Luqman's musings

  The lawyer for the developer, Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd. wrote to Persatuan Arkitek Malaysia Sabah Chapter (PAM) a letter with disinformation. This letter was then forwarded to PAM Malaysia. PAM did not write to me to verify the authenticity of the contents of the letter. When I received a copy of the letter from Lembaga Arkitek Malaysia at the end of March 2023, I wrote two emails to the lawyer asking him to explain the wrong information given but have yet to receive a reply.  Are lawyers allowed to write such disinformation and get away with it? Here are my emails to the lawyer.

luqman michel  <luqmanm2002@yahoo.co.uk> To: Stanley.Chong@sabah.gov.my Cc: mayor@dbkk.sabah.gov.my , aduan.lppb@sabah.gov.my , jtu@sabah.gov.my , ljsabah@gmail.com , eims@dbkk.sabah.gov.my Mon, 27 Mar at 06:53 Dear Mr. Stanley Chong, I hope to receive the minutes of the meeting held on 10.3.2023 soon. Meanwhile, I received an email on 21.3.2023 from PAM which included a letter dated 29.9.2022 from Mr. Ronny Cham, the lawyer acting for the developer of Vistana Heights. 

  KKTP - Stanley Chong - alleged fraudulent development plan approved Read the stages I have gone through before writing to Kementerian Kerajaan Tempatan dan Perumahan (KKTP) - Ministry of Local Housing and Government. I give everyone enough time to respond before escalating the matter to higher authorities. It has taken me 3 years, since I first complained to Ms. Jessie Lee of Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd, to get to KKTP.   Here is my email to Mr. Stanley Chong, the deputy permanent secretary of KKTP copied to his PA.  

This is a continuation of my post ' Development plan and as built survey ' dated 10.12.2022. The image below is the as-built-survey drawing of S11 (Lot 19). The green dot is where the driveway is. The figure 34.28 on the 15.24m road is the height of the road in metres which equals 110.31 feet. The porch height is shown as 34.63m which is equal to 111.44 feet. This means the difference in height between the road and the porch is (111.44 - 110.31) 1.13 feet. 

 Refer to the Plans below: The platform height of the Original Development Plan is 101 feet. The platform height of the Amended Development Plan is 106.26 feet.  Was this change required/instructed by the Authorities and approved in writing by the purchaser as stipulated in the S&P? No! Back to the question in the Daily Express, who is at fault? Developer, architect, consultant engineers, DBKK or LPPB or all of them? The developer, architect, consultant engineers and LPPB do not want to meet me or answer my questions. I believe they should take the bull by the horns, address the problems and move on.

                                                      Proton Wira backing up the driveway. This post is an attempt to answer the question on the newspaper article attached – ‘Who is responsible for this?’ The architects are appointed as consultants for drawing up development plans based on the developer's ideas and on the initial ground topographical survey done by the Licensed Surveyor who is also appointed as a consultant by the developer. The consulting Engineer appointed by the developer is also involved in the development planning from the initial stage to the end. Likewise, the architect and the Surveyor are involved from beginning to end. Who then is responsible if standard Malaysian cars are unable to be driven up th...

  All house owners were given water bills from the period of handing over the keys to the month of June 2022. We received the bills sometime in July 2022 with the note from the management company, Puncak Vistana Management Services, stating that they are sorry for not sending the invoices in time. I was shocked at the volume of water that had been ‘consumed’ by a vacant house. I have planted a few vegetables in the back yard which I water on non-rainy days and was surprised that I had used 64 cubic  metres of water for the period May – June 2022. I checked the charges for the same period of my neighbour and found it to be 34 cubic metres. That is a difference of 30 cubic metres.

  The letter computing the Liquidated Damages dated 16.10.2019 showed the developer as Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd and the landowner as Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan dan Bandar (LPPB). However, the occupancy certificate dated 2 nd October 2019 shows that the buildings on the land are owned by Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd. On 19.12.2019, the managing director of Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd, Tai Fung Ming, commonly known to the house buyers as Monica Lee, handed me the keys to house S9 purchased by my son. A letter signed by Tai Fui Ming showing the calculation of liquidated damages was also handed to me. The letter computing the Liquidated Damages dated 16.10.2019 shows the developer as Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd and the landowner as Lembaga Pembangunan Perumahan dan Bandar (LPPB). However, the occupancy certificate dated 2 nd October 2019 shows that the buildings on the land are owned by Topwira Corporation Sdn. Bhd.

    Prelude One of my sons' bought a semi-detached house at Taman Puncak Vistana Phase 1A, Iramanis, Jalan Bantayan, Kota kinabalu, Sabah. The cost of the house is more than a million ringgit. On 19.12.2019, I was handed keys to the house by the developer and was asked to acknowledge receipt. I was also handed a letter from the developer, addressed to my son, re computation of Liquidated Damages for late delivery. A copy of the Occupation Certificate was attached. On even date, 19.12.2019, I was also handed a notification from DBKK which stated that no renovation shall be carried out without any written approval from the local authorities. I signed the notification stating that renovation plans will be submitted to DBKK in the event we intend to carry out renovation works to the said property.