Ryan's Elevator Complaint outline

UPDATE (03.26.14):  Ryan's Elevator Complaint on the Inadequate Reply to Present Condominium Corporation Documents - So much kept from the members, Unit Owners, of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation.  Why all the secrecy by the unelected?  Why is the Corporation Code ignored?  Where are the notices not posted and why so much confusion and lack of answers as to the entire history of the elevators?

 

Ryan's Elevator Complaint outline

Past entries:

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/11/news-on-soho-central.html

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2014/01/new-complaint-form-for-elevators.html

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2014/01/follow-up-complaint-on-elevator-non.html

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2014/02/reply-to-elevator-complaint-without.html

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2014/02/follow-up-to-follow-up-complaint-on.html

While most of these have been posted and commented on, here is the entire line of elevator complaints Ryan has made since last September 2013 filed with Soho Central Condominium and also acknowledged received by the City Government of Mandaluyong.  Currently three documents have not been produced as requested and required.

The condition of the elevators is apparent and appalling to all in the building.  I could give quotes that I have heard over the many months and years but we have all heard or made them as to this disaster without end.  Certificates and/or permits are still not displayed notices.  Do they or have they ever existed is unknown.

The following is from last to first.

Answer Refusing to Supply Requested & Required Copies last February (02.06.14):

Further follow-up Complaint last February (02.04.14):

Follow-up Complaint last January (01.23.14) with bill and receipts for copies of only insurance policies:

Answer to Complaint last January (01.16.14):

Complaint made last January (01.16.14):

Complaint made last October (10.01.13):

Answer to Complaint last September (09.30.13):

 

Complaint last September (09.27.13):

 

 

Expected Amendments at 2014 Annual Meeting

Expected Amendments at 2014 Annual Meeting

I would expect that the following amendments will be reintroduced this year as they were on the agenda for the 2012 Annual Meeting and the 2013 Special Meeting.  They were not a part of the 2013 Annual Meeting agenda.  As I did prior to those two meetings and will do for this year's meeting as they were written, I will encourage everyone to VOTE NO.

Below are the amendments from both years and at bottom is the Official  By-Laws Announcement for this year's Annual Meeting.  I have written in a previous post that explained the illegal postponement in the past for a meeting as well as cancellation of another, lack of establishing a meeting for another and the refusal to adjourn properly for yet another Annual Meeting.  The actions taken by this Board we have had controlled by the developers is disgusting.  I encourage everyone to tell their legal representatives and to write letters, call and visit the SEC and HLURB as well as media sources as to the situation in Soho Central Condominium Corporation since turnover in 2009.

2012

I had not posted a message as I did for 2013 that I can find.  So I went to the 2012 Annual Meeting packet and saw something that is very curious.  Yes, sometimes being so involved at the time it is difficult to give attention to disturbing details.

You will note the amendments made in 2012 below and then there is a page prior to those pages at the very end of the packet that is quite curious.  In the Notice on a part of the packet in the beginning, it is stated,"7. Election of the Board of Directors/Trustees."  I am not sure why this page was placed there and why underlines are made on it.  Section 11 on that page is quite disturbing if that page was to remind voting members of parts of the By-Laws for the meeting.

The Section 11 quoted is not the Section 11 as it stands.  Section 11 is written as if for the amendment.  Yes, there is so much to investigate and question only followed by refusal to answer and presenting of documents it is no wonder Unit Owners are sick and tired of it all.

There are so many issues & problems in every single thing that is done here; this is why Unit Owners have a hard time understanding what exactly is taking place. Even the packet for the Annual Meeting in 2012 has this serious problem with their trying to use a proposed amendment as the rule for the meeting.  PLEASE TELL EVERYONE TO READ THIS ENTRY AS JUST ONE EXAMPLE OF THE ENDLESS CLEVER WAYS TO MANIPULATE US, THE UNIT OWNERS.

The Annual and Special Meeting packets are linked to at the right side of the blog page.

2013

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/09/2013-special-meeting-amendments.html

2013 Special Meeting:  Two Amendment Proposals

By-Laws Amendment Proposal: PLEASE VOTE NO!

The By-Laws amendment proposal is not appropriate by adding additional language not addressing the main focus. Voting needs to be in compliance with the Master Deed and national law since this is a mixed-use building. I was the one that pointed this out to the Board in early 2012. Of course, at least one Board member was surprised. Strange, I would expect Directors on the Board to read the important documents.

This wording and the procedure followed at the only meeting we have had with a quorum in 2011 made the votes illegal. But there was another action taken at that meeting which was also not in compliance that I have written about before.

The voting procedure in the By-Laws is illegal and cannot be followed anyway so wording which needs changing is not the main concern I have with this amendment proposal.

The wording "...as their voting rights are deemed assigned to the condominium corporation" is the problem. What does this mean? Votes for the Board to decide upon? There is no clear definition and meaning. Why not clearly state the meaning and intention?

