Let's get this straight

The issue of 1-4-1 exchange was decided by the SPs at EGM 4 and as far as I am concerned, that is where the matter rests. Talking about it now is a moot point and I have nowhere and at no time brought the subject up again on this blog since EGM 4.  

I have nothing whatsoever to do with the present ding-donging drama being played out between the sale committee and an SP in the estate on this matter. The first time I heard about the commotion was through the notice board, and the first time I heard about the recent  flyer was from another SP. It may seem incredulous that I should claim such innocence but those are the facts, these regrettable incidents happened without my knowledge. I have tried to stop the nonsense since but am stuck between a rock and a hard place; I cannot condone the SP in his actions but neither can I lambast either side in this matter. I am therefore remaining neutral and mum on the matter and hope all parties concerned can iron out their differences without resorting to drastic measures. 

It is also unfair to land upon 1 comment made by 1 Anonymous poster amongst thousands of other comments. A comment I don't even pretend was posted accidentally but rather because it seemed harmless to me at the time.  I did not see it's 'insidiousness' perhaps because of it's cryptic S'inglish style and would not have let it pass if I had.  I removed it IMMEDIATELY on the Chairman of the SC's request as he found it offensive, so it wasn't even up that very long. By posting all comments from all sides,  I endorse none.

I came across the Blog 'Yawning Bread' which had a legal letter requesting that a comment be removed and their letter posted.

3. The allegations against our client that you have referred to in the Blog Comments have been put up primarily by a person who calls himself “scroobal’ on the internet. The allegations are false and scurrilous.

4. Our client has instructed us to try and trace “scroobal’ in order to sue him. But the internet being what it is. “scroobal’ has been untraceable so far.

5. Likewise, others who have repeated the allegations made by “scroobal’ have so far been untraceable.

6. Our client’s instructions are to commence proceedings against anyone who makes such allegations against our client.

7. We request that you take down the Blog Comments, and publish this letter in full on your website.

Yes, I am a fierce critic and stickler for detail - and not without merit judging by the number of amendments/u-turns/withdrawals made over the past year.  Someone has to play devil's advocate otherwise owners will be fodder for the en bloc canon.

Fishing for contact details

At the EGMS, the sale committee asked owners present at the meeting to leave their names, units and contact details such as email addresses and hand-phone numbers if they wanted to be contacted by the marketing team/SC and receive material about the collective sale etc. All well and good, there were those that did just that and so were happy to receive whatever emails/text messages going around. (They have my contact information but, alas , never send me any information, perhaps I am on a blacklist of sorts?). I presume those eager at the beginning were the same ones who signed up early, and once signed, the marketing team/SC would have  no further need to contact them. Those fish have been hooked and  landed.

Other owners did not leave their contact details - for whatever reason, but presumably because they did not want to be contacted through their hand-phones or receive unsolicited marketing material.  There is no compulsion to give over your personal details even when the sale committee is legitimately elected. They simply do not have that kind of power. So, what is the marketing agent/sale committee to do when they run out of honestly gathered contact details? 

They could:

1. earn their marketing fee the hard way and go door to door
2. look up land line numbers in the phone book one by one
3. get their skids on and set up a better website/blog and post material accessible to owners 24/7
4. send their flyers through SingPost bulk mail

1, 2 &3 cost time and energy and 4 spondulicks. There is a fifth way and that is to get their hands on a ready-made list of owner contact details and bypass owner permission altogether.

And who would have such a ready-made list?    Answer: the management office.

I read the minutes of the last Management Council meeting on the Notice Board today and apparently there was an attempt to get such a list from the office. Now, the office cannot hand over a list of owners details to third parties, nevermind the sale committee. The LTSA rules only specify that the sale committee can request for and receive the Strata Roll on paying a fee (in fact the BMSM allows any owner such liberty) and the strata roll does not reveal contact numbers, only names and addresses.

Thankfully, the management office did not hand over the telephone numbers/email addresses. The Management Council members also made an emphatic stand on the matter as they understood perfectly well how such a thing would compromise their neutrality in the collective sale and that divulging private information would be a gross abuse of position on their part .......  and in my opinion, might even be a reportable offense to the BCA (btw; I am not on the MC in case you think otherwise).

