Issues in Managing Vertical Residential Building in Malaysia: Homeowners' Perspective

Transcription

1 Manuscript # 189 Issues in Managing Vertical Residential Building in Malaysia: Homeowners' Perspective Zairul N. Musa Abdul G. Sarip, AM Aini, WNA WA Aziz, NR Hanif, Z Al-Sadat, PA Tedong Abstract Today, living in a residential vertical building is becoming a lifestyle or trend among the urban professional community in Malaysia. One of the reasons people prefer to stay in a vertical residential is the facilities ~.nd amenities that are provided within the housing area. However, without a proper managed to this property, it will be more complaints from un-satisfied homeowners. This study aims to examine the key problems in managing vertical residential building (VRB) in Malaysia. This looks at the satisfaction level of homeowners living in low and medium cost VRB. in Klang Valley, Penang and Johor, The study was conducted based on face to face survey with homeowners. The findings showed that is a high level of satisfaction living in VRB however we observed that the living environments are gradually deteriorating. Therefore, this paper is attempted to investigate the issues in managing Vertical Residential Building (VRB) based on households living experience. Keywords: Residential; Vertical Building; Housing; Homeowners; Living Environment L Introduction I. Background of Vertical Living in Malaysia The 20thcentury has seen an increasing trend of urbanization III 1110st countries including Malaysia. Urbanization is a process of change in the growth and social-economic characteristics of urban centers as a result of the increasing concentration of population and economic activities in urban areas over time. The urbanization process in Malaysia began with the provision of basic infrastructure and physical facilities to cater for the exploitation of resource-rich areas along the West Coast of Peninsular Malaysia. Vertical living phenomenon in Malaysia is now becoming a trend of living life style among the urban professional community in Malaysia. The main difference as compared to a landed property is the need for residents to set-up a Management Corporation (MC), as a body to regulate and manage all the facilities and amenities provided by the developer, as stipulated in the Strata Title Act To a certain extent, the idea seems to work successfully for about a * Lecturer, Department of Estate Management, University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur,Malaysia ** Co-Researchers, Department of Estate Management, University of Malaya, KualaLumpur, Malaysia Contact Author: Dr. Zairul N. Musa, Lecturer, Department of Estate Management, Faculty of Built Environment University of Malaya, Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia Tel: Fax: zairul@um.edu.my few years after the housing schemes are granted with the final title. Vertical living is not the same as living in a freestanding house. The activities and attitudes of residents can have a significant impact on the satisfaction and enjoyment of others (NSW Fair Trading, 20 I0). A legal provision was introduced to better regulate the management and maintenance of vertical living with the introduction of the Strata Titles Act Before the enactment of the Strata Titles Act 1985, provision for subdivision of building was provided in the National Land Code Many inadequacies were discovered in terms of technical and legal requirements. Thus, the need to implement a new and better legal framework arises, which ultimately leads to the introduction of the Strata Titles Act The latest Strata Management Act 2013 is seen as an additional initiative by the government to further strengthen the quality of vertical living in Malaysia. A vertical high-rise building is defined as building where the total height exceeds 36-lTIetre or more than 12 floors. It is use as residential, commercial, administrative or hotel building (Akram, 2011). The Malaysian government has committed huge amount of stipend for providing its citizen with adequate, affordable and quality housing. The concept of vertical living in this country is not new. It has been introduced in the early 1970s. Living ill a vertical residential is now becoming a lifestyle trend among the urban professional community in Malaysia. As opposed to a landed property, in a vertical building, residents must set up a Management Corporation (MC) to regulate and manage all the amenities provided by the developer, as stipulated in the Strata Title Act1985. Vertical residential is a unique property and it differs from landed The Asia Pacific ctwork for Housing Research (APNHR) April 2015

