KUALA LUMPUR – The Shah Alam High Court ruling that Parkville residents in Sunway Damansara – who refuse to pay the monthly service fees – should not be compelled to operate the automatic boom gates themselves is a step back in community participation, at least according to Parkville residents’ association president Chow Hau Mun.
Prior to the court’s decision, Chow said that the residents had already been fortified by Petaling Jaya City Council’s guidelines, which say that they do not have to participate in the residents’ association.
“The current court ruling would further embolden residents and perhaps influence more to withdraw themselves,” he told The Vibes.
These residents would just enjoy the security and upkeep paid for by their neighbours.
“To me, it is a step back in community participation.”
Stressing that the Parkville housing estate was planned by the developer as a gated and guarded community from the beginning, Chow said it is unjust for 75% of homeowners to fork out a sum of money to maintain the boom gates and security while the remaining 25% do not participate.
“When owners bought their property from the developer, they had to sign a deed of mutual covenant agreeing to the formation of the residents’ association, as well as to pay maintenance fees for the security and upkeep of the housing estate.
“So, it is definitely unfair.”
Shah Alam High Court judge Shahnaz Sulaiman passed the ruling last week, saying the Parkville residents’ association is not allowed to mandate those in the guarded community who choose not to pay the monthly service fees to operate the automatic boom gates on their own.
In dismissing a judicial review application, Shahnaz said the city council has the authority to prohibit any association under its authority from imposing unreasonable conditions on homeowners.
She was quoted by Free Malaysia Today as saying that the residents’ association’s approval to operate as a guarded community, in the view of the court, is under the purview of the city council.
It is not illegal, irrational, or unreasonable, she said, for the city council to refuse to let the association enforce such a rule.
The judge had also said the guarded community’s guidelines contains provisions that allow the council to prohibit the requirement that non-paying residents and non-members operate the boom gates on their own.
Chow filed the suit against the city council after it turned down the request for non-members to operate the boom gates on their own.
His lawyer, A. Surendra Ananth, based the need to impose the condition on a 2015 Federal Court ruling.
However, the city council asserted that Chow’s argument was unsupported by the court’s ruling.
Justice Shahnaz further said that the apex court ruling was on whether an inconvenience could amount to an actionable nuisance – and that this matter was not the issue before the court in this case.
“This issue was pertaining to the condition imposed by the respondent (Petaling Jaya City Council) to the residents’ association,” she said in her judgment.
The city council, in December 2020, approved the association’s application to operate a guarded community until this December.
At the beginning of last year, the association wrote to the city council informing them that it would impose its rule on non-paying residents, which garnered complaints from several homeowners.
The city council then wrote to the association to cancel the condition, but the attempt was futile.
On March 30 last year, Chow challenged the city council’s decision.
According to Surendra, a notice of appeal has been filed with the Court of Appeal.
Meanwhile, Petaling Jaya City councillor Derek Fernandez said the high court decision is an affirmation of the city council’s non-discrimination principle against homeowners in the use of public roads.
Fernandez said the decision by the high court is consistent with the city council’s guidelines and rules for approval for a residents’ association to operate a guarded security scheme on a public road. – The Vibes, July 7, 2022
.jpg)
.jpg)