Signing

Signing Fees

THE FOLLOWING TABLE IS UNOFFICIAL - it is just a compilation of my understanding of the fees payable on successful completion/unsuccessful attempt of this collective sale.

In the Schedule 3 Scope of Solicitors fees, note how item  2(a) is payable on successful completion of sale, whilst for items 2(c),(d),(e),(f) there is no time stated. I have married this with clause 11.18 in the CSA and conclude that these items have to be paid for by the 80% under 'further sums' as and when requested and therefore must be paid for in cash. These sums seemingly go into the ESF (en bloc sale fund) administered by the SC. If the sale is successful, then these costs will be accounted for under solicitors costs. I imagine 'further sums' in the ESF will include other Valuations among other things. A lot can be covered under the open-ended wording of the Resolution 2.3 passed at the EGM4 (" and other incidentals").

I WILL AMEND IF SOMEONE POINTS OUT ANY ERROR! PLEASE CHECK WITH THE SC IF YOU WANT CONFIRMATION.

It is right that those keen on the collective sale should pay upfront for the signing fee/disbursements/valuation/ method of apportionment report. Signing the CSA is not to be taken lightly and those who would sign on a whim or a 'let's see' basis will think twice.  It is not a frivolous undertaking, the end goal is not just about 'making money' as signing the CSA means you are agreeing to legally force  up to 112 families out of their homes.

22 Mar 2012

SC held an Emergency meeting to resolve to open a Bank account with Bank of India for the purpose of depositing the ESF funds.

That the Account be operated upon by any 2 of the following SC members:

And verified and confirmed by any 2 of the following SC members:

28 June 2012

SC held a meeting and decided to slash the ESF fee to $40/ only per unit. The balance of $180 to be collected after the 80% is reached (and presumably before the application for sale to the STB).

The ESF was seen as a barrier to signature collection.

The $220/unit payable to the Solicitor on signing the CSA remains.

27 July 2012

Looks like they are sticking with the $220 ESF afterall. Notice on board today said that owners were to bring the usual 2 cheques to the next signing session on 30th July 2012

03 September 2012

The latest notice on the board states that there will be 3 signing sessions in  September - and that owners were to bring along 2 cheques: $250 payable to the solicitor and $40 for the ESF

RLV ATTEMPT

This post was first put up sometime in 2012 - and changed a few times ... not sure when it was last modeified

The Reserve Price is a calculation, arrived at by computing the Residual Land Value of the site after deducting all the various components.

First let me go to 2 examples of RLV's - they are not the originals from Round 1, but a spreadsheet based on reverse calculations from data given.  One RLV was more detailed than the other. Both over-estimated the DP/DC by between $22 - 32 million. The actual DP/DC payable was $107m (unless of course, that did not include the lease top-up, but just the DP component ...... which gives me pause for thought.....). Another point to ponder is the fact that TC is actually not 99yr leasehold , but rather 101 yrs 6 mths from 1 Dec 1985. Every detail translates into $millions here and there. The new lease will be to 99yrs.

Anyway, have a gander

SINCE THE RESERVE PRICE IS NOW over 1 YEAR OLD - THE SALE COMMITTEE REALLY OUGHT TO GET A VALUATION DONE TO DETERMINE A NEW RP. IT IS NOT CORRECT TO PROPOSE A RP IN 2011 AND SIT ON IT UNTIL THE JOB IS DONE.

The below table  is already OUT OF DATE

I have plugged in the selling price of a new unit at $1200psf

If I plugged in $1150psf:-

I have given a high ballpark figure of $300m for the DP and Lease Top-up, much higher than even the present MA's estimate. 

I have used the higher end values for construction costs ; a generous $323 psf

The land financing is a total guess, but $25m higher than the current MA's to be on the safe side.

