Property agents would like to see the LTSA rule about en bloc lawyers witnessing every CSA signing changed. They are lobbying the MinLaw to rescind the law.
- Signatures that weren't properly witnessed
- Dates of signing left blank,
- CSA signature pages turning up in different months than they were signed.
- Suspicious 'extra' pages that some owners signed for additional amounts but were not properly recorded.
- Owners never receiving certified copies of their legally binding contract
- Owners lied to about the current consent level.
- Manipulation of unit numbers and number of owners in Statutory Notices.
- Statutory Notices not certified by en bloc lawyers
- Property agents turning up at places of work to harass owners into signing.
- Property agents knocking on doors at all hours harrassing owners into signing.
The property agents cannot be relied upon to do an honest job. They are deceitful and spin stories out of their elbows. En bloc lawyers have their reputation and license to protect and hopefully can be relied upon to follow the law. They should demand upfront payment for witnessing signatures. Owners should go to the lawyer's office to sign and come away with a certified copy. Every 4 weeks, Statutory Notices are to be put up on the Notice Boards and owners should demand not only the bare numbers but the names and date of signing as they go along.
No more monkey business when it comes to the requisite number . No more telling owners 80% has been reached when in fact it is only fluffed out with conditional signers who will be dropped after the sale. No more adding fresh signatures after the sale and back-dating their date of their signing to fill in holes. No more telling owners they have to sign as 80% have already signed.
Ministry of Law, if you read this, do not be persuaded by arguments of expediency. Solid procedure before corner-cutting measures, please.
"The property agents cannot be relied upon to do an honest job."
ReplyDeleteGeneral statement?
I would like to mention that the marketing agent that did my condo performed an honest job.
If you look at the current rules, they are more than adequate checks to keep owners updated... in fact, there are too many eogms, feel. good that they are proposing to streamline.
I try to keep all my statements general - mention no names and point no fingers at specific companies. But I don't make things up - so, yes, they are based on fact.
ReplyDeleteReplacing EOGMs with simple meetings is a step backwards as
1) no quorum is required so if 10 people turn up it is ok
2) no proper minutes so what is said/not said is hearsay
3) owners can be left out of the loop
4) insufficient time
1) if owners are informed and do not turn up, should there be an issue?
ReplyDelete2) i believe owners meetings are for information sharing only. As such, no minustes are necessary.
3) how? they were invited right?
4) how much time is needed?
1)With An EOGM, all owners are officially informed through the MA. A proper venue is found and the meeting is minuted.
ReplyDelete2) No minutes means it is more difficult for objections to be made and the STB/Court cannot order 'discovery. I hope owners come with their tape recorders to all meetings.
3) Without the proper mechanism of an EOGM called for by the MA, there is no proof that all owners are invitred. Selective invitation is possible/sms's to consenting owners only etc
4) 2 weeks.
1) Can't owners meetings be official as well and everyone involved? it is in the CSC's interest that it be official.
ReplyDelete2) Ownwe's meeting are information sharing only. EOGMs are still needed for impt issues like CSC formation, Apportionment method and CSA.
3) Agin, it is the CSC's interest to make sure all owners are informed. They would not open doors for the minorities to poke.
4) should be sufficient.
We must look at the new proposals in the light of the current law. There are alredy several EOGMS to elect the committee and discuss important issues like the apportionment method.
New rules are meant to streamline and reduce unnecessary procedures. There are already many built-in check and balances in the whole process.
If all else fail, objectors can vote with their pen which is very powerful.
'I would like to mention that the marketing agent that did my condo performed an honest job.'
ReplyDeleteNow it becomes clear to me - you have not been through the TC experience and so you still have faith in the system and in the goodness of the sale committee. I thought you were perhaps suffering from amnesia, but no, you are just an innocent, like the majority first time round.
Hopefully, there are enough owners out there now who know differently and will not fall for the same trick twice, not swallow the same false reassurances but instead make their own rules and force a sale committee to heel.
The old system works for some but not for others.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, we are in a new regime now. New rules and procedures that are meant to prevent the repeat of the TC fiasco.
The old has gone, the new has come.
Why are we constantly bringing up discussion on the old rules that does not apply?