分类： Marinella

Email

m9.concerned.owners@gmail.com

Please specify in your email your Marinella unit’s number (e.g. T2-2B), as well as your social media contact details (if available).

WeChat

WeChat ID: M9_concerned_owners

The DMC Manager is Teamer Property Management Company (“Teamer”), a subsidiary company in the K. Wah Group. Teamer has delegated the property management of Marinella to Chissay (Property Management) Limited (“Chissay”), another subsidiary company in the K. Wah Group. In turn, Chissay has entered into a contract with Jones Lang LaSalle Management Services Ltd. (“JLL” or “management subcontractor”) to subcontract the property management of Marinella to JLL. The net result is that day-to-day management of Marinella falls into the hands of parties with whom the Owners have no direct contractual relationship. Teamer has consistently refused to disclose the subcontract between Chissay and JLL (see here), rendering it impossible for the Owners to hold the management subcontractor accountable for longstanding property management problems, such as routine cleaning services, ground level traffic control, and swimming pool management etc.

JLL refused to provide contact information of Owners to the OC – all communication from the OC to the Owners must be approved by JLL in advance before being sent out via JLL’s platform. In January 2021, JLL Senior Director Wesley Lau and Marinella property manager Ronny Lee bypassed the OC secretary to organize an OC meeting on 30 January 2021, where certain OC members were guided to initiate a resolution to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting to remove Mr. Kan, the OC chairman (see OC meeting notice). Three senior managers from the K. Wah Group were also invited to attend for the very first time. In effect, the OC was ambushed by JLL, a party with whom the Owners have no direct contractual relationship. Such an act of ambush by the management subcontractor seriously disrupted the smooth functioning of the OC, which was first established only 6 months earlier. Details of this meeting can be found in the approved pre-meeting record of the 30 January 2021 OC meeting and minutes of subsequent OC meetings, which can be obtained from the OC directly (marinella.oc.mail@gmail.com).

On 23 October 2021, 55 Owners co-signed a formal complaint letter (See here) , in which 13 specific problems of substandard property management were identified, and asked the OC to forward the complaint letter to Teamer. Teamer failed to reply to the Owners; instead, JLL the management subcontractor sent a non-committal response to Ms. Lu as the Owners’ representative (see here) with substantial items unaddressed (see here). After the Owners applied further pressure, Teamer itself finally responded by citing certain legal provision in the DMC as justifying that the earlier message from JLL to Ms. Lu was a sufficient response to the formal complaint letter co-signed by the 55 Owners, and that in the future Teamer would liaise only with the OC “on all matters” (See here).

Deprive owners of the right to access the OC meeting minutes by providing only the English Version (see here). Creation of a Marinella mobile phone APP was meant to facilitate Owners’ access to information on property management and OC’s deliberation. However, each Owner is required to submit a signed paper application before being allowed to download and open the APP. Since many Owners don’t live in Marinella themselves, and with other Owners who live here being away from Hong Kong in the Mainland or overseas due to the pandemic, no effort is made by the management subcontractor to enable convenient access by the disadvantaged Owners. OC meeting minutes emailed by the management subcontractor are set in a format that does not allow the Owner to open and read any attachment of interest by simply clicking the relevant link. Significant Owners’ complaints are regularly whitewashed by the management subcontractor into something more innocuous. For example, the formal complaint letter addressed to Teamer was re-characterized by the management subcontractor as “a letter of request”. “Failure to perform their oversight duties” was translated by the management subcontractor into “unable to carry out their work”. With the numerous small steps taken by the management subcontractor, it is inevitable that the Owners will always be kept in the dark. 

Substandard maintenance of the Common Parts of the property and long period of neglect by the management subcontractor has turn Marinella into a place full of eyesores wherever one cares to look, with the original tasteful design of Marinella totally unrecognizable today (see here). Defects during the construction phase now manifest themselves in quality problems inside Owners’ units (such as uncontrollable water leakage). Teamer failed to raise these construction defects with the developer in a timely manner in order to seek timely and effective remediation and indemnification, leaving the unfortunate Owners in endless distress. The construction warranty given by the developer to the Owners will expire in a few years’ time. As a subsidiary company of the developer, Teamer is in a serious conflict of interest position—we cannot expect Teamer to take the initiative to follow up on construction defects with the developer proactively. Once the developer’s warranty has expired, the Owners will suffer not only a sharp drop in the property’s market value due to a failure to rectify the construction quality issue, but also the high cost of repair that should have been the developer’s responsibility.

