POST COVID-19 SOPS WEF 5TH JULY 2023 For attention of JMB & MC Dear All Owners & Residents.   The latest SOPs announced by the Health Ministry as we move towards endemicity as follows :-    1.Face Masks will no longer be mandatory on public transportation and at healthcare facilities. However use is highly encouraged.   2.Face masks are also highly encouraged for high risk individuals such as senior citizens those with low immunity and chronic diseases and expectant mothers in crowded areas.   3.Individuals found positive for Covid 19 are required to wear face masks at health facilities.    4.Covid 19 isolation period shortened from seven to five days from the onset of first symptom.    Regards    From : The Property Manager  M/s BHL Consultants P & F Sdn Bhd  SOP Pelitup Muka Terkini 2023 & Tempoh Kuarantin Covid19 KKM (ecentral.my) read more

The Federal Court decisively held that Section 16M of the HDA refers to “a claim”, and not to “all the claims” in respect of the monetary limit, and therefore, each split claim before the Tribunal should be assessed separately and distinctly from each other.  Recently, the Federal Court, in the case of Remeggious Krishnan vs SKS Southern Sdn Bhd (previously known as MB Builders Sdn Bhd) Civil Appeal no. 02(f)-50-09/2021(J), confirmed that homebuyers can bring separate claims involving the same property in order to stay within the RM50,000 jurisdictional limit of the Tribunal for Homebuyers’ Claims or Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah (TTPR), and that the RM50,000 limit is for each separate claim, not the total combined claims for the same property. To understand this, we must first know exactly what the scope and jurisdiction of the TTPR is. Jurisdiction of Housing Tribunal The TTPR, also known as the “Homebuyer’s Tribunal” or “Housing Tribunal”, was established in 2002 vide an amendment to the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (HDA). Its purpose is to provide an affordable and expedient route for homebuyers to bring claims against licensed developers for matters arising from sale and purchase agreements (SPA).   Claudia Silva A claim can be brought by anyone who has purchased a house from a developer, even if the homebuyer happens to be a subsequent purchaser. It is also important to note that a claim can only be brought to the Tribunal if the cause of action arises from the SPA itself and within the specific time frame laid down in Section 16N(2) of the HDA, which is within 12 months from either one of the following:- The date of issuance of the certificate of completion and compliance (CCC) for the housing accommodation or common facilities, whichever is later The expiry date of the defect liability period (DLP) as set out in the SPA The date of termination of the SPA (which has occurred before the issuance of the CCC) This means even if there is no SPA entered into between the homebuyer and the developer at the time the cause of action accrues, the Tribunal still has the jurisdiction to hear the matter if there exists a previous dealing between the homebuyer and the developer in respect of the acquisition of the housing accommodation. However, the Tribunal only has the jurisdiction to award a maximum RM50,000 monetary compensation with respect to the homebuyer’s claim. The case of Remeggious Krishnan vs SKS Southern Sdn Bhd In the Remeggious Krishnan case, the Federal Court decisively dealt with the issue. In this case, the appellant entered into an SPA with the respondent, which is the developer of a residential project known as Sky Habitat. According to the SPA, the vacant possession of the unit is deemed delivered when “the water and electricity supply are ready for connection to the [unit]”. However, the respondent has delivered vacant possession of the unit without electricity connection. The appellant then filed two separate claims with the Tribunal. One, for failure to provide adequate ceiling height and protruding beams and pillars, which amounted to RM40,000 – dubbed “the technical claim”. Two, for delay in the connection of electricity supply, which amounted to RM49,832.00 – dubbed “the non-technical claim”. The Tribunal allowed the non-technical claim and awarded a sum of RM16,452.05 and costs of RM400 in favour of the appellant. The respondent applied for a judicial review against this award. The High Court upheld the award, but the Court of Appeal overruled the High Court’s decision and quashed the award. The appellants’ appeal to the Federal Court concerned mainly the jurisdiction of the Tribunal in respect of Sections 16Q and 16M of the HDA, and specifically concerning the jurisdiction of the Tribunal to split claims as well as issues pertaining to the delivery of vacant possession. Apex court rules split claims allowed Section 16Q of the HDA provides that the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear claims that are split, nor, if there is more than one claim brought, for the same matter against the same party. Furthermore, Section 16M(1) of the HDA provides that RM50,000 is the limit for a claim brought