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.

Drama on the Sale Committee


It had to come to this, the only thinking member on the Sale Committee - the Vice Chairman - has been ordered to leave the sale committee by the Chairman et al. The VC will not toe the line with regard to the Reserve Price and has a lot to say about the slapdash way in which business is being done.


What order of events has led to this shabby state of affairs?


Apparently (and I am only surmising) it started before the last (3rd) EOGM. The VC claims that the RP was never discussed in any great detail and his efforts to persuade the SC to raise the RP repeatedly fell on deaf ears. He asked that his dissent to the current RP be noted in the meeting's minutes. He also gave a 'notice of motion to amend the motion to approve the current RP' but that motion never saw the light of day at the EOGM.

Who is subverting the rules here? 

The Managing Agent  - whose business it was to hold EOGMs for the Collective Sale and to ensure proper order and compliance of BMSM  rules? 
The Enbloc lawyer - who doesn't seem to have much to say about anything and should be enforcing proper LTSA rules at the very least?
The clueless SC - who are blinkered by their own ignorance?
The MA - who changes his tune every week and has no time for interfering SC members or problematic SPs in general?

The EOGM 3 came and went and the current RP was accepted. This does NOT mean that the SC has to forge ahead regardless, complacent in thinking that this RP is indeed what SPs really want. To date 44.46% have agreed and the remaining 55% have more sense than to sign (I hope).

Not happy that the SPs were being led down the garden path with a dangerously low RP, the VC took it upon himself to alert owners to the danger ahead. It takes a great deal of effort to write, print and personally deliver 560 letters into 560 units spread out over 13 blocks. This shows dedication and conviction.

The Sale Committee did not like their precious RP to be challenged by someone who obviously knew more about RLV than they did. He made them look foolish and they retaliated. We now know them to be bumbling fools and kicking him off the SC only makes matters worse. There is now no one on that committee capable of understanding much less leading our estate down the collective sale path.

We do not want yet another  sale committee who is more comfortable following advice than leading. Who cannot or are unwilling to challenge flawed MA advice and opt only for the safe option of not-rocking-the-boat. Can you imagine sending that ineffectual lot into a multi-million dollar meeting with a pack of jackals? They'll be eaten alive. I do not want to put my home in their hands.

Now to the matter of whether the sale committee have the authority to boot a fellow member off the committee... and the answer is NO.

WILL THE ENBLOC LAWYER PLEASE STAND UP HERE AND TELL THE SC FOOLS TO READ THE RULES.

According to the Third Schedule

Vacation of office of member of collective sale committee 
5. A person who is a member of a collective sale committee shall vacate his office as such a member — 
(a) if the person was a subsidiary proprietor at the time of his election and he ceases to be a subsidiary proprietor;  Has he ceased to be a SP? No
(b) if the person was the nominee of a subsidiary proprietor and the subsidiary proprietor who nominated him — 
(i) ceases to be a subsidiary proprietor; or No
(ii) notifies the collective sale committee in writing that the person’s office as a member of the collective sale committee is vacated; No
(c) upon the receipt by the collective sale committee from the person of a notice in writing of the person’s resignation; Has he resigned? No
(d) where he is a member under paragraph 1
(2) and the number of subsidiary proprietors increases to more than 3, upon the election of the members of the collective sale committee at a general meeting convened after that increase; 
(e) if the person is removed from office at a general meeting; Was an EOGM held to remove him? No
(ea) if the person is removed from office by the collective sale committee in accordance with paragraph 8 on the ground that an application to a Board has been made under section 84A during his tenure as a member and the person is a subsidiary proprietor who has not executed the collective sale agreement to which the application relates; Application to the STB has not been made and his status as a signatory is unknown and immaterial
(f) if the person dies; Is he dead? No
(g) if the person becomes a mentally disordered person within the meaning of the Mental Disorders and Treatment Act (Cap. 178);  Is he crazy? Decidedly No
(h) if the person is convicted, on or after 4th October 2007, by a court in Singapore or elsewhere of an offence involving fraud or dishonesty. Is he a criminal? No

So, he was elected on to the committee by SPs at an EOGM, he has not resigned ergo he is STILL on the committee and they cannot bar him from participating or speaking at meetings. Indeed, he has a duty to speak out on matters which are of utmost concern to all SPs. It is the Sale Committee who are being derelict in their duty.

This VC once asked me to join him on the sale committee and I said no for many reasons. He said if I joined and subsequently resigned then that would at least raise a red flag on the proceedings. People would take heed.

I think the Vice Chairman has raised that red flag himself and it's him we should heed

13 comments:

  1. This is bad and surely something for STB to look into IF, by some miracle, 80% will be achieved.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's beyond the STB, into the High Courts. Those whose actions found wanting should be afraid, very afraid. When the shit hits the fan we'll know who stinks.

      Delete
  2. With regards to paragraph 2(ea): An SC member is not even required to have signed the CSA at this point of as no application has been made to the STB yet. Being unhappy about the RP i would think the VC has not signed the CSA yet.

    ReplyDelete
  3. 1) On what grounds was Mr Vasan ejected from meeting?
    2) Was it a spur of the moment decision by Chairman, if so what triggered it?
    3) Was there a collective decision made prior to the meeting to expel him? If so can the conspirators give reasons for their objection to his presence?
    4) When was Eldan Law conferred on the legal aspects of barring Mr Vasan? Before or after the event or not at all?
    Mr Vasan has not resigned
    5) Could the Chairman state the current status of Mr Vasan's membership in SC?