The observation and feedback from a number of Owners indicated serious breach of code of conduct by certain personnel appointed by the management subcontractor JLL. Although the management subcontractor knew about the breaches for a long time, it failed to take any action to address them. After repeated pressure from a group of concerned Owners, one problem personnel has been removed from Marinella, but other problem personnel still remain in Marinella.

rices for routine household repair services are exorbitant (see price list)—charging $1,000 for replacing a light switch that cost $300 if a repairman from the outside were used, and charging $100 for a $10 light bulb, etc. Household repair and maintenance regularly cost thousands to tens of thousands. Despite the joint complaint of substantial Owners, the management subcontractor makes no change but continues to blindly refer such work to outside contractors without doing any due diligence on price and quality (see the latest proposal). The goal of a property management company should be to help residents to enjoy living in Marinella, but the reality is that Marinella residents now live in constant distress caused by all types of household repair and maintenance headaches.

With the management subcontractor repeatedly interfering, disrupting and undermining the work of the OC, leading to the resignation of both OC chairman and secretary, silencing the voice of Marinella Owners has become a reality. Who will represent the voice of Marinella Owners? How will the voice of Marinella Owners be heard by the DMC Manager and the management subcontractor in the future? These important issues have been swept under the carpet.

With the resignation of both OC chairman and secretary, the only communication channel left between the OC and the Owners is the official email address of the OC, while other channels are controlled by the management subcontractor. As a result, the several social media groups set up by the former OC secretary have become the only uncensored channels for Owners to express their concerns about the substandard property management of Marinella. The remaining OC members rarely participated in the social media group’s discussion. Fearing that their voice didn’t reach the remaining OC members, the Owners presented a list of concerns and complaints about substandard property management at the Annual General Meeting held on 5 October 2021. Unfortunately, 4 months have passed and yet no OC member has reached out to the Owners to understand their concerns and complaints.

55 Owners took the initiative to communicate with the OC directly, by co-signing and sending a “Letter of Thanks and Petition” (see here) to the OC. In addition to thanking the OC for their hard work in the past, these Owners petitioned the OC to commence urgently an evaluation of the property managers appointed by the management subcontractor. Teamer has already committed to the OC that the DMC Manager would honor such an evaluation by the OC in order to improve the performance quality of the management subcontractor (see OC meeting minutes). After receiving the “Letter of Thanks and Petition”, the OC stayed quiet and failed to take any action to follow up – OC’s formal reply only acknowledged the Owners’ “letter of thanks” but didn’t mention the Owners’ “petition”, which was effectively “filtered” and “extinguished” by the OC.

During the final stage of the negotiation with the DMC Manager, the OC failed to proactively seek the input of the Owners, to ensure that the commitments secured from Teamer truly addressed the concerns of the Owners about substandard property management. Conflict of interest issue was disregarded by OC member. The OC made no effort to arrange the agenda of the Annual General Meeting in such a way as to elicit Owners’ views and concerns about substandard property management. The issue of the Two Letters (the Letter of Serious Demands and the Letter of Thanks and Petition) co-signed by 55 Owners was not addressed in the first OC meeting’s agenda after the AGM (see OC Meeting agenda) notwithstanding the rare attendance of Mr. Vincent Yeung from Chissay. Finally, after further pressure from the Owners, only the Letter of Serious Demands was included in the second OC meeting after the AGM as the last (16^th) agenda, which the OC spent less than 7 minutes to go over without any discussion among the OC members about the problems presented in the letter, such as the divergence of the management’s proposal from the owners’ demands.

