Hotline:(+84) 898 898 688
Recently, in the complaint to the HCMC Party Committee and the media, more than 300 households EverRich 1 (District 11) together in the same application said, in May 2016, The residents discovered Phat Dat Company (the investor) did not disclose the amount of fund maintenance of the apartment, arbitrarily change the function of the gym to rent office, motorbike chassis is recovered by investors 70% of the area…
“The owner thinks that the 2014 Housing Law stipulates that it is the owner’s own part”, Mr. Dang Van Cuong, a single-family homeowner said.
You can read more information at: Vietnam Real Estate News
As reflected by the residents, the project sold to the market since 2006 and officially came into use in 2011. When the sale, the investor introduced the apartment has facilities to serve people such as commercial, swimming pool, spa, gym, community room. However, since the handover of the apartment to date, most of the utility of the apartment has not been implemented by the owner as committed.
In another case, at the CT3 Le Duc Tho apartment building (Nam Tu Liem district, Hanoi), disputes over the management of apartment and basement have been going on for nearly 2 years but at this time, Conflicts between residents and investors C’land Company is still hot.
As reflected, the first time, tensions between residents and investors revolve around the management, use maintenance funds, handed over apartment records. However, the old problem is not finished, residents are “hot” when the owner asserts, two basement garages are owned by the enterprise.
After many dialogues do not solve the problem, too deadlock in how to solve, recently, the representative of CT3 Le Duc Tho apartment has appealed to the Hanoi People’s Committee, Authorities proposed to resolve the long pressing issues are happening in this apartment as the investor deliberately violate the law.
Noteworthy, before the tension between the investor and the residents, the Department of Construction Hanoi has twice written to urge investors as C’land Company hand over the management of the building to the Board. However, C’land is deliberately “ignore”.
Talking about the cause of conflicts in the basement of the apartment in the past, Nguyen Hong Minh, general director of management and operation of PMC Corporation said, previously, basements were under the common ownership of residents, but later, there were regulations adjusted, depending on the project. This is a legal weakness that creates contradictions.
According to Mr. Minh, looking back at the law is not difficult to recognize this ambiguity. Under the provisions of Clause 3, Article 70 of the Housing Law and Point c, Clause 2, Article 49 of the Government’s Decree No. 71/2010 / ND-CP of June 23, 2010, detailing and guide the implementation of the Housing Law, if the “parking” is the basement, the basement must be considered as a common property.
However, in the car parking area, Decree No. 71/2010 / ND-CP stipulates that “the owner decides under the common ownership of the owner of the apartment or under the ownership of the owner of the condominium. This is ambiguous, contrary to the provisions of Article 70 of the Housing Law.
Clause 3, Article 49 of the Decree No. 71/2010 / ND-CP also stipulates: “Part of the private ownership and common parts of the apartment as stipulated in this Article must be clearly stated in the apartment purchase contract”. Thus, this provision of the Decree has avoided clarifying joint ownership – private in the basement of the condominium, by letting the parties decide for themselves.
On the same point, Mr. Truong Thanh Duc, Chairman of Basico Law Firm said that to limit the dispute basement apartment building should issue the regulations and explain clearly, reasonable affirmation: basement (garage) must be under common ownership. Only in the case of other agreement will the agreement be reached. In this case, the law must protect the buyer, the consumer, the real owner of the apartment.
According to Duc, the basement is not just a parking place as previously understood, but with the value of exploiting the business of basement is increasing as today, the dispute related to ownership, exploitation of the basement business will be more and more popular. Therefore, if not soon to have specific regulations, details deal with this ambiguity, the dispute over the ownership of the basement will continue.
You are reading the article “Apartment Basement Disputes: Legal Weaknesses Arises Contradictory?” in the section “Real Estate Law” on the website: realestatevietnam.com.vn
All information sharing, feedback please email to firstname.lastname@example.org, Hotline (+84) 898 898 688 (24/7).