Danger for small children on 35th Floor

Danger for small children on 35th Floor

While many more photos are to come to display the deteriorating conditions of the building here are some photos of the next elevator and the entrance on the 35th floor being dismantled.

Yes, a small child may easily fit through opening.  Warn all those with small children to restrict their movement in the hallways due to such negligence.

 

New Complaint Form for the Elevators

New Complaint Form for the Elevators

Below is another complaint submitted regarding the elevators.  Of course, the managing of the building will not handle this as so much else.  So unlike the demand made in the 4th Quarterly Report discussed in the previous post, submit and get two (2) additional copies acknowledged at the admin office.  Then go to the appropriate government agency as was done once again with this complaint form and give one to the agency getting the additional copy acknowledged for your records.

The elevator situation is being poorly solved.  Planning, planning and more planning is always necessary as well as listening to the Unit Owners.  The sequence of events to finally and fully install the elevators are ridiculous.

What was said to Ryan at city hall was not good.

After a recent post I had written on the various memo holders, we now see one being removed.  Are we in store for another set?

(Click here for a .pdf of the complaint.)

This is the form increased in size for easier use:

(Click here for a .pdf of the form.)

The RAC's 2013 4th Quarterly Report

The RAC's 2013 4th Quarterly Report

Page 1)  Under the first topic and sentence I get the image and feeling that would like to be conveyed:  "As usual the residential elevators malfunction once in a while."  I guess this neglects the fact that the service elevator has not functioned 24 hours a day, 7 days a week for many months and over a year.  Other elevators have been offline for periods of time and the next elevator is being torn apart.  So we will get another ugly look when the entrances are repaired lowering the value of our building.  The refurbished entrances are not acceptable.

A curious word is not in the plural.  Developer should be plural since there were two.  Or, the clause should be written as one of the developers.  The Undertaking is mentioned but has anyone other than the unelected and illegally appointed and one holdover Director ever been allowed the privilege to see this Undertaking?  I know there are private & secret Board meetings but we as members should not be denied viewing and obtaining such documents.

Where is the Undertaking hidden?  If anyone knows, please tell us.

Where are all the documents covering control and ownership of the commercial elevators?  Why are these not scanned or copied for Unit Owners?  Why are all these and so many other records kept from Unit Owners or made difficult to obtain?  Why all the secrecy?

Any "cudgels" being taken up for residential Unit Owners are by those not elected and appointments seemingly in violation of the Philippine Supreme Court decision, Valle Verde vs Africa.  Once again so much taking place with Unit Owners not able to witness Board meetings.

I find Greenfield's demand against Soho Central Condominium to be pathetically laughable.  Residential Areas pay dues of 65 pesos per square meter.  The Commercial Areas paid 65 then that was lowered to 41 and then lowered again to 26.5 pesos per square meter and they have the nerve to ask the condominium corporation to pay!  But it gets worse when reading the report.

I see this dues lowering to in effect create a subsidizing of large windows and escalators.  Were these approved since they are major structural changes to the building?  When and by whom was approval given?

"However, the GDC (Greenfield Development Corporation) officers present during the meeting claimed that they had turned over the commercial elevators to CPMI (Century Properties Management Inc) and had some document to show that Engr. Gerry Mina, CPMI's Vice President who once in a while uses the title 'OIC (Officer in Charge), of Soho Central Condominium', had signified acceptance of the commercial elevators."

CPMI is not and never has been a member of the Board of Directors of Soho Central Condominium Corporation.  What gave this employee working under contract at Soho Central the right to sign for the condominium corporation?  In fact, I now question the contract being in force upon Soho Central.  Oh, but this is not the only time this employee has exercised power as a Director of Soho Central Condominium Corporation.

I have written an outline of the history of Annual Meetings and this employee had an integral part to play in 2010.  Fortunately, a letter was preserved and I give it to you now.  Yes, this employee canceled the Annual Meeting as required.

Annual Meeting history outline:

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/07/a-history-of-annual-sccc-meetings.html

2010 Annual Meeting cancellation letter:

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/03/evidence-of-knowledge_4.html

At the link above you will find a violation made regarding the Annual Meeting.  The Annual Meeting may not be canceled in such a manner and quorum may only be determined at the start of the meeting and not by an employee of Century Properties Management Inc.  So now we have another instance of the power of the condominium corporation being taken from the Unit Owners.

