Dear Fellow Residents and Non-Resident Owners of South City,
Sorry for this longish clarification..
SCMC has been responsible for the maintenance of the South City complex since the beginning of July 1, 2013. The transition has been smooth on the whole although it required considerable work in terms of planning, anticipation and prevention of possible glitches, and continual monitoring. SCMC owes an immense debt of gratitude to the large number of volunteers who made this possible by the long hours - of often tedious work – they cheerfully put in.
We have been greatly encouraged by the positive response we have had – both in word and deed – from a large majority of our residents to the various steps taken by SCMC during this transition. However, as is to be expected in such a large community, there have been a few voices expressing doubts and concerns and even downright disapproval of the way the transition has been handled by SCMC. We are not unduly perturbed by these voices of dissent, firstly because they seem to arise from certain misconceptions and also since, as far as we can see, it is the same very few voices that repeat themselves over and over again. However, in keeping with SCMC’s policy of periodically responding to residents’ concerns, we shall try and clarify the more frequently raised issues in the following paragraphs.
There are three misconceptions in particular which seem to crop up over and over again. These are:
Misconception No.1:
SCMC has taken the rate of Rs.3 quoted by L & T as the basis for collecting Rs 3.00 as the AD Hoc Maintenance Charges.
A perusal of the Frequently Asked Questions put out by SCMC on 5th June 2013 will make it clear that this is not at all the case. We have admitted to using the verifiable estimates produced by L&T in court in respect of direct expenses such AMCs for lifts, DG sets etc and consumables such as diesel as well as water (including tankers) and electricity. This is around Rs. 44 lakhs per month. But in respect of management costs, inclusive of property management, security, housekeeping etc., we have arrived at our own estimates based on elaborate and painstaking studies by qualified expert groups drawn from among our own residents, negotiations with bidders for the provision of various services etc. The monthly outgo on these heads is estimated to be around Rs. 36 lakhs as against L&T’s estimate of Rs. 63 lakhs.
The FAQ circular explains clearly that, following these exercises, we concluded that the monthly maintenance charge would be around Rs. 2.5/sft.
Misconception No. 2
SUGRUHA has always maintained that L&T was overcharging for maintenance and advised residents to pay at differential rates to L&T, including in some cases at such ridiculously low rates as Re.0.40/sft, but has now suddenly changed its tune and is supporting the SCMC’s demand for a uniform rate of Rs.3/sft.
Here again we invite residents’ attention to our FAQ circular of 5th June, which clearly explains the facts as summarized below:
v SUGRUHA has always advocated a uniform rate of maintenance charge. Whenever we arrive at a negotiated settlement on past dues both ways, uniform rate of maintenance charges will be the basis of settlement.
v SUGRUHA has never seriously disputed L&T’s claims on actual maintenance costs except for insisting on fair and convincing account details.
v Such details were particularly relevant in the context of the fact that even according to the patchy accounts submitted off and on by L&T themselves many items of expenditure related to construction were included in the maintenance bill, and maintenance costs attributable to unsold flats, payable by L&T and Mr Ranka, were added on to the dues claimed from apartment-owners.
v SUGRUHA’s main contention has always been that L&T has been holding on to large sums of money belonging to the apartment owners such as reserved car parking fees and money collected towards deposits to be paid to public utilities such BWSSB and BESCOM and therefore the interest on these funds have to be offset against the maintenance dues.
v SCMC has no access to these monies and therefore has to collect from the residents at a rate that is sufficient to cover the entire estimated expenditure on maintenance. Given that we had to start from a bank balance of Re.0/- and that we would be required to make advance payments to some of the service providers (e.g.the AMCs) and also taking into account that it would be unrealistic to expect 100% collection from residents, we had to allow ourselves a cushion of Re.0.50 over our own estimate of Rs. 2.50 and thus decided on a rate of Rs.3/sft/month for the first quarter.
Misconception No. 3
SCMC started on the wrong foot by adopting an authoritative attitude and talking about cutting off DG supply for defaulting apartments.
Early on, SCMC made it clear that we cannot let down the vast majority of residents who promptly pay the maintenance charges by going soft on the defaulters and delayers. This, we have explained, would be totally unfair and against all norms of equity. One argument that has cropped up is that a drastic step like cutting DG supply should be resorted to only after adequate persuasive efforts have been made and notice given. We do believe that such efforts have already been made in ample measure. We are sure residents do not expect us to indulge in a sweet-talking PR exercise every time we have to take a step that would evoke resentment among a small minority of residents. The possibility of disconnection of DG power was first mentioned by SCMC in its status report to the community on June 22, 2013. That should, in all fairness, be considered adequate notice.
We reiterate that we consider our measures to persuade the remaining residents to pay up as an obligation we owe to those who have already paid and to the community as a whole. We shall not be deterred from our mission to maintain this habitat of ours in as efficient and equitable a manner as possible. We are open to constructive criticism that can help run South City more efficiently. Indeed we are grateful to the many residents who have made valuable, helpful suggestions which we have happily taken on board. But we shall not be deterred by mindless mudslinging such as the absurd, unsubstantiated allegation that we engaged goons to extort payment from residents.
Regards
SCMC