Harbinger of things to come?

It's wait and see for Pender Court & Tulip Garden Owners"
Straits Times 4 April 2008
.
"Makeway View enbloc deal falls through"

01 April 08 | The Business Times by Kalpana Rashiwala

(SINGAPORE) The $162.8 million collective sale of Makeway View in the Newton area to an associate of Bravo Building Construction has been rescinded. BT understands that the one per cent of purchase price paid by Bravo so far has been forfeited. A Bravo spokeswoman told BT yesterday that it had earlier sought payment extensions to ascertain the quantum of development charge (DC) payable. Confirming the move to rescind the sale, she added: 'We decided not to proceed with the Makeway deal as the actual DC turned out to be higher than what we had been told. So the breakeven price would end up being much higher than what we expected. That's why my partner (in the proposed acquisition) decided not to proceedfurther.' She confirmed that the initial information about the DC did not come from Knight Frank, which was the marketing agent representing the owners of Makeway View. The $162.8 million deal for Makeway View announced in early November last year, reflected a unit land price of about $1,583 psf ppr including an estimated $21.5 million DC at the time. Bravo group was one of the biggest buyers of collective sale sites last year, with deals like Tulip Garden for $516 million. Bravo formed separate associate companies for the acquisitions of the various collective sales sites, as the plan was to have different partners for each project. A Bravo associate has so far paid the initial 5 per cent deposit on Tulip Garden, amounting to about $25 million. Tulip Garden's collective sale was approved by STB in late February and the Bravo associate was supposed to have made the second 5 per cent payment shortly after that. However, it requested for an extension on this till early April. Bravo's spokeswoman said her company is seeking a further extension to early June to pay this sum and to also extend the completion deadline for the deal from late May currently to early August. 'We need time to sort out an agreement with our partner and at the same time, sort out the financing arrangement.' Tulip Garden's owners are expected to meet this weekend to decide whether to give the payment extensions. Tulip Garden's price works out to $1,018 psf per plot ratio price (no DC is payable).

.
"Tulip Garden enbloc may be called off"
Business Times 8 April 2008
.
"Owners say enbloc sale of Tulip Garden has been called off" Owners say enbloc sale of Tulip Garden has been called off

Posted on April 8, 2008 by luxuryasiahome
 

The enbloc sale of Tulip Garden, a freehold development in District 10, appears to be off.

Tulip Garden was sold in July 2007 in a collective sale valued at S$516 million. The property is along the prime Holland Road and Farrer Road area.

Channel NewsAsia understands that owners are now waiting to hear more details from the developer.
Bravo Building Construction bought Tulip Garden at more than S$1,000 per square foot and the sale was scheduled to be completed by May.

However, earlier reports stated that Bravo Building Construction was delaying the completion date and there was some talk that it was trying to arrange for alternative financing.

Some owners of Tulip Garden have already received their share of the deposit for the sale.

According to earlier reports, Bravo Building Construction has called off another enbloc sale – that of Makeway View in the Newton area and is also said to be delaying the completion date of the sale of Pender Court off West Coast Highway. – CNA/vm
Source : Channel NewsAsia – 7 Apr 2008

.
"Tulip garden off? How the deal went."
Straits Times 8 April 2008
.
"En Bloc market suffers double whammy as investors look elsewhere"
Said Dr Phang: "The long timeline has to be shortened; it's too long, the whole en bloc process. The law allows you 12 months to get 80 percent. And after that, the law allows you 12 months to file the ST (strata title). And when you do, the STB (Strata Title Board) may take short of 4 months or a long time of a year. "Of course not every case is that long but if you look at the historical maximum permissible time, you're looking at something about 2 years plus. And that's a long time to wait for the money. Given the volatile market conditions in Singapore, if it goes up, owners get concerned with replacement. If it goes down, developers (become) concerned. So we should try to manage the timeline and shorten it."

Source: Channel NewsAsia 08 April 2008

.

"Property agents in race against clock".

Business Times 8 April 2008

.

"Issues of cost, procedures bubble up in new en bloc rules"

Business Times 12 April 2008

.

AIRVIEW TOWERS

Decision date: 19 March 2008
(Tan Siew Tian and Others v Lee Khek Ern Ken[2008] SGHC 41)
.

What a wonderful written decision! Even though 99% had agreed to the sale by the time it reached High Court - Justice Lee Seiu Kin still judged the case purely on it's point of contention and found in favour of the sole, unrepresented minority owner.

.

35 "The plaintiffs also point out that as at the date of the hearing by the STB, the SPs of 99% share value wanted the sale to proceed and only the SP of one unit, representing less than 1% share value, refused to sell. These are compelling arguments indeed but to succumb to such arguments would, in my view, defeat the safeguards put in place by the legislature to protect the minority."

.

"it is therefore not for the court to water down the protection afforded by the legislation in its present form in favour of the majority, vast though it may be."

.

Weep for joy! Honestly, it does the heart good to see justice prevail against the pervasive 'might is right' mentality.

.

The out of control 'purposive approach' has been reined in in clause 25 - at least for those requirements in the Schedule that are time sensitive.

.

24 "Sir, the Boards decision will be final. An appeal can be made to the High Court only on a point of law or where there is alleged irregularity in the process.

.

25 For this to be achieved it must be the intention of the legislature that where a condition is expressed in clear terms, there can be no scope for the argument that the STB must look beyond the express provision and undertake the onerous task of considering all sorts of submissions of fact and law in order to divine the true intention of Parliament. It cannot be the intention of the legislature that, in respect of any provision that is expressed in clear terms, the STB would be asked to interpret it in any other manner. The STB is not a court of law and certainly not equipped to make a determination on subtle questions of law."

.

22 .... there will be adequate safeguards to protect the interests of minority owners. these safeguards are found in the procedures as well as in the substantive powers of the Strata titles Board".

.

This is exactly what I was trying to say in a post some time back - that there was no need for the STB to continually abandon compliance of the law and turn its eye instead on its overall 'purpose' as defined by Parliament. Parliament has already defined it's purposes through those very laws and has ratified them one by one. Parliament's intent that enblocs be made easier has not resulted in the elimination of rules, but conversely in their tightening with the very intention that they be applied. The laws are the word of Parliament and the STB should feel comfortable applying them impartially.

.

UPDATE 09 April '08: The developer is filing an appeal against the High Court decision

.

