Tampines Court En bloc/Anti-En bloc & beyond

Slipped through the net

2012-02-02T20:18:00.003+08:00

'itshometome' is happy to oblige the sale committee by posting the full text of their email sent today. They were very put out by an anonymous post on the post 'Sale Committee-1 year on'
Here it is:

The offending comment has been removed and I apologise again for letting it pass inspection. Honestly, I didn't think it was as bad as portrayed above but I recognise that such things can be very sensitive.

There are 1,983 comments in the blog covering 511 posts, I trust there are no more to redact/delete.

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

.
All comments look like:

Sale Committee - 1 year on

2012-01-28T13:14:00.000+08:00

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 sold one of his TC units (in red) in Aug 2011 for almost 50% more than his buy price in 2009*. Quite a handy profit for a 22 month flip.

*Source: Gov website

In the News

2012-01-27T15:16:00.002+08:00

*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.

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.

'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.

4-Weekly Statutory Notices & Accounts

2012-01-26T17:51:00.024+08:00

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

2012-01-26T16:29:00.001+08:00

ENBLOC SALE FUND

2012-01-25T19:19:00.126+08:00

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

2012-01-12T17:28:00.006+08:00

Who pays what and when?

2012-01-10T20:59:00.038+08:00

THIS 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 (with Gov approval and backing) up to 112 families out of their homes.

Received by email:

EGM 4

2012-01-07T20:39:00.036+08:00

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

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.
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

2012-01-06T22:43:00.014+08:00

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.

Collective Sale Agreement : EGM4 Draft (9 Dec)

2012-01-03T17:59:00.145+08:00

The following list of changes to the draft CSA may not be complete:

*Additions in New Draft
*Deletions in Old Draft

Definitions
"Agreement Date": seller changed to Seller
"Completion date" : , whichever is the later date
"Date of Vacant Possession": or Clause 9.2 (Actually, I think this is an error)
"Encumbrance": .... or other statutory charge,
"Gross Sales Proceeds": to be
"Land": 65,232.40 , 589, 67
"Net Sales Proceeds": to be
"Outgoings": in respect of each unit
"Purchaser" : and common property of the Development
"Sale Contract" : to be, and arising from .........contract
"Sale Contract Date" : deletion of (which is the date of ..... as the case may be)
" Sale Price" and common property of the Development
"Sales Proceeds" : that would have been, and on the Completion Date

Agreement
2.5 : (in terms of.....Strata Act) and the terms of the Sale Contract and treaty changed to contract
2.11 : or the Court of Appeal
2.12 : such Owners and and and shall be bound by this Agreement. There is also a switch from Sellers to Owners and Owners to Sellers
2.13 : new clause

Cooling-off Period
3.1 : in accordance with the provisions of
3.3 : new clause

Sale Committee
4.4.1 : [up to a maximum of ...]
old 4.4.2: removed: referring to the appointment of other professionals as the SC deemed fit
4.4.7 : or against any Owner......where applicable
4.4.10 : new clause
4.4.12 : in the Collective Sale

The Representatives
No change

No Liability
No change

Solicitors and property Consultants
No change

Sale Terms
8.1 : under a .... which shall include
8.1.1 : any other mode of sale deleted
8.1.2 : and common .... Development and or is further ..... the Development
8.1.3 (b) : party changed to parties and deletion of be
8.1.4 : on
8.1.7 : or such other.... Clause 9.2; deleted
8.1.11 : treaty changed to contract and sale of the Development changed to Collective Sale

Sales Terms - Contingencies
9.2 deleted in Aug 23 draft which referred to Owners vacating their units at 3 months instead of 6 months as a condition of Sale
9.4 deleted in Aug 23 draft which referred Units to be delivered simultaneously as a condition of sale
9.4 : (including but not limited....Agreement) deleted

Representatives and Warranties
No change

Covenants and Agreements
11.10: vote for changed to in respect of
11.11 : 'in his possession' deleted
11.14 : or such other document

11.18 :to

11.21 : deletion of if the same has not been done and addition of and he will

11.22 : he agrees deleted

11.24 : in accordance with......Sale proceeds and removal of against the Units

11.31 : : and deleted

11.32 : ;and

Application of Sale Proceeds

No change

Duration of Agreement

No change

Enforcement of Agreement

No change

Taxes and Charges

No change

Miscellaneous

16.8 ; a numbering change

Schedule 1 (Strata Area of units) : complete though no total of strata area given
Schedule 2 (Method of Apportionment)
Schedule 3 (Terms of Appointment of Solicitors)
Schedule 4 (Terms of Appointment of Property Consultants
Schedule 5 (Members of the Sale Committee)
Schedule 6 (The Representatives)
Schedule 7 (Form of Appointment of representative to attend and vote at sellers meeting
Schedule 8 (Notice of Rescission)
Execution page (page / 30)

These are the basic changes, as far as I can ascertain. It is for you and you alone to decide whether or not the CSA to be presented in the coming EGM 4 is good enough to pass ,and by extension, good enough for you to sign.

Itshometome's interpretation

Whatever follows is just my own opinion, I could be completely wrong. Don't expect me to be totally neutral because I will bear the consequences of this collective sale as much as anyone. If I have reservations then I have them for good reason. The devil is always in the details.

