Trouble Makers In TMP

Above are the documents distributed by a non-resident owner whom have been very active in opposing the RA for no apparent reason (actually the individual wants the service fee to be RM 50 as stipulated in the DMC prior to handover). But since the AGM and majority vote when more than 200+ residents attended the said service fee was increased to RM 100 by majority vote as noted in the minutes of the AGM available for download in this blog since March 2008.
Latest ploy to garner support is by wrongfully distributing the above letter from MPSJ to Interpile merely seeking information as required as protocol in response to any aduan (complaint)made, in this case by a Yap Li Li of No.78, Jalan TMP 6 (Vacant house with for sale/rent signage).
This document is not for public distribution and especially not for distribution by the complainant to all residents in TMP and without consent from the management office. On top of that hanphone numbers were provided in MPSJ document to call for inquiry and from feedback many malicious and defamatory information was given out with the aim of distorting facts. It is clear that TMP is a non strata title development but instead an individual title development, therefore the fact is as mentioned in Interpile Sdn Bhd reply to MPSJ below:

Clearly JMB (Joint Management Body)is not required and my question is why go to so much trouble to stir up emotions causing residents anxiety for no apparent benefit to anyone except themselves? Take note these are residents whom consist of defaulters hence not observing the law as stipulated in the DMC. I for one dislike this kind of behaviour and very detrimental to the peace and harmony, worst of all the instigator here is a non-residents owner, meaning owns a unit but has never lived in it from the very beginning.
Whereas the RA consist of residents living and knows what is happening and knows what is needed to make TMP a better place which is sufficient funding from collection which can manage and sustain TMP properly for the long term. Common sense and realistic expectation will make sense of everything as I do not want to waste time again writing about stuff I had written months ago.
Attached below you will note that a police report has been made for the sole purpose of preventing any further malicious and wrongful acts by certain individual to disrupt the peace and harmony in Taman Mutiara Puchong and by misleading and distorting facts without justifiable cause and misusing local givernment council letter head to drum support for a cause that in itself misguided.


I leave it to all reasonably sane residents in Taman Mutiara Puchong to understand that the RA adhere strictly to the laws stipulated in the DMC and act in accordance with the law governing RA by ROS. Lastly judge by the actions of all dedicated volunteers in TMP and not by a handful of defaulters whom have sinned in their capacity as residents/owners by blatantly ignoring majority mandate to pay RM 100 and thinks they are above the law.

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.

RA Chairman Letter

26th April 2008

Dear Fellow Residents / Owners,

On behalf of the Committee Members of The Residents’ Association of Taman Mutiara Puchong, I wish to thank you for having confidence in giving us the mandate to carry out our duties to make TMP a good standard of community living. We have gone through thick and thin to achieve our present conducive status (refer to our blog: www.voices-tmp.blogspot.com).

I wish to highlight that some residents were confused on “Gated and Guarded” concept, Deeds of Mutual Covenant, monthly service fee payable etc. I would like to clarify as follows.

First of all, all TMP house owners must agree that when he/she buys the property in TMP, he/she must be aware that this is a “Gated and Guarded” community, which has been highlighted, in all Developer’s sales brochure. “Gated and Guarded” concept comes with a monthly security and maintenance cost covering 70 acres of land in total to be shared by all owners. So, all buyers must accept the fact that they must pay monthly fee towards security and maintenance.

The security fee in TMP’s case is approximately RM19K per month to maintain 7 guards on day shift and 6 guards on night shift. Apart from security fee, we need to maintain the equipment e.g. boom gates and motors (which breaks down frequently due to wear and tear), CCTVs and DVR, exercise equipment in Central Park, water/electricity and cleaner cost for guard house and TMP Community Centre (TMPCC), rental of TMPCC, property management fee under Khong & Jaafar Associates, weekly maintenance for the entire TMP compound on top of the minimal maintenance by MPSJ.

The breakdown of the costing has been highlighted during AGM and also posted in the blog, and written on the whiteboard in TMPCC for all to view. We worked out the total estimated cost to about RM35K per month as compared to if managed by the Developer of RM41K. The Developer used RM41K divided by 504 units (100% collection) to justify RM80per month service fee, but we know this is too ideal and impossible. The practical percentage of total contributors would be about 70%. When the Developer withdrew taking up management of the community at the 11th hour, they even refused to pay service fee for the approx 100 unsold units at that point in time (28th February 2008) Hence our costing of RM35K would be divided by 70% of the balance 400 units, which comes to RM125 per month.

During the AGM on 16th March 2008, more than half of the residents present selected the service fee of RM100 per month, so the minority has to abide by the majority choice, despite it may not be able to cover the cost in the short term. We hope the unsold units, which ultimately get sold, will contribute to cover the short fall in the longer term. Meanwhile the Committee will be organizing fund raising campaigns e.g. old newspaper recycling projects to help ease the financial shortfall.

The above would put to rest argument by some residents to insist on lesser service fee, which clearly and justifiably showed that RM 100 service fee is reasonable although the said figure might not cover the actual budgeted monthly expenditure.

The clauses in the DMC is extracted and translated for all owners / residents. Many are paying the service fee accordingly, but there are some who would like to differ. As the Residents’ Association is a non-profit organization formed to upkeep the well being of the community, if the monthly fee is not forth coming from some while others have to contribute to maintain the status quo, it would not be fair to those loyal contributors. Base on the terms of the DMC, Residents’ Association has the right to execute actions to segregate the defaulters from contributing residents. On the worst-case scenario, legal action with cost will be taken against defaulters. If this is your house and you are enjoying the facilities contributed by the community, there is no reason to default, as every sen will be used for the good of the community.

We have also some quarters that want only the security but not the other facilities like the exercise equipment at the Park hence not willing to pay for such maintenance.
This is equivalent to joining a club to pay for the swimming pool only and not the gym. How can a club agree to subdivision of fee base on facilities? Another example is the use of common lift in a condo. Can a ground floor owner refuse to pay the service fee base on the fact that he never uses the lift? We would like this group of residents to be practical and understand the communal living expectation that you are not alone but in a society. Please refrain from a narrow mindset but be wide angle instead.

I trust the above will put to rest some residents’ doubt as to the service fee justification, defaulters, and the DMC enforcement clauses. Should there be any further doubt, you are welcome to call any of the Committee Members to clarify. Their H/Ps are as per list below:

VOLUNTEERS
Steven Poh 012-2333777
Lim Loong Seng 012-3119399
Carol Ong 012-2153606
Razali 017-2766470
Murali 012-2981124
Suminn 012-2095873
Eric Khok 012-2894988


Yours truly,
Steven Poh
TMP RA Chairman

RELATED ARTICLES

1.Tropicana folks want to know status of township