No offence.
It is a mess caused by your side.

First error,
You don't "suspend" them, but should thrown out them entirely, and elect a new committee member.

Second error,
Why your side let them being nominated?
Just reject the nomination by the floor, by then they cannot be elected into the committee.

You don't have to fill committee position entirely, committee member minimum can be as low as 3 person.
If there are only 5 nomination, then just fill the 5 position, and can let 2 vacant.
If agree to have 7 committee member by the floor (the number can be changed as long as agreed by the floor)

Third error,
Also, even if they being nominated into committee, why let them become chairman again?

If they have wrong doing previously, just reject their nomination by the floor through majority vote, and form a new team, by then the MA has no choice but listen to your new MC instruction.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Aug 28 2015, 01:52 PM

@cherroy
Nasi dah menjadi bubur, there’s nothing much can be done now but to keep the show going.

@Eng_Tat
Meanwhile, advisable to read up on Act 757, in future and once you appoint a new management company, you can ask them to brief you on AGM procedures.

aurora, noted and thank you so much for the advise. now onwards we put everything in writing.

cherroy, i believe this is overlook by the floor. previous there are nine CM in the previous term, then last term was reduce to 7. and this agm has the worse turnout, usually agm will be postponed 1 weeks, now new law is diffrent.

the first error - happen was happen to be the other 7 committee want to terminate them, but the floor opined that just suspend them till end term is enough.

second error - no comment, will note this for next agm

third error - i wasnt in the meeting, and it was attended by 5 person only + MA, the 3 MC are new members, and the guy just volunteered to be chairman, the lady volunteered to be treasurer but was rejected by the new MC instead, putting another member due to cheque need to be signed by treasurer and chairman.

honestly i did not want to involved in this or embroiled in this Saga, i bought the apt since 2008, this is the first time been an MC member in this apt.

Saga or not saga, if you are an owner in a condominium. You should take interest in the affairs of your condominium.

My condominium was plagued by mismanagement, by the time we discovered how big the hole was, the ex-chairman had already siphoned off approximately RM 600K (identified through accounts) and RM 1 million (rough estimation). The identified portion has since been recovered by us. He has been charged with CBT but it took close to 2 years to bring him to court.

For a 3-4 year old condo, with an estimate income from maintenance at approximately gross Rm 1.4 mil. We anticipated there should be about 600K as cash in hand (maintenance and sinking fund). But this couldn’t be further from the truth, there was no sinking fund and our cash in hand had dipped below 300K. We were also behind in payment for security service, lift service, cleaner, landscaping and so on.

It would take only one big capital expenditure to wipe us off. Yes, JMB/MC can be subject to winding up petitions.

First error, there is no such thing of "suspend", I don't know how a MC can run with suspended Chairman.
What is the difference with suspended or not suspended Chairman in this case?
No different.

You already knew the mismanagement, yet, you didn't attend the meeting which is so crucial to determine your hundred thousand or million worth of condo?

You didn't want to embroil in the mismanagement saga, then you can't complain about it.

You know why people got opportunity to "mismanage" the fund?
Because owner didn't attend the meeting to vote them out, owner didn't want to participate into it, let other free to do whatever they intended to.

No offence.

If owner themselves don't want to take care about their hundred thousand or millions worth of property, nobody can help them.

Attend the meeting, vote a proper person into committee to do the job, that only incur once a year, so simple that can prevent fund being mismanaged in the first place.

a. as mention the current chairman and thesurer are just normal MC members in the previous term, the egm just voted to suspend/bar them from meeting.

b. previous mc did a considerable management work that did not raise suspicion, except we are having parking issue and some other issues.

c. last agm, previous term comittee just decided not to be re-elected, and rejected the floor to re-nominate them, except fot the two suspended one

d. only this year the sudden/steep on dip of funds due to upgrading works and refurbishing works. early year was 650 and now less than 220k (we are elected in June)

e. we dont realy query the previous MC as they are able to answer all issue in previous few year of agm, and they are able to maintain the service charges since 2008. as long as they are doing well and attend to my complains, i dont really see a problems.

most egm/agm i would attend if times permit. i do care about my investments honestly

Hi all d taiko/sifu,

An AGM was conducted on 4/9/2015, there are disputes of d eligibility of 3 reelected council who has hold d post since 2012,2013 n 2014. Under d act 757 second schedule clause 6, clearly stated that no member shall hold d post of council member for more than 3 consecutive term.

