basically is fair to charge monthly for 2nd car sticker, but kind of hard for those owner whom work from 8am till 5pm for 5 days and the office does not open on every saturday as well (hard to remember which saturday is open or close).

Also if the money collected will be wisely use for the building mainatenance, i would definately agree on that. Seems that these few years the building is getting old and a lot of fungus.

Lately there is a lot of mosquito and less activities of having fogging.

The office is open on the first and third saturdays every month. So that shoud be easy to remember.

The application is now open to owners only and will be open to all including tenants from 15 August onwards. All outstanding maintenance fees and sinking fund must be settled before one is eligible to apply. Please read Bulletin No.3 which has been sent to your home. Otherwise a copy may be obtained from the Management Office.

The monetary contribution for the additional parking will be utilized for the benefit of all residents. The basic tenet of imposing a contribution for additional cars are so that owners who do not need to use it can be fairly compensated. The contribution is not meant to punish anyone.

There are a lot of owners who do not need the additional parking bays. However they pay the same maintenance fees for the facilities. Visitors' parking bays being one of the commonly owned facility, are being used by owners with more than one car so much so that visitors of some owners (who pay the same maintenance fees) cannot find parking. These owners with one or more car are actually riding free on the maintenance fees paid by others who dont need the parking bays. And when these owners need a parking bay for their visitors, they are unable to find one. It is like this: I dont need it but I subsidize your parking bay for you. To add insult to injury,I cannot even get a parking bay for my visitor when I need to. The maintenance of roads, security and lighting at the parking bays are being paid for by all owners. This is unfair to those who have no need for the additional bay,

I have heard some owners complain that it is their right to park their additional cars. Since others dont have an additional car it is their loss. I beg to disagree. The silent majority who have no need to use the parking bays should not be made to pay for the need of those who have want to use the common facilities which all of us are paying for. Some owners are also not happy with the Committee. They have said that we should vote them out. "We voted them in and they now want to take money from us. We should form another group and kick them out." My personal opinion is that we all should have more foresight and think of what is good for all of us as a community. Everything is geting more and more costly. Yes, Additional parking will cost us more. But eventually it will cost more to all of us if those who need to use the facility are not paying for what they are using. We should be magnanimous and pay for what we need to use. After all there is no such thing as a free lunch in this world. Everyone including the Committee (who volunteer their time and effort but are not paid) who needs an additional parking bay need to pay for it. I am sorry if I hurt some with my words but I stand firm in my belief in this issue.

Money collected will be channelled to upkeep the common facilities of the condominium. I am sure you will hear from the Committee soon on how and what their plans are to upgrade the facilities in the condominium. After all our property cannot be fetching RM200k when others in the area are going for RM450k. This money like all contribution and payment made by owners are subject to audit by external auditors and abuse of it will invite criminal prosecution. So I trust that such an event would not occur.

Let us give full support for a better community living. A safer and conducive living environment for all our loved ones.

BUMP!

To : Mr. Robert Koh, Chairman of Joint Management Committee of Vista Komanwel C

In relation to the implementation of a systematic security rule for Vista Komanwel C, I hereby wish to complain to the Joint Management Committee (“JMC”) regarding the implementation of the fee charge for the “Additional Car Sticker” effective from 1 September 2008.

For your information, I am an owner staying in this condominium since 1999. For all this time (1999-2008), each unit owner was given an additional car sticker for a 2nd car to be parked inside the condominium free of charge, provided that his maintenance charges/fees have been settled and on the basis of first-come-first-serve basis. This is fair considering that each unit is only given an extra car parking bay, while parking in the visitor carpark bays is subject to availability. I have no problems with the basis of the allocation of the visitor car parking bays by the then management.

I am therefore disappointed with the Joint Management Body (“JMB”) for the proposal to implement the imposition of a fee on the additional car sticker without due and prior consultation with the owners. The new fee will be an additional financial burden to the owners especially with the current increasing living costs. While some quarters may argue that since not all owners require additional car parking bays and that therefore it is only so-called “fair” to impose such fee on the owners who do have such requirements, I highlight the fact that ownership of two cars per household is common these days especially for families and in view of the poor local transportation system. As such, the “penalization” of these 2nd car owners is mind-boggling and is an argument which does not hold water.

JMB of Vista Komanwel C was established followed by the enactment of the Building & Common Property (Maintenance & Management) Act, 2007 (“BCP Act”), which was effected on 12 April 2007. Pursuant to Clause 8 of the BCP Act, the duties of the JMB are, inter-alia, as follows:

(a) to maintain the common property in good serviceable condition;
(b) to fix and impose charges for the maintenance works;
(c) to ensure the Building Maintenance Fund is audited and provide financial statements to purchasers; and
(d) to enforce house rules.

According to the BCP Act, it only provides for the collecting of maintenance charges from owners. Currently, the owners are paying a monthly maintenance fee of RM0.17 per square feet (“Maintenance Charges”) to JMC. In August 2008, JMC issued a bulletin stating the importance of security issue for residents. I am pleased that JMC regards the security issue as of paramount importance. This is an important issue to all owners as security has always been the top priority for a condominium dweller. As such, the security fees already form part of the Maintenance Charges.

Therefore it is surprising that another August 2008 JMC bulletin indicated the collection of a monthly “maintenance fee” of RM60 for each visitor parking bay from September 2008 onwards. The proposition by JMC is clearly in addition to the Maintenance Charges and the imposition of such a fee is not provided for by the Act. JMC therefore is not empowered by the Act to charge a “maintenance fee” for the additional car parking bay.

Secondly, the imposition of a monthly "maintenance fee" on the visitor parking bays is tantamount to a rental of private parking bays. A rental collection of such nature requires an operating licence to be applied from Dewan Bandaraya Kuala Lumpur ("DBKL"). Pursuant thereto, JMC is not empowered by the Act and also not allowed by DBKL if without licence, to charge fees for the visitor parking bays.

My point is:- the monitoring of the additional car sticker could be done without the imposition of a fee. As highlighted, the previous management was able to allocate such stickers without imposing any fee. I strongly believe that there should not be any problem in the monitoring of the additional car stickers as it only requires the implementation of the issuance of the said sticker with proper registration and conditions, and this can form part of the “House Rules” as provided by Clause 14 of the BCP Act. Proper management CAN be undertaken with disciplined enforcement and does not always have to involve the financial aspect.

In view of the impending implementation of the fee structure for the “Additional Car Sticker” on 1 September 2008, I appeal to JMC to suspend the fee imposition with immediate effect pending a REVIEW to be undertaken by JMC on this matter urgently. In the meantime, please continue with the registration for those owners who require the additional car parking bay. This is to facilitate the monitoring of the additional car owners, and is in line with the security policy of JMC.

I hope that the JMC will listen and respond to the views of the owners which it represents, to prevent any perception that it is acting ultra vires in carrying out its duties and responsibilities in accordance with the BCP Act.