2 , property, such as bungalows and terrace houses. Its uniqueness presents itself in the management after the properties have been occupied, where facilities management becomes an issue (Linariza and Ashok, 2003). In Malaysia, vertical housing development and public housing programs are handled by both the public and private sector. The public sector concentrates mainly on public-housing (40 percent on public housing flat and apartment) programs while the private sector, apart from complying on the 30 percent low cost housing unit, concentrates on medium and high cost housing programs (60 percent on apartment and condominium development) (9th Malaysia Plan, 2006). Currently, living in a residential vertical building is becoming a lifestyle or trend among the urban professional community in Malaysia. One of the reasons people prefer to stay in a vertical residential is the facilities and amenities that are provided within the housing area. Moreover, there are different types of stratified housing in different states. In this study, the focus is on four major states in Malaysia, which are Johor, Penang, Kuala Lumpur and Selangor (together, both Kuala Lumpur and Selangor are known as Klang Valley) These four states are chosen due to the urbanization rate that has identified them as urban areas. Therefore, the states have erected stratified housing mostly in these states in order to support housing demands. The type of housing, minimum size of the house, sale price and eligibility (based on total household income) in these four states are discussed further. The type of housing is classified into low cost housing, low medium cost housing and medium cost housing. IT. Literature Review 2. Issues in Managing Vertical Building in Malaysia 2.1 Lack of Building Maintenance Management Property management is explicitly defined in Section 2 of the Valuer, Appraisers and Estate Agents Act 1981 as the management and control of any land, building and interest therein, excluding the management of property- based businesses, on behalf of the owner for a fee and includes many other responsibilities such as monitoring outgoings for the property, preparing budgets and maintaining the financial records for the property, enforcing the terms of leases and other agreements, advising on sale, purchase and letting decisions, advising on insurance matters, advising on opportunity (or realization for development or investment potential for the property, and advising on the necessity for upgrading for the property, Buildings are assets, the value of which changes in accordance with the quality of the maintenance invested in them. Despite the govemment commitment towards building maintenance, buildings have not been effectively maintained. For instance, Ali et al. (20 I0) stated that in Malaysia, maintenance problems in buildings are common regardless of the size and owners of the buildings. "A major problem faced by property developers in Malaysia was discovered to be poor collection of maintenance fees, the major reason being the dissatisfaction on the part ofusers with the condition of their buildings" (Azmi et al., 2006). Buildings require effective maintenance otherwise they become a burden to clients, users, and the general public. Therefore, due to the backlog of several years of building maintenance, there is an urgent need to improve the ways building maintenance management in Malaysia. Otherwise, an extensi,,:e increase in investment is likely to be needed in the very near future to rectify defect, decay, and deterioration, which will by then, be much more serious. This becomes even more imperative in order to meet one of the strategic thrusts of providing adequate, affordable, and quality houses, with greater prominence given to a good environment in consonance with one of the requirements of the Malaysian Vision 2020, as reiterated under the Ninth Malaysian Plan (Government of Malaysia, 2006) Improper assessment of maintenance management procedures Complaints lodged by the tenants in terms of the property management of vertical buildings include defects not being attended to within the time specified, poor workmanship, and services and facilities not being in good condition even when taking over from the developers. Noraziah (2006) proposed a review of the current processes and procedures of handling defects in buildings in Malaysia. In addition, "future costs are very difficult to estimate, especially for maintenance work" (Sherwin, 2000; Vanier, 200 I). Conditionally based maintenance is not a proactive maintenance policy. At best, all that a condition-based maintenance policy does is to provide a snapshot of the physical condition of the building at the specific time that the survey was conducted. Meanwhile, the policy is a main factor to provide a good maintenance. According to Jones and Sharp (2007), a conditionally based maintenance policy is not explicitly linked to the ability of a building to support organization performance. The physical condition of a building is just a symptom of defects, deterioration, or decay, 01' their combination. Under the current approaches to buildings maintenance, maintenance is not considered as a factor of production, which also leads to the fragmentation of the building management processes. The models were, however, still characterized by the same weaknesses inherent in the previous procedures. 2 APNHR April 2015

