What should you do when the developer is silent after your defect notice?
**When a developer remains silent after receiving a defect notice, send a formal second notice specifying an independent contractor's quotation and a clear deadline. If the developer does not respond, complete the repairs yourself, keep all dated receipts and proof of delivery, and recover costs directly or file at the Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah (TTPR) within 12 months. **
You are a landlord or investor-owner who has just taken vacant possession, walked it with the house inspection checklist, handed the list to the developer, and heard nothing back. The next move is procedural, not emotional: a second notice with a stated cost, a record you can show later, and a clear decision about who pays.
What are the three clocks you should not confuse?
Three windows run at the same time and protect different things. Conflating them is the most common reason a Malaysian owner loses leverage on a defect claim. None of them is a "tenancy tribunal" clock, and none is extra warranty.
| Clock | What it covers | What it is NOT |
|---|---|---|
| The developer's workmanship window in the SPA | The period in your Sale and Purchase Agreement during which the developer is on the hook to make good workmanship defects you notify in writing | Not the building's structural-defect warranty. Not a generic "first year" or "first two years" claim. It is the specific window written into your SPA. |
| A homebuyer-vs-developer filing window after the workmanship window ends | The window, after the SPA workmanship window has expired, in which a homebuyer can still file a claim against the developer for a defect that was notified (or should have been notified) earlier. Under Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 s.16N, the right venue for that claim is the Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah (TTPR) — a homebuyer-vs-developer tribunal — and the filing must be brought not later than 12 months from CCC, common-facilities CCC, expiry of the SPA defects-liability period, or pre-CCC SPA termination | Not extra warranty. Not a fresh "developer must fix it" period. Not a tenancy-tribunal clock. It is a filing window for a claim that already exists under your SPA. |
| Your own cost-recovery window if you pay to fix it | The window you have, after proper written notice, to fix the defect yourself and pursue the developer for the cost. It opens the moment you send a clean second notice. | Not a self-help right on day one. It only opens after proper written notice, a reasonable chance to respond, and a reasonable, documented cost. |
This page is about the second and the third clock — what you actually do once the first clock is already running and the developer is not answering.
Statutory defaults behind these clocks — October 2026 snapshot (where your SPA wording differs, the SPA governs):
| Clock / limit | 2026 statutory default | Source |
|---|---|---|
| Workmanship defects liability under the prescribed SPA | 24 months from vacant possession, after written notice | Housing Development Regulations 1989, Schedules G/I cl.27 and H/J cl.30 |
| Homebuyer-vs-developer filing window (TTPR) | Not later than 12 months from CCC, common-facilities CCC, SPA DLP expiry, or pre-CCC SPA termination | Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 s.16N |
What is the unhappy path when the developer does not respond?
The unhappy path is a sequence, not a single letter. Each step produces a document, and the documents together are what makes a later cost-recovery or filing-window claim defensible. Below is the sequence Malaysian landlord-investors use when the developer's customer service line has gone quiet after the first defect list.
