SC Meeting: 26 Feb 2011

SC Minutes 1

The Chairman and Vice-Chairman are old owners; the former is in 'Finance' and the latter a Banker. I do not know anything about the Chairman, but the Vice-Chairman is a  good guy. A former majority owner who was very unhappy with the way round 1 was conducted.

The Secretary is a new owner (bought July 2010)/property agent tasked with inviting marketing agents and solicitors to the ball.  At the EGM, she owned up to owning a HDB and having served on a sales committee before. I believe the estate she mentioned was Glenville which went en bloc in Oct 2010 for $39.5m.
Personally, I would have preferred if the position of Secretary had gone to someone, well, less professionally connected....

I note the two law firms associated with the ex-minority are included in the list of invitees:). 

I do wish they would set up a proper system for SC-Owner feedback. Not only should owners be able to give feedback, they must also be able to view other owners' feedback as well. In other words, the old system of 'writing in' is dead and should be replaced with the internet. It offers a more transparent and open communication channel and owners will not feel isolated and alone in their thoughts/ complaints/suggestions/questions.

The management office/agent is not there to handle SC matters and cannot be involved in the collective sale bar holding the EGMs.

Note to the Secretary:
There are 6 high rise and 8 low rise blocks in the estate.
The low rise blocks have 2 staircases so you will need to print and post 22 Notices in all. Don't miss out on half the low rise staircases, please.

Competition for quality land sites expected to heat up

March 22, 2011

It’s all about location for property developers who are on the lookout for quality land parcels.

Recent land tenders of government land sites close to MRT stations or regional centres have seen bids as high as S$550 million or S$869 per sq ft per plot ratio.

Market watchers say competition among developers for such sites will heat up, now that developers are churning out projects at a much faster rate.

Patience wearing thin

The EGM for the constitution of the Sale Committee was held on 29 Jan 2011.

We were promised transcripts of the first EGM by the managing agent both at the meeting proper and by way of letter - but none has appeared. We haven't even seen the regular minutes  which should have been put up by the first of March.

$950,000 for TC unit

DC RATES MAR 2011

With regard to TC (Group B2, Sector 98):

Property Agents identification

All property agents will have to display their Estate Agent Card prominently when carrying out estate agency work from March 1 this year.

ST Letter : No benefit from collective sales

ST Letter : No benefit from collective sales

20 Feb 2011,

I refer to the special report on the experiences of former Gillman Heights residents ('For better or for worse'; Feb6).

The five residents interviewed have all suffered financial or emotional losses from the collective sale of their homes.

As a resident from a condominium unit about to vote on such a sale, I too have been told by the agents trying to sell my condo that I will have to downgrade from my 1,700 sq ft apartment to a 1,300sq ft one if I wish to buy a new property.

My current apartment has three bedrooms plus a maid's room. I will have to downsize to a two-bedroom unit (with no maid's room) or buy an HDB flat - and still be out of pocket after the sale. If I wish to buy a new apartment in the area, I will have to pay about $1million more than what I am selling for.

Whom does a collective sale benefit? Would it not be better to upgrade our existing apartments (I am told it would be about $30,000 per resident) rather than move?

The economics simply do not make sense - and many residents realise this only too late.

If a collective sale pays 30per cent above the market rate, which is the current rule of thumb for developers, it would be better to be prudent and hold off the sale, or face a loss.

In fact, I have friends from Gillman Heights who were out of pocket by more than half a million dollars when they had to move to a similar location. The market continued to move up in the two years before they got their money - as is the case for practically every collective sale I know of.

Harry Tham

ST Letters : En bloc issue raises many questions

20 Feb 2011,

I felt sad on reading the special report on those who sold their apartments en bloc ('For better or for worse'; Feb6).

As expected, there were positive and negative stories. This is to be expected in any collective sale, when not all agree to the deal.

Nevertheless, the issue again raises many questions. For example:

· What is a home? To some, it is not just a house but a place where one can put down roots and bond with one's neighbours, or where one was brought up.

· Does money matter so much that financial gains become more important than everything else?

· Does the right of those who support the sales rank higher than the right of those who do not want to make the change? Should an 80per cent level of consent be the deciding figure? Should it be 100per cent?

· Is Singapore so land-scarce that we need so many collective sales?

· Do such sales improve the quality of life in Singapore?

· Government-built HUDC housing allows people to have a good home at an affordable price. Why do we allow this to be taken away from some people?

My view is that collective sales have created part of the liquidity problem as well as the housing problem here.

People should have the right to remain in their homes until the buildings are no longer suitable to live in.

Ang Miah Boon

First EGM and SALE COMMITTEE

Date: 29 Jan 2011

QUORUM: 47% at 2.30pm :

Meeting opened.