within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal. For anything more, the Tribunal does not have the jurisdiction to hear it. Datuk Chang Kim Loong The issue brought to the Federal Court in the Remeggious Krishnan case was whether a claimant could bring to the Tribunal more than one claim in respect of the same property where the total amount of those claims exceed RM50,000. While the Court of Appeal held that the phrase “same matter” in Section 16Q meant that all the claims filed must refer to the same matter, that is, the “same property”, the Federal Court did not share the same view. They held that “if it was the Parliament’s intention for “the same matter” to be interpreted as “the same property” as suggested by the Court of Appeal, the drafters of the legislation would have used the term “property” or “housing accommodation”, so the “same matter” could only mean the same issue or type of claim. Furthermore, the Federal Court decisively held that Section 16M of the HDA refers to “a claim”, and not to “all the claims” in respect of the monetary limit, and therefore, each split claim before the Tribunal should be assessed separately and distinctly from each other, and if each claim is different and distinct from the other, those claims fall within the jurisdiction of the Tribunal.   The Federal Court also very clearly spelt out that this might encourage some ambitious homebuyers to split their claims in order to circumvent the monetary limit in Section 16M of the HDA. For example, a claim of liquidated ascertained damages in the total sum of RM80,000 may be split by the purchaser into two claims of RM40,000 each. In such cases, the Federal Court held that the Tribunal may exercise its discretion to disallow such claims to be split on the basis that it contravenes Section 16Q as it is the “same matter” against the same party. HDA – a social legislation The HDA is designed to protect homebuyers, and is in fact, a social legislation. This fact was reiterated in the Remeggious Krishnan case by the Federal Court. The Federal Court even emphasised that with this fact in mind, any term or provision in the statute must be interpreted in a way which ensures maximum protection for the homebuyers against the developer. This fact is also upheld in many cases that have reached all the way up to the Federal Court. For example, in Ang Ming Lee & Ors vs Menteri Kesejahteraan Bandar, Perumahan dan Kerajaan Tempatan & Anor and Other Appeals [2020] 1 MLJ 281 and PJD Regency Sdn Bhd vs Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah & Anor and Other Appeals [2021] 2 MLJ 60, both held that the protection of homebuyers must be the “paramount consideration” in matters concerning developers and purchasers, and that the HDA “exists for the protection of the interests of purchasers and for matters connected therewith”. What this means for homebuyers This essentially means that homebuyers can bring more than one claim to the Tribunal in respect of the same property arising from the SPA. However, each claim must be distinct and different from the other, and each claim must be within the RM50,000 monetary limit. This article is intended to offer an insight of the case authorities and is not intended to be nor should it be relied upon as a substitute for legal or any professional advice. This article is jointly written by Claudia Silva, LL.B (Hons) Essex, Bar of England & Wales (Inner Temple), LL.M., Cardiff and Datuk Chang Kim Loong, Hon Secretary-General of the National House Buyers Association (HBA). HBA can be contacted at: Email: info@hba.org.my  Website: www.hba.org.my Tel: +6012 334 5676 Source: Housing Tribunal may now award above RM50,000 for same property but for different issues | EdgeProp.my read more

Penang Island City Council, together with the Seberang Prai City Council, are believed to be the first local authorities in the country to come up with a set of comprehensive guidelines to regulate short-term stays such as through the Airbnb and homestay schemes.  GEORGE TOWN – The Penang Island City Council (MBPP) has passed its guidelines on regulating commercial short-term stays on the island by selecting respective joint management bodies (JMB) as the main party to enforce such tasks.   MBPP, together with the Seberang Prai City Council, are believed to be the first local authorities in the country to come up with a set of comprehensive guidelines to regulate short-term stays such as through the Airbnb and homestay schemes. Penang City Mayor and MBPP president Datuk A. Rajendran said the guidelines will be uploaded into the MBPP formal site after the adjournment of the full council meeting. “The guidelines would be made available soon,” Rajendran told a press conference. He added that under the local government legislation, JMBs are empowered to enact local bylaws to help them oversee the guidelines. He said that the guidelines are expected to ease concerns among strata and landed property owners over safety and security by strictly regulating short-term stays. Essentially, those wanting to lease out their units need approval