Thomson View sale hits a roadblock
This case is presently being heard at the High Court .....
Jun 30, 2013
Jun 19, 2013
Jun 12, 2013
Apr 11, 2013
HARBOUR VIEW GARDENS
This collective sale failed at the High court
A PROPOSED $33 million collective sale of Harbour View Gardens in Pasir Panjang Road to Roxy-Pacific Holdings has fallen through.
A High Court appeal by the consenting owners at the project was dismissed yesterday.
The Court of Appeal upheld a ruling by High Court Justice Belinda Ang in April.
She had refused to allow the sale as the Harbour View Gardens collective sales committee "had not acted in good faith" while its marketing agent's conduct was "commercially unacceptable".
The exact reasons for the decision are unknown as the written judgement has not been released yet.
The appeal was mounted by the majority owners, represented by Drew & Napier senior counsel Hri Kumar, who could not be reached for comment.
The Straits Times understands that the appeal was heard yesterday morning and dismissed before noon.
Rodyk & Davidson real estate lawyer Lee Liat Yeang, who was not involved in the en bloc sale or court case, said yesterday that the dismissal of the appeal "is seen as a wet blanket on an already tepid collective sales market".
The freehold development, consisting of 14 three-storey walk-up apartments, was sold to RH West Coast in July last year for $33 million, subject to clearance for the sale. The marketing agent was Colliers International (Singapore).
RH West Coast is a unit of property developer Roxy-Pacific Holdings, which declined to comment yesterday, citing a pending Singapore Exchange announcement on the matter.
The Harbour View Gardens court dispute centred on whether its en bloc sale could go through.
One central issue was a $200,000 inducement that the collective sales committee and Colliers had offered to couple Han Min Juan and Jee Ming Tu to get them to agree to sell their flat.
Mr Han was a member of the committee. Their consent enabled it to reach the requisite 80 per cent majority threshold. However, a few minority owners objected to the sale, saying that the inducement was not paid in good faith.
They also said that the committee had not acted "even-handedly" as the incentive was offered to only one opposing minority owner and not to others.
August 16, 2013
... sneaky Compensation/Contribution Agreement paying off 1 owner $200k to reach the 80% was judged BAD FAITH - and the sale was thrown out .
The Contribution Agreement was in fact two agreements - one agreement between the majority owners and the Marketing agent and the other agreement between the Marketing agent and the lucky owner. The CSC refused to disclose either agreement to the minority.
Interesting reading - a little wooly perhaps, but interesting all the same.
You can find it for free at the Supreme Court website.. under Recent Judgements
09 April 2013
No-go for Harbour View Gardens sale
A PROPOSED $33 million collective sale of Harbour View Gardens in Pasir Panjang Road to Roxy-Pacific Holdings has fallen through.
A High Court appeal by the consenting owners at the project was dismissed yesterday.
The Court of Appeal upheld a ruling by High Court Justice Belinda Ang in April.
She had refused to allow the sale as the Harbour View Gardens collective sales committee "had not acted in good faith" while its marketing agent's conduct was "commercially unacceptable".
The exact reasons for the decision are unknown as the written judgement has not been released yet.
The appeal was mounted by the majority owners, represented by Drew & Napier senior counsel Hri Kumar, who could not be reached for comment.
The Straits Times understands that the appeal was heard yesterday morning and dismissed before noon.
Rodyk & Davidson real estate lawyer Lee Liat Yeang, who was not involved in the en bloc sale or court case, said yesterday that the dismissal of the appeal "is seen as a wet blanket on an already tepid collective sales market".
The freehold development, consisting of 14 three-storey walk-up apartments, was sold to RH West Coast in July last year for $33 million, subject to clearance for the sale. The marketing agent was Colliers International (Singapore).
RH West Coast is a unit of property developer Roxy-Pacific Holdings, which declined to comment yesterday, citing a pending Singapore Exchange announcement on the matter.
The Harbour View Gardens court dispute centred on whether its en bloc sale could go through.
One central issue was a $200,000 inducement that the collective sales committee and Colliers had offered to couple Han Min Juan and Jee Ming Tu to get them to agree to sell their flat.
Mr Han was a member of the committee. Their consent enabled it to reach the requisite 80 per cent majority threshold. However, a few minority owners objected to the sale, saying that the inducement was not paid in good faith.
They also said that the committee had not acted "even-handedly" as the incentive was offered to only one opposing minority owner and not to others.
August 16, 2013
Jan 18, 2013
End of the road for enbloc
From the Minutes of the SC Meeting held on 11 Jan 2013:
As of 11 Jan 2013, 36% of the SPs had signed the CSA. The enbloc exercise has lapsed as it did not attain 80% consensus despite best efforts by SC. The meeting was convened to decide on the procedure on the refund of the en bloc fund.
(details on procedure can be found on the Notice Board)
The Sales Committee recorded a note of thanks to the SPs who have extended their support to the SC for the past 1 year.
Dec 26, 2012
Nov 30, 2012
Nov 20, 2012
Nov 9, 2012
The Final Push
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).
Nov 3, 2012
Oct 21, 2012
Oct 1, 2012
Sep 26, 2012
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:
Just asking |
Sep 17, 2012
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.
Sep 8, 2012
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.
Sep 7, 2012
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%. '
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%. '
Sep 6, 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.
* 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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)