Resolution 1: to consider and approve a collective sale of Tampines Court

YES: 956 by share value (239 units)

NO:  156 by share value (39 units)

Motion was passed

(Total number of units in TC: 560)

Nomination of sale committee members. Quite a number put their names forward and so it was decided that each candidate should take the floor for 5 minutes to introduce themselves and take questions from owners.

Now obviously I cannot name names on this blog, so in completely random order, here is what I gleaned.  Now, I do not take good notes on the hoof - so I WILL AMEND if need be later on.

Opinion

There were strong objections from the floor about a SP questioning candidates about the nature and extent of their ownership in the estate and elsewhere.  People seemed to think we should be more trusting of these total strangers who would be attempting to sell each and every unit in the estate. Obviously they have never read our Minister of Law's speech at the Second reading of the LTSA amendment Bill 2010. All the candidates answered when asked save one who refused - which raises suspicions in my ever suspicious mind.  A would-be SC member showing scant regard to the rules or worse, doesn't  know the rules.

But the questioning continued anyway and I wish now, it had been even more probing. 

Having 4 property agents on the committee is 3 too many.  I have no objection whatsoever to our own long-time resident property agent (L). But the rest! Just look at their form - one of them I can only describe as a battle-axe!! This is NOT good for Tampines Court. They might dominate the sale committee. I hope the other sale committee members can compete and hopefully not give them the chairmanship.

6 out of the 12 are new owners and to me that spells trouble - I am banking on the bankers  and financial guy to do the math, the businessmen to bring in know-how,  the 6  real TC owners who have been through round 1 to inject some wisdom. A lot rides on these real TC owners.

I despair at the lack of other professionals such as engineers, architects, lawyers. This is not a well balanced committee. 

But so be it.

The floor were never told if any of the candidates were undischarged bankrupts or in arrears to the MCST - because the managing agent did not ask them to declare.  It was done only after the meeting had ended and everyone had gone home  and only because this blogger complained about the omission.

The disclosures of units owned fully or jointly should have been made voluntarily  a as well as the nature and extent of associates' ownership in the estate - indeed, it is a requirement of the candidates to do so in the LTSA (new rules) - and not left to a sole owner working against the crowd to pry out such details. One grumpy old man even came up to me after the meeting and told me I was a troublemaker! 

The managing agent did not apply the rules properly nor the penalties for non-disclosure. 

No powers were given to the sale committee because well, there was no resolution to do so.  The 'Power, Duties or Functions' portion of the motion was deemed irrelevant by the managing agent, who took it upon himself to rewrite the rules. The sale committee has therefore been sent on it's merry way without any direction from the owners. Whatever they instruct the lawyers to write in the CSA will be all their own invention. Owners will be tasked to catch the horse after it has bolted at the CSA EOGM. 

By then, perhaps the other half of Tampines Court will wake up and ATTEND! 

A word to any SC member who might read this blog - READ MORE WIDELY . Also remember, you have not been appointed to represent the pro-enbloc / consenting owners only.

Feb 15, 2011

En bloc interest: Law requires conflict of interest declaration

MS GRACE Francis suggested that those interested in running for office in an estate declare non-conflict of interest ("En bloc roadblocks"; last Thursday).

With the amendments to the Land Titles (Strata) Act in 2010, candidates standing for election to the collective sale committee (CSC) and any existing CSC members are required to declare any conflict of interest. This includes any direct or indirect interest in entities such as property developer and property consultant, and the extent of ownership they or persons connected to them (such as immediate family members) have in the strata development.

Ms Francis also commented that there are pro-en bloc residents who join the estate's management corporation (MC) council and oppose attempts to improve the estate.

Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, the MC council is duty-bound to ensure that the estate is well-maintained and kept in a state of good and serviceable repair.

Should the MC council fail to perform its duties, subsidiary proprietors/owners can seek redress through the Strata Titles Boards or the court to compel the MC council to perform its duties.

Chong Wan Yieng (Ms)
Director
Corporate Communications Division
Ministry of Law

Bayshore Park condo owners in defamation suit

EGM 1

SUMMARY

Pro-Owner Inititive: 1-for-1 EXCHANGE

It is time for owners to cover their bases. I never tire of repeating what our dear Minister of Law said about owner control:

 "Owners have the ultimate say.  They can ask for what they think is necessary, for the process, or for them to participate in the process."


There is no good reason why owners can not be given 2 options of payment.

1) Cash

2) 1-for-1 exchange

The signatories to the sale  can make their choice on signing the CSA, and those not for the sale can make the choice when they are being forced out of their homes. Remember it is wise to hedge you bets in the event that the eventual sales proceeds are not sufficient to get a decent sized replacement home or from a sale turned sour by the actions or  inaction of a sale committee.