Looking back at the 23 Aug Draft I can see that some of my points have been addressed. I suspect my post (Collective Suicide Agreement) spooked them into tightening up their language and removing what could have been major stumbling blocks for many. But did they go far enough? Have they managed to produce a document that wary owners are likely to welcome and trust?

The amendments: most of the changes were about filling in the blanks, dotting the i's, crossing the t's, and generally cleaning up an initial sloppy drafting. The tone, drive and substance of the document remain largely the same. The major concessions/additions were:

Land - valuation - close of tender (8.1.2)
Limiting the number of valuations (4.4.1)
Doing away with appointment of 'other professionals'
Sellers meetings (4.4.10)
Deleting any reference to owners vacating their units in 3 months
Deleting any reference to owners having to vacate their units simultaneously
Addition of extra words to 11.24

1) Take a look at clause 8.1.2 and note the new wording. I believe this concession was a result of a battle won by the vice-chairman. If they had left it at that then we could rest easy in our beds, but they didn't. Linked clauses can be separated by a few pages... so go take a look at clause 8.3. You will now see that this concession has been watered down, and that the SC can indeed sell at below the valuation at close of tender if it is with sellers approval. The mechanism / timing of this 'sellers approval' is nowhere clearly defined and I have a suspicion that owners are going to be asked to approve a lower sum long before any valuation is done. Apart form that, I have to query how it is even legal to sell at 'below the valuation' anyhow. Surely sellers cannot 'approve' to sell the land at an undervalue- that would be a grave disservice to the minority owners and in breach of their duty to sell at the best price (HT).

2) A way for the sale committee to get around a high valuation at close of tender is to quickly do another one.
It is often said that valuations are not science, there is an element of subjectivity involved. Naturally, this argument is only employed by property consultants when it suits their purpose; low valuations are never wrong, only high ones. Nevertheless, they are important guides and a must-do before any sale of property. They are especially important in a collective sale as up to 20% of homes are being expropriated and at the very least, the 80% should not be able to sell the land for less than the 'independent' valuation. It is supposedly meant to be a safe-guard against rogue owners/property consultants who would sell to the highest bidder regardless. If the independent valuation turns out to be lower than the bid price, then all is well. It is only when the valuation is high and the developers have underbid that the sale committee, under advice of the property consultant, will want to redo the valuation either by asking the valuer to reappraise his valuation or doing a completely new valuation with a second valuer. Do you agree with this kind of manipulation? Do you think that the LTSA valuation at close of tender was meant to be corrupted in this way? By agreeing to X valuations back-to-back and 'sellers approval' to sell at an undervalue, (not to mention the supplemental agreement to lower the RP), are we just setting ourselves up like sitting ducks?

3) It is no longer explicitly written that the sale committee can engage limitless other professionals to enable the proper performance and discharge of its powers, duties and functions. But this won't necessarily stop them; because they will have to use their best endeavors to carry out their duties and give fulfillment to any of the terms or purposes of the Agreement or the Sale & Purchase Agreement. For example, Clause 4.4.7 still allows for the engagement of solicitors or any consultants. They still might just go hay-wire on the spending.

4) 4.4.10 is a new clause showing their intention of inviting only the sellers (80%) to the meetings in the 3rd schedule 7(3),(4)
Here is the law:

Now this is where ambiguity comes in. There are 'subsidiary proprietors' meaning all SPs and 'the subsidiary proprietors' meaning a sub-group of subsidiary proprietors, in this case at least 80% SPs who have signed the CSA. The en bloc lawyer has chosen to make no distinction between the two even though they appear in the same sentence 7(3). Had the intention been that only Sellers (the 80%) were to be invited to these meetings then the definite article 'the' would have been employed at the second instance.

What is the rational for excluding up to 20% of the home owners in the estate? Do they not have a right to know what is going on? Their homes are as important to them as they are to the 80%, do they not warrant some consideration?

May I remind the sale committee of their duty of even-handedness: (HT Court of Appeal)

136 The duty of even-handedness is a duty of impartiality that is implicit in Parliament’s recognition of the need to safeguard the interests of the minority in a collective sale (see [3] and [106] above; see also the 1998 Second Reading (at [127] above) at col 604). An SC’s position may be likened to that of a trustee who has to hold an even hand between the interests of different classes of beneficiaries under a trust (eg, capital and income beneficiaries) (see Philip H Pettit, Equity and the Law of Trusts (Butterworths, 9th Ed, 2001) at p 405).
and
The relationship between an SC and subsidiary proprietors
104 In our view, the SC is the agent of the subsidiary proprietors collectively in relation to the collective sale of their strata units. At the point when an SC is appointed to carry out the collective sale (inter alia, obtaining consent to the collective sale agreement; advertising, negotiating and finalising the terms of the collective sale with potential purchasers; and completing the sale), there is no question of it being appointed to represent the consenting subsidiary proprietors only, since at that point the process of signing up to the collective sale agreement has not yet begun. The SC therefore carries out the collective sale process on behalf of all the subsidiary proprietors collectively and has the power to affect the legal relations of all the subsidiary proprietors with third parties. The common law requirement of express or implied assent by the principal (see [114] below) is not relevant in the context of a statutory scheme, the very purpose of which is to allow the sale of the strata development against the wishes of the objecting subsidiary proprietors.

5) and 6) : Hurrah to this. These clauses were so appalling they just had to be removed. The Sale Terms- Contingencies have been reduced from 6 to 4. The remaining 4 ought to have been ejected as well.

