AP.

TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

DALAM TRIBUNAL TUNTUTAN PEMBELI RUMAH

BERSIDANG DI JOHOR BAHRU
TUNTUTAN NO: TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20
ANTARA

(1) NURUL ATIQAH BINTI MOHD NASIR

(2) ZABIDI BIN MOHAMED @ ISMAIL
…PIHAK YANG MENUNTUT

DAN

PAGOH JAYA (2000) SDN BHD

…PENENTANG

GROUNDS OF DECISION

The Issues Raised

[1] This case brought to the fore the issue of whether the Technical

Team of this Tribunal was justified in applying the QLASSIC

assessment system to measure the quality level achieved on

completed building projects, and to use it as the yardstick to form

their opinion as to whether all parts of a building have been

constructed in “a good and workmanlike manner”.

1
AP.TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

[2] QLASSIC (an abbreviation of QUALITY ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

IN CONSTRUCTION) is a certification scheme developed by

the Malaysia Construction Industry Development Board. It is

essentially “a system or method to measure and evaluate the workmanship

quality of a building construction work based on Construction Industry

Standard (CIS 7:2006). QLASSIC enables the quality of workmanship

between construction projects to be objectively compared through a scoring

system.” (Source of above information: CIDB Official Website).

[3] The Respondent’s project architect testified under oath as a witness

during the hearing before me. The gist of his argument was that since

there is no legal requirement for housing developers to achieve the

workmanship and quality of the buildings set by the QLASSIC System,

a lower standard ought to be applied in assessing residential

buildings which are sold at a lower price. The Respondent went on to

point out that the house purchased by the Claimants from the

Respondent was not a ‘high end’ property. He went on to submit that

I should therefore not accept the Technical Report prepared by the

Technical Team of this Tribunal by using the QLASSIC System in

assessing the workmanship and quality of the said building.

2
AP.TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

The Background Facts

[4] The Claimants in this case were purchasers who entered into a Sale

and Purchase Agreement dated 19th April 2019 (“the Agreement”)

with the Respondent (as Vendor). The Agreement was in the

mandatory format of Schedule G in the Housing Development

(Control and Licensing) Regulations 1989 (“the Regulations”). As the

contents of standard agreements under the Regulations have been

amended several times over the years, it is necessary to examine the

contents of the version used which depends on the date of the

respective Sale and Purchase Agreement. Earlier authorities which

construed ‘outdated’ terms and conditions based on earlier or

different versions of Schedule G in the Regulations would be of no

assistance and ought to be distinguished.

[5] The Respondent is a licensed housing developer of a housing project

in the Mukim of Jorak, District of Muar, State of Johor known as

Taman Pagoh Jaya (“the Project”).

[6] There is no doubt that the Claimants in this case are homebuyers

within the definition of Section 16A of the Housing Development

3
AP.TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

(Control and Licensing) Act 1966 (“the Act”). For clarity of reference,

in so far as possible, the terminology used herein shall be the same

as in the Act, Regulations and the Agreement.

[7] The “housing accommodation” purchased by the Claimants at a

purchase price of RM 338,300.00 from the Respondent was a unit of

double-storey terrace house (“the said Building”) with land area of

156.0728 square metres (the said Building and land are hereinafter

referred to as “the said Property”).

[8] The Claimants’ claim against the Respondent emanated from the fact

that after receiving the keys to the said Property from the Respondent

in the month of October 2019, they alleged that they discovered over

200 defects in the said Building. In fairness to the Respondent, I must

state that most of the defects have been rectified by the Respondent

before the Claimants filed their claim at this Tribunal. Their claim was

therefore regarding the remaining defects.

[9] Clause 15 in the Agreement are relevant to the issue of workmanship

while Clause 27 thereof is concerned with building defects. For

4
AP.TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

convenient reference, the exact words in those two clauses are set

out in full as follows:-

“Materials and workmanship to conform to description

15. (1) The said Building shall be constructed in a good and
workmanlike manner in accordance with the description set out in
the Fourth Schedule and in accordance with the plans approved by
the Appropriate Authority as in the Second Schedule, which
descriptions and plans have been accepted and approved by the
Purchaser, as the Purchaser hereby acknowledges.
(2) No changes or deviations from the approved plans shall be made
without the consent in writing of the Purchaser except such as may
be required by the Appropriate Authority.
(3) The Purchaser shall not be liable for the cost of such changes or
deviations and in the event that the changes or deviations involve
the substitution or use of cheaper materials or the omission of works
originally agreed to be carried out by the Developer, the Purchaser
shall be entitled to a corresponding reduction in the purchase price
herein or to damages, as the case may be.