Expect those who are wishing for a quick sale and a quick profit on their 'investment'  to fight this tooth and nail.  They will be HIGHLY vocal in their objections but stick by your guns because you are an owner, perhaps a long time owner,  and have a right to ask for what you think is necessary. Even if you have no intention of choosing this option for yourself, do not deny the opportunity to those who would. We are neighbours after all - some of us have been neighbours for 26 years. For goodness sake, have a heart.


From the Horizon Towers Appellate Court decision:


107      As the SC is the agent of the subsidiary proprietors collectively, there is no point at which the SC may act solely in the interests of any group of subsidiary proprietors, whether they are consenting or objecting proprietors. When an SC is first appointed, it is with a view to achieving a collective sale for the benefit of all the subsidiary proprietors. At this stage, the interests of the subsidiary proprietors are not yet clearly differentiated. Thus, the SC’s initial paramount responsibility is simply to obtain the requisite consent for the collective sale as well as appoint competent professional advisers. The SC’s members and advisers also have the duty to avoid any possible conflict of interest (see [137]–[145] below). However, once the requisite consent is obtained and the interests of the objecting subsidiary proprietors become distinguishable from those of the consenting subsidiary proprietors, the SC’s role becomes that of an impartial agent acting for both camps. In other words, the SC must hold an even hand between these interests.


New-for-old swops may feature more in collective sales  

Deals where owners get new units in redeveloped property may be a way out for projects having trouble getting 80% approval

Collective sales may be hot but when homeowners are not tempted by the cash, a ‘fair exchange’ might be the way to get around the deadlock.

Hold-outs have stalled the sale process at quite a few estates – particularly prime ones – in recent months. The reluctance stems from the fear that the sale proceeds will be insufficient for a new unit of similar size in the same area, particularly given the rising market.

Typically, a collective sale for an estate more than 10 years old can proceed only if 80 per cent or more of the owners agree to it.

More cash might do the trick but another way is for the owners to do a swop – they get a new unit in the redeveloped property instead of money for their existing one, says lawyer SK Phang of Phang & Co.

So far, such ‘exchange’ deals have been few and far between, with some property consultants and developers calling them complicated and cumbersome.

But Dr Phang believes that more homeowners – particularly those in projects having trouble getting 80 per cent approval – are likely to consider it.

It could be a full exchange for all the owners or a hybrid deal, where some owners opt to sell for cash while the rest pick a unit swop.

This would allow investors to cash in at the collective sale price while owner-occupiers could move back into the redeveloped property, instead of relocating to a less ideal area, said Dr Phang.

In a hybrid deal, the cash offer would be worked out based on the assumption that the entire estate is to be sold for cash.

Last year, Dr Phang helped all 20 owners of Paterson Lodge in the Orchard Road area work out an exchange deal. He is now working on two similar projects.

The benefits to the developers are clear. They will enjoy reduced risks as they would have ‘pre-sold’ some of the units in their new project. The overall cost of the land will be less and so they will have less cash outlay.

Smaller developers, particularly contractor-developers which may not have access to vast amounts of cash, are likely to be more open to the idea, consultants said.

But while developers may save on costs, their potential return may also be less, said
Mr Lui Seng Fatt, the regional director and head of investments at Jones Lang LaSalle. The key would be whether the site is in a choice location. ‘Otherwise, they will just pay cash. It’s more clean cut,’ he added.

DTZ Debenham Tie Leung’s director, Ms Tang Wei Leng, said of exchange deals: ‘There are a lot of uncertainties in terms of the time line; a lot of administrative hassles.’

Those keen on a swop deal are likely to be from estates where a conventional collective sale is not possible due to the large number of homeowners facing a loss, said Mr Lui.

‘In a swop deal, you get a promise to own something yet to be built or even approved by the authorities,’ said Credo Real Estate (Singapore)’s managing director, Mr Karamjit Singh. ‘It’s possible but there are hurdles. Owners have to be prepared for more steps.’

One such step is that when an owner delivers the apartment title to the developer, it has to be free of encumbrances, he said.

Homeowners typically have loans but this hitch could be resolved with the developer’s help. Dr Phang cited a case where the developer provided a corporate guarantee to the bank to take over the encumbrances.

Owners will also have to find a place to live during the 18 months or more during construction of the new development, but they may be able to negotiate a rent subsidy with the developer, said Dr Phang.

Ms Tang also pointed to the ‘risk of the developer not completing the project, or not completing it on time or according to specifications’.

