After repeated refusal by developer KIP Land Sdn Bhd and their agent IM Global Property Consultants to settle this issue, I called for a meeting with the Land Office (PPTGWP) on 10/3/10. Attendees included PPTGWP's Mr. Latif Bin Ali (Timbalan Pengarah), Mr. Jamaluddin Bin Othman (Jabatan Hasil), KIP Land's Mr. Kok Pik Tong (Chief Operating Officer), IMG's Mr. Chin Cho Liang (Director), and members of the Persatuan Penduduk Taman Residensi Kuala Lumpur. When asked by PPTGWP to refund the money to wrongfully charged home owners, KIP refused and were given a stern warning by PPTGWP.
At that meeting, when I asked why PPTGWP charged commercial rate quit rent to a property already approved as residential property, when I asked if the current laws in this country was justifiable and fair for home owners, when I asked if it's reasonable for home owners to pay 20 times the annual Quit Rent (2010) for the period from Dec 2008 through and including Dec 2009, they did not respond nor comment to my questions. When I asked if development of a land deemed commercial for a residential property was in breach of the Malaysian Land Code 1964, they also did not respond nor comment.
PPTGWP (Mr. Jamaluddin) in a response letter dated 30/3/10 claims that in the issue that residential owners were charged commercial quit rent at Taman Residensi Kuala Lumpur, this is an issue between KIP and each purchaser who signed the Sales & Purchase (S&P) Agreement with them. Moreover, the Land Office (PPTGWP) claims that they did everything right and Nation Holdings Sdn Bhd / KIP Land Sdn Bhd is the responsible party to settle all dues for the commercial rate Quit Rent charged on land the they have approved as residential property as of 26/9/06. I am not satisfied with this response and strongly feel that there should be more laws protecting first time or generally home owners like myself against these injustices in Malaysia.
As per recommendations received from Jabatan Perumahan Negara from the Ministry of Housing and Local Government (KPKT), on 7/9/10 I filed a suit against KIP Land Sdn Bhd with the Tribunal Tuntutan Pengguna Malaysia (TTPM) at the Ministry of Domestic Trade and Consumer Affairs (KPDNKK).
At a hearing at TTPM on 11/10/10, KIP pleaded negligence and testified involvement of IM Global Property Consultants, which were served a summons to be included as the 2nd Dependant. Another hearing will be held on 20/10/10 with all parties.
55 days after filing my case with the Consumer Complaints Tribunal or Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Malaysia (TTPM) under the Kementerian Perdagangan Dalam Negeri, Koperasi & Kepenggunaan (KPDNKK), I have learned a lot about our Malaysian law especially with regard to the rights of the consumer. Bottom line, I was awarded everything I had asked for - a full refund of commercial quit rent wrongly charged to me, a first time owner of a Residential property.
ReplyDeleteThe following is a chronological summary of my suit against developer KIP Land Sdn Bhd at TTPM:
9/9/10 I filed suit with Consumer Complaints Tribunal (http://ttpm.kpdnkk.gov.my). I included the following in Borang 1:
* KIP Land Sdn Bhd (KIP) as Defendant,
* Commercial Quit Rent from Dec/08 to and including Dec/09 as per KIP's Statement of Accounts dated 12/12/08 (Vacant Possession) and IM Global Property Consultants (IMG)'s Invoice dated 4/3/09,
* correspondences asking for a refund between myself and KIP, IMG, Land Office (PTGWP), and various government agencies.
11/10/10 Hearing #1, KIP claims negligence to jurisdiction of TTPM to hear this case and testifies to include management company IMG's involvement with respect to calculation of pro-rated commercial quit rent from PTGWP to purchaser. I made a oral inclusion for 2nd Defendant IMG.
20/10/10 Hearing #2, KIP's main defence is Clause 18 of Sales & Purchase Agreement (SPA) and testifies to include lawyers William Leong & Co's involvement with respect to contractual inconsistencies in SPA.
01/11/10 Hearing #3, KIP unable to produce lawyer who wrote the contract, then KIP's defence is overruled by TTPM. I am awarded full sum of Commercial Quit Rent to be paid by KIP within 14 calendar days, after which KIP will be summoned by the law of Malaysia protecting Consumer Rights.
I urge anyone going to buy a residential property to seek legal advice before signing any Sales & Purchase Agreement (sometimes called "S&P" or "SPA") no matter how sweet the deal might seem. Nothing you see during a developer's marketing department stint, not even a scaled model of the housing area you are about to buy, is legally binding. Everything you will get is spelt out in the SPA. If it's not in the SPA - however much you're promised verbally - you're never going to get it.
Special thanks to the following GOV and NGO bodies: National Consumer Complaints Centre, National Home Buyers Association, Real Estate and Housing Developers' Association, but most of all to the good people at Ministry of Housing & Local Government or Kementerian Perumahan & Kerajaan Tempatan (KPKT) who were the ones who specifically pointed out to me TTPM and their own Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah (TTPR) as a last resort as possible avenues of action.
On 1/11/10 I was awarded by TTPM my full claim of all wrongly charged commercial quit rent charged to my residential property. After 14 calendar days, on the 16/11/10, I filed the failure of KIP Land Sdn Bhd to pay me the amount of the Award with KPDNKK's Bahagian Penguatkuasa, 14th Floor, Putra Place,
ReplyDelete100 Jalan Putra, 50622 Kuala Lumpur.
I was assured that the matter will be forwarded to the prosecuting officer, the Deputy Public Prosecutor (DPP) at the Attorney General's Chambers, and then filed as a criminal case at the Magistrate Court. I was notified that this process will take a minimum of about 3 months and will be notified by phone and post accordingly.
As per TTPM's website (http://ttpm.kpdnkk.gov.my/portal/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&lang=en&id=52):
Any person who after fourteen days fails to comply with an award made by the Tribunal commits an offence and shall on conviction -
a) be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit (RM 5,000.00) or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or both;
b) in the case of a continuing offence, the offender shall, in addition to the penalties above, be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit (RM 1,000.00) for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues after conviction.