契約經理人是嘉華集團的子公司“天霸物業管理有限公司”，該公司把深9物業管理交給嘉華另一子公司“捷盛物業管理公司”並以合約形式外包至“仲量聯行物業管理公司”。天霸一直拒絕公開最重要的外包合同以便不受監管（點擊查看），長期把日常管理事宜交給與業主沒有契約關係的代理人（捷盛、仲量）處理，導致代理人的管理表現沒有法律代價，各種管理問題得不到長期妥善治理，如日常清潔、地面交通和泳池管理等。

仲量拒絕向業委會提供業主聯係方式，業委會目前與全體業主發佈資訊要先得到仲量認同才能通過其平臺發放。2021年1月，仲量高級經理Wesley 劉先生及物業經理Ronny李先生繞過業委秘書組織會議的職能，另行組織個別業委成員參與推動召開特別業主大會罷免業委會主席離開整個業委會的動議（見會議通知），並請來從未出席過業委會的嘉華公司三大經理來參會，造成業委會內部動蕩。詳細過程已記錄在經核實之2021年1月30日的會前記錄以及隨後的業委會會議記錄，可聯係業委會（marinella.oc.mail@gmail.com）取閲。

55個物業的業主自行聯合並於2021年10月23日通過業委會向公契經理人天霸物業管理公司正式提出13點“嚴正要求信”（點擊看原信），天霸沒有在限期即同年11月9日前按要求回復全體業主，而是利用仲量聯行以空頭支票式的方案（點擊看方案）只發給業主代表一人。後經多次施壓，天霸才出現，但方案仍未完全按照業主的要求改進，並最後引述公契條文正式表示與55個單位的溝通告一段落，日後只會與業委會往來“一切事宜”（點擊看文件）。

業委會會議記錄多次只向業主提供英文版，沒有中文版（見手機App截圖）。手機APP的開通本身有利業主及時瞭解業委會的動向，應該仿效坊間做法自動配對個人資料後自動開通，如今需要業主親自寫紙申請，無視大量非自住的業主及疫情原因無法回來之業主的需要提供便利的開通方式。同時，暴露管理問題的會議記錄深藏在APP的第3層目錄；含超級鏈接的會議記錄通知文件以圖片格式電郵發送，使業主無法直接點擊鏈接打開會議記錄；業委會的壁布版被放置在大堂不起眼之地方；對管理公司的指控，曾多次改變文書原意，如業主的聯署信原本是“嚴正聲明信”，被管理公司改成“請願信”，“failure to perform their oversight duties”翻譯成”未能履行的工作”。以上方式讓業主獲取真實資訊的難度增加。

公共區域保養維修質量低劣，到處滿目蒼夷，設計品味蕩然無存（點擊查看圖庫）。單位內部因前期内外工程質量低劣問題對業戶產生嚴重困擾，而天霸沒有向發展商及時跟進索償及保證後續質量。如今部分公共區域保養期臨近，在利益與發展商嚴重衝突下，天霸按照預期不可能有誘因積極幫業主跟進。一旦保養期過去，業主們不但要承受物業質量下降的市場損失，還要承擔高昂之維修成本。

根據多個業主渠道的觀察和反饋，仲量公司個別員工有嚴重個人道德問題，管理層在知情下一直沒有進行處理，負面影響到個別住戶和部分員工。後經一批業主共同施壓下，某問題員工方離職，但剩餘的問題員工目前仍然在位。

小型家居服務維修費用高昂（見報價），市場上300元換電開關的事情要價1000元，10元的光管，居然要100元等。其他家居維修費用動輒成千上萬，在業主聯合要求下，管理公司仍只管外判，不理品質和價格（見回應方案）。其只顧圖利，致使業戶大小事務皆要自己勞心勞力，違背便民安居之應有理念。

第一屆業委會主席和秘書辭任多時，業主們自身力量被削弱已成事實，但成員爲何辭職、各方議事溝通機制如何開展、如今貫徹的理念是什麽、工作分配如何進行，與民同步是否受阻等，業委會一直未正式向全體業主交待。

