We have all received the NOTICE for the EOGM to be held at the Primary School opposite at 2pm on 29th January 2011 for purpose of a collective sale of Tampines Court.
It appears an important chink of the Second Schedule has not been reproduced in the Notice.
In the Second Schedule proper - but missing in the 'Explanatory notes to Notice of Extra-ordinary general meeting' - under Notice of general meetings, it states:-
In the Second Schedule proper - but missing in the 'Explanatory notes to Notice of Extra-ordinary general meeting' - under Notice of general meetings, it states:-
(3) No motion shall be submitted at a general meeting unless -
(a) notice of the motion has been given in accordance with this paragraph; or
(b) the motion is a motion to amend a motion of which notice has been so given.
This right given to owners to stand up at meetings and propose 'a motion to amend a motion' cannot be denied! It is not a widely known power amongst owners and not including it in the explanatory notes is reprehensible. If you think the motions are rubbish - stand up and amend them!
In the Second Schedule it also states:-
(4) A motion for the constitution of a collective sale committee and its powers, duties or functions shall be decided by ordinary resolution passed at a general meeting.
Yet, in the AGENDA for the meeting there is only one resolution:
2.1 To consider and if approved, to resolve by way of ordinary resolution that a collective sale be considered for MCST 2644 - Tampines Court; and if so to appoint a collective sales committee.
What about the equally important powers, duties or functions? When will they be decided?
Why is there only half a statutory motion??
Why is there only half a statutory motion??
The recent amendments to the LTSA 2010, the speeches made in Parliament by our Minister of Law Mr Shanmugam, and the Supreme Court itself have all made it very clear that owners had the power to conduct the sale in the manner they see fit.
Resolutions 3,4,5 on the requisition form are absent from the Agenda. Is the requisition still valid?
REQUISITION FORM
Dated 29 November 2010 - lists out 5 hopeful resolutions - none of which actually made it onto the Agenda.
UPDATE 25 Jan 2011
A NEW Notice has been sent out to all owners. The MC ( i.e moi) conducted due diligence and found the original Notice full of errors. They sent in a bunch of useless requisitions, and the managing agent did a very poor job at weeding out the duds.
All I can say is, if this is the standard at which the pro-enblocers will perform to, then TC had better watch out.
A NEW Notice has been sent out to all owners. The MC ( i.e moi) conducted due diligence and found the original Notice full of errors. They sent in a bunch of useless requisitions, and the managing agent did a very poor job at weeding out the duds.
All I can say is, if this is the standard at which the pro-enblocers will perform to, then TC had better watch out.
New rules will affect flippers
ReplyDelete"They include hiking seller's stamp duty to a new maximum of 16 per cent, up from 3 per cent previously, and making it payable for up to four years from the date of purchase of a property.
Anyone with an existing home loan looking to buy a second property for investment will also now need to fork out more cash and Central Provident Fund savings."
I meant either way. Flippers who have $ will stick to en-bloc.
ReplyDeleteFlippers who worry about the stamp duty when they sell at en-bloc will have to calculate the 16% if profit is enough.
One more thing, this en-bloc is badly timed. The government will put more measures to cool the market. Price will pressure lower. Developers are delaying launches, don't need new land so soon and delayed launches will means less cash for them. Bad time.
TODAY:
ReplyDeleteFor those who are looking to flip property for a quick buck, however, Mr Mak said they may be deterred by the move to increase the duration, from the current three years to four years, in which the Seller’s Stamp Duty applies.
It could force some buyers of uncompleted homes to hold on to those properties until they are completed and, for completed properties, to lease them until the end of the four-year period.
Mr Mak added: “The duty rate of 16 per cent and 12 per cent for residential properties which are bought and sold in the first and second year respectively would almost cream off the profit made from such short-term investments.”
It will be a waste of time and money for TC if the enbloc process goes ahead. Time is not ripe and the govt's intention is very clear and this will not be the last measures they take. Just watch, DC will go upppp.....
ReplyDeleteTC will incur cost of holding the EOGMS, transcribing services (lol, if this proposal here is implemented) and other cost (legal, admin).
Wrong development, wrong time :(
Good luck!
TC will also stop all its estate improvement projects once the enbloc starts. This could last for 2 years just like the last enbloc. This is a real lost for all residents.
ReplyDeleteIs there anyway to stop the EOGM now?
TC Resident
I don't think there's anyway for us to stop the EOGM. It's very easy to reach the quorum of 30 percent. Everybody wants to hear what the proposers have to say. The only way is for those of us who does not want the enbloc to go thru, is to go down to listen, and maybe get like-minded people to not to sign the papers. Hopefully the 80 percent may not go thru. Don't flame me, but we won't sign.