3 , ~ Poor Collection ofmaintenance fee Every vertical building has different sets of problems, but one common problem is poor collection of maintenance, fee. The insufficient maintenance fee gives a very bad impact on the management of the building, as maintenance work cannot be carried out. This pressing issue, if not resolved, will become more crucial as more buildings will deteriorate because of poor management. Suffian (2013) outlined some current issues affecting property management in Malaysia, which includes poor collection of maintenance fee. Mohd et al., (20 I I) also stated that currently there is no proper guidelines and enforcement on owners who default on payment of maintenance. In Singapore, property manager has the right to obtain court order to seal the property and the owner can be fined in the event that they default the maintenance fee. Similar law should also be, introduced in Mal,aysia to ensure that owners will pay the maintenance and be properly handled by property managers. However, there are some responsible developers would want to ensure that their properties are well managed, thus they allocate a certain amount of money in the event that the maintenance fee becomes insufficient Poor management ofsinking fund In addition, there is lack of transparency, adequate laws and enforcement on the part of property developers and managers in the administration of sinking fund (Mohd et al., 20 I 1). Often developers have used the sinking fund as collateral to get a bank overdraft facility. In addition, it is also pointed out that the Section 46(d) of the Strata Title Act should be redefined to specify how the sinking fund should be utilized, Currently, there is no proper guidelines to ensure that the property developers and managers accountable for the management of funds under their control. However, ill Hong Kong, proper guidelines on budget and account management are provided in the Building Management Ordinance (BMO). The BMO requires the management corporations to prepare an annual budget based on the amount to be paid by individual owners, in addition to maintaining a contingency fund to provide for deficiencies in a general fund, The property management must also maintain proper records that should be audited by established accountants, and the summary of the income and expenditure has to be displayed in a prominent place in the building Lack of integration with Mangenient Corporation There was a pattern of management gap between the Management Corporation (MC) and residents. There are issues regarding 10 maintenance that occur in vertical living apartments building. Apart from this, the uniqueness of vertical living apartment can be seen by the management of the property after it has been occupied, Every single facility available has to be managed together with the residents fee through specific procedures by Me. The aspect of facility management which includes property management activities and maintaining the vertical residential scheme is the main agenda for the Me. In contributing to the responsibility of the MC, the inefficiency of facility management has always been a complaint among residents (Ong, 2009) Issues regarding service charges in vertical living complexes ' House ownership schemes determine housing management activities. Ownership is classified into two types, that is, single ownership, and multiple ownerships or one building with different owners. This research focuses on multiple-ownership housing developed both by the government, and private sector based on the proportion of 20:60:20. This proportion simply indicates that 20% of the respondents are of low cost building, 60% of the respondents are of medium cost building and 20% of high cost building. The rationale of using this proportion is based on the number of existing unit of the said properties. It could be said that the management of vertical living should have a proper management. Vertical housing management in Malaysia is governed by three main legislations, the Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966, the Strata Title Act 1985 (West Malaysia) and the newly implemented Strata Management Act Tiun (2009) suggested that housing management plays an important role in maintenance activities to keep buildings in good condition, Moreover, "it is important to make sure all facilities are managed wisely so that they are safe for habitation" (Ahmad, 2003). In fact, it is "the responsibility of the management corporation, as stipulated in section 43 of Strata Title Act 1985, to provide payments for insurance, refurbishment, cleaning, maintenance, lighting for public areas, and other costs" (Ismail, 1993). Without adequate funds, however, proper management of vertical housing will be affected. Since service charge and more specifically maintenance charges and sinking funds are a form of investment expenditure from the owners' point of view, it is paramount to pay attention to the value returned from these investments, In addition, Liias (1998) expressed that "Viewed in this manner, home-owners obviously would expect to get the best services out of the fees they pay", Although the strata title act was introduced in 1985, home owners' awareness of the importance of service charge payment is still very poor. This is evident from the substantial arrears that have accumulated over the years Vandalism Under the STA, the MC is legally required to provide the services of a management agent and as such is the patty responsible for running the facility management activities. In practice, most MCs function poorly because they don't have APNHR AI)ril20JS 3