| Step | What you send or do | Why it matters | What "good" looks like |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Confirm the first notice is on record | Resend the original defect list to the developer's project office by registered post or courier with proof of delivery; keep a date-stamped copy | Registered post is what later proves you actually notified the developer; WhatsApp alone is usually not enough | A counter-receipt or PosLaju tracking record with a date, attached to the same defect list |
| 2. Send a second written notice stating a cost | A short letter: "the defects listed remain unremedied; if not fixed by [date], we will proceed to remedy at the developer's cost in line with the SPA" | The second notice is the legal pivot from "we asked" to "we are about to act". Without it, the developer can argue they were still given a chance | Sent by registered post, copied by email, with a contractor quotation attached |
| 3. Wait the reasonable window named in the second notice | A short, stated window in the same letter — long enough to be fair, short enough not to lose the tenancy season | The developer's last chance to come back. A clear window is what stops a later dispute about "we never gave them time" | A written window that an SPA-allowed self-help clause would treat as reasonable |
| 4. Get one independent contractor quotation | A written quote from a CIDB-registered contractor, itemised by trade, with photos | The price benchmark for the cost-recovery claim. One quote is enough; two is better | A quote on letterhead with the contractor's registration number, photos, and a clear scope |
| 5. Remedy the defect yourself, keep the records | Hire the contractor, pay, and keep the invoice, before/after photos, the second notice, and the registered-post receipts in one folder | The folder is the evidence you take to a later claim. An incomplete folder collapses a claim even if the workmanship defect is real | One folder, paper and digital, every document time-stamped |
| 6. Pursue the cost in the right forum | A cost-recovery claim after proper notice, or a TTPR filing under the homebuyer-vs-developer route once the workmanship window has ended and the 12-month TTPR window is still open | The TTPR is the venue for a homebuyer claim arising from the developer SPA. A tenancy-deposit forum hears landlord-vs-tenant cases and is the wrong venue here. DLP expiry does not, by itself, end every developer route while a TTPR filing under s.16N(2)(b) is still inside its 12-month window | A TTPR filing, with the folder from step 5 attached, lodged inside the 12-month window |
Two warnings. First, do not hire SPEEDRENO on the same wall the developer is meant to fix — that turns a workmanship claim into a "the owner already did it" dispute. Second, do not lock the unit out, switch off services, or threaten the developer's staff; some of those moves create a counter-claim against you.
For the day you took keys, the house inspection page covers how to walk and document a unit. For what to do before any contractor comes in, the home renovation guide shows the sequence the developer should have used.
What can you do after the developer's workmanship window ends?
Once the workmanship window in your SPA has expired, the developer's free-repair duty under the DLP clause ends. That does not, by itself, close every developer route. Your three real options: pay to fix it, file a TTPR claim inside the 12-month window that runs from the DLP expiry, or accept the defect and discount the unit. This is also where the question "is this a tenancy tribunal question?" is most often asked — and the answer is no. A tenancy-deposit forum hears landlord-vs-tenant cases, not homebuyer-vs-developer cases, and it is the wrong venue here.
| Your situation | Right next move | Why it is the right move | What to avoid |
|---|---|---|---|
| A defect the developer should have fixed, the workmanship window has now closed, the defect is real, and the 12-month TTPR window is still open | Pay to fix it yourself (if the unit cannot wait), and file a TTPR claim under s.16N(2)(b) for the cost, attaching the unhappy-path folder | The DLP expiry ends the developer's free-repair duty. It does not, by itself, extinguish a TTPR filing still inside the 12-month window that starts when the DLP ends | Filing at a tenancy-deposit forum; demanding a free fix after the window has closed |
| A defect the developer should have fixed, the workmanship window has now closed, and more than 12 months have passed since the DLP expiry | The TTPR filing window under s.16N(2)(b) is closed. Your remaining options are pay to fix it, or accept the defect and discount the unit | The 12-month TTPR window is its own statutory bar, separate from the DLP duty | Treating the closed TTPR window as a fresh filing opportunity; inventing a longer court-route clock that no active fact supports |
| An isolated trade defect (one tap, one socket, one door) on a wall the developer is no longer responsible for | Use SPEEDFIX for a one-trade repair with a documented quotation, invoice and photo record | A single trade does not need a fit-out. It needs a clean repair with a paper trail you can show at the next tenancy handover | Bundling a one-trade repair into a full fit-out; doing it without a record |
| A defect that blocks the unit from being rented (multiple trades, a wall that needs redoing, a waterproofing failure behind tiling) | Use SPEEDRENO for a tenant-ready fit-out, but only after the developer route is honestly closed | SPEEDRENO produces a fit-out, not a workmanship claim. Calling it in while the developer still has a duty turns a recoverable cost into a spent cost | Calling SPEEDRENO in on the same wall the developer is meant to fix |
| You want to pursue the developer after the workmanship window has closed | File at the TTPR inside the 12-month window from DLP expiry. The folder from the unhappy-path steps above is your evidence | This is a filing window for a claim, not a free fix. It exists because the workmanship window has closed, and it is the correct venue for a homeowner-vs-developer SPA-cause dispute | Treating the TTPR window as a free-fix extension; treating it as a tenancy-deposit forum |
For a stratified-building leak that is not a workmanship issue, the water leak in a Malaysian condo page is the right page, not this one. For a waterproofing job offered as a quick injection fix, the waterproofing injection scam page covers the red flags.
