The Holy Grail attained

TAMPINES COURT

$692,000
1,690 sqft
Jul-09

.

Well, look at that, the old RP! TC resale prices have been climbing upwards over the last 2 months. Clearly, our enclave has been discovered and our generous size and layout appreciated! With a shrinking supply of larger apartments on enormous plots of land, expect the resale prices to climb even further.

.

........... and they said they never

would.

.

Those who clamoured to sell should now pull up stakes and leave the real homeowners in peace. There is no excuse to drag the estate through the mud again; your dream price has been reached, your plans to downgrade with money in the bank can be realised. The best part is, you won't be forcing others to downgrade along with you with the loss of tens of thousands in CPF. Still others can enjoy the remaining years of their life in the home they have lovingly cared for over the decades. Go now - take your money and run.

I had an interesting chat with an ex-majority owner recently. He was so certain the sale would be approved at the STB that he had bought a replacement unit in 2006/07, but no matter, he is still going strong; renting out the other whilst remaining in TC. He asked whether or not TC should/would go for another en bloc, what was the mood on the ground etc. I really don't have a finger on the pulse, but judging by the large number of units presently undergoing renovation works, I would hazard a guess that people are here to stay. He said that he had been approached to start it up again....... a tho

ught that horrified me for the following reasons:

.

1) It shows a callous disregard to the a person's right to a peaceful life in their own home. The last en bloc caused distress to many owners for a great many reasons. Now that Tampines Court is still just getting back on it's feet again, is it right that a few want to 'try their luck' once again?

.

2) It perpetuates the divide between those who view their house as their home and those who want to make money.

.

3) The person talking to me was clearly unqualified for the task, and the thought that a group of like-minded and ill-equipped individuals driving the en bloc bus without a drivers licence should give TC residents cause for alarm. A nice guy, yes, but niceness is not a prerequisite for such a weighty responsibility. One needs to have a hard head, be mathematical, analytical, intelligent, an experienced negotiator, highly proficient in English, unflappable, someone who can hold their own, nobody's fool ..... with absolute integrity............and Tampines Court hasn't been able to throw up anyone of that calibre yet - never mind three.

.

Still waiting for changes to en bloc rules

Straits Times - 15 Aug 20009

The dreamers dream on....

S'pore could see first en bloc sale in a year by year-end
ChannelNewsAsia - 16 June 2009

Well, there will be some estates who set their reserve prices now in the downturn - and will be surprised YET AGAIN when their en bloc sale is finalised 3 years down the road when property prices could very well be higher! How many past en blocs set benchmark reserve prices and attained benchmark prices at the time of sale only to find that their 'benchmark' was a mirage, a sum quickly surpassed in an escalating market. Owners of fine private apartments reduced to joining the HDB ranks yet again. It may have taken 10 years to gain that private property - but only 3 to lose it in an en bloc.

.

What is 30% premium now? What is 80% even? All that matters is that AT THE TIME OF COMPLETION OF SALE 2 to 3 years DOWN THE LINE - that is; after the sale has been cleared by the STB and owners get their sale proceeds in the bank, they have sufficient cash and CPF left to buy a replacement unit EQUAL TO or BETTER THAN their present unit in the SAME AREA. Bear in mind, also, an owners age and ability/inability to secure a mortgage. There should be no forced downgrading.

Why would developer-buyers buy extensively now?:-
1) Their land banks are relatively full, though they may still sniff out a few bargains from sellers taken in by the latest property agent spiel - 'catch the next wave' or 'lower your RP by 20%', and my personal favourite : 'sell now before the developer's money runs out'
2) The economic fundamentals are not improving
3) There is still the none-too-small matter of a glut of new units downstream as estates, such as Farrer Court, Gillman Heights & Leedon Heights have been sold en bloc but have not yet even been demolished. Some estates have been leased out in the interim. According to our Minister of National Development, Mr. Mah - over 40,000 new units will be on the market in the next 3 or 4 years.

4) The new flipper tax may keep some speculators away for the time being (4 years maybe?).

5) 99 year properties will be less attractive as they have a short time frame for development.

6) The developers know there is no need to rush in as land does not disappear.

.

No sign of excessive speculation in private property, says Mah

Straits Times - 10 July 2009

No property bubble forming, say developers

Straits Times - 31 July 2009
.
The LTSA rules are still full of loopholes for the unscrupulous to exploit. Owners have become a teeny bit smarter which may translate into either more transparent and honest transactions or (more likely) highly contentious battles between the minorities and majorities right from the word go.

.

Experts expect 5 to 10 en-bloc deals in second half of year

Channel NewsAsia – 16 July 2009.

