Luqman's musings

  I have been trying to organise a meeting between house owners and the developer, Topwira Corporation Sdn Bhd. to discuss issues that matter. I am in receipt of a letter from a lawyer acting on behalf of the developer which states that I have no right to represent my son living in the US who has bought a house in Vistana Heights. The letter states that I or the other purchasers may proceed to engage Solicitors to communicate with their clients on any matter touching on the Taman Puncak Vistana.

  The image above is the as-built survey of the first two semi-detached houses which were subsequently changed to a 3 story detached house. Note the land slip marked as 15.51m. The original height was 23.86. This means the land slip is (23.86 - 15.51) 8.35 metres. That is more than a 27 feet slip. This house has yet to be completed and is an eye-sore. I asked Mr. Andy Osman, the architect of LPPB, to find out why there is no retention wall behind the houses with a steep fall of about 20 feet.

The image below is the as-built-survey drawing of S9 (Lot 15). The green dot is where the driveway is. The figure 32.00 on the 15.24m road is the height of the road in metres which equals to 104.99 feet. The porch height is shown as 32.38m which is equal to 106.23 feet. This means the difference in height between the road and the porch is (106.23 - 104.99) 1.24 feet.  The actual difference on the ground is about 5 feet.  This is a section of the as-built survey submitted to DBKK to obtain the occupancy certificate. 

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...

                                                   There is more than one way to skin a cat. Yesterday I received a strange letter stating that the developer is not willing to have a meeting with me on the Vistana Heights issues because I have no Locus Standi. The above reminds me of Einstein’s saying: There is no limit to stupidity! I say it is strange because in legal terms, Locus Standi essentially applies to a plaintiff's attempt to show to the court that there is ample relation or correlation or cause of action to the plaintiff from the suit. In other words, it applies to a person's capacity to put a case before the court of law or to testify before the court of law.