Open Letter to Berjaya Times Square Management and Developer: Michael Zsolt Moricz - Part 2

(continue)

2. Para 5 "Developer wil not be responsible for any shortfall in the operating costs of BTS" - this statement is irresponsible and unacceptable by me. The statement made by you on behalf of BTS is not only improper but confirmed that you ar ebiased and acted in favour of the developer. I content that the Developer is still held liable and responsible for all the operating costs and losses incurred by them from the years 2003 to 15th August 2008 until the JMB is constitued. The formation of JMB on 15-08-2008 does not preclude or remove the responsibilities and duties of Developer for the whopping losses that run into tens of millions incurred by the developer over the last five years since its inception year 2003 to 15th August 2008.

1. As regard the Income and Expenditure Accounts on the maintenance and management of the common property of Berjaya Times Square (BTS), I feel that it is necessary to appoint an independent auditor to verify the line-by-line items (i.e. detailed breakdown of each component in the Income and Expenditure Account) and to ensure all the revenue are fully accounted for. Also, to ensure that there is no misclassifications or omission of any revenue. Further, JMB should scrutinise any apportionment of the monthly expenditures are done correctly and fairly. All these appropriations, accounts and accountabilities must be completed first, in order for the JMB to justify for the increase in service charge; otherwise the rationale used by you to arbitrarily revise the service charge purely due to the hike in electricity tariffs and comparative survey figures is deemed unjustifiable, unfair and unreasonable.

2. Furthermore, the petrol price that is a main component of electricity cost has recently been reduced significantly by 50%; in fact the monthly service charge should be accordingly revised downwards instead of upward.

3. Also, my rationale is: should you have held the Developer fully responsible and accountable for all the revenues, rents, incomes and monies collected as stated in paragraph 1(a) to (g) which monies were collected by the Developer for and on behalf be substantial surplus in our Building Maintenance Account and Sinking Fund. Is it true that you and most of the key committee members of the Board are employees of the Berjaya Group of companies? If you are, then there is no doubt that you all have acted in conflict of interests. Please investigate and advise me accordingly.

4. Please note that BTS has been billing RM0.50 per sq, ft per month (Service Charge + Sinking Fund) since the inception of the building in 2003 which was rather high compared to other newly completed high rise condominiums within the KLCC vicinity. For RM 0.50 per sq ft per month, the Owners have already been paying a premium for both the Service Charge and Sinking Fund since 5 years ago.

Based on the build up area of 7,5000,000 sq ft the collection per month is:
a) Shopping Mall Area: 3,4500,000 sq ft x RM 1.20 x 5 years = RM 248,400,000
b) Hotel & Service Suites Area: 1,700,000 sq ft x RM 0.50 x 5 years = RM 51,000,000
c) Car Park & Building Services: 2,350,000 sq ft x RM 0.50 x 5 years = RM 70,500,000

Estimated Total Collection/Revenue over past five (5) years = RM 369,900,000 !!!

A Whopping Three hundred sixty-nine million and nine hundred thousands!
(Please bear in mind that this revenue does not include other income collected from car parks, advertising fees, events, rents from common properties, common facilities and memership fees). Please correct me if my figures are wrong.

JMB, please explain where this money has gone and how it has been spent over the years. Please account for it in details.