Collective sales to trickle back into market, says Credo

Business Times - 16 July 2009

.
From 'seeing one en bloc deal' to ' 5 to 10' is quite a jump. By deal, they must only mean the number of estates jump-starting their en bloc processes being ramped up. It's a never-ending treadmill for some estates. The flippers especially have an interest in seeing things escalate as they have a 01 Jan 2010 deadline to get their deals through before they come under the IRAS microscope.

Ex-Condo MCST Chairman at Laguna Park Fined

Ex-condo chief scoffs at fine for mischief
Straits Times - 22 April, 2009
.
FOR his acts of mischief in Laguna Park condominium, Lee Kok Leong, 62, former chairman of its management committee, was fined $1,200.
.
'Fine, then fine lah. After all, I can afford it. I can spend $4,000 in one night on karaoke.’

Lee has paid for the damage he caused to his neighbours’ property, amounting to about $600.

But no, he had not apologised to them, he told reporters. And no, he had no regrets about what he had done.

'What’s there to regret? What’s done is done. I am not remorseful.’

.
Arrogant bullies are present whenever greed is allowed to get the upper hand, en bloc is match-made for this type of personality. It's a pity the Court didn't make more of an example of Mr. Lee; a rap on the knuckles is not much of a deterrent.
.
But then again, look at this case Lim Hong Eng v Public Prosecutor[2009] SGHC 92 at the High Court 17 April 2009.

Here a woman was witnessed as driving through a red light and crashed into a motorbike, resulting in serious injury to the motorcyclist and the DEATH of his pillion rider.

For this, she received only a 1 day imprisonment and a $2000 fine.

.

So taking a life through negligent driving is only a tad more serious than gluing your neighbour's lock?

.

Condo glue case: Lower court to hear new evidence

THE prosecution has appealed against a $1,200 fine handed down to the former chairman of the Laguna Park management committee for his acts of mischief.

The appeal came up for hearing in the High Court yesterday, but the case was sent back to the lower court for new evidence to be heard.

Businessman Lee Kok Leong, 62, was convicted in April over two mischief charges.

He admitted to inserting super glue into the keyholes of padlocks at the front and rear gates of Mr Yap Cher Sim’s flat in Block 5000E on Aug 25 last year. For that, he was fined $800.

The same day, he committed the same offence at another flat in the same block, belonging to Ms Alice Elizabeth Rappa, resulting in another $400 fine.

Lee could also have been jailed for up to a year for each offence.

The acts of vandalism occurred last July amid a row among residents over whether the condominium should be sold en bloc. Lee was caught in the act by a closed-circuit television camera installed by Mr Yap in the common corridor.

The prosecution appealed against the fine. It also applied for new evidence to be cited for the appeal.
Yesterday, Lee’s lawyer, Mr Ramesh Tiwary, sought an adjournment.

Judge of Appeal Chao Hick Tin noted that the prosecution was seeking to enter new evidence, but he could not hold a trial or make a determination based purely on affidavits.

‘There has to be a further hearing before some other tribunal,’ he said, referring to a provision on criminal procedure.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Jennifer Marie asked for the additional evidence to be recorded by the same district judge that sentenced Lee.

No details of the evidence were disclosed.

But Justice Chao described it as a ‘pertinent piece of evidence’, noting there were three affidavits from the prosecution and one from the defence.

The judge directed that the additional evidence be taken by the sentencing judge without him making any finding.

Straits Times - July 16 2009

.

Not remorseful? Prosecution seeks stiffer sentence

Straits Times - 29 Aug 2009

Buyer Stamp Duty at the STB

JULY 2009

The STB now insist that the stamp duty on the S&P must be paid upfront, before an application is made to the Board. Stamp duty is usually paid within 2 weeks of the sale and purchase agreement being signed, but this rule has not been enforced for en blocs up until now. For a multi-million dollar deal (eg, $400m) the stamp duty payable is considerable (approx $12m). A late payment incurs a heavy penalty by the IRAS. If the STB does not approve a sale then the stamp duty is returned but not the penalty. Regent Court's en bloc sale was thrown out by the STB at the second visit - even though it had just been approved at the High Court - because the Stamp Duty had not been paid.
.
Registrar's Circular 1/2009 on Stamping of Agreements Related to the Collective Sale of Property under the Land Titles (Strata) Act, Part VA

.
From the High Court decision (Regent Court)

Suit No:

OS 17/2008, SUM 3938/2009

28 I would add that I was informed by Mr Low that there is apparently now a practice direction that an applicant for approval of a collective sale is to adduce evidence that the relevant sale and purchase agreement is stamped in support of the application.

What is Stamp duty?
 