7) 11.24 needs to be explained fully. Why? Because it is opaque.
We understand what Solicitors' costs, Property Consultants' costs are about (by the way, why the plural? we only have ONE property consultant and ONE Solicitor) and we can find out what Other Costs are from the Definitions.
Here's the problem; the Definitions lists Other Costs as all moneys to 'any party'

This same worded clause reappears in the list of deductions found in Schedule 2 (Method of Apportionment) page 63 under #Contribution pursuant to Clause 11.24 and since the Solicitors' and property Consultants' costs are already accounted for, that just leaves contributions under 'Other costs'.

I am still very leery of Owners signing for unspecified 'supplemental agreements' other than that ordered by the STB or HC order under 2.11.
How many will sign up?
How much will they get? and
Who is going to pay for them?
Does clause 11.24 envisage these under it's 'contributions'?

I am equally leery of 8.1.12 for it's provision for 'separate agreements' with the purchaser. Our vice-chairman has written in a previous post that it means
8.1.12 : This clause is mean to provide “separate sale contracts with buyers by each seller” (if so required by buyer) but the terms of sale will be what has been agreed upon as collective sale – it would not lead to any seller getting a better deal.
but there should be no need for this. This is a collective sale, the law does not require separate agreements to the S&P. If the buyer thinks he can lower his property tax bill this way he will be disappointed to find that in a collective sale, there is just one property tax to pay.

Note at the bottom of 63 indicates that the list is not exhaustive ... and so we really have no clue how much of our sales proceeds will be deducted to pay for miscellaneous items, big and small.

We need to have a more comprehensive breakdown of the Method of Apportionment Part II

What has not changed:

Owners are still agreeing to:

Make the negotiating team's life easier by acceding to Purchaser demands in advance. Compare these concessions to the purchaser with our old 'S&P' whereby the sale committee in that instance not only got the Purchaser to pay for all outgoings but also secured a nominal $1 rental /mth for the 6 month duration. (8.1.8)
Agree to let the Solicitors retain x% of their Gross Sales Proceeds for payment of outgoings they ought not be paying for in the first place (12.5)
Pay a retention sum twice that of round 1 (8.1.10)
Pay an even greater retention sum if the other sellers agree (9.2)
Try for more than 1 valuation ( 4.4.1)
Search for a buyer immediately and not wait for the 80% requisite majority. (8.4)
Allow owners to sign separate agreements with the Purchaser (8.1.12)
Allow owners to sign supplementary agreements other than that ordered by the STB or High Court (2.11)
Go above and beyond the duties of a vendor and what is required by them in the LTSA and help the purchaser in the redevelopment of the land (4.4.6).
Further to this, authorise the management council to aid the purchaser in the redevelopment of the land as it is the MC, I am told, who may grant permission for the developer to enter into the estate to start demolition/digging/building of show flats etc (11.26)
Continue to pay full maintenance, even though the estate may be now dirty, dusty, noisy and dangerous. (8.1.8)
Bind themselves with 33 covenants (11)
Surrender their liberty (and common sense) and sign any piece of paper shoved in front of them sight unseen. (11.7 & 11.21)
Render themselves powerless with the most pernicious of clauses (second half) which has been used successfully against other owners in other collective sales in a court of Law. (11.21)
Gag themselves (11.8)
Accept full liability (11.4, 11.5, 11.6, 11.23, 11.29,14.1, 15,)
Indemnify the sale committee (11.29)
[The sale committee, in turn, indemnifies the Solicitor (Schedule 3)]
Make the sale committee all powerful and themselves vassals (4.4 & 11.9 & 11.21)
Spend thousands from the estate's sinking fund to hold any number of EGMs for any reason relating to the sale (4.4.9)
Sanction all possible High Court actions using their gross sales proceeds in the defense of the sale (5.2.6, 11.29)
Require only the sale's committee approval to raise the RP. They look forward to repeating the mistakes made by other estates (eg HT) (8.1.2)
Allow the reserve price to be lowered without knowing the time frame or the mechanism involved in securing sellers' approval (8.1.3(a))
Be put in legal limbo if they withdraw their consent to the lower RP ((8.1.3(b))
Continually inform the Purchaser of any change in address and telephone for seemingly nothing more that their own data collection. (8.1.14)
The fact that the completion date is wide open. Best endeavors necessitates Sellers approval. (HT, Gillman Hts). Extensions to extensions are routine (9.1)

THE EXECUTION PAGE
I am rather disappointed by this scrappy looking page. The NOTICE OF RESCISSION page is so much better and why should that be?

There is only provision for ONE owner. (and not much space for even that). So if a unit has two or more owners then they will have to sign separate pages.

I would like to see a different kind of page with the names of the respective owners printed on one sheet (see the rescission page/29) to which they can put their signatures/dates /Place etc - so that the sale committee can see at a glance that this or that unit has been fully signed for and that everything is in order. We do not want to have half-signer 'mistakes' mucking up the Notices.

If an owner signs a supplemental agreement - where on the page can this be recorded?
Where is the Place of signing?

I would hope that any owner interested in viewing the signed execution pages would be allowed to do so after each and every 4 week Notice.

