被IWK追讨排污费，不理他们的话，会不会有事？

Kakistocracy

几年前买了二手公寓，入住以来从来没有交过排污费。现在已经收到IWK的警告信，叫我还完全部拖欠的排污费，包括前屋主欠的（因为前屋主也没有给）。
现在问题是，我从来没有要求IWK提供任何服务，我和IWK之间根本没有任何contract或agreement。
请问在法律上我是否有义务交排污费？
请问IWK是否有权力以法律手段强制我们给钱？


如果不理他们的话，通常会有什么后果，最严重的后果又是什么？

谢谢

Cinabaku

后果如下
Appeals Court: IWK can sue those who don't pay up[size=1.167em][size=14.004px][size=0.917em]Posted on 17 March 2007 - 02:40am
[size=14.004px][size=0.857em]

[size=14.004px][size=14.004px]Print



[size=14.004px]

[size=14.004px][size=14.004px]PUTRAJAYA (March 16, 2007): The Appeals Court has ruled that Indah Water Konsortium Sdn Bhd (IWK) can file legal action against users who refuse to pay charges for sewerage services.

[size=14.004px]This ruling restores a civil suit brought by IWK against businessman Yong Kon Fatt, which was thrown out by the Ipoh High Court on March 30, 2004. It will be sent back to the Setiawan magistrate's court for trial.

[size=14.004px]The decision is significant as it has a bearing on some 14,000 similar claims filed by IWK in the courts.

[size=14.004px]The appeals panel comprised Justices Datuk James Foong Cheng Yuen, Datin Paduka Zaleha Zahari and Datuk Heliliah Mohamed Yusof.

[size=14.004px]Yong had applied to strike out the suit against him on the grounds that IWK's claim was scandalous, frivolous, vexatious and an abuse of the court process.

[size=14.004px]The magistrate's court had dismissed Yong's application on Oct 2, 2003. He then brought the case to the High Court and succeeded in striking out IWK's suit.

[size=14.004px]The High Court's basis for judgement was that IWK had failed to file an affidavit-in-reply to rebut Yong's claim in his affidavit in support of his application.

[size=14.004px]Yong claimed his contentions in his affidavit were deemed to be true in light of IWK's failure to provide an affidavit-in-reply.

[size=14.004px]He claimed there was no contractual relationship or obligation between him and IWK because he did not ask IWK to provide sewerage services to him.

[size=14.004px]In unanimously allowing IWK's appeal, Justice Foong said there was no necessity for IWK to file its affidavit-in-reply to counter Yong's claim.

[size=14.004px]Counsel Wong Kian Kheong had submitted that IWK could sue Yong as IWK was a licensed sewerage contractor.

[size=14.004px]He said it was mandatory for Yong to pay the charges owing to IWK under Regulation 7 of the Sewerage Services (Charges) Regulations 1994.

[size=14.004px]IWK's failure to file an affidavit in reply to Yong's affidavit was not fatal and its claim against Yong was not a plain and obvious case to be struck out, he said.

[size=14.004px]The court also ordered Yong to pay costs both at the Court of Appeal and in the lower courts. A written judgment would be given at a later date.

[size=14.004px]Yong's counsel, Ngeh Koo Ham, will study the written judgment before deciding whether to file for leave to appeal to the Federal Court.

1369

拿當時你買此公寓的Sale & Puchase Agreement 去IWK office 換名,
你只須承擔從買公寓到現在的排污費, 前屋主欠的和你無關.