Agent blurbs..

So, how are agents describing our estate when trying to sell units?
Example of an advertisement placed by an agent who was involved in our failed en bloc attempt:-

From his initial but now deleted blurb:.

For SaleCondominium
Tampines Court

Tampines Street 11

S$ 750,000Price on Ask

For Sale -Tampines Court (D18)
S$ 750,000 Price on Ask S$ 441.18 psf 1,700 sqft (158 sqm) 3 beds 3 baths
Tampines Court is a PRIVATE APARTMENT in a prime and superb site located in the heart of Tampines Town and is strategically located in the North-Eastern part of Singapore along the Tampines Street 11 residential area. The 23 year old former HUDC development which was privatised in the year 2002 comprises of 560 units -- a mixture of 128 low-rise 4 storey walk up apartments in 8 blocks, and 432 Maisonettes in 6 blocks of 12 storey apartment blocks. The immediate vicinity comprises mainly public housing developments and it is well-served by many facilities including a market, hawker centre, Century Square and Tampines Mall Shopping Complexes, the eastern Regional Financial center, Community Club and a sports complex. IKEA, Courts and Giant supermarket are also located within the 2 KM radius. It is also in close to primary as well as secondary schools nearby and well served by transportation links along Tampines Avenue 2, Simei Avenue the Pan Island Expressway and TPE. The site is situated in between 2 MRT Stations, the Tampines MRT Station and the Simei MRT Station each a short walking distance away. Major Expressways like the East Coast Parkway leading to Ayer Rajah Expressway, and the TPE/SLE also renders it easy access to the Airport and to the north towards Woodlands.

.

The truth at last!

.

Newspaper articles

They were certain they would win.
New Paper - 26 July 2008

STB No 2 2008 - Tampines Court TAPE TRANSCRIPTS

I have removed the original tape transcripts form my blog and replaced them with versions lacking proper names. 

Opening statement by Senior Counsel for the Majority

 16 June 2008

 Cross examination of Lawyer from Majority legal firm

16 June 2008

Cross examination of Accountant

16 June 2008

A2 TABLE 

A2 at STB (edited for privacy)

Cross examination of Sale Committee applicant
16 June 2008

Cross examination of the Property Agent
16 & 17 June 2008

Cross examination of Managing Agent
17 June 2008

Cross examination of Majority Valuer
17 & 18 June 2008

Interlocutory Application

18 June 2008

Cross examination of Minority Valuer

18 June 2008

21 July was day 4: unfortunately, the tape transcripts were PDF locked so I could not substitute proper names easily and had to retype the body of text slowly. Therefore there may be errors...

Cross examination of Sale Committee Chairman

Cross examination of Minority Witnesses

Newspaper article 5

Strata board rules: It's no go for Tampines sale
Straits Times - 26 July 2008

Factors which led to en bloc failure

Only three factors can be taken into account when the STB decides whether or not to withhold its approval to a sale. 

Lack of good faith in :-

(A) the sale price

(B) the method of distribution of sale proceeds

(C) the relationship of the purchaser to the any of the SPs

Tampines Court failed in two; (A) and (B) which is, I believe, unprecedented.

Countdown to S&P expiry

The S&P has expired
Owners are no longer bound to the terms and conditions of the contract.
Owners are no longer bound by the terms and conditions of the CSA.

TAMPINES COURT MINORITY WIN

Today, the STB Deputy President, Mr. Alphonso Ang, gave the following decision for Tampines Court:-

So, we the minority won on the merits of the case..

A huge thank you goes out to our wonderful legal team:-

To Siva Krishnasamy of Tan Lee & Partners who endured with endless patience, 14 months of emails, sms's and telephone calls from a bunch of housewives, and who gave up many evenings to come and talk with our ever hopeful group. We are forever grateful for his dedication to our cause, his astute legal advice and his genuine affinity for our group . Without him we would not have won. Who together with Mr. Sreenivasan put our case together and saw it through to the end.

To Mr. Sreenivasan of StraitsLaw, our counsel at the STB, who wowed us with his inimitable and flawless, cross-examination style, who ran circles around the opposition before coming to incontrovertible, logical conclusions. Better than anything you ever saw on tv!
.
You saved our homes, a big thank you to you both.
.

Why I feel the concept of Beta Sum is wrong

If the Beta sum is approved for TC – this could theoretically open the floodgates to potential financial scams in future enblocs. Lump sums could be skimmed off the top and re-labeled to override the controls built into the LTSA rules governing method of apportionment.

