Wednesday, September 06, 2006
[RealEdge] TodayOnline Forum : Owners and MCs need to stop sparring / Discrepancies in by-laws, which favour the MCs
 This story was printed from TODAYonline | |
 | |
| Owners and MCs need to stop sparring Wednesday ?September 6, 2006 Don't blame only MCs, MAs ?owners are responsible, too Letter from Andrew Lioe I feel that Mr Tan Keng Ann's letter "Owners right to take en bloc process in hand" (Aug 30) was unfair to management councils (MCs) and managing agents (MAs). Firstly, the management corporation is tasked to look after the common property and the finances collected from the management and sinking fund. The MC is not responsible for selling the entire estate. Secondly, it is unfair to blame the MC and the MA for the lack of participation in the affairs of the management corporation. The law has provided for all owners to be given ample notice of such meetings and yet, many do not attend. The few owners that volunteer year after year as MC members not only put in precious time and effort, but also suffer the brickbats and endless complaints on any issue under the sun. MAs do their part to assist, advise and execute the plans and directions of the MC. They endure accusations of "manipulation" Mr Tan's support for preventive maintenance is to be applauded. But the reality is this: There are various kinds of owners in one estate, each with their own plans, objectives for the unit and financial capability. The reason that the management and sinking fund contribution is reviewed every year at every AGM, is to allow all owners to participate and decide for themselves which options they prefer. For instance, there is the choice between preventive maintenance where all capital expenditure items are met through a hefty monthly contribution, or don't-fix-it- In many instances, MCs and MAs are left in a "damned if I do, damned if I don't" situation. MCs and MAs that raise the monthly conservancy fees considerably will get a barrage of questions from increased numbers of "interested" owners attending the meetings, demanding their removal or resignation. But these same owners shy away from AGMs when everything is status quo and volunteers are required to renew the council! Discrepancies in by-laws, which favour the MCs Letter from Teo Yew Cheok I applaud Patrick Sio's suggestion, "Third party needed in condo disputes" (Sep 2) for an impartial authority who can hear out the disputes between condominium owners/developers or owners/owner- In our condo, there are discrepancies in the by-laws, and there are by-laws that discriminate against non-resident owners. At council meetings, we spend much of the time squabbling. The management council, which is made up of owner-residents, does not seem open to suggestions and is protected by the by-laws they laid down themselves. As owners of a unit, we had to show proof of residency to be entitled to a carpark space, even though we had not then decided to live there on a permanent basis. After our unit was tenanted, we were told we had given away "all rights" to the use of the condo's facilities. We could accept this rule, but for the question as to why the guests who are brought in by owner-residents have more rights to their usage than we do. Also, I would suggest rotating the appointment of managing agents/auditors every other year. An estate that is well run makes us owners feel it is as much ours, as the owner-residents' | |
| Copyright MediaCorp Press Ltd. All rights reserved. | |
Real Estate News Provided Freely
You are receiving Individual Emails Change Delivery Settings
Visit Your Group | Yahoo! Groups Terms of Use | Unsubscribe
SPONSORED LINKS
.
__,_._,___
// posted by Shajahan @ 8:50 AM 