Submit your complaints for BPTP Princess Park, Sec 86

[ashish]

Dear All,

As you would be aware that the GFWA team is trying to consolidate and put forward our issues regarding BPTP Princess Park, Sec 86 to the DC office and to DTP Sanjeev Maan.

To provide more weightage to our issues, we need more submissions to GFWA from all those who have a unit in Princess Park, Sec 86.

The submissions are requested in the next two days.

For any help for template/content please feel free to reach out to the following GFWA members at the earliest.

Saurabh -->saurabh0802@gmail.com
Pankaj -->pankaj_raw@yahoo.com

Thanks,
Ashish Gupta.

[Pankaj Rawat]

Thanks Ashish for initiating this thread.

BPTP Princess Park team,

This is an opportunity for you to highlight your grevences to the DC through formal complaint. The complaint will be sent on GFWA letter head. Hence you need to send your complaints to me or saurabh by tomorrow (1-Jun). Email IDs mentioned below
Saurabh -->saurabh0802@gmail.com
Pankaj -->pankaj_raw@yahoo.com

The format agreed with HUDA office is
1. Complaint on GFWA letter head so that HUDA administration could respond through establish channel
2. Each letter should have single complain. Incase you wish to file 3 complain, you need to provide 3 letters.

Incase you wish to submit the complaint yourself, in that case, I will upload your complaint in GFWA letter head and send you the letter for submission.

For your convinience, I am attaching a sample copy of the complaint letter.

Please provide your complaint latest by 1-Jun'11 so that it gets processed and submitted as a single bunch.

As always, I look forward for your kind support

Thanks & Regards
Pankaj Rawat
Mob: 9582212215

[Garvit]

Hi-
The agreement states that possession date will be 42 months (36 + 6 for grace) post the approvals for building plans etc. have been obtained.
Does that mean that first we have to obtain this date from the builder to know if the possession is delayed or not. Or could we use the agreement signing date (Mar 2007 in my case) assuming that all approvals would be in place when the builder signed the contract (pls note that the first installment was taken 15 months prior- Dec 2005.)
Any guidance would be much appreciated.
Thanks,
Garvit

[ashish]

Garvit,

The Builder should only start taking bookings once the license, layouts are approved.
However, most builders flout this rule openly and taking booking during pre launch, soft launch also.
This results in cases like mine , yours and many others where in we pay assuming certain things, which change by the time we are in a position to sign the Builder Buyer Agreement and even after.

With Regards to the delay in possession, BPTP uses the date of March 30, 2007 (Date of Sanction of Building Plan as provided by BPTP ) as the day to calculate the delay in possession whereas the first installment and the Builder Buyer Agreement was signed much before that.

This is one of our grievances that we have highlighted before DC and DTP Faridabad.

The more the number of people submitting such complaints the more, we strengthen our point.

You are requested to submit your complaint to Pankaj -->pankaj_raw@yahoo.com
as per the template attached in this thread.

Thanks,
Ashish.

[Pankaj Rawat]

Dear All,

I have consolidated teh 5 complaints I have received till now for BPTP. They are categories as under:
1. BPTP Princess Park - Delay Possession and Penalty
2. BPTP Princess Park - Allotment before Sanction Plan
3. BPTP Princess Park - Allotment of Open Car parking
4. BPTP Princess Park - Fraud Allotment
5. BPTP Park Elite - Fraud Allotment

Kindly review and advice if any changes required. I request your kind reply by today so that we can plan to submit the complaint on Friday 3-Jun.

I look forward for your kind support to fight the injustice done by the builder.

Thanks & Regards
Pankaj Rawat

[ashish]

Dear Pankaj,

I would like to add some points to the complaint.
Shall send you the updates tonight.

Thanks,
Ashish.

[mdmk_family]

Dear Sir,

I would like to point out some observations on the standard clauses that have been inserted in the Flat Buyer Agreement by BPTP. Some of these clauses are gross violation of Consumer Protection Act and Competition Act and fall under the category of unfair trade practices. All of us should, therefore, represent to concerned Government Authorities and ensure that these biased conditions that are heavily loaded in favour of the builder and do not recognise the rights of consumers are quashed. Builders must not be allowed to get away with gross violations of various provisions under Consumer Protection Act and Competition Act. The observations are as below :

(i) Clause No.N (p.8) – MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT
The BPTP is insisting that maintenance agreement for the complex should be executed with the maintenance service provides designated by the seller. Since the maintenance is to be paid by the purchasers of the flats the authority of entering into such agreement should lie with the Association of flat Allottes / Society as the case may be.

(ii) Clause No. 1.1
In para 1.1 the charges pertaining to ADC / IDC should be linked with the actual Infrastructure development / utilisation of funds undertaken on location. The failure by BPTP to insert such a condition has resulted in such a situation where the consumers have paid money to the extent of 100% EDC + IDC almost 3 years back where as Haryana Government / HUDA has not even completed the work of land acquisition. Thus, there can be no worthwhile possession / utilisation of accommodation at least for the next two years. A condition regarding interest payment for delayed infrastructure development needs to be inserted since consumers should be compensated by the developer for having collected




EDC + IDC without safeguarding the rights of the consumers. If there is delay in infrastructure development, for which EDC+IDC has been collected, builder should be liable for paying penalty to the buyers.