*******************************************************************************

My musing:

Can a S&P agreement be entered into with less than 80%, less than the majority stated in 84A(1)? Yes - but I still have a bee in my bonnet about this; how is this  right? How can less than the majority conditionally sell the estate, by whose authority? How can a Sale Committee, which has tethered its ratification to 80% (and not less) signing the CSA, have the authority to sell with less than 80%? How can a buyer be allowed to conditionally buy a property with less than 80% approval? Isn't the 80% crucial without which there can be no sale, conditional or not? Isn't it an essential prerequisite? Aren't the less than 80% putting themselves in mortal danger of being sued by the developer-buyer if the SC cannot secure the 80% by the 12 month threshold? Are they made aware of this when they sign? What is the purpose of making a big brouhaha about the exact date the 80% is reached if it is largely irrelevant? If a Sale Committee could theoretically launch a tender exercise anytime during the permitted 12 month period before the 80% has been reached - how many have done so?

.

"From the time the minimum 80 percent consent level is secured for a CSA, agents have up to 12 months to find a buyer and submit an application to the Strata Titles Board for an order of the collective sale."

Source - Business Times - 09 April 2008

.

So, the public thinks it 80% first then sell

But the reality is sell, then get 80% before the 12 months is up.

.

More articles

Poser over homes with 99 year leases
Straits Times 29 March 2008
.
Enbloc properties hardly slums
IN HIS letter, ‘Sense of kampung in condos overstated’ (March 20), Mr Lau Chee Kian warned that ‘old estates’ could ‘degenerate into slums like in many countries’. Nassim Park was only 14 years old when it went en bloc although it was in very good condition.

Horizon Hill Towers, the subject of the long running and costly acrimonious dispute now being heard in the High Court, is in pristine condition even though it is older than Nassim Park. Cavenagh Gardens in Cavenagh Road was built in the early 1960s whereas Pacific Mansion in the River Valley area and built slightly later are now around 45 years old and can hardly be considered slums by any standard, being in much better condition than some of the HDB flats only about 20 years old.

Whether an estate would turn into a slum is more dependent on the maintenance rather than age, as the many examples in China, India, Europe and others where some of the buildings are centuries old, have shown. ‘The fact that the majority are willing to sell needs not and does not justify the compulsory sale by dissenting subsidiary proprietors, as the former’s decision could have been misconceived, ill advised, wrongly influenced, etc, and, as it is, turned out to be wrong, because in most cases the price they sold was too low. Dispute, acrimony and ruined lives could have been avoided from the beginning if all those concerned had faced up to the root causes and inherent deficiencies faced in most management corporations.

Bin Hee Heng
Straits Times 29 March 2008
.
Condo spirit better than HDB's
 MS SUSAN Prior’s letter, ‘En bloc sales eroding our sense of kampung’ (March 17), about the sense of kampung in condominiums is certainly not overstated. The kampung spirit in condominiums is very much better than in HDB estates where residents hardly interact with each other.

In fact, all en-bloc sales are motivated by greed, worsened by en-bloc speculators who hope to make quick profits by flipping the properties without any feelings for the residents who do not want to sell. It is a load of rubbish to say that enbloc is good for rejuvenation of an estate. In this regard, I would suggest that the Government raise the percentage of approval required from the present 80 per cent to 90 per cent in order to protect the interests of the minority owners.

William Tay Kay Chiak
Straits Tiems 29 March 2008
.
No regrets: enbloc buyers that is
I REFER to Mr Lau Chee Kian’s ‘Sense of kampung in condos overstated’ (March 20) in response to Ms Susan Prior’s ‘En-bloc sales eroding our sense of kampung’ (March17). In almost all en-bloc sales, most owners wished they had not sold their homes because they realised too late.

Has no property developer, who has made purchases in hundreds of en-bloc sales so far, ever regretted its land-banking? For confirmation, we should hear from a horse’s mouth, as reported in the Business Times on Nov 15 last year, ‘S’pore home price gains set to slow’: ‘Mr Lim Ee Seng, chief executive officer of Frasers Centrepoint Group, one of the biggest buyers in en-bloc sales, says: ‘We are still looking to boost our land bank, but we are opportunistic and won’t pay current values because our costs would be too high.’ The price gain has helped the developer on earlier purchases of existing apartments, which are sold at a profit. An example is the St Thomas Suites development in the city’s downtown, where apartments were recently sold at $2,189 a square foot. ‘We bought the site of St Thomas Suites at $600 per square foot,’ said Mr Lim in the report. That’s a whopping 365 per cent profit that the Frasers Centrepoint Group has made. That’s why, with their ‘paltry windfall’, the majority owners will never be able to buy a replacement unit. Sad to say, they must regret and downgrade.

Mr Lau rightly points out: ‘The kampung era is long gone. The world has moved on.’ The tremendous advances in science and technology have transformed our way of life altogether, chief of which is changing us from a caring into an impersonal society. Fortunately, Singapore has led in the field of preserving our cultural heritage from being eroded by these negative influences. Singapore has, by and large, succeeded in preserving our core values shared by all in our multi-racial, multi-religious and multi-cultural society. And the ’sense of kampung’ embodied in our core values is part and parcel of our rich cultural heritage.

Admittedly, it is an uphill task to mobilise every Singaporean to imbibe the kampung spirit of yesteryear, but it is not an impossible task. The majority owners in an en-bloc sale cannot be regarded as a litmus test of their view on the ’sense of kampung’. Our uniquely Singapore has, against all odds, managed to accomplish almost everything that we have set our hearts and minds to do - most difficult of all is in uniting a people as pluralistic as Singapore into an almost homogenous nation in just 42 years. And it is a matter of time before the long and tedious process of re-moulding our people into this tremendous sense of kampung camaraderie bear fruits. Succeed we will.

Han Soon Juan

Straits Times 29 March 2008
.

That 'earnest' article

En bloc: importance of being earnest

Business Times 27 March 2008

.
"New rules can’t prevent fights led by greed but tussles should be less explosive," writes the managing director of Credo Real Estate.

"There were also numerous complaints about how the process was handled, claims of bad faith and the railroading of minority interests."

"Disputes in such sales are not likely to go away, even with the introduction of the new laws, as no amount of legislation can prevent disagreements or actions led by greed or dishonesty."


