Phase 2-Management under PHSSB

  1. Rental was raised from RM124 to RM250. Residents requested for the written authority to increase rental but the purported EXCO minutes that authorized the increase has not been shown to the residents.
  2. Interviews were conducted to assess those that are entitled to continuing to pay the old rate of RM124. Some single mothers were asked to pay the higher rate of RM250 causing some dissatisfaction as to what criteria is applied and whether it has been applied fairly across the board.
  3. The lift service has improved under the new management. However, complains were received that only one lift out of three are operating. There should be two lifts operating with one life left for emergency stand by.
  4. PHSSB has done a good job in the collection of rental. Residents will have their water cut off on the second month of non-payment of their rental. This has been effective to ensure that residents pay on time. However, residents that are under hardcore poverty have tremendous difficulty in paying and there is lack of mechanism to point this category of people to the appropriate EXCO for aid or economic opportunities.
  5. The services had been good during the early months of PHSSB taking over, but the quality of service has declined and residents complain that their complaints are not attended to. There is a form that needs to be submitted for all complaints but residents do not get a copy of it.
  6. Residents also complain that they are not treated with respect when dealing with the office or when following up on complains.
  7. There is a need to have regular monthly meetings between residents representative committee and the management company to get feedback and updates.
  8. The rat problem is getting more severe with rats now intruding to the higher floors.
  9. Residents are kept in the dark about the role of MBPJ and PHSSB. Is MBPJ responsible for PPR and PHSSB a contractor to MBPJ? Or is PHSSB solely in charge of PPR.
  10. Is it right for MBPJ to surrender responsibility of PPR flats to PHSSB and charging them to spend on maintenance only up to what they can collect from the residents. The total collected may not be enough to maintain the flats. It will definitely be unable to set aside towards a sinking fund to replace big capital expenditure like lifts.
  11. The maintenance company PHSSB need to understand the social role that they play even as they seek to be efficient in handling their bottom line. Both MBPJ and PHSSB is too infrastructure oriented and do not build on people structure that will help maintain the building and curb vandalism.
  12. There must be a balance approach to listening to resident’s feedback. Official entities like Resident Associations or Rukun Tetangga must form only part of the voice of the residents. There are many residents that refuse to join RA or RT because of community politics. Such dynamics include party politics which marginalized the neutral residents.
  13. The aid offered by the state is not reaching the right and deserving residents. Some residents get double portion while many completely miss state hand-outs.
  14. There is an absence of a customer charter which spells out specific time durations for service delivery e.g. maximum number of days to repair a broken sewerage pipe.
  15. There is an absence of list of planned preventive maintenance of the infrastructure of PPR e.g. how many years before all railings are repainted, how many months before all railings are checked for rust. How many months before lifts are serviced, how many months before water tanks are cleaned?
This entry was posted in FoKD Community Forest. Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply