I believe most of you would prefer a forum setting rather than a blog, where you can post comments to your heart's delight without a moderator watching your language, deleting your comments or holding you back in any way.
Aug 3, 2008
Jul 31, 2008
Agent blurbs..
So, how are agents describing our estate when trying to sell units?
Example of an advertisement placed by an agent who was involved in our failed en bloc attempt:-
Example of an advertisement placed by an agent who was involved in our failed en bloc attempt:-
For SaleCondominium
Tampines Court
Tampines Court
Tampines Street 11
S$ 750,000Price on Ask
For Sale -Tampines Court (D18)
S$ 750,000 Price on Ask S$ 441.18 psf 1,700 sqft (158 sqm) 3 beds 3 baths
Tampines Court is a PRIVATE APARTMENT in a prime and superb site located in the heart of Tampines Town and is strategically located in the North-Eastern part of Singapore along the Tampines Street 11 residential area. The 23 year old former HUDC development which was privatised in the year 2002 comprises of 560 units -- a mixture of 128 low-rise 4 storey walk up apartments in 8 blocks, and 432 Maisonettes in 6 blocks of 12 storey apartment blocks. The immediate vicinity comprises mainly public housing developments and it is well-served by many facilities including a market, hawker centre, Century Square and Tampines Mall Shopping Complexes, the eastern Regional Financial center, Community Club and a sports complex. IKEA, Courts and Giant supermarket are also located within the 2 KM radius. It is also in close to primary as well as secondary schools nearby and well served by transportation links along Tampines Avenue 2, Simei Avenue the Pan Island Expressway and TPE. The site is situated in between 2 MRT Stations, the Tampines MRT Station and the Simei MRT Station each a short walking distance away. Major Expressways like the East Coast Parkway leading to Ayer Rajah Expressway, and the TPE/SLE also renders it easy access to the Airport and to the north towards Woodlands.
S$ 750,000 Price on Ask S$ 441.18 psf 1,700 sqft (158 sqm) 3 beds 3 baths
Tampines Court is a PRIVATE APARTMENT in a prime and superb site located in the heart of Tampines Town and is strategically located in the North-Eastern part of Singapore along the Tampines Street 11 residential area. The 23 year old former HUDC development which was privatised in the year 2002 comprises of 560 units -- a mixture of 128 low-rise 4 storey walk up apartments in 8 blocks, and 432 Maisonettes in 6 blocks of 12 storey apartment blocks. The immediate vicinity comprises mainly public housing developments and it is well-served by many facilities including a market, hawker centre, Century Square and Tampines Mall Shopping Complexes, the eastern Regional Financial center, Community Club and a sports complex. IKEA, Courts and Giant supermarket are also located within the 2 KM radius. It is also in close to primary as well as secondary schools nearby and well served by transportation links along Tampines Avenue 2, Simei Avenue the Pan Island Expressway and TPE. The site is situated in between 2 MRT Stations, the Tampines MRT Station and the Simei MRT Station each a short walking distance away. Major Expressways like the East Coast Parkway leading to Ayer Rajah Expressway, and the TPE/SLE also renders it easy access to the Airport and to the north towards Woodlands.
.
The truth at last!
.
Jul 27, 2008
Jul 26, 2008
STB No 2 2008 - Tampines Court TAPE TRANSCRIPTS
I have removed the original tape transcripts form my blog and replaced them with versions lacking proper names.
Cross examination of Sale Committee applicant
16 June 2008
Cross examination of the Property Agent
16 & 17 June 2008
Cross examination of Majority Valuer
17 & 18 June 2008
21 July was day 4: unfortunately, the tape transcripts were PDF locked so I could not substitute proper names easily and had to retype the body of text slowly. Therefore there may be errors...
Opening statement by Senior Counsel for the Majority
16 June 2008 Cross examination of Lawyer from Majority legal firm
16 June 2008Cross examination of Sale Committee applicant
16 June 2008
Cross examination of the Property Agent
16 & 17 June 2008
Cross examination of Majority Valuer
17 & 18 June 2008
Cross examination of Minority Valuer
18 June 200821 July was day 4: unfortunately, the tape transcripts were PDF locked so I could not substitute proper names easily and had to retype the body of text slowly. Therefore there may be errors...
Cross examination of Sale Committee Chairman
Cross examination of Minority Witnesses
Factors which led to en bloc failure
Only three factors can be taken into account when the STB decides whether or not to withhold its approval to a sale.