I hv contacted KPKT Pn Sandra n Pn Norissan (Legal Advisor) last week, both of them agreed that 3 of d reelected councils member are not qualify to hold d post this year. However, today when i call again to request a clarification via email, another official Pn Siti Firdous give me totally opposing answer, she said since d act was implemented this year, so the "3 consecutive term" shall interpreted as start from 2015 as 1st year. I fell surprised n shocked when both officials from same authority provided such opposing interpretation, therefore i hope any sifu here to assist me in any way. The AGM Chairman has called for an meeting on 1/10/2015 morning 11am to concluded the pending dispute, therefore i really appreciate your help.

Thanks in advance.

@Eng_Tat @Cherroy pls kindly advice, thks

I am not lawyer, but from my understanding, the law only started to be effective this year, so the 3 consecutive years count only can be effected since this year.

Whatever pass or history doesn't count, as you can't count something that was not exist in the law previously.

eg.
if there is no law stated rubbish must be segregated on 2014, you can't say the person who didn't segregate the rubbish on 2014, violates the law of segregation that effective 2015.

Cherroy, thks for d reply. I hv 3 more questions hope to hear your opinions :
Question 1, is d strata title act 318/663/757 allow any waiver of service charge and maintenance fees for any parcel owner, especially the biggest share units owner occupied 50% of commercial building area (supermarket) ?

Question 2, is d strata title act 318/663/757 allow any parcel owner to pay nominal feess of service charge and sinking fund, e.g. pay nominal sinking fund RM100/month instead of RM 40k/month so long that parcel used for car park n do not collect parking fees ?

Question 3, does the above mentioned owner in Q1 n Q2 has voting right during AGM wgen poll was requested by them. If the answer is yes, does their vote carry the same weight as others parcel owner who has contributed100% of fees charged ?

Hope to hear from u or others experience council member. Thks

As far as I knew,
Q1.
There is no provision of waiver of maintenance fee stated in the law.
Everyone must pay.

Q2.
If the invoice issued to pay 40k, then 40k must be paid, if not, it is deemed outstanding which interest can be charged upon.

Q3.
Normally, no fully paid the outstanding due, voting is not allowed.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Oct 1 2015, 04:40 PM

actually so many jmb or mc subjected to abuse hor.
imho, independent owners should hire a lawyer or 2 to be present during agm and challenge 9 9 all these things.
am sure the rest of owners willing to pay for these ad-hoc appearance by a reputable solicitor.
should make it mandatory in future to send together with the minutes and agenda of nomination of an independent solicitor to make sure agm is conducted as per legal requirements and proper check and balance being implemented.
as i said it before, property management is a mega business. each building easily running into millions per annum. it definitely needs more monitoring and checking on its committee. and as cherroy mentioned before, it is a thankless job. hence 1st rule of formation should also include 'salary' to its member to appreciate proper work done by them.

am sure the rest of owners willing to pay for these ad-hoc appearance by a reputable solicitor.

From my experience and what I have observed, there is no necessity to employ a lawyer on an ad hoc basis to ensure procedures are followed.

A cost saving measure would be to have everyone in the condominium take interest in the affairs of the condominium, it is ignorance of the people who live in the condominium that breeds abuse.

Likewise, it is because of inefficiencies in the system that line the pocket of lawyers.

hence 1st rule of formation should also include 'salary' to its member to appreciate proper work done by them.

Careful what you wish for.

Work volunteer basis = feel like thankless job.
Work for salary = people will treat you as though they own you.

as i said it before, property management is a mega business. each building easily running into millions per annum. it definitely needs more monitoring and

am skeptical about this statement, if it is such a good business to be a property management company, developers/real estate related firms would have been the first to venture into it and profit from the residence of the condominium.

am pretty certain that the problems encountered in a condominium far outweigh the economic benefits of running a property management company. You may do well in one condominium, as the business gradually expand that's when the quality and delivery tend to deteriorate.

the last management company we had was Focus Facilities, each committee member had to literally breast feed the staff for one year until we got so sick of them, we terminated their services.

nice post.......

Can i ask.
Before Ccc and vp will it count as aggregate share units?.

We have 4 phases and 1 2 done but 3 next year may done and 4 not even sold all.

But we asking for Egm.
What can we do?.

And developer hold the biggest share unit as vote?.

Thank you so much.

This post has been edited by perfect works08: Oct 22 2015, 09:45 PM

very informative..........

we are requesting for EGM, even we manage to gather more than 30% petition request for EGM, but under new Act 757, the 25% is aggregate share unit instead of parcel...meaning we have another 2 phases still under construction and even unsold..how can we include them? what a joke...
can anyone advise or confirm if this is true?

Under the new Act 757, the JMC has full power? they can make any major decision even involve huge spending? it is all depends on the JMC if they want to call for EGM to get consent from owner or not?

JMB or MC always can make any decision, just normally involving huge spending that need to draw upon sinking fund, a resolution will be tabled during EGM/AGM to avoid any dispute afterwards.