Please vote NO to this amendment for Section 11. Voting. 

 (Click here for a .pdf of the above amendment proposal.)

Master Deed Amendment Proposal: PLEASE VOTE NO!

This proposal is to strip away the rights of Unit Owners. Please read this amendment very carefully. I would think that the first part would be enough for anyone to immediately vote NO.

Also notice that this amendment is only for the residential areas and not the commercial areas. I wonder why? I cannot imagine why this would be so!

The first part reads, "The Condominium Corporation is hereby expressly appointed by each and every unit owner as the attorney-in-fact of said unit owner, with full power and authority to take actual possession of the delinquent unit at once..."

Do you want them to be your "attorney-in-fact"? "Delinquent unit at once"? Yes, one second after midnight you are delinquent and "actual possession" may commence. It does say "at once" does it not?

The Philippines has laws to deal with overdue payments and property. There is no need for extrajudicial anything.

Please vote NO to this amendment for Section 11 (j). 

(Click here for a .pdf of the above amendment proposal.)

***

Official By-Laws Announcement

Annual Meeting

August 29, 2014

Please tell all Unit Owners you know or come into contact with to plan for being at the meeting.  If the Board does not attend, Unit Owners or their proxies may elect a chair for the meeting and conduct a meeting among ourselves.

By-Laws

Section 5. Annual Meeting. -The annual meeting of the members of the corporation for the election of directors/trustees and such other matters pertaining to the corporation shall be held at the principal office of the corporation at Mandaluyong City, Philippines or at such other place that the Board may determine, on the Last Friday of August of each year. Should a scheduled meeting be a legal holiday, the annual meeting shall be held on the next succeeding business day at the same place and time.

Another Monthly Elevator Maintenance Memo, why?

Another Monthly Elevator Maintenance Memo, why?

No changes since the last memo and before the last memo I can detect.

What are we to think given that one floor has the elevator lights with red on top and green on bottom after this second monthly maintenance? What are we to think when one elevator seems to hit a bump around the 33rd floor when going down?  What are we to think when arriving at the ground floor at least a couple of the elevators seem to be making up their minds as to whether or not to open?  What are we to think when a floor button is pushed then after stopping at another floor letting passengers off that light turns off and the elevator returns to the lobby?

"... our objective it to prevent /or minimize frequent elevators breakdowns that we are encountering now."  Who is "our"?  "Prevent /or minimize" "breakdowns"?  How about eliminate. "Encountering now"?  "Now"?  Has "now" been redefined?  How about encountering for years.

Invasion of the Body Snatchers Goes Condo

Invasion of the Body Snatchers Goes Condo

I am now concerned for friends with condo units at Knightsbridge.  I have seen ad articles in two recent newspapers for the building.  While inspiration for the project has supposedly come from the neighborhood in London in some manner unknown, "pods" are the new name for units to "maximize" space.  How so given that structural columns are occupying these units now known as pods?  My walking through that London neighborhood had not seen pod buildings such as this.

What are in those columns?  Pods?  OH MY!  Has the invasion come here to Manila?  Pods built to create pod people.

Please, do not fall asleep!!!  Stay awake!

Management Clause Violates Corporate Code?

Management Clause Violates Corporate Code?

I had to have someone remind me about my own post in the past when writing about Soho Central. The clause of a 10-year obligation to have CPMI manage the buildings of Gramercy and Knightsbridge would seem to violate this clause of the Corporate Code.

Unit Owners need to contact the HLURB for a legal opinion since they need to check for legal compliance. Then seek assistance from the SEC since this matter has to do with the Corporate Code.

Was there a meeting for a vote?

BATAS PAMBANSA BLG. 68
THE CORPORATION CODE OF THE PHILIPPINES

TITLE IV — POWERS OF CORPORATIONS

SECTION 44. Power to enter into management contract. — No corporation shall conclude a management contract with another corporation unless such contract shall have been approved by the board of directors and by stockholders owning at least the majority of the outstanding capital stock, or by at least a majority of the members in the case of a non-stock corporation, of both the managing and the managed corporation, at a meeting duly called for the purpose: Provided, That (1) where a stockholder or stockholders representing the same interest of both the managing and the managed corporations own or control more than one-third (1/3) of the total outstanding capital stock entitled to vote of the managing corporation; or (2) where a majority of the members of the board of directors of the managing corporation also constitute a majority of the members of the board of directors of the managed corporation, then the management contract must be approved by the stockholders of the managed corporation owning at least two-thirds (2/3) of the total outstanding capital stock entitled to vote, or by at least two-thirds (2/3) of the members in the case of a non-stock corporation. No management contract shall be entered into for a period longer than five years for any one term.