In the case of Paterson Lodge, the owners will transfer their estate’s land to the developer only when the project is completed and they have received titles to their new homes.
A performance bond will solve these problem, said Dr Phang.

For exchange deals, there will be an extra round of negotiations on the ‘replacement’ units, consultants said. And this is what some developers are wary of.

‘It seems troublesome because you have to consider which unit on which floor or size to give to the owners,’ said one developer. ‘Documents have to be drafted watertight. I could put in a clause saying that we will just give a unit of a certain size, for example.’

Dealing with many owners is the tricky part, said another developer.

The major challenge is the acceptance of the market to the idea, said Dr Phang.

‘In a dynamic market, with rising replacement costs, swop deals will become more popular,’ said Mr Singh.

Source : Sunday Times – 25 Feb 2007

Also, an excellent take from The Pariah -  HERE

Gillman Heights 2yrs on

Gillman Heights were saddled with two problems; a poor sale committee and the National University of Singapore owning a good percentage of the estate. I find it obscene that the Chairman is sitting pretty in a landed estate while many of the owners downgraded - some all the way down to HDB again.

I met the objecting minority at their STB hearings and High Court hearings; they were a fine group of people and were devastated by their loss.

The unlocking potential went 100% to the developer. If they had kept their units - they would probably have an open market value now of $1.5 million or more.

Instead, many owners have lost the equity they had built up over the years, were forced to downgrade into smaller, less valuable homes, probably with a smaller strata area and a reduced share value as estates are more dense nowadays.

This would be particularly damaging to those in the 50-60 yr old age group. Too old to build up a new nest egg, too young to retire. Hanging on to GH would have been a better option for them.

This could have been avoided had there been a 1-for-1 EXCHANGE built into the CSA. Owners would have been protected against a bumbling SC / en bloc raiders/   small-minded people /greedy Developers and other professionals in the field.

A 1-for-1 exchange is an owners safety net should things turn out for the worse.

Amber Glades put up for collective sale

Amber Glades in Marine Parade has been put up for collective sale.
The condominium currently occupies a freehold residential site on Amber Gardens.
The site comprises two blocks housing 63 units, with a land area of over 40,000 square feet.
The indicative price is about S$120 million.
This works out to about slightly under S$1,100 per square foot per plot ratio.
This is comparable to the recent sale of Marine Point, which was sealed at SS$1,056 per sq ft per plot ratio.
Each owner could receive between S$1.34 million and S$2.24 million from the collective sale, depending on the size of their unit.
The successful buyer can re-develop the site to accommodate a 22-storey residential block.
This could comprise modern condominium facilities, comprising 100 apartments with an average size of 1,050 sq ft each.
Under the 2008 Master Plan, the subject site is zoned for “Residential” use with a gross plot ratio of 2.8.
The tender will close on March 2, 2011.
Tang Wei Leng, Executive Director of Investment Services at Colliers International, said, “Amber Glades is perhaps one of the last few freehold sites in the Amber area suitable for a mid-sized development.”
She added that “it is in a well sought after residential address in District 15″ and coupled with “its regular shape and dual road frontages, this site would appeal to niche developers who are familiar with the area or developers who are looking to replenish their land banks.”
Source : Channel NewsAsia – 8 Feb 2011

WHEN ESTATE UPGRADING IS THWARTED BY... En bloc roadblocks 

IN RECALLING the en bloc saga of Gillman Heights, the chairman of its sales committee stated that the condominium had to be sold en bloc because it was old and falling into disrepair ('No regrets, despite dear memories of Gillman'; Sunday).


This is a view commonly held among pro-en bloc residents, and it should be addressed. If an estate is old, it can be upgraded using the sinking fund, or through a special one-time contribution by residents. Such upgrading is far cheaper than the potential loss for owners from a collective sale.


As many former Gillman Heights residents quoted in the special report ('For better or for worse'; Sunday) ended up paying more for their new homes - some in the hundreds of thousands of dollars - those who live in old estates worth preserving should learn from such experiences.


There are pro-en bloc residents who often obstruct the improvement of an estate because they wish to profit from an en bloc sale. They prefer to see the estate fall into disrepair so they can cite the high costs of replacing old pipes, water tanks, old tiles and lobby areas subsequently. Such en bloc proponents join management councils and oppose attempts to improve the estate.


While many may argue that the decision on such an issue is best left to subsidiary proprietors, the reality is that few are keen on running for office in any estate, and fewer still are willing to argue with loud neighbours who harbour an agenda.