But the decline of Unit Owners' units goes further with the following two sentences.  I find the following sickening.  "We rebuked the acceptance as not being legal for improper documentation and without Board acceptance.  Eventually, both the RAC and CPC agreed on sharing the expense of rehabilitating the commercial elevators through a 'beneficial' method."

There was no need to rebuke but to state quite clearly that the elevators were not turned over to Soho Central Condominium Corporation and there is no evidence of such a property transfer and the employee was acting without proper legal authority.  The second sentence above shows the rebuke of the unelected and illegally seated RAC to be only words then ACTING AGAINST THE INTERESTS AND PROPERTY VALUES OF ALL UNIT OWNERS.  "Beneficial" method is a joke on Unit Owners.  The RAC conceded to an unBeneficial method digging into the pockets of Unit Owners due to this bad decision.

As for the word rehabilitate, see my past post and it would apply with those elevators, too.

The rights of all Unit Owners are once again being denied by these actions.  WE WANT THE PERMIT TO OPERATE.

There is a short comment about the intercom which I have written on and took action in the past that was ignored.  The intercom is a sickening laughable joke from the developer/builder.

Page 2)  This page is mainly on financial matters.  The problem of the topic written about has questions that remain after the supposed details.  The first paragraph should be divided into two paragraphs with one on a reconciliation and the other Meralco.  Meralco, will the problems with Meralco in this building never end.

Would someone explain what this reconciled amount is and what it is about?  What is it that MDGI owes Soho Central Condominium Corporation?  Do they have our money in their bank account?  This entire paragraph needs a much clearer explanation.  The Meralco claim is also quite curious and needs a full explanation for Unit Owners.  Additionally, where are these matters in the financial statements and backup material?

I see more financial arrangements being made without Unit Owners witnessing meetings taking place regarding the ads in the elevators.  Unit Owners as members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation deserve the right to comment on such matters.  The current negotiations conducted without our knowledge is a severe infringement upon our ownership by the unelected Directors.

What is this separate account?  Why are the funds placed there?  Where is this fund?  Would not a financial statement reflect such monies?

The Globe Telecommunications deal has insufficient details explaining all the months' rates and what is the normal charge for such services much less why Globe has not paid.

The delinquent dues that have accumulated since turnover for me point to mismanaging of the building with collection being a part of the tasks.  I see no excuse for the problem to have grown to this extent and would like to know all parties on the managing side who are to blame.  If this has to do with a contracted management unable to do its job, then they have not met their obligation for the contract.  Of course, the added complication of an unelected Board and RAC that was not formed to handle matters as required in the By-Laws along with appointments to the Board in direct violation of Valle Verde vs Africa has not helped the situation.  This building is diving into financial catastrophe.

Nine million (PHP9,000,000.00) is way too late and should have been more current.

It is interesting that sales people are updated at a moment's notice for what is sold, pending, and which units are paid for in full.  But, our accounting may in polite terms rot.

Why was the former auditor, SGV, terminated and a new auditor approved.  Unit Owners were never given a clear and full explanation as to why this change took place.  It would have also been appropriate for Unit Owners, members, to approve the auditor in an Annual or Special Meeting.  What were the problems with SGV?  Were the records complete and in order for SGV auditing?

Page 3)  There is a lengthy paragraph on insurance coverage which once again shows how we were left in the dark with policies we have not seen.  We had as required by law two insurers and we now have a "panel" of four.  Is this legal and coverage between them as required by law?

The explanation given seems fine but then when thinking about the insurance some questions arise.  It states CPMI arranged coverage.  But who approved?  Where was an elected Board or legally appointed Directors?  We need all the details and all policies.  Such information would include how the decision was made and who voted to approve.

The next topic on this page has to do with meetings they allow us to attend.  How nice of them.  I find the first paragraph to have a very funny joke:  "As with any corporation in the Philippines, whether stock or non-stock, the voices of the members are expressed during members' meetings."  The problem is that meetings are poorly announced for maximum attendance.  If the meeting does take place walking out instead of a proper adjournment to a future date as required by corporate law is ignored.  After all, why follow the corporate code.  See all my past posts on the corporate code in relation to Soho Central.  I have had Unit Owners from other buildings tell me the same things happen there.  The status of condominiums needs vast improvement and monitoring by the HLURB, Justice Department and SEC.

One month's notice as I had written about in the past is not sufficient.  I had also quoted from someone who had perfect attendance at a complex they managed due to many months notice and an aggressive effort.  As far as a quorum, there is another way.  But why mention this since it will be ignored.

