Ok, thanks for the update.

there are cases where the MC controlled the MO/MA where they can manipulate the proxy form which I mentioned in my earlier post. current MC can "create" as many proxies as possible. not easy to vote them out especially the current act require the nomination to be done few days in advance before the AGM. if they know their position will be challenged during coming AGM, they will go find as many proxies to back them up.. MO have more direct contact with the owners and proxies can be easily "created". how to counter this ?

SMA2013(Act 757)
SECOND SCHEDULE
Clause 7
Keeping of Records and Accounts of management corporation
(2) The Management Committee shall :
(a) cause a copy of the minutes of the meeting of the management committee, which is signed by the chairman of the meeting or the secretary, to be displayed on the noticeboard within twenty-one days after the meeting : and
(b) cause a copy of a minute of any resolution of the management committee, or of the management corporation passed in accordance with this Act to be displayed on the notice board within twenty-one days after it is passed.

The reason for (b) is that the Committee can pass a "flying resolution" without an announced formal meeting under Clause 9. Resolutions of the management committee in WRITING.

Thanks.

This post has been edited by rwmgmc: Mar 10 2016, 09:54 PM

SMA2013(Act 757)
SECOND SCHEDULE
Clause 5
Meetings and proceedings of the management committee
(3) Notice of every meeting shall be given to all members of the management committee not less than seven days before the date appointed for the meeting and such notice shall be displayed on the notice board of the management corporation.


Thanks.

This post has been edited by rwmgmc: Mar 10 2016, 09:40 PM

Only 1 proxy per attending owner is allowed under SMA2013(ACT 757)

So, an owner sent around a handout requesting proxies with the seeming intention of collecting signed proxies and then handing them out to supporters.

Something like "sign your proxy form and pass to me and I'll make sure it's handed over to a fellow supporter to vote with."

The handout contained a unknown name at the bottom of the handout but with an email that led to a known owner. It was traceable. And can be held to account.

I wrote a letter to the COB about this "SOLICITING FOR PROXIES" and have yet to receive any reply.

If I do get a reply I'll let this thread know.

Thanks.

This post has been edited by rwmgmc: Mar 10 2016, 09:56 PM

If there is fraud element in "creating" proxies, then lodge a report to police and COB.
Proxies should be someone being nominated by the parcel unit owner, not simply any person.
It is a serious case already.

While if the MC managed to persuade legitimate proxies to support them, then it is another story.

If parcel unit owner doesn't care how the strata properties being managed or ignorance about their properties, then nothing to stop the building being mismanaged already.

A lot of strata properties owners do not understand how important the AGM that elected MC to manage the property, which in the end of the day, if being mismanaged, owners themselves are the one bare the losses through properties depreciation, as a strata property that being poorly managed, won't able to fetch good valuation.

Many thanks Sam Sam for the advice on "letters."

I'll draft a reply to give the MC 14 days to respond to my letters. I'll let them know that further action will be taken but I will not say what action.

Dont forget to send them by either registered, ar mail or certificate of posting as proof u send them

Can anyone confirm if the developer needs to pay the maintenance and sinking fund for those unbuild phase?

what is there to maintain, if the "phase" have yet to be built?

my other question is, assuming developer cancel the project, what will happen to the maintenance and sinking fund for those "unbuild phases"?

Sorry i didnt make my question clear. A developer already built 2 phases of landed strata parcel and VP as well. The 3rd phase is yet to be built. Thus the common area which is shared by the 3 phases. Maintenance and sinking fund are for the common area which is already built. So does the developer need to pay the maintenance charges for the phase not built? Doesnt make sense if only Ph 1 & 2 covering the maintenance cost for the common area is is suppose to be shared by the 3 phases. What does the law say?

Hi May i know the duration limit of committees (3 consecutive terms ) and office bearer (2 conservative terms) in counted before or after new act?

hi,

I asked the same question in the office of the COB at Penang Komtar. The reply was 'before.'

Can anyone confirm if Management Office under MC can disconnect water (removing the water meter) from unit who has default on paying Maintenance fees?