Just think about it for a moment.

A Sale Committee need only include the reserve price and the method of apportionment for that sum in the CSA. Other ‘problems’ could be kept under wraps. The CSA would definitely include that nasty cover-all clause that allows the SC to amend, delete, alter, etc the terms of the sale……. blank cheque to do as they will (why oh why don't people read their CSA's before signing!)
.
During negotiation, an understanding could be reached with the successful developer buyer to carve a sum out of the sale price and label it, say “Beta Sum”. This can be used to pay for other outstanding issues, including but not limited to financial loss, debts and costs & expenses of sale for some, but not all owners. Some owners therefore would receive an amount above and beyond the agreed collective sale price.
.
Why is this bad, some might say? After all, no owner should have to be 'out of pocket' as a result of an en bloc sale, right?
.

Well,

.
Since this Beta Sum is not governed by the apportionment method stated in the CSA it can be meted out at the discretion of the SC – and there are no checks and balances as to where that money actually goes. A SC cannot give a full and accurate account of how much and where the sum will be distributed at the STB. So how can the STB approve a sale when nobody knows what their final sale proceeds will be! This portends potential scam number one.

.
If a Beta sum becomes commonplace, what is to stop its abuse? A few clued-in owners may decide not to pay their privatization costs (if applicable) and manintenace and sinking fund contributions years in advance knowing that these debts would be covered by the owners (whether they agree to it or not). This portends potential scam number two. Diligent owners are penalised, laggards and freeloaders are rewarded.

.
Since owners sign on the basis that not more than 1% of their sale proceeds goes to cover losses then are they not being conned out of their rightful share of the full sale proceeds?
.

Price skimming warps the whole framework on which a collective sale is built. When owners sign the CSA they also sign for the method of apportionment. The formula is written there in the CSA. They would not sign if owner A gets $xx more dollars than owner B with the same size unit, (other than for financial loss). They sign on the presumption that the sale price is calculable in the same way for all. This is an LTSA requirement. It is no longer a collective sale if everyone is getting different benefits and price after they have agreed otherwise. It really throws a spanner in the works!
.
Creative circumvention of LTSA rules should not be encouraged. If there is a "Beta" problem to be covered - then by all means cover it - but it should be done up front and in the CSA. Everyone should know in advance exactly what it is they are giving. If owners are to donate more than the regulation 1% - then a sale committee should have the common decency to ask permission first, and gather their 80% on that basis.

.

So, let's hope that Tampines Court's experimentation with Beta fails.

.

Beta Sum and TC

The Beta Sum is a major minority objection at the STB.

Facts:
The SC gave $405 million as the Sale Price in their Application.
It comprises of $395 million + $10 million
Stamp duty is paid on $405 million
The distribution of this Beta sum is at the discretion of the SC.
.
Only 239 (out of 560) SPs gave in partial or full financial details.
The Tabulation for Alpha and Beta is therefore incomplete and the final figures remain unknown.
SPs do not know what their sale proceeds will be.
.
Only Alpha (up to 1% of sale proceeds to cover financial loss) was mentioned in the CSA.
Beta first appeared on 27th March 2007, after the sale.
.
The remainder of Beta sum is divided between those owners who did not claim Alpha or Beta (ie Omega owners).
There is over $8 million to be divided amongst the Omega owners.
By this distribution method, if 559 owners claim $1000/- then the remaining owner would get $9.44 million.
The method is clearly flawed, as pointed out by a panel member.
.
The Sale committee applicant admitted on cross examination that the Beta sum distribution was "unfair".
.
The SC cannot change the method of distribution unilaterally.
The Buyer has refused to amend the S&P to change the method of distribution of Beta.
The SC is stuck with this flawed method of distribution.
.
The SC, in it's oral submission, tried to change it's position saying that the Sale Price was actually $395 and that the Beta sum was extra.
.
The following is the A2 Table submitted by the majority at the STB showing the partial distribution of sale proceeds to those who had made their financial situation known to the the en bloc lawyer. This table is incomplete as there are many unknowns outstanding.
(The Table has been edited to erase unit identification)

The minority lawyer, N. Sreenivasan, gave a brilliant oral summary this afternoon.

Newspaper report 4

Hope in sight for Tampines Court sale?
Straits Times - 22 July 2008

Minority owners leaving STB




"Is there such a thing as a happy en bloc?"
Jessica Cheam (Straits Times Journalist) blog

Hearing day 4

Today saw the cross examination of the SC Chairman, and one minority witness.