An article written from the perspective of a property agency - who thinks that all disputes are led by greed or dishonesty. Since it is the minority who dispute the sale before the Board, I am assuming the writer is attaching the greedy & dishonest labels only to them. But that is not what you hear from objecting minority owners at the STB. The litany of complaints against the less than honest tactics of property agents is legendary. Yet the blame apparently falls on the gullibility of owners and not on the unethical behaviours of agents. Agents play a pivotal role in enbloc and a closer inspection of their actions is warranted and certain behaviours ought not to be just frowned upon, but banned outright. There is a right way to go about your business and a wrong way. It's time to stop blaming the victim and go after the culprit.

.

Please take note that it was this very same agency that brokered the Finland Gardens sale which was rejected by the STB thus:-

.
"The board dismissed the application on the grounds that it found there was no 80 per cent majority and that the sale price was not obtained in good faith.’ (Straits Times)

.

To be fair, though, they did also broker Farrer Court - "Smooth Sailing"

.

"Among them is housewife Shirley Lee, in her 40s. She was full of praise for Credo Real Estate and law firm Rodyk & Davidson which handled the deal.She said: ‘Everything was so fast and smooth. Such a huge estate is not easy to handle. I’m very happy with the sale.‘They kept in close contact with the residents, gave frequent updates, and made us feel more secure, though it’s a lot of extra work for them.’ (Newpaper - 16 Dec 2007)

FINLAND GARDENS

The next minority STB win to be defended at the High Court will be:-

Finland Gardens' High Court appeal will be heard on the 21 April.
Lawyer for the majority (applicants) will be Michael Huang SC.
Dennis Tan for the minority (defendants).
.
Just to recap on this case:
Finland Gardens:
48 unit freehold development off Siglap Road
Land area: 98,309 sqft
Property Agent: Credo Real Estate
Sold: November 2006
Buyer: Sing Holding Ltd for $49.5 Million
.
Finland Gardens: Enbloc Sale dismissed : Weekend 01 December 2007 here
STB rejects Finland Gardens' Collective Sale: Straits Times 01 December 2007 here
.

AIRVIEW TOWERS

HIGH COURT REJECTS AIRVIEW TOWER'S COLLECTIVE SALE
Straits Times - 26 Mar 2008

.

They didn't have 80% - so NO SALE.

What is even more amazing is that the owner was unrepresented!

.

Justice Lee Seiu Kin, in his judgment dated March 19, said

.

"the 12-month timeline for the 80 per cent minimum requirement is a ’substantive’ condition put in place by the legislature to protect the legitimate rights of the minority."

.

The judge ruled that non-compliance with the timeline is not a mere technicality.
He said safeguards were built into the Land Titles (Strata) Act, allowing for the consideration of all objections of minority owners, and other factors.

.

‘Timing is important because the longer the process is dragged out, the greater the likelihood that market conditions will change.’

.

En bloc details , Sold
.

********************************************************************
Previous post:-

In late October last year, the STB threw out the collective sale application for Airview Towers at St Thomas Walk.
.

The sole, unrepresented minority owner brought his objections to the Board and the Board dismissed the application

.

"on the ground that the Applicants had not fulfilled these requisitions under Section 84A (1) (b) read with paragraph 1 (a) (i), in that the subsidiary proprietors of Airview Towers who could rightfully be counted as qualifying to make this application did not reach the requisite 80%."

.

Developer Bukit Sembawang Estates Ltd, which had agreed to pay $202.17 million to buy the site in April, said recently that the application had been dismissed on a technicality. They view this setback as a "hiccup" on their website.

The sellers are planning to file an appeal.

14 Feb 2008 update

'In view of the uncertain climate in the property market, Bukit Sembawang said it is reviewing the launch of the two projects - the 102-unit freehold development Paterson Suites and the 123-unit The Vermont on Cairnhill. It is also waiting for the hearing of the appeal against the Strata Title Board's rejection on the collective sale of Airview Towers.Bukit Sembawang had planned to build a 36-storey condominium on the site currently occupied by Airview Towers and an adjacent property. But the Strata Titles Board had dismissed a collective sale application by the majority owners of Airview Towers on grounds of technicality. The hearing of the appeal is set to take place on Feb 19.'

.

High Court Appeal Feb 19

Enbloc and Good Neighbourliness

Three letters to the forum page of the Straits Times 20 March 2008 regarding enblocs:

"En-bloc sales eroding our 'sense of kampung"

"Sense of kampung in condos overstated"

"Right to hold property guaranteed by law"

Addressing the three letters in the forum page of the Straits Times, I find myself agreeing with the first two, in parts. The third , actually, I hold in reserve.

It is somewhat hyperbolic to say “enblocs erode our sense of kampung” when we all know that that original sense has long been absent in society. The early relocation exercises tried to keep communities together to maintain those nebulous ties but over the years, the old generation with their old ways gave way to the new generation with their vastly different lifestyles, education and expectations. A very big piece of kampung spirit rested on the shoulders of women and now those women have gone back into the workforce, children are kept indoors, and gates are locked (at least in the public housing sector). We all lament the loss of community spirit and some people at least try to address this problem by getting involved in community based projects. Unfortunately, they are a lot of work for very little return, but even that little return is better than none and so people soldier on. Community based projects work better when they are done on a small scale, for example a condominium can concentrate on the residents in the estate. And for Tampines Court, a community based group called the Tampines Court Neighbourhood Committee (NC) was established some time after privatization. The group comprises of 6 active members (all minority). Here is a list of some of the activities and events (since 2004) that this group of volunteers organized in their free time in order to foster good neighbourliness and community bonding.

Block Parties/Mini-bazaars/DeepaRaya Dinner/Christmas Parties/Gardening Talk /Calligraphy Contest/Egg Painting/Art Contests/FamilyDays/Magic shows/Balloon artists/Henna artists/Comedy Acts/Bingo/Tampines Court Idol/Lucky Draws/Sandwich Making Contest/Toddler races/Sushi making/Lantern festivals/Mooncake Making/ Lantern Decorating contest /Fiesta Nite at Riverview Hotel /Visit to the Lion’s Home for the Elders /Visit to the Jamiyah Home for the Aged /Visit to the Jamiyah Childrens’ Home /Trip to the Night Safari /Day trip to Ostrich farm, fireflies in Malaysia /and finally, their last effort was an Afternoon Tea & Chit Chat.

Tampines Court Neighbourhood Committee was voted the most active NC in Singapore in 2005.

So, what effect does en bloc have on the ongoing efforts of promoting community bonding within private estates? Good neighbourliness does not happen overnight, it takes familiarity and a fair length of time. Well, as evidenced in Tampines Court; it is decimated by it.

