Apr 10, 2008 ... Q&A: RA Update on CFO and legal suit

-----Original Message-----
From: yogaraj
Sent: Thursday, April 10, 2008 6:18 PM
To: hwabeng1@streamyx.com
Subject: Sanjung Utama - update on CFO and legal suit

       Dear Dato’ Lee     I apologise for the delay in reply as we were waiting for clarification    from our solicitors with regards to our ability to deliver vacant    possession (VP) and keys, in order for us to give you a meaningful    update.     We successfully obtained the Certificate of Fitness for    Occupation("CFO") from MPSJ on 28 March 2008 for Blocks A, B, C and the    retail podium.   However, our ability to deliver vacant possession    ("VP") and keys to the purchasers is always subject to our position    with regards to the injunction specifically, and the legal suit (both    action brought by the directors) as a whole.     During the hearing on 31 March 2008, what was certain is that the Judge    confirmed that the Injunction was no longer in place.  However, what    was not made clear was whether we could proceed to deal with the    properties which are the subject matter of the suit and whether by    doing so, we would be open to the risk of interfering with the    administration of justice.     In view of this, our solicitors advised that we make an application to    the Court to seek consent/ agreement to enable the receivers and    managers to deliver VP and keys to all those entitled to them.  We have    instructed our solicitor to obtain an early hearing date for the    matter.     We will keep you posted on the status of delivering the VP.     Regards     T. Yogaraj 

I find it strange that these matters were not brought to
the judge attention on 31st Mar 2008 and now have to
make another appointment which involves further delay. The hearing on 31st Mar 2008 was supposed to
seek written consent for vp and delivery of keys.

On another matter, the issue on the RM 50 per month parking fees imposed is just too steep. Eventhough, the word FREE is not stated in SPA, neither is the word CHARGEABLE mentioned in SPA. The SPA did mentioned that for additional parking space, the purchaser will have to make payment, which implies that the first parking lot is non-chargeable. The upkeep and maintenance of the parking lots should be cover by the maintenance fees and not be separately charge. This is the norm for all high-rises (condos, apartments, commercial or otherwise). We purchasers can afford to buy the units but with this additional unfair charges imposed on us, can we afford to stay in them ? This unfair practices does not augurs well for the future relationship between management and buyers.

I find it strange that these matters were not brought to
the judge attention on 31st Mar 2008 and now have to
make another appointment which involves further delay. The hearing on 31st Mar 2008 was supposed to
seek written consent for vp and delivery of keys.

On another matter, the issue on the RM 50 per month parking fees imposed is just too steep. Eventhough, the word FREE is not stated in SPA, neither is the word CHARGEABLE mentioned in SPA. The SPA did mentioned that for additional parking space, the purchaser will have to make payment, which implies that the first parking lot is non-chargeable. The upkeep and maintenance of the parking lots should be cover by the maintenance fees and not be separately charge. This is the norm for all high-rises (condos, apartments, commercial or otherwise). We purchasers can afford to buy the units but with this additional unfair charges imposed on us, can we afford to stay in them ? This unfair practices does not augurs well for the future relationship between management and buyers.

I find it strange that these matters were not brought to
the judge attention on 31st Mar 2008 and now have to
make another appointment which involves further delay. The hearing on 31st Mar 2008 was supposed to
seek written consent for vp and delivery of keys.

On another matter, the issue on the RM 50 per month parking fees imposed is just too steep. Eventhough, the word FREE is not stated in SPA, neither is the word CHARGEABLE mentioned in SPA. The SPA did mentioned that for additional parking space, the purchaser will have to make payment, which implies that the first parking lot is non-chargeable. The upkeep and maintenance of the parking lots should be cover by the maintenance fees and not be separately charge. This is the norm for all high-rises (condos, apartments, commercial or otherwise). We purchasers can afford to buy the units but with this additional unfair charges imposed on us, can we afford to stay in them ? This unfair practices does not augurs well for the future relationship between management and buyers.

Hi,
I am a buyer of Rhythm Avenue and supported the rehabilitatio of the project. As we all are quite puzzled why the ex-director's injunction on this project, unless there are more $$$ to be made. Regardless of his intent, I would like to know if there are any actions on the buyers part to take legal actions against the ex-directors? I am just very sored that the ex-directors has the guts to cause more delay for us.

Thanks

Regards
Kelvin

I fully agreed with the Anonymous that we can afford to buy the units but can we afford to stay in them? What puzzle me was why all these “additional” conditions not brought up during one of the buyers meetings and when we about to start to enjoy out hard earned money now we have to shoulder the additional costs.

Please be reminded that this is just a service apartment and not full fledged condominium that most of us (the buyers) are not from well do family but just enough to put a roof over our head.

So again I pray that the manager and receivership can feel our hardship and not to burden us any further. I would like to register our gratefulness to the rehabilitation committees for all the hard works and many thanks especially to Dato Lee.


Site Statistic