Handing Over Taman Puchong Hartamas Fasa 1 Security To The Residents' Association

A few points to ponder regarding the copies of documents dropped into the letter box by the developer:

1. The letter dated 4 February 09 is with reference to the letter sent by Residents' Association(RA) which the developer received on 31st Jan 2009. The developer claims there was no response from the RA.
Does it mean the letter sent to the developer is not consider as 'response'?

2.Why does the developer sent copy of reply letter to the residents without attaching the letter they received from the RA?
What are the contents of the letter that they have received that prompted the reply? Is there something the developer doesn't want the residents to know?

3. The letter mentioned that the vendor have obtained approval for the Guard House from MPSJ. When I read the attached letter from MPSJ dated 26 Nov 2008, it clearly stated that the approval is with condition that the Vendor has to "mengemukakan Surat Akujanji " that they will be fully resposible if ever there is any accident or fire. Where is this Surat Akujanji?
The attached so call 'Surat Akujanji' only mention MPSJ will not be held responsible if anything happen to the guard house. Actually we are more concern of accidents happen due to the improper design of the Guard House. I presume MPSJ realised this also, that is why they ask the Vendor to be fully responsible.
So now, MPSJ will not be held responsible, the notice from the Developer also say they are not responsible, so who is responsible now? The residents?

4. Can the RA simply take over the security without resolving all these problems (I presume there are more other problems)?

Brian's picture

I fully agree with SK point of view, it seem like every single resident is caught in the "Ball passing game" that MPSJ and the Developer is playing.

I believe that, the game play is as such...

The developer force the RA to accept (take over) the responsibilities of the security , thus in default anything with connection to security - Guard house being one of them.

The developer send out a series of letter (black and white proves that ample notice has been given) to reinforce the above and to set a deadline which allows them to legally push the whole issue down the RA throat. If this issue is bought up to a MP or press or whatever third party, they will bring out all this so called "black and white" to defend their case.

They then play a series of communication and letter with MPSJ to denied responsibilities and liabilities to both parties.

Once the deadline is reach, the RA has two option. Take over or don't take over.

Either way the only people who will suffer is the residents.

Scenario 1 (RA takes over the Security)
Developer get away free with the issue of the legality and location issue of the guard house. Any future problem, they can always play the "drag - besok lusa" game which works extremely well in Malaysia.

So the RA have no option but to keep quite about the location of the guard house in the future or create problems which they have to solve themselves. Tough luck :-(

Scenario 2 (RA denies responsibilities of the security)
Developer will discontinue the management of the security guard, and leave the guard house empty. Maybe "someone" will vandalize (as indicated in developer earlier letter) the guardhouse and leave it ruin. Developer will not be responsible to rebuilt the guard house, therefore if the RA finally can't take it and take responsibilities of managing the guards, they will have to rebuilt the Guard House, and since RA is the one who rebuilt (built) it, all legal responsibilities and issue of the location will automatically fall back to the RA.

They way I see it, once 15th Feb 2009 is over, either way the Developer wins the game. It is "Check Mate".

Get the intervention of the MP and politician to help out and intervene the whole issue before 15th Feb 2009. Get them to force the developer to delay the handling over of the security management based on the fact that the RA is not ready and do not have the full capabilities to handle the guard/security management. Use the time given to get in writing that the Developer is responsible to relocate the guard house if MPSJ decide in the next 5 year that the location of the guard house is not appropriate and have to be relocated.On top of that, the developer is responsible for all irregularities in accounts or payment to vendors prior to handling over date. At least this way, the interest of the resident might be covered.

Anyway the above is only my humble opinion and my own imagination of what could be happening. So if any member of the RA read this, maybe they could give it a thought :-)

The RA has been working on it and we have replied to the developer on two occasions.

A copy of the the first reply has been distributed to all the residents. You should get it today or tomorrow if not already. A second reply was sent this morning and it will also be distributed to the residents as soon as possible.

Brian's picture

Hi "bayibhyap"

Thanks for the update.

Yes, I got the letter yesterday night and the content is very interesting.

Now the issue is will the developer comply or just keep a blind eye, since 15th is just around the corner.

Please keep us posted on the progress. Thank you for all your effort.

One the side note, do you think we should drive more people to read/contribute to this site/forum? I think the main issue could be awareness of this site.

Is it possible that we print out some handout and leave it at the guard house for the guard to give to every resident/car which come in? I don't mind doing the printing but I need someone from the RA to instruct the guard handling the gate to pass it to every cars that come in.

Thanks, Brian for your feedback.

The contents of the letter are the result of a discussion of a few dedicated RA committee members and I merely wrote them into a letter which was sent to the members again via the net for comments before sending the final copy to the developer. We work as a team, a closely knitted one.

Whether the developer will comply or not is anyone's guess. Well, they have not complied for a long time now and it would be quite a miracle if it does.

However, the committee members are not merely waiting for the next shot from the developer. Our Chairman, though away on medical leave, has been contacting the MPSJ for answers and the latest we heard has been encouraging. We have also contacted our MP's office whose assistant has agreed for him to meet up with the residents soon in future to hear our grouses.

And if all efforts do not produce the desired results, I guess it would not be too far-fetched to anticipate the residents taking a legal course of action to enforce compliance by the developer.

I have noticed too that our residents may not be aware of this "new" forum platform where they can discuss problems and receive/disseminate news. The old forum platform was better participated. We will think of some way to create better awareness. Distributing leaflets by the guards may not be the best option at this stage. We will include the information when we send out our Notice for the AGM which will be coming up next month.

Thanks again for your valuable input. Cheers!