ReplyDeleteYou are right. There is no way to stop an EOGM so long as there is a legitimate 20% who has called for one.
ReplyDeleteSo be it.
Hopefully, owners in round one who thought closing their eyes and hoping it will all go away will turn out in force for this one.
This is YOUR property that others are proposing to sell. Apathy and boycott favour the pro-en bloc side.
Whatever you have to say - come out and say it. r
Hopefully the en bloc sales will not go through. I have been staying here for 15 years and still counting. This is where my home is.
ReplyDeleteAnti En Bloc Resident
2.1 To consider and if approved, to resolve by way of ordinary resolution that a collective sale be considered for MCST 2644 - Tampines Court; and if so to appoint a collective sales committee.
ReplyDeleteMy Question:
Is it correct to say that if item 2.1 is not approved in the coming EOGM, then TC enbloc will not proceed as proposed by the pro enbloc group?
If yes, let's hope that there are enough residents to vote against the resolution in the coming EOGM? There are at least 117 votes for the resolution now.
Regards
Yes, if the first resolution is defeated then the EOGM ends there and everybody can go home.
ReplyDeleteSuch a defeat is considered a RELEVANT EVENT by the new rules and the pro-en bloc group would need 50% of owners by share value to hold another AGM within 2 years. Alternatively, they could wait out the 2 year hiatus and it's back to 20%.
Thank you for your reply.
ReplyDeleteThe Reserve Price (RP) will come into picture again. This is the most important factor which affects residents' decision.
The 117 residents opted for enbloc because they were promised and agreed to the $1.2m/$1.4m (?) RP proposed by the pro-enbloc group during the signature collection period.
There are residents who will not vote regardless of price and this is a minor group. (40 units based on the last enbloc.)
Most in-between residents will vote for enbloc if the RP is considered high to them compared to individual unit selling price.
I believe the pro enbloc group will reveal their RP before 29 Jan in order to gain support in the EOGM.
Let's hope that there are more residents who realize the land value and replacement cost after experience gain from enbloc round 1, help to defeat the resolution.
Regards
The RP is important number. How the 'would be' SC derive this figure will tell us their motive and if they are suitable people to handle YOUR ASSET, which is now close to a million dollars!
ReplyDeleteIf they put the value low, it means they are desperate and don't care for everyone else, they simply wants to price it low for the developer to buy, it's that simple.
If they price it correctly by market projections, calculate DC, plot ratio, etc. And it attracts enough votes to push the next step, then we must protect our rights and property by ensuring the SC does NOT have the rights to change anything in the CSA.
Or else like the previous CSA, you'll be signing a BLANK cheque, giving the SC the rights to do whatever they want with your home without first getting YOUR consent.
DON'T allow that to happen to you AGAIN. WISE UP! ITS YOUR HOME!
The Flippers and desperadoes will be there to vote in the SC, you must be there to vote to protect YOUR PROPERTY!!!!
Sitting on the fence will not protect your home!
After the experience of the last en-bloc exercise, which I signed, I have become wiser. This time I will not sign whatsoever. Cos the last time I signed, I forked out something like $800 when is a waste of my money and the those who did not sign, did not have to pay. At the end, if the en-bloc is successful, so be it. If its not so be it.
ReplyDeleteBelow is a simple calculation to show how many votes are required to defeat the resolution:
ReplyDelete1. Assume all 560 units turn up for the EOGM.
2. As at now, there are 117 units for the resolution and 40 units (based on last enbloc)against the resolution.
3. The no of votes required to defeat the resolution will be:
(117 - 40) + (560 - 117 * 2) / 2 = 240
This is about 42% of all TC residents.
I do not know where you got your 40 unit figure.
ReplyDeleteIn the last round there were:
Total share Values of TC: 2240
Total share values of majority: 1840 (82.4%)
Total shares value of minority: 400 (17.86%)
There were 100 units that did not sign the CSA
32 of whom went on to be minority objectors at the STB
Thanks for correction. I thought there were 40 minority objectors in the last enbloc.
ReplyDeleteThis is just an estimate to show it is not easy to defeat the resolution in the EOGM.
Regards
Glad to hear some people has wise up.
ReplyDeleteBut not signing the CSA does not get anyone off the hook.
Example: if the CSA allows for changes to be made without prior consent, and if the CSA is changed for whatever the reason to benefit a certain group and the en-bloc is successful, even though you did not sign the CSA, you'll still have to sell according to the CSA, because the 80% has signed.
Again, sitting on the fence DOES NOT protect your rights and your home. You have to be actively watching out for your own home, or else will just sell it away for you right under your nose.
Questions for you at the EOGM: Can you trust the people if voted in as SC to sell your home? Do you know them enough that there will be no hanky panky in the process?
What if mid-way through the process, some SC members drop out and replaced by others you really cannot trust (because it can happen)?