The RAC had a "gathering" not referred to as a meeting and it was not a meeting of the Board so not official.  I have already addressed this "assumed" seat in a previous post.

The reason Unit Owners do not attend is that they are frustrated by illegal voting procedures, walkout by the Board and an antagonistic reaction from the Board as well as astonishing claims as I was told that Minutes were available in the admin office which was never told to me the many times I tried getting them.  So "apathy and lethargy" are not the reason so much as disgust with the unelected Board.

The last sentence in this topic is a distorted view of the Unit Owners who are members of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation.  Unit Owning members want to exercise power they are allowed under the By-Laws, Master Deed and law.  Exploitation would violate these and would seem to mimic what is witnessed now.

Page 4)  This page begins with incident reports.  Incident reports?  Futile Action to Make Management Look Like They Are Doing Something Reports would be a title closer to reality.

We have made reports and will now copy complaint forms to appropriate government agencies once they are acknowledged by admin.  I have created a larger complaint form from the small one available for download at the right side of the page.

Here is an interesting story I was told about regarding sweeping into the hallway which we gave up on.  A Unit Owner made a report and the admin supposedly tried to stop the sweeping into the hallway but the Unit Owner would not adhere.  So they told the Unit Owner who complained they could do nothing as I was told the story.  Does everyone feel good about the complaint forms?  I would still take the action; and if applicable for a government agency, get copies acknowledged for submission to the appropriate agency such as a city engineer regarding the elevators.

There were Rules & Regulations established by the developer controlled Board.  We have now had additional Rules imposed by the unelected and illegally appointed Board members who now ask for us to cooperate.  Cooperating with such new rules would be contrary to the law.

There should be no micromanaging and admitting this state of affairs confirms awful leadership.  If the management company is not doing their job, terminate them!  Oh, as for an unseen contract, I would give the party one month to meet all of its obligations for every sentence, every word and every punctuation mark or termination is their award for noncompliance.

There is the comment that the RAC wanted the management staff to be oriented to CPMI policies.  Well it would seem to me given that the office staff is a part of that company that the work is a perfect demonstration of the policies.  What does that tell you?

Lastly, there is a topic heading for Other Matters.  I have a recent post on the mailbox mess.  This was poorly planned from the start.  I would not want toxic fumes and dust in the lobby from such a ridiculous and unhealthy mess ever again.

(Click here for a .pdf of the report.)

Keep Your Personal Property Documents Personal!

Keep Your Personal Property Documents Personal!

Due to a curious statement in the recent 4th quarterly report from the Residential Areas Committee (RAC) which does not seem to have any members that have seats according to the law and the Philippines Supreme Court decision Valle Verde vs Africa (2009) [a legal review], I am once again warning all Unit Owners here and elsewhere to learn the law, learn what is going on in your building and consult with an attorney.

Do not give or consult with a lawyer before giving any of your personal property documents or copies of them to the management or developer controlled board.  If any demand is made upon you consult with a lawyer and/or speak with a government official at HLURB and the SEC.

If your personal property documents are with the management or board and you did not give them to these entities, write a letter having it acknowledged requesting information on how they obtained the documents.  You want that acknowledged copy of your letter for possible future actions.

I had written about this on two past posts since the RAC and then Century Properties Management Inc in the administration office made requests on two separate occasions.

 

Here are the two memos making the demand:

 

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/09/threat-for-unit-owners.html

 

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/08/another-marial-law-edict.html

And for couples not appreciated by at least some past and current Board members, please carefully read the following and spread to all those you know on a possible aim of power:

http://sohocentralcondominium.blogspot.com/2013/04/discrimination-anti-gay-lesbian-rules.html

KNIGHTSBRIDGE Contract to Sell: Indemnity and Legal Fees/Venue clause

KNIGHTSBRIDGE Contract to Sell:  Indemnity and Legal Fees/Venue clause

We have such a clause in ours for lesser amounts that I will post at bottom.  I know, why did we as well as others sign with such a clause not striking it out.  Way too much trust in all those having to do with the selling of the units.  The trust for any of those individuals was over for me long ago.  I will never trust any of them ever again.

Is this clause in other projects such as Gramercy?  If so, consider striking it out.  Contracts go both ways and the buyer should not be forced to sign a contact with such an onerous clause.  Read the following very carefully and especially the second part of the second sentence.