From IRAS Website:

Stamp duty is a tax on executed documents relating to properties or interest in properties and shares or interest in shares. Stamp duty is payable only on documents described in the First Schedule to the Stamp Duties Act (Cap 312). These documents include a lease, sale and purchase, gift or mortgage of property. It is not a tax on transactions.
Liability arises once the document is executed. Hence, even if the transaction has been aborted, stamp duty is still payable on the document.

.

A document can be presented for stamping at any time before executing (signing). However, once a document is executed (signed), stamp duty must be paid within:
14 days from the date of execution if the document is signed in Singapore;

30 days of its receipt in Singapore if the document is signed overseas.

.

An enbloc purchase or ‘block’ purchase is regarded as a single sale transaction, notwithstanding that multiple documents may have been executed. Stamp duty is therefore computed on the collective sale price or block purchase price (i.e. total consideration).

IRAS CIRCULAR on Stamp Duty Treatment for Properties acquired on an En Bloc or "Block" Basis

.

4. The Stamp Duties Act provides for a penalty of up to 4 times the amount of deficient duty for a document that is insufficiently stamped. Similarly, a penalty of up to 4 times the stamp duty due may be imposed for stamping after the stipulated time period.

.

DRAGON MANSION

First en bloc sale to be marketed in 2009

The freehold Dragon Mansion at 18 Spottiswoode Park Road, near Outram and Tanjong Pagar, has an asking price of about $120 million or $1,020 per sq ft per plot ratio. This is significantly higher than the transacted enbloc sale prices in the area during the 2007 boom. If this price is achieved, the estate’s owners will get around $1.7 million for each of the 72 units.
The estate has a land area of 41,874 sq ft and can be redeveloped into about 120 apartments of 1,000 sq ft in size.
.
$120m target for first en bloc site this year
Straits Times - 15 July 2009
This year’s first en bloc sale hits the market
Business Times - 15 July 2009

Tender for collective sale of Dragon Mansion launched

Channel NewsAsia – 14 Jul 2009

.

No matter what the property agents say - owners should set their reserve price high to reflect a good price in a boom market. In 2007, many properties were sold at RPs set in the down period and lived to regret it. Even $1,020 psf for a unit in the Tanjong Pagar seems cheap to me - perhaps the owners should consider upping the RP! It's all about getting a REPLACEMENT PRICE - forget about the flippers and desperados who want to sell to make money; .... it is your one and only property and it is your home.

Flipper's Tax (and it's repeal)

The Government has come out with an anti-speculation measure (though they insist it is not) which could put a dampener on flipper activity in the en bloc sale market. I don't think it will have a huge effect, but there could be some short term selling to beat the deadline for it's implementation. Flippers with multiple units sold over the last 4 years (with profits undeclared to the taxman) could be saddled with a large tax bill if they put themselves on the IRAS radar after 01 Jan 2010. Better to sell their unsold units now at a loss and lie low. Tax dodging is a fine art...

.
Property Tax gains; up to IRAS to decide
Sunday Times - 12 July 2009
Property investors still jittery about tax policy
Sunday Times - 12 July 2009
Analysts-say-more-feedback-should-be-gathered-before-amending-tax-policy
ChannelNewsAsia - 10 July 2009
Draft Income Tax (Amendment) Bill 2009
Today- 10 July 2009
Government clears air over tax on property gains
Business Times - 10 July 2009
.

There is also a PUBLIC CONSULTATION ON THE DRAFT INCOME TAX (AMENDMENT) BILL 2009

.

If you are interested, the Ministry must receive your feedback (using the template provided) by 14 JULY 2009

Click on the above link for details.

.

22 Aug 2009

The Government has decided to drop the implementation of the new property tax - with 64 feed back receieved , 60 were against the idea.

So, flippers can flip on.

HORIZON TOWERS COSTS

A very interesting decision on COSTS for Horizon Towers :-
.
Ng Eng Ghee and Others v Mamata Kapildev Dave And Others (Horizon Partners Pte Ltd, intervener) and Another Appeal[2009] SGCA 30
07 July 2009
.
To recap on the order of proceedings:
1) STB dismissed the sale because of a technicality. (First Tranche)
2) High Court overturned the STB decision and approved the sale and sent it back to the STB.
3) STB approved the sale. (Second Tranche)
4) High Court approved the sale again.
5) Court of Appeal dismissed the sale.
.
1. .... A party’s vindication on the merits may prove to be hollow if the fruits of success are soured by uncompensated costs. The primary objective of a costs order is to compensate the successful party for all reasonable costs incurred rather than to punish the unsuccessful party. Nevertheless, it is trite law that the court may exercise its discretion to give different costs orders on the basis of what it thinks is fair and just. In adjudicating on costs, the court also has to bear in mind that unmerited barriers in the path of recovering reasonably incurred costs might well have the chilling effect of deterring parties, in future, from legitimately pursuing or defending their rights.