In Conclusion:

I have highlighted in red my major areas of concern. There is insufficient legal protection for owners (indeed there is none at all), the covenants are too burdensome, the RP is too low and not guaranteed, the inclusion of a provision to lower the RP is worrisome, the mechanism 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 the actual gross sales proceeds will be lessened significantly. Multiple valuations at close of tender is tantamount to price fixing. There is no re-affirmation from owners. There is no fixed completion date once the S&P is signed.

I have said enough. I will join the silent 70% and will not register until after the quorum has been reached on the day. Then I will register and vote No.

From the management office:

Quorum

2012-01-03T10:52:00.003+08:00

The sale committee has 12 months from the date of their election to get a CSA, ratified at an EGM, up and running with a single signature. We are at the tail end of that prescribed period with only 25 days to go. There is only one chance left to hold an EGM and this is it. Everything depends on the 30% quorum being reached on Sat 7 January.

Will they make it?

Judging by the turnout at EGM 3, there is a possibility that the pro-enbloc contingency do not in fact number greatly in the estate.

The quorum was reached with just 3 minutes to go, and that only because a lady turned up with a few proxies. Had the no camp owners declined to attend, or at least held back their registration until after the quorum was reached.. well, perhaps there would not have been an EGM 3 at all.

But I am sure there are people busying themselves gathering proxies.

ON THE MATTER OF REGISTRATION; this is what the managing agent has to say:

Supplementary CSA to Lower the Reserve Price

2011-12-21T09:14:00.005+08:00

The first question we should ask ourselves is do we even want a supplementary agreement to lower the RP in the CSA in the first place. Do we want the Reserve Price to be fixed and inviolable or impermanent and unpredictable as is the case now.

In round 1, we were told the Reserve Price was the absolute minimum Owners would receive from the collective sale. It was based on a 66% premium Owners would have gotten over the then present market value of an individual unit. There was no talk of it being lowered and 80% of Owners signed; confident that that was the minimum figure they would get. We were naive and uninformed and did not know it was already at a bargain basement price and had a buyer happy to snap it up.

In this round, the carrot is bigger, but not stable, neither is it 66% of the last sale price of an individual unit, which was done in August at $1.08m. If it were, then the RP would have been $1.79million !!! Even by round 1 standards the present Reserve Price is at an undersell!

Since developers would prefer a rock bottom price, the supplemental agreement to lower it is a route to bringing it closer to the bottom. Now who proposed this alternative route? The Solicitor, the MA or the sale committee? Whoever it was, it certainly wasn't the Owners.

"Oh, but you need 80% to agree to the new price, so it is safe, right? If 80% don't agree then cannot sell, okay? If the sale price is lower the Sellers must agree, simple la."

To fully agree with the above, we must first look into every possible nook and cranny to make sure we are not having the wool pulled over our eyes. We were told that the terms outlining the SCSA are 'very clear', - clear as mud, if you ask me. Here is what the CSA tells us about the supplemental agreement to lower the RP:

it shall be done by signing a supplemental agreement of some sort.

At the back of the CSA (pg 30 after the Terms of Appointments and schedules) ) we have the all-important execution page for the CSA. This page is spectacular in it's simplicity and the vital information that is missing... but that is fodder for another post. We are not similarly graced with a sample of what an execution page of a supplemental agreement would look like, and that is cause for concern. We know that the Amendments to the LTSA were partly in response to massive problems with property agents and their unscrupulous tactics for obtaining signatures to the CSA. It was deemed safer that the Solicitor, who has a higher professional code to follow, should be witness to this momentous signing. Now, looking at the Solicitors Terms of Appointment I notice that he is to witness the signatures on the CSA but there is no mention of witnessing signatures on any other owner document, whether it be a supplemental agreement to lower the RP or other supplemental agreements. I feel this omission is important. Note also how the fee charged in advance is for the CSA - again no mention of a SCSA or other supplemental agreements that will definitely pop up. Knowing how the legal profession likes to charge for every single piece of paper, the Solicitor surely would have listed it as an extra to be charged separately. If it were under his purview would he not have included it in a separate Schedule at the back? Now turning to the Property Consultant's Terms of Appointment; page 24 item (d) seems to cover this SCSA signing very nicely. Note the 'at any time and from time to time'.

Now things are beginning to look scary, are they not? Is the marketing agent regaining control of the signing via a back door? Isn't this a grave cause for concern?

We are further told that:

the minimum sale price (the new RP) will be at or below whatever the proposed sale price might be.

When you read clause 8.1.3 (a) on page 9 of the CSA, what assumption do you make? How do you read that clause, what scenario pops into your head?

Do you think that after a tender bid or after an offer has been made, Sellers will be asked to rethink the RP and either agree or disagree to lower the RP to match the bid or offer by signing a supplemental agreement? Do you think there might even be a time frame for this new consensus to sell at a lower price? Well, welcome to the club, because that is what most owners will assume and they will be wrong - on both counts. That is also what I assumed, but I was puzzled by the inclusion of "or below" because, if there is an offer on the table, why ask Sellers to sign for something below that? It did not make sense and so up shot a red flag.

The answer to this conundrum is that a supplemental agreement to lower the minimum sale price is not restricted to this period in time - it can it be done 'at any time and from time to time'. That is my conclusion. If an owner is happy to sign the CSA at the RP stated, but is also willing to sell for a lower price if need be, what is stopping him from signing a supplemental agreement to this lower sale price at any time?
Reserve price: $100m
Minimum selling price; $80m

So, perhaps some Sellers might sign a CSA with the solicitor and a SCSA with the marketing agent. An official and a fall back selling price, as it were.

