Architect and Developer Still Denying Fabricated Drainage Reserve on DPs and As-Built Plans — Case Now in Court

                                                    A picture paints a thousand words

 

The following is my email to LAM and PAM.

from:     Luqman Michel <luqmanmichel@gmail.com>

to:         

    nursanti@lam.gov.my,

    pamsabah@gmail.com

date:     Oct 23, 2026, 10:33 AM

subject: Luqman Michel and LYS Sdn.Bhd

mailed-by:          gmail.com

Dear Sir / Madam,

I refer to my previous emails regarding this matter, which remain unresolved.

The dispute is now before the court. Both the developer and the architect maintain that the development plans (DPs) and as-built survey plans are not fabricated.

One clear example among several is as follows. The DPs dated 1995, 2007 (the version attached to the sale and purchase agreement) and 2018 all show a drainage reserve that does not exist. That reserve collapsed in 2010/2011. The as-built survey plan prepared after the 2018 DP continues to show the same drainage reserve; this plan was submitted to DBKK by the architect in his capacity as Principal Submitting Person.

                                                   

                                      This collapse occurred around 2010/2011

In addition, the lengths of the units from S8 to S3 remain unchanged across the 1995, 2007 and 2018 DPs, despite the land collapse in 2010/2011. By contrast, the as-built survey correctly reflects the reduced lengths of these units. 

The architect has also filed a counterclaim against me, even though I am not a plaintiff in the action (the court has permitted this for efficiency). The counterclaim contains allegations that appear fabricated and that, if pursued, risk being detrimental not only to the architect concerned but also to the wider profession. 

                                                            

The inconsistencies in the counter claim are apparent on the face of the documents themselves. For context, the plaintiff acquired unit S9 for RM1.5 million in 2014. I have evidence of actual transacted prices which I am prepared to show you in person (in Sabah only).

In 2024 I proposed a buy-back of S9 at the then market price of approximately RM2.1 million; after checking with the developer, the architect rejected the proposal. The claim now seeks the current market value together with loss of rental from the original purchase date and all associated costs and expenses.

Would the Institute be prepared to provide, or assist in arranging, expert evidence on the development plans and as-built survey plans? I should be grateful for a response at your earliest convenience.

Thank you and kind regards,

Luqman Michel