from the JMBs, and if their applications are rejected, they have no choice but to accept the respective JMB's decisions. Earlier, he said that even though strata title owners have units which are in commercial buildings, they still require approval from the respective JMB before they can lease their places for short term accommodation. MBPP has empowered the JMC to regulate Airbnb activities in their respective buildings of either residential or commercial nature. Earlier an official from the Commissioner of Buildings explained that the regulations would cover 1,387 designated residential and commercial strata buildings. Owners or operators of landed properties, will need special permits from the MBPP while those with strata titles, need to show the JMBs their registration with the Registrar of Companies. The Commissioner of Building office will also act as a mediator if the JMBs have disputes with the owners and tenants in their buildings over short-term stays. “We have also informed all JMBs of their rights and how to liaise with the tenants and the  unit owners in their respective buildings or high-rise housing schemes.” In an immediate reaction, the Penang chapter of the Malaysian Association of Hotels (MAH) Tony Goh praised MBPP for coming out with the guidelines but said more needs to be done to ensure that the short-term stay industry is well-regulated. From a hoteliers’ standpoint, Goh said that the enforcement aspects for such premises need to be fine tuned. “Who is doing the enforcement? Is it strictly left to the respective JMBs to do it, or would the council be assisting them on this matter?” he asked. Goh said the guidelines need to be fine-tuned further. He added that MAH is also appalled by certain developers’ here allegedly selling new units by cajoling prospecting buyers to lease their new units out for Airbnb. Source: Penang Island City Council passes guidelines on short-term stays | Malaysia | The Vibes read more

Let’s state the obvious, shall we? Property investment involves a lot of money and for some of us, it’s a once-in-a-lifetime opportunity. This is why it is important to not get overly excited when you are promised the moon and the stars by a property developer. Be prudent as the property you have your eye on might be one from a problematic and blacklisted developer. If you’re in the midst of surveying for your dream house and want to avoid being cheated by an unscrupulous developer, read on. Already bought a property from a blacklisted developer? We also have a solution for you. Which property developers in Malaysia should you avoid? Before committing to buying a house, check if the developer has faced any problems in their projects or is currently in hot water with the authorities. The Housing and Local Government (KPKT), which is under the National Housing Department (JPN) regularly compiles a list of blacklisted property developers in Malaysia and has released an updated list of blacklisted property developers recently. These developers are divided into four offence categories as per below: 1. Property developers without licenses A property developer is bound by the Housing Developers Act (Control and Licensing) 1966 Act, which requires them to apply for a license and permit before commencing a project development and selling it to the public. Failing to do so is an offence under the Act. Usually, the developer will display the license and permit number on their pamphlet, brochure or at their sales gallery. According to the latest list provided by KPKT, there are three types of developers who fall within the no license category: i) developers with completed projects and the certificate of completion and compliance (CCC) has been issued ii) developers with completed projects but no certificate of completion and compliance (CCC) iii) problematic developers Here is an excerpt from the list of 59 property developers, which has been updated as of 30 September 2022: SPS Setia Sdn BhdSPS Setia Sdn Bhd Lestari Puchong Sdn Bhd CT Bakti Timor Sdn Bhd Expand Factor Sdn Bhd Penta Heights Sdn Bhd Binalif Property & Development Sdn Bhd (Hyrax Property & Development S/B) Juwasa Hikmat Sdn bhd JK-NBA Ventures Sdn Bhd Kembun Maju Development Sdn Bhd ➡️ Here is a full list of property developers without licenses in Malaysia. 2. Property developers with abandoned projects There are many reasons for a project to be abandoned. It could be because of inexperienced developers, poor marketing and sales strategies, financial problems, challenging economic conditions, disputes between shareholders, mismanagement of the company and business affairs, or even lack of enforcement and monitoring by the authorities. As of 30 September 2022, the government had registered 242 abandoned private housing projects in Peninsular Malaysia, with the highest number from Selangor. Most of these developers have gone bankrupt or the property development company has been liquidated. Some of the developers with abandoned projects include: BSC Development Sdn. Bhd. Asian Lion Enterprise Sdn Bhd Sri Hartamas Corporation Sdn Bhd Evergreen