The
long road to getting CFS
24/06/2003 The Sun By Goh Ban Lee
Penangites call them OCS while the rest of Malaysians CFs. They are
Certificates of Fitness for Occupation that are issued by local
authorities to certify that buildings are built according to
approved plans and are safe to occupy.
CFs are controversial because housing developers are allowed to hand
over vacant possession of houses to buyers without first obtaining
these very important documents.
For most house-buyers, the absence of CFs is a very frustrating
experience as their new houses are practically useless. Yet they
have to service bank loans for the full cost of the houses. To add
salt to injury, some developers even start collecting maintenance
charges.
In the past, there were cases of buyers having to wait for months or
even years for CFs for their houses. Since 2001, the Housing and
Local Government Ministry has been urging local authorities to
process applications for CFs within 14 days and last year,
amendments to the Uniform By-laws made it a legal procedure.
Last week, as part of the economic stimulus package, Housing and
Local Government Minister Datuk Seri Ong Ka Ting called on local
authorities to set up one-stop agencies to ensure that CFs be issued
within 14 days. Furthermore, no individual officers would be allowed
to add new condition for the issuance of CFs.
There has been no reaction from the developers. The House Buyers
Association is not impressed. There is no guarantee that CFs are
issued within the time given.
Local authority officers could still reject the application on the
flimsiest of excuses and 14 days could stretch to months while the
blame game continues. While it is very difficult to prove an
officer's bad intention, a system must be established to detect and
punish those found guilty.
CFs could also be rejected because the buildings are not built
according to approved plans or clearly not completed. The main
reason for premature applications for CFs is to enable developers to
hand vacant possession so that they do not have to pay late delivery
charges or the final instalment of the progress payments.
As a result of numerous cases of short-changing house-buyers,
developers do not have good reputations despite their numerous
donations to charitable organisations and federal and state honours.
Many developers deserve the brickbats thrown at them. But society,
through the government, does not expect much from developers. All it
needs to be a developer is RM250,000 paid-capital for his company
and RM200,000 as deposit for each project.
That is why the government does not trust developers. For housing
projects of more than four units each, developers have to obtain
licences from the Housing and Local Government Ministry. They cannot
sell houses without obtaining permits from the ministry.
Property developers also cannot do anything on the land without
approval from about 15 governmental departments and corporatised
utility suppliers. Only those who have been through the processes of
getting approval from these departments and agencies can appreciate
the difficulties encountered and frustrations involved.
Furthermore, at every step of the development process, builders are
required by law to engage professional consultants largely because
the government does not have the necessary mechanisms to monitor
every aspect of the development projects.
Such confidence in the consultants is justified. To be a
professional consultant, such as an architect or an engineer,
surveyor a town planner or a lawyer, a person has to spend 16 or 18
years of formal education.
In all these years, especially in the universities, apart from
technical subjects, they are taught to be sensitive to ideals like
environmental conservation, responsibility and social justice,
assuming of course, that their lecturers are good at their work.
The consultants have to be members of their respective professional
institutes, which have stringent codes of ethics, to be able to
practise. Most importantly, the law requires that only those
properly qualified and accredited can prepare plans and certify to
their implementations.
There have been too many cases of professional consultants losing
their professionalism and misplacing the trust society has placed on
them. In such cases, the professional institutes and the government
must take strong punitive action.
The present practice of planning and building control is to carry
out inspection of housing projects at the stage of application of
CFs. Any withholding of issuance of these documents only punishes
the house buyers as the consultants and developers have largely
collected their dues.
A better practice is for enforcement officers, especially those of
the ministry and local authorities, to monitor the progress of
housing projects. They should facilitate the smooth implementation
of the projects where they can. However, they should prosecute the
errant ones where there are cases of cheating or negligence of
duties.
The government has taken some steps to facilitate the issuance of
CFs. If problems persist, it may be forced to implement the
build-then-sell concept. At the very least, it could legislate that
vacant possession means completed houses with CFs. |
| |
|