The en bloc lawyer has apparently engaged his third Senior Counsel, Mr. Yeoh. One has to wonder what the cost of this is going to be and who is going to pay. We are only at the STB and already the SC has;
.
a) Made 2 applications (one for Beta sum amendment, the other to change the date)
b) Been to High Court
c) Engaged 3 Senior Counsels
.
The lawyer for the majority gave his oral submission today.

The lawyer for the minority will give his oral submission tomorrow at 2.30pm.
.
My previous questions:
.
How many days will they give for written submissions?
Until Wednesday 3pm
Will allowance be made for the independent minority?
No
How many days will the panel deliberate?
Change that to how many hours
Will they rush to a decision before the 25th, midnight?
Decision out by Friday 25th
.

Newspaper report 3

July 21 hearing for Tampines Court case
Straits Times - 19 July 2008

.

4th day of Hearing

The fourth day of the Hearing will be on Monday 21 July at 9.30am
.

Written submissions would usually take up to 3 weeks.
The panel would usually deliberate for up to 3 months
So, how will it be for poor Tampines Court?
.
There will only be 4 days before the S&P expiry:-
How many days will they give for written submissions?
Will allowance be made for the independent minority?
How many days will the panel deliberate?
Will they rush to a decision before the 25th?
.

Parliamentary assurance;- there are
"safeguards to protect the interests of the minority owners"
and that the
"safeguards are found in the procedures".
.
High Court assurance (Choo Han Teck J):-

"That said, fairness requires that the law is applied consistently to everyone in similar circumstances. It gazes upon the horse as it does the horseman. It may be the appellants today who slipped, and tomorrow the respondents. If the majority succeeds it is because it is right not because it is the majority. Likewise, if the minority succeeds it is because it is right and not because
it receives favours granted only to the underdog"
.

Have faith

Appeal ongoing

The appeal by the majority to bring the date forward has not been decided upon yet. It is a 2 stage process for 'Quashing Orders '.

With due process and by law, there must be 8 clear days between the serving of the summons and the actual day of the hearing. But the minority lawyers have been given just one and a half days to prepare. The second day of the hearing for this appeal will therefore be heard on Friday afternoon.

Newspaper rebuttal

The petition signed on Sunday by some majority owners was delivered to the the Mp for Tampines GRC and Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan On Monday evening.
.

Mr. Mah has in his possession another petition; one handed in by the minority owners at the previous Monday's Meet the People Session, albeit quietly, without media attention. We had turned down repeated requests for an interview; preferring not to dramatize our estate in the media.
.
The minority only request that due process be followed, that the law should be allowed to take it's natural course. We were assured in previous sessions by our eminent MP that due process is paramount in the legal system. That although he cannot and would not interfere directly in the decision making of the STB, he would make representations on owners' behalf, both for minority and majority. That is only fair.
.
Newspaper report:
"It has become a nerve-wracking time for the owners, as many have committed themselves to other properties"

Both the en bloc lawyer and the Property Agent have stated in previous letters to the owners that it was unwise to purchase a new unit before the sale was confirmed- and there is a long way to go before it is confirmed.

En bloc Lawyer letter dated 27th March 2007:-
.
These owners have therefore only themselves to blame for ignoring sound advice and making unwise purchases beyond their means.
.
Property Agent letter dated 27th March 2007:-
.




.
.
"Owner K. Balasubramaniam, 55, said residents could lose about $200,000 should the sale fail. He said the average open market value of a typical unit was $500,000 - while each owner would get $700,000 should the sale go through.
.
Just where did Mr. Balasubramaniam get his figures from? Where is his evidence? Plucking unsubstantiated figures from the air and presenting them as facts to the Minister is deplorable. Did the reporter for the ST ask for proof before reporting these figures in the paper? There is NO such thing as an average open market value of a typical unit for TC. The last individual unit sold in Tampines Court was in OCTOBER 2006 - at a price of $520,000. There has been a freeze on the sale of units at least since 15/05/2007* as the buyer has placed caveats on all the units, both minority and majority.

* my unit taken as example

Publish Post

Appeal to MP

High Court OS

By now, all the majority owners would have received a 44 page email copy of the Originating Summons N0. 941 0f 2008/P from the en bloc lawyer.

High Court Hearing Date and Time: tomorrow afternoon. The hearing is closed to the public.

.

