INGENIEUR
liabilities, including and not limited to criminal
and statutory liabilities. The arduous and strict
liabilities vested upon the PSP, residual powers
of the local authorities, ambiguity in approach
and the lack of effective check-and-balance
mechanisms in the issuance of a CCC are the
major flaws of the CCC regime. The present
trend has also indicated that the CCC regime
proves to be an implosion which I will deal with
in detail in this report.
The supporters of the CCC regime appear to
have not scrutinised the liability issue in the haste
to implement this method of a public delivery
system. This could be due to sheer ignorance or
inadvertence. This view is reinforced by the fact
that the liability issue has not been substantially
addressed but merely polished. It is fairly apparent
that the individuals and bodies responsible for the
implementation of the CCC system have been
zealous in their approach.
There are controversial areas of concern
with regards to the professional liability of the
CCC certifier when the entire delivery system is
examined together with the amended relevant
laws. Exponents and proponents of the system
have, however, sold this system on the basis
that the professionals carry the same liability as
the previous CFO system. This view is a grave
misconception.
This report will further elucidate how the CCC
regime works and its inadequacies. It is pertinent
to note that all these gaps and more were
underscored by an article I have written with Ir.
Harbans Singh back in 2008 “The Certificate of
Completion and Compliance (CCC) In the Building
Industry -- Bugbear or Bunkum?” 2 .
Issues regarding CFO
Prior to the implementation of the CCC, the CFO
used to be issued by the local authorities [See s 3,
The Street, Drainage & Building Act 1974 (Act 133)
and the Uniform Buildings By-Laws for definition
of the CFO]. As mentioned above there were a
2
3
6
62
series of problems around the CFO issuance,
largely due to the alleged unnecessary layers of
bureaucracy in the certification process and the
alleged rampant acts of gratifications in the local
authorities 3 .
It was a normal occurrence that many
developers gave vacant possession without the
CFO being issued. This caused considerable
difficulties to house buyers for such vacant
possession does not mean a beneficial takeover
and the ability to use the relevant building lawfully.
The situation was the same for the commercial
buildings and industrial premises. Disgruntled
purchasers complained to the Ministry of
Housing & Local Government (MOHLG), other
Governmental authorities, activist consumer and
non-Governmental organisations such as the
Consumer Association of Penang and Federation
of Malaysian Consumers Associations (FOMCA)
whenever there was delay or failure to issue a
CFO by local authorities. In the main, most of
these complaints were well grounded and not
frivolous.
CFO PROCEDURE
The following are the brief steps that were involved
in the CFO procedure:
1. Building Plan approval: Following the
procurement of the Development Order
(DO) approval, for buildings, the next
approval under the CFO procedure in
order of precedence was the Building Plan
approval.
2. Plan submission by Qualified Person: The
plans had to be endorsed by a Qualified
Person (QP) for building plan approval.
The endorser of the plan was responsible
for the proper execution of the works until
completion, unless he was removed and
replaced with the consent of authority
concerned.
3. Notification prior to commencement of
work: Commencement of any work had to
[2008] 1 MLJ 109
‘Self-Certification versus private certification doctrines on the issuance of the Certificate of Completion and
Compliance for buildings in Malaysia’ by Kamarudin Mohd Nor (2008), Journal of Building Appraisal (Vol. 4, No.2,
pages 125-131).
VOL
2019
VOL 78
55 APRIL-JUNE
JUNE 2013