'Efficiency' is very important and at the STB round 1, the 2 formal valuations showed 100 and 110% efficiency, and the 'experts' on the panel didn't bat en eyelid. . This is quite the norm in mass market developments as my tracking  here seems to indicate.  The formal valuations added in the bonus GFA when computing the RLV. The present MA's calculation is only 95% GFA (incl balcony bonus) out of a possible 110%;    10 -15% less than in round 1.

I have not done a comparative sales method as this method is almost totally subjective and therefore quite useless. Developers use the RLV method, so we should, too.

The word you hear most often is that the RP has to be REASONABLE.  Now, reasonable means different things to different people.

The MA's 'Reasonable'

Reasonable here means the developer gets far in excess of the 10% profit,  and the MA a guaranteed sale for their commission.

The Owners 'Reasonable'

Many owners still look at their units and can't quite believe they are worth $1.7 to $1.9 million. They are right, their individual units are not worth $1.7 to $1.9 million, the developed LAND is. Their notion of what is reasonable is dictated  by their state of indebtedness, their needs and their bank account balance . Emotion and non-objectivity play havoc with 'reasonable'.

What owners must realise is that 'Reasonable' has to be a calculation. First you must establish the TRUE value of the site through a proper, independent valuer and then collectively decide on the 'reasonableness' of any discount (the carrot).

After that, the SC has to keep an eye on the mass market/DC changes every 6 months  and adjust the RP (upwards only) when required. This is their job, basically, if they do nothing bit sit on the agreed RP and issue platitudes instead of action, then they are completely useless as a SC.

Anonymous said:

There were two URA land sales in year 2010 in Tampines/Simei area which provide good benchmark for the land value of TC. 

The data will prevent SC from underselling TC.  

1. WaterView Site: 8 bids, Result - $421 psf/ppr. $421 psf/ppr will translated TC's land value to $827,702,419 = $1.47m per unit(702,157sf * 2.8 * $421 psf/ppr)  

2. Simei plot (My Manhatten) - 18 bids, Result - $523 psf/ppr. $523 psf/ppr will translated TC's land value to $1,028,238,710 = $1.83m per unit (702,157sf * 2.8 * $523 psf/ppr)  

Hence, $1.47m to $1.83m (may include DC/DP) is a fair estimation of TC land value in year 2010. URA's Release of 4th quarter 2010 real estate statistics on 28 Jan 2011 revealed that prices of private residential properties increased by 2.7% in the 4th Quarter 2010 and 17.6% for the whole of 2010.  

With the latest round of Government measures in Jan 2011, the prices increases may be slower in year 2011 and 2012 but the increases should be projected into land value.  

With the above data, $1.7m is a fair minimum RP for TC tender in year 2011.  

Please note that there were 8 bids and 18 bids received for Tampines and Simei sites respectively in year 2010 URA tender. 

Please recalled the PA (Round 1) said in the STB Hearing about TC tender result with only 1 bid received in year 2008: -  

"we launched a tender, okay, we launched a tender to gather feedback ..." - 

"The market speak for itself..."  

(Note: In the same year 2008, WaterView site also received 1 bid in URA tender.)  

The same PA started to advertise all positive points about TC when they were selling individual unit after Round 1.  

This is a good reference for us to access the commitment and marketing skills of PA selected for Round 2.  

When PA starts to talk bad about TC, we should know they are trying to sell low and get their commission. 

 Regards

Popping up like mushrooms

The following posts are old posts. I will update REPLACEMENT COST when I have done some research on the matter.

________________________________________________________________

               _______________________________________________

New condominiums and executive condminiums are popping up like mushrooms in  outer Tampines / Pasir Ris / Bedok Reservoir area.

Tampines Court and it's prime location in TC: walking distance to 3 shopping centres, 4xFairprice, Cold Storage,  food centres, wet market, PIE, Safra, CC, MRT, even a butterfly park, you name it, we got it. Everything you need at your doorstep. 

.

As units get smaller, the psf gets higher. What will the price be like in 2 years time for new units in this area? We can't even afford a full sized unit at today's price. And yes, I expect nothing less than a new unit for all this collective sale trouble, and no, Pasir Ris is not equivalent to Tampines and is just too far flung for comfort so why would you swop what you have for there? Next stop Batam.  The Flora Drive area is a nighmare for traffic plus the fact that it has no shops nearby. It's also in a hole.
The secondary market will not be lower than today's launch price - so even at this point in the game, we know we are being outpriced in the still rising market.