4 .. the expertise to run and properly maintain the housing complex. If the MC fails to function as stipulated in the STA, the residents of that particular housing complex have the right to summon the said Me. Even so, a management gap continues to exist, as evidenced by on-going reports in mass media on the topic. Residents continue to complain about the low service quality of facility management provided by their management agents as well as the lack of responsibility of the MC in ensuring effective facility management. In discussing this matter, this paper uses the Malaysian case study as to analyze the sustainable indicators of vertical living management. Vandalism happens everywhere, but most often where building design and lighting offers confinement and anonymity, in areas frequented by young people such as schools, parks, shopping centers and public buildings, in an unoccupied buildings, open spaces or parked vehicles where minimum surveillance is given to property, Vandalism may affect the common property in a way that facilities, such as parks and public rest rooms, which everyone in the community uses, become unavailable and dangerous. In all vertical residential properties in Malaysia, the management company has to purchase Master Policy insurance, which covers vandalism and malicious, fire, lightning, windstorm, exposure and strikes. The vandalism cases are found not so frequent in condominium in Malaysia but more prone to low or medium cost flats or apartments due to the type of tenants in the building, which consist of low income group of people and those with lack of awareness in building maintenance. III. Methodology This paper provides an overview of the methods used to study in detail, the scenario or vertical living as experienced by the residences in Klang Valley, Johor Bahru and Penang. Underpinning the use of quantitative approaches, this study discussed the satisfaction level of vertical living from the perspectives of Homeowners. In this study, we conceptualize vertical living in two perspectives. Firstly, vertical living in low cost units is where the sale price of the house is below RM 45,000. Secondly, the vertical living of medium cost unit is where the sale price of the house is between RM 45,001 and RM 150,000. The identification of low cost and medium cost as the location for data collection is based on the sale price. The strata housing are flat, apartment or condominium located in Johor, Penang, Selangor and Kuala Lumpur. In this study, the respondents are identified as residences that are currently living either in low cost housing or medium cost housing (flat or apartment). The respondents can either be the owner or the tenant of the house. This study carried out a survey of vertical residential building residences in Klang Valley, Penang and Johor Bahru. The survey involves a total of 1,378 respondents. Among the 1,378 respondents, 769 respondents are currently residing in Klang Valley, 304 in Penang and 305 in Johor Bahru. This study is limited to a quantitative analysis. Due to the aim and objectives of this study, the output from the quantitative analysis is sufficient to achieve the aim and objectives. IV. Data Analysis and Discussion 1. Occupancy Status ofrespondents in Klang Valley Table I. Occupancy Status (N=769) Owner Tenant Total Respondents Percentage (n) 64.1(493) 35.9(276) 100 (769) Table 1 has shown the occupancy status of respondents in. Klang Valley. The finding shows that more than half (64.1 %) of the respondents in vertical residential building owned their house and the remaining (35.9%) are tenants. 2. Satisfaction on facilities and services provided Table 2 has shown the respondents' satisfaction towards facilities provided at low-cost vertical residential building. The results on average (mean) indicate that owners are more satisfied than tenants on the facilities provided. For musolla, the percentage of owners and tenants that are satisfied are 58.9% and 51.9% respectively. In regards to the kindergarten, the majority of the owners (45.8%) and tenants (38.9%) are satisfied. The majority of owners (39%) and tenants (48.2%) feel neutral about the playground. 44.2% of the owners were satisfied with the shop and 54.8% of them were satisfied with the multipurpose hall provided by the management. Meanwhile, 48.2% and 40% of the tenant respondents feel neutral about the shop and multipurpose hall. Percentage from Table 6.4 shows that 44% of owner respondents are satisfied with the laundry facility while 48.1 % of tenant respondents feel neutral about laundry facility. Apart from that, both owner and tenant are not satisfied with car park (owner: 50.4%, tenant: 52.4%) and motorcycle parking (owner: 41 %, tenant: 42.9%). Table 2: Respondents' satisfaction towards Fucilitics Provided (Low-cost) 4 APNHR April 2015