Due to the small print of the image here is the text:

"25.  INDEMNITY AND LEGAL FEES/VENUE"

"Should the SELLER resort to the Courts for the protection of its rights or redress of its grievances under this Contract, the BUYER hereby agrees to pay the SELLER, by way of legal fees, a sum equivalent to Twenty Percent (20%) of the total amount claimed, but which in no case shall be less than FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP50,000.00).  An additional sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP50,000.00) shall be imposed if it reaches the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court and in addition, the costs and expenses of litigation, and the damages, actual or consequential to which the SELLER may be entitled by law.  The term "court" includes the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board ("HLURB"), and any other government agency having quasi-judicial authority.

This Contract shall be governed by the laws of the Republic of the Philippines.  Any and all actions or suits in connection with or arising from this Contract shall be filed with or instituted in the proper courts of Makati City, to the exclusion of all other venues."

Soho Central's Contract to Sell clause:

"SECTION 6.  DEFAULT"

"c)  In case the SELLER is forced to institute legal action to enforce its rights under this contract, the BUYER shall pay the SELLER, by way of Attorney's fees, a sum which in no case shall be less than Fifteen Thousand (P15,000.00) Pesos if the case is in the Municipality/City Court, not less than Twenty Thousand (P20,000.00) Pesos if the case reaches the Regional Trial Court, and not less than Fifty Thousand (P50,000.00) Pesos if it reaches the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court.  The SELLER shall also be entitled to the costs of its litigation and damages, actual or consequential, as may be provided for by law."

From 15,000 pesos to 50,000 pesos?  Inflation has certainly increased in the Philippines much more than reported in the papers from 2009 to 2013.

I know, have your lawyer write the same clause but for you the BUYER against the SELLER in an addendum to the Contract to Sell if not yet signed.  If they do not want to sign, that should tell you something.

***

Addendum

The following is an attachment to INDEMNITY AND LEGAL FEES/VENUE clause:

"Should the BUYER resort to the Courts for the protection of its rights or redress of its grievances under this Contract, the SELLER hereby agrees to pay the BUYER, by way of legal fees, a sum equivalent to Twenty Percent (20%) of the total amount claimed, but which in no case shall be less than FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP50,000.00).  An additional sum of FIFTY THOUSAND PESOS (PHP50,000.00) shall be imposed if it reaches the Court of Appeals or the Supreme Court and in addition, the costs and expenses of litigation, and the damages, actual or consequential to which the BUYER may be entitled by law.  The term "court" includes the Housing and Land Use Regulatory Board ("HLURB"), and any other government agency having quasi-judicial authority."

Residential Areas Committee within the Board of Directors of Soho Central Condominium Corporation

Residential Areas Committee within the Board of Directors of Soho Central Condominium Corporation

Long title, di ba?  Now for the detailed explanation.  Do we have another illegal appointment to the Residential Areas Committee (RAC)?  I believe so given the Valle Verde vs Africa (a legal review of the opinion) decision by the Supreme Court of the Philippines.

The following is from the By-Laws of the Soho Central Condominium Corporation (SCCC):

"In the same manner, the management and control of the Residential Areas (which includes the Units and the parking slots dedicated for residents) and all common areas found within the Residential Areas (including without limitation, the promulgation of rules and regulations governing the use of the Units and common areas found within the Residential Areas and the fixing of rates of association dues for the use and maintenance of the common areas found within the Residential Areas) are hereby irrevocably vested in a committee (the "Residential Areas Committee") composed of three (3) members of the board, to be appointed by the board; provided, that at least two (2) members of the Residential Areas Committee shall be nominees of the owners of the Units within the Residential Areas. All issues relating solely to the management and control of the Residential Areas and the common areas within the Residential Areas shall be resolved exclusively by the Residential Areas Committee."

It seems that beyond the issue of members of the Board that many, if not all, decisions made prior to the formation of the RAC are void due to not following the last sentence of the above quote of the By-Laws.  Even decisions made after the formation of the RAC are void since the appointments were contrary to Valle Verde vs Africa.  Why did those Directors on the Board at that time not follow the By-Laws.  One of those Directors is still on the Board.  In fact, that Director may be the only legally sitting Director at this time.

There is a newly appointed Board member that has just been announced for the first time since they "officially assumed the vacant" seat on November 27, 2013 as stated in the latest quarterly report from the RAC.  What is not said is as interesting as what is stated in the report.