If the market keeps rising - then the RP should rise in tandem.

DEVELOPERS' WINDFALL

2018
THIS IS A VERY OLD POST THAT NEEDS UPDATING. I will update the charts below but it will take time, as the computer that stored the charts crashed a long time ago and all data lost (before the days of cloud storage).


One way to prove that it is the developers and NOT original owners who are the ones to reap the benefits of a collective sale is to follow the money. Many new developments are coming on line on former en blocked estates so it is only now we are able to take a closer look and put FACTS on the table.

I am looking at the ex-HUDC estates and the new estates rising in their ashes. Also land sales in the area and their emerging condominiums.

Waterfront View and Tampines Court are almost the same size - so what happens over there is a good indication of what will happen to TC should it have a collective sale. Our plot ratio is 10% higher at 2.8 and those who think that is a small matter, well it is not, it translates into many millions more for the developer.

If you have a gold bar to sell, you don't sell it for the price of silver.

TO DATE 
CAVEATS LODGED
( 4 FEB, 2012).


THESE TABLES ARE MY OWN - THEY ARE NOT OFFICIAL IN ANY WAY.    
AS I TYPE IN THE DATA MANUALLY, THERE MAY BE ERRORS. 
MY SOURCES ARE HERE, THERE AND EVERYWHERE, PULLED TOGETHER.

 Waterfront View /  Waterfront Collection

Waterfront Collection has passed the $1.5 Billion mark 

 Gillman Heights / The Interlace

 Amberville / Silversea

 Minton Rise / The Minton

 Farrer Court / D'Leedon

 Tampines Court (Round 1)

 GLS / Waterview

GLS / My Manhattan

GLS / Oasis@Elias                                                                                                                  

GLS / Hedges Park Condominium

GLS / Archipelago

GLS / Seastrand

An unreserved apology

The offending comment has been removed and I apologise again for letting it pass inspection, I should have erred on the side of caution.
.
I do not endose comments - it would be impossible as then I would be taking everyone's side - because comments come from all quarters.
.
There was only one comment to post. A later comment was not very flattering for the SC and so, not wishing to offend them further, I did not post it.

I am unable to furnish details of comments posted anonymously as they arrive in my inbox without identification. It is not possible to trace an IP address through Blogger. Sorry.

.
All comments look like:

My reasons for not signing the CSA

There is insufficient legal protection for owners, the 33 covenants are too burdensome, the RP is not guaranteed, the inclusion of a provision to lower the RP is worrisome as the mechanism and timing for lowering RP is vague and open-ended. Owners can sign for unspecified supplemental agreements.   I worry that I might not get what is declared in the Method of Apportionment and that my actual nett sales proceeds will be lessened significantly.  More than 1 valuation at close of tender is tantamount to price fixing. There is no re-affirmation from owners. There is no 1-4-1 exchange as a safeguard against a low sale price. There is no fixed completion date once the S&P is signed. 

Sale Committee - 1 year on

There have been a few changes on the sale committee since their election in Jan 2011.

At that EGM, 12 owners were voted onto the committee and some general information was gleaned from questions asked from the floor (tabulated).

3 SC members resigned between Aug & Nov 2011
1 SC member resigned in Feb 2012 (update Mar 2012)
1 Sc member resigned in Apr 2012 (update May 2012)

Since SC members are required to disclose details of their and their associates' interests in the estate, any change to this status should be relayed to the owners, or at least mentioned in the SC meetings and thus minuted if it involves a sale. There is nothing sinister or illegal about the selling of units in the estate whilst holding office, and I have never intimated as much. A change in holding position is simply just that; a change.