Worse, knowing how gullible some owners are, in this estate there may be instances where owners are encouraged to sign the MA's slip of paper stating their minimum selling price without them even realising that this is their tacit agreement to the eventual lower RP!!! They might come back and say "but I didn't know it was that, when I signed off on it! I was just asked to state my absolute minimum and was assured that I had already signed the CSA for the higher RP".
I am so scared for these people, they are putty in a smooth-talking property agent's hand

The 80% requisite is the first milestone that much be reached in order to go for a tender and beyond. But this is just a provisional 80% and the higher RP can be used for this purpose. Some Sellers, who sign for the higher RP only might baulk at signing for a lower minimum selling price and drop out afterward, bringing the percentage to below 80%. Will this prevent the sale committee from signing a conditional sale contract? NO. The 80% requirement is at the point of application for sale at the STB and not at point of conditional sale. The conditions of the sale contract would be dependent on securing the 80% before application and the sale being granted by the STB/HC. So, the time frame for securing the second 80% can extend for many months.

THIS IS WHAT I THINK:

So, 'very clear', they said?

I also find 8.1.3(d) very, very odd. I ask myself, why would anyone sign for the lower sum and not the higher sum, presumably after the initial 80%. In other words these new signers are from the 'minority' group. As an ex-minority owner, I know there are only 3 reasons why an owner could be persuaded to sign after holding out for so long a) he was fooled b) he was pressured or c) he was offered an incentive sum. If you juxtapose 8.1.3(d) with 2.11 what do you get? In 2.11, owners are signing some kind of 'supplemental agreement' voluntarily ("or otherwise where they enter"), but what is it? How much more will they be getting? Seeing how 'conditional signers' is now a dirty word, have they just found a more neutral term that can cover a multitude? Methinks there can be many kinds of supplemental agreements whereby conditional signing can continue incognito. If Sellers agree to these supplemental agreements without knowing what they contain, then they are signing blindly.

Owners will have to draw their own conclusions.

Owners ought to reject any supplemental agreement other that those ordered by the STB or HC. I believe it is conditional signing by another name.

Owners ought to reject the supplemental agreement to lower the RP outright and remove it from the CSA. Stick to a good, solid Reserve Price and run with that ball. Don't inject uncertainty, unpredictability and confusion. When things are not transparently clear, then you have to ask yourself, what else am I missing?

Remember also how incredibly long it is all going to take. You may be happy now to accept the lower minimum sale price, but will you still be still happy in 2 years time?

If there must be a clause to lower the reserve price in the CSA - then let's guard ourselves against the shenanigans that will inevitably occur . Let us demand that owners are to decide only AFTER the bids or offers are in and all agreements to the lower reserve price must be after this date and witnessed by the en bloc lawyer.

This was first partially posted on 5 Oct 2011

NOTICE FOR EGM 4

2011-12-20T19:01:00.003+08:00

Owners received the Notice for EGM 4 in the post today. It couldn't have come at a worse time for me as I am preoccupied with other matters. Nevertheless, I will go through it by and by.

A quick glance and there is some improvement from their last half-baked effort.

In escrow

2011-12-15T18:15:00.016+08:00

I don't normally deal in wild rumors, but this snippet of information is very intriguing, if true. It does not concern Tampines Court, but one of our half-sister estates: LAGOON VIEW. This estate is only a half-sister because their land belongs to the Ministry of Finance and has not been privatised as yet (at least, no notice of such an event has been reported in the media). Their privatisation cost is around $30k per unit and when last reported (Weekend Today Jul 2009) just over 70% had consented. No collective sale can be attempted unless the estate is first privatised.

The rumour is this: owners who sign for privatisation are also possibly signing for the CSA in escrow ... or it could be the other way round, the Privatisation Agreement could be the document held in escrow because it's cost might be a stumbling block to many older owners in the estate, and the CSA might be a draft CSA not yet ratified at an EGM.
The details are sketchy at best.

What is in escrow, you ask? It's 'Something of value, such as a deed, stock, money, or written instrument, that is put into the custody of a third person by its owner, a grantor, an obligor, or a promisor, to be retained until the occurrence of a contingency or performance of a condition.'

But, there is only a privatisation committee in Lagoon View as far as I know, there is no elected sale committee, no EGMs held in accordance with the LTSA schedules etc... so how can it be true and if so, is it really legal?

Well, I can only surmise that as soon as the 75% /80% mark is reached, the statutory requirements will be dealt with in quick succession and so the conditions for the CSA/Privatisation Agreement held in escrow will be met.

It's like giving birth to an adult instead of a baby.

Not being a lawyer, I can only pose questions, not answer them. In round 1 we had a few 'conditional' signers who would have received higher sales proceeds had their conditions for sale been met. In round 2, there are provisions in the CSA (Draft 28 Sep 2011) for owners to sign an unspecified 'supplementlal agreement.

Document held in escrow, conditional agreement, supplemental agreement.... all birds of the same feather?