.
Enbloc splits small communities into pro and anti groups. The anti-group members generally have a stronger sense of community than the pro-group and it comes as no surprise that it is in this group that you will find a greater number of community-based volunteers. The active members of our NC are all minority.

.
NC activities saw a sharp decline in attendance after enbloc was announced and the signing began. All along, the NC had had an amicable association with the Management Committee (MC). It was altogether a mutually beneficial arrangement. When the old MC was swept aside at the 2006 AGM, the new MC ,with their strong pro-enbloc agenda, took on a completely different stance. They challenged the very existence of the NC and for a time they were forced to hold their monthly meetings at a venue outside the estate. After the 're-education' of the MC as to the function and role of the NC, the group was eventually allowed to return to continue their resident activities. But things were not as before. The fledgling community spirit that once existed had died. Event planning petered out.

So, what will the NC do in 2008? Well, another visit to an old folks home has been arranged where they shall bring food, music, fun (and Bingo paraphernalia!) to people far more deserving of their efforts. But perhaps, just perhaps, there will be a final attempt at a Mother’s Day event in May.

.

The final letter was written by a lawyer who preferred to hone in on the legal and constitutional aspects to home ownership, but left it somewhat hanging in the air, unanswered. I believe the legal aspect was touched upon at the High Court by a minority owner of Lincolnsvale condominium, who claimed he had a 'fee simple title ' (that is, freehold) to his unit and that this was inviolable and therefore "should be immune against proceedings against their property". Justice Paul Tan gave his reasons why this was not so (85 to 90). High rise apartments are basically airspace, and the state "regulates property in thin air"(88). He talks about (89)" the law of property is not really about things but about people.." Owners have rights but with rights comes obligations etc. This is an oversimplification on my part, but read the decision if you can.

.

And the constitutional aspect?- well, that's not for me to argue.

.

*********************************************************************

TUESDAY, 25 MARCH

2 more letters today

"Be sensitive to each other": Straits Times 25 March

.

"It's our kampung, Mr Lau": Straits Times Online 25 March

"I am saddened by Mr Lau Chee Kian's dismissal of our community at Gillman Heights in his letter on Thursday, 'Sense of kampung in condos overstated'.I am from America and my wife, from Japan. Our two children are both born in Singapore. Gillman Heights is the only home they have known. It has been the best home I could imagine. Mr Lau has obviously never lived in Gillman Heights as I have or, if he has, he has kept himself behind closed doors and locked gate with his curtains drawn and chosen not to be a part of the wonderful community here. Our children run from one house to another, playing with friends. We regularly drop in on neighbours and strike up conversations as we pass each other in the common corridors.Our children have been looked after by all the uncles and aunties here. We and several other families attended the wedding of a daughter of Pak Pandan, formerly a cleaner here. We gossip every day with cheerful Auntie Lim and others at her 'Come Again Minimart' in the basement of our block. Every year, we have been invited by our Malay neighbours across from us to celebrate Hari Raya at their house. We are moving out at the end of March, forced out by the collective sale. We are saddened by this move and will miss our friends and neighbours very much. We hope we will be able to keep in touch, but that is far from the same thing as having neighbours whom one can count on daily for help, advice, and friendship.Singapore has been a great place to live in. Safety, convenience, superb green open spaces and many other things make it a great place to raise children. But it is hard to put down roots when they can be torn up so easily. Communities are living, organic things. They cannot be engineered by governments but need to be cultivated by societies. If Mr Lau's attitudes are predominant in Singapore, then I am sceptical of our chances of finding another place to grow a new community on this island. I hope I am wrong."

.

Eric Thompson

.

To the first letter: largely poppycock. After considering all sides to the argument over a period of 1 year (the length stipulated by LTSA rules) one must come down to the decision whether to sign the CSA or not. Not signing means you have not been persuaded by the majority viewpoint and have taken a stand against it. You may be perfectly cordial with your majority neighbours, and understanding to a degree - but to meekly acquiesce?

"En-bloc sales at least give you some compensation" and what about those that don't? What about those that give a bare buy price - a buy price that could be 10 to 15 years old and wholly inadequate for toady's market? It all depends from which end of the telescope you are looking through.

"though for the minority who oppose it, it is of no consequence." minority objections are far more complex than a single issue, and encompass a whole variety of personal considerations! Emotional, financial, practical and political.

For the minority to think in "positives rather than the negatives … and respect the views of the majority, rather than accuse them of wrongdoing" The government has given a legitimate avenue for minority concerns to be heard in the form of a STB tribunal. Whilst many may say this has become woefully insufficient as it never seems to be enough to prove their case there - it is all we have got at present. Quite simply, if you view the majority as having done wrong, you don't capitulate, not until matters have been investigated and your concerns addressed and satisfied.

For the majority to "be sensitive to the minority and explain your stand with love and understanding" Ok, I should await someone pushing enblocto come to my door with all the love and understanding he can muster. 'Peace man, I come to sell your home with false promises and without regard to your personal position. Let me show you my love by volunteering my time to undersell your property to the first buyer in the shortest possible time, without doing a valuation. You understand I am doing this in your best interests, I want to relieve you of your burden of having to finance your mortgage and instead make you downgrade where I am sure you will feel much happier." I promise I won't hit him with a frying pan.

"in times of ‘war’ you can at least make your stand as a friend and not as an enemy" . Enbloc wars can be fought in a civilized fashion, perhaps that is what the writer meant. But pretending you are your adversary's friend is hypocritical at best. There should always be room for dialogue - even on this blog I post all comments (save about a handful of distasteful ones), even though they always seem to go round and round in circles :)

BTW: Tampines Court is very peaceful post-en bloc; long may it last.

.

To the second letter:

" But it is hard to put down roots when they can be torn up so easily. Communities are living, organic things. They cannot be engineered by governments but need to be cultivated by societies. ". This echoes a previous post of mine about the shallowness of community if people are forced out on a 10 year cycle (see The Wait, November 07).

