Jul 7 2014, 08:28 AM
QUOTE(Jasoncat @ Jul 6 2014, 05:00 PM)
I believe the developers will never / should not ignore the (potential) buyers expectation and views posted on LYN. This is one of the ways to know the market too. So I think never too early to let them listen to this 
Since we are discussing develiverable and qualities...I would like to share this recent article.QUOTE
Sime Darby ordered to pay RM500,000 over defects in luxury home – Bernama
Published: 6 July 2014
Stumping out RM3.8 million for a "resort villa" was to have led to the fulfilment of a lifetime's dream, but for one couple it turned out to be a nightmare, with multiple defects costing more than RM1 million to rectify.
The Shah Alam High Court accepted the allegation by the couple of contract breaches by the developer, Sime Darby Ara Damansara Development Sdn Bhd (SDADD), and has ordered the firm to pay RM500,000 within three weeks to the couple.
It has also appointed an independent architect to assess the cost of rectifying the defects and for the developer to pay the balance should the final figure exceeds RM500,000.
Justice Dr Prasad Sandosham Abraham, in his judgement delivered last week, deemed that the contractor and architect appointed by SDADD were not diligent in their work, thus causing "overwhelming damage" to the property, according to the couple's lawyer, Bernard Francis.
Architect cum building inspector Ho Sze Keen, 54, and his wife Toh Ooi Peng, 52, had originally lodged a complaint with the then housing and local government ministry on not only the defects but also breaches of the Housing Developers Act 1966, and the sale and purchase agreement signed by SDADD and the couple.
Ho told Bernama he was unhappy that the ministry focused only on getting the developer to rectify the defects without looking into breaches of the law and even then the ministry's mediation efforts failed, with the developer allegedly refusing to rectify the defects.
As the developer only paid RM158,026 for late delivery of the property, Ho said he had no choice but to resort to legal action.
He said he and his wife were taken up with the resort concept at Ara Hill in Ara Damansara in Subang as the developer had promised luxurious facilities complete with a park and a man-made waterfall on a 16-ha site with a low density of only 25 units per acre.
However, when the couple took delivery of the property – a combination of two units, a ground floor unit and a two-storey unit above it, costing RM3.8 million in total - in 2012 after a six-month delay, Ho said he found the property allegedly riddled with defects and shoddy workmanship.
Chief among these were water seeping from the second floor to the first floor through the concrete floor separating them, shoddy wiring, substandard tiles and extensive damage to the timber flooring due to the water leak.
According to Ho, a contractor he had hired estimated that it would cost about RM1 million to carry out the remedial work.
He expressed disappointment with the ministry’s efforts in resolving the matter, saying it should at least blacklist the developer and stop it from undertaking other projects as it had allegedly flouted various aspects of the law.
In their statement of claim in the court case, Ho and Toh had sought RM1,013,431 as special damages, general damages and other reliefs deemed fit by the court.
SDADD in its defence statement maintained that it had complied with all the guidelines issued by the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) in carrying out the Ara Hill project and was not aware that Ho and Toh had hired an independent contractor to carry out the remedial work.
The developer also told the court that the couple had failed to seek redress within the defect liability period – which expired on Sept 24, 2012 - under the sale and purchase agreement.
According to counsel Francis, Justice Abraham in his decision ruled for the couple that SDADD had breached several clauses in the contract between both parties.
In his brief judgement, he found that the contractor and architect carrying out the project were not diligent in their work, causing what he called overwhelming damage to the property, Francis added.
He awarded special damages of RM500,000 for the couple to carry out the remedial work, with the amount to be paid within 21 days of the court order.
Besides appointing an independent architect, Theng Boon Ann, to certify the remedial work carried out by contractor engaged by the plaintiffs, the judge told SDADD to further indemnify the couple should the cost of the remedial work exceeded RM500,000.
Justice Abraham also allowed general damages which would be assessed by the court registrar, in addition to awarding costs of RM40,000 to the plaintiffs.
"It remains a nightmare for me and my wife as there is the possibility that the developer may appeal against the court decision," said Ho.
