A. Sweeping reforms for condo laws,
Source: The Straits Times - 11 February 2003

The new Building and Construction Authority (BCA) guidelines aim to ensure that a property owner who owes his building's management corporation massive amounts of money is not allowed to sit on its management council (MC). The proposals have been drawn up to prevent a repeat of the People's Park Centre fiasco

It also aims to review issues relating to proxy votes in management committees. If enacted, the changes will affect about 2,700 MCs here.

The key proposals offered in the discussion paper relate to the People's Park Centre case and they include :

• Debarring members in arrears from standing from election to the management council;

• Preventing a subsidiary proprietor from being appointed as the managing agent; and

• Reviewing the committee structure in mixed-use developments like People's Park Centre, which had residential, office and retail units all under one roof.

However, one major bone of contention so far : That managing agents have been allowed to canvass proxy votes.

Some owners are opposed to the system of allowing proxy voting as they have personally experienced a situation during an AGM where a small number of truly concerned owners turned up, only to find that the MC has garnered enough votes when it's against the house.

Some industry players have also suggested that the BCA look into the appointment of independent directors to MCs in order to ensure professional standards are maintained.

Professionals like accountants and lawyers have no vested interests but have their professional standing to protect. When something is amiss they will serve as whistle-blowers.

The final draft of the Act is expected to be debated in Parliament by the end of the year.

B. Management Corporation to Return $370,000,
Source: The Straits Times - 7 March 2002

The MC of People's Park Complex had asked De Beers Jewellery, a property firm for $370,000 to upgrade three existing lifts and other upgrading works. But under the law, the MCST had no right to ask the money. The chief justice said that MC, when it asked for such payments, had acted beyond its powers as stated in LTSA, it had no authority to impose contributions that are to pay for getting approval to do conversion work.

So, the High Court ordered the MC to return the money De Beers Jewellery.

C. The Saga of the Water Contamination at Bukit Timah Plaza,
Source: The Strait Times - 24 August 2000

The Bukit Timah Plaza Management Corporation, which appointed an Managing Agent to manage its more than 25 years old building, failed to do an annual inspection of the water tanks and tests on the water itself, as required by the PUB. The PUB & ENV had conducted their investigations showed that the MCST had "grossly neglected its duty" to maintain the complex's water supply and internal sewage-piping systems.

After it happened, there was heated debate between the MCST and the MA over who should be held responsible.

MC council members argue that they are volunteers who have no technical expertise. MA should be held accountable if anything goes wrong, because they are the experts.

But MA claims, in turn, that although they are responsible for the day-to-day maintenance of buildings, their hands are often tied when it comes to major improvement and upgrading works. These require the MC's approval.

While the duties of managing the property can be vested in a MA, it can't seek to avoid legal responsibility. Perhaps what MC can do is to seek recovery or indemnity from the MA if it faces any legal action, commented by legal profession practised construction litigation.

The Management Corporation faces a maximum fine of $40,000, or a three months jail term, or both, if convicted.

The Bukit Timah Plaza affair has highlighted the importance of building maintenance as well as the duties and liabilities of MCST and their MA.

Subsequently, AMCIS was formed aimed to assist MCs to improve and upgrade the standard of management of properties. The Association of Property and Facility Managers (APFM) jointly developed with Spring a "Technical Reference on Performance of MA of Private Sector Residential", and Ministry of Law is reviewing the LTSA, together with the relevant authorities and the industry.

D. Developers Have No Duty To Collect Maintenance Charges  Under Sections 9 and 10 Of The Buildings And Common Property (Maintenance And Management) Act.

MCST No 1955 v HPL Properties Pte Ltd
MC Suit No 12239 of 2000/T (unreported)

IN MCST No 1955 v HPL Properties Pte Ltd, the Singapore District Court gave a useful judgment on the interpretation of s9 and s10 of the Buildings and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act (the "BCPMA") and defined the duty of developers to collect maintenance fund for sold and unsold units in condominium housing development projects.

Accordingly, the court accepted the defendant's submission that the developer's liability to start paying maintenance fees for the unsold units to the maintenance fund arose at the same time as that of the sold units, and not from the TOP date.