HORIZON TOWERS

Horizon Towers case back in High Court

THE seemingly never-ending saga of the Horizon Towers collective sale is clearly losing steam.
Two of the nine sets of minority owners fighting the sale have dropped out of the High Court appeal that started yesterday, and even the number of onlookers in the public gallery was noticeably fewer than at previous hearings.
The dropouts - a couple representing themselves and a foreign firm - were not represented in court yesterday.
Minority owners Jasmine Tan and Rudy Darmawan are representing themselves and three others while Mr Quek Keng Seng is representing himself. The other minority owners are represented by Harry Elias Partnership.
Senior Counsel Harry Elias told the court that the $500 million sale price was not obtained in good faith. He highlighted the fact that a higher offer of $510 million from Vineyard Holdings in Hong Kong was not communicated to the owners.
Mr K. Shanmugam and his team from Allen & Gledhill, who are representing the buyers, applied successfully to participate in the court session.
Minority owners are appealing a decision in December last year by the Strata Titles Board (STB) to approve the $500 million sale of the 99-year leasehold Leonie Hill estate.
The on-off again sale has reflected the roller-coaster ride Singapore’s property market has been on over the past two years or so.
The Horizon Towers deal was inked in January last year, before the market shot up. Hotel Properties , Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority agreed to pay $500 million.
But as the market boiled over last year, minority owners felt they were getting a raw deal and tried to halt the sale. They had some success when the STB rejected the sale on a technicality, but that ruling was overturned by the High Court in October. The STB approved the sale in December.
But the once-hot market has cooled considerably since then. Sale volumes have thinned out dramatically although prices have generally held up.
The minority owners are still fighting the sale as they never wanted to sell from Day One. And the sale price of less than $900 per sq ft is still below prevailing market rates, said an industry source.
The hearing before Justice Choo Han Teck continues today.
Straits Times - 20 Mar 2008

:-

High Court appeal to set aside the order of the STB
Wednesday 19 March and Thursday 20 March
Court 4B at 10.00 am
.
The Honourable Justice Choo Han Teck to preside.

.
lawyers for some minority owners:
(MICHAEL HWANG) (MICHAEL HWANG SC) (HARRY ELIAS PARTNERSHIP) (CHIA TZE YUNG JUSTIN)

Other minority representing themselves
Vs

Majority/Buyers:
(TAN RAJAH & CHEAH) (ALLEN & GLEDHILL LLP) (K SHANMUGAM SC)
(ANG CHENG HOCK)

"Higher price not negotiated because of 'commission agreement', court told"

Today Online 20 March 2008

.

"Horizon minorities say sale was done in bad faith"

Business Times article 20 March 2008

.
High Court Written Decision 17 July 2008

Lo Pui Sang and Others v Mamata Kapildev Dave and Others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and Other Appeals
[2008] SGHC 116

.
Right call made
Today - 21 July
.
Time to relook en bloc rules
Weekend Today - 19 July 2008
.
Another door closes on Horizon Minorities
 

High Court dismisses appeal, says there’s no proof that sale was in bad faith

Minority owners seeking to stop the en bloc sale of Horizon Towers have been defeated yet again. Singapore’s High Court yesterday dismissed their appeal, on the grounds that they failed to prove the sale was done in bad faith and prejudiced their rights.

This decision, coming on the heels of the High Court’s dismissal of an appeal against the sale of Gillman Heights Condominium, marks the second major defeat for minorities here.

The minority owners of Horizon Towers whom BT spoke to said they were still considering their options at this time. But they will soon be meeting to decide if they will take the matter to the Court of Appeal, or start a civil suit to claim for any financial loss - which will be their final recourse.

If they decide not to appeal further, the $500 million sale of the Leonie Hill development to a consortium led by Hotel Properties Ltd (HPL) will go through. It will also mean that the closely watched saga - which has been playing out in the public eye for more than a year - will finally come to a close.

HPL group executive director Chris Lim told BT: ‘We are pleased with the High Court judgment and hope to move forward with the deal as it’s been one-and-a-half years since the sale agreement was inked.’

Justice Choo Han Teck, who presided over the minorities’ appeal, said in his judgment yesterday that the minorities had failed to show that the Strata Titles Board (STB) erred in law in its decision to approve the en bloc sale in December.

The High Court only has powers to consider questions of law on appeal.

The minorities had argued that the sale had been conducted in bad faith. They claimed a better sale price might have been achieved if the sales committee had pursued a second offer from a party called Vineyard, which had reportedly offered $510 million. The minorities claimed the sales committee did not pursue the offer - and even concealed it - because the development’s sales agent, First Tree, was getting a higher sales commission from the HPL consortium.

But Justice Choo said the minorities failed to prove bad faith, as their argument was essentially concerned with whether the eventual sale price was fair - which is ‘a question of fact’ for the STB to decide, and not a question of law for the court to deliberate on.Justice Choo said, if the minorities feel the sales committee had deliberately or negligently not pursued the Vineyard offer, they can pursue a civil claim for the purported financial loss.

He also ruled that the minorities had failed to prove there was a lack of good faith in the way the sales proceeds were to be distributed amongst the various owners. The minorities argued the apportionment method used was unfair because it resulted in penthouse owners getting about 16 per cent less on a per- square-metre basis, compared to non-penthouse owners.

Justice Choo said there can’t be a lack of good faith in the selection of the apportionment method just because it was the only one considered or it led to some owners getting more than others. He noted that the STB had considered the evidence of several experts and it seemed no one method would satisfy everyone.

He added that, even if the STB had deemed the chosen method inappropriate, it would be an error of fact and not an error of law.

He also dismissed the minorities’ arguments that the en bloc sale was unconstitutional, and that the sale agreement had lapsed by the time the STB approved the sale.

Justice Choo also noted the ‘intrigue’ that has surrounded the en bloc sale of Horizon Towers. There have been numerous accusations on the conduct of the various parties involved - ranging from whether the sales committee should have worked harder to get a better sale price, to whether the minorities were only against the sale because the price was too low.‘

The STB was not bound to examine the rights and preferences of each individual subsidiary proprietor and it was not the forum to inquire into the conduct of individual members of the SC (sales committee), or even the SC as a whole,’ Justice Choo said. ‘If the STB were to embark on the kind of inquiry and make the findings the appellants say it ought to have done, the STB would never get its job done within the time limited.’

Business Times - 19 July 2008
.

Market news

"Only one collective sale done so far this year"
Straits Times 18 March 2008

Gillman Heights going to Court of Appeal

Gillman Heights High Court appeal against the decision of the STB will be heard on:

Thursday 13 March 2008 at 10.00am, Court 6C

Friday 14 March 2008 at 10.00am

Tuesday 18 March 2008 at 10.30am

before the Honourable Justice Choo Han Teck. The lawyer for the 22 minority are (MICHAEL HWANG SC(INSTRUCTED))(RICHARD TAN)(STRAITS LAW PRACTICE)

.