So, this issue must be solved by a built-in safeguard, which should require residents who wish to run for office to declare that there is no conflict of interest. There should be an automatic opt-out clause for those who harbour an interest in organising an en bloc sale.
There must be a law spelling out a conflict of interest to prevent residents who intend to lobby for an en bloc sale from sitting on a management council or any other official body of the estate that may influence the en bloc process.


A management council, by definition, must work towards the good of preserving, repairing and enhancing the estate and if this is so, pro-en bloc residents should be ineligible for office. 

Grace Francis (Ms)

Bizarre Arguments

Here is a comment that warrants it's own special post - as a prime example of how people can come up with the most irrational and bizarre arguments to try and put TC in a bad light. Never mind that such argument can be applied to every single estate in the country - and not just uniquely to TC - it's the fact that he can even SUGGEST such ridiculous scenarios to begin with!

REGENT COURT

Regent Court put up for sale

Regent Court, a freehold residential property at 1091 Serangoon Road, has been put up for sale by tender.
The property has a combined land area of 38,857 square feet and is zoned for high rise residential development of up to 36 storeys.
It has a plot ratio of 2.8, which allows a maximum gross floor area of 108,800 square feet.
No development charge is payable.
According to its marketing agent Cushman & Wakefield, the land can allow the new developer to build some 200 apartment units with average sizes of 500 square feet.
The property is worth in access of S$83 million, translating to a minimum price of S$763 per square foot per plot ratio.
The minimum break even project cost works out to be about S$1,200 psf, said Cushman & Wakefield.
Donald Han, vice chairman of Cushman & Wakefiled said “the Serangoon area has been recognised as a strategic suburban residential area”.
This is due to its proximity to the city centre, as well as HDB upgraders’ interest to own and occupy condominiums.
The area also has potential to become a choice residential cluster, due to its relatively central location and its closeness to the new Nex shopping mall.
Cushman & Wakefield said the connectivity of the Serangoon area will be improved with the completion of the circle line and the Upper Serangoon PIE viaduct.
The tender exercise for Regent Court is expected to close on February 28, 2011.

Source : Channel NewsAsia – 20 Jan 2011

SELLERS STAMP DUTY CHANGE

14 Jan 2011

CHANGES TO SELLERS STAMP DUTY

1 The Government announced today the following measures to maintain a stable and sustainable property market:

• a. Increase the holding period for imposition of Seller’s Stamp Duty (SSD) from the current three years to four years

• b. Raise the SSD rates to 16%, 12%, 8% and 4% of consideration for residential properties which are bought on or after 14 January 2011, and are sold in the first, second, third and fourth year of purchase respectively;

• c. Lower the Loan-To-Value (LTV) limit to 50% on housing loans granted by financial institutions regulated by MAS for property purchasers who are not individuals1; and

• d. Lower the LTV limit on housing loans granted by financial institutions regulated by MAS from 70% to 60% for property purchasers who are individuals with one or more outstanding housing loans2 at the time of the new housing purchase;The measures will take effect on 14 January 2011.

2 The Government’s objective is to ensure a stable and sustainable property market where prices move in line with economic fundamentals. Previous Government measures have to some extent moderated the market, but sentiments remain buoyant. Low interest rates plus excessive liquidity in the financial system, both in Singapore and globally, could cause prices to rise beyond sustainable levels based on economic fundamentals. Moreover, when interest rates eventually rise, it could strain purchasers who have overextended themselves financially. Therefore, the Government has decided to introduce additional targeted measures to cool the property market and encourage greater financial prudence among property purchasers.

Extending the Holding Period for Imposition of Seller’s Stamp Duty (SSD) on Residential Properties from 3 Years to 4 Years & Raising the SSD Rates

3 Currently, for residential properties bought on or after 30 August 2010, SSD3 is imposed on the sale of such properties within three years of purchase. This followed the introduction of SSD for residential properties bought on or after 20 February 2010.

4 The SSD rates will be increased sharply from 14 January 2011, so as to provide a strong disincentive for investors looking to make short term gains. The holding period for imposition of SSD will also be extended from the current three years to four years. The impact of the SSD is especially significant as it is payable regardless whether the property is eventually sold at a gain or loss.

5 Specifically, for residential properties bought on or after 14 January 2011, the SSD rates to be levied on the full consideration will be increased5 to as follows:

• a. SSD at 16% (higher than up to 3% currently), if the property is sold in the first year of purchase, i.e. the property is held for 1 year or less from its purchase date.

• b. SSD at 12% (higher than up to 2% currently), if the property is sold in the second year of purchase, i.e. the property is held for more than 1 year and up to 2 years.

• c. SSD at 8% (higher than up to 1% currently), if the property is sold in the third year of purchase, i.e. the property is held for more than 2 years and up to 3 years.