現今業委會與業主溝通的橋梁被管理公司控制，僅靠一個電郵被動溝通，曾長期負責3大網絡社群與民溝通的秘書辭職後，剩下在群的3位業委鮮有就物業管理問題與業戶互動。業主唯有在業主大會上透過自己的代表去發聲，懇請業委會加強與民溝通，但會議結束近4個月，未見業委會有行動加強溝通，業主們提出的系列訴求業委會也一直無人出來接觸業主具體瞭解。

55個單位的業主聯名以“感謝和請求信”（點擊看原信）主動與業委會溝通，除了特別感謝之餘，重點是請求儘快啓動行駛公契經理人賦予業委會審議仲量聯行各職級人事去留並進行決議向天霸要求執行的權利（見會議記錄），以重振廣大業主的信心。對此，業委會一直保持沉默，在最後的正式回復中把業主們的“感謝和請求信” 刪減成“感謝信”，要求儘快啓動人士去留審議之請求事項消失了。鏈接“兩信”原件（即“嚴正要求信”和“感謝和請求信”）的鏈接和二維碼一直是處於無法鏈接的狀態（見公佈文件）。

管理合同談判進入到最後關鍵的審議階段沒有在公契約定的正式會議上進行，關鍵決策的審議是否合符民意、利益衝突如何規避、周年業主大會的會議議程是如何安排等，沒有會議記錄供業主參考瞭解。“兩信” （即“嚴正要求信”和“感謝和請求信”）事項在業主大會上口頭提出及之後再次書面提出後，沒有在隨後的第一次業委大會上被加入會議日程（見會議日程），並在捷盛楊狄麟先生一行人在業主施壓下到場參會的良機下，業委會也沒有人提出“兩信”事項從并代表55戶進行正式交涉。後來在業主們再次施壓下，其中的一封“嚴正聲明信”被修飾成“請願信”後才被編排到2021年11月29日業主大會后第二次業委會最後一個議事項目（第16項）（見會議通知），全程用了不到7分鐘，當中業委除了指導管理公司如何出具授權文書外，卻並未有對信中的內容和進展進行內部討論，例如管理公司提出的提升方案貨不對板的問題。

Email

m9.concerned.owners@gmail.com

Please specify in your email your Marinella unit’s number (e.g. T2-2B), as well as your social media contact details (if available).

WeChat

WeChat ID: M9_concerned_owners

The DMC Manager is Teamer Property Management Company (“Teamer”), a subsidiary company in the K. Wah Group. Teamer has delegated the property management of Marinella to Chissay (Property Management) Limited (“Chissay”), another subsidiary company in the K. Wah Group. In turn, Chissay has entered into a contract with Jones Lang LaSalle Management Services Ltd. (“JLL” or “management subcontractor”) to subcontract the property management of Marinella to JLL. The net result is that day-to-day management of Marinella falls into the hands of parties with whom the Owners have no direct contractual relationship. Teamer has consistently refused to disclose the subcontract between Chissay and JLL (see here), rendering it impossible for the Owners to hold the management subcontractor accountable for longstanding property management problems, such as routine cleaning services, ground level traffic control, and swimming pool management etc.

JLL refused to provide contact information of Owners to the OC – all communication from the OC to the Owners must be approved by JLL in advance before being sent out via JLL’s platform. In January 2021, JLL Senior Director Wesley Lau and Marinella property manager Ronny Lee bypassed the OC secretary to organize an OC meeting on 30 January 2021, where certain OC members were guided to initiate a resolution to convene an Extraordinary General Meeting to remove Mr. Kan, the OC chairman (see OC meeting notice). Three senior managers from the K. Wah Group were also invited to attend for the very first time. In effect, the OC was ambushed by JLL, a party with whom the Owners have no direct contractual relationship. Such an act of ambush by the management subcontractor seriously disrupted the smooth functioning of the OC, which was first established only 6 months earlier. Details of this meeting can be found in the approved pre-meeting record of the 30 January 2021 OC meeting and minutes of subsequent OC meetings, which can be obtained from the OC directly (marinella.oc.mail@gmail.com).