.

This decision determined (a) who is entitled to costs; (b) what costs are recoverable ; and (c) who is liable to pay. The appellate court has the power to deal with the costs of all proceedings preceding the appeal (13).

.

From my layman's reading this is what I can glean from the decision..

.

(a) Who is entitled to costs

.

1.The winning party - in this case the appealing minority owners.

2. The non-appealing minority objectors

11. Where a lower court or tribunal has made a decision against two or more parties with overlapping interests and the appeal succeeds on grounds earlier raised by parties who have chosen not to appeal, should the parties who have chosen not to appeal be also awarded their costs below by the appellate court?

.

16. All that need be said for now is that the court’s power to order costs to be paid to parties who have chosen not to appeal must always be judicially exercised. Applications for such orders must also be made timeously to the appropriate appellate court.

.

17 The fact that they did not appeal is not critical because other appellants were able to appeal and succeed before us on precisely the same issues. The fact that they had not accepted the “risk” of paying the costs of an unsuccessful appeal is neither here nor there.

.

18 We are especially mindful that, given the significant costs (and not insignificant irrecoverable out-of-pocket expenses) incurred at every step of these bitterly fought, convoluted and labyrinthine proceedings, it was not unreasonable for some of the objecting subsidiary proprietors to forgo their appellate participation before this court. We cannot lose sight of the fact that the non-appealing parties have (together with the appellants) been literally driven from pillar to post in their arduous efforts to protect their homes. In their submissions to this court, they have cogently explained why they should be entitled to the costs they have incurred in these proceedings[note: 1]:
[W]e were made to defend our homes against an en bloc process actuated by a lack of good faith. We have sacrificed time, effort and money, not for any gain but to maintain the status quo, that is, to keep our homes.

.

All applicants are entitled to one set of costs each as it was not deemed oppressive nor embarrassing or excessive. It was reasonable that each party engage it's own lawyer given the importance of the subject matter at stake - their homes.

.

26 Given the emotional and sentimental attachment that people tend to form to their homes, it was quite understandable that each set of appellants chose counsel they trusted to personally manage their case, rather than simply casting their lot together with all of the other objecting subsidiary proprietors. The appellants have quite reasonably explained that they had indeed aligned themselves with other subsidiary proprietors they were familiar with and on that basis had attempted to engage common counsel where feasible.

.

3. Successful litigants-in person (ie appealing owners without legal representation).

34. ..successful litigants-in-person would generally be awarded “such costs as would reasonably compensate the litigant for the time expended by him, together with all expenses reasonably incurred”.

(b) What costs are recoverable and (c) Who is liable to pay

Costs were not recoverable for the first STB hearing because the defect (3 missing pages) on which the sale was first dismissed had not been part of the objections filed by the objecting minority owners.

1. The Buyer (the intervener) came in for a dressing down and was ordered to share the costs along with the respondents (majority) for the High Court and Appeals as they

37 . ..[the intervener] took the lead in defending the Horizon Board’s decision to make an order for the collective sale. Indeed, although the intervener was not allowed to appear in the Horizon Board proceedings, it was quite apparent that the intervener was directly or indirectly influencing the majority owners in the conduct of those proceedings. Furthermore, it can be fairly said that the intervener by its conduct engendered the continuation of the dispute in the Second Tranche, the High Court proceedings and the present appeals

38 On the other hand, we note that the respondents could well have simply stood their ground and insisted that the collective sale had been aborted instead of meekly acquiescing to the intervener’s attempt to prevail on them through legal means .... They cannot be permitted to shirk all responsibility for their role in this matter and especially the conduct of the proceedings below.

2. The repondents (majority) are to pay for the second STB proceedings alone, the High Court and Appeals along with the Buyer.
In Summary:
.
43 To conclude, our costs orders are as follows:
(a) No order as to the costs for the First Tranche of the Horizon Board Proceedings and OS 1269/2007.

(b) The appellants in CA 119/2008 (represented by HEP) are entitled to, firstly, one set of costs for the Second Tranche of the Horizon Board proceedings, to be taxed for two counsel and borne in full by the respondents; and, secondly, one set of costs for the High Court proceedings and one set of costs for CA 119/2008, each to be taxed on the basis of two counsel and borne equally by the respondents and the intervener. The appellants in CA 119/2008 are not entitled to recover any costs apropos the administrative and constitutional law arguments raised in the Horizon Board proceedings and the High Court proceedings. They are limited to recovering only 60% of the assessed costs of the aforementioned proceedings (see [28] above).

.

