the SW lawyer's advice, they have sent out letter by Pos Laju to owners of SW to inform owners about SW is not meant for hostel facilities according to the agreement."

Has any owner here already received the POS LAJU? Tx

This post has been edited by bizklguy: Jun 4 2013, 09:26 AM

no from me.

Shanghai dim sum the one in pavilion and Big Mouth Karaoke is coming to entertainment mall

wow

GREAT NEWS!

I was hoping for a dim sum shop for my weekend brunch. Wish granted, haha!

sure, has the meeting taken place. if not. let's meet at asam house or padi?

Dear all, according to SW mgmt, they only send out POS-LAJU letter to those 7 owners who ("accidentally") allowed their units to become "Binary College student hostel" as their act have violated S&P.

Btw, I also heard that SP Setia's mgmt & legal team are going full swing to protect the interest of the majority:
1. Heard that legal letter had also been sent out to the college's vice chancellor to tell them they have violated the law as SW is not meant for hostel.
2. MPSJ has been requested to investigate the 7 units of "Binary hostel units" in SW and to potentially remove them

I suggest we give more time to the JMB/SW mgmt to act. In relation to this, I would like to call off this Saturday's session @ R3 mgmt office.

Taken place liao. Covillea, are you the owner/genuine resident in SW? PM me if you are one as few of us gonna go for another round of private TT :-)

This is really good news. But could be not meant for hostel but still able to rent out as normal tenant which just fit the room head count?

Heard from some regular agent, already 80 ph in R2 and going to be another 50. It will need more aggressive protest to against such hostel activity. Else it ll become norm and more will flood in.

(To Some Postings) Was told this thread is monitored by some PH expats abroad. Better not to discriminate people like this thirdworld mindset.

This post has been edited by accetera: Jun 6 2013, 01:29 AM

Out of curiousity, I would like to know in what way renting out units as "binary college student hostel" has violated the S&P.

The apartmenst are zoned as residential. Thus hostels would be clearly illegal. Colleges are not smart if they rent the units under their name and call them as college hostels. It would be less obvious if ther rent the units with personal names and then let out the rooms. This is where resonable house rules made by JMB would help to prevent too many adults in one unit and that each resident behave decently.

What is the JMB rules or local authorities regulation to control maximum how many people stay in a unit?

I believe other rules like bomba regulation on how many person allowed in a single floor / single unit may take into consideration as well.

Not sure if this applies to condo / apartment, it definitely applies to office building. Any # exceeding the allowed numbers would deemed building management or unit owner violating certain laws already.

Thanks. Just wanted to know what is the rule. Like for 1000 sq ft unit, is there a maximum number of occupants (how to define, sleep there every nite?), or is it how many rooms maximum how many occupants etc...

I mean rules need to be specific to enforce, right?

Hostels are commercial operations. Require to meet a whole new set of rules and regulations. In particular fire safety rules are a lot more stringent. For example, there must be maps to indicate where you are and the nearest escape route in case of fire. Rooms require smoke alarms, fire extinguisher and water sprinkles would almost be mandatory, etc. SW apartments are neither zoned or built to be hostels. So official student hostels would clearly be illegal.

But what if a college would get some one to privately rent or even buy some units before sub letting rooms to students? Then the case is a lot more tricky. I think, for instance, years ago, MBPJ has some rules on the maximum number of occupants per house. But the numbers are often set quite high in order to be reasonable. It is going to be difficult to expect local councils to weed out unofficial student houses. It is almost beyong their scope of duty.

Let us examine the root reasons why many owners do not wish their apartment blocks to be populated by students, especially those from less developed nations. It is simply not reasonable for apartment units designed for small families to be swamped by five to nine adults. In particular foreign adults with little regard to Malaysian social etiquette/norm while sharing the same aprtment block. So really, race alone is not the real problem. But rather the behaviour norms brought in by some foreign students are often not exceptable to local communities. This is especially so with service apartments where many common facilities are shared. Consequently, property value would fall since locals would not like to live in those apartments any more.

A well represented and effective JMB to make and enforce reasonable rules and regulations would be an effective option at solving this problem. Yes it is unfair to ban owners from renting rooms to students. But at the same time it is also unfair to have many adults from any one unit to share the same common facilities designed for one or at most two families per unit. So why not bill the facilities maintenance and service charges based on the number of unrelated families in each unit. For example, for a two room unit, maximum of two families at RM0.25 psf/unit. Additional families at RM1.00 psf/unit/additional family. Actual fees can be culculated from the security access cards issued. This rule will prevent SW apartment from being too densly populated by unrelated occupants within a unit. It does not matter whether the occupants are executives or air hostesses. There will be additional charges for having more families per unit than a set number.

Above are simply suggestions that can be brought up to JMB and SW management for consideration to minimise potential student house problem at SW.

Basically renting out to students as hostel, the unscrupulous property owner can allow as many students to stay there. But upon public nuisance like noise pollution or others, property owners have the rights to complaint to the management about it. Upon public misbehavior by any Black students, the owners of SetiaWalk can complaint to the management & have the students removed even at public places.

i agreed with you on certain issues, but some Malaysians also misbehaved and made a nuisance of themselves in public areas. The uncontrolled nature of children that shouted and screamed with annoying & ignorant parents added up to public nuisance. Parents should teach their children on proper social etiquette too. Coming back to social etiquette of black and other foreign students, basic manners must be instilled and students with the intention of doing well in their studies although from a poor family background behaves better than the rest. It will be devastating that the authorities and Colleges with 'greedy' intention are the ones that do not check the main intention of foreign students coming to Malaysia to study. These students come in for different reasons e.g. to rob, to steal, to rape or other malicious habits. Since we are under Selangor state, i would suggest that an approach to the local council will be the solution. Highlighting these problems to the local council will perhaps lead to the closing down of the unscrupulous colleges. At least Selangor has the reputation of being the elite state.