Condo not painted in 16 years as couple refuse roof access to workers

The facade of a stack of condominium units in Bukit Batok has not been repainted for 16 years.

This is because the couple who own the topmost unit have refused to let contractors access the roof through their home.

Since at least 2008, the couple and the management corporation of Guilin View have been feuding over various matters, including issues of access to the unit to facilitate repair and repainting works.

In the latest episode of the dispute, the management corporation filed a court application against Mr Tan Eng Siang and his wife, Madam Quah Kim Lui, in the State Courts in February.

The management corporation sought a court order for it to be allowed to enter the couple’s unit so that repair and repainting works can be carried out, without obstruction from the two home owners.

Access to the top-floor unit and the staircase within the unit that leads to the roof is needed for workers to get to the roof to install the necessary equipment and carry out repair and repainting works.

This application is yet to be heard.

However, the case came before the High Court in December over the preliminary issue of whether the management corporation needed permission from the court to start legal proceedings against Mr Tan, as he is an undischarged bankrupt.

On Dec 24, Judicial Commissioner Mohamed Faizal ruled that no permission is required in the current case as the proceedings did not involve creditors or the debt for which Mr Tan was made bankrupt about 12 years ago.

In his written judgment, the judge noted that the current litigation was a “lose-lose proposition” and suggested that resolving the dispute through mediation would be much more beneficial to all parties.

“No benefit is to be had from litigation save to sate bruised egos that demand a court victory for its own sake,” he said.

He said it seemed obvious that the only legally tenable outcome in this case would be for Mr Tan and Madam Quah to grant access to the appointed contractors, with reasonable conditions imposed and advance notice given.

If the couple were allowed to deprive the management corporation of access to the roof indefinitely, this would mean that the works would never be carried out.

Such an outcome would contradict the law and may even amount to the commission of criminal offences under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act (BMSMA), he said.

The judge said Mr Tan and Madam Quah can decide whether they wish to mediate to set their own terms for access, or whether they wish to expend more money and energy for the court to eventually dictate the terms for all of them to live with, however inconvenient these terms might be.

There are five apartment blocks in Guilin View, with each block comprising multiple “stacks” of units. Construction of the 655-unit development was completed in 2000.

The couple’s unit sits on top of one of the 30-level stacks.

The judge observed, from a picture submitted in court, that in contrast with the other stacks within the same block, the facade of the couple’s stack appears not particularly well-maintained and seemed to be in need of a fresh coat of paint.

According to the management corporation, the facade of this stack has been left unrepaired and unpainted since 2008.

This led other home owners to file a complaint with the Building and Construction Authority (BCA).

The BCA then urged the management corporation to take the necessary urgent remedial steps. This is because under the BMSMA, the management corporation is charged with the duty of the upkeep of the common property.

Under building maintenance regulations, there is also a duty for external walls of such developments to be repainted at least once every seven years, unless otherwise directed by the BCA.

The owners of the other top-floor units have granted access to the contractors to carry out the necessary work.

Mr Tan and Madam Quah initially granted permission for contractors to access their unit. But over the years, they have refused to do so.

Madam Quah, who is not represented by a lawyer, contended that it was reasonable for her and her husband to refuse access.

She alleged that this was owing to unacceptable behaviour by the management corporation and its contractors when access was initially granted, as well as disagreements about other matters within the development.

In one of her written submissions, she alluded to an apparent failure on the part of the contractors to take necessary care, causing defects that she claimed could have “seriously injured or even killed” her.