Cooling measures

Additional measures to cool the property market

4-weekly Statutory Notices

Shunfu individual unit sells for record $1.33m

SC Letter / Notice of meeting

SC Meeting; 11 Nov 2012

The Final Push

You can never sound the death knell until all options have been exhausted. There has been a fresh injection of hope with an increased RP. A RP that is potentially attractive to about 50-55% of the owners in the estate -  but that is just my opinion. The SC hopes it is enough for 80%.  

Two more signing sessions are penciled in for Nov, and a letter from the SC Chairman on the Notice Board   (The letter has since been removed).

In the News

• Supply numbers do not tell the whole story

•  More Executive units selling for over $1 million
•  MAS restrict loan tenure on residential properties
•  HDB resale oprices rise 2% to record high in 3rd Q
• eCo sees bustling sale at launch
• Green Lodge sold en bloc for $191.888m

SC Meeting : 18 Oct 2012

Minutes can be found on the Official Tampines Court Sales Committee  Blog

Lakeview Estate Development Info

CPF changes

Changes in how CPF is refunded into your account when you sell your property:-

The CPF (Amendment) Bill 2012 Second Reading Speech by Acting Minister for Manpower Tan Chuan-Jin

CPF News-Release 10 Sept 2012

REFINEMENTS TO THE CPF HOUSING REFUND POLICY

Sir, I will now move on to the next amendment that will give effect to refinements that we are making to the CPF housing refund policy. CPF members may use savings in their CPF Ordinary Account (OA) to purchase a property. When members sell off their property, we require them to refund the CPF savings that they have used for their property.

Current housing refund policy

Members who sell their property before age 55 are required to refund into their CPF account the principal amount that they had withdrawn for the property, including the prevailing OA interest that would have accrued on this amount, or P+I in short. This refund aims to restore the member to the position as if he had not withdrawn his CPF savings for the property. Members may still use the refunded amounts towards the purchase of their next property.

The current housing refund requirements change when a member is past age 55. At age 55, a member is required to set aside the Minimum Sum (MS) from his existing CPF balances, and he may withdraw his CPF savings in excess of the MS after having also set aside the required amount in his Medisave Account for his healthcare needs. So when a member sells his property after age 55, only the amount needed to bring the member up to his MS must be refunded, since amounts above the MS can be withdrawn anyway. In other words, for a member who sells his property after age 55, he will refund his MS shortfall or his P+I, whichever is lower. Remaining proceeds from the sale of his property is received in cash. While the current refund rules for members over 55 avoid collection of housing refunds in excess of MS, there may be certain scenarios involving more than one co-owner, where the refunds required of the co-owners may not match the amount of CPF each co-owner used to pay for that property. When this arises, co-owners can decide to distribute the cash proceeds among themselves such that the total of the cash proceeds and CPF refunds for each co-owner matches the amount that each co-owner had contributed towards payment of the property. However, where the co-owners are no longer on good terms, the distribution of cash proceeds becomes more contentious and the co-owners may not always be willing to consider the amount that the other party has contributed towards the property. In cases where the property is sold at a loss, there may not be any cash proceeds for distribution. This is when the current housing refund requirements may create some unhappiness among members. Some of the Members of this House would have received appeals of such nature.

New housing refund policy

We are therefore refining the housing refund policy to address this issue. We will now require members aged 55 and above to refund their P+I. This means the same refund rule will apply to all members regardless of their age. This refinement will ensure co-owners receive CPF refunds that are commensurate with their usage of CPF savings for the property. Sections 21, 21A and 21B of the Act will be amended to give effect to the new housing refund policy.

Where the P+I refund exceeds the MS shortfall for members aged 55 and above, they need not worry that the new refund rule makes them retain in their CPF a higher amount than what is necessary. The refunded amount will first be used to set aside their cohort Minimum Sum in their RA and the required Medisave amount in their MA, and the excess can be withdrawn. This is no different from the existing requirement that applies to all members past age 55 who wish to withdraw their OA and SA savings in excess of the MS.

Under the new housing refund rule, for members aged 55 and above, any remaining housing refunds after setting aside the required amounts (in the RA and MA) will be automatically disbursed to the member in cash, unless he chooses to retain it in his CPF accounts. Changes will be made to section 15 of the Act to give effect to this policy. The majority of members can expect to receive the disbursed funds within one to two weeks of the crediting of the housing refunds into their CPF accounts.

Sir, the new housing refund policy will ensure that the distribution of proceeds from the sale of property reflects the CPF usage among the co-owners, while at the same time not require older members to retain in their CPF more refunds than are necessary. The new housing refund policy will take effect on 1 January 2013. My Question: With the new rules, does the Waterfront View High Court ruling in 2007 still hold? Just asking

We are no 1 when it comes to SPACE

SPACE is the new luxury... not lap pools and skyparks.

It's good that the media has shone a torch in our direction because not everyone knows about HUDCs and their value-for-money size. 

AGM 2012

Attendance: 49 units (out of 560) at 2.30pm, which is 19 more than last year. Quite a crowd, really :)

A very civilized meeting and well chaired by the MC Chairman. Everyone seemed to be in the same boat and rowing in the same direction. Sensible questions were asked, reasonable objections were offered and even though it dragged on a bit, all matters were discussed fully and either passed or failed without any aggravation whatsoever.  The SPs present, both for and against enbloc, put the estate first and a number of changes are now going to be implemented.