5 Table 3 has shown the respondents' satisfaction toward facilities provided for medium-cost vertical residential building in Klang Valley. Most of the owners and tenant are satisfied with the facilities provided with mean value (M) above 3. Over half of the owner (55%) and tenant (53.3%) are satisfied with the musolla provided for by the management. 46.8% of owners and 41.7% of tenants are satisfied with the playground. 47.7% of owners and 38.9% of tenants who were responded indicated that they are satisfied with the kindergarten. Nearly half of the owners (46.8%) and tenants (45.8%) responded agreed that they are neutral for lobby, drainage and landscape cleanliness. For car park cleanliness, only 36.8% of owners are satisfied, while 31.7% of the tenants feel neutral. Surprisingly, both owners (44.4%) and tenants (39.7%) are not satisfied with bin house cleanliness. Table4:Respondents' satisfaction towards Cleanliness Services(Low-cost] Fadi,;" ~tnt otss:ltisfid (K) satisfied with the shops at their housing scheme. Meanwhile, 56.5% of owners and 5 I. I% of tenants are also satisfied with the swimming pool. Table 3 also shows that 51.1 % of owner respondents are satisfied with the multipurpose hall, whereas 47% of tenant respondents feel neutral about the hall. The majority of owners and tenants are satisfied with the laundry services (owner: 47%, tenant: 43.3%), car park (owner: 54.3, tenant: 45.1 %) and motorcycle parking (owner: 48.7%, tenant: 44.6%). Table 5: Respondents' satisfaction towards Cleanl iness Services (Medium-cost) Table 3: Respondents' satisfaction towards Facilities provided (Medium-cost) Table 4 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards cleaning services by the management of vertical residential building at low-cost housing. it can be seen that the mean value (M) of all facilities are below 3, with the exception of the mean by owner for corridor (3.15) and road (3.14). Percentages of owners and tenants that are satisfied with the corridor cleanliness are high, with 47% and 34.9% respectively. However, only 35.9% of owners who were interviewed are satisfied with lift cleanliness, while 31.7% of tenant respondents are not satisfied. For road cleanliness, 40.2% of the owners are satisfied with it, but 34.9% of tenants feel neutral. Only 36.8% of the owners feel neutral feel neutral about stairs cleanliness, but 41.3% of the tenant respondents (41.3%) are dissatisfied. Both owners and tenants responded Table 5 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards cleanliness services by the management of vertical residential building for medium-cost. It can be seen that mean value (M) of all facilities are above 3, indicating that the majority of respondents' response were between neutral and satisfied. APNHR April

6 Table 6. shows the respondents' satisfaction towards building maintenance at their low-cost vertical residential building. The majority of the mean (M) for owners and tenants are below 3, except for the mean of owner for surrounding light (3.02). As can be seen in Table 6.8, 34.2% of owners are satisfied with lift maintenance while 36.5% of tenants are not satisfied with lift maintenance. The majority of the owners and tenants gave a neutral response for the maintenance of stairs (owners: 40.2%, tenants: 36.5%), corridor (owners: 45.3%, tenants: 44.4%), surrounding light (owners: 42.7%, tenants: 49.2%), drainage (owners: 7.6%, tenants: 38.1 %), road (owner: 41.9%, tenants: 44.4%), car park (owners: 41.9%, tenants: 42.9%) and motorcycle parking (owners: 39.3, tenants: 46%). For maintenance of lightning along the corridor, 34.2% of owners are satisfied with it, whereas 34.9% of tenants are not satisfied. 36.3% of owners feel neutral about playground maintenance and 40% of tenants are not satisfied with it. Meanwhile, 39.7% of tenants are not satisfied with the time taken to complete the maintenance, but 37.6% of owners feel neutral. Lastly, the majority of owners (41.4%) feel neutral on the overall maintenance performance by their management, while for tenants, the majority was not satisfied and neutral (constituting 34.9% of the votes for each). (owner: 55.7%, tenant: 54.9%) and swimming pool maintenance (owner: 52.9%, tenant: 54.6%). Meanwhile, nearly' half of the owner (45.5%) and tenants (45.1 %) were satisfied with the lift maintenance. From Table 6.9, both respondents' were satisfied with drainage maintenance (owner: 55.1%, tenant: 49.3%), road maintenance (owner: 53.1%, tenant: 46.2%), car park maintenance (owner: 54.4%, tenant: 