A condo building not as well maintained as others since a couple refused contractors access to the roofs

Selina Lum
Strait Times
December 27, 2024

The facade of a condominium building in Bukit Batok has not been painted for 16 years.

In fact, the couple who owned the highest unit refused to allow contractors to access the roof through their house.

Since at least 2008, the couple and Guilin View’s management company have argued over various issues, including access to the unit to facilitate repair and repainting work.

In the latest episode of the litigation, the management company filed a suit against Mr Tan Eng Siang and his wife, Madam Quah Kim Lui, in the state courts in February.

The management company requested a court order to be allowed entry into the couple’s home so that repair and repainting work could be carried out without hindrance from either owner.

Access to the top floor unit and the stairway within the unit that leads to the roof is required to allow workers to get to the roof to install necessary equipment and carry out repair work. repair and repainting.

This request has not yet been heard.

However, the case came before the High Court in December on the preliminary question of whether the management company needed court permission to commence legal proceedings against Mr Tan, as it is an undischarged bankrupt.

On Dec 24, Judicial Commissioner Mohamed Faizal ruled that no permission was required in the present case as the proceedings did not involve creditors or the debt for which Mr Tan was made bankrupt about 12 years ago. years.

In his written judgment, the judge noted that the current dispute was a “lose-lose proposition” and suggested that resolving the dispute through mediation would be much more beneficial for all parties.

“There is no benefit to be gained from a trial except to soothe bruised egos who demand a legal victory for its own sake,” he said.

He said it seemed obvious that the only legally tenable outcome in this matter would be for Mr Tan and Madam Quah to grant access to the appointed contractors, with reasonable conditions imposed and notice given.

If the couple were allowed to deprive the management company of access to the roof indefinitely, it would mean the work would never be carried out.

Such an outcome would be contrary to the law and could even amount to the commission of criminal offenses under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA), he said.

The judge said Mr Tan and Madam Quah could decide whether they wanted to go to mediation to set their own terms of access, or whether they wanted to spend more money and energy so the court could eventually dictate the conditions under which each of them could live. these terms could be awkward.

There are five apartment buildings in Guilin View, with each block comprising several “stacks” of units. Construction of the 655-unit complex was completed in 2000.

The couple’s unit sits atop one of the 30-level stacks.

The judge observed, from a photo shown in court, that unlike other chimneys in the same building, the front of the couple’s chimney does not appear particularly well maintained and appears to be in need of a fresh coat of paint.

According to the management company, the facade of this pier has not been repaired or painted since 2008.

This led other owners to lodge a complaint with the Building and Construction Authority (BCA).

The BCA then urged the management company to take the necessary urgent corrective measures. Indeed, under the BMSMA, the management company is responsible for the maintenance of the common property.

Under Building Maintenance Regulations, there is also a requirement for the external walls of these developments to be repainted at least once every seven years, unless otherwise directed by the BCA.

The owners of the other units on the top floor gave access to contractors to carry out the necessary work.

Mr Tan and Madam Quah initially allowed the contractors access to their unit. But over the years, they refused to do so.

Madam Quah, who is not represented by a lawyer, argued that it was reasonable for her and her husband to refuse access.

She alleged this was due to unacceptable behavior by the management company and its contractors when access was initially granted, as well as disagreements over other matters relating to the development.

In one of her written submissions, she alluded to an apparent failure on the part of the contractors to take necessary precautions, causing defects which she said could have “severely injured or even killed her”.