(c) The appellants in CA 120/2008 are entitled to, firstly, one set of costs for the Second Tranche of the Horizon Board proceedings, to be taxed on the basis of two counsel and borne fully by the respondents; and, secondly, one set of costs for the High Court proceedings and one set of reasonable compensatory costs for CA 120/2008, each pursuant to O 59 r 18A of the Rules and to be borne equally by the respondents and the intervener. They are limited to recovering only 80% of the assessed costs of the aforementioned proceedings (see [28] above), and the costs of the Second Tranche of the Horizon Board proceedings are to be shared equally with the non-appealing parties (see [28] above and (d) below).

.
(d) The non-appealing parties (ie, Then Khek Koon and Tan Kim Lian Jasmine) are entitled to, firstly, one set of costs for the Second Tranche of the Horizon Board proceedings, to be taxed on the basis of two counsel and borne fully by the respondents; and, secondly, one set of reasonable compensatory costs for the High Court proceedings pursuant to O 59 r 18A, to be borne equally by the respondents and the intervener. They are also limited to recovering only 80% of the assessed costs of the aforementioned proceedings (see [28] above), and the costs of the Second Tranche of the Horizon Board proceedings are to be shared equally with the appellants in CA 120/2008(see [28] above and (c) above).

.
(e) The interest on the deposit money is to be shared by all the subsidiary proprietors and each subsidiary proprietor’s entitlement is to be calculated, based on the share value and strata area of each unit in equal weightage, as illustrated in cl 17.1(a) of the CSA. It is for each individual objecting subsidiary proprietor to decide how he wants to deal with the amount paid over to him.

.

Interesting addition..

The distribution of the interest on the deposit was set out in the CSA under paragraph 17. It stated that the interest be distributed to the majority owners only - after deduction of disbursements accrued for individual units (eg solicitor's aborted legal costs). Clever lawyer to make sure his costs were covered even under an aborted sale...

.

HOWEVER, this clever clause 17 received a knocking form the Court of Appeal. The solicitors who drew up the CSA had confused beneficial rights with contractual rights and the sale committee is not entitled to decide that only the signatories to the CSA are entitled to the interest. They ordered that ALL owners receive their share in accordance withtheir share value.

The majority owners are tied to their contractual agreement to pay disbursements from their share BUT THE OBJECTING MINORITY OWNERS CAN DO WHATEVER THEY LIKE WITH THE MONEY!.

.

TOUCHE!

.

16 July 2009

The Straits Times Newspaper is a bit slow off the mark - the ruling came out a week ago...

Horizon Towers ruling: All owners to get slice of $1.9m pie

Straits Times - 16 July 2009

BOTANIC GARDENS VIEW

Interesting things are happening at Botanic Gardens View...check out their blog here

.

So, when a resident wanted to put forward a resolution at the EGM specially convened for en bloc to remove the indemnity enjoyed by the sales committee - it was blocked by the SC (and presumably the MC as EGM/AGMs are convened by the MC). When he tried to put it forward at the following AGM - it was blocked again (by the pro-enbloc MC).

.

The management council has no power to block a resolution if it has been duly received by the secretary of the management council prior to the Notice of AGM being sent out to all the residents. Indeed, the MC is obliged to include it in accordance with the BMSM Act 2004. The MC can only deny a motion if:

.

Motions out of order

4. At a general meeting of a management corporation or subsidiary management corporation, its chairperson may rule that a motion submitted at the meeting is out of order if he considers that the motion, if carried, would conflict with this Act [BMSM] or the by-laws or would otherwise be unlawful or unenforceable.

.

But if the sale committee also blocks such resolutions then surely that is a huge loophole in the LTSA - it strips owners of all their power to shape an en bloc in accordance to their wishes. Someone is at fault here - and it is both the sales committee and the management council - which are one in the same in this instance

.

Note: The Managing Agent accpeted the proposed resolution so it must have been okay.

.

Indeed, when I sent in my list of questions to be tabled at the EGM in 2007 (in the nick of time, too; they were stuffing envelopes with the Notices at the MA office!), the enbloc lawyer knew better than to block my request. I believe this 'Mr. Lee' at BGV could be in trouble if he were to face the STB over this matter...

.

What is happening in that estate can very well apply to all estates - and the minority fighter in this instance is a retired lawyer - so well worth reading his point of view from a legal stance.

Waterfront View Development Info

The final chapter

So, after 11 months, the final chapter of the failed Tampines Court enbloc has been closed. The objecting minority didn't go for blood; preferring instead to accept an offer to bring matters to an end and simply for all to get on with their lives. We were prepared, though, to bring issue to Court for the full amount had the matter dragged on any longer.

