The meeting with KKTP on 10.3.2023 – Part 1

 

The meeting on 10.3.2023 on the Vistana Heights issues highlighted a few important matters:

i.                     the Local government and housing authority (KKTP) confirmed that the infrastructure has not been taken over by DBKK.

ii.                   KKTP confirmed that the defect liability period is not over due to the Covid 19 extension.

iii.                 the road was ordered by KKTP to be raised so that the driveways are not steep.

iv.                 the bank guarantee deposited by the developer has not been released.

If the defect liability period is not over, then the Housing Tribunal will have to deal with my complaint on the water discharge under the cement which I was not aware of until the water bill was extended to me in July 2022. All defects complained within the defect liability period must be repaired.

If the bank guarantee has not been cancelled, then the road will be built by DBKK using that fund if the developer does not rebuild the road.

The architect and the surveyor wanted my complaint letters to the professional bodies to be withdrawn.

I had written to the professional bodies and to KKTP only when all attempts at getting responses from the developer, engineer, architect, DBKK and LPPB had failed.

Here is part of my letter to the professional bodies and KKTP:

 Proof that the as-built survey and the amended development plan were fraudulently prepared to obtain OC.

1.                Refer to the photo where my Proton Waja is backing up to my porch. Any further up and the front bumper scrapes the road.

The As-built drawing is in metres. I metre is 3.281 feet.

The as-built-survey drawing of S9 (Lot 15) shows figure 32.00m on the road which is the height of the road in metres which equals to 104.99 feet.

The porch height is shown as 32.38m which is equal to 106.23 feet.

This means the difference in height between the road and the porch is (106.23 - 104.99) 1.24 feet.

The actual height difference between the road and the porch is more than 5 feet. The steps leading to the letter box is an easy way to calculate the height. Each step is about 7 inches high.

 

2.                On the as-built-survey drawing of S11 (Lot 19) the figure 34.28 on the road is the height of the road in metres which equals 112.47 feet.

The porch height is shown as 34.63m which is equal to 113.62 feet.

This means the difference in height between the road and the porch is (113.62 - 112.47) 1.15 feet.

 

The actual difference between the road height and the platform height on the ground is more than 5 feet.

Because the owner of S11 could not drive up the driveway he expanded the driveway and was still unable to drive his 4 wheel up to the porch. He then lengthened the driveway and it has extended about 3 feet onto the road.

The above was accompanied by the Development Plan, the As-built survey plan, the Amended development plan and photos of the steep driveway of house S9 and S11.

The 14 days given to the professionals by the professional bodies to respond is over. There is no question of me withdrawing my complaint letter.  

Misrepresentation

It would appear that Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd. had changed many things first and submitted a revised development plan for approval. There is a letter from Topwira to house buyer no 2 in 2012 that if the authorities do not approve the car porch annexed from the playground then the buyer may rescind the contract.

My son, Faisal, signed the agreement in 2014. The open space had already been annexed to house no 2 but the plans given to my son and many other buyers still showed the open space.

Why were house owners who bought houses after 2012 not given development plans with changes that had already occurred? Is this not misrepresentation?

Notes:

i.                     Are there any lawyers here who can educate me on how serious this misrepresentation is?