Mir Hassan bin Abdul Rahman and Another v Attorney-General[2008] SGHC 147

Decision date: 05 Sept 2008

Appeal

The Majority have filed an Appeal to the High Court and have appointed Michael Huang SC as their counsel.
Counsel for the Minority are N. Sreenivasan and Siva Krishnasamy
The appeal should be heard Wednesday 16th before Tan Lee Meng J

Here is an anonymous comment about the 'commotion' yesterday.
.

"I came to know about the commotion at the void deck of Blk 120 and at the function room at the Management office on Sunday and went down to check. I was told by (resident’s name) being an SP on his own accord is exercising a petition to the Minister to appeal to the STB to bring forward the date before the 25^th July.
.
I am surprised that the MC had allowed a single SP to use the function room to collect signatures for his letter to the Minister.
.
I am also shocked to know that the representative of (property agent) had contacted via email and SMS to majority owners to come to the Management office to sign the petition on an urgent basis. Is the PA being hired by all the majority or only one SP whom they took his instruction to contact majority SPs.
.
I do understand from (the resident) that the (en bloc lawyer) is going to appeal to the High Court to throw out the decision made by the STB. Have they got the majority mandate to do this or is he exercising on his own accord or by the SC? I do also understand from (the resident) that whatever cost involves for the proceeding to High Court is borne only by the (en bloc lawyer)."

My comment: This SP is no mere resident; he is on the Management Council and is the financial advisor to the Sale Committee.

Rumbles in the jungle...

There was a bit of a commotion today outside the MCST office between some majority owners who want to appeal to the High Court and those that do not. Later on, a resident set up shop to collect signatures for a petition; possibly for our eminent MP.
.
It is rumoured that the en bloc lawyer will probably file an appeal soon. I was told it could be done on an urgent basis.
This is their prerogative.
The minority, of course, will object.

Newspaper article no 2

Tampines Court collective sale in peril
Straits Times - 12 July 2008

Hong Kong V's Singapore

En bloc debate, HK style 
WHEN land is scarce, your right to live in your home ends when your neighbours sell theirs.
This logic applies not just to Singapore - which defied expectations by recently producing its first collective sale offer since the recession took hold - but also to Hong Kong, which is now deep in debate over proposed changes to its compulsory property sale rules.

On the surface, the operative concept in both cities is the same: Urban renewal is expensive, and private capital speeds up the process. The government lends a hand by allowing an estate to be sold even if the sale does not get the unanimous approval of all the owners. But Hong Kong and Singapore differ in the weight each accords to minority owners. Singapore requires an 80 per cent consent for a sale of a property at least 10 years old, and a 90 per cent approval for a development less than 10 years old.
Meanwhile, Hong Kong has maintained a 90 per cent threshold since the 1990s, with a tribunal giving the final go-ahead after considering a host of factors, including the property's age and state of repair.
The Hong Kong administration has recently proposed that the threshold be lowered to 80 per cent - but only in cases where all but one unit has been acquired by one party, and where the development is at least 50 years old.
A observer may think this is just a case of laissez-faire Hong Kong playing catch-up, but the territory's deliberations on the matter actually hold many lessons for the Republic.
For starters, Hong Kong remains protective of minority rights. Even if the proposed change is passed, it would still be harder for the majority of owners in a Hong Kong estate to push though a sale, compared with those in Singapore.
And yet, the opposition to the proposed change in some quarters in Hong Kong has been fierce. The change, they say, is tantamount to a subsidy for developers as it would mean that they would not need to entice as many home owners with a good sale price.
One South China Morning Post reader declared in a letter published on Aug 3: 'The powers to compulsorily take away private homes are a draconian statutory provision that should be vested only in government - and used only for a defined public purpose. Making a profit for developers is not a public purpose.'
The language is refreshing, considering the tendency here to cast in a negative light those opposing an en bloc sale.
At times, they are made out to seem as greedy home owners holding out for more money, or eccentric seniors unduly attached to their property, or simply stubborn people who will not let their neighbours get on with their lives elsewhere.
Some here may point to Singapore's public housing programme, where upgrading works are passed with a 75 per cent vote. If the majority can rule in public housing, why can't it rule in private estates?
But that is hardly a parallel, given that public flat owners who have their homes renovated via a majority vote get to keep their homes whether they approved the upgrade or no. Private home owners have no such comfort.
Another interesting point about the Hong Kong debate is that it gives weight to environmental concerns.
The proposal notes that the normal working life of reinforced concrete buildings - during which they are unlikely to require major repairs - is assumed to be 50 years. Consequently, it sets 50 years as the minimum age for a building which may be subject to a compulsory sale application under the relaxed guidelines.
Given the huge amount of energy and material that erecting a building requires, this safeguard reduces the likelihood of unnecessary demolition waste.
In Singapore, money is by far the biggest measure used to determine whether a collective sale can go ahead.
The Strata Titles Board, which gives such sales the final nod, takes into account the transaction's sale price, the method of distributing the sale proceeds and the relationship of the buyer to any of the unit owners.
Objections to the sale have to be couched in the language of dollars and cents. The minority owner has to suffer a financial loss or be unable to redeem the mortgage against his home in order for the sale to be called off.
The potential loss of built heritage or good architecture is not a consideration. Neither is the environmental cost of demolishing a building that is in good working condition.
There are mitigating factors of course.
Singapore has a pro-active conservation authority which keeps a look-out for historically and architecturally valuable buildings, and adds them to its protected list. This may lessen somewhat the need for stringent collective sale rules to protect urban heritage.
Singapore is also two-thirds the size of Hong Kong. This means the Republic has a smaller buffer of land and cannot afford to leave decaying buildings untouched for long.
Still, the debate in Hong Kong does hold up a useful mirror to our practices, whichever way that debate pans out.
It has been 10 years since the laws were amended here to allow a private estate to be sold without the unanimous consent of all its owners.
In the most recent property peak in 2007, 111 estates changed hands for $12.4 billion, according to property consultancy CB Richard Ellis.
As the Republic braces itself for the next en bloc wave, it could also cast its eye beyond its shores for clues as to how else it might reshape the Singapore skyline.
Urban renewal, after all, is far from being only a numbers game.
Straits Times - 10 Aug 2009

