Dodgy draftsmen and DBKL
Frustrated House OwnerPublished: Sep 3, 2009 7:49 AM | Updated: Sep 3, 2009 7:52 AM
In reference to my renovation case: DBKL/BPS3/OSC/2008/1863
In July 2008, I went to DBKL to seek advice on proper procedures/ type of renovations that can be accepted or approved for a double storey linked house in OUG.
A Technical Assistant manning the counter at the ground-floor of DBKL recommended several draughtsmen.
Thinking I could get credible recommendations, I contacted several of them. I entered into an agreement on schedule of payments and phases of work.
In reference to my renovation case: DBKL/BPS3/OSC/2008/1863
In July 2008, I went to DBKL to seek advice on proper procedures/ type of renovations that can be accepted or approved for a double storey linked house in OUG.
A Technical Assistant (TA) manning the counter at the ground-floor of DBKL recommended several draughtsmen.
Thinking I could get credible recommendations, I contacted several of them. I entered into an agreement on schedule of payments and phases of work.
My mistake: To have agreed on the phases of work to go on only until DBKL's approval. It should have gone on until the release of the CF for the renovation.
The draughtsman I hired, Mr A, did not advise me accordingly.
I paid Mr A a deposit and he went on to draw up the renovation plans. After a number of amendments, the plans were submitted to DBKL's planning department.
Mr A gave me the receipt for the submission and I reimbursed him. Soon the planning department approved the renovation, subject to further conditions imposed by the building department.
I missed one condition by the planning department on submission of sanitary plans to the building department, so Mr A resubmitted the plan.
Then I noticed the signatory and letterhead for the submission wasn't Mr A but a Mr B instead. I asked Mr A about this but he assured me there was nothing to be wary about.
Then the problems began. After the submission, we received no updates. It seemed Mr B had not replied to DBKL's enquiries and the plan was due to be rejected.
We called up Mr A many times until finally he came to make the simple amendment to the plan.
Mr B proved problematic and despite our many entreaties, would not commit to drafting the sanitary plan needed by the building department.
Finally I asked DBKL for permission to hire a new draftsman to replace Mr B. Instead, DBKL denied me permission, and told me to bring up my complaints to either PIAM or the Board of Architects of Malaysia.
I told DBKL I could not afford to wait much longer due to time constraints but DBKL advised me instead to somehow get Mr B to complete the work.
It isn't right that these so-called professionals are protected by building by-laws while houseowners like me are left in a quandary.
Who will protect us houseowners whose lives have been made difficult by these so-called ‘registered professionals'.
The Ministry of Housing should take a look at these loopholes, but meanwhile I require urgent help.
In July 2008, I went to DBKL to seek advice on proper procedures/ type of renovations that can be accepted or approved for a double storey linked house in OUG.
A Technical Assistant (TA) manning the counter at the ground-floor of DBKL recommended several draughtsmen.
Thinking I could get credible recommendations, I contacted several of them. I entered into an agreement on schedule of payments and phases of work.
My mistake: To have agreed on the phases of work to go on only until DBKL's approval. It should have gone on until the release of the CF for the renovation.
The draughtsman I hired, Mr A, did not advise me accordingly.
I paid Mr A a deposit and he went on to draw up the renovation plans. After a number of amendments, the plans were submitted to DBKL's planning department.
Mr A gave me the receipt for the submission and I reimbursed him. Soon the planning department approved the renovation, subject to further conditions imposed by the building department.
I missed one condition by the planning department on submission of sanitary plans to the building department, so Mr A resubmitted the plan.
Then I noticed the signatory and letterhead for the submission wasn't Mr A but a Mr B instead. I asked Mr A about this but he assured me there was nothing to be wary about.
Then the problems began. After the submission, we received no updates. It seemed Mr B had not replied to DBKL's enquiries and the plan was due to be rejected.
We called up Mr A many times until finally he came to make the simple amendment to the plan.
Mr B proved problematic and despite our many entreaties, would not commit to drafting the sanitary plan needed by the building department.
Finally I asked DBKL for permission to hire a new draftsman to replace Mr B. Instead, DBKL denied me permission, and told me to bring up my complaints to either PIAM or the Board of Architects of Malaysia.
I told DBKL I could not afford to wait much longer due to time constraints but DBKL advised me instead to somehow get Mr B to complete the work.
It isn't right that these so-called professionals are protected by building by-laws while houseowners like me are left in a quandary.
Who will protect us houseowners whose lives have been made difficult by these so-called ‘registered professionals'.
The Ministry of Housing should take a look at these loopholes, but meanwhile I require urgent help.
View Comments0