Defect liability period

27. (1) Any defect, shrinkage or other faults in the said Building which
becomes apparent within twenty-four (24) months after the date the
Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Property and which
are due to defective workmanship or materials or; the said Building
not having been constructed in accordance with the plans and
description as specified in the Second and Fourth Schedules as
approved or amended by the Appropriate Authority, shall be
repaired and made good by the Developer at its own cost and

5
AP.TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

expense within thirty (30) days of the Developer having received

written notice thereof from the Purchaser.
(2) If the defect, shrinkage or other faults in the said Building have not
been made good by the Developer within thirty (30) days referred
to in subclause (1), the Purchaser shall be entitled to carry out works
to repair and make good such defect, shrinkage or other faults
himself to recover from the Developer the costs of repairing and
making good the same and the Purchaser may deduct such costs
from any sum which has been held by the Developer’s solicitors as
stakeholders under item 5 of the Third Schedule, provided that the
Purchaser shall, at any time after the expiry of the period of thirty
(30) days, notify the Developer of the costs of repairing and making
good such defect, shrinkage or other faults before the
commencement of the works and shall give the Developer an
opportunity to carry out the works himself within thirty (30) days
from the date the Purchaser has notified the Developer of his
intention to carry out the said works and provided further that the
Purchaser shall carry out and commence the works as soon as
practicable after the Developer’s failure to carry out the works
within the said thirty (30) days. In such an event, the Developer’s
solicitors shall release such costs to the Purchaser from the
stakeholder sum held by the Developer’s solicitors of the
Purchaser’s written demand specifying the amount of such costs.
(3) Subject to subclause (2), where the Purchaser has, before the expiry
of the period of eight (8) months or twenty-four (24) months after
the date the Purchaser takes vacant possession of the said Property
as set out in Items 5(a) and item (b) of the Third Schedule,
respectively, duly served on the Developer’s solicitors a copy of the

6
AP.TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

written notice from the Purchaser to the Developer under subclause

(1) to rectify the defect, shrinkage or other faults in the said
Building, the Developer’s solicitors shall not release to the
Developer the relevant sum held by the Developer’s solicitors as
stakeholder pursuant to item 5(a) or (b) of the Third Schedule, as
the case may be, until the Developer’s solicitors shall have received
a certificate signed by the Developer’s architect certifying that the
said defect, shrinkage or other faults in the said Building have been
repaired and made good by the Developer.
(4) The Developer’s solicitors referred to in this clause shall mean
Messrs. Fadzilah, Ong Chee Seong & Associates of No.25, Jalan
Majidi, 84000 Muar, Johor or such firm or solicitors appointed by
the Developer from time to time in replacement thereof, provided
that –
(a) before any sum under item 5 of the Third Schedule has been
paid to the Developer’s solicitors as stakeholders, the
Developer may replace the Developer’s solicitors after prior
written notice has been given to the Purchaser or the
Purchaser’s Financier or the Government; and
(b) after any sum under item 5 of the Third Schedule has been
paid to the Developer’s solicitors as stakeholders, the
Developer shall not replace the Developer’s solicitors
without the prior written consent of the Purchaser.

The Tribunal’s Technical Team

[10] It is apt at this juncture to introduce the Technical Team of this

Tribunal. The members of the Technical Team in the southern zone

7
AP.TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

(Zon Selatan) of this Tribunal are civil servants with technical

background who were seconded from the Public Works Department

(Jabatan Kerja Raya) to serve as fulltime staff of this Tribunal’s

Technical Team. The task of the said Technical Team is to comply

with directions issued by the presidents of this Tribunal to inspect

buildings which are the subject matter of claims at this Tribunal, and

thereafter to prepare a Technical Report and Estimate of Costs of

Repairs.

[11] The Technical Reports prepared by the Technical Team are always

thorough, corroborated with photographs taken at the sites to show

the defects, stating the proposed actions to be taken to repair or

rectify the defects. In this present case, I had issued directions, when

the parties first appeared before me on 09-06-2020, for the Technical

Team to inspect the said Building, specifically to check if the alleged

defects stated in the Claimants’ claim were truly defects. The

Technical Team in fact visited the said Building twice, on 7th and 8th

July 2020 to carry out site inspections before they prepared a lengthy

Technical Report which is 119 pages long. The time and dates of their

visits are clearly recorded in the said Report, a copy of which was

8
AP.TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

given, free of charge, to the Claimants and the Respondent

respectively.

[12] The names of the Technical Team members who inspected the said

Building on 7th and 8th July 2020 were as follows: Encik Muhammad

Zahran Bin Abdul Rahim (who holds a Higher National Diploma in

Civil Engineering), Encik Mohd Hafizan Bin Abu Ngamar and Encik

Azmizapi Bin Kosrin (who both hold Diplomas in Architecture) and

Puan Nurul Noor Baizura Binti Musa (who holds a Diploma in Building

Services). I was informed that all of them had received further training

on QLASSIC assessment system. My purpose for stating their names

and qualifications is to show that the Technical Team of this Tribunal

do have technical know-how to perform their tasks objectively and

professionally.

