Frequently Asked Questions


This FAQ is Work-In-Progress. We hope it answers many questions about our Taman Puchong Hartamas. Feel free to send your questions to us via Contact Us form and we try our best to answer and publish the answered questions here.

A. Guardhouse at Jalan PH2

A1. The guardhouse is on the road shoulder and in the middle of the road.

The guardhouse was built in 2004 by the Developer according to the master plan of Puchong Hartamas. The master plan was approved by the MPSJ. However there wasn't any guideline on how to properly build a guardhouse in 2004. As a result, it was oddly located. MPSJ has realized the problem and working on it to relocate it to an alternative site.

A2. The guardhouse is illegal?

As of today, no authority is willing to claim ownership of the current guardhouse. Even the PHRA also refused to take over. According to the Gated and Guard Community (GnG) guideline, the guardhouse should be built on Temporary Occupancy License (TOL) land and on the road side. Since it is not on a TOL land and not on the road side, it is considered "illegal" by some.

A3. If the guardhouse is "illegal", why don't we just demolish it and operate the Security Management Services under a big umbrella like some of the Taman?

This will not solve the problem because the key issue is the "location" of the guardhouse. Even if you replace it with big umbrella, it is still at the illegal location. All issues relating to the guardhouse liability still remain.

A4. What is the current guardhouse's liability?

The current guardhouse liability is due to its dangerous location in the middle of the road and no TOL applied. It blocks the view of oncoming vehicle from the right. Many residents are doing illegal right turn. There had been two reported car accidents next to the guardhouse in the last Nov 2011 and year 2009.

A5. Why can't we quickly move the guardhouse?

First, an alternative site must be legally identified and recognized by the authorities. This has been done in 2009 by MPSJ and other relevant authorities. Their conclusion of a suitable site is at the Jalan PH2/1 - PH2/2. It is the only officially recognized option. But the progress was delayed due to petition by the residents at the alternative site who complained there would be increased traffic, dust and noise outside their road.

A6. Why can't PHRA assist by giving options to all residents to choose and vote for a suitable site?

PHRA has no rights to decide where the new guardhouse should be. Even if the residents (not PHRA) themselves come out with a different view than authorities, it makes no different to them because the only legally recognized location by the relevant authorities is at PH2/1 – PH2/2.  Other locations are deemed illegal.

A7. There are letters from Land Office wanting to demolish the guardhouse. Why is that?

It has been dragging too long and the authorities are constantly pushing for the relocation work to begin. The demolition order is part of the pressure from authorities and also a result of the complained by some residents.

A8. I am told since this is an illegal guardhouse, the PHRA cannot implement Security Management Service. Is that true?

Security Management Service and Guardhouse Legality are two different issues. The PHRA took the task to manage security because it is the top priority of majority residents (96% agreed in 2009 Referendum) who gave the PHRA the consent to operate. There is also proper Deed of Assignment by the Developer to PHRA in 2009. It is unfortunate that we inherited a guardhouse with issues, which the PHRA has specifically excluded any liability of it and demanded the authorities to resolve this as soon as possible.

A9. So what should the residents do? Move or don't move the guardhouse?

It is not up to the residents to decide whether to move or don't move. The authority has decided to move and cannot drag this matter for too long as it concerns public safety. The authorities had commanded PHRA in Dec 2011 to apply TOL of the new location to facilitate the moving, failing which the existing demolition order will apply. We advise residents to cooperate with MPSJ to speed up this task quickly.

A10. Who is going to bear the cost of constructing all this?

MPSJ has assured PHRA that they will handle all monetary costs. They only require PHRA to apply the TOL of the new guardhouse in accordance to Selangor GnG Guideline. MPSJ also invites the concerned residents to give their inputs to minimize the impact of the relocation. The invitation is in good faith and open to those who would help.

A11. What is PHRA's stand on this guardhouse relocation?

PHRA leaves the relocation decision to the authority and only facilitate the relocation tasks. The safety of guardhouse and its access road affect not only residents who stay in our Taman but also anyone who is passing by our area. We still need to engage MPSJ closely to ensure the new access road and guardhouse are constructed with minimum impact to affected residents.