Lack of good faith in :-
(A) the sale price
(B) the method of distribution of sale proceeds
(C) the relationship of the purchaser to the any of the SPs
Countdown to S&P expiry
The S&P has expired
Owners are no longer bound to the terms and conditions of the contract.
Owners are no longer bound by the terms and conditions of the CSA.
Jul 25, 2008
TAMPINES COURT MINORITY WIN
Today, the STB Deputy President, Mr. Alphonso Ang, gave the following decision for Tampines Court:-
So, we the minority won on the merits of the case..
So, we the minority won on the merits of the case..
A huge thank you goes out to our wonderful legal team:-
To Siva Krishnasamy of Tan Lee & Partners who endured with endless patience, 14 months of emails, sms's and telephone calls from a bunch of housewives, and who gave up many evenings to come and talk with our ever hopeful group. We are forever grateful for his dedication to our cause, his astute legal advice and his genuine affinity for our group . Without him we would not have won. Who together with Mr. Sreenivasan put our case together and saw it through to the end.
To Mr. Sreenivasan of StraitsLaw, our counsel at the STB, who wowed us with his inimitable and flawless, cross-examination style, who ran circles around the opposition before coming to incontrovertible, logical conclusions. Better than anything you ever saw on tv!
.
You saved our homes, a big thank you to you both.
.
To Siva Krishnasamy of Tan Lee & Partners who endured with endless patience, 14 months of emails, sms's and telephone calls from a bunch of housewives, and who gave up many evenings to come and talk with our ever hopeful group. We are forever grateful for his dedication to our cause, his astute legal advice and his genuine affinity for our group . Without him we would not have won. Who together with Mr. Sreenivasan put our case together and saw it through to the end.
To Mr. Sreenivasan of StraitsLaw, our counsel at the STB, who wowed us with his inimitable and flawless, cross-examination style, who ran circles around the opposition before coming to incontrovertible, logical conclusions. Better than anything you ever saw on tv!
.
You saved our homes, a big thank you to you both.
.
Jul 24, 2008
Why I feel the concept of Beta Sum is wrong
If the Beta sum is approved for TC – this could theoretically open the floodgates to potential financial scams in future enblocs. Lump sums could be skimmed off the top and re-labeled to override the controls built into the LTSA rules governing method of apportionment.Just think about it for a moment.
A Sale Committee need only include the reserve price and the method of apportionment for that sum in the CSA. Other ‘problems’ could be kept under wraps. The CSA would definitely include that nasty cover-all clause that allows the SC to amend, delete, alter, etc the terms of the sale……. blank cheque to do as they will (why oh why don't people read their CSA's before signing!)
.
During negotiation, an understanding could be reached with the successful developer buyer to carve a sum out of the sale price and label it, say “Beta Sum”. This can be used to pay for other outstanding issues, including but not limited to financial loss, debts and costs & expenses of sale for some, but not all owners. Some owners therefore would receive an amount above and beyond the agreed collective sale price.
.
Why is this bad, some might say? After all, no owner should have to be 'out of pocket' as a result of an en bloc sale, right?
.
.
Since this Beta Sum is not governed by the apportionment method stated in the CSA it can be meted out at the discretion of the SC – and there are no checks and balances as to where that money actually goes. A SC cannot give a full and accurate account of how much and where the sum will be distributed at the STB. So how can the STB approve a sale when nobody knows what their final sale proceeds will be! This portends potential scam number one.
Since this Beta Sum is not governed by the apportionment method stated in the CSA it can be meted out at the discretion of the SC – and there are no checks and balances as to where that money actually goes. A SC cannot give a full and accurate account of how much and where the sum will be distributed at the STB. So how can the STB approve a sale when nobody knows what their final sale proceeds will be! This portends potential scam number one.
.
If a Beta sum becomes commonplace, what is to stop its abuse? A few clued-in owners may decide not to pay their privatization costs (if applicable) and manintenace and sinking fund contributions years in advance knowing that these debts would be covered by the owners (whether they agree to it or not). This portends potential scam number two. Diligent owners are penalised, laggards and freeloaders are rewarded.
If a Beta sum becomes commonplace, what is to stop its abuse? A few clued-in owners may decide not to pay their privatization costs (if applicable) and manintenace and sinking fund contributions years in advance knowing that these debts would be covered by the owners (whether they agree to it or not). This portends potential scam number two. Diligent owners are penalised, laggards and freeloaders are rewarded.
