I doubt they need to do it for PV OUG, at HOC there was only 1 unit left for this project, they were already absorbing the MOT and SAP for the non rumawip units. Plus I think the rebate was around 10% anyway.
Any idea what's the difference between the developer just giving the 10% + free MOT on their own accord vs it being given through HOC?
I have a question. Public Bank only willing to give 80% loan for PV OUG. Can I assume that Public Bank done their valuation and think it only worth 80% from the original price?
Like what Bjorn said its not about the project its about "you" Try the other banks, PBB always like that.
Block A and B common problems is built quality. Leaking is here and there. Built material terrible. Some part of the wall can be punched. Haha
Very bad planning by developer such as the facilties placing.. half ramp system that make you travel 3km down to the exits from level 7, glacier shot put from water drainage at lower level, tnb sub station at front side but shoplot facing backward…
The most funniest thing is their marketing. Clumsy and caca merba on how they divide the facilities. Its acceptable that the PPAM unit dont have the pools but very kelakar the taman outside are only for block B, while the surau is for all residence (which only can fit 10 people).
The marketing also very confusing that made block A and B comes into arguement about the entrance. Marketing team says there will be 2nd entrance for PPAM while there is no such thing in SNP.
Yes. Putting 3 scheme in 1 project is such headache as PPAM price is wayyyyyyy cheaper than RUMAWIP and wayyyyyyyyyyyy cheaper than OP
The plaintiffs alleged that they had been misled by the defendant's representations about the purchase of the property, specifically the separate entrances between Block A and Block B, which justified a significant price difference.
“The plaintiffs also alleged severe defects in the common facilities provided by the defendant. Although some rectification work has been done, the defendant has not completed or rectified the access card facilities or established access control in a shared common area.
“Despite notifying the defendant multiple times about safety-related defects, no action has been taken, and the lack of access separation and clear signage between Block A and Block B is impacting Block B residents’ financial prospects,” said the group.
"misled by the defendant's representations" ...by the developer or the appointed agents? By the way I wanted to ask Block B buyers, in your S&P, were there any second entrance stated? If none why proceed to sign?
If the second entrance really become a reality than Block A have even a stronger case to counter sue the developer
Hearsay got developer warned purchasers to withdraw suit otherwise will sabotage and cause property value to drop further, developer could always cabut by opening new company
If there was a second entrance , how would block B owners know though? It would be for block A props and only would be drawn in block A SNP? Just a thought.
In addition, got 1 block A unit kena lelong, price around 1.5x or 2x higher than bought price.
No Bro, They must be identical, the architect cannot be drafting two separate diagrams.