B. Gated and Guard (GnG) at Taman Puchong Hartamas

B1. What is the percentage of sign up for GnG in Taman Puchong Hartamas?

The GnG setup in Taman Puchong Hartamas is different than the GnG Guideline set by Selangor State Government. We started Gated Community in 2004. During that time all house buyers are required to sign Supplement Agreement which binds the owners to Security Management Services. By this virtue, it is considered 100% consent for GnG.

B2. What is the percentage of those who pay up the security fees?

The collection rate was 100% under the Developer's time. The problem started in 2008 when Developer and Chairman of PHRA got into legal battle, and the collection rate was deteriorating. When PHRA officially took over the Security Management Service in 2009 under a new Chairman, the collection rate has been at average of 80%.

B3. What is PHRA Membership and how many members are there?

As per Supplement Agreement, the Security Management Service must be eventually managed by an official registered Society/Association/Committee, which in this case is PHRA. The PHRA needs membership to keep itself in power. The current active member count is 274 (or 70% out of 391 houses).

B4. So there is 100% signed Supplement Agreement, 80% paid up security fees and 70% joined as PHRA members. Which figure actually represents the support of GnG?

The 2009 Referendum where PHRA took over the Security Management Services from the Developer is a good yardstick to determine the support of GnG. There was 96% votes to take over properly from the Developer and accept the Supplement Agreement as the GnG guideline. Hence, the Supplement Agreement, which is signed by 100% owners, should be the authoritative legal document represents the consent of GnG in Taman Puchong Hartamas.

However the current committee of RA must actively sought to meet the residents to improve the collection rate because it is ultimately the number that pay for all operations.

B5. Isn't there law for Gated and Guard?

No, there is no law yet; only guidelines. There is Selangor Guideline and Federal Guideline.

B6. What is Strata Act and does it apply to Taman Puchong Hartamas?

It does not apply to Taman Puchong Hartamas. The Strata Act is a law by Federal Government for apartments or condominium where the place is a private property and the management of the place is by a joint committee between Residents, Developer and a management company. Our Taman Puchong Hartamas is a residential area where no such concept is applicable. Over here you only own your house and everything else outside belonged to MPSJ.

B7. How do you manage security services under GnG?

We engaged security company who provides guards and implement the service via Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). The guards will look after the entrance and patrolling the Taman Puchong Hartamas. We are using Access Card system to ease the authorized residents to enter and leave the premise. Visitors or residents with no Access Card are required to register with the guards and then guards open the boomgate after registration.

B8. I am told that Access Card cannot be implemented to bar access to Taman Puchong Hartamas.

The use of Access Card and barring access are not used together in Taman Puchong Hartamas. The Access Card gives privileged and authorized residents to enter and exit the Taman quickly. The guards did not bar anyone without valid Access Card. They merely perform the registration of the visitors by taking down the driver particulars and vehicle number for security purpose. Then they open the boomgate for them.

C. Monthly Security Fees

C1. What is the monthly security fees?

The monthly security fees was RM50 when it was started around 2004. It has been revised to RM80 in April 2011 but updated to RM60 in 2012. The increment is justified in AGM with the approval of members. The scope of security fees was also extended to include maintenance, esthetic, social and community activities, and utilities expenses. Any changes are done in AGM only with the consent of all members.

C2. On maintenance, isn't MPSJ supposed to maintain our Taman since we are tax payers?

Yes, MPSJ is the proper party to provide amenities maintenance. However MPSJ schedule of maintenance and the quality of work do not meet our standard. For example, the collection of big objects such as cut tree trunk supposed to carry out on monthly basis but it was not carried out. The scope of MPSJ does not cover cleaning of drains. All these works were done via "Gotong-Royong" in most of the Taman. But this isn't happening in Taman Puchong Hartamas. Therefore the residents must have own maintenance team either consist of volunteers or paid.

C3. Please call MPSJ to clean up the dead cat at my vacant neighbor house and the smelly dog pooh…

The Committee Members are all volunteers and received no payment for their work in serving the community. The resident can easily report case by sending SMS to 15888 like this "MPSJ ADUAN <your complaint message>".