On 23 October 2021, 55 Owners co-signed a formal complaint letter (See here) , in which 13 specific problems of substandard property management were identified, and asked the OC to forward the complaint letter to Teamer. Teamer failed to reply to the Owners; instead, JLL the management subcontractor sent a non-committal response to Ms. Lu as the Owners’ representative (see here) with substantial items unaddressed (see here). After the Owners applied further pressure, Teamer itself finally responded by citing certain legal provision in the DMC as justifying that the earlier message from JLL to Ms. Lu was a sufficient response to the formal complaint letter co-signed by the 55 Owners, and that in the future Teamer would liaise only with the OC “on all matters” (See here).

Deprive owners of the right to access the OC meeting minutes by providing only the English Version (see here). Creation of a Marinella mobile phone APP was meant to facilitate Owners’ access to information on property management and OC’s deliberation. However, each Owner is required to submit a signed paper application before being allowed to download and open the APP. Since many Owners don’t live in Marinella themselves, and with other Owners who live here being away from Hong Kong in the Mainland or overseas due to the pandemic, no effort is made by the management subcontractor to enable convenient access by the disadvantaged Owners. OC meeting minutes emailed by the management subcontractor are set in a format that does not allow the Owner to open and read any attachment of interest by simply clicking the relevant link. Significant Owners’ complaints are regularly whitewashed by the management subcontractor into something more innocuous. For example, the formal complaint letter addressed to Teamer was re-characterized by the management subcontractor as “a letter of request”. “Failure to perform their oversight duties” was translated by the management subcontractor into “unable to carry out their work”. With the numerous small steps taken by the management subcontractor, it is inevitable that the Owners will always be kept in the dark. 

Substandard maintenance of the Common Parts of the property and long period of neglect by the management subcontractor has turn Marinella into a place full of eyesores wherever one cares to look, with the original tasteful design of Marinella totally unrecognizable today (see here). Defects during the construction phase now manifest themselves in quality problems inside Owners’ units (such as uncontrollable water leakage). Teamer failed to raise these construction defects with the developer in a timely manner in order to seek timely and effective remediation and indemnification, leaving the unfortunate Owners in endless distress. The construction warranty given by the developer to the Owners will expire in a few years’ time. As a subsidiary company of the developer, Teamer is in a serious conflict of interest position—we cannot expect Teamer to take the initiative to follow up on construction defects with the developer proactively. Once the developer’s warranty has expired, the Owners will suffer not only a sharp drop in the property’s market value due to a failure to rectify the construction quality issue, but also the high cost of repair that should have been the developer’s responsibility.

The observation and feedback from a number of Owners indicated serious breach of code of conduct by certain personnel appointed by the management subcontractor JLL. Although the management subcontractor knew about the breaches for a long time, it failed to take any action to address them. After repeated pressure from a group of concerned Owners, one problem personnel has been removed from Marinella, but other problem personnel still remain in Marinella.

rices for routine household repair services are exorbitant (see price list)—charging $1,000 for replacing a light switch that cost $300 if a repairman from the outside were used, and charging $100 for a $10 light bulb, etc. Household repair and maintenance regularly cost thousands to tens of thousands. Despite the joint complaint of substantial Owners, the management subcontractor makes no change but continues to blindly refer such work to outside contractors without doing any due diligence on price and quality (see the latest proposal). The goal of a property management company should be to help residents to enjoy living in Marinella, but the reality is that Marinella residents now live in constant distress caused by all types of household repair and maintenance headaches.

With the management subcontractor repeatedly interfering, disrupting and undermining the work of the OC, leading to the resignation of both OC chairman and secretary, silencing the voice of Marinella Owners has become a reality. Who will represent the voice of Marinella Owners? How will the voice of Marinella Owners be heard by the DMC Manager and the management subcontractor in the future? These important issues have been swept under the carpet.

With the resignation of both OC chairman and secretary, the only communication channel left between the OC and the Owners is the official email address of the OC, while other channels are controlled by the management subcontractor. As a result, the several social media groups set up by the former OC secretary have become the only uncensored channels for Owners to express their concerns about the substandard property management of Marinella. The remaining OC members rarely participated in the social media group’s discussion. Fearing that their voice didn’t reach the remaining OC members, the Owners presented a list of concerns and complaints about substandard property management at the Annual General Meeting held on 5 October 2021. Unfortunately, 4 months have passed and yet no OC member has reached out to the Owners to understand their concerns and complaints.

