I did go to mgmt office to check with Dyhan about this issue, he said there is nothing to do with them...how come ? Who should I check with them ? :(

When you ask BJD, they direct you to Richman. when you ask Richman, they push you to BJD. Because they are in Same Team call Tai Chi

Agreed with Lim & DHYAN HAS RESIGNED!!!

clarifying water rate
Latest news!!! I've spoken to Mr Andrew Perris from HQ. He said they are in the midst of clarifying the water rate charged to JD Aprt residents (ie $1.20/cu) with SYABAS. And he do agree with us that the rate charged by SYABAS is higher than the actual rate stated for high rise category. In fact, he checked the rate of $1.20/cu is tabulated for commecial building and not for high rise residents. He doesnt know how long it would take SYABAS to response us/them. BUT promised to follow up rapidly.... Besides, he doesnt encourage us to hold back the payment of water bill. We should pay first and once finalised they will offset against future billings. BUT I MYSELF would think this is not secure to us. I would prefer to keep the money in hand instead of off-set later....... Well, its up to you guys to consider whether to pay or not to pay...... You may call Mr Andrew Perris @ 019 2707172 personally if you still not satisfy with the management service or your complaints doesnt comply.

Dear Katml, if were to said HOLD ON the water bill will the mgmt cut off the water supply to us??? when can we know the reply back from Mr Andrew Perris? we should keep on pressing the mgmt on tis matter too.....

if not mistaken i read somewhere the management can charge interest on late payment, can take legal action but DON'T HAVE the right to cut the water supply.

You may want to draw some conclusion from the following binding terms quoted from our standard SPA and DMC, summarized as follows:- (a)Service charge (ie the maintenance fee) (SPA & DMC) Payable within 7 days from the date of receipt of written notice, failing which interest 10% per annum from the date of the expiration of the 7 days period. (b)Sinking fund (DMC) 7 days notice and 10% interest p.a. applied. Until establishment of Mgmt Corp, the amount held in this account shall be held by developer in trust for the Purchasers (c )Utilities Payment eg water charges (DMC) 7 days notice and 10% interest p.a. applied, failing which, the developer shall have absolute rights to disconnect, cut off or suspend the supply, notwithstanding the interests charged. Without prejudice to the developers rights, the developer have a lien over your unit or other movable properties in your unit to secure the payments for all unpaid utilities, service charges, etc, and also the incidental cost ( eg legal cost) in enforcing the said lien. Note-Our SPA and DMC are drawn up in accordance with Schedule H of Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 and Strata Titles Act 1985, so BJD is not charging ( if they really do) anything out of ordinary.

shirley, agreed with some reservations. the sale and purchase agreement is a standard agreement but the deed of mutual covenant is not. but in light of the fact that we have all signed both, that argument is purely academic. by the way, does the developer/management not owe an equal duty to account? many of our woes boils down to non-payment to sub-cons or suppliers so where is our $ going to? cheers!

Yup, the DMC is not standard as compared to SPA but the terms are governed, to certain extent, by both Acts. Some DMC is silent on late interest payment on water bill and the recourse against the residents, whereas others provide 14 days as the notice period etc. I would say our DMC is quite comprehensive and the terms set out therein are nothing extra-ordinary which will prejudice the interest of both parties. And now, they are taking so long to furnish the accounts details (busy dress up the account?), how complicated and messy can that account be if it is operated in the manner and spirit for which it is intended for!! :?:

if it's the audited accounts, i don't think they can do anything with that now. :) but even if we get a set of the audited accounts, it's just the beginning. we'll then have to cross check with the sub-cons (eg. RM100k paid but only RM50k received etc). hope its not another enron in the making...

I believe we will be more interested in the cashflow/fund movement, audited account tell you so little and some auditors in town dont really do a good job...sigh! We no need enron case here.....just look at a case brought againt XX by a plc in July 2002. They better make sure all outgoing payments are fully supported.For a complete review, their co-operation in providing info/doc are very crucial. We are at their mercy but we are not Davids ( vs the Goliaths) :wink: