Better protection for house buyers

 

Is it for better protection for house buyers or for some other reason?

Here is an email I wrote on 16.8.2023 to the Minister in charge of Housing and copied to the Mayor, DBKK officers, LPPB, Sabah Surveyors Board, Land & Survey Department, Datuk Jamili Nais, and Datuk Roland Chia (PA to the Chief Minister - Datuk Hajiji).

Dear Datuk Seri Joachim Gunsalam,

In a Daily Express article dated 11.8.2023, I read the following:

“In general, this enactment is a law for the licensing control of housing development matters in Sabah and serves to protect the interest of home buyers….”.

This enactment is to protect the interest of home buyers of ‘sick housing’ projects so that they will not turn into abandoned housing.

“The essence of the amendment to this Bill is firstly, to protect homebuyers, especially from problematic housing development. Secondly, the purpose is also to prevent any housing developers from taking the easy way out and neglecting their responsibilities when faced with certain problems.”

Datuk Seri Dr Joachim Gunsalam, are these amendments to protect the house buyers or the developers?

You probably do not read emails sent to your department, so let me state a few of the matters I had written to your department.  

Firstly, requests to the developer of Vistana Heights for a meeting with house buyers were responded to by their lawyer, Ronny Cham of Ronny Cham and Co. who insisted that the meeting will be held in a meeting room in a hotel to be paid for by house buyers. The lawyer also said that the house buyers must confirm that they will be accompanied by a lawyer; an engineer; an architect; and a surveyor. The letter further said that it is the buyers’ responsibility to invite relevant parties such as DBKK, Ministry of Local Government and Housing, etc.

Another letter said that besides the conditions above it is the buyers’ responsibility for the developer’s cost in engaging the developer’s project architect, engineer, surveyor and M&E engineer to attend the said meeting. If the house buyers are not agreeable, the developers will not guarantee their attendance.

In addition, we were instructed to provide our invitation to professional bodies, government ministries & departments, including newspapers.

Isn’t the above the case of a housing developer taking the easy way out and neglecting their responsibility when faced with problems?

Secondly, and more importantly, my major complaint was that the occupancy certificate was obtained by submitting fabricated as-built survey plans. The difference in the height of the house platform and that of the road was fabricated and reduced from more than 4 feet to less than one foot.

Several amendments were made by the developer and the professionals without the consent of the house buyers which is against the Housing Development Act 1966. 

I ask you, Datuk Seri Dr. Joachim Gunsalam, what is the purpose of the Housing Development Act 1966   if housing developers and the professionals involved in the project can do as they wish -  going  against the stipulations in the said  Act?

You talked about ‘sick housing’ projects so that they will not turn into abandoned housing. It has been more than 3 years since the occupancy certificate for Vistana Heights was obtained. Four semi-detached houses that were not able to be completed in phase 1A due to landslip behind the houses have been left abandoned. The 4 houses were part of Phase 1A and with a stroke of the pen turned into Phase 1C. There was no approval sought from the house buyers as required under the Sales & Purchase Agreement. This is an eyesore to the house buyers there as well as to visitors to Vistana Heights.

Three house buyers have extended their driveway onto the road by 2 to 3 feet.

The height of the road which was supposed to be raised, as instructed by the deputy permanent secretary of the Ministry of Local Government and Housing, Mr. Stanley Chong, has yet to be done.

My email to the mayor inquiring if there were new rules by DBKK that allowed such extensions has gone unanswered.

In the event of accidents due to the extension of driveways onto the road will either DBKK or the Ministry of Housing Development be responsible?

Several complaint letters to DBKK and to the mayor were not replied. Is there a new enactment to say that civil servants need not reply to queries by the public? Are the civil servants and officials oblivious to these complaints or just couldn't care less?

Repair works on complaints made to the developer within one month of receiving the keys in December 2019, was carried out by the developer’s contractor only in May 2023 which is one month after the defect liability period and 3 years after the original complaint.

Complaints that the said repair works were not carried out properly, were simply answered by the lawyer that the defect liability period is over.  How do you or we house buyers respond to such nonsensical response from the developer and their lawyer?

Once the driveway was reconstructed and my car was able to access the house I called a contractor to fit the lights and ceiling fans to the house. Only then did I discover that not a single hook for hanging the ceiling fan was installed. The request to have this installed was refused stating that this was reported after the defect liability period. Similarly, floor tiles that were not properly laid was refused on the same grounds.

The Lembaga Jurukur Sabah (Sabah Surveyors Board) came to inspect and did a survey of the road height and platform height on 28.6.23 which is more than 6 months after my written complaint to them. There has been no reply from them on the investigation carried out by them more than a month ago.

How do you, the Minister of Local Government and Housing, Datuk Seri Dr. Joachim Gunsalam intend to address all these anomalies?

The problem is not only with the housing developer and their lawyer but with the professionals who fabricated documents to obtain the occupation certificate, DBKK officers who had approved the amended development plan, LPPB who refused to answer questions asked including the question as to whether the general manager had instructed a lawyer not in the panel of lawyers to act on behalf of LPPB.

I have no hesitation to escalate this matter to higher authorities if your department is not willing to take this matter seriously.