Home

453 crooked developers

28 March 2007 - 6:34pm

453 housing developers blacklisted
28 Mar 2007(NST)
Heidi Foo

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
KUALA LUMPUR: A total of 453 errant housing developers have been blacklisted by the Housing and Local Government Ministry for various offences.

As of Dec 31 last year, 163 housing developers and 461 directors failed to comply with the awards given out by the Homebuyers Claims Tribunal.

The remaining 290 developers were found to have failed to settle compound notices issued to them for failing to produce their respective progress reports (Laporan Kemajuan Projek).

At a press conference held yesterday, the ministry’s director of monitoring and enforcement, Dr G. Parame- swaran, said the authorities were constantly monitoring the blacklisted companies to ensure they did not assume other names.

"We will run a check to see if they have been previously blacklisted. The names of the directors involved will remain on our list and they are not allowed to operate under new development firms or undertake new projects until they have complied with the tribunal order or settle the compounds.

"We are taking a more aggressive approach which includes raiding developers’ premises to ensure they obey the laws.

"While it is our role to protect the interest of housebuyers, we are also aware that the developers contribute much to the growth of the economy. Therefore, we want to ensure that the housing sector maintains a healthy growth," said Parameswaran.

He said the ministry had received more than 16,500 complaints from the public between 2001 and 2006. The complaints have been classified under 13 categories.

"The most number of complaints received falls under the category of ‘Liquidated Assessment Damages’ which recorded a total of 3,611 cases while the lowest was 97 cases under the ‘Infrastructure’ category. Of the 3,611 cases, 1,978 were solved," he said.

Last year, Selangor recorded 2,029 complaints which was the highest compared with other states. The complaints made up 45 per cent of the total complaints recorded.

Kuala Lumpur was the second highest with 1,291 complaints.

He also said about RM1.6 million was collected from 1,051 developers who were issued with compound notices from 2003 till Dec 31 last year.

"Of these, 685 notices were issued for failure to produce their progress reports, 626 for not complying with the housing development advertisement guidelines and three for other offences under the Housing Development Act (Control and Licensing) 1966."

 

Comments

7 April 2007 - 6:44am — Guest

453 crooked developers

From the report, a summary can be drawn:

1. BLACKLIST

163 (with 461 directors) not complying with the Award + 290 failed to provide progress report

= 453 blacklisted Developers

453 Developers blacklisted is small in compare with the number and speed of increase reported below, especially when the number of years taken to blacklist this 453 and the magnitude of damage or rewards or the size of project involved were NOT provided.

2. 16,500 complaints over 6 years will come to an average of 2,750 per year.

Can this be compared (not to speak of correctness) with the figure from below when for abandoned project alone in 2004, 75, 365 units were abandoned? Most probably, the abandoned was not in their categories or ignored!!

3. 1.6 million RM compounded from 2003 until 2006 for not providing progress report and not complying the advertisement guideline, from 1,051 developers. So,

-average RM400,000/year, or, around RM1,600/developer or RM400/developer/year.

Can this be compared with 7billion over 227 projects in 2004 alone?

-average around 31million RM/project!

-Or, 31 million RM / developer if 227 projects by 227 developers!

So, should the Developer hesitate to by-pass the HDA?

4. Obviously, the Tribunal had not taken action along the following Clause on the HDA Amendment 2002.

 

16AD.

(1)

Any person who fails to comply with an award made by the Tribunal within the period specified therein commits an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

 

(2)

In the case of a continuing offence, the offender, shall, in addition to the penalties under subsection (1), be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues after conviction.

 

But, is blacklist been stipulated in the HDA? Or, rather suspension of license?

 

Building and Common Property (Maintenance & Management) BillSubmitted by Anonymous on 2 March 2007 - 2:59am.

SHOULD THE ACTS BE AMENDED OR THE HEADS OF MOH BE AMENDED???

"In 2004 alone (the figures for 2005 have not been posted yet) the ministry issued a total of 1,070 new housing developers’ licences and renewed another 354. During the last 15 years, from 1990 to 2004, a total of 12,076 developers’ licences were issued, while another 5,639 licences were renewed."

Building and Common Property (Maintenance & Management) Bill Submitted by Anonymous on 16 February 2007 - 12:01am.

Small history of the Housing Act can be found from :

---------------------

Figures tell

In 2004 alone, 227 housing projects were abandoned in all the States of Peninsular Malaysia, involving some 75,356 houses worth RM7 billion. Selangor topped the list, with its band of rogue developers abandoning 55 projects, followed by Penang (24 projects), Negeri Sembilan (22) and Perak and Johor (19 each).

--------

WHAT HAD BEEN DEMONSTRATED BY THESE FIGURES in related to other two reports are:

1. The Tribunal was working, somehow! And, they did collect compound of 1.6million from the Developer (without knowing how much they had totally compounded the Developers!).

So, they had caught the FLIES!

2. But their Enforcement Department had let go the Abandon project with 7 billions!

They forgot the LIONS!

So, can the Monitoring & Enforcement Department monitor the Blacklisted? And, why can't the list of Developers and their Directors be opened and monitored by the public?

They fined "some" Developers peanut but costing the purchaser Blood & Sweat for a simple reason that they cannot present, read or understand what sort of information are meaningful or essential together with figures!!

 

 

13 April 2007 - 12:43pm — Guest

453 crooked developers

When comparing with the figures in

Building and Common Property (Maintenance & Management) Bill

Submitted by Anonymous on 16 February 2007 - 12:01am.

Small history of the Housing Act

The report is talking peanuts. From the report, a summary can be drawn:

1. BLACKLIST

163 (with 461 directors) not complying with the Award + 290 failed to provide progress report

= 453 blacklisted Developers

453 Developers blacklisted is small in compare with the number and speed of increase reported , especially when the number of years taken to blacklist this 453 and the magnitude of damage or rewards or the size of project involved were NOT provided.

2. 16,500 complaints over 6 years will come to an average of 2,750 per year.

Can this be compared (not to speak of correctness) with the number of units ithe abandoned project alone in 2004, when 75, 365 units were abandoned!

3. 1.6 million RM compounded from 2003 until 2006 for not providing progress report and not complying the advertisement guideline, from 1,051 developers. So,

-average RM400,000/year, or, around RM1,600/developer or RM400/developer/year.

Can this be compared with 7billion over 227 projects in 2004 alone?

-average around 31million RM/project!

-Or, 31 million RM / developer if 227 projects by 227 developers!

So, should the Developer hesitate to by-pass the HDA?

4. Obviously, the Tribunal had not taken action along the following Clause on the HDA Amendment 2002.

6AD. (1)

Any person who fails to comply with an award made by the Tribunal within the period specified therein commits an offence and shall on conviction be liable to a fine not exceeding five thousand ringgit or to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years or to both.

(2)
In the case of a continuing offence, the offender, shall, in addition to the penalties under subsection (1), be liable to a fine not exceeding one thousand ringgit for each day or part of a day during which the offence continues after conviction.

But, is blacklist been stipulated in the HDA? Or, rather suspension of license?

 

P.S. Mr Ong, this is my second time making the comment to this posting. If misleading posting should not be commented, please advise!

27 April 2007 - 2:58pm — Guest

Well, if the government is

Well, if the government is serious with the eradication of corruption, they should first deal with this. The number of projects abandoned and seeing that these crooked developers face little punishment for their irresponsibilities smell a very big corruption.