"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.


Property agents would like to see the LTSA rule about en bloc lawyers witnessing every CSA signing changed.  They are lobbying the MinLaw to rescind the law.

The MinLaw should remember why it drafted this rule in the first place - it has to go back and review all the complaints in the media from owners who were conned, cheated, lied to by property agents into signing. Various tricks were employed:
  • Signatures that weren't properly witnessed
  • Dates of signing left blank,
  • CSA signature pages turning up in different months than they were signed.
  • Suspicious 'extra' pages that some owners signed for additional amounts but were not properly recorded.
  • Owners never receiving certified copies of their legally binding contract
  • Owners lied to about the current consent level.
  • Manipulation of unit numbers and number of owners in Statutory Notices.
  • Statutory Notices not certified by en bloc lawyers
  • Property agents turning up at places of work to harass owners into signing.
  • Property agents knocking on doors at all hours harrassing owners into signing.
The property agents cannot be relied upon to do an honest job. They are deceitful and spin stories out of their elbows.  En bloc lawyers have their reputation and license to protect and hopefully can be relied upon to follow the law. They should demand upfront payment for witnessing signatures. Owners should go to the lawyer's office to sign and come away with a certified copy.  Every 4 weeks, Statutory Notices are to be put up on the Notice Boards and owners should demand not only the bare numbers but the names and date of signing as they go along.

No more monkey business when it comes to the requisite number . No more telling owners 80% has been reached when in fact it is only fluffed out with conditional signers who will be dropped after the sale. No more adding fresh signatures after the sale and back-dating their date of their signing to fill in holes. No more telling owners they have to sign as 80% have already signed.

Ministry of Law, if you read this, do not be persuaded by arguments of expediency. Solid procedure  before corner-cutting measures, please. 


  1. Anonymous05 May, 2010

    "The property agents cannot be relied upon to do an honest job."

    General statement?

    I would like to mention that the marketing agent that did my condo performed an honest job.

    If you look at the current rules, they are more than adequate checks to keep owners updated... in fact, there are too many eogms, feel. good that they are proposing to streamline.

  2. I try to keep all my statements general - mention no names and point no fingers at specific companies. But I don't make things up - so, yes, they are based on fact.

    Replacing EOGMs with simple meetings is a step backwards as
    1) no quorum is required so if 10 people turn up it is ok
    2) no proper minutes so what is said/not said is hearsay
    3) owners can be left out of the loop
    4) insufficient time

  3. Anonymous05 May, 2010

    1) if owners are informed and do not turn up, should there be an issue?
    2) i believe owners meetings are for information sharing only. As such, no minustes are necessary.
    3) how? they were invited right?
    4) how much time is needed?

  4. 1)With An EOGM, all owners are officially informed through the MA. A proper venue is found and the meeting is minuted.
    2) No minutes means it is more difficult for objections to be made and the STB/Court cannot order 'discovery. I hope owners come with their tape recorders to all meetings.
    3) Without the proper mechanism of an EOGM called for by the MA, there is no proof that all owners are invitred. Selective invitation is possible/sms's to consenting owners only etc
    4) 2 weeks.

  5. Anonymous05 May, 2010

    1) Can't owners meetings be official as well and everyone involved? it is in the CSC's interest that it be official.

    2) Ownwe's meeting are information sharing only. EOGMs are still needed for impt issues like CSC formation, Apportionment method and CSA.

    3) Agin, it is the CSC's interest to make sure all owners are informed. They would not open doors for the minorities to poke.

    4) should be sufficient.

    We must look at the new proposals in the light of the current law. There are alredy several EOGMS to elect the committee and discuss important issues like the apportionment method.

    New rules are meant to streamline and reduce unnecessary procedures. There are already many built-in check and balances in the whole process.

    If all else fail, objectors can vote with their pen which is very powerful.

  6. 'I would like to mention that the marketing agent that did my condo performed an honest job.'

    Now it becomes clear to me - you have not been through the TC experience and so you still have faith in the system and in the goodness of the sale committee. I thought you were perhaps suffering from amnesia, but no, you are just an innocent, like the majority first time round.

    Hopefully, there are enough owners out there now who know differently and will not fall for the same trick twice, not swallow the same false reassurances but instead make their own rules and force a sale committee to heel.

  7. Anonymous07 May, 2010

    The old system works for some but not for others.

    Nevertheless, we are in a new regime now. New rules and procedures that are meant to prevent the repeat of the TC fiasco.

    The old has gone, the new has come.
    Why are we constantly bringing up discussion on the old rules that does not apply?