The power of money

2011-12-09T09:31:00.007+08:00

There has been a rash of new measures and news from the Gov in the last few days. The main one is here:

Additional Buyer's Stamp Duty for a stable and sustainable property market
REDAS dissappointed with propert cooling measures
Cooling measures a bolt out of the blue

The Gov has been very swift to act on event of the inevitable fall of the Euro. (today being D-Day1 for talks in Brussels). I suspect so much money is flowing into the country from private wealth and fund managers (capital flight from Europe in general), money that can be parked in the purchase of new condominiums. Hot money has to go somewhere. and even if just a tiny portion of it comes here, the property market will mop it up. TheyGov is not quite trying to stem the flow but rather being opportunistic in filling their coffers. The developers can devise sweeteners to make the medicine go down. They could bump up the price and absorb the extra stamp duty. If the 'foreign' element of purchasers was broken down by district, or even condominiums in the past 2 years , you would probably see a high concentration in the city area - where many empty new luxury blocks currently stand. The measure is being advanced as a cooling strategy - it is that in a limited sense, but the mass market segment (where ordinary Singaporeans spend their money) will be largely untouched. As for the anti-speculation measure, it applies only to the 3rd property and only 3%.

I think I feel a new chart coming on... must download some data on the issue soon :)

As for the Euro: well, it is the Titanic in it's death throes and the politicians are still busying themselves rearranging the deckchairs instead of preparing the citizens to abandon ship.
The way the Markozy gang of 2 is going; I even smell war in the wind.

GLS 1st Half 2012

2011-12-08T08:02:00.003+08:00

URA LAND SALES PROGRAMME FOR 1st Half of 2012

I think TC should forget about en bloc for a couple of years - there are no less than 7 GLS sites coming up for sale in the first half of 2012 in our area:

2011-12-07T19:31:00.001+08:00

Over 100 units sold at Archipelago preview

December 7, 2011

Property developers UOL Group and Singapore Land have witnessed strong take-up at their joint condo development, Archipelago. The consortium sold slightly more than 100 of the 190 units released for preview sales, which began last Friday.

With an average price of S$1,000 psf, the five-storey 99-year leasehold project is located within 500 metres from the upcoming Bedok Town Park MRT station.

According to The Business Times, about eight to 10 of Archipelago’s 24 strata semi-D homes have been snapped up. Priced from S$3.1 million to S$3.5 million, these units have a strata area of approximately 4,400 sq ft.

The cheapest three-bedroom units cost S$1.18 million, while the 527-sq-ft one-bedroom units are priced from S$590,000. The 1,650-sq-ft four-bedroom units are available from S$1.7 million.

More than 20 percent of Archipelago’s buyers are foreigners (including PRs), comprising mainland Chinese, Taiwanese, Indonesians, Malaysians and Australians.

The development does not require foreigners to secure permission from the Land Dealings (Approval) Unit to purchase strata landed homes that are within a development with condominium status, which makes the project popular among foreign buyers.

Source : PropertyGuru – 7 Dec 2011

$1.7 million for units the same size as ours!

This site was bought in Mar 2011 for $465 psf ppr

Please, understand that our apartments are irreplaceable unless we also get such a deal through en bloc.

Sale Committee Meeting No 11 Minutes

2011-12-02T19:45:00.014+08:00

SC Minutes 11 (Edited)

I did not attend this meeting. It looks like they are trying to fix a few of the deep flaws in the CSA to make it more palatable to the owners.

Item 2

If my memory serves me correctly, in the last round it was the owners who coughed up over $700 each for the 'costs & expenses' which were to cover items a) and b) - and the collection of monies (contractually agreed) was attempted before the announcement of the conditional sale in 4 languages in the various newspapers. I say attempted because by then many majority owners had rebelled and refused to pay. The newspapers required their fees up front and in those days the announcement covered 3 or 4 full pages in tiny print. It must have been very expensive. The rules have since changed on the amount of detail to be publicly revealed but still, this cost is for the owners to bear.

Item 4

I am a little confused here.. if it is the Final Draft they are discussing, are they 'discussing 'the actual amendments or 'recommending' further changes, in which case it isn't the Final Draft?

It seems both.

Item 5

The vote was 5 to 4 not to raise the RP. Oh dear, there are 5 members who have the 'sale might not go through' mentality. This is the same mentality that got us into trouble in round 1. It is not about getting a sale through, it is about selling collectively only when the price is right. If the price is not reached then so be it. Therefore, I do not agree to a lower RP to serve the lowest common denominator (the flippers and those who want to cash out) and the RP agreed to in the last EGM should be reconfirmed in the next EGM.

I have a feeling there were irregularities in the last meeting anyhow, which could possibly make that EGM null and void.

How seriously did they challenge the MA's figures? True, My Manhattan was bought for $523 psfppr in 2010 - but it is being sold for over $1200psf in 2011. To compare land bought in Simei and then new units sold in Pasir Ris is disingenuous. Our site is much more attractive than anything in Pasir Ris and future units in our estate (in 2016)+ may attract anything between $1200 -$1400psf. So it is right to be bullish and set the target price high. No one can predict the economic outlook so far ahead with any certainty. It is for the developer to take the risks - not the owners. We do not want pessimists on the sale committee, people who live in the now and are easily swayed by negative market spiel. The choice is simple - be optimistic, think ahead, don't lower your sights, base your decisions of upward projections not downward. If the sale does not go through then the owners will not be angry, but if it goes through at a price that looks paltry and diminished then all hell will break loose again.

