SC Meeting: 10 Aug 2011 @ Activity Room

Welcome, Sale Committee, to the blogosphere! 

SC Meeting No 6 MINUTES can be found here

"As the Managing Committee is not obliged to help us in any way", and I should hope not! They are there to take care of the maintenance matters in the estate and not to take sides. I don't want them showing favour and using MCST funds (or waiving fees which amounts to the same thing) for a select group of owners. We all pay the same fees and we should all respect the neutrality of the MC/MA.

"Interested SPs can email  their request to : (email address) for a copy of the CSA and give their comments/views on the draft CSA if any". 
I expect anyone who reads the draft will have a lot of comments/views. It really is a diabolical document but I will say no more  until all owners receive their draft copy.

On the other hand, I see the vice-chairman and chairman valiantly trying to get it right by starting a blog and asking owners to help them in their task. I don't mind helping the good guys,  but.........

I worry about how the sale committee votes; '(2) A decision of the majority of members of the collective sale committee present and voting at any meeting of the collective sale committee shall be a decision of the collective sale committee (3rd Sch)' Since there is  an even 12, what happens in a tie? When they kick out the sole minority owner, the flipper group will be in control.

I do not wish to inadvertently aid a flipper group who are on the path to gaining a voting majority on the SC.

After reading the minutes of the 6th meeting posted on the Notice Board ( and now their Blog), it is clear that the marketing agent and lawyer are going to be intransigent on the CSA. On one point the MA threatened to quit (and it was underlined as if it really matters) if a certain clause was inserted that seemed eminently reasonable and what owners would want to see. The Vice chairman must have put up a vigorous fight on behalf of the real owners and managed to have an option put in for owner consideration.

If the MA and lawyer object so strongly to the provision suggested by the V-Chairman; "that the  SC cannot sell by Private treaty at a price not less than the Valuation amount or Reserve price whichever is higher", then that portends to only one thing; TC is being prepared to be sold for less than the RP.    

The excuse given mocks our intelligence: "if it so happens that the price is slightly less than valuation amount , say even by few hundred or few dollars . This will defeat the very intent of collective sale process". So, a developer will not raise his offer by even a few dollars to secure the sale? That a developer will be willing to walk away from a multi-million dollar gold mine over a few hundred dollars? That there will be no effort at all made at negotiation? If they can't negotiate a few dollars, then surely we have the wrong guys.

Alternatively, let the owners decide, I want to see reaffirmation from owners before any Sale Contract is signed. Owners must not make the same mistake twice.

The flippers on the committee and in the estate would not like to see owners take up this option and if the MA quits because of it then so be it.  Expect him to threaten as much at the meeting, but remember this legal document will be binding on you,  the terms have to be agreeable to you and he has no say in it whatsoever. The eventual sale price - and not just the reserve price - has to be agreeable to you.

This sudden bearish sentiment and lack of confidence in his own reserve price is in stark contrast to the bullish picture he painted on his appointment just a few weeks ago. Just as the premium was no where guaranteed in the last CSA, this time round the RP itself is in jeopardy. When the marketing agent refuses to cement in a reserve price he himself proposed, that surely must send up a flare.

I'm afraid the SC missed out an awful lot of stuff, but that is not surprising since they couldn't  have had a lot of time to fully examine the document before the meeting. There is no need for haste, indeed, the slower the better on this item.

UPDATE: 17th September rescheduled to 24th September

Sale Committee Meeting No. 6

There was a SC last night at the MCST office, but no notice was put up on the board informing owners.  There was no general invitation to all interested owners to attend as observers. Now that there is an en bloc lawyer on board, I expect this is the way it will be from now on. 

Phase 1, ladies and gentlemen, is over. 

Phase 2: We are in deeper waters now, our experience from round 1 tells us that the en bloc lawyer will take over the running of the show from here on in. Will we ever hear the moderate voices on the SC ever again? Are they strong enough to put these professionals in their place? Will they be able to spot all the dangerous clauses in the CSA?

Ah, the proof is in the pudding, they say, so we shall have to wait and see.

Last night they were discussing the proverbial pudding; the draft CSA.  We shall have to wait for the minutes of that meeting, which must be posted  on the notice board within 7 days to have the smallest glimpse of what went on. Don't expect too much in the way of detail.

153      An SC clearly has a duty to act conscientiously in exercising the power of collective sale. We note that trustees owe a duty of care to their beneficiaries and are bound to take all precautions in the management of the trust property as an ordinary prudent man of business would take in his own affairs

My Request

Letter sent today to the Sale Committee and 'presumed' en bloc lawyer (still no confirmation on this).

I cc'd the letter to the SC email address: feedbacktampcourt@yahoo.com.sg
and the en bloc lawyer's email found on his website and the TC MCST email just for completeness.

Missing EGM Minutes etc

The SALE Committee should be renamed the SILENT Committee. It has been one month since the EGM2 and NOT A WORD from them to the owners.

• Owners have not been informed about which marketing agent was selected
• Owners have not been informed about which en bloc lawyer was selected. According to the explanation given by the managing agent at the AGM held on 21 Aug 2011, there was a Summary of that meeting put up on the Notice Board. I don't remember seeing one, do you? I don't have a record of a Summary from the managing agent. 
• Owners have yet to see a copy of  EGM 1 minutes. There is a Transcript of the meeting, but if owners want a typed copy they will have to pay $100 for it. If they want a CD copy they can request for one at the Office.  No minutes were attached to the Notice of EGM 2.
• Owners have yet to see a copy of  EGM 2 minutes.. The EGM 2 Minutes will be written by the Sale Committee and the managing agent will print and attach a copy to the Notice of the EGM 3
• Since no notice of SC meetings has been put up on the notice board, does this mean the SC has not met since 2nd July? 
• Has there been a change in protocol now that  an  en bloc lawyer is on board?

 From the Third Schedule:

Keeping of records
9. —(1) The collective sale committee shall keep minutes of its proceedings and shall cause minutes of general meetings convened in accordance with the Second Schedule to be kept. 

(2) If the management corporation is required by its by-laws to maintain a notice board, the collective sale committee shall cause a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the collective sale committee to be displayed on the notice board within 7 days after the meeting.
 

If at first you don't succeed.....

Recently Marine Point went  before the Strata Titles Board, and there was some question raised about the Valuation.

ERA was the marketing Agent for Marine Point

The story (as far as I know, though I have to doublecheck):

Valuer (A) did a Valuation report at the close of tender of the sale.

The Valuation was higher than the Proposed Sale Price
There was a Supplemental CSA and a new tender.

They wanted Valuer (A) to lower his valuation but he refused because he felt his first valuation was correct.

So, the Sale Committee got Valuer (B) to do a fresh Valuation and this, they claimed remained sealed and unknown until the close of the second tender.

When they opened up this second valuation they found it to be just right and the sale could then go through!

It must have been magic!  It just shows, if you wish hard enough for a perfect match between valuation and proposed sale price, and are prepared to pay for repeated Valuations  and cross all your fingers and toes, and swear in court that you didn't influence the outcome in any way, then your wish will certainly come true!

Could this be Tampines Court's fate?

Aug media

Developers pack more units in some property sites - 23 Aug 2011
More HDB upgraders turning t private properties - Aug 18 2011
Private home sales up 17% in July - Aug 15 2011
The bayshore area sees renewed interest - Aug 8 2011
Grand Tower sold en bloc for $88.5m - Aug 4 2011