About electrI City saga
THE MANAGEMENT CORPORATION STRATA TITLE NO.
A I C
Minutes of the 6"' Council Meeting of the Management Corporation Strata Title Plan No. held at the Management Office, Singapore 389836 on Tuesday, 27 November 2007 at 2:30 pm
5.5 Legal Fee Expenditure for Block #03-01, Printwerks 7 Pte Ltd
its instructed by the Council, the following tabulation was the expenses incurred in the legal case with Printwerk 7 Pte Ltd (with reference to Harry Elias Invoice No. 00080989 dated 26 Oct 05 & letter Ref: DC/CJ/2005_730194/sa dated 23 Nov 05) :
Deposit with Lawyer $5,000.00
Less
Professional Charges ($3,500.00)
Faxes ($13.00)
Search Fee ($22.00)
Other incidentals ($37.00)
GST 5% ($178-60)
Balance $l,249.40
With reference to Harry Elias letter Ref: DC/CJ/2005.730194/sa(cr) dated 26 March 2007, the balance of $1,249.40 (Cheque No. UOB 236003) was refunded to the MC. The said letter also mentioned that the case was closed.
The ACUTAL LEGAL COST was $3,750.60
ELECTRICITY OVERLOADING CASE
Block Unit 03-01
MA give approval for the Tenant of # 03-01 to upgrade the electricity supply to 250 amps
The MC consulting Electrical Engineer endorsed the application basing on datas supplied.
The upgrading failed because the supply must be tapped from the supply at the Meter Room on
the ground floor and the Consulting Engineer found that electrical supply was old,
deteriorated
and the electric cables may not be able to take the electrical load. Any Overload
will affect the
old building and upgrading of the electrical system will be costly.
MC approval was
withdrawn after lengthy meetings with the Consulting Engineer / MC
members and the Tenant.
The Tenant can
proceed on the condition that they pay for the cost of any upgrading.
Alternatively, the supply can be tapped or borrow from another neighbouring units. The next unit
was willing to lease the line to them for two years.
Few months later, on the instigation of a MC member, the Tenant took legal action against the
MC to recover all cost for the failure to provide electricity to their rented unit.
MC was advised by the MA to defend the case and it would be a sure win case.
The chairman,
secretary & treasurer were nominated to represent the Council.
The chairman altered
all documents which were not in order and rewrote all minutes to show
that the MC
have taken all reasonable care and to protect the interest of all the Subsidiary
Proprietors.The then chairman in a General meeting in trying to show that he has spend a lot of
times for the MC admitted that he has spend sleepless night to alter all the documents and
minutes . That was a shock to all the MC members present especially to new members who
were not in the council at that time
[ you can guest who by now ]
The MC paid
about $3,750.60 for professional legal
fees to defend the case. ( Harry Elias Invoice
0008089 dated 26 Oct 2005 ) The then chairman was fully aware of it and now claimed in his recent open letter dated 19th Nov 2010 that the MC incurred $10,000 in legal fees which was a mischievous
The chairman was not
happy about the Scenario and decided that the MC should get a new MA replacement. At a meeting in the
chairman office, the secretary was instructed to get new quotations for a new MA and to propose to the council to have its own Property Executive and to implement IT together with CCTV cameras etc. The PE would be given a hand phone for
easy communication. Another council member who was well verse in IT were rope in for the task. The planning did not materialised after the then chairman socialised with the then MA.