In the News

• En bloc market R.I.P in 2012? 
• En bloc fever appears to be receding: Khaw 
• Sim Lian Group launches Tampines Trilliant  Executive Condo 
• Private home market has peaked: Analysts
• Why property prices will remain high*
• Home prices to slide this year*
• Two collective sale sites up for tender

*The media sends out conflicting reports, depending on who is doing the reporting - it's all sentiment and opinion and very low on facts. I prefer to track the actual sales to see how the market is really performing; the verdict - it's still boom-time out there.  Tracking developer gross sales proceeds is also highly illuminating.  The developers who bought the HUDC estates through en bloc are all making large profits - though D'Leedon seems to be languishing somewhat. Being in district 10, it not not a mass market property which is where all the action is at the moment. I also blame the awful design and sheer size of that estate for the present low interest/take up rate. Have no fear though, it will pass the $2 to $2.5 billion  mark eventually.

• Lukewarm response to Tampines Trilliant
• High application numbers for Sim Lian's EC

So it is either a lukeward response or a very good response depending if you read the ST or Business Times! Tampines Trilliant is $971k for a 4 room.  This is HDB; TC owners would not be eligable to buy into this kind of project until 2.5 years after they have disposed of their private property and even then there are all kinds of restrictions.

• Two more freehold properties offered for collective sale
• Secondary market for private homes heading for doldrums   Good article

 'Analysts say the majority of investors prefer to buy uncompleted properties at project launches as they can minimise their capital exposure with progress payments. Also, by the time the property is completed in about three to four years, they would be hit only by a relatively small 4 per cent SSD, if at all.'

My view: (investers = flippers)
Flippers skew the market by creating a false demand. Hoards of speculators queueing up before a property launch create the illusion that things are 'picking up' or 'booming'.

.
Flippers are instrumental in price escalation. Markets impacted by flipping are not rational markets. Each flipped sale is an incorrect price signal which then permeates throughout the market and other buyers and sellers make inferences about what their properties are worth based on these flips, without truly realising (or maybe they just turn a blind eye) to that fact they are not true market sales. Flipped sales act like viruses that corrupt the whole market. Even the HDB market is affected as the subsidised rate of new flats is pegged to the market value of similar flats in the area. Ultimately, property flipping makes it harder for ordinary folk to buy a decent home. Flipper activity will always reach a point where market correction is inevitable as it is, after all, unsustainable.

• Wave of supply to hit property market 
• En bloc sales picking up?
• Brisk sales continue at mass market projects
• Demand for new residential properties up sharply 

4-Weekly Statutory Notices & Accounts

As the first signature to the CSA was on the 12th Jan 2012 (assumed) the first 4-weekly Statutory Notice is thus due on the Notice Board on 8th February 2012

The 8-Weekly Notices in Round 1 were allegedly manipulated shamelessly. Could it happen again in Round 2?

Protestations about professional integrity aside, there ought to be a system in place for checking the checkers with full access to all documents given to any SP upon written request. Transparency was promised at the off-set, but will they deliver on that promise with regard to the Statutory Notices? Any shielding from SP scrutiny will only heighten suspicion.

Here is the Law on the Statutory Notices:-
First Schedule: 1.

The 3rd Schedule allows SPs unfettered access to the Accounts, which is a relief as the sale committee is now managing the Enbloc Sale Fund (ESF) with the potential to collect tens of thousands of dollars.  As the Vice-Chairman is a banker by profession, I place this account above suspicion. Nevertheless, as is my right, I shall be asking for access to it at various points along the way... :)

Here is the Law on the keeping of records :

3rd Schedule:-

Signing

ENBLOC SALE FUND

The Tampines Court collective sale has thrown up a new fund to be managed by the Sale Committee : the ENBOC SALE FUND (ESF)

This fund was approved by a SPs at EGM 4 on 7th January 2012 through the following resolutions (and subsequently clauses 4.4.11, 11.17 and 11.18 in the CSA ) :
.

Further to this, the signatories to the CSA agree to pay all sorts of costs, expenses, damages and claims - some of them possibly upfront (lawyers like to be paid a retainer fee) - through clause 11.29.  The word 'contemplated' is used in that particular clause which, to the mind of a layperson such as myself, puts a new spin on the sentence as a whole.  The sale need only be 'contemplated' and not carried through. Furthermore, the definition of the 'Sales Proceeds' was tweaked in the last amendment from present tense to past perfect conditional,  now it is 'would have been paid'  - again encompassing an unreal situation.
Covering their flanks, it would seem.

