Welcome Main  Forum FAQ Useful Links Sample Letters Tribunal E-Mail Contact

This website is
 

To make matters worse the problem is usually complex and does not involve simple legal issues. A letter received from a reader says: "My sister has a new vacant shoplot. When the keys to the shoplot were handed over, we inspected the place and found that some remedial work needed to be done upstairs. We handed the keys back to the developer and asked that remedial work be done.

"The developer held on to the keys for over a year and in spite of constant reminders to have the work done, it was still not carried out. Recently my sister went to check and found that the door to the first floor was unlocked and the windows were missing.

"What I want to know is, who is responsible for the replacement of the windows and how does my sister get redress?"

In a situation like this it is not enough to hand the keys to the developer and then do nothing about it. The property, after all, belongs to the purchaser who at this stage has probably paid in full. As far as the developer is concerned, it has handed over the property.

As such the keys were handed to the developer merely to allow the company's workers to get in and carry out the rectification work. The property buyer would not necessarily be able to claim for losses for not being able to occupy the premises or rent it out.

Given the above scenario, what are the rights of the property buyer? And how should a person who finds himself in such a predicament act?

Of course a property purchaser almost always has the right to ask the developer to rectify the defects. To the purchaser this is a valuable right as he can insist on the defects being rectified without having to pay anything.

However, in reality it is not a right that can always be insisted upon to achieve the desired results. In the mentioned case, the rectification work was not done for a year and the property is in worse off condition. What does the house buyer do?

Worse still, it may not be possible to locate the developer at all. What does the house buyer do then?

If rectification work is not carried out within a reasonable time, the property buyer should engage a contractor to carry out the work.

The disadvantage of this action is that the buyer will have to pay the contractor and later seek reimbursement from the developer and, if necessary, sue the company. However, if the developer is not going to carry out the rectification work anyway then such rectification will have to be done and it will make no real difference.

On the contrary, by doing this the rectification work can be carried out much faster and the premises can be occupied or rented out earlier. This is an advantage to the property owner. It is really a matter of cutting one's losses. Merely insisting on what is right would not always be in the best interests of the property purchaser.

What about the responsibility for the damage caused to the property when the keys were with the developer? Who is responsible for the missing windows?

Whilst the property purchaser would like to think that this is the responsibility of the developer since the keys were with the company, the legal position may not be necessarily so.

This is because when the keys are handed to the developer, the company receives them only to rectify the defects. The property has otherwise been passed to the buyer and the risk that goes with ownership and looking after it rests with the buyer.

However, in order to hold the developer liable for the damage, it must be shown that it is an act of negligence on the part of the developer. This would be so if the developer negligently left the shop's doors unlocked.

However, if the loss is caused by the criminal act of the party that broke into the premises or gained access by other means, then the developer cannot be held responsible.

Another factor has to be considered. If it can be established that the developer's negligence was the direct cause of the theft, there is the further need to recover the amount that may be adjudicated to be payable.

One of the practical problems that property buyers fact is that the developer may be insolvent. This happens in many cases. Apart from reputed developers, many others are companies incorporated only for particular project.

The land is usually its only asset and this too is charged to the maximum possible to obtain financial facilities. In these cases, when the developers do not fulfil their obligations, it is because they have usually run into financial difficulties. When this happens, the outlook for the property purchaser could be somewhat grim!