.
Since owners sign on the basis that not more than 1% of their sale proceeds goes to cover losses then are they not being conned out of their rightful share of the full sale proceeds?
.
Since owners sign on the basis that not more than 1% of their sale proceeds goes to cover losses then are they not being conned out of their rightful share of the full sale proceeds?
.
Price skimming warps the whole framework on which a collective sale is built. When owners sign the CSA they also sign for the method of apportionment. The formula is written there in the CSA. They would not sign if owner A gets $xx more dollars than owner B with the 
same size unit, (other than for financial loss). They sign on the presumption that the sale price is calculable in the same way for all. This is an LTSA requirement. It is no longer a collective sale if everyone is getting different benefits and price after they have agreed otherwise. It really throws a spanner in the works!
.
Creative circumvention of LTSA rules should not be encouraged. If there is a "Beta" problem to be covered - then by all means cover it - but it should be done up front and in the CSA. Everyone should know in advance exactly what it is they are giving. If owners are to donate more than the regulation 1% - then a sale committee should have the common decency to ask permission first, and gather their 80% on that basis.
.
same size unit, (other than for financial loss). They sign on the presumption that the sale price is calculable in the same way for all. This is an LTSA requirement. It is no longer a collective sale if everyone is getting different benefits and price after they have agreed otherwise. It really throws a spanner in the works!.
Creative circumvention of LTSA rules should not be encouraged. If there is a "Beta" problem to be covered - then by all means cover it - but it should be done up front and in the CSA. Everyone should know in advance exactly what it is they are giving. If owners are to donate more than the regulation 1% - then a sale committee should have the common decency to ask permission first, and gather their 80% on that basis.
So, let's hope that Tampines Court's experimentation with Beta fails.
.
Beta Sum and TC
The Beta Sum is a major minority objection at the STB.
Facts:
The SC gave $405 million as the Sale Price in their Application.
It comprises of $395 million + $10 million
Stamp duty is paid on $405 million
The distribution of this Beta sum is at the discretion of the SC.
.
Only 239 (out of 560) SPs gave in partial or full financial details.
The Tabulation for Alpha and Beta is therefore incomplete and the final figures remain unknown.
SPs do not know what their sale proceeds will be.
.
Only Alpha (up to 1% of sale proceeds to cover financial loss) was mentioned in the CSA.
Beta first appeared on 27th March 2007, after the sale.
.
The remainder of Beta sum is divided between those owners who did not claim Alpha or Beta (ie Omega owners).
There is over $8 million to be divided amongst the Omega owners.
By this distribution method, if 559 owners claim $1000/- then the remaining owner would get $9.44 million.
The method is clearly flawed, as pointed out by a panel member.
.
The Sale committee applicant admitted on cross examination that the Beta sum distribution was "unfair".
.
The SC cannot change the method of distribution unilaterally.
The Buyer has refused to amend the S&P to change the method of distribution of Beta.
The SC is stuck with this flawed method of distribution.
.
The SC, in it's oral submission, tried to change it's position saying that the Sale Price was actually $395 and that the Beta sum was extra.
.
The following is the A2 Table submitted by the majority at the STB showing the partial distribution of sale proceeds to those who had made their financial situation known to the the en bloc lawyer. This table is incomplete as there are many unknowns outstanding.
(The Table has been edited to erase unit identification)
Facts:
The SC gave $405 million as the Sale Price in their Application.
It comprises of $395 million + $10 million
Stamp duty is paid on $405 million
The distribution of this Beta sum is at the discretion of the SC.
.
Only 239 (out of 560) SPs gave in partial or full financial details.
The Tabulation for Alpha and Beta is therefore incomplete and the final figures remain unknown.
SPs do not know what their sale proceeds will be.
.
Only Alpha (up to 1% of sale proceeds to cover financial loss) was mentioned in the CSA.
Beta first appeared on 27th March 2007, after the sale.
.
The remainder of Beta sum is divided between those owners who did not claim Alpha or Beta (ie Omega owners).
There is over $8 million to be divided amongst the Omega owners.
By this distribution method, if 559 owners claim $1000/- then the remaining owner would get $9.44 million.
The method is clearly flawed, as pointed out by a panel member.
.
The Sale committee applicant admitted on cross examination that the Beta sum distribution was "unfair".
.
