The echoes of Tampines Court are ringing through Pine Grove's collective sale. Not only did we have the same Marketing Agent, but seemingly the same tactics are being played out as well. In late 2016 , the Sale Committee wanted to raise the RP from the miserly $1.32m to $1.5m/unit. Even at that price, I argued it was too low and should be set at $1.7 minimum. I remember the sale committee meeting where I attended as an observer but was allowed to speak. I though $1.5m would only garner the support of 60%. Soon after that meeting, Huttons resigned. They thought the $1.5m was unobtainable and a waste of their time. A short while later they rejoined the sale attempt picking up where they had left off - arguing that the SC had not accepted their letter of resignation and hence they were technically still engaged as marketing agent.
Are the same tactics being employed here? Has Pine Grove's CSC accepted the resignation or is it still just hanging in the air? Huttons somehow swallowed the new RP and soldiered on - but still, Tampines Courters were not biting in large enough numbers. At the eleventh hour, the RP was further raised to $1.72m and the the finishing line was finally crossed with a few days to spare.
In the article above; Huttons explained that Pine Grove's reserve price was based on the Residual Land value method - but has anyone in Pine grove (including the Sale Committee) ever seen this mystical RLV? We in TC never ever saw the touted RLV, not even once.
Another unanswered question of mine was the mechanism for lowering the RP should a bid come in below the RP. There was some argument about whether a fresh consent from ALL consenters would be necessary or only those that signed for the later, higher RPs. The question was never addressed and we did not, thankfully, have to find out the hard way.
Pine Grove's 2% represents 14 units - lets see if they can do it before DDay on 28 Oct 2018 - with or without a Marketing Agent.
May the Almighty bless the residents of Pine Grove. Even the law firm which cut its teeth at TC en bloc has gone on to do more en bloc. Good money.
ReplyDeleteThis developer ,,,,,,,,make some SPs pay security deposit and for lift padding, some paid This developer .... make some SPs pay security deposit plus for lift padding, some SPs for lift padding but not security deposit and some SPs paid nothing at all. Communication given to security and what some SPs claimed to have been told by the office inconsistent. What kind of organisation is this developer? Shouldn't official procedures be communicated through official channel? Looks like whoever they can net, they will do so. Causing unnecessary confusion and unhappiness.
ReplyDeleteThis developer should now just let SPs move out without hassle. Who wants to damage the lift? For goodness sake!