Gillman Height at the STB

20 October

The STB has had to make some adjustments due to 'unforeseen circumstances'. (I'm guessing it's because they have to make room for the continuation of HT hearing on the 30th Oct onwards.) Written and oral submissions have been pushed forward as a consequence. What those submissions are, I do not know.

.

05 October

After arriving late for the 3rd day of the hearing, I only heard three minority owners questioned on their affidavits in the morning. .

After he counsel had finished with a witness, any minority owner could stand up and ask further questions of that witness. This participation by the on-lookers was a surprise to me as in my previous attendance at another estate's hearing, no such participation occurred. Was it just for minority witnesses only, I wonder?

.

I cannot give an account of the 4th day as I was only partially present. A statement given by a minority owner's valuer being one witness.

.

The last day of the hearing was a continuation of day 4. I was told the argument for CSC was given in a written submission only.

.

The Board has up to 3 months to deliver their written decision. How soon for an oral one?

.

28 September

For the first two days (24th & 25th Sept), Counsel for the minority cross-examined all the applicants' witnesses namely the SC Chairman, the two valuers & the two marketing agents.

(as it is an ongoing case, details have been omitted)
Next week, 3 Oct-2007:- will be for witnesses for the minority which should total around 10 people altogether giving their statements.

4 Oct-2007,:-arguments on point law regarding the 80/90% requirement will be heard.(TOP/CSC) Also scheduled; the perceived irregularities in the CSA etc

That's all for now, folks.

__________________________

18 September

Taken from CondoSingapore article:

An issue as simple as the age of the estate is one of the biggest points of contention. The former HUDC estate was built in 1984, but privatised in 2002, when the Building and Construction Authority issued the Certificate of Statutory Completion after work on additional facilities was completed.

Depending on which year is used, the majority consent needed by the sale committee would differ. Under current laws, a 90-per-cent approval is required for developments less than 10 years, while older developments only need 80 per cent.

At Gillman Heights, the consent level was 87.5 per cent of its 608 units.

Several issues have dogged the sale since a deal was struck with CapitaLand in February. For example, the Collective Sale Agreement (CSA), inked in June last year, had expired, and there was no valid extension in the supplemental CSA, Mr Ng said.

"Since the CSA is in fact over, the sale committee is not authorised to represent the subsidiary proprietors in making the sale order application," he said. The sale committee lawyers, from Lee & Lee, could not be reached for comment.

Gillman Heights is one of a series of high-profile en bloc deals gone ugly. And a lawyer, who declined to be named, felt that even with the new regulations expected to kick in early next month, such messy tussles would be here to stay amid a property boom.

"The new laws would reduce the complaints over the transparency of the process," he said. "But why are people unhappy? Because they can't buy a replacement with the money (they're getting)."


Strata Titles Board Hearing Dates: Sept 23, 24 & Oct 3,4,5
The outcome of this case will determine whether or not Tampines Court requires 80 % or 90% approval before application to the Board. This is probably one of the reasons why there has been no advertisement to date in the newspapers (a STB requirement), even though 7 months have lapsed since the sale.

The CSA and S&P

Since ‘all’s quiet on the western front’ at the moment, it’s as good a time as any to go back and reflect on the Collective Sales Agreement (CSA) and the Sales and Purchase Agreement (S&P). It could serve as a warning for others reading this blog who are perhaps undergoing an enbloc sale of their own in their estate.

There’s very little to say about it except that my copy (the draft copy given to all owners) of the CSA has 30 pages of clauses defining the obligations of the signatories, the Sale Terms, the Sale Committee etc. All very detailed, covering every eventuality and written in opaque legalese.

.

(The following is my layman's reading of the said documents and as such may contain errors, If you find any faults or question the analysis then PLEASE LEAVE A COMMENT! I will amend accordingly)

.

CSA:

Sale Terms -

4.1.5 COMPLETION OF THE VALID CONTRACT OF SALE SHALL BE SCHEDULED NOT EARLIER THAN 3 MONTHS AND NOT LATER THAN 6 MONTHS FROM THE DATE OF THE VALID CONTRACT OF SALE

.

So according to the CSA the expiry date should have been 25th September 2007.

.

BUT

.

4.3.1
“THE SALE COMMITTEE SHALL, IN CONSULTATION WITH THE SOLICITORS AND/OR THE PROPERTY CONSULTANTS (but, importantly, not the owners!) HAVE THE ABSOLUTE DISCRETION TO NEGOTIATE AND AGREE WITH ANY PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER OR TENDERER ON THE DETAILED SALE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE SALE, AND TO ACCEPT ANY QUALIFICATIONS, ADDITIONS, MODIFICATIONS, OR AMENDMENTS PROPOSED BY ANY PROSPECTIVE PURCHASER OR TENDERER TO THE SALE TERMS OF THE COLLECTIVE SALE, INCLUDING. BUT NOT LIMITED TO, THE SALE TERMS STIPULATED IN 4.1 (in short, change anything and everything in the CSA pertaining to the Sale Terms, which they subsequently did) HEREIN, SAVE AND EXCEPT CLAUSE 4.1.4 (this refers to lowering the reserve price; the one thing they cannot do by LTSA regulations)…”

.
And

.
12.5
"ALL INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN BY THE SALE COMMITTEE TO THE SOLICITORS AND/OR PROPERTY CONSULTANTS OR OTHER THIRD PARTIES IN ACCORDANCE WITH THIS AGREEMENT SHALL BE DEEMED INSTRUCTIONS GIVEN TO THE SAID PARTIES BY ALL THE SIGNATORIES (thus covering themselves so that they don't have to go back to consult with the owners before selling the property lock, stock and barrel)."
.

