Intimidating letter from Messrs Ronny Cham & Co dated 30.11.2022

 

Here is the letter from Messrs Ronny Cham & Co dated 30.11.2022. (Written without prejudice)

Our clients have issued you a letter on 28.11.2022 stating the conditions upon which they will convene the said meeting.

Besides the conditions stated in our clients’ letter, we have our clients’ further instructions to state that you shall also be responsible for our clients’ costs in engaging our clients’ project architect, engineer, surveyor and the M&E engineer to attend the said meeting. If you are not agreeable, our clients will not guarantee their attendance.

Note: This requirement seems excessive for addressing basic issues like defects. It places an unfair financial burden on buyers, potentially discouraging them from pursuing legitimate complaints. This could explain the prevalence of substandard work in Sabah, as developers may leverage such tactics to avoid accountability.

Further, since you have extended your complaints to numerous professional bodies, government ministries & Departments, including newspapers, it is your responsibility to ensure that every such recipient of your complaints must be present at the meeting. Please let us have a copy of them to evidence that you have invited them to the meeting.

TAKE NOTICE that if you fail, neglect or otherwise refuse to invite any of such recipients of your complaints (with no evidence of such invitation having been extended to our clients), or if any one of such recipients fails or neglects to attend the said meeting, they will be deemed to be parties not interested in the complaints, and any further publication of your complaints to them would be deemed defamatory, with intent to disparage our clients’ reputation, integrity and goodwill as the developer of Taman Puncak Vistana. Further action will be taken against you without further reference to you.

Note: This demand appears intimidating, aiming to overwhelm buyers with logistical and legal threats. The lengthy, aggressive tone of the letter feels unnecessarily complex, raising questions about whether legal fees are tied to verbosity. A simpler response, like declining the meeting, would suffice. This approach also fuels suspicion about whether local legal protections in Sabah (e.g., restrictions on West Malaysian lawyers) enable such practices.

The lack of clarity adds to the buyers’ frustration and confusion, potentially discouraging them from pursuing their rights. This highlights a need for clearer communication and fairer processes in addressing property disputes.

The letter’s tone and demands seem designed to intimidate and financially burden buyers, possibly to deter complaints about defective work. This raises broader concerns about accountability in Sabah’s property development sector and the role of legal practices in protecting developers over consumers.