What about clause 4.4.7?  Will the signatories to the CSA be asked to pay for these 'solicitors or any consultants' upfront somewhere along the line, payable into the ESF,  too?

Is the initial $220 just the tip of the iceberg?

HUDCs in the News

EGM 4

UNOFFICIAL RESULTS
Meeting Scheduled start: 1pm
Quorum reached : 1.57pm
30% (168 units)
Total Quorum at 2pm: 33.4% (187 units)

EGM 4 scraped through by the skin of it's teeth. The 1 hour deadline for the 30% quorum was reached with just 3 minutes to spare.  In the end there was just 33% attendance.

168 units is a very poor showing.   What can be gleaned from this is the core group of owners keen on a sale number no more than 25 to 30% of the estate. Even after making changes to the draft CSA, texting, garnering proxies etc, they were unable to boost attendance  significantly from EGM 3.  Around 67% of owners remain in the silent majority.

The legal presentation was short and they added 2 amendments

1. Clause 4.4.10 : they claimed there was a typo error in this NEW clause (they had 3 months to check!) .. now it is a meeting of Owners and not Sellers. Hmm, methinks they track this blog to see how the wind is blowing with these last minute changes.
2. Clause 8.1.3 : they now say the phrase 'a sum at or below' is now 'redundant'. Redundant just means there is no need to expand on the meaning ...so is there a real change here? Methinks 'at or below' is now hidden.  Think of it as a cat withdrawing it's claws; you can't see them but we know they are there. 

Resolution 2.1: To consider and approve the terms and conditions of the draft Collective Sale Agreement

There were no questions from the floor, I  did not speak as there was just too much to question and I have said it all on this blog. The people who don't even bother to read the CSA are hardly going to comprehend objections. This crowd was going to pass the CSA, warts and all. And so they did.

Result: For 84% Against 12%  Void 4%
So, 145 units have decided to accept this CSA, but will the other 415 agree?

Resolution 2.2(a): To include a one-for-one exchange as a second option for payment in the Collective Sale Agreement and that owners select their preferred mode of payment at time of signing the CSA

The marketing agent for the collective sale gave a slide presentation on the matter, a presentation that was strongly against the proposal. His objections were:

• too many variables - please list them out
• not possible because planning parameters not 'approved'. Developers typically will have an architect assess the 'design volume' that can be gotten from land plot/shape/terrain. Developers even commission an architect to do up the design to take advantage of every square inch they could squeeze out of the plot. - based on planning guidelines and prevailing regulations. Because they are very experienced, they know the rules well and the final approval is not likely to have a huge variance. BCA approval can be obtained within 2 weeks, usually.
• owners' expectations = nightmare for buyers
• cpf factors, bank discharges, buyers' stamp duty for new apt, The CPF monies have to be paid back, so the owners who are keen would have to have enough money to pay it back or be able to get a bridging loan. The MAS rules are tight so the banks would only be able to lend a little without collateral. 
• developer might go bust (examples given:  Pender Court, Tulip Garden) The developer in both cases was Bravo Building Construction and it bit off more than it could chew. It didn't go bust, it cut it's losses.   It dropped 3 sales and forfeited the deposit. No buildings were torn down, no owner was left homeless or penniless.
• administrative issues with 560 owners
• hard to satisfy 560 individuals preferences
• higher risk of long drawn out court battles
• no development has ever done 1-4-1  There have been at least 2 to date in Singapore and plenty in Hong Kong which doesn't seem to have a problem working out the logistics. The HDB also has SERS which is a form of 1-4-1. for HDB-ers.  Recently, those living in Rocher have been promised replacement homes in Kallang . A good lawyer would be able to iron out  the details, don't expect the layman to know all the answers though it is easy to frighten people off with generalities.

An owner stood up and pointed out he sounded more like the marketing agent for a developer rather than for the owners.