From the just released 4th quarterly report of the RAC:

"The RAC requested unit owners to attend a meeting on November 9, 2013.  Only 10 unit owners showed up. We asked for anyone to take the place of Ma. Consolacion J. Tiotuico who resigned on October, 15, 2013 and we discussed some problems in the management of our condominium. Mr. Reynaldo G. Tan officially assumed the vacant RAC post on November 27, 2013."

Where are the words Board and appoint?  What I read is the word "assumed."  I had once wrote about the Musical Chair Board.  Was my remark actual reality?  Was the music playing and once stopped the empty chair was assumed?
 

Why not have the word Board written above since the members of the RAC must be from the Board?  To be a member of the Board one must be appointed according the law or elected as allowed by the By-Laws and Master Deed according to the law.
 

When and where did the Board of Directors legally appoint?  No election to the Board by the members, Unit Owners, of SCCC took place to my knowledge.  Who on the Board appointed?

I also see the word "meeting" in this paragraph.  "Meeting?"  What I had read was dialogue with unit owners announced.  Official meetings count though they are private & secret.  Those meetings would have Minutes.  We are still trying to get all the Minutes & Resolutions.
 

 "We asked for anyone to take the place" of the vacated seat as written previously.  Just "anyone" to be placed on the RAC and not someone appointed legally after being either legally appointed or elected to the Board of Directors?  Do any of the members of the Board, whatever their status, read the By-Laws, Master Deed and applicable laws and court rulings?

Compounding the compound violation of appointed Directors is another violation of the By-Laws regarding the RAC:  "... at least two (2) members of the Residential Areas Committee shall be nominees of the owners of Units within the Residential Areas."  No election took place for there to have been nominees along with the other cited problems.

Then there are the three of the seven seats on the Board reserved for the commercial areas.  Those seats "shall be nominees of owners of the Units comprising the Commercial Podium."  After nomination an election would take place according to the rules and law.

What happened at the 2011 Annual Meeting?  These three seats were not elected according to the Master Deed or law since this is a mixed-use building.  The rule for the election at the meeting was one vote per unit.  The rule was illegal.  The Master Deed and law call for votes by area meaning the square meters of units.  But even the illegal rule for voting did not take place.

There was a call by a member, Unit Owner, asking for an acclamation or pronouncement of the body approving the three commercial nominees since they have those seats anyway.  HUH!?  While they may have three seats reserved and to nominate, there is no reason members, all Unit Owners, have to vote yes to any of the candidates.

Additionally, no where in the By-Laws, Master Deed or law is such a maneuver allowed to take place at an annual meeting electing Directors to the Board.

At this point in time, it may be necessary to ask the SEC along with the HLURB to intervene and possibly conduct an election looking at all documents and decisions made since 2009.  I would also ask them to consider placing Soho Central Condominium Corporation in receivership for proper elections to take place.

Yearly Dues Discount and the other Property Tax Discount, watch out

Yearly Dues Discount and the other Property Tax Discount, watch out

A circular was just posted on the yearly discount of one month's worth of dues if the entire year is paid on or before January 22, 2014.  Ryan went to pay for the units and besides the dues with discount applied and applicable VAT the clerk added Real Estate Tax and Building Insurance.  He had to explain that he was there to pay for the full year of dues and not the Real Estate Tax and Building Insurance.  A reply was that there was VAT.  He can only guess why the retort was made.

So all Unit Owners, do not pay for the year's Real Estate Tax and Building Insurance if you do not want to since there is not a discount for these, and it will be billed at regular intervals throughout the year.

Many Unit Owners in the past have been confused as to another tax they owe which is also a Real Estate Tax.  The one the condominium corporation bills is for the building and the other which all Unit Owners are responsible for is the Real Estate Tax on individual units.  The tax for units is to be paid at city hall.  Do so soon since the city has a discount.  I know, why didn't the admin mention this, too?

Unit Owners, please make sure the Real Estate Tax on your unit(s) is paid up to date with the city.

In the circular, I do not agree with the sentence:  "We do not run the operations and maintenance of the building unfairly, if not arbitrarily."  Since Board meetings are conducted in private & secret and getting information has been beyond ridiculous, I seriously question any notion of fairness and not being arbitrary.

I have written and spoken to the fact of Unit Owners being the responsible party for dues no matter whether a unit is rented or not.  Now, as in the past with other matters, I see a reflection of this in the circular.  Others in the past had noticed such writings and actions from the managing and brought this to our attention.