The provisions of the next preceding paragraph shall apply to any contract whereby a corporation undertakes to manage or operate all or substantially all of the business of another corporation, whether such contracts are called service contracts, operating agreements or otherwise: Provided, however, That such service contracts or operating agreements which relate to the exploration, development, exploitation or utilization of natural resources may be entered into for such periods as may be provided by the pertinent laws or regulations. (n)

SECTION 45. Ultra vires acts of corporations. — No corporation under this Code shall possess or exercise any corporate powers except those conferred by this Code or by its articles of incorporation and except such as are necessary or incidental to the exercise of the powers so conferred. (n)

Master Deeds lock in Century Properties Management, Inc.

Master Deeds lock in Century Properties Management, Inc.

I feel sorry for the Unit Owners considering what we have experienced here at Soho Central.  I would think it advisable for Unit Owners to ask both the SEC and HLURB for a legal opinion as to the clauses in the master deeds.  After, they might then approach other legal assistance as to exactly what the obligations are on both sides given exactly what is written.

Under Section 74 of the Corporate Code members, Unit Owners, are allowed to get copies of the contracts.  Has anyone made such a request?

Unit Owners need to also inquire of other highly regarded condominium management companies as to their fees and make a comparison as to what is being currently paid for such services.

Gramercy

Knightsbridge

***

I had posted this last year and our own building, Soho Central, is getting worse.  If anyone would like a tour, let me know.  Bel-Air had freed themselves after a long struggle with posts on this at the blog.  Those at Bel-Air would also be willing to explain what happened there.

Bel-Air Soho Interior Condition

I posted these Bel-Air photos below as a warning to those in our building, Soho Central.  Think, they had Century Properties Management Inc (CPMI) with a familiar Board structure and this is the condition their building fell into after eight years.  What will or has become of our building since turnover in 2009?

I know there have been complaints here, Soho Central, as to cleanliness even from some appointed.  But, the problem of clean walls and other issues such as trim rotting has been taking place.  Some repairs have been made, but take a walk up the stairs to the 40th floor roof seeing what happened to a painting that took place after exterior water problems were supposedly fixed.

Much more may be said about our building's condition but the pictures below give the best warning for our possible future.  Or, is future past?

I was told they had paid 98 pesos per square meter with a 500 peso per unit additional charge versus our 65 pesos.  For that monthly dues they received such conditions after eight years.  Time to think and think hard, act and act now.

Sketches vs Plans vs Unit

Sketches vs Plans vs Unit

These are two posts that I had commented on at a forum that I was told about for Knightsbridge that is much more active than the one I had originally linked to at the side of this page.  These columns are the next major issue that buyers need to concern themselves with at all buildings.

This is the link for the forum in general: http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showthread.php?p=111954440

These comments are on a very interesting and disturbing possible development in the design of buildings and the impact for buyers and then owners on what they actually pay taxes and dues unless they challenge the area in their unit.

http://www.skyscrapercity.com/showpost.php?p=111954440&postcount=1880

Quote:

Originally Posted by crhys update from my unit...they are seeking legal consultation for the 2 big columns that are supposedly to be charged to us in full...that's about 5sqm of unlivable space, which as it happens, FF/FF option also has to increase (wtf)...it's taking weeks to ask the engineering team to identify what kind of columns they are, and an additional few weeks to get an answer from their legal department. what is going on???

What has happened with this? I have heard about the column problem at KB. I had also seen a photo of a column in Azure in a kitchen area that was not pleasing to the Unit Owner. As I wrote in another post, I strongly suggest now that all Unit Owners keep sketches from ads for buyers, plans at turnover and that they all go to the city engineer's office for a copy of the unit plan from THE drawings and compare to the unit.

I would think that possible changes from the original government approved plans are not good. I also would have a problem with a sketch for buyers leaving out details from the plans with the city perhaps reappearing in the plan at turnover.

Yes, this type of matter needs legal advice after all the information is collected and reviewed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by astatine The columns are there in the layout shown to you prior to buying the unit right? Or were they not there before, and magically appeared in the actual turned over unit? I am interested in the outcome of this legal action... These condos design their layout such that the columns/risers are inside the unit and buyers pay for the space they take... They can also put these outside the unit, but this means more space they have to allocate for the hallways, which means more unpaid space, and thus condos don't do it.

This quote was the response to the columns that I could not stop thinking about when I just received a call from one of the many Unit Owners here at Soho Central who experience the endless problems. This column situation needs to be told to all potential buyers anyone comes into contact with. I wish Armando Ang would update his book with this and Valle Verde vs Africa with so much else on the condo situation.

***

Yes, perhaps only Robert Lansing of the sci-fi film "4D Man" would be able to fully appreciate columns especially near the kitchen areas for increased space. I had the pleasure to meet him once in Los Angeles several years before his death. He may have enjoyed the space others cannot :))  Click to watch video at Youtube site.