• d. SSD at 4% (no SSD currently), if the property is sold in the fourth year of purchase, i.e. the property is held for more than 3 years and up to 4 years.Please see Annex for examples of how the SSD will be computed.

6 The extended SSD will not affect HDB lessees as the required Minimum Occupation Period for HDB flats is 5 years.

7 IRAS will be releasing an updated e-tax guide on the circumstances under which SSD will apply and the procedures for paying SSD6. The e-tax guide will be available at www.iras.gov.sg. Taxpayers with enquiries may call IRAS at 6351 3697 or 6351 3698.

Lower the Loan-To-Value (LTV) Limit to 50% on housing loans granted by financial institutions regulated by MAS for residential property purchasers who are not individuals

8 With effect from 14 January 20117, an LTV limit of 50% will apply to all residential property purchasers who are not individuals. This includes corporations, trusts and collective investment schemes, among others. The 50% LTV limit for housing loans will also apply to joint property purchases by an individual and a purchaser who is not an individual.

Lower the LTV limit on housing loans granted by financial institutions regulated by MAS from the current 70% to 60% for residential property purchasers who are individuals with one or more outstanding housing loans at the time of the new housing purchase

9 The LTV limit is lowered from 70% to 60% with effect from 14 January 20118 for borrowers who are individuals and have one or more outstanding housing loans (whether from HDB or a financial institution regulated by MAS) at the time of applying for a housing loan for the new property purchase.

10 However, borrowers who can show evidence that they have sold their existing properties will not be subject to the lower LTV limit when they buy a new property. Where the existing property is a private property, he can show a signed Sale & Purchase (S&P) agreement with the IRAS certificate showing that stamp duty has been paid on it. Where the existing property is a HDB flat, he can show HDB’s approval letter to sell the flat, that HDB will issue within 2 weeks of the First Appointment. These borrowers will still be able to borrow at an 80% LTV from financial institutions.

11 Borrowers without any outstanding housing loans continue to have a LTV cap of 80%.

12 These rules apply to housing loans granted by financial institutions for private residential properties, Executive Condominiums, HUDC flats and HDB flats (including DBSS flats).

13 Loans granted by HDB for HDB flats (including DBSS flats) will still have a LTV cap of 90%. HDB loans are offered to eligible Singapore citizens buying their first homes or right-sizing their flats  to meet their housing needs. HDB loan applicants are required to utilise all the balance in their CPF Ordinary Account before HDB loans will be granted. 

Furthermore, those taking a second concessionary HDB loan must use the CPF refund and 50% of the cash proceeds from the sale of their previous flat before they are granted an HDB loan. This is to ensure that eligible buyers, especially first-time buyers, purchase public housing in a financially prudent manner.

Adequate Supply in the Pipeline

14 There is an ample supply of private residential units and buyers need not rush to buy now. The Government will continue to ensure an adequate supply of housing to meet demand.

15 The annual average take-up9 of private residential units between 2007 and 2010 is about 12,700 units. Thus far, the sites awarded under the Government Land Sales (GLS) Programme in 2010 will already yield about 13,300 units. In the GLS Programme for the first half of 2011, we will make available sites that can yield about 14,300 private housing units, of which about 8,100 units will be from sites on the Confirmed List.

16 As at 3Q2010, there were about 64,400 uncompleted units of private housing from projects in the pipeline10. Of these, about 33,800 units were still unsold. This is equivalent to about 3 years of supply based on the average annual take-up over the last 4 years. The 33,800 unsold units in the pipeline comprised 3,300 units that had been launched for sale by developers and 11,400 units which had the pre-requisite conditions for sale11 and could be launched for sale immediately. The remaining 19,100 units with planning approvals did not have the pre-requisite conditions for sale but these could be obtained quickly from the Government12. The Government will also make available more supply in future GLS programmes. Buyers should bear in mind this supply in the pipeline when deciding whether to buy now.

17 The Government will continue to monitor the property market closely and take further steps to promote a stable and sustainable property market if necessary.

*****

¹ “Purchasers who are not individuals” refer to purchasers who are not natural persons.  These include but are not limited to corporations, trusts and collective investment schemes.

² Financial institutions are required to conduct checks with HDB and with one or more credit bureaus on whether the purchaser has an outstanding housing loan at the time of applying for a housing loan for the property purchase. For joint purchasers, if either purchaser has an outstanding housing loan, the joint purchasers will be considered as having an outstanding housing loan.

³ The SSD will apply to the transfer or disposal of interest (including sale and gifts) of residential lands and residential units (whether completed or uncompleted).