47.9%), motorcycle parking (owner: 50.8%, tenant: 46%). Almost half of the owners (46%) and tenants (43.2%) were satisfied with the duration of the maintenance. Overall, 48.9% of the owners and 45.1 % of the tenants were satisfied with the maintenance quality of the management. Table 7 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards building maintenance at their medium-cost vertical residential building. All of the mean (M) for owners and tenants is above 3, indicating that only a minority of both owners and tenants are not satisfied with thc maintenance services. Over half of the respondents were satisfied with the stairs maintenance (owner: 50.8%, tenant: 50.7%), corridor maintenance (owner: 56%, tenant: 52.6%), corridor lightning maintenance (owner: 54.4%, tenant: 50.2%), surrounding light maintenance Table 8 shows the respondents' satisfaction on common facilities usage at their low-cost vertical residential building. Overall, the mean value shows that the satisfaction of respondents' on common facilities usage is below than neutral level (M < 3). Both owner (57.3%) and tenant (63.5%) respondents are dissatisfied with the car park provided. Others common facilities such as corridor space, lift usage, noise disturbances, building safety and vandalism received a neutral response at a high percentage in both owners and tenants. 45.3% of owners and 47.6% of tenants feel neutral about the corridor space. Similarly, 44.4% of owners and 49.2% of tenants also feel neutral about lift usage. The majority of owners and tenants feel neutral about noise disturbance (owner: 52.1%, tenant: 42.9%), building safety (owner: 40.2%, tenant: 39.7%) and vandalism (owner: 41.9%, tenant: 38.1 %). In addition, 38.1 % of tenants are dissatisfied and the same percentage of tenants feels neutral, about vandalism that happened in their housing area. Table 9 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards common facilities usage at their medium-cost vertical residential building. As can be seen in Table 6.11,36.6% of the tenants are dissatisfied with the car parks while 35.1 % of owners are satisfied. The majority of the respondents are satisfied with their corridor space (owner: 56.6%, tenant: 48.1%) and swimming pool (owner: 60.8%, tenant: 57.7%). 53.7% of owners and 48.4% of tenants are satisfied that there are no 6 APNHR April 2015

7 noise disturbances at their housing surrounding. Meanwhile, 52.9% of owners and 53.1% of tenants are satisfied with safery of the building. For vandalism, the majority of respondents (47.5% of owner and 51.9% of tenants) are satisfied that no serious vandalism has occurred at their common facilities. implementation of fire drill (M < 3). As can be seen, the majority of owners and tenants are satisfied with the safety services that have mean, M, over 3. The data in the Table II shows that a higher percentage of respondents are satisfied with the safety of the building surrounding (owner: 51.1 %, tenant: 48.8%), tire safety (owner: 55.9%, tenant: 48.8%), building design (owner:' 51.) 'Vo, tenant: 44.6%) and security (owner: 47.2%, tenant: 45,1%). Moreover, 35.4% of owners and 44% of tenants are not satisfied with the implementation of the fire drill. From the result, it can be seen that tenants in medium-cost vertical residential are more satisfied with the safety services compared to owners in low-cost vertical residential. Table ~I: Respondcnt~' satisfactiontcwards saferyservices (Medium.cost) Mtlll,M) Table 10 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards safety services provided by 1MBIMC at their current low-cost vertical residential building. The result shows that 47.6% of tenants are not satisfied with the safety of their building, while 38.5% of owners feel neutral. The majority of both owners and tenants feel neutral about fire safety (owner: 43.6%, tenant: 46%) and building design (owner: 55.6%, tenant: 54%). The majority of owners (44.4%) and tenants (41.3%) are dissatisfied with the implementation of tire drill during their stay at the house. Meanwhile, 35.9% of owners and 46% of tenants are also not satisfied with the security services provided. It can be concluded that tenants at low-cost houses are more satisfied with the safety services compared to the owners. Table ]0: Respondcms' satisfaction towards safety services (Low.cosn ""', '''I) Sto",.Jli:y S<:f"I'im(Xt:u:.i1iYI 4.& F:'{) InJ i.21 Table 12 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards the commitment shown by 1MB/Me. From Table 6.14, it can be seen that the majority of owners feel neutral about residence organization activity (32.5%), problem solving by the JMB/MC (40.2%) and how they manage residents' complaints (41%). This finding differs from tenants, where they are not satisfied with the residence organization activity (44.4%), problem solving by the JMBIMC (39.7%) and how they manage residents' complaints (34.9%). It can be concluded that tenants are less satisfied towards JMBIMC commitment compared to owners. Table 12: Respondents satisfaction towards JMB!Me Commitment (Low-cost) SOCUnlY S... 'OlSttllifityl MOI1 ois",~,tird Di"nisficd 1\.,'11] M~an V"Y Ssl,i,f...J 1M) Sau.",. ~ ~, ~,n r Table 11 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards safety services provided by the JMBIMC at their medium-cost vertical residential building. Based on mean (M) data, results of all respondents interviewed for safety services provided are above neutral (M > 3), with the exception of the J~!.~J J1ll.Hi APNHR April