• The monthly maintenance fee was increased by $20. So owners will now pay $168 (excl GST) instead of the present $148. This change passed unanimously, though a couple of SPs grumbled that it should not have been left to last, as a few SPs had left early. 
• Interest on arrears increased to 15% 
• All the present committee members (7) will continue on the MC with the addition of 3 more SPs.
• The roof waterproofing works will proceed. 
• The special resolution to install ERP and charge for visitor parking was put to the vote. 65% voted for the proposal, 35% were against. It was therefore NOT passed.
• The special resolution to install gates at the entrances and turnstiles at the side gates was passed unanimously.
• The special resolution to build BBQ pits was rejected unanimously.
• The special resolution to charge $100 monthly parking fee for second car, $150 for 3rd car and $200 for 4th car was passed unanimously. 
• Special resolution to force a sale of a unit in arrears was passed unanimously. 

En bloc or no En bloc, the estate is doing fine.

DC Rates Sept 2012

March 2012 Revision of Development Charge rates: URA Media Release
Tampines Court is Sector 98, Use Group B2: DC Rate:  $3,290


DC Rates for Sept 2012

'The largest increase in Group B2 rate is in Sector 98 (Bedok North / Simei / Tampines New Town) at 12%. '

THOMSON VIEW

07 Sept 2012

We are not alone

You know it's a slow news day when the cleaning woes of a housing estate (HUDC Braddel View*) makes it to the front page. But even still, there is something here that we should all be reminded of;  that every estate has it's fair share of problems and there is no such thing as a problem-free environment. 

The AGM for Tampines Court is this Saturday. There may be owners who will raise issues and try to frame them either as shortcomings of the management committee or evidence that the estate is falling apart.
A level headed person can tell the difference between hyperbole and wear & tear. Paint peels, pipes rust, corridors need to be swept etc. These are common occurrences and are dealt with in the normal course of managing an estate. There's no need to panic.

Let us remember that the estate has been well managed over the past year, the accounts are in the black and there has been no disaster. The neutral MC are proposing only  modest and sensible resolutions. Only small matters can be dealt with when the threat of a collective sale hangs over our heads. The larger issues can be tackled after the attempt has failed.

* Braddell View is the only HUDC estate that has not been offered privatisation under existing law. The estate was built in two phases, in two land parcels and has two land expiration dates. Residents will need to top up the lease tenure of the land parcel with the shorter lease to align it with the longer one.

$1.2 million here we come

Recent caveat lodged: $ 1.16 million. (And the lucky seller is none other than an ex-SC member who made a cool 100% profit :)

I recently had a conversation with someone who was contemplating buying a unit in Loyang Valley  - an estate older than ours (we have 101yr lease) and about 27yrs into their 99yr lease. There is a common misconception about the 30yr mark and how the banks 'won't lend to potential buyers after the 30  yr mark, so you had better go en bloc'.

Many people believe this 30yrs refers to when the estate is 30 yrs old. This is incorrect. The difficulty arises only when the estate has only 35yrs remaining on the lease (ie, the estate is 65yrs old).   

So the aging estate/bank difficulty scare tactic is bogus. We have many happy years of reselling ahead of us. The upward trajectory in resale prices in the present bullish market has therefore every prospect of continuing.

Tilting at Windmills

There was a dialogue session with owners on July 28 and to date we have not seen any minutes of this meeting on the notice board. I am only now getting a little feedback on what transpired. 

I believe one issue raised by a SP in the estate was that the end staircase of block 123 was tilting.  

Fiddlesticks. As an owner who uses that particular staircase every day of my life I can say that I have never noticed such a tilt - if it indeed exists. And what was this SP implying anyhow?  That our HDB-built estate is structurally unsound?

I hope the managing agent might come out and assure all SPs that Tampines Court is as solidly built as all the other HDBs that surround us; that minor imperfections, if they are found to exist, are nothing to worry about.

What other points were aired at that meeting?  We are well used to scare tactics, but really this one sounds like desperation to me. Tilting staircases? More like tilting at windmills.

SC Meeting

Outdated RP

If owners were to receive the RP in their accounts tomorrow, they would not be able to buy a similar sized replacement unit in the near vicinity. There's the hassle of moving, the legal fees, the stamp duty, the renovation cost, the spectre of 560 potential owners entering the market at the same time driving up resale values and COVs in the area,... even if you sign today; you won't see a penny until 2013 at the earliest. Mass market properties in Tampines  are being snapped up like there's no tomorrow. Waterfront Waves subsales have breached the $1000psf mark. 

TC Round 1: RP mooted in Dec 2005 - sold Mar 2007 : 15 months unchanged in a rising market.

TC Round 2: RP mooted in Jul 2011 - now Jul 2012 : 12 months unchanged in a rising market.

At this rate the RP will be 18 months old without a revisit by the end of the year. 

Any Expression of Interest now will only serve to justify keeping the RP as it is.  

Any EOI now will cut the legs off any legitimate tender exercise 9 months down the road.
Any EOI now could produce our ballpark RP less 20% - prompting a likely convening of an EGM to lower the RP; or set the murky mechanism for lowering the RP in the CSA into action.
An EOI exercise should never be done simply to 'persuade' reluctant owners to sign.
.

Would the name of the interested party(s) (should there be any) be disclosed to the owners? Probably not since the developer-buyer would be a public-listed company and SGX rules prohibit any such disclosure. So it might all be as transparent as a cardboard box.

Any way you look at it, going for EOI now is not a wise move.

SC Meeting: 28 June 2012