Dear all, here are some of the points that I'd like to discuss on Vacant Possession (VP) and Extensions of Time (EOT).

I understand that there was a Federal Court case that don't allow the Extensions by the Housing Controller anymore.

Since SPAs nowadays has 24/36/48 or more for VP, how could those clauses still be valid after the case?

I saw few SPAs with 48 or more months but since that's not under the Schedule.. why are those clauses still there?

Dont understand ...

Clause and validity ?

If no clause on vp, how to know when to deliver vp ?

To summarize, my question was why are there some VP clauses that states more than 24/36 months when the Housing Controller has no power to grant those extensions?

Those are not regulated by any Act and is NOT extension.

Is to inform purchasers how long the property needed to be completed upon sign SnP.

Just like subsale, the norm is 3 + 1. But it can be 6 + 2 or 5 + 1 or whatever. As long is agreeable by seller buyer.

How else to know when to collect vp ?

It is regulated under the HDA. 24 for landed/36 for high rise. Schedule G and Schedule H to be exact. There should be no changes to the schedules / time limits for VP from my understanding.

That's why it's very curious to see the differences the projects on the VP dates.

Hope the following helps ...

I understand that it was the case previously. But with the developments in law... see below.

Iprop

Even here Lawyer's site

This is one of the latest updates. That's why I am confused with some of the SPAs with the 48/54 months etc time frame. Does it not mean that any extension given by the same person/the KPKT is now invalid?

My understanding ..

Those are without APDL approval or pending. So the extension part wasnt given out at all in the first place.

I think the developer took the risk of selling ahead pending approval. They hope to get it within a year. By then then it should be around 24/36 months.

Even some sold pending APDL having 24/36 months, but they dont stamp the SnP until the approval is obtained.

i could be wrong but here goes.

there are 2 scenarios.

scenario 1.
developer apply to relevant authorities to extend VP date. upon approval they proceed to sell the unit with the agreed extension. i.e 42, 48 months.
as they obtained the approval prior to launch, sellers are also informed from date of purchase. no contest.

scenario 2.
developer apply for extension AFTER launching. in some cases developer got the extension and try to force it upon the purchasers. it was challenged by the purchasers and the purchasers successfully won their case. an go google.
https://www.theedgemarkets.com/article/cour...na-condo-buyers


back to scenario 1, there are cases currently being reviewed on legality of extension in the first place. some are of the opinion that a schedule g or h shall not be modified in any circumstances and thus any extension is deemed invalid irregardless. if the developer needs more time, they can do a headstart and sell later. but of course without revenue of purchaser, cost will just continue to go up with these new trend of super tall highrises that cannot be completed in 36 months.

so from conclusion, scenario 2 can be challenged and scenario 1 is still valid for the time being.
hope this is of assistance?

That's why I am confused. After reading the case and asking around, that case made a lot of the SPAs very tricky now. Apparently the person that signed for the extensions have no power to do so and the things he did was considered... "not legal?" after the case because it's not under his powers to change anything under the HDA.

Ask for the APDL before signing SnP if is 48 months or more.