Transmenu powered by JoomlArt.com - Mambo Joomla Professional Templates Club

Good Job to all those who are involved.

Waiting in anticipation for Andrew's report which is usually detailed and informative.

Anything discussed on solicitors fees of Developer being charged to Vendors to prepare standard documents like Deed of Novation and Mutual Covenants.

Good beginning of a "long walk" to convince the other pressure groups like the accountants; engineers; architects; surveyors; the consumers and most of all the government. I still think that we should maintain the scale fees and allow a maximum discount of up to 35%. This would be a middle path between the total abolition of the scale fees and the no-discount rule.

This comment was originally thought out in reply to Datuk Eddy Chen’s comments in New Strait Times – 21 November 2005

Our country’s economy is going through a very trying time.

Average take-up rate for development/housing projects is only about 48 % as supply exceeds demand.

So whether Bar Council enforces the “No Discount Rule” or otherwise would not help to improve the take-up rate for development/housing projects.

So let’s not take on each other Bar Council & Rehda, as the profession needed Rehda members to continue building residential/commercial properties so that the legal profession has the housing industry to service.

For Rehda please understand that solicitor’s imput is not only to check purchaser’s particulars in a standard Sale & Purchase Agreement prescribed under the Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Act 1966 (Act 11 & Regulations.

Solicitors also have to comply/adhere to the following:-

1. pay for Professional Indemnity Insurance coverage – the insurance premium co-relate to the percentage of residential conveyancing work that our firm’s handle, the higher the percentage the higher the premium as well as the loading factor;

2. to keep the files for 12 years upon completion of the transactions before the destruction of files

Part H : Professional Practice Rulings of the Bar Council 1997 (probably guided by Limitation Act 1953 S. 9 (1))

3. our liability for each transaction is 100% i.e. say we handle a transaction for RM200,000.00 and our fees is only RM1,500.00.

Just imagine all we need is only to overlook on one (1) transaction and we are liable for RM200,000.00. Arithmetically speaking we need to handle 133 transactions to cover/recoup our losses for the one (1) oversight.

If I may suggest Rehda members ought not advertise the fact that “developers absorb the solicitor’s fees for the S & P Agreement “ as an incentive to the Purchaser for the following reasons:-

(a) transaction governed by Act 118 – see Housing Development (Control & Licensing) Regulations 1989 - Regulation 11 Contract of Sale R. 11 (4). A purchaser’s solicitors shall be entitled to a complete set of the contract of sale … , free of charge…

(b) non Act 118 transactions – see Article entitled “The Developer Or Its Solicitors Is Not Entitled to Demand From the Purchaser Charges For The Sale And Purchase Agreement” by the learned Author Mr. Yang Pei Keng published in Insaf, the Journal of Malaysia Bar in the April 1995 issue.

Be that as it may the Malaysian Bar is very accommodative to Rehda as we have been informed by the Bar Council that the new Solicitors Remuneration Order is providing a sliding discount rate for housing development transactions.

Therefore we trust Rehda would reciprocate our kind gesture and support the Malaysian Bar’s stand on the “No Discount Rule”.

Thus in the Asean spirit we ought to engage in dialogue to resolve matters of common interest and in that I must congratulate the members involved in having this meeting both from the Bar and Rehda.

Wishing Rehda & Bar Council a happy outcome from the dialogue.

Hi Nicole,

I admire your courage when you took the podium at the recent AGM to express your views on why the No Discount Rule motion should be dismissed, in light that the majority was obviously not in favour of your motion (then). I salute you for your courage.

We have all heard the views from the respective "speakers", arguments from both sides, and the matter was finally put to vote. We, as members of a general body must support the majority decision, albeit we don't like it, cos this is how it works in a democratic society!

I'm not a full time conveyancer, but occasionally I do take up some conveyancing files. I must state on record that those who have taken the steps to initiate meetings with bodies such as the banks, REHDA etc must be congratulated. Your effort will certainly not go unnoticed!

This is my humble proposal. Shall we, at this juncture, support the general consensus in maintaining the No Discount Rule and let the Councillors / SREO / Conveyancing Committee to try to at least convince the market at large or to seek compromise with the relevant parties. Unless and until such time that your belief in "free-trade" or laissez faire concept is acceptable through a resolution passed in the AGM, let us move forward, perhaps you and I may witness more "pros" than "cons" by maintaining the No Discount Rule.

Just my 2 cents worth.

Thanks for your kind words. I know that everyone is quite sick and tired of my constant goading. BN is sick and tired of the opposition as well but that did not stop them from voicing opinion, regardless of the fact they are in the minority. I am afraid that the result of the last AGM (although I respect it) is not the be-all and end-all of the matter as there is always the next AGM and so on and so forth. I feel that the Bar should accept all forms of criticisms and opinions in a constructive manner (which I am glad to say in the affirmative). If the majority are not in favour of my opinion then treat whatever I wrote or say like the bites of a Socratic gadfly. Irritating but provoking. I shall continue to press on until the goal is achieved, i.e. to warn members of the power of market forces and to adapt to it by maintaining the scale fees and allowing a maximum discount of 35%.

Bona fide and amicable,
Nicole Tan :grin