No dog until neighbours agree

 

Dogs  Matrix - Breed of Dog

IPOH: The Batu Gajah District Council (MDBG) has become the first in Perak to require dog owners to seek consent from their neighbours if they want a dog licence.

It is now running a trial on this, covering residents who want to get a pet dog for the first time.

“This is to ensure better management of the pets and to ensure there are fewer complaints from the people,” said council president Nurdiana Puaadi, adding that the Ampang Jaya Municipal Council had a similar requirement which had been proven to be successful.

Nurdiana cited cases of a household keeping three dogs but only one was licensed, adding that the MDBG had received numerous complaints about dogs that barked non-stop.

“Once the neighbours give their approval, they cannot complain to us,” said Nurdiana, adding existing dog owners should also get their neighbours’ approval.

“This will also help keep stray dog problems in check,” she said.

The application form states that residents staying at terrace lots need the consent from neighbours from both sides.

Those staying in bungalows, semi-detached and cluster homes need the agreement from neighbours on both sides and at the back. Owners also need to put up a sign to show that they have a dog.

The types of dogs not allowed to be kept include Akita, American Bulldog, Dogo Argentino, Fila Brasileiro, Japanese Tosa, Neapolitan Mastiff, Pit Bull Terrier, American Pit Bull and Staffordshire Bull Terrier.

Rottweilers are allowed but owners need to produce health reports from the Veterinary Services Department for new applications. Those who have been keeping Rottweilers can renew the licence until the pet dies.

It also states that those living in bungalows, semi-detached or terrace corner lots can keep a maximum of two dogs, while residents in terrace end lots and terrace intermediate lots can only keep one.

Other stipulations include urging owners to keep their dogs clean and healthy and to ensure pets do not disturb neighbours with incessant barking.

Owners must also ensure their dogs do not roam unsupervised and must be muzzled and leashed when they are out. Dogs three years or older found without a licence can be impounded and put down.

Owners can also be fined a maximum of RM2,000 or jailed not more than a year or both if found guilty under any provisions of the Dog Licensing and Dog Breeding House By-laws.

By Ivan Loh The Star

Related: No dog until neighbours agree - Lowyat Forum - Lowyat.NET

Related posts:

Stray dog sensation in China!

Dog attacks humans, it’s the owner, not the breed! 

How to avoid dogs attack you? 

Killer dog's owner fined and charged again 

Biting demand over dog attack; keep stray dogs off the street! 

Pit bull Terrier, a restricted breed; Time to regulate pet shops! 

American Pit Bull Kills Jogger ! 

Burglar-proof your home 

Look, man threw dog into manhole! 

How low can cruel people go?
Dogs BCG Matrix - Breed of Dog

Protecting house buyers' interest

Real Estate Tips: What To Inspect Before Buying A House

I REFER to the reports “Court: No power to grant extension” and “A fair and right judgment, says housing developer” ( The Star, Feb 28 - Developer has to compensate buyers for delays of projects, Court says).

The High Court decision declaring as ultra vires (beyond one’s legal power or authority) the Housing and Local Government Minister’s granting of a one-year extension of time (EOT) to developers to complete a delayed housing project and thus denying house buyers liquidated and ascertained damages (LAD) provided for under the sale and purchase agreement is timely, sound and indeed meritorious. It is hoped that the decision would be maintained should the minister decide to appeal it.

The Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 was enacted for the protection of home buyers.

The long title of the Act (paragraph stating Parliament’s intent for the Act) says: “An Act to provide for the control and licensing of the business of housing development in Peninsular Malaysia, the protection of the interest of purchasers...” This makes clear that the housing development business is regulated to ensure that the protection of home buyers’ interest is paramount.

Two eminent judges, the late Tun Mohamed Suffian, former Lord President of Malaysia, and the late Tan Sri Lee Hun Hoe, the longest serving Chief Justice of Borneo, stated this in two landmark cases respectively.

Suffian LP (Sea Housing Corporation v Lee Poh Chee): “To protect home buyers, most of whom are people of modest means, from rich and powerful developers, Parliament found it necessary to regulate the sale of houses and protect buyers by enacting the Act.”

Lee Hun Hoe CJ (Borneo) (Beca (Malaysia) Sdn Bhd v Tan Choong Kuang & Anor): “The duty of observing the law is firmly placed on the housing developers for the protection of house buyers. Hence, any infringement of the law would render the housing developer liable to penalty on conviction.”

Respectfully, it is submitted that the decision to grant the developer of a housing project extension of time and thus deny the home buyers’ statutory rights to LAD ought to be exercised with diffidence. The decision, if any, ought to be made with the Act’s long title in mind, namely, “for the protection of interest of purchasers”.

In doing so, some aspects to consider are:

> In granting EOT, how will home buyers’ interest be protected?

> LAD is agreed monetary payment for home buyers’ losses for delay in completion of a housing project. Is denying home buyers’ the LAD by the EOT tantamount to protecting their interest?

Although Section 11(3) of the Act states that the developer under “special circumstances” may apply to the Controller of Housing for EOT, it is submitted that Parliament and the long title of the Act surely did not intend LAD to be wiped out by “a stroke of a pen”.

To avoid doubt, “special circumstances” would mean act of God or natural disaster, for example earth quake or tsunami, and not business or economic related challenges or hardship.

The above view would make legal sense of Section 11(3).

Again, the High Court decision is lauded.

Home buyers’ interest is of paramount importance under the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966. The Controller of Housing’s or Minister’s decision, although seemingly made “by a stroke of a pen”, must materialise or recognise this intent. Failing to do so would be ultra vires the Act.

May the redeeming light of the Housing Development Act (Control and Licensing) 1966 continue to shine effervescently and protect effectively home buyer’s interest for many years to come.

This letter is dedicated to the National Housebuyers Association, its great team of lawyers, professionals and volunteers for their sterling and pro-bono efforts to speak up for and preserve home buyers’ interest.

Source: ROBERT TAN,  Home buyer and author of Buying Property From Developer: What You Need To Know And Do, Petaling Jaya

Related posts:

Developer has to compensate buyers for delays of projects, Court says

  Take them to task: According to the liquidated damages clause, condo buyers can claim 10 per annum of the purchase price for the de...

Investing in property to let may not be a good idea

Buy-to-let investing just became a very, very bad idea - The Spectator Buying to rent may not be a good idea RENTING out a house...

Developer has to compensate buyers for delays of projects, Court says

 

Take them to task: According to the liquidated damages clause, condo buyers can claim 10 per annum of the purchase price for the delay

KUALA LUMPUR: The Housing Controller has no power to grant an extension of time to developers who delay the completion of housing projects, the High Court has ruled in a landmark judgment.

This means a housing developer has to pay compensation to the affected buyers for delays in the delivery of vacant possession.

High Court (Appellate and Special Powers) judge Justice Hanipah Farikullah also held that the regulation which empowers the Controller to modify terms of the contract of sale was ultra vires the Housing Development, Control and Licensing Act.

The judge said this in allowing an application for judicial review by 71 buyers of the Sri Istana condominiums in Old Klang Road against the Housing Controller and Urban Well-being, Housing and Local Government Minister.

Their lead counsel Datuk Wong Kok Leong told The Star the judge held that the minister’s decision to grant the developer an extension of time to complete the project via a letter dated Nov 17, 2015 was invalid.

In the letter, the minister had granted the developer a 12-month extension to complete the project.

“This means that the Housing Controller has no power to grant an extension of time to housing developers for any delay in completing their projects,” Wong said.

“Now, the developer has to pay the liquidated damages (a pre-determined sum) for late delivery of vacant possession of those condominium units.”

Wong called the decision a landmark judgment as many project developers seek extensions to complete their projects in Malaysia.

“This is a victory for all house buyers. With this ruling, the housing developer can’t just go to the Housing Controller for an extension of time to complete the project in order to avoid paying the liquidated damages to house buyers.

“This is because if an extension of time is allowed, house buyers lose their rights to claim damages for late delivery of vacant possession,” he added.

Wong explained that according to the liquidated damages clause, the condo buyers can claim 10% per annum of the purchase price for the delay.

In their application for judicial review, the condo buyers stated that they wanted to quash the decision allowing BHL Construction Sdn Bhd an extension of time for the delivery of vacant possession from 36 months to 48 months.

They also asked the court for a declaration that Regulation 11(3) was ultra vires of the Housing Development Act (Control and Licensing) Act.

Wong said the judge has ordered the parties to address the issue of costs on the next date for case management.

When contacted, SFC Mohamad Rizal said the judge also allowed a similar application involving another group of condominium buyers involving the same developer and project.

Source: By  m. mageswari, royce tan, thean lee cheng, andeugene mahalingam, The Star

Related story:

A fair and right judgment, says housing developer 

Related posts:

Reponsible housing developers' traits and qualiies expected 

 

Who is responsible: developer, contractor, local council or house-owner for the damages? 

  Who is responsible for slope management? Does the responsibility come with the property bought by the purchaser? THE collapse of a...

House buyers, learn your rights

House buyers, learn your rights. I RECENTLY moved into our new house in Sungai Ramal Dalam. I bought the property back in 2012 and we received  

 

 

  We need local councillors who can do the job

I REFER to the article “Local govt polls may cause racial polarisation” ( Sunday Star, Jan 25) and would like to share my views on matters. ...

 

Councillors ready to serve Penangites to make a difference? 

HE Penang Island City Council (MBPP) and the Seberang Prai Municipal Council (MPSP) see 10 new faces among the list of councillors who swo...