The rules governing en bloc in Hong Kong are SO much better than Singapore's; buildings need to be 50 years old with 90% approval.

The rules governing en bloc sales in S. Korea are SO superior to our own; it is mandatory that owners be given a choice of cash or replacement unit in the new development.

.

I shall leave it to the Pariah to do her thing and attack the Government Ministries and their inadequate LTSA. Her latest salvo here

.

Still waiting for changes to en bloc rules

Straits Times – 15 Aug 2009

En bloc sales: Adopt HK’s 50-year limit

I APPLAUD Monday's well-argued commentary, 'En bloc debate, HK style', which highlighted the disparity between Hong Kong's code of practice for collective property sales and that in Singapore where the rights of minority secondary proprietors are plainly prejudiced in comparison.
I particularly admire that quotation from a South China Morning Post correspondent: 'The powers to compulsorily take away private homes are a draconian statutory provision that should be vested only in government - and used only for a defined purpose. Making a profit for developers is not a public purpose.'
I also endorse the environmental concerns of Hong Kong over the needless destruction of good architecture with perhaps decades of useful longevity ahead, and the subsequent costly redevelopment of any such site. For example, I would welcome the introduction of a 50-year age limit before any development could be considered for collective sale; that would at least relieve me of the incessant worry of enforced eviction from my treasured dwelling for the rest of my anticipated lifespan.

I would probably be categorised as one of the 'eccentric seniors unduly attached to their property' which I have occupied contentedly since August 1986, but I earnestly hope the Singapore Government will review legislation relating to collective sales without the unanimous consent of all secondary proprietors to alleviate the disadvantages they face compared to owners of both landed property and HDB flats. Dennis Butler
Straits Times – 15 Aug 2009

No Go for change of date

The Application to bring the date forward to before the 25th July 2008 has been dismissed with costs.

STB Decision:

Where we are now

S&P Expiry: 25 July 2008

STB Hearing day 4: 07 August 2008
.
.

1) The Board has not complied with the SC's request to bring the adjouned Hearing date forward to a date before the 25 July - and if the Buyer is still not minded to extend*, then the deal falls through. The deposit goes back to the buyer and the interest to the en bloc lawyer.
.
2) The Board has not complied with the SC's request to bring the adjouned Hearing date forward to a date before the 25 July - and if the Buyer changes its mind and agrees to extend then the Sale Committee has to hold an EOGM to seek the mandate from the majority owners to extend, too#.
.
Since the buyers are not minded to extend, and there has been no request from the buyer pushing the majority to 'extend or else' as in HT then the majority can let the Agreement lapse, too.
.