The Technical Team’s Report

[13] For the purpose of inspection, the Respondent was required to and

did supply the Technical Team with a set of approved building plans

and other documents as were required by the Team because Clause

15 of the Agreement stated:-

9
AP.TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

“The said Building shall be constructed in a good and workmanlike manner

in accordance with the description set out in the Fourth Schedule and in

accordance with the plans approved by the Appropriate Authority as in the

Second Schedule”

[14] Out of the 57 alleged defects pointed out by the Claimants during the

inspection, the Technical Team decided that there were 37 items to

be regarded as defects and which would require repair and/or

rectification. In their Estimate of Costs of Repairs, they opined that a

sum of RM13,625.80 would be required for the Claimants to engage

private contractors to perform the repair/rectification works.

[15] As mentioned above, the Respondent called their architect to attend

as their witness for their defence. The said architect, one Mr. Yeow

Tiang Hock, testified under oath that he is a qualified architect and

stated that he was present when the Technical Team was carrying

out the inspection, and that he queried the standard applied by the

team members in assessing the quality and workmanship. He was

informed that they applied the QLASSIC System. The Respondent’s

witness was of the view that the standard applied by the Technical

Team was too high because the said Property was sold to the

10
AP.TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

Claimants at price of RM338,300.00, and is therefore not a ‘high end’

property which would justify the application of the QLASSIC System.

[15] Upon perusing all the said Report thoroughly, I found as a fact that

the Technical Team had being objective and did not impose an

unusually high standard. Some complaints were rejected outright,

for example, the Claimants had complained that the paintwork on

the area surrounding the car porch window was uneven but upon

inspection, the Technical Team found that there was no unevenness

visible from a distance of 1.2 meter, and hence the paintwork was

deemed to be of acceptable quality (see Complaint Item No.3 in the

said Report). In other words, the Technical Team members did an

objective inspection of all the alleged defects.

[16] As mentioned above, QLASSIC is a system developed by CIDB to

measure and evaluate the workmanship quality of a building

construction work based on Construction Industry Standard in

Malaysia. Though it is not mandatory for housing developers to meet

the QLASSIC System, I am of the view that QLASSIC serves to

provide a basic yardstick to assess the quality of building

construction work – from which adjustments could be subsequently

11
AP.TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

made by this Tribunal based on the selling price of the property. If a

quality assessment system prescribed by the Malaysian statutory

board, i.e. the Construction Industry Development Board could not

be used, how else are we supposed to assess the quality of

buildings in Malaysia? As a president of this Tribunal, I had the

privilege of attending a lengthy Talk on QLASSIC which was held in

the Judicial and Legal Training Institute (ILKAP) in year 2018. Based

on what I learnt then, I am convinced that QLASSIC is an objective

assessment system to evaluate the workmanship quality of building

construction work. Where this case before was concerned, my view

was fortified by the fact that the Technical Team’s Report did delve

into details, with clear photographs and excerpts from the building

plans (wherever relevant) to corroborate their technical findings.

[17] I agree with the Respondent’s architect that since the said Property

was sold to the Claimants at price of RM338,300.00, it is not a ‘high

end’ property. However, RM338,300.00 cannot be regarded as a low

price for a double-storey terrace house which location is in Mukim of

Jorak in the District of Muar, a small town located more than 120km

away from Johor Bahru. The Technical Team’s Report dealt with

each and every alleged defect separately, and stated the Claimant’s

12
AP.TTPRZS/J/0021(T)/20

complaint, the Respondent’s response, the Technical Team’s

findings, and the Team’s recommendation for repair/rectification if

they found it to be indeed a defect. Further, the Respondent’s

architect was unable to pinpoint any particular error in the technical

findings of the Tribunal’s Technical Team besides objecting to them

applying the OLASSIC System. I am constrained to find that there

was no error in the Report prepared by the Technical Team.

Therefore, I was of the view that it was safe for me to rely on the said

Report to make an award in favour of the Claimants who had given

due notice to the Respondent as required by Clause 27 of the

Agreement.

[18] As for the quantum of compensation to be awarded, I had to decide

whether to accept the recommendation stated in the Technical

Team’s Estimate of Costs of Repairs. The figures given by the Team

were based on rates used by Jabatan Kerja Raya (where the Team

members were seconded from). Since there were 37 items which

require repair/rectification works, I was of the view that the proposed

sum of RM13,625.80 which is only about four percent (4%) of the

price of the said Property was a fair figure. It is also less than the five

13