The 8 Gillman majority who are questioning their legal standing with regard to their not having signed the supplemental CSA will also be heard. Lawyer(s) for these appealing majority are (Lim & Bangras)(Lim Hong Kan)

.

"Some Gillman Heights owners fight on for their homes"

Straits Times article 14 March here

You gotta love these people!

.

New Twist to Saga

Today Online article 17 March .

NUS link in Gillman heights under query

ChanneNews Asia 17 March 2008

It all depends on age for Gillman Heights

Today online article 19 March here

No conflict of interest in property deal

Straits Times - 2 Apr 2008 here

.

March 18, GH hearing concluded.

Judgement is reserved.

Bees to honey

Banks courting cash-rich Farrer Court-ers

Banks woo cash-rich en bloc residents

Sunday Times -2 Mar 2008

Talks held at Farrer Court to promote financial services to residents after estate’s $1.34 billion collective sale

WHERE there is money, businesses will pursue it. So it is not surprising that at least two financial players, Citibank and IPP Financial Advisers, have held talks at Farrer Court to woo residents with their services.

CITIBANK STAFF posted in the void decks of Farrer Court blocks invited residents to finance-related talks after the estate was bought by developer CapitaLand. At the talk, the Citibank officers spoke about financial management services for affluent customers. IPP Financial Advisers also held a talk there. — ST PHOTO: WANG HUI FEN

Residents netted $2.15 million on average after the estate had a collective sale in June last year. The 618-unit estate in Farrer Road was bought by developer CapitaLand for a record $1.34 billion. The original owners paid a little over $100,000 for their units 31 years ago.

The wooing of the Farrer Court community began four months ago with the unusual sight of Citibank officers posted in the void decks. They invited residents to two finance-related talks, complete with a free buffet dinner, in the estate’s function room.

When The Sunday Times attended one talk last Wednesday evening, we saw bank staff handing out booklets to more than 150 residents. The staff spoke about financial management and Citigold services targeting more affluent customers.

Citibank said such talks were held on an ongoing basis in private residences, including The Berth by The Cove in Sentosa Cove in January.

Many residents liked what they saw. As Mr Aeden Tang, 49, a bank officer, said: ‘Other banks didn’t take the trouble to reach out to us, unlike Citibank.’

Another resident, a 56-year-old retiree who wanted to be known only as Madam Tan, agreed: ‘It’s a win-win situation because many residents are old and can’t shop around for a good bank.’

Independent financial adviser IPP also held a talk there yesterday which drew about 25 people.

Residents said Citibank’s more aggressive tactics worked better than IPP’s. The latter had put up a banner to advertise its talk.

Other banks such as Standard Chartered have also reached out to those living in private residences.

None of them or IPP wanted to reveal how much business the talks had generated. OCBC, however, stopped such roadshows two years ago as it felt that they encroached on residents’ privacy.

Source : Sunday Times – 2 Mar 2008

I doubt if the banks will be setting up shop in Tampines Court's void decks. If they do, it will be for the purpose of offering bank loans to cash-strapped residents!

PHOENIX COURT

Today, the Phoenix Court minority appeal against the High Court decision was dismissed with costs. You can find the full decision on the Supreme Court website - free to view for 3 months.

Ng Swee Lang and Another v Sassoon Samuel Bernard and Others[2008] SGCA 7.

This appeal concerns the collective sale of the freehold condominium development at 70 St Thomas Walk known as Phoenix Court which comprises three penthouses on the highest floor and 44 apartment units on the lower floors.

.