*Not minded to extend"= do not agree to extend = pull out

.

These are just my thoughts on the matter - if anyone disagrees please leave a comment

.

Tampines Court is Case No. 2 for the year 2008.

.

Property agent spiel

An interesting article in the Business Times today on why you should NEVER believe the spiel property agents weave!!

.

Developers offer agents fatter cuts to push projects

Business Times - 09 July 2008

(SINGAPORE) Developers are paying property agents bigger commissions - in some cases almost double of what was offered a year ago - to push their new residential project launches.
This is because the environment for selling homes is far more challenging now and agents have to work much harder to persuade potential buyers to part with their money.
A modest-sized developer told BT he does not mind rewarding agents with commissions of 2 per cent or more as, to him, speed of sales is paramount. He needs to achieve enough cash flow to begin construction and move on to his next project.
But even the big boys are having to pay a higher commission rate to agents these days - if they want their help to move units.
An established developer launching a big project these days could pay its appointed marketing agent 0.8 per cent of sale price - compared with possibly 0.5 per cent 12 months ago.
To further incentivise agents, the commission rate may go up to, say, one per cent nowadays, once a certain number of units have been sold.
Developers of smaller projects, for instance in the Telok Kurau area, are understood to be paying even higher commissions - often up to 2 per cent - compared with around one per cent or less a year ago, BT has learnt from property agents and developers.
On top of that, some developers are offering a bonus payout in the form of an additional 0.5 per cent commission if the project sells out within a certain time frame and at a price exceeding the developer's target.
BT understands that high-end projects have also not been spared. Their developers are having to reward agents with 0.7 to 1.5 per cent commissions - up from 0.4 to 0.5 per cent a year ago.
Teo Hong Lim, executive chairman of property group Roxy-Pacific Holdings, says: 'Speed of sales is most important to us. We don't want to target sales of just 30-40 per cent of total units in a project. We need to sell 80-90 per cent or even 100 per cent. We can then begin construction, and move on to our next project.
'At the end of the day, agents are also very much incentivised by commissions. It's a sort of a no-lose situation for us when we achieve speed of sales and the final net sales value of a development is higher than our initial target, even after we less the additional bonus commissions we pay the agents.'
While some market watchers may think that paying agents higher commissions will eat into the developers' profit margins, Mr Teo argues: 'Commissions are only part of our total project cost. It's definitely much, much lower than land and construction costs.'
A property agent says: 'Developers are more concerned with cash flow and sales take-up. The higher commission is a small amount to pay for boosting their cash flow. If they don't have the cash flow, higher interest expense will be a much bigger cost item than the commissions.'
Agreeing, Knight Frank executive director Peter Ow explains why agents need higher motivation today. 'The main reason for increasing our fees is that we're operating in a tougher market and, frankly, agents are highly motivated by fees. If you get two projects side by side, most agents will naturally push for the one where the reward is higher.'
Industry players acknowledge that agents have to work a lot harder to convince buyers, given the more cautious economic outlook, thinner foreign buying and the fact that fewer speculators are left in the market after the deferred payment scheme was scrapped last October.
BT understands that the extra work being put in by agents these days to realise sales at showflats includes studying the project's costing.
'We tell buyers the price we're offering is below current replacement cost, either because the developer bought the land cheap or locked in construction costs early.
'Sometimes we also use pressure tactics. We tell potential buyers that the developer will raise prices once it achieves a certain percentage of sales. And it works,' an old hand in the game told BT.
This article was first published in The Business Times on 9 July 2008.

The end is nigh

The enbloc sale of Tampines Court is dead if the STB does not approve the sale by the 25 July 2008. There will be no extension of the S & P as the buyer does not want to extend the time.

"Not minded to extend" = do not agree to extend = pull out

.
Wonders will never cease.

.

There is no big, bad developer breathing down the necks of Tampines Court majority bullying them into closing the sale before the deadline. There has been no request from the buyer to bring the hearing date forward 'or else'. This is not Horizon Towers No. 2 whereby the majority were threatened with a lawsuit if they did not extend. Indeed, the buyer seems quite complacent to let this slippery fish go, perhaps to catch it again at a later date, when market conditions improve. Tampines Court will still be here in 5 years time. They can wait. We can wait, too.

.

So what is the Sale Committee doing?

.

