Golden Westlake residents lose car parking fee appeal
Golden Westlake residents lose car parking fee appeal
Hanoi’s Golden Westlake high-rise residential complex was mired in conflict last week after the municipal people’s committee refused a claim from a group of residents asking for lower car parking fees.
A group of residents at Golden Westlake petitioned the local authority to pressurise the developer – Ha Viet Tung Shing to cut the parking fees to VND1 million a month from a current VND2.5 million per month.
The committee confirmed that the resident’s claim was without foundation, because the basement is owned by the developer and that the parking fee must be calculated accordingly to the affordability of the residents. However, the city authorities ruled that the pricing had to also reflect the return on investment for the developer.
According to a source from Tung Shing Group, average fees for government-owned parking spaces were subsidised, but Golden Westlake was a privately owned building that needed to be profitable. The group claimed that the proposed fee of VND 2.5 million per month would still see the developer suffering losses.
According to the Hanoi People’s Committee, private developers in the downtown area can charge VND1.8 to 3 million per month for parking.
The complex with 370 apartments and 16 villas was completed in 2010 with an initial parking fee of VND1 million per month.
The long-running dispute began since August 2012 when the complex’s management company Leonidas decided to raise the fee to around VND.5 million ($120) a month.
A group of residents objected to the increase and complained to the authorities. The Ministry of Finance confirmed that vehicle parking fees are decided by the Hanoi People’s Council.
All fees, the council said, must be calculated based on different expenses paid by a building’s management board, such as salaries and wages, service costs, material supplies and building maintenance costs.
Apart from the conflict on parking charges, residents and investors are also fighting over the use of basement.
The committee claim that the basement was clearly identified to be the property of the investors and this had been pointed out in the purchasing contracts.
vir