 Summary of Round 1 

JUST FACTS

Tampines Court is an ex-HUDC estate

Tenure: 101 Yrs From 01/12/1985

No. of units: 560

Unit sizes: 1650 - 1720 sqft

Share Value: 4

Privatised 01 April 2002

CSC (Full) 14 March 2003

Site area 6.526 ha (16.126 acres) 702,162 sqft / 65,233m2

Height Restriction: 49 metres AMSL 
Green Buffer: 0.626 ha (1.547 acres) 67,382 sqft

Net Site Area 5.900 ha (14.579 acres) 635,071 sqft

Coverage Area: 24%

No. Of Persons Accm : 560 x 5 = 2800 persons

Density 560 / 5.9 95 units per ha (38 units per acres)

Residential Density 2800 / 5.9 = 475 persons / ha (192 persons per acres)

Gross Floor Area 10.096 ha (24.947 acres) 1,086,724 sqft /111,548.4 m2

Restriction in Title/ Gross Plot Area 10.096 / 5.9 = 1.71
DC Table: Use Group B2, Sector 98

Plot ratio is 2.8 as per Master Plan 2008

Potential Gross floor Area (PGFA) over 2 million sqft / 182,652.4 m2 

2005

Dec - Self-appointment of pro-tem En Bloc Committee

Dec - Informal valuation $389,719,233.00

2006

11 Feb - 1st Dialogue session

25 Feb - 2nd Dialogue session

19 April - Draft CSA and cover letter received by owners

14 May - CSA Dialogue session

05 May - First signing of CSA

15th/20th/21st/ 27th May 2006 - CSA signing

09 July - Dialogue session

15 July - CSA Dialogue session

29 July - Update by pro-tem committee tagged after the AGM

05 Aug - Dialogue Session

12 Aug - Dialogue session
.
NEVER SAW THE SC AGAIN UNTIL AFTER THE SALE>>>

2007

21 January - purported 80% threshold reached

23 January - Press Release:- Sea Breeze apartments sold for $53.8 million
In Tampines, a 22-year-old former HUDC development, Tampines Court, has been put up for collective sale with an indicative value of $527 million, inclusive of development charges and differential premium of about $107 million.
It is marketed by Dennis Wee Group. Investment sales director Jimmy Teng said the 702,458 sq ft site has a plot ratio of 2.8 and a potential gross floor area of at least two million sq ft.
‘The successful developer could build about 1,700 units with an average size of 1,250 sq ft,’ he said, adding that developers also have the option to bid for one of the two subdivided parcels.
Source: The Business Times, 23 January 2007

27 January - Press Release:- Tampines Court up for en bloc sale (Weekend Today)

31 January - Announcement of tender in Straits Times

04 February - 80.00% - Statutory 8 week Notice

12 February - Press release:- Collective sale site in next wave may fetch around $1 billion each 

Over at Tampines Court, marketing agent Dennis Wee and the appointed lawyer for the majority owners, Phang & Co, plan to make the huge, 702,162 sq ft leasehold site more digestible to prospective developers by dividing it into two smaller plots.
Developers will be invited to bid for one or both sites. The award will seek to maximise the overall sale price achieved for the two sites combined.
‘If one party submits the highest bid for one plot and another for the second plot, then both developers will have to jointly agree to buy the entire site as the two halves must be sold together,’ explains SK Phang, principal in the law firm.
After completion of the sale of the site, the developers would then partition the site into the two halves and each developer will become the sole owner of the half he has bid for.
As far as owners of the 560 units in the estate are concerned, their sale proceeds will be the average of their share value in the estate and the floor area of their unit – regardless of which subdivided plot their unit stands on.
Source: The Business Times, 12 February 2007

  

08 March - Close of Tender

25 March - Sold by private treaty

Purchase price: $395,000,000.00 + $10 million Beta Sum = $405 million 

Dev. charge + Dif. Premium = $107 million

$260 psf of potential gross floor area. (pgfa) including developmental charges and differential premium.

*Average gross sale price per unit : ~$705K before adjusting for Alpha sums, deduction of costs and expenses etc
(as stated in property agent letter dated 27 March 2007) 
  

28 March - Press Release:- Tampines Court being sold for $405 million (Business Times)

28 March - Dialogue session

1-April - Dialogue session

21 April - Sale and Purchase presentation

31 March - 80.71% - Statutory 8 week Notice

03 May - Outline Planning Permission (OPP)

25 May - 81.6% - Statutory 8 week Notice

22 June - Upgrading to 99 yrs lease

30 June - Minority Dialogue session

19 July - 81.6% - Statutory 8 week Notice

21 July - EOGM

26 July - RPA in principle date of approval

28 July - AGM

12 Aug -

19, 20 August - Collection of disbursement fee ($781.25) from majority owners

5 September - Appointment of Valuer

12 September - 82.14% - Statutory 8 week Notice

06 November - 82.14% - Statutory 8 week Notice

27 December - Notice of application for Sale in 4 Newspapers

31 December - 82.14% - Statutory 8 week Notice 

2008

TAMPINES COURT CASE: STB 02/2008

07 January - Application for sale to the STB

18-22 January - minority objections filed

29 February - Day 1 minority mediation at the STB . Group of 39 legally represented, plus 4 single objectors with no legal representation.

