Notes to ‘Part 2 of My Story (1)’
i. Confusing statements
The letter computing the Liquidated Damages dated 16.10.2019 showed the developer as Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd and the landowner as Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan dan Bandar (LPPB). However, the occupancy certificate dated 2nd October 2019 shows that the buildings on the land are owned by Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd. (Extracted from My Story Part 2)
I am confused as to who is the land owner. My first question to Puan Della (The development officer of LPPB) when a few house owners and I met her in her office was – ‘What is the role of LPPB in this project?’ Her answer was ‘Land owner’.
Despite being a land owner, LPPB has not signed on the S&P as required in the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Rules 2008.
Clause 11 of the Housing Development Rules 2008 says:
No licensed housing developer who is not the proprietor of the land upon which a housing development is carried out shall enter into any contract of sale of any housing accommodation in that housing development unless the proprietor of the land is also a party to such contract of sale and agrees to the sale of the land for the purposes specified in such contract of sale.
Clause 1.82 states:
If the housing developer is NOT the proprietor of the land,
1.8.2.1 the tripatriate sale and purchase agreement between the land owner,
the housing Developer and the house purchaser…
The above is one of many things I wanted to find out from Puan Della when I tried to make an appointment to meet her for the second time. Perhaps, there has been an amendment to the Housing Development Rules. Things could have changed since 1995 when I was director of Pekway Constructors Sdn. Bhd. when LPPB signed the tripartite agreement.
The original Development Plan dated July 1995 shows that the owners are the following and signed by both parties.
1. Topwira Corporation Sdn Bhd and
2. LPPB
The amended development plan in August 2018 shows only Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd. as Land Owner. What happened in-between is another thing I wanted to learn.
I am concerned because in the event we (the house owners and I on behalf of my son) decide to take this matter to court I do not know what is the role played by LPPB. This is why my first question to LPPB at our meeting on 16.11.2022 was – ‘What is the role of LPPB?’
The statement dated 16.10.2019 on liquidated damages signed by Tai Fung Ming as managing director of Topwira states the following:
1. Developer – Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd.
2. Landowner – LPPB
(The amended development plan was in August 2018 and the statement above is in October 2019. I am confused).
The occupancy Certificate dated 1.10.2019 states that the owner of the houses on the land is Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd. LPPB’s name is nowhere to be found.
The deed of mutual covenant dated July 2014 and signed by Jessie Lee as director states the following:
1. Developer – Topwira corporation Sdn. Bhd
2. Landowner – LPPB.
The progress billings to the bank shows the developer as Topwira and Landowner as LPPB.
I am still left with the question of ‘what is the role of LPPB’ in this development.
On 25.11.2022 I received a Notice of Demand from a lawyer acting for Rosemary Ahping and Della Sinidol of Pembangunan Perumahan Dan Bandar (LPPB). On this Notice of Demand, it says that LPPB has a joint venture agreement with Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd.
I telephoned the head of the legal department of LPPB and she confirmed that this lawyer acting for Rosemary and Della of LPPB is not in the panel of solicitors of LPPB. She added that this is the first time she heard about the Letter of Demand sent to me. She promised to check with Rosemary and Della and let me know the facts but has yet to confirm. I am now even more confused.
The Letter of Demand further states that the development is in accordance with the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Enactment 1978 and the rules made thereunder.
Is the development in accordance with the Housing Development Enactment? This will be interesting to explore. Stayed tune.
The Notice was received by me at around 4.30pm on 25.11.2022. The letterhead had the name of Brenndon Keith Soh on it. I thought that Brenndon had resigned from this legal firm. However, this confusion was cleared the following day when I received the same notice of Demand with a new letterhead and a sentence stating that this letter supersedes the former letter which was inadvertently printed on a former letterhead.
With the new Government I hope the Public Servants will be more transparent and responsibly respond to questions asked of them.
To be continued…
Comments