8 Table 13 shows the respondents' satisfaction towards their JMBIMC commitment. From the Table 6.15, nearly half of the owners and tenants feel neutral about the commitment.1mb/me. About 46% of owners and 43.4% of tenants feel neutral about 1MB/MC encouraging residents to participate in residence organization activity. A high percentage of owners (42%) and tenants (46%) feel neutral about the problem solving by 1MB/Me. Lastly, 43.6% of owners and 46% of tenants respond neutral for 1MB/MC to solve the identified residents' problem. III. Conclusion In conclusion, this research indicates that respondents living in medium-cost residential building are more satisfied than respondents living in low-cost vertical residential building. Furthermore, the findings revealed that owners are more satisfied than the tenants on their vertical residential of building. These findings are based on the mean value of each variable analyzed. For the 1MB/MC, the respond from both low-cost and medium-cost are similar. The main problems faced by the JMBIMC, either in low-cost or medium-cost vertical residential building, are the collection of maintenance fee from the residents, residents' attitude, poor design and construction quality, and insufficient car parks. The findings of this survey addressed two of the research objectives, which are to examine the households living experience in strati tied properties, and to explore the strengths and weaknesses of current process and procedures properties. REFERENCES of managing vertical stratified I. Act 663 (2007), Building and Common Property (Maintenance and Management) Act 2007, Percetakan Nasional Malaysia, Berhad. 2. Act 318 (2008), Strata Titles Act 1985 and Rules and Order, International Law Book Services, Kuala Lumpur. 3. Ahmad, B. R. (2003). The Effect of Faulty Design & Maintenance Works On Sustainable Housing Environment. In 1st APNHR Conference on Housing & Sustainable Urban Development (pp. 1-4). 4. Ali, A. S., Kamaruzzarnan, S. N., Sulaiman, R., & Peng, Y. C. (20 I0). Factors affecting housing maintenance cost in Malaysia. Journal of Facilities Management, 8(4), Liias, R. (1998). Housing in Estonia.Creating market through conflicts. Yhteiskuntasuunnittelu, The Finnish Journal of Urban Studies, 36, Linariza, H., and, V. Ashok. (2003). "Facility Management: An Introduction." Journal of The Malaysian Surveyor. 1st Quarter: Mohd-Noor, N., Hamid, M. Y., Abdul-Ghani, A. A., & Haren, So. N. (2011).Building Maintenance Budget Determination: An Exploration Study in the Malaysia Government Practice.Procedia Engineering, 20(0), doi: 8. Noraziah Azmin (2006). The study of problems faced by property management in managing the high rise condominium in Malaysia. Masters thesis, Universiti Teknologi Malaysia. 9. Ong, A. (2009). The production of possession: spirits and the multinational corporation in Malaysia. American Ethnologist, 15( I), Sherwin, D. ( 2000 ). ' A review of overall models for maintenance management ', Journal of Quality Maintenance Engineering, 6(3), Suffian, A. (2013). Some Common Maintenance Problems and Building Defects: Our Experiences. Procedia Engineering, 54(0), 10 I-I Tiwl T. L. (2009). Managing High Rise Residential Building in Malaysia: Where are We? In Proceedings of the 2nd NAPREC Conference, INSPEN, Bangi : rnspen. (pp. 1-25). 13. Vanier, D. J.( 200 I ). ' Why industry need asset management tools', Journal of Computing in the Civil Engineering, 15( 1), Strata Management Act 757 (2013). 15. Unit, E. P. (2010). Tenth Malaysia Plan Putrajaya: Prime Minister Department. 16. Vagias, Wade M. (2006). Likert-type scale response anchors. Clemson International Institute for Tourism and Research Development, I. 17. Helleman, G. and Wassenberg, F. (2004). The renewal of what was tomorrow's idealistic city: Amsterdam's Bijlmermeer high-rise, Cities, 21 (1), pp Wan, N. A. (2013). Case Studies in Public Housing: Selangor Housing the Nation: Policies, Issues and Prospects (pp ). 19. Wong, L.T., Chow, W.K. & Kwan, s.c.v. (2000). A Brief Review On Fire Regulations For Old Highrise Commercial Buildings In Hong Kong. International Journal on Engineering Performance-Based Fire Codes, 2(4), Wong, 1.F. (2010). Factors affecting open building implementation in high density mass housing design in Hong Kong. Habitat International, 34(2), Yau, Y., Ho, D.e., Cahu, K. & Lau, W. (2005).Estimation Algorithm for Predicting the Performance of Private Apartment Buildings in Hong Kong. Structural Survey,Vol 27(5):pp APNHR April 2015