⁴ The date of purchase for computation of the holding period for SSD shall be the date when a buyer (i.e. Buyer A) exercises the option to purchase the property, or signs the sale and purchase agreement, whichever is earlier. The date of sale of the property shall be the date when the subsequent buyer (i.e. Buyer B) exercises the option to purchase the property from Buyer A, or signs the sale and purchase agreement, whichever is earlier.

⁵ Currently, the SSD rates are levied at the same rate as buyer’s stamp duty, i.e. 1% for the first $180,000, 2% for the next $180,000 and 3% on the balance. The SSD rates are tiered according to the duration of the holding period, i.e. the seller pays the full SSD rate if the residential property is sold in the first year of purchase; 2/3 the full SSD rate if the sale is in the second year; 1/3 the full SSD rate if in the third year.

⁶ SSD is to be paid within 14 days of the execution of the Agreement (i.e. exercise of Option or signing of Agreement). If the Agreement is executed overseas, upon receipt of the Agreement in Singapore, the SSD must be paid within 30 days.

⁷ The 50% LTV limit will apply to transactions where the date on which the option to purchase (OTP) was granted falls on or after 14 January 2011; or if there is no OTP, where the date of the Sale & Purchase agreement falls on or after 14 January 2011.

⁸ The 60% LTV limit will apply to transactions where the date on which the option to purchase (OTP) was granted falls on or after 14 January 2011; or if there is no OTP, where the date of the Sale & Purchase agreement falls on or after 14 January 2011.

⁹ Take-up refers to the number of private residential units, including Executive Condominium (EC) units, sold by developers.

¹⁰ These refer to new development and redevelopment projects with planning approvals, i.e. either a Provisional Permission (PP) or Written Permission (WP).

¹¹ These refer to private residential developments with Housing Developer Licence and Building Plan Approval. Under the Housing Developer (Control and Licensing) Act, a sale licence must be obtained for a project with more than 4 units, if the developer intends to sell uncompleted residential units in the development. However, the sale of the residential units can only commence with the approval of the building plans of the development.

¹² These refer to uncompleted private residential developments without pre-requisites for sale but with WP or PP granted. The sale licences could be obtained within 5 working days and building plan  approvals could be obtained within 7 working days from the date of application for cases where clearances from various technical agencies are obtained and relevant documents are in order during formal submissions.

Issued by: Ministry of National Development, Ministry of Finance and Monetary Authority of Singapore
Date: 13 January 2011

According to the FOURTH SCHEDULE the deductions allowable for the determination of financial loss are:

1. Stamp duty paid on the purchase of the lot or flat. 

2. Legal fees paid in relation to the purchase of the lot or flat. 

3. Costs related to the privatisation of any designated land as defined in section 126A.
4. Costs incurred pursuant to the collective sale which are to be shared by all subsidiary proprietors or proprietors as provided under the collective sale agreement.

Do you need to pay sellers stamp duty?
See FAQ from the IRAS website:  here

5.  How do I know if the seller is liable to pay SSD?

If the seller has bought the residential property on or after 20 February 2010 and sold it within a short duration of up to 4 years from the date of purchase, there is a chance that he may have to pay SSD.  In the process of conveyancing, your lawyer may check with the seller's lawyer or make a search on the property to ascertain the date of purchase by the seller.  Whether the seller is liable for SSD and the amount of SSD payable would depend on the date of purchase and the date of sale. 

EOGM No.1 2011

We have all received the NOTICE for the EOGM to be held at the Primary School opposite at 2pm on 29th January 2011 for purpose of a collective sale of Tampines Court.

It appears an important chink of the Second Schedule has not been reproduced  in the Notice.

In the Second Schedule proper  - but missing in the 'Explanatory notes to Notice of Extra-ordinary general meeting' - under Notice of general meetings, it states:-

(3) No motion shall be submitted at a general meeting unless -

(a) notice of the motion has been given in accordance with this paragraph; or

(b) the motion is a motion to amend a motion of which notice has been so given.

This right given to owners to stand up at meetings and propose 'a motion to amend a motion' cannot be denied! It is not a widely known power amongst owners and not including it in the explanatory notes is reprehensible. If you think the motions are rubbish - stand up and amend them!

In the Second Schedule it also states:-
(4) A motion for the constitution of a collective sale committee and its powers, duties or functions shall be decided by ordinary resolution passed at a general meeting.

Yet, in the AGENDA for the meeting there is only one resolution:

2.1 To consider and if approved, to resolve by way of ordinary resolution that a collective sale be considered for MCST 2644 - Tampines Court; and if so to appoint a collective sales committee.

What about the equally important powers, duties or functions? When will they be decided?
Why is there only half a statutory motion??

