Strata & JMB/MC Questions & Answers

Routine maintenance and repairs within the approved budget can typically be authorised directly by the JMB or MC committee. Renovation works involving significant cost, a change in how common property is used, or spending beyond the approved budget usually require a resolution passed at an AGM or EGM. The committee's by-laws and the Strata Management Act set the exact threshold for what needs owner sign-off.

Common property, meaning shared structures, facilities and areas used by more than one unit such as roofs, facades, corridors, lifts and car parks, is generally the committee's responsibility to maintain. The interior of an individual unit, from the plaster coat inward, is generally the owner's responsibility. Boundary disputes do arise, particularly around shared walls, floor slabs between units and balconies, so the committee should document its position clearly whenever a query comes up.

Major repairs are typically funded from the sinking fund, which is built up specifically for capital works rather than day to day maintenance. If the sinking fund balance is insufficient to cover the scope, the committee can raise a special levy from owners, usually requiring an AGM or EGM resolution first. Committees that plan a multi-year capital works schedule tend to avoid last-minute special levies.

Sinking fund contributions are typically calculated as a percentage of collected maintenance fees as guided by the Strata Management Act, with the committee able to set a higher rate if the building's age or upcoming works justify it. Older buildings approaching a major roof, facade or M&E replacement cycle commonly need to budget more aggressively than a newly handed over development. A condition survey helps the committee set a realistic contribution rate rather than guessing.

The committee typically issues a tender or request for quotation describing the scope, then evaluates responses on price, track record and coverage before shortlisting. For works above a certain value, the by-laws or Strata Management Act commonly expect at least three quotations before the committee can proceed. Once a contractor is selected, appointment is formalised through a signed service agreement covering scope, price, timeline and liability.

Many committees re-tender general maintenance contracts every one to two years to keep pricing competitive and confirm service standards haven't slipped. Specialist works such as roof or facade repair are typically tendered individually per project rather than on a recurring cycle. Re-tendering too frequently can disrupt continuity, so committees should weigh cost savings against the value of an established contractor who already knows the building.

Ask about the contractor's experience with strata or JMB/MC managed buildings specifically, since occupied common property work differs from vacant site work. Confirm insurance coverage, staffing capacity, typical response times for follow-up issues, and request references from comparable buildings. A contractor who can explain how they'll document works for the next AGM report is usually better prepared for strata work than one who only talks about the repair itself.

Disputes are typically raised first through direct written correspondence referencing the specific terms of the service agreement, giving the contractor a defined period to rectify the issue. If unresolved, the committee can escalate to mediation, or in more serious cases withhold payment pending resolution, subject to what the contract allows. Keeping dated photographs and inspection records from the outset makes any later dispute much easier to argue.

Since the roof itself is common property, repairing the leak at its source is generally the committee's responsibility. Liability for resulting damage inside the affected unit is a separate and sometimes more complex question that can depend on how quickly the committee acted once notified. Committees that respond promptly and document the timeline of their response are in a stronger position if a liability question is later raised.

Repairs affecting safety, such as a structural crack, an active leak causing damage, or a failed lift, can typically be approved directly by the committee without waiting for a general meeting, subject to what the building's by-laws allow. The committee should still document the urgency, the decision and the cost, since this record is what protects the decision if questioned later at an AGM. Non-urgent works that could reasonably wait should still follow the normal approval and, where applicable, tender process.

Advance written notice, commonly through notice boards, resident WhatsApp groups or building management apps, should cover the work location, expected duration and any temporary access or amenity restrictions. For works affecting entrances, lifts or parking, giving residents a specific start date rather than a vague timeframe reduces complaints once the project starts. A short update at completion, including any test results, also closes the loop for owners who raised the original concern.

Requesting quotations from at least three contractors is common practice for major works, both to keep pricing honest and to compare scope coverage rather than just the bottom-line figure. Quotes should be compared on what's actually included, response commitments and warranty terms, not price alone, since a lower quote missing key scope items often costs more once change orders start. The committee should keep all quotations on file as part of its AGM documentation.

Timelines vary by scope, but a typical committee-approved project such as roof or facade repair commonly takes 6 to 16 weeks once approved, not counting the weeks or months needed for tendering and the approval process itself. Larger scope works spanning multiple building sections usually run longer since they're phased to limit disruption. Committees that build tendering time into their planning schedule tend to avoid rushed, undocumented decisions later.

Under standard Malaysian SPA terms, developers are typically obligated to rectify defects reported during the Defects Liability Period, commonly 24 months from handover. During this period, defects in common property as well as individual units are generally the developer's responsibility to fix, not the JMB's, though the JMB often coordinates and tracks reports on behalf of owners. Once the DLP ends, unresolved or newly arising issues shift to the committee's normal maintenance responsibility.

Defects should be submitted in writing with photographs and clear descriptions, keeping dated copies and proof of submission for every report. A JMB handling this on behalf of owners benefits from a consolidated defects register that tracks each report, the date raised, the developer's response and rectification status, which also becomes useful evidence if escalation is needed. If rectification isn't completed within the DLP or a reasonable time, owners or the JMB can escalate through formal complaint channels or the housing tribunal.

Common corridor repairs are typically funded through the committee's maintenance or sinking fund since corridors are common property. If damage was caused by a specific party, such as a contractor working for one unit owner, the committee can pursue recovery from that party rather than the general fund. Recurring cracks or flooring failures should be assessed for an underlying cause before repeated cosmetic patching is approved.

Facade repair typically requires scaffolding or gondola access, so the committee needs to approve a method statement and safety plan alongside the repair scope itself, not just the price. Affected residents near the work zone should be notified of any temporary restrictions to windows or balconies before work begins. Because facade defects can pose a falling hazard, committees generally treat visible cracking, spalling or loose tiles as requiring prompt inspection rather than waiting for the next scheduled review.

Car park repairs are commonly phased level by level or bay by bay, with affected owners temporarily reassigned to available bays so the whole car park isn't closed at once. The committee should communicate the phasing schedule in advance and confirm which bays are affected and when. Since spalling in car parks is often linked to water reaching embedded rebar, committees should ask whether the scope includes waterproofing the deck, not just patching the visible concrete damage.

The committee should confirm the diagnosed cause, commonly a deteriorated waterproofing membrane, damaged grout or structural movement, since resurfacing without addressing the underlying cause tends to bring the same issue back. Because a pool repair typically takes the facility out of use for several weeks, the committee should communicate the closure period to residents well in advance. Warranty terms and a post-completion water test should be part of the handover documentation the committee keeps for the AGM.

The committee is generally responsible for ensuring playground equipment is inspected against recognised safety standards and that any identified hazard is repaired or the equipment taken out of service promptly. Regular inspection, commonly recommended at least twice a year, gives the committee a documented basis for budgeting repairs before a piece of equipment becomes a liability. Where repair versus replacement isn't clear, a professional condition assessment helps the committee justify its decision to owners at the AGM.

Rooftop water tanks are commonly recommended for cleaning at least twice a year, with additional inspection if water quality complaints are reported. Since cleaning or repair work usually disrupts water supply for a few hours to a day, the committee should schedule it during low usage periods and notify residents in advance. Keeping cleaning and inspection records on file also supports the committee's compliance position if water quality is ever questioned.