It is illegal to turn residential property into commercial activities (as daily rent hotel), whereby one can lodge the report with local council and COB.

You may refer and join into previous thread that talk about similar issue, but that was on residential property.
https://forum.lowyat.net/topic/2353137/all


This post has been edited by cherroy: Jun 19 2015, 08:31 AM

Mix development (downstair commercial, upstair residential) is not the same with service apartment.

Mix development that upstair is residential property one is still under residential category, if not mistaken.

You can't set a by law that restrict individual owner to do on their property.

If the renting indeed violated the council rule (please read the old thread that I mentioned before about the running an illegal commercial activities without local council license), then you can report the matter to the local council.

The law is weak and plenty of grey area to tackle such an issue.

STR has plenty of grey area start with, that's why it is problematic.

I don't think MC is allowed to set a by law that violate basic right of ownership.
How can MC set a by law rules that restrict owner who to rent, how the property being leased etc?

If a by law can be set like that, next time, MC also can convene an AGM, get all the signature then set a by law stated cannot rent to student, cannot rent for 1 month or 3 months, etc.
It doesn't make sense.

There no rule allowed in the Strata title act saying, if you getall the signature from all the owner, then you can apply such such kind of restriction.
The act only empower MC to set by law or house rules, but definitely not on restriction within individual unit how it is being used.

Until there is strata act that clearly stated STR is prohibited by stated the definition of STR, it is in grey area, which is difficult to tackle.
Previously there was case on STR, council only can fine the owner on the basic of running commercial activities in residential property, as there is no proper law or act to define STR and prohibit it, that's the major problem.

As such a restriction only can be imposed within local council, COB, or within the strata act itself.

MC only can govern on the issue on house rules on common property, access to the property, while within the unit itself, MC doesn't have juridication how the unit being leased.
Just like MC cannot enter the individual premise to restrict how the renovation (inside) being done, except the issue has caused nuisance or damage to common property.

Correct me if I am wrong.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Jun 19 2015, 09:52 AM

Custom issue is on treatment of GST, not related to Strata management act issue.

2 difference front.

You cannot amend DMC that had been signed.

DMC is just an agreement between developer and purchaser.

Once strata title is out, all follow Strata act, and any action only can be done based on what Strata act empower MC to do.

MC has no such power to restrict the occupant per sqft issue, only council, and any act gazetted can govern such an issue.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Jun 19 2015, 11:07 AM

The problem is we have no proper law/act to define STR and prohibit it.

Even for Strata management issue, only now the newly Act 757 starts to address the maintenance fee defaulter issue and many tedious management issue through a tribunal.

A more comprehensive Strata Management act is still needed.

I think we can eliminate the option on DMC and house rules, as MC cannot impose restriction on owner how they want to do on their asset. It is their right unless state otherwise in any local council law or federal legislation.

House rules, only govern what you can do or not do throughout mainly on the common property issue.
eg.
Cannot park at visitor car park, impose clamp and fine on illegal parking on common property, cannot use facilities after midnight, need to pay deposit when moving in or out or renovation etc issue.

MC has the power on taking care of common property and impose house rules on it, but not the individual parcel.

Yup, I agreed on this matter, until then, what MC can do is to impose some strict house rules which make it difficulty for STR customer to access into the property without access card, as well as use of facilities etc method.
If always there is difficulty in term of access and use of facilities for "stranger", it discourages the demand of it.

Actually house owner that using the property for STR for short term gain is killing their own property value only without realising.
Who want to buy a condo/apartment that fill with STR?

You can't drag something on GST treatment into Strata Management issue.

GST concern about how the property being sold whether need to charge GST or not, because GST is exempted for residential properties/purposes.

While another front is STR is legal or not under Strata act or any other act.

Both issues are not relating to each other.

So far, Strata Management act or even local council rules is silent on STR issue.
While only local council rules is against STR based on commercial activities being run at residential premise which is prohibited.

The concern of STR is not about nuisance, but more about security issue, while longer term property value itself.

Security issue is one of top agenda of property purchaser nowadays.
It is difficult to have tight and good security with the property is full of STR.

An apartment with plenty of STR may drive away purchasers, hence poorer value for the property.
It also may result in more difficult for MC to manage, as well as may incur higher cost to maintenance as STR visitor may not take good care of the property, eg, throwing rubbish simply etc.

Yes, there was a case before which appeared in newspaper as well.

The apartment just beside a hospital, while the hospital is famous for "medical tourism" especially for nearby country citizen. A few property owner reap short term gain through the STR by renting to those "tourist" a day or two only, which lead to many owner complain to local authority.

But the fine was not heavy enough to deter future irresponsible owner to do STR, sadly to say.
That's why there is a need to Strata Management act to govern such issue, or heavier local council fine for such activities.

If you have joined in the MC/JMB before and running the management before, only then you will realise STR is a very problematic matter for management.
I involved in JMB/MC before, all sort of issues arised in a building management something can be out of imagination as well.

Yes there may be bad tenants as well as owner. But STR problem as compared has way higher probability and difficult to solve.
At least something arised time, you can call the owner or tenant come to resolve. STR, the person no longer there, while the owner said, he/she is not responsible something not done by him/her.

Only vested interest party support STR,
while actual owner that living inside as well as those care about their property value over long term, I don't see how they are not against STR.

Wait until you actual run the management, and experience how problematic STR can be, it is difficult to explain.

There were cases, syndicate of burglar STR on a unit and break into many unit in the building, to cover up the burglary activities, as the stolen items was stored inside the unit, and slowly transported out. As they have the access card to enter and exist easily through the STR.

Illegal activities/syndicate may love STR as well. As in ordinary renting of a place, tenancy agreement needed, which you need to know your tenant identity, IC needed to stamping the agreement.
While STR, they just pay the money, can use the place as hub for illegal activities without leaving trace of identity.

This post has been edited by cherroy: Jun 19 2015, 05:30 PM