These two clauses together give the SC absolute power.

.

So what did the now all-powerful Sale Committee do ?

.
Well, they went forward and 'agreed and negotiated with the proposed purchaser' and made the following 'amendment' in the S&P
.
S&P
6 - ...THE SALE AND PURCHASE HEREIN IS SUBJECT TO AN STB ORDER BEING OBTAINED WITHIN 12 MONTHS FROM THE RPA APPROVAL DATE....

.

Calculating the RPA approval date is a little tricky and if I am wrong PLEASE CORRECT ME!

.

Order of official approval: OPP >>>LTU>>>RPA

.

OPP: (Outline planning permission) - granted on 3 May 2007 (see pg 4 of S&P)

.

Lease Top Up Approval Date: as of now unknown but up to 10 weeks + 2 wks extension from OPP = July 26 (actually this is also open-ended as they can 'mutually agree' to extend even this etc). (see page 5 of S&P)

.

RPA (Residential Property Act): approval to be obtained within 6 weeks from the LTU = 6 Sept 2007 . But, this is tentative as it all depends on the LTU date which is, as already mentioned, unknown. (see pg 7 and 16 of S&P)

So, using the time frame above they have , approximately 18 months from March 25, 2007 (date of sale) to September 2008 to get the sale approved at the STB (and even then they can extend the deadline if they mutually agree to do so).

Owners signed for 6 months in the CSA.
The Sale Committee, without owner consultation,   TRIPLED the length of time the consenting owners thought they had agreed to when they signed the CSA.

.

UPDATE (25 Oct 2007)

Letter from Sale Committee dated 23 October 2007:-

.

OPP date - 03 May2007

LTU date - 22 June 2007

RPA date - 10 July 2007

.

So, I believe this means the expiry of the S&P is 09 July 2008 (12 months from the RPA in principle date of approval). But of course, these things are always extended in perpetuity or so it seems ...........

.
UPDATE (Mediation 2008)

Qualifying Certificate expires on 25 July 2008

.

The in-principle date of approval and the Qualifying Certificate are one in the same Please check the Residential Property Act at the side 31 (2).

.

QC for each unit: $400

So, I suppose

560 units = $2,240,000

.

Another minority voice

Here is a flyer sent by another dissatisfied minority owner (not me!). I think this might be the last one for a while...

Newspaper article 1

September 1st 2007

LIEN HE ZHAO BAO

Recent article in the Chinese morning newspaper about the 41 appealling minority owners and some of their views. No mention of how Tampines Court could turn out to be another Horizon Towers. I believe it is highly edited, but nonetheless, a decent article.

I'm still waiting for a translation........

Rebuttal

A flyer in the post today that needs a reply.
Dear Author,

URA WEBSITE for proof of minority position here

Private residential property transactions with caveats lodged (in the last 12 months)

check out condos in our area:
THE TROPICA, LOYANG VALLEY, AZALEA PARK CONDO, CARISSA PARK CONDO, DAHLIA PARK CONDO, BALLOTA PARK CONDO, AVILA GARDENS, CHANGI GARDEN, MODENA, TROPICAL SPRING, SIMEI GREEN CONDO, MELVILLE PARK, SUNHAVEN, CHANGI RISE CONDO, TAMPINES COURT

Please! Enough of the property agent's stuff and nonsense about how old and cheap our estate is!

Just go to the URA website above and check for yourselves the price movement of condos in this area. The list is huge. Your $420,000 figure is plucked from the air! The last individual unit sold in this estate was in Oct 06, before the exponential rise in property prices, and even then it was sold for $520K (figure taken from website).

Don’t forget; we didn’t sell our units INDIVIDUALLY but collectively with our enormous common area included – what is the price of our common area??. Was it given away for free? What happened to the 66% premium promised by the PA? Projected sale price of new development - $745 per sq foot (revealed at EOGM by property agent). Gross realization - $1.9 billion. 

Property vaues have moved less than 10% in the past year? According to the URA website, Loyang valley moved ~70%, Melville Park: ~45%, Changi Rise Condo:~40% ...it goes on and on..

Lease decreasing? Loyang Valley (99yrs) is older and is leading the pack with a 70% price increase in the last year. Potential buyers are obviously not put off by the looming 30 yr mark.

Upgrading: Buy a soon-to -be upgraded HDB and expect to receive a bill for $30,000.
Every estate requires upkeep: show me one that has everlasting lifts and eternal paintwork. You have a leak? Call a plumber. This is maintenance and it is a fact of life. Upgrading is optional, a decision taken by SPs at an AGM. These scare tactics might have worked on some people at the beginning, but believe me, the minority remaining have and never will be persuaded by such weak and futile arguments.

Value: only a monetary value is put on our homes (and a very low one at that without a valuation). Windy, spacious, solid, loved, irreplaceable. Do you expect to live forever? Do you think more money is the key to happiness? If being neighbourly is so important to you, why are you selling your neighbours’ homes without their approval? What harm have we ever done to you? As for accusing the minority of being un-neighborly; well, just who is pushing who here? We have a right to defend our homes at the STB. Personally, I have experienced no hostility from neighbours, and I feel no animosity towards those who signed. Majority owners are most certainly not fools, they know they have been led down the proverbial garden path.

Let the others do the work? Who asked them to appoint themselves? What work did they do? It is normal practice when selling a home to 1) do a valuation 2) keep an eye on the market and raise the price accordingly and 3) sell in a reasonable length of time. Was this done? The guardians of 560 units did a very poor job and did not inform us of the various bids and offers. As a majority lady at the EOGM so eloquently put it: 

“I put my trust and faith in the SC, only to find that my faith was blind and my trust misplaced”..