When the proposer, Mr XX requested to do the same, that is, give a slide presentation that would show the advantages of the proposal, he was flatly refused. He was not prepared to give a presentation by any other means. The floor was thereby denied the opportunity to see graphs and slides that would have been helpful for a balanced deliberation on the matter.

I just tried to remind owners that 1-4-1 is a safeguard for all in case the RP is devalued over the next 2/3 years. Our near death experience should have been enough but I suspect many on the floor were new to en bloc, bo-chap or  just wanted to cash out. One old guy stood up repeatedly and said something like 'if the price is right, then just sell, no need to talk'.   Anyway, I knew it was a lost cause with that crowd. 

Result: For 16%   Against 80%   Void 4%

Resolution 2.2(b): To compel the SC to seek reaffirmation from the sellers before the sale tender is awarded or before a private treaty is signed.

Some heckling during this part. Whilst owners views were sought there was a definite air of impatience when those views were given. The debate was very minor. The marketing agent thought 10 weeks to decide was too short with no time for an EGM.. He also highlighted that requisitioning was troublesome (I can't remember his exact argument here, or maybe it was the V-Chairman who chipped in).  My response was that they had no trouble having EGMs up to now, and have factored in EGMS for minor things (such as removing minority member from SC) in the CSA. Also, their whinge that it was hard to requisition was meaningless, as the CSA does away with the need for laborious requisitioning altogether ; the SC can 'convene' EGMs. The tender date is known and they could plan ahead and book the hall weeks in advance. The MA also made an erroneous statement when he said the sale committee would have no power to enter into a sale contract... it isn't a sale contract,  it is a CONDITIONAL sale contract, it is not a done deal, and is conditional on STB approval and what is the big deal of making it conditional to Sellers approval, too.

I might as well have been talking to a wall. En bloc round 1 here we come again.

Result: For 19%  Against  75%  Void 6%

Resolutions 2.3: To seek approval of the SPs for collection of $220.00 to meet the costs of valuation, advertisement and other incidentals

Just information, no questions

Result  For  84%   Against  16%   Void 1 unit

Resolution 2.4: To consider and approve the Enbloc Sale Fund (ESF) shall be administered by the Sale Committee (SC). All monies in the ESF are to place in a bank account to be opened by the SC in the name of the ESF. In this regard, to permit the SC to open the bank account with a bank to be identified by the SC

Result  For 87%   Against  8%  Void 5%

Other points

One owner pointed out that the floor area of his unit set out in Schedule 2 was incorrect as it did not include the 2m recess area he had purchased.

The Vice Chairman informed the floor that Signature Collection would start on Thursday 12 Jan 2012 (tentative) at the management office. Owners were to bring their chequebooks.

I believe the last minute changes to the CSA meant those who brought their chequebooks today went home not a penny poorer.

Chequebooks at the ready

Did you get an sms from the sale committee informing you to bring your chequebook to the EGM tomorrow?

Looks like they are expecting to start the signing right away which means they have no intention of making any new amendments to the CSA.

So any discussion at the EGM will be pointless and just so much hot air.  Bear in mind the subsidiary proprietors of TC are not the Solicitor's clients - the SC and the Representatives are. If you read  Schedule 3 Scope of  Solicitors Services, note C and the 'Work Excluded'. So, if you ask for advice, none will be given. 

It is best therefore to seek independent legal advice on the CSA to better protect your interests.

How much will you have to pay?
11.17: $52.00*
11.18: $168.00*
Scope of Solicitors services (1)(a): $250.00
Total: $470.00
* not sure when these is payable, but I presume at point of signing

I don't understand why anyone would  sign the CSA on day one. Why jump in at the beginning and tie your hands unnecessarily for the next 1-3 years (read the 33 covenants again).  If there is any hope of reaching 80%, it certainly won't be achieved quickly, probably on the last day of the 12 month period, if at all. Blame it on the LTSA - 6 months, 12 months, it doesn't matter; the prudent would always wait until the last moment to minimise their liability and maximise their options and you know what they say, only fools rush in.