High Court Media Summary here



29 February 2008
Media Summary
Ng Swee Lang and another v Sassoon Samuel Bernard and Others
CA 145 of 2007/W
Decision of the Court of Appeal (delivered by Chan Sek Keong CJ)
Background
1 The appellants are the joint subsidiary proprietors of a unit in Phoenix Court at 70 St Thomas Walk. It is a 13-storey freehold condominium development comprising 3 penthouses and 44 apartment units. On 16 April 2006, 46 out of 47 owners of units signed a collective sale agreement among themselves with a view to selling their units on the terms agreed therein. Sometime in mid-2006, the Sale Committee put out a public tender for the collective sale of Phoenix Court but failed to attract any bids. However, on 27 October 2006, the 46 owners (representing 97.92% of the total share value of the development and holding well in excess of 80% of the total area of all the lots in Phoenix Court) signed a sale and purchase agreement (S&PA) with Bukit Panjang Plaza Pte Ltd as the purchaser. The terms of the S&PA included a termination clause that if approval for the collective sale was not obtained from the Strata Titles Board within 6 months of the date of the S&PA (i.e., 25 April 2007), it would lapse.
2 On 17 January 2007, the respondents as representatives of the 46 owners applied to the Board for a collective sale order. When it became evident that the collective sale order could not be obtained by 25 April 2007, the Sale Committee entered into a Supplemental Agreement with the purchaser on 25 April 2007 to extend the time to 27 June 2007 in order to obtain a collective sale order from the Board.
3 On 21 and 22 June 2007, the Board heard the application. The appellants were represented by counsel and objected to the application on various legal grounds. The Board rejected all of them and approved the application for the collective sale of Phoenix Court. 
4 The appellants appealed to the High Court to set aside the Board's decision. They argued that -
(a)  the collective sale agreement had terminated by effluxion of time and therefore there was no valid agreement among the owners holding not less than 80% of the total share values of Phoenix Court;
(b) there was no valid sale and purchase agreement between the 46 owners and the purchaser as the S&PA was not validly extended and also did not specify the proposed method of distribution of the proceeds of sale to the unit owners;
(c) the respondents were not the authorised representatives of the majority owners;
(d) the transaction was not in good faith;
(e)  notice of the application had not been accompanied by a valid valuation report; and
(f) the S&PA did not comply with s 84A(1) of the Land Titles (Strata) Act in failing to specify the proposed method of distribution of the sale proceeds among all the owners: such failure went towards establishing the jurisdiction and resulted in the respondents having no locus standi to apply to the Board for a collective sale order.
5 In a fully reasoned judgment, the High Court Judge dismissed the appeal and held:
(a) the collective sale agreement did not terminate on its proper construction in the events that happened;
(b) the failure to specify the distribution method in the S&PA did not invalidate the S&PA as the distribution method was set out in the collective sale agreement, a copy of which was in their possession; they were fully aware of the value of their units and the amount of the purchase consideration they would receive; the legislation on collective sales does not require minority dissenting members to sign the sale and purchase agreement; also the S&PA was validly extended;
(c) the respondents were the authorised representatives of the 46 owners, and in any case, the law required only one representative to act on their behalf; further, the appellants have never challenged the authority of the respondents;
(d) the transaction was not entered into in bad faith, nor had the appellants proved that the sale price was not the best price reasonably obtainable;
(e)  the valuation report was not defective; and
(f) the failure to specify the distribution method in the S&PA did not affect the standing of the respondents to apply to the Board; s 84A(1) must be interpreted to give effect to the intention of Parliament. It could not be that a minor breach would invalidate the whole transaction.
The Appeal
6 The appellants’ appeal to the Court of Appeal is based on the same grounds canvassed before the Judge. The Court of Appeal agrees with the decision of the Judge and also his reasoning on all his legal findings.  The Court agrees with the Judge that the modern approach to statutory interpretation required the court to consider the legislative intention of the collective sale scheme and to give effect to it in interpreting the relevant provisions of the legislation.
7 In the present case, with respect to Phoenix Court (which is more than 10 years old), the appellants’ argument is based substantially on the meaning and effect of s 84A(1) which provides (as paraphrased):
In the case of a strata title development that is more than 10 years old, an application to a Board for an order for a collective sale of a strata title development by the unit owners with not less than 80% of the share values and not less than 80% of the total area of all the lots who have  agreed in writing to sell all the lots and common property in the development to a purchaser under a sale and purchase agreement which specifies the proposed method of distributing the sale proceeds to all the subsidiary proprietors. 
The argument of the appellants is as follows: S 84A(1) sets out two requirements of a collective sale: (a) the age of the development; and (b) the percentage value of the units and of the total area of the lots in the development. These two requirements are fundamental. If they are not complied with, the Board has no jurisdiction to hear the application. Correspondingly, the majority owners are not eligible to make a collective sale application to the Board. These two requirements go towards establishing the jurisdiction. Therefore s 84A(1) is a jurisdictional provision.
8 The next stage of the argument is this: s 84A(1) also refers to a sale and purchase agreement which specifies the proposed method of distributing the sale proceeds to all the subsidiary proprietors. It therefore follows that the appellants contend that the specification itself is a fundamental requirement of a collective sale, just like the other two requirements. Accordingly, since the S&PA in the present case did not specify the distribution method, no application for a collective sale could be made to the Board.
9 The Court of Appeal agrees with the reasoning of the Judge in dismissing this argument as nothing more than a technical argument, and that the omission was an irregularity which the Court could waive in the circumstances of this case.  The Court of Appeal also takes the view that the appellants have also by their own conduct waived the irregularity. They failed to raise this objection within the time limit as required by the Act and before the Board.
10 The appeal is dismissed with costs.
 

Gillman Height Majority sued by Developer

8 Gillman Heights majority being sued by developer Straits Times article:-
CapitaLand, HPL sue 8 owners of Gillman Heights
Straits Times- 21 Feb 2008

CapitaLand sues 4 Gillman heights Condo owners for breach of contract
ChannelNesAsia - 20 feb 2008.The Gillman Heights majority are treading on dangerous ground . It is similar to what 12 Phoenix Court majority tried to do last year (06 Nov 2007). The judge came down very hard on them. This was what he said: .

In attempting to set aside the CSA and the Supplemental Agreement, the plaintiffs had also breached the covenants and undertakings in cl 7 of the CSA. The relevant sub-clause states:Every Owner agrees as follows:(p) not to do anything whether by an act or omission that may prevent or otherwise be detrimental to the Collective Sale or the fulfillment of any of the purpose under this [CSA] or the [SPA].

It was because of the frivolity of the plaintiffs’ claim that I ordered indemnity costs against them in favour of all nine defendants.

.

So, this will be an interesting case to follow. Of course it all depends on the specifics and sub clauses of their CSA. Their position seems ambiguous on the outside and they are brave to seek clarification from the Court. Brave or very foolish - depending on the quality of legal advice they have received.

.
Even though they may be privately fuming, Tampines Court majority owners have not made a public attempt at scuttling or speaking out against the sale - they are abiding by the terms and conditions of the S&P agreement. No flyer against the sale has been circulated by them, and no one can accuse them of trying to back out of the sale. They have been told in no uncertain terms that they will be sued if they attempted do so.
.

It is just the minority owners who have a LEGAL leeway to publically oppose through the STB and higher, and I wish people would stop telling us to honour a sale we did not commit to! We don't have to, we are not suable on that account.

To buy or not to buy

In the post today - a survey form asking owners whether or not they are interested in buying back a replacement unit from the developer at a 'discounted' price. This is not the first time this offer has been floated, a similar letter was sent out last year. Since no price or general ballpark figure was given, I cannot say if this will be generous offer or not- but since they will be selling the new units at at least double the price they are paying us, I would therefore expect nothing less than a 50% discount! I would also demand certain conditions such as comparable unit size, orientation, level, fixtures and fittings, rental for 3 years whilst waiting, guaranteed delivery time etc; everything down in B & W, leaving no wiggle room for them to cut corners - . In other words, 1-4-1, a fair replacement for our homes and in return they get to make huge profits from all the other units they sell in this soon-to-be overcrowded estate(s). I don't think that's too much to ask, do you?

.

Let's see how our sister estate, Waterfront View fared in this matter

(Source : New Paper - 3 Feb 2008)

.

TWICE THE PRICE, HALF THE SIZE

.

http://luxuryasiahome.wordpress.com/2008/02/04/waterfront-waves-twice-as-costly-but-residents-still-want-to-return/

.

According to a spokesman for Frasers Centrepoint Homes, one of the developers for Waterfront Waves, there are at least five former owners who have bought a total of six units there.

The spokesman said: ‘Former residents return as they feel a sense of belonging in the neighbourhood after living there for years.’
She said owners from the old estate, Waterfront View, were given a day for an exclusive preview and to select units ahead of invited guests. But she added that there would be no discounts for former owners.

These residents will have to pay around twice the sum they got from their en-bloc sale, if they choose to buy a similar-size apartment.

