Guys need some advice on this bit of strata law regarding removal of items from common areas:

20. Prohibition of obstruction

(2) The management corporation may without prior notice, remove or confiscate any property of a proprietor, including but not limited to, bicycles, potted plants, vases, furniture, trolleys, boxes, goods or objects of any kind whatsoever. The management corporation may put up a notice of any removed or confiscated property which may be claimed by the proprietor within fourteen days from date of the notice subject to payment to the management corporation of a charge not exceeding two hundred ringgit. If a removed or confiscated property is not claimed at the expiry of the period of fourteen days, the management corporation may discard or dispose of such property as it deems fit without any liability to the proprietor.

If the management didn't put items into storage but instead just straight up trashed it what can be done on the owner's side?

Firstly, owner must have proof that mc confiscated the property and later thrashed it up. Having said that, owner can proceed an action in court for recovery of items or monetary compensation.

Thanks! Yes owner indeed has all the video proof needed. Which court is that? The Strata Tribunal?

Not sure your case is listed under the Strata Management Tribunal, but you call to check whether you can file your case with them or you have to go to the civil court.

so i just got info on the unit i want to buy,ajen says its a 'master title' 'non strata'
meaning what?

means if i buy i wont get any title? since from my undertanding 'master title' is kindda useless to buyer right?

Hi all,

I have a question related to Strata Management - owner vs developer.

This is an old property, completed before 2013, freehold, walk up with level LG, L1, L2 and L3, but the developer called it Villa style.

Not sure what is in the 1st buyer Sale and Purchase Agreement with developer, but in a SubSale, a search in the land office system PTGs, the assessory parcel listed 2 plots but the keluasan is only 4 meter square. S&P listed 2 parkings which should be 25 meter square, but with 524 units in total, the total parkings in the whole development is less than 2x524=1048 parkings.

Recently, an ex employee of the developer related company told our JMB that the parking is under deed of covenant, which normally used for leasehold property, and meaning that once JMB achieve MC, all parkings are under MC as a common property.

Any experts here can explain to me how this scenario is possible?
Anyone in this forum has experienced similar scenario?
Isn't this scenario will post serious consequences since every subsequent subsale will be selling parkings in S&P which the main parcel does not possess?
What kind of dispute this scenario will create in the future?

Thanks,
Sepilok

yes...some developers like to tipu "owners" of their accessory parcel. "assigned to you" does not mean you own it.

In my condo, an AGM we made a decision to transfer the "assign carpark" via an agreement (stamped) to allow you to be assigned to you "perpetually" (you still don't' own it, but at least the MC/JMB cannot assign another lot for you.)

Here is the situation at my condo somewhere in Klang Valley. After latest MC election, we got a new treasurer.

1. RM4.5k for repainting a small common room (6 x 5 x 3 meters). The old committee approved it. New treasurer thought the cost was ridiculous. After complaining, the contractor reduced it to RM1k (over 70% lower).

2. Nearly RM70k for a new reserve water tank on ground floor was approved by old MC. This new tank replaced an old one. New treasurer was told to pay the invoice. On inspection, he found two problems:
a. the new tank doesn't look new at all
b. the invoice quoted a tank 7.7 times (in volume) larger than it should be

We can only catch these problems if there is something that the new treasurer needs to pay. Trying to get details on other past expenses is impossible as the Chairman has total control over the MC and property manager. The treasurer is alone and cast as 'troublemaker'.

The same contractor was involved in both cases. I see is a pattern of contractor overcharging and MC approving.

What is our best course of action?

time to report to MACC....

All we have is suspicion of a crime. There aren't any proof of a crime was committed.

Would MACC take the case? Does a lawyer need to get involved? I would appreciate if you or anyone can share your experience with MACC. Thanks.

Contractor is not overcharging lah. It's called profit sharing.

This is SOP for Strata. A lot of money can be made.