Item 6

The Strata Roll does not give the square footage of the units.

Let's see how the next meeting went with the lawyers :)

Total number of units en bloc-ed to date

2011-12-02T14:22:00.008+08:00

How many units in the country have been en bloc-ed to date? 15,467. As can be seen from my unofficial graph, the total number of units sold in the last 2 years is nowhere near the total in the boom years of 2005 to 2007.

The ex-HUDCS in the outer areas (OCR) that were sold in 2006/2007 (Amberville, Waterfront View, Minton Rise are showing strong sales in their new developments as can be seen from this chart from URA (the red/blue/pink notations are my additions). Indeed, the mass market properties in OCR places such as Pasir Ris, Simei, Tanah Merah Tampines, and Bedok are being snapped up like there was no tomorrow.

D'Leedon in upmarket D10 is lagging behind. Yes, the developer paid top dollar when acquiring the land through an en bloc, but neither the price paid nor it's ex-HUDC status have any bearing on it's present identity and lack-lustre performance. Something about this project just does not gel with would-be buyers.

I looked up some other new projects in the D10 to see how they were/are faring:

Apart from D'Leedon, they are all freehold and the ones launched are either sold out or showing healthy sales. The one to watch here will be Leedon Residence which will be directly opposite D'Leedon and will probably be priced >$2000 psf. So D'Leedon is competitively priced in comparison. Mind you, if I had to choose between Silversea and D'Leedon (both around the same price), Silversea would trump because of it's superior location.

So, what else could be causing the lower than expected sales?

Personally, I think it's behemoth size at 1,715 units makes it too big for comfort. The developer could have divided the land into 2 or 3 different developments - as in the Waterfront Collection - people like to feel they are buying into exclusivity, not an entire neighbourhood. Looking at the floor plans, there are next to no balconies, a crucial mistake if Westerners are their target sector.

But not to worry, they bought the land at $762 psfppr and are currently selling it at a median price of $1577 psf. The development will eventually sell out and we shall see then just how much money was won or lost.

Sale Committee Meeting No 12 Notice

2011-11-29T09:00:00.002+08:00

URA finally acts

2011-11-24T16:27:00.004+08:00

Q: What do you get when you relax planning regulations, unleash en bloc madness on the general population and then turn a blind eye to the unsightly chaos that ensues?

A: Singpore's building frenzy 2007 - present day. Smaller and smaller apartments, more congested roads, higher stress levels, loss of greenery, shrinking of facilities, rise in temperatures, truly awful architecture and cookie-cutter designs, overpriced units, overall lower standard of living.

The URA's encouragement of mass en bloc of any plot of land has resulted in the chaotic mess that is today. It has taken them a long time, but today, someone in that department finally woke up and realised that things were getting ugly.

THEY HAVE JUST ISSUED A NEW CIRCULAR HERE ON MEASURES TO IMPROVE THE LIVING ENVIRONMENT OF NON-LANDED RESIDENTIAL PROPERTIES (AFTER THEY MESSED IT UP BIG TIME)

'A minimum plot size requirement of 1,000sqm is introduced for all new flat developments island-wide to safeguard a better quality residential development. This will align flat developments with other residential developments like landed housing and condominiums which also have minimum plot size controls.'

One small step in the right direction. One giant leap of common sense.

This does not have any effect on TC, of course, because we are so huge; but it will prevent other small developments from going en bloc. They would need to increase the plot size by amalgamating with a neighbouring plot, and that makes the whole process so much more daunting.

And over in Bedok madness still reigns:
Bedok Residences sell like hotcakes

"CapitaLand said most buyers rushed in to make their selection without even viewing the showrooms.
A unit costs between S$1,100 to S$1,500 per square foot."

They're back

2011-11-17T19:24:00.007+08:00

I have to admit to thoroughly enjoying the last six weeks of en bloc silence. Not being bothered by CSAs or EGMs put us back into a normal mode of living (by enlarge).. I even nurtured a faint hope that perhaps the sale committee had disbanded and all matters en bloc abandoned ... but alas, it was just a dream. It was nice while it lasted, though.

They are back with a bang.

Two sets of Minutes and a Meeting Notice for the next meeting to held on 19 Nov. The as yet unseen draft CSA will be presented to the owners in January (tentative date 7.1.12) for their approval. I shall not be commenting on this CSA until after all owners have received their copy along with the Notice for EGM.
.

One more SC member bites the dust, so that brings the number down to 9 in total. Still a large group by any measure.

Sale Committee Meeting No 11 Notice

2011-11-17T18:13:00.005+08:00

See comment on item 9 in below post...

Sale Committee Meeting No 10 Minutes

2011-11-17T18:12:00.017+08:00

SC Minutes 10 (Edited)

The Vice-Chairman again looking out for the best interests of the owners by suggesting the RP be raised to the original proposal given by the MA in their presentation - only to be shot down by the majority consensus. It looks like the original proposal was just the usual lure and it's just down, down, down from here on in. The old and tired mantra that "the RP was adopted by the SPs" is a cop out and used by a committee as a shield to mask their inaction. What 'current market situation' did they put forward? Did anyone offer charts or qualify their opinion with facts? Have they done any real analysis or are they relying on the marketing agents vested interest viewpoint?