Acres Sdn Bhd Bukit Tandak Development Sdn. Bhd Maymont Development Sdn Bhd Villa Genting Properties Sdn Bhd ➡️ Here is the full list of developers with abandoned projects in Malaysia. KPKT has also shared on its website the list of abandoned property projects that are in the midst of being recovered or might be recovered by either the government or a white knight developer: List of abandoned property projects that are going through the recovery process List of abandoned housing projects that are planned for recovery 3. Property developers that did not honour the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims (TTPR) Award For those who are unaware, the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims provides homebuyers with an easier, cheaper and faster means of dispute resolution for home-related issues with housing developers such as property defects claims and late delivery of vacant possession. The TTPR is under the purview of the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT) and any final decision of the Tribunal is called an Award, where the developer is then supposed to act on or compensate the aggrieved homebuyer(s) accordingly. © baranq | 123rf As of 23 September 2022, 299 property developers have failed to adhere to the TTPR, including: Abra Development Sdn Bhd Ban Soon Aik Development Sdn Bhd Diamond Crest Sdn Bhd Hartaplus Realty Sdn Bhd Lestari Puchong Sdn Bhd Sky Venture Management Sdn Bhd Wangsa Idaman Sdn Bhd ➡️ Check the full list of developers who did not honour the Tribunal for Homebuyer Claims (TTPR) Award. SEE WHAT OTHERS ARE READING: Rising number of “sick” or delayed housing developments in Malaysia: Why is this happening? Buying a new house in Malaysia: A 12-step guide 4. Property developers who failed to settle compound payments Developers who break the law will be charged with an additional fee, known as compounds. Just to break it down for you, property developers will be compounded between RM5,000 to RM50,000 based on the offences made. These are divided into three main clusters as below: i. Compounding of the offence of the licensed housing developer under sections 7 and 18 (c) of Act 118 under the Housing Developers Act ii. Compounding of Advertising and Sales Permits in compliance with regulation 5 (Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 iii. Compounding of the management and maintenance offences of the Housing Development Account (HDA) under the Housing Development Regulations (1A), 5 (6), 6 Housing Development Account) 1991. As of 23 September 2022, there were 465 property developers who are guilty of not settling their compound payments – this is a slight decrease from the 412 developers who failed to settle their TPPR as of 20 October 2020. Some of the guilty developers are: Ajumas Engineering Sdn Bhd Crystal Amber Sdn Bhd Fajar Melati Sdn Bhd Nilai Idaman Sdn Bhd Macvilla Sdn Bhd SOE Brothers Sdn Bhd Top Impression Sdn Bhd ➡️ Here is the list of property developers who failed to settle compound payments. Discover properties for sale I’ve bought a property from a blacklisted developer. What should I do? To answer this question, we called KPKT and the feedback wasn’t as helpful as we’d hoped. The representative said that they weren’t able to do anything, so we would need to talk to a lawyer and file a civil suit. We couldn’t just stop there! So we engaged a real estate lawyer, Khairul Anuar Sharudin of Khairul, Suhaila & Hazlina, to get a more thorough answer. Apparently, there is another way to approach this matter – You can cancel your sales and purchase agreement (SPA)! © wutwhanfoto | Getty Images 1. For licensed developers: Based on the amended Housing Development Act (Control and Licensing) 1996 Act 118, homebuyers can revoke their SPA if the housing project that they bought shows no progress within six months since they signed the contract. To make this happen, you need to acquire approvals from the Ministry and request written consent from the banks. Another thing you should know is that the financier should not unreasonably withhold permission to terminate the agreement. Once the process is settled, the licensed housing developer should refund your money within 30 days (interest-free). 2. For unlicensed developers: According to the former Housing and Local Government Deputy Minister, Halimah Mohamed Sadique in a media report, you can bring your complaints to the Housing Claims Tribunal, including problems you face with the unlicensed developers, under the same Act. Filter out blacklisted developers before you make a property purchase While there are many factors to consider when deciding when or where to purchase a house, the safest way is to start with an easy background check. As you can see, there are hundreds of blacklisted property developers. It doesn’t matter if you encounter them at the mall or a property expo – double-check their credibility with KPKT and look up their CTOS profile. As cliche as it may sound – prevention is better than cure. Source : (Updated) Blacklisted property developers in Malaysia - iproperty.com.my read more