The SC cannot change the method of distribution unilaterally.
The Buyer has refused to amend the S&P to change the method of distribution of Beta.
The SC is stuck with this flawed method of distribution.
.
The SC, in it's oral submission, tried to change it's position saying that the Sale Price was actually $395 and that the Beta sum was extra.
.
The following is the A2 Table submitted by the majority at the STB showing the partial distribution of sale proceeds to those who had made their financial situation known to the the en bloc lawyer. This table is incomplete as there are many unknowns outstanding.
(The Table has been edited to erase unit identification)
Jul 22, 2008
Newspaper report 4
Hope in sight for Tampines Court sale?
Straits Times - 22 July 2008
Minority owners leaving STB
"Is there such a thing as a happy en bloc?"
Jessica Cheam (Straits Times Journalist) blog
Jul 21, 2008
Hearing day 4
Today saw the cross examination of the SC Chairman, and one minority witness.
The en bloc lawyer has apparently engaged his third Senior Counsel, Mr. Yeoh. One has to wonder what the cost of this is going to be and who is going to pay. We are only at the STB and already the SC has;
.
a) Made 2 applications (one for Beta sum amendment, the other to change the date)
b) Been to High Court
c) Engaged 3 Senior Counsels
.
The lawyer for the majority gave his oral submission today.
The lawyer for the minority will give his oral submission tomorrow at 2.30pm.
.
My previous questions:
.
How many days will they give for written submissions?
Until Wednesday 3pm
Will allowance be made for the independent minority?
No
How many days will the panel deliberate?
Change that to how many hours
Will they rush to a decision before the 25th, midnight?
Decision out by Friday 25th
.
The en bloc lawyer has apparently engaged his third Senior Counsel, Mr. Yeoh. One has to wonder what the cost of this is going to be and who is going to pay. We are only at the STB and already the SC has;
.
a) Made 2 applications (one for Beta sum amendment, the other to change the date)
b) Been to High Court
c) Engaged 3 Senior Counsels
.
The lawyer for the majority gave his oral submission today.
The lawyer for the minority will give his oral submission tomorrow at 2.30pm.
.
My previous questions:
.
How many days will they give for written submissions?
Until Wednesday 3pm
Will allowance be made for the independent minority?
No
How many days will the panel deliberate?
Change that to how many hours
Will they rush to a decision before the 25th, midnight?
Decision out by Friday 25th
.
Jul 19, 2008
Jul 18, 2008
4th day of Hearing
The fourth day of the Hearing will be on Monday 21 July at 9.30am
.
.
Written submissions would usually take up to 3 weeks.
The panel would usually deliberate for up to 3 months
So, how will it be for poor Tampines Court?
.
There will only be 4 days before the S&P expiry:-
How many days will they give for written submissions?
Will allowance be made for the independent minority?
How many days will the panel deliberate?
Will they rush to a decision before the 25th?
.
The panel would usually deliberate for up to 3 months
So, how will it be for poor Tampines Court?
.
There will only be 4 days before the S&P expiry:-
How many days will they give for written submissions?
Will allowance be made for the independent minority?
How many days will the panel deliberate?
Will they rush to a decision before the 25th?
.
Parliamentary assurance;- there are
"safeguards to protect the interests of the minority owners"
and that the
"safeguards are found in the procedures".
.
High Court assurance (Choo Han Teck J):-
"safeguards to protect the interests of the minority owners"
and that the
"safeguards are found in the procedures".
.
High Court assurance (Choo Han Teck J):-
"That said, fairness requires that the law is applied consistently to everyone in similar circumstances. It gazes upon the horse as it does the horseman. It may be the appellants today who slipped, and tomorrow the respondents. If the majority succeeds it is because it is right not because it is the majority. Likewise, if the minority succeeds it is because it is right and not because
it receives favours granted only to the underdog"
.
it receives favours granted only to the underdog"
.
Have faith
Jul 17, 2008
Appeal ongoing
The appeal by the majority to bring the date forward has not been decided upon yet. It is a 2 stage process for 'Quashing Orders '.
With due process and by law, there must be 8 clear days between the serving of the summons and the actual day of the hearing. But the minority lawyers have been given just one and a half days to prepare. The second day of the hearing for this appeal will therefore be heard on Friday afternoon.
With due process and by law, there must be 8 clear days between the serving of the summons and the actual day of the hearing. But the minority lawyers have been given just one and a half days to prepare. The second day of the hearing for this appeal will therefore be heard on Friday afternoon.