The recent amendments to the LTSA 2010, the speeches made in Parliament by our Minister of Law Mr Shanmugam, and the Supreme Court itself have all made it very clear that owners had the power to conduct the sale in the manner they see fit.
Resolutions 3,4,5 on the requisition form are absent from the Agenda.  Is the requisition still valid?

REQUISITION FORM
Dated 29 November 2010 - lists out 5 hopeful resolutions - none of which actually made it onto the Agenda.

The list of requisitionists is very interesting. I have found that a full 41 out of the 117 owners are new owners. In other words 35% of the requisitionists have all bought their units in 2009 and 2010 (bar 1 in 2008, straight after the failed en bloc). One bought 2 units and requisitioned twice. Most of the old sale committee and their backers  are there - but not the ex-chairman. I note one ex- 'conditional signer' who signed for more than the RP in round 1 but was subsequently dropped after the sale. There are 6 ex-minority owners including one ex-minority objector on the list. There are plenty of irregularities in the list  in the Notice - I expect the MC to step in and exercise due diligence in the matter and put right any mistake the MA may have made.

UPDATE 25 Jan 2011

A NEW Notice has been sent out to all owners. The MC ( i.e moi) conducted due diligence and found the original Notice full of errors. They sent in a bunch of useless requisitions, and the managing agent did a very poor job at weeding out the duds.

All I can say is, if this is the standard at which the pro-enblocers will perform to, then TC had better watch out.

Transcription please

 TRANSPARENCY IS ABOUT ACTION NOT LIP-SERVICE!

If any owner would like to see things done properly this time round, please feel free to copy and send in the request below with your name and unit number.

Address it to the Secretary of the MCST 2644 (Tampines Court)
or
ATTENTION: ALL MANAGEMENT COUNCIL MEMBERS of the MCST2644.

Hand it in to the MCST office Blk 120 to Wilson

THE COST OF A TRANSCRIPTION >>>APPROX $2000

Let not there be claims of "he said, she said" and let everyone's voice be noted.

Let The Games Begin

TAMPINES COURT EOGM
FOR THE PURPOSE OF A COLLECTIVE SALE
29TH JANUARY 2011

I think the pro-enblocers should have had the courtesy to write to all owners about their plans and not hope to spring a surprise on the estate.  If the estate wished to go for a collective sale then we will be presented with a bunch of strangers (and some not so strange) to vote onto a committee. 

• Being 'interested' is not enough.
• Claims of 'experience' can be exaggerated.
• A stranger's integrity at an EOGM cannot be gauged.
• Personal motives cannot be plumbed.
• Professional connections  can be hidden until after election when their revelation to the SC Chairman will not preclude them from serving on the SC.
• Intelligence can be estimated (sir, are you an systems engineer or a glorified waiter?)
• Personality weakness' can be sensed.

And leaving everything to chance on the day itself is like plucking a number out of a hat - maybe it's a winner, but the chances are it will be a dud. A dangerous dud.

What a god-awful system! Does the Government grab nobodies off the street  with nothing more than a perfunctory pat down and allow them to handle Government Land Sales  just because they put their hand up as volunteers? They do not! You can be sure the men and women are all highly qualified and knowledgeable in that area. No 'interested volunteers' in those multi-million dollar deals! But the Gov. doesn't mind letting loose this second rate model on private owners - any mess it creates and the blame can be pinned elsewhere.

You would need to be either psychic or nuts to allow a mere neighbour who is a total stranger with no credentials, no experience no professional insurance  with Uunknown personal motives  to handle the sale of your most valuable asset  ........ especially after our recent experience with one such group of 'interested volunteer owners' from round 1!

A comment below about how the "sale committee will be supported by the marketing agent and lawyer."

'Supported' sounds comforting and safe; the inference here is that the MA and lawyer must have the owners' best interests at heart, they are professionals after all and in the employ of the owners.

But they are not in the employ of the owners - they are free-lancing and riding on the coat-tails of a possible lucrative deal until they secure the sale  and collect their commission (and probably a nice bonus from the developer, too.)  . They want the sale to happen MORE fervently than anyone else.  The MA  takes the road of least resistance to it's reward. Vested interest rules his world.

The Sale Committee is not so much 'guided' by the marketing agent as 'led by the nose'.

Enbloc sales: Dream or reality?
Newton View up for collective sale again
Business Times:- 13 Jan 2011 
Mas to tighten up on mortgage equity loans
Business Times:- 17 Jan 2011 

Sitting pretty in the new property landscape

Business Times: - 17 Jan 2011
Regent Court put up for sale
CNA- 21 Jan 2011
$189 million minimum bid for Bishan site
21 Jan 2011
Tampines to have town hub by 2015
CNA - 21 Jan 2011