Has the ministry abandoned house buyer rights?
Hence, only the Housing Controller has the power to waive or modify the provisions of the SPA. So
what is wrong with the Housing Controller giving an extension of time? Is he not entitled to exercise
his power under this HDReg 11(3)? Has “granting of extension” been exercised in a just manner?
Were the affected buyers accorded the ‘rights to be heard’ since it affected them’?
No reasonable minded person, let alone the Housing Minister and those under his charge, can possibly
imagine that the powers given under HDReg 11(3) is meant to be used against house buyers let alone
blatantly and unilaterally take away rights which are expressly given to them by Parliament, rights
which are expressly stated to be for their protection and created to serve and protect public interest.
If discretionary powers are not exercised with prudence, perhaps it is time for these powers to be
removed or the minister replaced.
Seeking legal remedies thru’ the Court of Law
Alas, the National House Buyers Association (HBA) had to embark on a journey to attempt to nullify
the EOT thru’ the Court of Law. Our volunteer lawyers, working on a pro bono (free legal fees) basis
took up the challenge on a public interest litigation. The class action was commenced by 71 aggrieved
buyers in challenging the grant of the EOT by the Controller of Housing which has denied, against
unit owners, the rights for entitlement of compensation in lieu of the one (1) year delay in delivery of
vacant possession of the buyers units. Another group of 36 owners, represented by another of HBA’s
friendly law firm, also had their case heard on the same date. The common target was on the issue
of EOTs.
Below is the sequence of events that transpired leading to the Federal Court
landmark decision:
Kuala Lumpur High Court, 9.8.2016: HBA volunteer lawyers have successfully obtained leave from
the Appellate & Special Powers Division of the High Court to pursue with the application for Judicial
Review against the decision of the Minister of Urban Wellbeing, Housing & Local Government and
the Controller of Housing in a condominium project developed by BHL Construction Sdn Bhd.
Kuala Lumpur High Court, 27.2.2017: The High Court case was heard and written submissions
made before Her Ladyship, Justice Datuk Hanipah Farikullah and decision ruled that the Minister
acted ultra vires his power under HDA and HDR 11(3).She granted the Applicants (104 affected
house buyers) an Order of Certiorari to quash the decision of the Minister of Urban Wellbeing and
Housing pertaining to their (Ministry) letter dated 17.11.2015 to amend the time period for of vacant
possession from 36 months to 48 months in respect of the Sale & Purchase Agreement between BHL
Construction Sdn Bhd in the Sri Istana condo, Jalan Kuchai Lama, Kuala Lumpur.. The granting of the
EOT to the defaulting developer makes a mockery and defeats the intent and object of the Housing
Act which is “for the protection of house buyers”. It was a landmark decision.
Putrajaya Court of Appeal, 31.3.2018: The Court of Appeal case was heard and the appeal was
allowed in part held as follows:
a) that Regulation 11(3) is not ultra vires the Act:
b) that the letter dated 17.11.2015 purported allowing the EOT was null and void;
c) that the decision made by the Minister is null and void as the Purchasers were denied their
Rights to be Heard.
PROPERTY360DIGEST
36