Jul 16, 2008
Newspaper rebuttal
The petition signed on Sunday by some majority owners was delivered to the the Mp for Tampines GRC and Minister for National Development Mah Bow Tan On Monday evening.
.
.
Mr. Mah has in his possession another petition; one handed in by the minority owners at the previous Monday's Meet the People Session, albeit quietly, without media attention. We had turned down repeated requests for an interview; preferring not to dramatize our estate in the media.
.
The minority only request that due process be followed, that the law should be allowed to take it's natural course. We were assured in previous sessions by our eminent MP that due process is paramount in the legal system. That although he cannot and would not interfere directly in the decision making of the STB, he would make representations on owners' behalf, both for minority and majority. That is only fair.
.
Newspaper report:
"It has become a nerve-wracking time for the owners, as many have committed themselves to other properties"
Both the en bloc lawyer and the Property Agent have stated in previous letters to the owners that it was unwise to purchase a new unit before the sale was confirmed- and there is a long way to go before it is confirmed.
En bloc Lawyer letter dated 27th March 2007:-
.
These owners have therefore only themselves to blame for ignoring sound advice and making unwise purchases beyond their means.
.
Property Agent letter dated 27th March 2007:-
.
.
.
"Owner K. Balasubramaniam, 55, said residents could lose about $200,000 should the sale fail. He said the average open market value of a typical unit was $500,000 - while each owner would get $700,000 should the sale go through.
.
Just where did Mr. Balasubramaniam get his figures from? Where is his evidence? Plucking unsubstantiated figures from the air and presenting them as facts to the Minister is deplorable. Did the reporter for the ST ask for proof before reporting these figures in the paper? There is NO such thing as an average open market value of a typical unit for TC. The last individual unit sold in Tampines Court was in OCTOBER 2006 - at a price of $520,000. There has been a freeze on the sale of units at least since 15/05/2007* as the buyer has placed caveats on all the units, both minority and majority.
* my unit taken as example
Publish Post
.
The minority only request that due process be followed, that the law should be allowed to take it's natural course. We were assured in previous sessions by our eminent MP that due process is paramount in the legal system. That although he cannot and would not interfere directly in the decision making of the STB, he would make representations on owners' behalf, both for minority and majority. That is only fair.
.
Newspaper report:
"It has become a nerve-wracking time for the owners, as many have committed themselves to other properties"
Both the en bloc lawyer and the Property Agent have stated in previous letters to the owners that it was unwise to purchase a new unit before the sale was confirmed- and there is a long way to go before it is confirmed.
En bloc Lawyer letter dated 27th March 2007:-
.
These owners have therefore only themselves to blame for ignoring sound advice and making unwise purchases beyond their means..
Property Agent letter dated 27th March 2007:-
.
.
.
"Owner K. Balasubramaniam, 55, said residents could lose about $200,000 should the sale fail. He said the average open market value of a typical unit was $500,000 - while each owner would get $700,000 should the sale go through.
.
Just where did Mr. Balasubramaniam get his figures from? Where is his evidence? Plucking unsubstantiated figures from the air and presenting them as facts to the Minister is deplorable. Did the reporter for the ST ask for proof before reporting these figures in the paper? There is NO such thing as an average open market value of a typical unit for TC. The last individual unit sold in Tampines Court was in OCTOBER 2006 - at a price of $520,000. There has been a freeze on the sale of units at least since 15/05/2007* as the buyer has placed caveats on all the units, both minority and majority.
* my unit taken as example
Publish Post
Jul 15, 2008
High Court OS
By now, all the majority owners would have received a 44 page email copy of the Originating Summons N0. 941 0f 2008/P from the en bloc lawyer.
High Court Hearing Date and Time: tomorrow afternoon. The hearing is closed to the public.
High Court Hearing Date and Time: tomorrow afternoon. The hearing is closed to the public.
.
Decision date: 05 Sept 2008
Jul 14, 2008
Appeal
The Majority have filed an Appeal to the High Court and have appointed Michael Huang SC as their counsel.
Counsel for the Minority are N. Sreenivasan and Siva Krishnasamy
The appeal should be heard Wednesday 16th before Tan Lee Meng J
Counsel for the Minority are N. Sreenivasan and Siva Krishnasamy
The appeal should be heard Wednesday 16th before Tan Lee Meng J
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)