Security Deposit Transfer - Updates

Please click in the image to enlarge.

The RA decided to post this letter is to make publicly available information to all residents in Taman Mutiara Puchong (especially all unit owners whom have duly complied with the DMC by depositing the said security deposit).

We have received many enquiry pertaining to this hot topic in the past in TMP and as you can read for yourself the result. I for one do not want to write too much on this but prefer to get feedback from all the readers of this blog, may it be you are a resident/owner in TMP, members of the public with experience to this kind of situation or even better someone with the legal capacity to put in your thoughts here.

Please note the following information provided below before you post your comment :)

1. Official handover from Malton Bhd to the Residents' Association as at 29th February 2008 - (should have been on the 18th January 2008, but at that time Protem RA negotiated extension due to non-completion of Phase 3A & 3B perimeter wall fence and was agreeable by developer).
*** the said extension saved all residents a small sum of money in service fee between 18th Jan'08 - 29th Feb'08 = 42 days in total. (Note: Many residents are unaware of this)

2. Last minute notice by developer informing RA that they are not interested to act as the property manager for Taman Mutiara Puchong sometime a week before the end of Feb'08 leaving the RA with the heavy tasks of organising an AGM with residents to inform them of this and that the fate of TMP is now in our own hands to manage and to care for.

3. AGM was duly organised at the expense of the RA members cum volunteers (thank you everyone) contributing and sharing resources to enable the said AGM'08 to take place quickly on the 16th March 2008. Over 5,000 pieces of flyers informing all residents and owners to attend distributed by maildrop house to house, including sms, banners, post in blog, email notification and notice boards were utilised to communicate and notify all owners.

4. AGM held with over 200 resident owners attending including by proxies. Majority voted in favor of RM 100 service fee contribution per month. (Refer to the minutes of the AGM in this blog).

5. Minutes of the AGM sent to all house owners by maildrop once again to notify and justification provided with projection of monthly expenditure and costing also provided (after 10 working days from date of AGM'08).

6. Malton acknowledged proceedings of AGM was held in accordance of stipulated rules and regulations after representative officer in attendance at the AGM verbally provided the acknowledgement to all present at the AGM'08.

7. Between month of March'08 - May'08, 12 resident owners wrote to Malton objecting to the RM 100 service fee per month amount and a couple owners writing in to object transfer of the security deposit from Malton to RA as stipulated in the DMC.

8. Also point to note that after 2 months only partial payment received, justifiable by law?

9. RA already deposited the partial release of RM 200K, this sum is to be held in an interest bearing account as it should be as opposed to developer holding it without any interest earnt. Interest earnt will be communicated and funds to only be used for community related matters after the usual process of voting at EGM or AGMs of the RA in accordance to the law governing non-profit organisations like associations by ROS (Registrar of Society).

10. Owners objecting to the said service fee and to date have not paid are considered defaulters as provisions in the DMC clearly states (Please refer to the extracts of DMC in blog also available in Chinese). Same provisions will be used to deal with the defaulters to ensure fairness to all residents contributing.

11. Owners whom are requesting for their security deposit to be refunded and not agreeable with the transfer of the said security fee to the RA and at the same time not paying the monthly service fee of RM 100 are also deemed as defaulters.

12. Is it fair for a handful of owners (12) out of the initial 397 to act in this manner? What is the rulle of law here? The DMC.

13. Is it fair for the developer to hold the balance of the security deposit in this manner? Using the 12 as a reason? Monies held belongs to the majority of owners agreeable to the mandated service fee of RM 100 as voted by the majority at the AGM'08a month so why the partial payment and not the full amount except the 12 owners? In fact it should be the full amount including the 12 owners as the RA is legally the "Vendor" after the official handover 29th February? RA will act accordingly to highlight to these 12 owners the larger "picture" of maintaining TMP and making sure it is sustainable. Are these assumptions of a "resonable man"?

14. Since handover official and recognised and in accordance to the terms and conditions stipulated in the DMC between Vendor and Purchaser,including the transfer of the said security deposit why the need for approval by residents who do not agree?

15. Is it fair for all the other residents in TMP whom are law abiding for these handful of people disputing for the their own selfish intentions? This is after a gated and guarded community and with costs to maintain covering 70 acres of land with 504 units of houses.

16. Why make it so difficult for the Residents' Association to serve voluntarily? Are we not residents here? Do we not own a unit here as members?

So please comment on the above and do note that this is a forum format where we are not looking to point fingers but looking at these issues in a construtive manner and getting as many people involved to share information to discuss in the process of looking to settle these matters amicably, fairly but firmly for equality and equity for the majority.

This initiative will also be a reference to future house buyers or existing house owners to share and learn as we all know the development boom have given rise to many developers, some good, some ok and some haizzzz....no comment is the best way to describe them.