Read the en-bloc laws, rules, processes in this blog, educate yourself and your neighbors.
The first failed en-bloc is good education for us, we will be wise to not repeat same mistakes.
To allow strangers to try to take away our home for a song again is Foolishness.
I am not against en-bloc, but against SC who does it for themselves and lack of good faith in the process.
$1.2mil is a number taken off the air, by desperate sellers. And you'll have to downgrade if you sell at $1.2mil.
To minimise the risk of CSC members doing hanky panky, DO NOT vote for those volunteering CSC or persons very eager to be in it. Try to encourage those from the floor, reluctant as they may be but have professional background. The risk is lessen that way.
ReplyDelete$1.2m is definitely a giveaway. Perhaps some are 'working' for some developers to give away our TC on the cheap? and subsequently get rewarded(or compensated) for their effort in CSC? SO DO NOT NOMINATE OR VOTE those who volunteer but pluck others from the floor. Question hard those eager-beavers on why they are so eager to do so esp those who bought TC less than 2 years ago. Maybe we should move a motion to bar those who bought less than 2 years?
Wow, solid idea. I'll second that!
ReplyDeleteThe eligibility requirements are listed in the Third Schedule - length of ownership is not one of them and I do not think you can bar a legitimate owner on those grounds. After all, there can also be owners who bought their units recently and are disappointed that the estate is going for en bloc so soon, before they can get any enjoyment ut of their new home. Not all new owners are flippers.
ReplyDeleteHi People,
ReplyDeleteConcern over flippers? What percentage of TC owners are flippers? It takes at least 80% to make an enbloc. If everyone do their sums, make their decisions, monitor the progress of the enbloc, voice theur concerns, etc. then there are no worries.
There will be EOGMs to consider the proposals of the MA and Lawyers, reserve price, apportionemnt, etc. You have opportunities to share your opinion and it is up to the rest of the owners to accept your opinion or not.
If you are not happy with the price, then you have the right not to sign. But if 80% agree, then they have the right to put TC into the market.
If the pro-enblocers are smart, they know that they will need to win over the confidence of the 80% and that is not easy after the last episode.
If worrying helps, please do so but really, no worries.
Yes, so if they are new owners who does not want the en-bloc, very likely they would not want to be in the SC, hence no worries.
ReplyDeleteSince the 3rd schedule does not bar owners based on years of ownership, we can... by simply not nominating or voting for them, right?
This is to mitigate the risks...
Really, would a new owner who loves living in TC want to en-bloc it so quickly?
So nominees should declare how many units they own and for how long. Nothing to hide. If they don't want to share the information, it simply means no transparency, hence we have reason not to vote for that person into the SC.
Dear fellow TC home owners:
ReplyDelete1. Before you decide to put your property into the hands of some strangers or neighbor, LOOK carefully. When lots of money is involved, it's pure business, no relationship (Liu Qing Bu Ren)
2. Don't vote people in if you don't know their intention. Get to know their back ground, grill them before you decide. Example: when you sell your home, you look for best sales agent you can trust or some fly-by-night property agent?
Since you would choose a professional, then why vote in someone you don't know?
3. If the SC is formed, as 'itshometome' mentioned, curtail the power immediately at the EOGM. IF we don't, it's like handing your home keys to SC.
4. Don't buy their reason that curtailing their power will limit the chance of en-bloc. This is sales tactic. Don't give them the freedom to do as they please, because they can.
Example, who keeps the interests of all the money in the transaction? If the RP per unit is $1.4mil, that will work out to be about $784mil, the 10% deposit paid by developer to seal the deal will be $78.4 mil. Investing this $78.4mil over a year (which is minimum time the en-bloc takes) can easily churn out > $3.5mil - who gets this interests? the SC, SA, lawyer or home owners? Look carefully in CSA, it should be stated in there!
Demand that these money be distribute to HOME Owners, because when the deal is sealed, a Caveat will be placed on your home and can you can do nothing doing this time.
When the en-bloc fails, you should at least get something to compensate Caveat period right?
No misleading here. Just the facts.
ReplyDeleteYou will receive the CSA before the EOGM. pleasse review carefully. If you have an issue, highlight them during the CSA EOGM. let everyone hear your opinion. Give them reason not to sign or for the SC to amend the CSA.
If sufficent owners agree with you, the SC will have to consider yor opinion.
The EOGMs are an avenue to voice your opinion to the rest.
No worries.
Hi, All
ReplyDeleteI wish to ask a procedure question:
Unlike job interview where candidates submit their resume and come for interview, how can we access SC candidates before EOGM?
Does it means that the SC selection is done in the 3-4 hours EOGM and prior to the EOGM we do not have any information about the SC volunteers except the pro enbloc group or MC/MA?