Another resident, a 54-year-old retiree who declined to be named, also found himself paying more, just to live in the same estate.
He made a down payment for a 1,600 sq ft, four-bedroom unit, which costs $1.27 million, more than twice the $630,000 he received for his old unit. But unlike other former residents, he is not complaining.
He said: ‘I am glad that they released the East Wing first, which is where my former block, 736, used to be.
‘What’s even better, this time, my view of the reservoir is not blocked. I’m looking forward to watching all the water activities.
‘Where else can you get a unit so near the water, except at Sentosa or Marina Bay, where it is so expensive?’

.

Well for starters, 5 owners out of a pool of 583 is a very poor return rate. Afterall, this is is a mass market, leasehold property plonk in the middle of the heartlands and if those very people who were enblocked cannot return to their former estate due to the extravagant price of new comparable unts then the developer has lost 578 potential buyers. Note, the article said no discount was given to former owners - perhaps the same developer doesn't want such a dismal outcome from TC.

.

There is a moral obligation on the part of the SC, enbloc lawyer, and PA to do the best they can for all owners. If there are owners out there who want to return, then they should make that possible by using whatever leverage they have left.

.

The man in the article paid TWICE the sum to live in the SAME BLOCK he used to live in. And if that man was an original owner who paid less than $200k for his unit in the 1980's - and is now happy to pay $1.27million....... well, the mind boggles! They say there's one born every minute.

.

BTW: I shall not be filling out this form. I don't intend to move.

.

1st Charge or 2nd Charge?

All properties* bought before 2002 have CPF as first charge .
All properties bought after 2002, and those bought before 2002 but were refinanced after 2002 have the Bank as first charge.

*All properties except HUDC phases III & IV which were mortgaged to the POSB.

.*******************************************************************************

Saturday 16 Feb

Well, it's bad news. It seems HUDCs were an exception to the general CPF rules that applied to all properties as far back as 1996 (and maybe even earlier). So, at least 6 years before other private banks were given first priority, the HDB were quietly cutting the strings to HUDC properties and approving deeds with the following order of priority for distribution of sale proceeds:

.
1) First charge: all monies owing to the HDB
2) Second charge: Credit POSB, Government or Statutory Boards
3) Third charge: CPF
.

The CPF Board approved the purchase of my unit 'subject to your complying with the CPF fund act (Cap.36) and any amendments or reenactment thereof and the rules and regulations made under the Act from time to time relating to withdrawels of CPF savings under the Public Housing Scheme."

Under the Public Housing Scheme, the loans obtained for the purchase of a resale HUDC Phases III/IV flat must be from any of the following approved mortgagees (in 1996):
.
a) Credit POSB (remember it was Government owned at the time)
b) Government or Statutory Boards.
.
So how did around 120 units in TC manage to get a private bank as second charge? Well, in 1996 (my own particular point of reference) the only Bank approved for HUDC mortgages was Credit POSB, there was no other choice - so exactly when were these other private Banks allowed to take on HUDC mortgages? I'm guessing after POSB was subsumed by DBS but before 2002. POSB holders who refinanced with another bank during this window period could, perhaps, have benefitted also from the CPF first rule too ....a serendipitous move to have made on hindsight, if true. Or else, owners just negotiated for CPF first charge - less likely but still possible. Truth is, I don't know.
.

Anyway, the upshot is, our HUDC heads were the first on the chopping block .....and long before everyone else.

Waterfront Waves: Twice as costly, but residents still want to return

Waterfront Waves: Twice as costly, but residents still want to return

 February 4, 2008

Bedok Reservoir en-bloc residents book units in new developmentFIRST you sell your apartment in an en-bloc sale.
Then you wait for a new condo to come up on the same spot and buy a unit in it.

That is what some have been doing at an estate on Bedok Reservoir Road.
The good thing for them: Their new home will be in a location they know and love.
The not-so-good thing: Prices have soared.
According to a spokesman for Frasers Centrepoint Homes, one of the developers for Waterfront Waves, there are at least five former owners who have bought a total of six units there.

Since the launch, 80 of the 148 units have been sold.
The spokesman said: ‘Former residents return as they feel a sense of belonging in the neighbourhood after living there for years.’
She said owners from the old estate, Waterfront View, were given a day for an exclusive preview and to select units ahead of invited guests. But she added that there would be no discounts for former owners.
These residents will have to pay around twice the sum they got from their en-bloc sale, if they choose to buy a similar-size apartment.
Depending on size and location, the new apartments cost $690 to $870 psf.
Said 71-year-old businessman OhBin Cheng, a former resident who visited the Waterfront Waves showroom two weeks ago: ‘The timing was terrible. We went en bloc before the property boom when property prices were still low.
‘Then, when we got the money for the collective sale and wanted to buy, housing prices started soaring.’

TWICE THE PRICE, HALF THE SIZE
Not content to live in a smaller apartment, Mr Oh, who got $660,000 for his 1,600 sqft Waterfront View apartment, decided to buy an HDB flat in Tampines for the time being.
Because Mr Oh is fond of his old estate, he hopes to buy a two-bedroom unit about half the size of his old apartment, which, he said, costs almost $700,000.
He said: ‘I hope prices will drop so that I can come back here to live.’
Another resident, a 54-year-old retiree who declined to be named, also found himself paying more, just to live in the same estate.
He made a down payment for a 1,600 sq ft, four-bedroom unit, which costs $1.27 million, more than twice the $630,000 he received for his old unit.

Worth it: Former Waterfront View resident Oh Bin Cheng will be returning to the site of his old home. – File Picture: The Straits Times
But unlike other former residents, he is not complaining.
He said: ‘I am glad that they released the East Wing first, which is where my former block, 736, used to be.
‘What’s even better, this time, my view of the reservoir is not blocked. I’m looking forward to watching all the water activities.
‘Where else can you get a unit so near the water, except at Sentosa or Marina Bay, where it is so expensive?’

EAGER TO RETURN
Indeed, so eager was he to return that he was among the first few to visit the showroom.
For now, his family is living in another condominium just two streets away. He had bought a unit there earlier.
But he will have to sell that apartment to pay for his new home when it is ready in three years’ time.
‘Still, I’m happy with my purchase, I can get back many of the memories from living there,’ he said.
Some property agents The New Paper on Sunday spoke to, however, felt that most residents would welcome a change, and prefer not to return to new developments on the sites of their en-bloc sale estates.
Property agent Andrew Lin, 28, said: ‘It’s not really common for former residents to return. Most of them settle down well in their new homes.
‘The only reason for them to return would be if there was any additional discount given to them by the developer.’
Source : New Paper – 3 Feb 2008