55 Owners took the initiative to communicate with the OC directly, by co-signing and sending a “Letter of Thanks and Petition” (see here) to the OC. In addition to thanking the OC for their hard work in the past, these Owners petitioned the OC to commence urgently an evaluation of the property managers appointed by the management subcontractor. Teamer has already committed to the OC that the DMC Manager would honor such an evaluation by the OC in order to improve the performance quality of the management subcontractor (see OC meeting minutes). After receiving the “Letter of Thanks and Petition”, the OC stayed quiet and failed to take any action to follow up – OC’s formal reply only acknowledged the Owners’ “letter of thanks” but didn’t mention the Owners’ “petition”, which was effectively “filtered” and “extinguished” by the OC.

During the final stage of the negotiation with the DMC Manager, the OC failed to proactively seek the input of the Owners, to ensure that the commitments secured from Teamer truly addressed the concerns of the Owners about substandard property management. Conflict of interest issue was disregarded by OC member. The OC made no effort to arrange the agenda of the Annual General Meeting in such a way as to elicit Owners’ views and concerns about substandard property management. The issue of the Two Letters (the Letter of Serious Demands and the Letter of Thanks and Petition) co-signed by 55 Owners was not addressed in the first OC meeting’s agenda after the AGM (see OC Meeting agenda) notwithstanding the rare attendance of Mr. Vincent Yeung from Chissay. Finally, after further pressure from the Owners, only the Letter of Serious Demands was included in the second OC meeting after the AGM as the last (16^th) agenda, which the OC spent less than 7 minutes to go over without any discussion among the OC members about the problems presented in the letter, such as the divergence of the management’s proposal from the owners’ demands.

契約經理人是嘉華集團的子公司“天霸物業管理有限公司”，該公司把深9物業管理交給嘉華另一子公司“捷盛物業管理公司”並以合約形式外包至“仲量聯行物業管理公司”。天霸一直拒絕公開最重要的外包合同以便不受監管（點擊查看），長期把日常管理事宜交給與業主沒有契約關係的代理人（捷盛、仲量）處理，導致代理人的管理表現沒有法律代價，各種管理問題得不到長期妥善治理，如日常清潔、地面交通和泳池管理等。

仲量拒絕向業委會提供業主聯係方式，業委會目前與全體業主發佈資訊要先得到仲量認同才能通過其平臺發放。2021年1月，仲量高級經理Wesley 劉先生及物業經理Ronny李先生繞過業委秘書組織會議的職能，另行組織個別業委成員參與推動召開特別業主大會罷免業委會主席離開整個業委會的動議（見會議通知），並請來從未出席過業委會的嘉華公司三大經理來參會，造成業委會內部動蕩。詳細過程已記錄在經核實之2021年1月30日的會前記錄以及隨後的業委會會議記錄，可聯係業委會（marinella.oc.mail@gmail.com）取閲。

55個物業的業主自行聯合並於2021年10月23日通過業委會向公契經理人天霸物業管理公司正式提出13點“嚴正要求信”（點擊看原信），天霸沒有在限期即同年11月9日前按要求回復全體業主，而是利用仲量聯行以空頭支票式的方案（點擊看方案）只發給業主代表一人。後經多次施壓，天霸才出現，但方案仍未完全按照業主的要求改進，並最後引述公契條文正式表示與55個單位的溝通告一段落，日後只會與業委會往來“一切事宜”（點擊看文件）。