10 April - Day 2 minority mediation

09 June - Day 3 minority mediation

16,17,18 June - STB Hearing. Group of 32 minority legally represented and 2 independent minority.

19 June - Buyer does not agree to amend the S&P Agreement (Beta Sum)

23 June - Interlocutory Application to Amend Application (in chambers).

Application withdrawn

27 June - Buyer not minded to agree to the extension of time (S&P)

30 June - Interlocutory Application to bring forward the date for the adjourned hearing

02 July - Minority objection to bring date forward

09 July - Arguments for and against presented

10 July - Further arguments added

11 July - Application dismissed by STB

16 July - majority apply to High Court to have the date of hearing brought forward : High Court originating Summons 941 2008/P

18 July - High Court Originating Summons 941 2008/P 
Mir Hassan bin Abdul Rahman and Another v Attorney-General[2008] SGHC 147 
Court allows date to be brought forward
21 July - STB Hearing day 4 and Majority Oral Submission
22 July - Minority Oral Submission
23 July - Written submission
24 July - Extra submissions?
25 July - STB dismissed the sale. Grounds for dismissal: lack of good faith in sale price and method of distribution.25 July midnight- Qualifying Certificate expiration, Sales and purchase agreement expires.
************************
The End of En bloc Round 1

Neptune Court: Privatisation Woes

Neptune showdown

In stark contrast to the serenity of the nearby East Coast Park, a stormy en bloc tussle is brewing at the 752-unit Neptune Court estate — complete with threats of a police report and potential lawsuits.

Some 100 owners who do not want to move have roped in lawyer Edmond Pereira to prevent their interests “from being circumvented”.

Meanwhile, eight members of the original committee — nominated by residents to consider the en bloc sale — have broken away and formed their own pro tem sale committee, in hopes of hastening the process.

A showdown is slated for Sunday, when the breakaway group, which has appointed its own lawyer and property consultant, starts garnering signatures for its Collective Sale Agreement.

Out to stop them are what’s left of the original committee who — having roped in more members, and with the backing of the Neptune Court Owners’ Association — have urged residents not to sign.

At least 600 owners, or 80 per cent of the estate, must agree to sell the 32-year-old development, for the bid to go through.

Representing the “stayers”, resident Philip Williams is also one of the two remaining members of the original committee, which he maintains is the bona fide one.

Prior to the rift, he alleged, proceedings were not transparent. Mr Williams claimed he was “excluded from the meetings”. His attempt to get the committee disbanded failed.

The managing director, who has lived at Neptune Court for 15 years, told Today: “What we want now is to work with the owners’ association and follow the due process in accordance with the resolution, where strict conditions were laid down for residents to vote on the selection of lawyers and property agents.”

The en bloc bid was initiated last year on a cordial note, when residents elected a 10-men committee to study the possibility.

But after an acrimonious year’s impasse, things came to a head last Saturday, when eight committee members quit to form a pro-tem sale committee. The reason: They disagreed with the owners association’s decision to call for another round of proposals from real estate agencies.

The breakaway group explained, in a letter to residents, that they had invited proposals from 12 real estate agencies before deciding on one by law firm Phang & Co and property consultants Chesterton, which they felt was the “most likely” to meet owners’ needs.

The group said: “Timing is important, if not crucial, for this collective sale exercise. Some of us feel the re-invitation is not necessary, given the work that has gone into the due process and diligence by the committee.”

But on Tuesday, the owners’ association shot back with a circular describing the actions of the breakaway group as “most regrettable”.

The association, which is seeking legal advice, said it wants the “assurance that owners have been given a chance to listen to more presentations” before making “a truly informed choice”. It would not accept responsibility the actions of the “self-appointed” committee.

On his part, Mr Williams wants the breakaway group to hand over documents pertaining to the sale — failing which, he said, he would make a police report.

But the group’s lawyer S K Phang, who runs Phang & Co, said they have refused as they “do not know in which capacity” Mr Williams had made the request.

Dr Phang is also seeking legal advice over a flyer distributed by Mr Williams, in which he had purportedly made disparaging remarks. Said the lawyer: “I need to protect my professional reputation and that of my law firm… subject to the advice, I will have to ask the person or persons responsible for the malicious libel to withdraw the same and for an apology.”