Why aren't they convening a meeting with the majority to touch base and find out the current wishes of the very people they claim to represent? Do the majority want to take advantage of the legitimate exit that has opened up unexpectedly? Perhaps they do, perhaps they don't. The SC may claim legal authority over signatures inked 2 years ago - but not moral authority. They haven't spoken a word to the majority since the EOGM in JULY 2007! That was a full year ago for crying out loud.

.

Do the majority even know what's going on?

An "Owners View" posted on the property agent's blog

A letter has been posted on the property agent's blog (link on the menu =>). Since I cannot reply directly on their blog (no comments allowed, strictly one way) I shall do so here:-

.
UPDATE: 15 July - just noticed they have enabled their 'comments' status on their blog. Will they publish my rebuttal?

My comments are in RED

.

I am an owner in Tampines Court and would like to raise my views on the misleading facts happening in my estate by the minority owners on the following:
.

This owner's letter is actually the email sent to selective majority owners by the en bloc lawyer entitled "Majority Owners STB Update 30-06-2008".

.

"The developer buyer will NOT EXTEND the Sales and Purchase Agreement.

The enbloc sale of Tampines Court is dead if the STB does not approve the sale by the 24 July 2008. Wonders will never cease!

This is still true (typo 25 July)

.

"My view: The STB heard the case from 16th to 18th June 2008. At the end of the hearing, two more witnesses had yet to be cross-examined.

.

True at the time of emailing but now no longer true;
The SC now want to expedite the process and dispense with the necessity of having a full and fair Hearing by -

.
a) withdrawing its last witness, who happens to be the Chairman of the SC;
b) dispensing with the cross-examination of the minority witnesses save for a 'brief cross-examination' of one
c) making brief oral submissions
.

UPDATE: 04 July: Now they want to dispense with cross examination of the minority witness altogether and go straight to submissions! Do I sense panic? (Source: email from en bloc lawyer to STB 04 July 2008)
.
UPDATE TO UPDATE: 14 July. (Source: in letter from Counsel for majority addressed to STB 14 July). Looks like they want to cross examine the lone minority witness again.
.
UPDATE TO LAST UPDATE: 15 July. (OS 941 2008/P); Back to square 1 with the Chairman of the SC up for cross examination, and Applicants cross examination of the lone minority witness.

.

The objectors had also raised the issue that the unused beta sum should be distributed amongst all owners. The sale committee agreed that the unused beta sum would be so distributed.

.

There was a serious flaw in the Beta Sum distribution method. An unfair method of distribution is a pretty potent point of contention and the sale might not go through by using the original method. That's why the SC had to scramble and go back to the Buyer to get an amendment, who initially agreed with a condition but later retracted. It was then discussed on June 23rd in chambers. The application was withdrawn and so there is no change to the method of distribution of the Beta Sum. Regardless of how the SC would like to distribute it now, the buyer doesn't want to amend and so they are stuck with it (unless they make another application to amend, which they have not done).

.

The STB has fixed 7th Aug 2008 for the continued hearing. It is estimated that only one more day would be needed to complete the cross-examination of these two witnesses.

.

The SC are flip-flopping on whether they are going to cross examine anyone. (14 July). Well, if cross-examination of witnesses is considered a waste of time - what, pray tell, is a Hearing for?

This is what another independent minority owner had to say in their objection to the STB about the applicant's wish for a speedy end to the hearing. (I hope they don't mind me quoting them):

.

"The applicants may choose to conduct their case at breakneck speed if they so wish. But I would request that I be granted my day in Court (which I have so far) and sufficient time to prepare my written submissions."

.

The sale committee endeavoured to obtain an extension of the 25th July 2008 deadline from the Purchaser. At the moment, [the buyer] has reverted to say that they are not minded to agree to the extension.
.

True. They endeavoured but failed. Not minded to agree means they don't agree. It is astounding how many people actually read 'not minded to agree' as 'they don't mind agreeing'!!! The English language can be a bit tricky sometimes. May I add that the decision to extend has to be mutual. If one side backs out then that's it. The decision to bring the date forward was decided unilaterally by the SC in order to force the sale through before the expiry.
.

The sale committee has applied to the STB this morning for the hearing date to be brought forward. This application is being closely monitored.

.
True And I can further add that the minority has handed in their official objection to the said application. Two independent minority owners have done the same, stating their own objections. Nothing has been decided about the issue as yet. All five panel members have to agree to a new date - and that is not an easy matter as they have to fit it in with their busy personal schedules.

.

I believe the Sale Committee will update the majority owners on the development.

.