When should you bring in SPEEDRENO or SPEEDFIX?
Bring in the fit-out service only after the developer route is honestly closed. Bring in the repair service the moment a single trade is on a wall the developer is no longer responsible for. The two products are built for different jobs; calling the wrong one in at the wrong time is the second-most-common mistake after a WhatsApp-only first notice.
| Trade you need | Right product | When to call | What it covers |
|---|---|---|---|
| One tap, one socket, one ceiling patch, one door closer — a defect on a wall that is not the developer's responsibility any more | SPEEDFIX | The moment the defect is on a wall the developer is no longer on the hook for, and the second-notice clock has run | A single trade with itemised quotation, before/after photo record, and invoice — kept on the tenancy file |
| A wall redo, a waterproofing fix, a kitchen or bathroom that needs to come out and be rebuilt before the unit is tenant-ready | SPEEDRENO | After the developer route is closed (the SPA workmanship window is over, or a clean second notice has run its stated window with no response) and the unit is otherwise ready to be tenanted | A tenant-ready fit-out built to survive repeated tenancies — not a workmanship warranty, not a "developer fix" |
| The wall the developer is meant to fix under the SPA workmanship window | Neither — not yet | The developer is on the hook. Calling SPEEDRENO in on the same wall turns a recoverable cost into a spent cost | Calling in any contractor before the second-notice window has passed |
A practical test: if the defect is a workmanship issue, the SPA still has a workmanship window running, and the developer has been given proper written notice with a stated cost, do not bring in any contractor yet. If the workmanship window has closed, or the defect is on a part of the unit the SPA does not put on the developer's hook, it is a SPEEDRENO or SPEEDFIX job, not a developer claim.
When the folder is ready, the next step depends on which clock is still running. If the workmanship window is still open, the next step is the cost-recovery claim against the developer. If it has closed and the unit is tenant-ready except for a single trade, the next step is SPEEDFIX. If it has closed and the unit needs a tenant-ready fit-out across multiple trades, the next step is a SPEEDRENO conversation, not another letter to the developer.
FAQ
Is 14 days the legal deadline?
There is no single "14-day rule" that applies to every defect notice under every SPA. The right window is the one written into your specific SPA and the one your second notice states as a reasonable response period. Follow the SPA, not a generic rule.
Is a WhatsApp message enough service?
For a polite record, a WhatsApp message to the developer's customer service line is fine. For a cost-recovery claim, it is usually not enough. The first and second notices should be sent by registered post or courier with proof of delivery. WhatsApp is the supporting record, not the primary one.
Can I hire and bill the developer after one week of silence?
Not after one week, and not without a second notice. The developer must be given proper written notice, a stated reasonable window, and a clear statement that you will proceed to remedy at the developer's cost if the window passes without action. The second notice, not the silence, gives you a self-help right.
After the workmanship window ends, do I still go to a "tenancy tribunal"?
No. A "tenancy tribunal"-style forum is a landlord-vs-tenant venue. A homebuyer-vs-developer claim after the workmanship window is a different matter in a different forum — the Tribunal Tuntutan Pembeli Rumah (TTPR), which is a homebuyer tribunal under Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966 s.16N, and the filing must be brought inside the 12-month window that runs from the relevant trigger event (CCC, DLP expiry, or pre-termination). Filing the wrong claim in the wrong forum is the most common reason the case is dismissed without a hearing.
Is this the same situation as a rental deposit fight?
No. A rental deposit fight is a landlord-vs-tenant matter at the end of a tenancy, usually about who pays for damage. A developer-silent-after-defect-notice situation is a homebuyer-vs-developer matter during or just after the developer's workmanship window. Documents, forum, time limits, and remedies all differ.
Accuracy note. Grounded in Housing Development (Control and Licensing) Act 1966. Every figure is bound to a dated fact registry and re-verified on each update. Spotted an error? Email [email protected] with this page's link.