Confusion (PART 2)

 


Furthermore, you, (Datuk Bernard Liew), stated that there was no misconduct by the licensed surveyor responsible for the as-built survey for Vistana Heights. I seek clarification on the following anomalies in the survey:

Height Discrepancies Opposite Unit S9:

The as-built survey indicates heights opposite the gate at 31.74m (104.13 feet) and 32.11m (105.35 feet), with the platform height at 32.38m (106.23 feet).

This results in height differences of 2.10 feet (106.23 – 104.13) or 0.88 feet (106.23 – 105.35) between the platform and road levels.

The 1998 development plan, however, specifies a height difference of 4.26 feet (106.26 – 102 feet). Please explain how these figures reconcile.


 Instead of answering the question above the director of L&S asked me to take legal action. 

Anomaly at Unit S7 (House No. 11):

The as-built survey shows a platform height of 28.95m (95.08 feet) and a road height of 29.65m (97.28 feet), suggesting the platform is lower than the road.

However, photographic evidence LINK clearly shows the platform is higher than the road. Please clarify this discrepancy.


Anomaly at Unit S7 (House No. 11):

The as-built survey shows a platform height of 28.95m (95.08 feet) and a road height of 29.65m (97.28 feet), suggesting the platform is lower than the road.

However, photographic evidence clearly shows the platform is higher than the road. Please clarify this discrepancy.

 

Instead of answering these questions I am asked to take legal action. What has come of my country? 

Location: Kota Kinabalu, Sabah, Malaysia

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Bad experience with Sabah architects

Image
The lady in the photo above is 5 feet 2 inches. The as-built survey plan says the height difference between the road height and the house platform height is 1 foot. Are the architects blind? I refer to the views expressed by the Chairman of PAM (Sabah chapter) in Forum on 2.3.2025. The Chairman stated that the Daily Express report on over-certifying projects unfairly generalized architects and risked damaging the reputation of the entire profession.  
Read more

SPRM (MACC) and Vistana Heights

Image
  Someone asked me how the MACC is involved in the Vistana Heights case if I don’t have any proof that corruption is involved. That is an excellent question. We all assume that corruption is only when a bribe is involved. However, a closer look at the brochure from the MACC shows the following:                                                                                                                   Please click on the image above. ...
Read more

Are architects liable for fabricated documents submitted to authorities

Image
In 2020, many of my well-meaning friends told me that I have no course of action against the professionals involved in obtaining the Occupancy Certificate for Vistana Heights project with fabricated as-built survey plan. I believe all those involved, including DBKK senior officers, LPPB (Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan Dan Bandar) and its GM Rosemary Ahping, Arkitek LYS, Lembaga Juruukur Sabah etc. will be answerable for how the Occupancy Certificate was issued. Hopefully, my complaint to SPRM (MACC), LJS, DBKK, Lembaga Arkitek Malaysia will be looked into.
Read more