The question is when? - after the STB decides on the matter or before? I hope they do it sooner rather than later and in plain English so everyone can understand. Better yet, have a meeting! One year of silence is quite enough.

.

I will correct a piece of information put up by the objectors on their blogsite. [the buyer] obtained the Residential Property Approval (the RPA approval) on 25th July 2007 and served it on our lawyers on 26th July 2007.

.

My apologies, that was way back in the "Facts about TC". At the time of posting, I was using a letter sent by the Chairman of the SC dated 23rd Oct 2007 as my source. In it he outlined the sequence of events:

.

10th July 2007 - Qualified Certificate (RPA) In-principle Approval.

.

You can see the letter for yourself in my 25 Oct Post - I scanned it in at the time.

So, maybe you should scold him for spreading this piece of misinformation to the owners!

.

It was only at the STB mediation that I picked up the correct date as being 25 July when the enbloc lawyer answered a panel member's question about the date of expiry.

.

At that time, the STB of Gillman Heights was being fought in the STB. The STB dismissed this argument in the Gillman Height decision on 21 December 2007.

The Tampines Court advertisements appeared 6 days later, on 27th December 2007.

The STB application was filed on 7th January 2008.

.

It is therefore not correct to say that the STB application was not filed for 9 months.
.

80%: 21 Jan 2007

Sale: March 25th 2007

Application: Jan 7th 2008 -

.

I still count 9 months from date of sale

I count 11+ months from the purported 80% threshold

Which is to be used?

.

By LTSA rules, the SC has 1 year to get the 80% and a further 1 year to make an application to the STB. The time frames may overlap. They had the luxury of time (1 year [to Jan 08] + 6 months [ 25 July 08] ) and they spent it unwisely and now they have to face the music.

.
UPDATE (15 July): their argument at the STB was that they could only have applied after 26 July, when the in-principle RPA was issued - so they therefore delayed by only 5 months.
.

I respect the objectors' point of views.

Mutual and I prove this by posting them on my blog. Pity it's not reciprocated.

.

Throughout this exercise, before the STB, special efforts were made to try and engage the objectors in a constructive manner.

.

It was the minority who made a special effort to mediate by requesting and receiving an extra day of mediation (day 3) and it was the Sale Committee that strenuously objected! As it was a case of 'one hand clapping', nothing constructive happened

.

There were many dialogues.

All dialogues were before Aug 2006. There were none one for 7 months prior to the sale and none since July 2007 (one year ago).

.

Moreover, even at the STB stage, when the objectors for the first time raised the issue of the distribution of the unused beta sum, the sale committee agreed that the unused sum should be shared by all.

.

They had to agree, it was a case of do or die. But, alas, the buyer does not. The minority objections have not been discussed on this blog (intentionally, as why let them know beforehand what we were thinking?), they were raised openly for the first time at the STB. They should have known their beta sum was going to be their Achiles heel.

.

However, this was objected to as well.

There are other grounds on which to object

.

It is incorrect to say that the unpaid maintenance and sinking funds contributions would be paid from the beta sum. The beta sum is utilised for the privatisation cost.

.

Unpaid privatisation costs and the interest due on the outstanding balance may be paid for by the Beta Sum. I stand corrected on the other MCST debts; for the moment. An incomplete computation for Beta claims has been submitted at the STB

.

UPDATE 2008: MCST DEBT WAS INDEED ADDED TO THE PRIVATISATION DEBT - SOME OWNERS WHO HAD STOPPED PAYING THEIR MAINTENANCE AND SINKING FUND CONTRIBUTIONS WOULD HAVE HAD THEM COVERED BY THE BETA.

.
It is hoped that this information would be corrected as well.

If it is wrong, I will make all necessary corrections. All along, I have endeavoured to be as accurate as possible. It is only now, at the STB that I have the full documentation and only wish I could put it all up for everyone to see. Alas, being at the STB is the very reason I hold back and must let due process take its course.

.

a) I put up a post about the buyer refusing to extend the S&P only after the SC appeared in the void decks scrabbling for signatures.

b) I talked about the Beta sum only after the en bloc lawyer sent a letter to selective majority owners with incomplete information. They had conveniently left out the part where they had indemnified the buyers "against loss, claims etc"! Indemnified the buyers! What are we, millionaires?

.

The majority owners have been largely left in the dark and the minority are the only ones who have struggled this past year to get to the bottom of things. When you start from behind, there is a lot of catching up to do. We are stride for stride now and heading for a photo finish.