    We have Mr Vasan's version. Now it's time for SC to speak. We need clear unequivocal answers.
    Huttons dialogue is the best time to address this pressing issue.
    This issue must be resolved before Enbloc process can continue.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Eldan Law representative and SC members should attend to clarify legal issues and answer any follow-up questions.

      Delete
  4. Certainly it's an asset to have a property executive in the SC. There are however, potential conflict of interest ( COI ) consequences.

    This was red flagged to an office bearer quite early on by the debarred VC, with recommendation to make a disclosure of COI as required by the LTSA. Was this done?
    If not, participating in the selection process with an associate Property agency in contention would be improper.

    I've always been mystified by the unusual request of Mr Dillon Lai, the legally trained MA of Mt Everest Property, for identical RP and commission for all MAs. Did he suspect a breach of confidentially and was trying to level an uneven playing field? I don't know. Former Chairman should divulge all correspondence with Mr Lai on this matter.

    If only Mr Vasan's earlier advice was heeded.....

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Are you referring to the property agent SC member who resigned 1 Jan 2016? The same one that took me 6 months to remove from the SC in round 2 for non-disclosure? Her resignation does seem a bit dodgy now, come to think of it.

      Delete
    2. Affirm, Council for Estate Agencies website would be helpful

      Delete
    3. Enuff said

      Delete
    4. Check minutes of first sale committee meeting, she wrote prepared the minutes !

      Delete
    5. Looking back at the 3rd, 4th, 5th 6th Minutes, she was working for Huttons when she joined the SC, was present at Hutton's first presentation but not the 2nd. She had already resigned from the SC when they chose Huttons as no. 3 MA for the EGM.
      Was there a breach of confidentiality? She could have been a mole , but without proof, who can say for sure. She is still working for Huttons and can be cound on the CEA website.
      She should NEVER have been on the SC to begin with. Huttons now stinks even worse than before

      Delete
    6. @ itshometome...
      Whether she was a mole or not doesn't really matter, what DOES matter is that she and possibly some members of the SC and most definitely the MA have broken a number of laws according to The 2010 Amendments to Land Titles (Strata) Act.

      Firstly, she was advised by Mr Vasan at the first meeting of the sales committee (3rd October 2015) that she should record any conflict of interest as she is in the real estate business when inviting marketing agents and such declarations from her/the agency will be on the SC records.

      The law pertaining to a conflict of interest is clear on this and a shortened version says:
      "A would-be member must declare any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest at the general meeting before he is elected, and if he fails to do so, his election is void. A member of a collective sale committee must also declare to the chairperson of the collective sale committee, any conflict of interest or potential conflict of interest within 7 days after he becomes aware of it. For any serving member of collective sale committees when the amendments come into force, he has 30 days after the operative date of the amendments to make the declaration. The collective sale committee has then to affix notice of that declaration on a conspicuous part of each building comprised in the strata title plan or development, within 7 days of the making of that declaration."

      None of this was done, no declaration, no notice from the sales committee to SP's.

      She was present at the 3rd sales committee meeting (14th November 2015) when Huttons gave their presentation. There is no mention of a conflict of interest in the minutes and the minutes are signed by her.

      She was also present at the 4th sales committee meeting (21st November 2015) where it was decided that Huttons and Mount Everest would be invited for further discussion, again minutes are signed by her and again there is no declaration of a conflict of interest.

      At the 5th sales committee meeting (28th November 2015) Huttons gave their presentation, she is conspicuous by her absence at this meeting.

      She was present at the 6th sales committee meeting (12th December 2015) but it seems she is only now trying to distance herself as the minutes are not signed by her but by the assistant secretary.

      At the 7th sales committee meeting (9th January 2016) it is announced that she had indicated to the SC that on 1st January 2016 she would resign.

      If this becomes a legal issue she has some very tough questions to answer, not as tough as the questions Huttons will have to answer though.


      Secondly, Huttons...
      In 2015 they were appointed as agent for the Jalan Besar collective sale as they like to let everybody know.
      1. They are well aware of the laws regarding conflict of interest.
      2. The acted with full knowledge that the lady in question was employed by them when they made their presentation.

      These are very tough questions for them and I see no way out that preserves any modicum of honesty that they may have tried to portray.

      To SP's, these are the people we are dealing with, dishonest, disregard for the law, not forthcoming with information (Ask yourself why THAT is) a lack of trustworthiness etc etc.

      These people do NOT have your best interests at heart, they are in it to make money for themselves, they don't care who they hurt along the way and apparently don't mind breaking a law or two to do it.

      A link posted here shows a table with various reserve prices and how much SP's get and how much Huttons get, makes for interesting reading:

      https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1szOLFnqila8zo9j_q5Tea0lQxxwmnw8GzvUkJgBrLXM/edit#gid=0

      Delete
  5. She should declare her association and never participated in any MA presentation. One wonders if Huttons RP adjustment was due to her inputs. Certainly not Silver Zone, they can't validate it with facts n figures. Previous Chairman ( Mr Transparent ) must now live to his moniker and divulge the correspondence with Mr Lai. In any case, Huttons is in serious trouble, Misrepresentation or even fraud with their RP adjustment if they're unable to back their proposal with justifiable cause. The righteous have nothing to fear, the wrongdoers it's their day of infamy

    ReplyDelete