The MC can disconnect the water whether this is in accordance with the act is another matter.
a better way to address this would be to read up on the act on what can the MC can do in regards to non payment. The act clear states what is the method to collection on default of the fees.


From my reading there is nothing mention about of disconnection of water as one of the methods of collection. Also there are judgments against the JMB/MC what this happens I believe for damages.

@sam sam, thanks for your reply.

Now I remember that I went to ask the legal dept of COB regarding removing the unit water meter to disconnect water supply totally due to defaulting in payments to Maintenance to Management Office.

I was informed by Legal dept of COB that it is NOT ALLOW to remove the unit water meter to cut off the water supply as water is a necessity but Management Office can reduce the water pressure into the unit thus when the tap is turn on, there is slow drip of water instead of no water at all.

the answer is, it depends.

a little bit of history, prior to Syabas Water Migration program (http://www.syabas.com.my/highlight/migration) all water from water main was channeled through the bulk water meter and subsequently distributed individually to owners unit.

As you may or may not be aware, you always pay your water bill in the maintenance office rather than directly with Syabas.

The reason being, the water passing through the bulk water meter and subsequently flowing through pipes all the way up to "your" house water meter is actually "Common Area" property that falls under the purview of the management.

Hence, the management has the right to either "disconnect" your water meter or reduce the water pressure to your unit.

Subsequently, with the introduction of Syabas Water Migration program, condominiums r required to migrate from bulk water meter to direct water meter. This would mean, owners will now sign directly with Syabas and should any issue arise, Syabas will be coming to your house to disconnect your water meter. This arrangement is much more beneficial to the condominium because the burden of paying would not be financed by owners who do pay their water bills on time.

Now to you questions...

Act 757 now enables the MC to haul defaulting owners to tribunal. If you can't produce a valid reason as to why you default on your maintenance charges, you can potentially be sanctioned under section 78(3) ACT 757.

The story of TAPO Apartment under management by Koboi Developer based on hearsay.

After receiving hearsay from the residents of TAPO apartment, through a process of collating from the information that I have gathered, here is a hearsay story of this apartment.
TAPO apartment was developed by Koboi developer and the residents of TAPO Apartment were handed the keys in 1997. PTG issued Certificate of Establishment Of Management Corporation for Sub-divided Building/Buildings is issued on 22 Feb 2006; and it was certificated and approved on 12 June 2009.
September 2012, the first official AGM to elect and form Management Committee. 15 owners of TAPO apartment was elected to form Management Committee and two months later, these 15 committee members resigned their post.
Is it permitted to allow an apartment under the developer's management office for 15 years? Throughout hearsay of owners, these owners have not seen the annual SOA (Statement of Accounts) for the past 15 years. Since the management office is under developer Koboi, the owners of TAPO apartment do have the check and balance on the management office.
June 8, 2014; COB issued the notice to have an AGM on this date to elect and form Management Committee. Developer Koboi ran the AGM and formed a JMB not MC.
In September 2012, AGM to form MC (Management Corporation) and now June 2014, AGM to form JMB (Joint-Management Body)? Based on this, developer Koboi is doing not proper.
In November 2014, a notice was displayed to inform Developer Koboi has transferred the money into the current MC bank account. COB made an inquiry to MC why the organisation is JMB format and not MC - the answer from Management Office is spelling mistake - JMB and MC is spelling mistake? The layout of organisation chart is 1 representative from developer and 5 owner residents - spelling mistake? Out of 5 owner residents elected, only 2 are eligible.
Now, May 2016; there is no news of AGM (24 months after June 2014). The manager of Management Office was the Manager working for the developer Koboi, so about 19 years of the same management style. The conditions of TAPO apartment is not satisfactory.

The purpose of this post is to identify if there is any other apartment that are facing the same issues ... an apartment under the management of developer for more than 8 years ...

Shouldn’t be the case anymore… If the developer still holding onto the management of the condominium especially after the coming into effect of the Strata Management Act 2013 (act 757), the owners can lodge a complaint to COB. Previously developers can get away with such practice because Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007 (act 663) simply does not clearly specify the provision for transition or stipulate the penalty that can be levied.

COB is toothless!
they are just act as a middle man..