業委會會議記錄多次只向業主提供英文版，沒有中文版（見手機App截圖）。手機APP的開通本身有利業主及時瞭解業委會的動向，應該仿效坊間做法自動配對個人資料後自動開通，如今需要業主親自寫紙申請，無視大量非自住的業主及疫情原因無法回來之業主的需要提供便利的開通方式。同時，暴露管理問題的會議記錄深藏在APP的第3層目錄；含超級鏈接的會議記錄通知文件以圖片格式電郵發送，使業主無法直接點擊鏈接打開會議記錄；業委會的壁布版被放置在大堂不起眼之地方；對管理公司的指控，曾多次改變文書原意，如業主的聯署信原本是“嚴正聲明信”，被管理公司改成“請願信”，“failure to perform their oversight duties”翻譯成”未能履行的工作”。以上方式讓業主獲取真實資訊的難度增加。

公共區域保養維修質量低劣，到處滿目蒼夷，設計品味蕩然無存（點擊查看圖庫）。單位內部因前期内外工程質量低劣問題對業戶產生嚴重困擾，而天霸沒有向發展商及時跟進索償及保證後續質量。如今部分公共區域保養期臨近，在利益與發展商嚴重衝突下，天霸按照預期不可能有誘因積極幫業主跟進。一旦保養期過去，業主們不但要承受物業質量下降的市場損失，還要承擔高昂之維修成本。

根據多個業主渠道的觀察和反饋，仲量公司個別員工有嚴重個人道德問題，管理層在知情下一直沒有進行處理，負面影響到個別住戶和部分員工。後經一批業主共同施壓下，某問題員工方離職，但剩餘的問題員工目前仍然在位。

小型家居服務維修費用高昂（見報價），市場上300元換電開關的事情要價1000元，10元的光管，居然要100元等。其他家居維修費用動輒成千上萬，在業主聯合要求下，管理公司仍只管外判，不理品質和價格（見回應方案）。其只顧圖利，致使業戶大小事務皆要自己勞心勞力，違背便民安居之應有理念。

第一屆業委會主席和秘書辭任多時，業主們自身力量被削弱已成事實，但成員爲何辭職、各方議事溝通機制如何開展、如今貫徹的理念是什麽、工作分配如何進行，與民同步是否受阻等，業委會一直未正式向全體業主交待。

現今業委會與業主溝通的橋梁被管理公司控制，僅靠一個電郵被動溝通，曾長期負責3大網絡社群與民溝通的秘書辭職後，剩下在群的3位業委鮮有就物業管理問題與業戶互動。業主唯有在業主大會上透過自己的代表去發聲，懇請業委會加強與民溝通，但會議結束近4個月，未見業委會有行動加強溝通，業主們提出的系列訴求業委會也一直無人出來接觸業主具體瞭解。

55個單位的業主聯名以“感謝和請求信”（點擊看原信）主動與業委會溝通，除了特別感謝之餘，重點是請求儘快啓動行駛公契經理人賦予業委會審議仲量聯行各職級人事去留並進行決議向天霸要求執行的權利（見會議記錄），以重振廣大業主的信心。對此，業委會一直保持沉默，在最後的正式回復中把業主們的“感謝和請求信” 刪減成“感謝信”，要求儘快啓動人士去留審議之請求事項消失了。鏈接“兩信”原件（即“嚴正要求信”和“感謝和請求信”）的鏈接和二維碼一直是處於無法鏈接的狀態（見公佈文件）。

管理合同談判進入到最後關鍵的審議階段沒有在公契約定的正式會議上進行，關鍵決策的審議是否合符民意、利益衝突如何規避、周年業主大會的會議議程是如何安排等，沒有會議記錄供業主參考瞭解。“兩信” （即“嚴正要求信”和“感謝和請求信”）事項在業主大會上口頭提出及之後再次書面提出後，沒有在隨後的第一次業委大會上被加入會議日程（見會議日程），並在捷盛楊狄麟先生一行人在業主施壓下到場參會的良機下，業委會也沒有人提出“兩信”事項從并代表55戶進行正式交涉。後來在業主們再次施壓下，其中的一封“嚴正聲明信”被修飾成“請願信”後才被編排到2021年11月29日業主大會后第二次業委會最後一個議事項目（第16項）（見會議通知），全程用了不到7分鐘，當中業委除了指導管理公司如何出具授權文書外，卻並未有對信中的內容和進展進行內部討論，例如管理公司提出的提升方案貨不對板的問題。