I live in a medium cost apartment. Recently I attended the Managemnt Corporation (MC) meeting as an observer and found discrepancies in its management. Therefore I raised questions to the committee, however the chairman acted like a street gangster and refuse to provide valid answers to my questions. This was witnessed by the managing agent as well as other committee members. I walked out of meeting and lodged a complaint with the local council.
The complaint was:
The MC did not maintain two different accounts namely 1. Maintenance Fund Account and 2. Sinking Fund Account since 2009. All the monies were deposited into one account and as at February 2012 the account balance was 59,xxx. The sinking fund should be 53,xxx as at 31-12-2011. Only after my query the MC opened a separate bank account for the sinking fund and transferred 53,xxx into it and kept a balance 6,xxx in the maintenance fund account. With only 6,xxx the MC was unable to meet its monthly expenses therefore caused a financial crisis. Since 2009 the MC has been freely utilizing the monies meant for sinking fund without having a resolution passed to do so.
The local council:
Upon receiving my complaint the local council's (Commissioner of Building) C.O.B unit sent a letter to the MC and requested for an explanation on the discrepancy. I was told by the C.O.B officer that C.O.B has received a reply that the MC has opened two separate accounts and transferred the monies accordingly therefore no offence has been made and no action will be taken against the MC. I was surprised by the reply and argued with the C.O.B officer that it was after my query that the MC opened the separate sinking fund and transferred all the monies into it, by right the MC should have opened the account much earlier (2009) and ensured that monies meant for sinking fund are deposited accordingly and by not doing so will create inconvenience to the residents. The C.O.B. officer acknowledged the offence however told me that no action can be taken without referring to any clause of the respective Act(s). Also I was told that the managing agent was not appointed by the local council instead by the MC and therefore no action can be taken against the managing agent too, however the officer advised me to lodge a complaint with Board of Valuers.
The Board of Valuers (BoV):
Upon receiving my complaint the BoV initiated an investigation and concluded that the managing agent did not infringed any part of provisions of the Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act and Rules.
Conclusion: As a layman my conclusion is that the MC (Act 663 or Act 318) and the managing agent (Valuers, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act and Rules) escaped scot-free because the act that they are covered respectively does not punish them for any such offences (if any).
1. Is there such situations whereby the offender can escape scot-free because of weaknesses in existing Law/Act(s)?
2. If there is such weakness, which is the right body to correct it?
3. Can the MC be charged in court of law? and under which act? are the individual MC members are equally liable?
4. Can the MC be held responsible for such actions under "Criminal Breach of Trust - CBT"
5. Can the managing agent be charged in court of law? and under which act?
6. Any other actions deemed necessary that can served as deterrent to office bearers in future?
7. Any precedents in Malaysia that I can refer?
196 Views ⚫ Asked 5 Years Ago
asked on Jun 21, 2012 at 14:20
0 had this question