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.

Mysterious Missing Minutes and Goings-On

The last minuted meeting held by the Sale Committee was on 05 Nov 2016.

Since that meeting, we have been informed through the SC Facebook page that:
  • The Marketing Agent gave notice of their intent to resign on 21 Nov 2016.  
  • The SC held a meeting with Huttons on 24th Nov 2016
  • Huttons officially resigned on the 30th Nov 2016
  • An undated, unsigned and modified letter of resignation was posted on FB
  • The SC said they would write to other property consultants to act for TC
  • Other SC discussions were held- again without any minutes being issued
  • The Chairman wrote a begging letter to Huttons on 8th Dec 2016
  • An undated and unsigned  reply by Huttons in the affirmative.
  • Facebook announcement of signing sessions... without any apparent meetings beforehand
All of this is so irregular. 



Q: Where are the Minutes of that meeting held on the 24th Nov 2016? 
By law, the SC MUST post up the minutes of every meeting within 2 weeks for all SPs to see. What was discussed at that meeting? Why are we being kept in the dark? It may be an inconvenience to the SC to follow such tiresome rules but it serves a very real purpose. The Sale Committee does not act in a vacuum, they are accountable to 560 owners for their every move. The SC cannot act like cowboys - how are we to know if all committee members were present or was it just the 2 leaders riding out on their own? How are we to know if decisions made were unanimous, and if not, what were the reasons for dissent.

Q: Why were we not shown the original letter of resignation from Huttons? What modifications were made to the original since the letter was clearly copied and pasted.  Add that to the fact that it was undated and unsigned ...

Q: Was any effort made to contact other property consultants as per the SC intention? If so, where are those letters? Were they really that busy to even try?

Q: Did the SC hold NO OTHER MEETING after the 24th Nov 2016?   If they did, when were they held and why, again, are there no Minutes. They mentioned 'discussions'... who discussed what? Where? When? How many of the SC members were involved in these 'discussions'? It is the propensity of this SC Chairman and his nearest buddies to go it alone and rule as kings without a rulebook.

Q: If no meetings were held, then how could a letter be sent to Huttons?  It would have no authority since any decision of the SC must be a  DECISION of the COMMITTEE (ie. - not just chairman & pal ) and it HAS TO BE MINUTED .

I want to see a copy of this letter. The ORIGINAL email with all the dates etc intact.

Q: How were the signing sessions arranged without a SC meeting? if there was a meeting, where are the Minutes? Who organised them and by whose authority was the Conference Room earmarked? The Managing Agent was not informed.

Q: Why are we still sticking with a Marketing Agent who has no confidence in the present RP?  I quote "We are of the considered view that the new reserve price is not achievable in prevailing market condition" (undated resignation letter to Mr Tony & All). Indeed, is their reinstatement even legal? Once they resigned they were OUT.  The proper course of action should have been to hold a fresh EOGM for owners to select a new MA. We have been treated with the utmost contempt and to think Huttons discarded us only to be welcomed back with open arms a month later is preposterous! Surely we have more self respect than that!

Q: Is Facebook the only means of communication between SC and SPs? What about those older SPs who don't use computers? I know of one such couple who hadn't a clue what was going on until I told them.

Q: Why have we not received any OFFICIAL letter from the Lawyers informing us of the new RP accompanied by the Supplemental CSA) and/or the Supplemental signing page? Why must we go to the signing session to find out important facts? Is the SC relying on the '"if they don't ask, then don't tell' approach to information sharing?

Q: What effect will this new RP have on the all important Timeline?  When is the end date for reaching 80%? Jun 2017, Nov 2017 or Jan 2018?

The SC are failing in their duty to keep SPs fully informed
The SC are failing in their duty to follow their Statutory Obligations

Last but not least:

WE HAVE NOT FORGOTTEN THAT THE RLV WAS NEVER SHOWN TO US - 
NEITHER THE OLD NOR THE NEW
SHOW US YOUR RLV
BECAUSE YOUR NEW RP IS STILL TOO LOW

9 comments:

  1. After releasing confidential RP twice into the public domain, SC should have no qualms making available less restrictive material for interested SPs to inspect.
    Our responsible SC will not treat us, whose homes they are entrusted to sell, lesser than the general public. That would be unprincipled.
    We look forward to view all post resignation correspondence with Huttons, prospective property consultants, minutes of all meetings held after 5 Nov 16 and the all important RLV during the signing sessions.
    We, SP can then make an informed decision.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Please show authorization letter for use of Conference room if held there.

      Delete
  2. Excellent work as always. So many matters of contention.
    Chairman must without delay, seek legal advice on the legality of Huttons reinstatement.
    To continue with the signing with this issue unanswered is an exercise in futility. A waste of time.
    Can't wait to hear SC/MA viewpoint tomorrow. Hoping they can say something of consequence.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Majority of SP would regard MA as persona non grata to our estate, esp after his dubious selection process was exposed and dismal RP proposal.
    Chairman and his cronies have gone rogue. Don't agree with his work ethic, choice of MA and approach to this collective sale.
    MA negativity and put-down of our plot is totally unprofessional. Tampines Courters have more self respect than to beg for return of mediocrity.
    Our SC has an affinity for this MA. That's their choice. Our predicament.

    ReplyDelete
  4. Spoke to a resident who went to sign what I'm not sure. According to him he was did not sign the CSA but only giving them the 80% to start negotiating for a price and he could withdraw if the price was not to his liking. This is the second resident to say this.

    Question: if these people were not signing the CSA?

    (a) Why the need for the lawyers presence?

    (b) How can the SC and the lawyer claim that 43% have signed for the sale without signing the CSA?

    Can someone enlighten me?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I went down to ask the marketing agent if owners were signing forms other than the CSA and the answer was no. I believe him. I don't think they would risk such an old trick - the 'conditional signer' of the EnBloc King era. If the residents in question signed a single sheet with their details then that was the last page of the CSA. If they regret it then they have 5 cooling off days to rescind. The 80% is verified legally, no more can half-signers be included and there is no reason to suspect malpractice. The 'opting out' was probably mentioned in the context of agreeing to a supplemental CSA to lower the RP once the present revised RP gets no takers. I think TC will take the Shunfu Ville path though the MA denies this :) We shall see.

      Delete
    2. P.S. Do the residents have a copy of what they 'supposedly signed', by any chance?

      Delete
    3. SC managers MA selection n Enbloc. Both not wholesome. Signers beware!
      I won't sign. However I accept the rights of those who make an informed decision to commit.
      Your friend should clear up all doubts with Eldan. 2nd opinion if necessary. Then only decide to remain or rescind with eyes wide opened.
      Do it soon, in case of delays.
      Keep us posted. Thanks

      Delete
    4. What! From the get go they're not pushing for SC RP? So is this SC butt feel price to get 80% to sign?
      My guess is negotiations start at MA price. "Impossible any higher", "any higher, unworkable"; not my words mind you. What MA/SC left unsaid was even better if lower.
      But don't worry guys, we're protected by an MA approved independent valuation. TC will not be undersold. Worth waiting for. Better than Mr Vasan's offer. There must be a catch if he's offering for free. Don't dignify it to be minuted. That troublemaker Mr V.

      Delete