Regards
The pro-enblocers do not wish to reveal themselves before the EOGM - if they were more honest they would have introduced themselves and given us a CV of sorts - but they haven't. Will they in the next 2 weeks? We shall see.
ReplyDeleteChoosing SC members will be a stab in the dark. They are hoping (I believe) to have 14 members - but that is way too many. 3 intelligent ones will be swamped and outvoted by the other 11 dodos in the group. Better vote for no more than 5.
I cannot name names on this blog - but a look through the requisitionists is enough to send up red flags.
TC have the benefit of going thru this the second time. You should hace benefited from the first experience.
ReplyDeleteEOGM is the platform for your VOICE. The SC may not heed you, but you can influence the decision of the other owners.
But after you voice your concern, and 80% still sign, so be it. It measn they disagree with you. This is a collective sale.
Owners need not agree with the SC's proposed reserve price, apportionment, CSA terms, bla, bla. If this is the case, do not sign.
Still no worries.
If the 3rd Schedule does not mention it, we(as owners shd decide who our SC shd be. BTW, in new enbloc rules, all interest of buyers'deposit and maint/sinkg funds are to be in the hands of owners after the ownership transfer.
ReplyDeleteThe following matters MUST be decided at gen meeting NOT SC: Res Price, apportionment of $, MA and solicitor and their fees. SC is only a facilitator NOT decision maker. Anyway from the initiation of enbloc to the final process, EOGM must called a few times(2-3). Owners will decide what mandate needed for meeting, NOT SC.
On CSA, it is usually after the Solicitor is selected and drafted out the CSA within the context of LTSA etc. However it is only a DRAFT and not the final copy. This draft is then explained in at an EOGM. The owners then decide what is to be included/excluded esp the main points such as Res Price, apportionment, extended stay after ownership transfer,appts of MA and Solicitor, sinking/maint funds, interest of deposits etc.
ReplyDeleteOn the day of tender close, a valuation report dated of the same, must be produced by the MA at the tender location with interested SPs and SC witnessing it. Together with the solicitor, the tender box is then open at the closing time, the SC and SPs present, go through all the bids. For a bid to be successfully accepted, the offer price must be higher than BOTH the Reserved Price and the Valuation price. If there are no successful bids, depending on the CSA, a private negotiation can be conducted to reach the Reserved and Valuation Price within 2 weeks. If the Price is not reach, the SC CANNOT on its own accept. This then is deem as a failure. Subsequent attempts for enbloc again has to meet a 2-yr time bar. Re- attempt within 2-yr period, would require a 50% sharevalue/size to requisite an EOGM, and if fails again, 80% is needed. My 2 cts.
ReplyDeleteGood point! This proposal is close to government's land sale tender.
ReplyDeleteI found this in the URA land Sale tender Q&A:
--------------------------------------------
Q1 Is there a minimum price for the tender of the Land Parcel?
A1 Yes, the land parcel will not be sold if the highest bid is too much below its estimated market value. The estimated market value is done on the day the tender closes.
-----------------------------------------------
For TC, our reserve price must project the 1-2 years land value increase when we get our hard earned money.
Regards
This is NOT my proposal but the current enbloc rulings that a Valuation report must be accompanied on the day of the tender closing or auction. Many of the new enbloc rulings have closed gaps of the previous cowboy-like days when TC went for our Round 1. Then some developments had even seen two or three pro-tem SCs led by their respective/different MAs and solicitors causing much confusions in their estates. With new rulings, SC must be elected at EOGM which means they have to go thru the MC. The general meetings(or SPs)dictate much of the terms but still, like itshometome says- there are rooms for improvements.
ReplyDeleteThe new amendments to Agenda of EOGM on 29 Jan may be in breach of LTSA regulations for enbloc under the 2nd Schedule which requires a min.2-week notice. I believe they include agendas as well. However we should not bitch on technical breaches but the principles behind the Notice.
ReplyDeleteThere is no new Agenda in the amendment sent out - it is still the same old WRONG agenda with half a statutory motion.
ReplyDeleteNo, what happened was I had pointed out to them that their valid requisitions only came up to 18% and not the full 20% so they quickly scrabbled to get more requisitions and sent out a new set.
Incompetence knows no bounds.
Hi itshometome,
ReplyDeletewe saw the same errors made to the requisitions for the EOGM.
Since there is these errors shouldn't the EOGM be canceled?
If it continues, then everyone in the EOGM (those who have no access to this blog) must know of these blunders and be informed so that they will have to decide for themselves if they want to put their property into the hands of these people!
On paper they have their 20% - and the EOGM is being held within the 6 week time frame. I am not a lawyer, but I think they are in the all clear.
ReplyDeleteAnyway, a technicality at the end of the day.