Meanwhile a spokesman for SDADD only responded thus in a terse SMS: "We are currently seeking clarification on the said judgement from the court." – Bernama, July 6, 2014.
Published: 6 July 2014
Stumping out RM3.8 million for a "resort villa" was to have led to the fulfilment of a lifetime's dream, but for one couple it turned out to be a nightmare, with multiple defects costing more than RM1 million to rectify.
The Shah Alam High Court accepted the allegation by the couple of contract breaches by the developer, Sime Darby Ara Damansara Development Sdn Bhd (SDADD), and has ordered the firm to pay RM500,000 within three weeks to the couple.
It has also appointed an independent architect to assess the cost of rectifying the defects and for the developer to pay the balance should the final figure exceeds RM500,000.
Justice Dr Prasad Sandosham Abraham, in his judgement delivered last week, deemed that the contractor and architect appointed by SDADD were not diligent in their work, thus causing "overwhelming damage" to the property, according to the couple's lawyer, Bernard Francis.
Architect cum building inspector Ho Sze Keen, 54, and his wife Toh Ooi Peng, 52, had originally lodged a complaint with the then housing and local government ministry on not only the defects but also breaches of the Housing Developers Act 1966, and the sale and purchase agreement signed by SDADD and the couple.
Ho told Bernama he was unhappy that the ministry focused only on getting the developer to rectify the defects without looking into breaches of the law and even then the ministry's mediation efforts failed, with the developer allegedly refusing to rectify the defects.
As the developer only paid RM158,026 for late delivery of the property, Ho said he had no choice but to resort to legal action.
He said he and his wife were taken up with the resort concept at Ara Hill in Ara Damansara in Subang as the developer had promised luxurious facilities complete with a park and a man-made waterfall on a 16-ha site with a low density of only 25 units per acre.
However, when the couple took delivery of the property – a combination of two units, a ground floor unit and a two-storey unit above it, costing RM3.8 million in total - in 2012 after a six-month delay, Ho said he found the property allegedly riddled with defects and shoddy workmanship.
Chief among these were water seeping from the second floor to the first floor through the concrete floor separating them, shoddy wiring, substandard tiles and extensive damage to the timber flooring due to the water leak.
According to Ho, a contractor he had hired estimated that it would cost about RM1 million to carry out the remedial work.
He expressed disappointment with the ministry’s efforts in resolving the matter, saying it should at least blacklist the developer and stop it from undertaking other projects as it had allegedly flouted various aspects of the law.
In their statement of claim in the court case, Ho and Toh had sought RM1,013,431 as special damages, general damages and other reliefs deemed fit by the court.
SDADD in its defence statement maintained that it had complied with all the guidelines issued by the Construction Industry Development Board (CIDB) in carrying out the Ara Hill project and was not aware that Ho and Toh had hired an independent contractor to carry out the remedial work.
The developer also told the court that the couple had failed to seek redress within the defect liability period – which expired on Sept 24, 2012 - under the sale and purchase agreement.
According to counsel Francis, Justice Abraham in his decision ruled for the couple that SDADD had breached several clauses in the contract between both parties.
In his brief judgement, he found that the contractor and architect carrying out the project were not diligent in their work, causing what he called overwhelming damage to the property, Francis added.
He awarded special damages of RM500,000 for the couple to carry out the remedial work, with the amount to be paid within 21 days of the court order.
Besides appointing an independent architect, Theng Boon Ann, to certify the remedial work carried out by contractor engaged by the plaintiffs, the judge told SDADD to further indemnify the couple should the cost of the remedial work exceeded RM500,000.
Justice Abraham also allowed general damages which would be assessed by the court registrar, in addition to awarding costs of RM40,000 to the plaintiffs.
"It remains a nightmare for me and my wife as there is the possibility that the developer may appeal against the court decision," said Ho.
Meanwhile a spokesman for SDADD only responded thus in a terse SMS: "We are currently seeking clarification on the said judgement from the court." – Bernama, July 6, 2014.
source - http://www.themalaysianinsider.com/malaysi...ry-home-bernama
Quote
0.0453sec
0.51
7 queries
GZIP Disabled