He noted that Mr Williams’ earlier failure to dissolve the original sale committee was a sign it had residents’ “strong support”. According to Dr Phang, the breakaway group has conducted three dialogue sessions attended by some 600 residents.

Source: Today, 10 May 2007

Neptune Court's en bloc dilemma

WANT to privatise?
Sure, pay us $144 million first, said the Ministry of Finance (MOF).

That’s how much it has valued the piece of land at Neptune Court, which it owns.

This means each household there will have to fork out about $191,000 to privatise their 99-year-leasehold estate before they can even think about selling it en bloc.

There are about 752 households in Neptune Court at Marine Parade and they have been leasing the land from the MOF for the past 32 years.

It looks like their proposed $1 billion enbloc dream will be scuttled for now.

As a rough comparison, residents in HUDC estate Eunosville will have to pay about $30,000 for the privatisation of their estate.

There are 330 apartments in Eunosville, located opposite Eunos MRT station.

At Neptune Court yesterday, there was an air of disbelief as groups of residents gathered to discuss the high price they have to pay.

A letter from the Neptune Court Owners’ Association was pasted on the notice boards by each lift landing, saying that the estimated cost of privatisation was about $144m.

This is probably one of the highest privatisation fees here.

The letter was put up on Wednesday.

Retiree Alex Lee shook his head while trying to calculate how much he has to fork out.

He paid about $500,000 for his 1,700 sq ft unit about 10 years ago.

Another resident, who has lived there for over 30 years, was also shocked at the amount.
This resident, who declined to be named, paid about $50,000 for his 1,600 sq ft unit.

He said: ‘I nearly fell out of my chair when I saw the amount. I don’t understand how they (MOF) arrived at this amount.

WHO WILL PAY?
‘Who’s going to cough up this money? It’s very high. And even if the privatisation is successful, will the en bloc process be successful too?

‘I don’t think many residents here in their right mind will pay this amount. But I’m sure those en bloc die-hards will find a solution.’

The land area there is about 780,000 sq ft - about the size of 15 football fields.

All the residents we spoke to baulked at the amount MOF is asking for.

The Neptune Court Owners’ Association didn’t want to comment.

The MOF said that $144m for the common properties is a preliminary estimate provided to the residents so that they may decide whether or not to pursue privatisation.

This estimate was derived by comparing the capitalised value of the annual net rents at Neptune Court with those of a comparable private condo.

Said a MOF spokesman: ‘Should the residents decide to privatise the estate, the valuation will be updated based on the prevailing market conditions.’

In privatisation, the residents essentially pay HDB (or the MOF in this case) to take over the ownership of common property, such as carparks and landscaped areas.

Owners pay about $25,000 to $30,000 each for privatisation, which covers the cost of common property that has been transferred to owners, legal costs, survey and other processing fees.

Credo Real Estate’s managing director Karamjit Singh was surprised by the huge sum.

He said: ‘Normally, privatisation fees per household ranges from $12,000 to $30,000. This is a huge amount. It will be difficult to get residents to fork out $190,000.

‘Selling en bloc is slim but not impossible. It will be possible if the Government is willing to do a tripartite deal where it gets paid out of the sales proceeds paid by the developer.’

The estate started its en bloc efforts in May last year.

The committee hired law firm Phang & Co and property consultant Chesterton International to kickstart the privatisation and en bloc sale, according to a report in The Straits Times in May.

It offered owners a sale agreement that promised a reserve price of $1.37m or $1.67m, depending on the unit size. 
The New Paper - 24 Nov 2007

Privatise Neptune Court? - pay $144m
Straits Times- 2 Dec 2007
.
Neptune Court privatisation surprise
The New Paper - 8 June 2009
.

So, was the Ministry of Finance playing the en bloc game too? Trying to fleece owners out of substantial sums of money? If the present figure of $40m is closer to the market value, what then was $144m based upon? Pure greed? What was the thinking back then? That the Ministry should reap some of the 'windfall' should the estate go en bloc? "let's slap on our own premium and ride the en bloc wave"?

.

Well, someone in the Ministry must have had a rethink - or maybe the Ministry of National Development stepped in and told the MOF to let the estate go; that the national agenda of maximisation of land use is more important than making a quick buck off the residents' backs.

.

Will they jump at the 'opportunity' to privatise now? $50k is still a lot of money and believe me - IT IS NOT WORTH IT!

.

Neptune Court was sold under a different scheme to the HUDCs - not sure what the difference was - and there is a Neptune Court Owners Association (NCOA). So, it is not HDB run (as highlighted by a comment below), but the land is government owned.