Disclaimer






"I am a BLOGGER NOT an expert. This is a BLOG not a 'go-to' website for official information. I represent no one's view save my own. I have neither legal nor financial training, nor do I have anything to do with the real estate industry. My understanding of the Collective Sale Process is from a layman's position only. My calculations, computations and tables are homespun and may contain errors. Please note that nothing in this blog constitutes any legal or financial advice to anyone reading it. You should refer to your lawyer, CSC or financial adviser for expert advice before making any decision. This disclaimer is applicable to every post and comment on the blog. Read at your own risk."
Drop Down MenusCSS Drop Down MenuPure CSS Dropdown Menu
There is one thing worse than an Enbloc ----- and that is an Enbloc done badly. Since the majority have the necessary mandate to sell, then they owe it to all SPs to make a success of it. Minority SPs can only watch and wait, if they sell then lets pray it's at a price we can move on with, if they don't sell, then we are happy to stay for a few more years.

NEPTUNE COURT PRIVATISATION

Neptune Court's residents approve appointment of lawyer
Channel NewsAsia - 8 Feb 2010

So the 2 -in-1 idea of combining privatisation and en bloc together did not gel. Privatisation must be achieved before moving on to step 2.

There is no time frame for this - owners can expect to be hounded for as long as it takes. I have no idea what the sentiment on the ground is like, but with only half of the owners attending the AGM it seems likely people are not too interested in estate matters at the moment. Or maybe, they have already made up their minds one way or the other.

Of course, SIGNING for privatisation and PAYING for it are entirely different matters. An owner is not obliged to pay up immediately; case in point - Tampines Court has owners who, to this day, have not yet paid their privatisation costs to the HDB. They incur a 6% interest rate on the outstanding amount. So, in Neptune Court, it is possible some diligent owners will pay up whilst others may hang back and sign separate deals with a future sales committee/PA/Buyer to cover this outstanding 'expense'. From my past analysis, I believe Tampines Court had owners in Enbloc Round 1 masking their outstanding privatisation arrears as MC debt for others to pay! Sheesh - the trickery of it all.

So, who knows what's happening behind the scenes at Neptune Court. The instigators are always one step ahead of the posse.

One take-away from this episode is how quickly a Government Ministry/Statutory Board can change tack when it is in the way of a greater national agenda (ie the agenda being the destruction of old 'sprawling' estates peopled by average Singaporeans to make way for higher density developments for others). If the Ministry of Finance can lop off $104 million (70%) from their original demand literally overnight - then what's stopping the URA from following suit to lower the cost of the differential premium (the top up to 99 yrs for leasehold) in years to come. A precedent has been set.

After all, if there should come a time when there's an impasse between the Owners, the Buyer and URA - and the stumbling block is a whopping differential premium - then it may well be a case of who blinks first.
.
From Waterfront View/Neptune Court we now have:
.
1) A CPF Board willing to facilitate en bloc by letting the LTSA en bloc statute undermine it's mission in safeguarding CPF retirement savings by waiving the need to replenish fully a CPF member's account in an en bloc sale. CPF loss is not considered financial loss - so if you have used CPF money to pay for your mortgage then beware.

2) the MOF willing to facilitate en bloc by discounting 70% off it's privatisation cost.

If the URA are really sincere about wanting urban renewal at all costs - then let them make the next sacrifice; 70% off the DP is a good start, don't you think?

1 comment:

  1. Anonymous22 June, 2014

    Sentiment on the ground at Neptune Court is mostly anti en-bloc and anti-privatisation. My mum had two colleagues who are original owners in their 70s. Their only wish is to die there. As their CPF accounts are now empty, they also find the privatisation fee as a needless expense and unnecessary debt placed upon their children. Bearing in mind that Neptune Court was built before 1975 and its structures are technically over 40 years old, phase III / IV HUDC estates should remain homes for at least 60 years.

    . We are tiring of people saying that an old estate needs to be sold en bloc due to wear and tear. Whase III / IV HUDCs built in the 1980s

    ReplyDelete