This is the reply from Datuk Bernard Liew to my email below.
I have started the process of legal action as suggested by Datuk Liew. Anyone who would like to defray my legal expenses please bank in into my account in Affin Bank No. 200590014607
or into my Paypal account at luqmanmichel@gmail.com
Any contribution will be appreciated.
Here is an email to Datuk Bernard Liew of Jabatan Tanah dan Ukur (Land & Survey Department)
On Thu, Aug 7, 2025 at 9:36 AM luqmanm2002@yahoo.co.uk wrote:
Dear Sr. Bernard Liew Chau Min,
I have copied this email to several other officers of JTU as I don't have another 2 years to wait as time is of essence. Hopefully anyone of you at JTU/LJS would respond.
I refer to your letter (Ref: LJS. 20 Vol. 1/83) dated 15 July 2025, in which you identified DBKK as the authority for the as-built survey plans for Taman Puncak Vistana, Iramanis.
However, in a letter dated 15 January 2025, En. S. Dzulkarnain S. Abdillah stated, “The Board is still looking into your complaint about the as-built survey plans for Taman Puncak Vistana, Iramanis, due to further verification from the authority.” Despite several follow-up emails to LJS seeking clarification on the identity of this authority, I received no response. Additionally, during a meeting on 5 May 2025, Sr. Lifred Wong, Director of DBKK, confirmed that DBKK is not the authority referenced by En. Dzulkarnain.
Clarification on Authority: Please confirm which entity was referred to as the “authority” in En. Dzulkarnain’s letter of 15 January 2025 and address the apparent discrepancy.
Furthermore, you 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.
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 (available at https://luqmanmusings.blogspot.com/2025/06/as-built-survey-s07-house-no-11-and.html) clearly shows the platform is higher than the road. Please clarify this discrepancy. LINK
Platform Height Differences:
The as-built survey and the 1998 development plan show significant differences in platform heights for the following units:
S21: 36.34m (119.22 feet) vs. 112.56 feet (6.66 feet difference)
S22: 36.34m (119.22 feet) vs. 112.56 feet (6.66 feet difference)
S28: 41.91m (137.50 feet) vs. 134.47 feet (3.03 feet difference)
Please provide an explanation for these discrepancies.
Development Plan Approval Timing:
The 1998 development plan was approved in 2018, after the completion of the development. Typically, development plans are submitted and approved before construction begins. This late submission raises concerns about whether the developer sought retrospective approval or amendments to an earlier plan. Please clarify the sequence of events and the rationale for this approval process.
Drainage Reserve Representation:
During my tenure as manager at Jurukur N. Kandiah Sdn. Bhd., I learned that as-built survey plans should reflect actual site conditions, including changes such as a collapsed or slipped drainage reserve on a cliff. The as-built survey for Vistana Heights appears to show the drainage reserve as it was originally, without noting any changes (refer to https://luqmanmusings.blogspot.com/2025/08/drainage-reserve-for-comments-from.html). LINK
Please confirm whether the as-built survey accurately reflects the current state of the drainage reserve and, if not, how this aligns with your statement that there was no misconduct by the licensed surveyor.
I appreciate your prompt attention to these matters and look forward to your detailed response to each point raised.
Yours sincerely,
Luqman Michel
Comments