Interpretation of Sec 6(5) of Building & Common Property Act [Act 663] by Lembaga Perumahan Dan Hartanah Selangor

Dear Owners of D'aman Crimson

As we all know, jointly appointed proxy who are the co-owners has been rejected by the developer to cast their vote in the 1st AGM of JMB which held on 30th Oct 2008. The said meeting has been adjourned thanks to the strong objection from the joint purchasers. Sec6(5) of the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) [Act 663] was "unfairly" interpreted by the Developer (in joint purchasers' point of view) that the jointly appointed proxy MUST be a 3rd party.

D'aman Crimson Owners Association ("DCOA or PPDC") has received an official complaint from few joint purchasers (in fact, a police report has been lodged on the above incident by the Joint purchasers). DCOA had taken prompt action and a letter from DCOA dated 10th November 2008 had been given to the Commission of Building and all relevant authorities.

According to DCOA representative, we have now received a letter from Selangor Housing and Property Board dated 25th November 2008 to COB stated their view of the above Section. The following letters which has been translated into English for your reading pleasures....

Translation of the letter from Lembaga Perumahan dan Hartanah Selangor (“Selangor Housing & Property Board”) to Pesuruhjaya Bangunan MBPJ (“COB”) dated 25 November 2008
____________________________________________________________________

ESTABLISHMENT OF JOINT MANAGEMENT BODY FOR D’AMAN CRIMSON APARTMENT
DEVELOPER : CRIMSON COMMERCIAL PARK SDN BHD

I refer to the above matter.

2. This administration following the letter from PPDC, Petaling Jaya dated 10.11.08, was made aware of the complaint regarding the 1st Joint Management Body meeting for D’aman Crimson Apartment as follows :-

i. The developer held the 1st Joint Management Body meeting on 30.10.08 (Thursday, even though this administration deemed the said meeting as cancelled.
ii. On 29.10.08, one day before the 1st meeting to be carried out the development with the confirmation from the COB that the eligibility of joint owners is through a 3rd party proxy. (with reference to the letter dated 29.10.2008)

3. This administration refer to the provision of the Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) [Act 663] relating to the 1st Meeting of the Joint Management Body as follow:

i. Notwithstanding subsection (4), joint purchasers shall not be entitled to vote except by way of a jointly appointed proxy

4. Viewing Act 663 especially sub-section 6(5) Act 663 do not specify who is eligible to be appoint as proxy for joint purchaser, this administration is of the opinion that the proxy referred to in sub-section 6(5) Act 663 can be from the joint purchaser or a 3rd party ie a name not a party to the SPA.

5. Hence, on the appointment as a committee member of the JMB only the proxy who is a joint purchaser is eligible to be a committee member. A 3rd party proxy can only vote at the 1st Joint Management Body meeting and is not eligible to be a committee member.

6. Further, the said joint purchaser must have settled the maintenance charges relating to their parcel. This is in line with the provision of sub-section 6(2) of Act 663 that stipulated that members eligible to vote are those who have paid their maintenance charges.

7. The main objective of Act 663 is to protect the rights and to give power to the purchaser to determine the maintenance mechanism and jointly manage the property within their development. For this reason, this administration is of the opinion the developer has to comply with sub-section 5(2) of Act 663 to have the 1st JMB meeting for D’aman Crimson Apartment on a non-working day to enable the purchasers attend the said meeting. Other than this, it is proposed the proxy form be sent together with the notice calling the 1st meeting.

8. The administration draws the attention of YBhg Dato the provision of sub-section 5(1) Act 663 “It shall be the duty of the developer to convene the first meeting of all purchasers.” The provision of sub-section 5(1) Act 663 do not interpret that the first meeting has to be carried out by the developer or the purchaser. Regretfully, no where in Act 663 that clearly explain the procedures of the 1st meeting. In view of this, to ensure the smooth running of the 1st meeting and the objective of the establishment of the Body is achieved, the purchasers and the developer to determine unanimously the chairman for the said first meeting.

9. This administration requests the cooperation of YBhg Dato as Commissioner of Building for this area to appropriately advise and instruct the developer on the proceeding of the said 1st meeting. This is to ensure the purchasers of D’Aman Crimson Apartment obtain their rights and power as provided in Act 663.

10. YBhg. Dato’s cooperation and early attention is appreciated.


DATIN PADUKA ALINAH AHMAD

C.C. D’Aman Crimson Owners Association

Should you have any question on the above, please feel free to post your comment on this blog or email us at dcownersass@gmail.com , DCOA will revert to you as soon as possible.