(iii) Clause No.1.2(i)
In condition 1.2(i) the interest rate for refund has been provided as Simple Interest @6% per annum. This is illegal since two set of interest rates cannot exists in the same agreement. In matters pertaining to delayed payment BPTP has said that interests will be levied @15% compounded annually and hence the same interest rate should be applicable where the delay is on part of the seller. The agreement should be fair to both buyer and seller and the unfair conditions as put up in the agreement form are a violation of the

(iv) Clause No.1.2(ii) – p.10
The seller has put the condition that in case of absolute deletion of said flat on account of reduction in the over all flats or floors, no blames would be accepted and amounts will be refunded with simple interests @6% per annum.
This condition is absolutely biased and unfair. In cases where builders accepted money for a flat which they are not able to offer later on due to reduction in number of flats or floors, the purchaser should be compensated by –
(a) Refund along with compound rate of interests @15% per annum;
(b) Payment of differential of market rate on the date of refund and the booking rate on the date of purchase.

(v) Clause No.1.8, 1.9, 1.10 relating to Construction Linked Payment Plan
The construction linked payment plan should be connected not just with the progress of construction of flats but also with the infrastru cture development in the area for which EDC / IDC has been collected by the builder. If there is a delay by the concerned Urban Development Body in infrastructure development the liability should lie with the builder and consumers should be compensated for the delay in infrastructure development. The demand for further instalments should be deferred till the infrastructure development attains the progress that all amenities are ready alongside the completion of construction.

(vI) Clause No.1.12
The condition of forfeiting earnest money should be accompanied with a similar condition of penalty of 15% of the total cost of flat value over and above the interests payment with refund in case there are violations of the Flat Buyer Agreement by the seller / builder.

(vii) Clause No.2.1 relating to possession of flat
The time period of 36 months plus 6 months as a grace period has been prescribed from the date of sanction of the building plans. This should not be accepted by buyer. The time deadline should start from the date of allotment by the builder / payment of the first instalment / payment of the booking amount whichever is earlier. The responsibility of getting the sanction lies with the builder and if a builder has accepted money without first getting the building plan sanctioned, it is illegal and builder should pay penalty for this.
The offer of possession should be given by builder only after the infrastructure development for which money has been collected from the purchasers is complete. Thus a flat should be deemed to have been offered for possession only when all the amenities such as road, sewerage system, water supply, electricity connection, power backup etc. for which payment has been made by buyer in the form of EDC+IDC have been provided.

(viii) Clause No.4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 – CHANGES IN PLAN / LAYOUT
Clause No.4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 give absolute right to the seller to make any changes in the plan elevation specifications. This cannot be accepted since the cost projected to the buyer is based on accepted specifications and any unilateral change in specifications is illegal.
Clause No. 4.3, 4.4 and 4.5 seems to give absolute authority to the builder to make changes without even requiring the sanction by the appropriate Government authorities. Accordingly, these clauses are illegal.
In respect of Clause 4.4 if the seller had to give alternate space, the same shall be with due consent of the buyer with exactly the same terms and conditions. However, if the buyer feels that the alternate space offered to him is not to his liking is not as per the original space he should be refunded the full amount paid without interests @15% and also the differential between the booking price on the date of offer and alternative accommodation and the original booking price on the date of purchase by the buyer.

(ix) Clause No.10
Clause No.10 should be both ways i.e. a purchaser should also have the option of exit from the flat if the seller is unable to fulfil the terms and conditions of the agreement. Non provision of Exit Option for the Buyer is against CPA & Competition Act. In such case the seller should be liable to pay the total full amount with interests at 15% and the differential rates on the day of exit and the day of booking.

(x) Clause No.24(p.25)
The clause should also have provision wherein it should be obligatory on the seller to sign and deliver the agreement to the purchaser within 30 days from the date of its dispatch by the purchaser.

(xi) Clause No.25(p.25)
The agreement cannot renege on the earlier terms and conditions that were communicated by the seller at the time of booking. The terms and conditions indicated in the advance registration form should have the same binding effect as the clauses in this agreement.
The provision of open car parking and club membership charges should be optional and cannot be obligatory as part of the agreement.
In the payment plan 100% of EDC+IDC is supposed to be paid by the purchaser within the first three instalments. However, the agreement is totally silent about the accountability and responsibility for judicious utilisation of EDC+IDC. Since this amount has been paid by the purchasers to the buyers the seller would be accountable for the end use of this money. The responsibility and accountability for the judicious and timely utilisation of these funds should vest with the builder. The builder cannot absolve itself by putting the onus on the Government authorities since the agreement is between the purchaser and the builder and hence the accountability should end at the builders end.

Maya Devi

[Pankaj Rawat]

Dear All,

Allatched is the updated consolidated complaints related to BPTP which will be submited to DC office on Monday 6-Jun.
Any corrections if required will be entertain till 4:00pm today. Hence request you to kindly respond ASAP.

Thanks & Regards
Pankaj Rawat

[karan.dang]

Dear All,

This is my first post on this forum. I have a flat at Princess Park in Tower F.

Yesterday only I got to know that BPTP has raised the demand for Princess Park also. Letter would be reaching us in a day or two.

I would like to be the member of this group. Please tell me the formalities and procedure for the same.

Thanks & Regards

Karan Dang