4. The Chairman of the SC will be writing to the MC Chairman seeking formal confirmation of the collection of Enbloc Sale fund by the MC, as decided at the last EGM on 24.09.20011

Hold you horses here! No such thing was ever agreed at the last EGM. The resolution presented to and passed by the owners was:-

'To resolve and set up an Enbloc sale fund to meet the preliminary enbloc expenses, out of pocket expenses, meeting expenses, independant valuers/property agent fees and authorise SC to collect and account for such funds.'

The MC is not and should not be entangled in the money matters of en bloc. They follow the BMSM, the SC follow the LTSA and they only overlap at the holding of the EGMs. The MC is not there to do administrative work for the sale committee or their backers and they are certainly not debt collectors for errant majority owners. What the SC should do is formally ask for the Strata Roll (and pay the administrative fee as this is stated in the LTSA) and do their own collecting. The SC are prohibited from using MCST funds, and this would include the large amount spent on stationary and postage that would necessarily be involved in collecting sums of money from owners, not to mention the time taken away from the managing agent in his official duties in overseeing the maintenance of the estate.

Sale Committee Meeting No. 9 Minutes

2011-11-17T18:07:00.006+08:00

SC Minutes 9 (Edited)

LOVE THE DISCLAIMER ON THE BOTTOM!

Gimcrack rules

2011-11-11T09:45:00.012+08:00

Anonymous said:

"Is it true that as long we have not sign on the TA, we have not activated the 1 year 80% rule. If so, why don't we bide our time. When the economy turn around, we short circuit the en bloc process by launching TC ahead of our competitors "

Hmm..... you mean hold back on the first signature until the time is right?

Looking back at the Third Schedule it says:

Termination of collective sale committee

12. —(1) A collective sale committee may be dissolved —
(a) by ordinary resolution at a general meeting of the management corporation convened in accordance with the Second Schedule; or
(b) upon the termination or expiry of the collective sale agreement.
[46/2007]
(2) A collective sale committee that is constituted for the purposes of a collective sale of all lots and the common property in a strata title plan to which section 84A or 84FA applies, or a collective sale of all the flats and land in a development to which section 84D or 84E applies, shall be dissolved if —
(a) in the case of such a committee that is constituted before the date of commencement of section 10(g) of the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Act 2010, at the end of a period of 12 months after that date; or
(b) in any other case, at the end of a period of 12 months after the committee is constituted, there is no collective sale agreement for that collective sale or no subsidiary proprietor or proprietor, as the case may be, has executed a collective sale agreement for that collective sale.

It seems pretty clear that if there is a draft CSA then there must be at least 1 signature to make it an active document within the 12 months starting from the date of the EGM to elect the sale committee.

So the answer to your question is no, the sale committee cannot be in existence forever, they cannot keep the estate in limbo by withholding that first signature until the opportune time. Parliament has set the parameters, their intentions are clear, there has to be time limitations on the process. The SC has until their January deadline to a) get the terms and conditions of a CSA passed at an EGM and b) activate it with a single signature. The first signature will be the Date of the Agreement and from there on in they will have a second 12 months (until Jan 2013 in our case) to reach the 80%.

It was under the old rules that a sale committee could hang about doing nothing, lying inactive for months, even years. Now they have
[SC election]........[CSA/1st signature] :- 12 mths
[CSA/1st signature ........... 80%] :- 12 mths
[80%......conditional sale.......new80%....application for sale to STB] :- 12 mths

If this reading is not correct, then I will eat my hat.
In fact someone ought to write to the sale committee with this question.
Not me, as they don't seem to answer my queries....

Waiting for Godot yet again

2011-11-05T17:58:00.005+08:00

The EGM 3 was held on 24 September.
Since then, there has been:

No summary of that meeting posted on Notice Boards
No sign of a CSA
No information on the SC website (abandoned?)
No requisition for EGM 4 at the MC office
A request made to the MC for the units which have bought over the recess area (according to the latest MCST meeting minutes). So at this late stage, they are still mucking about trying to find out basic details.

After the last EGM, there was a non-productive SC meeting held on 1st Oct and nothing since. If they are planning to have an EGM4, it cannot be any sooner than the 3 Dec now. December is a month when many owners will be away on vacation, so perhaps they might even be planning to skip December altogether and make a last-ditch attempt in January.

They only need a valid CSA before the 28 Jan 2012 midnight deadline.

Perhaps this sale committee should do us all a favour and throw in the towel now. Even the strongly pro-en bloc crowd have gone quite over the last while. The optimism at the beginning has all but died and I don't know anyone who believes this sale has a snowall's chance in hell of happening. Not this time round. Thousands of sinking fund dollars have been spent on this useless exercise to date, we should recognise now that it is dead in the water, that there can be no chance of success in the present uncertain financial climate. If there is no CSA at the 1 year deadline then the sale committee will dissolve automatically and spark a 'relevant' event in accordance with the 2nd Schedule.

Nov Media

2011-11-01T08:17:00.011+08:00

Bedok residences sell like hotcakes - Nov 24
Size does matter - Nov 2011
Dragon Mansion sold - Nov 2011
Supplies, supplies, supplies! - Nov 2011
Laguna Park, Henry Park apartments up for collective sale - Nov 2011
En bloc wave unlikely sign of rebound in market - Oct 2011
Collective sales market healthy despite downturn - Oct 2011

Reaffirmation in action

2011-10-11T18:02:00.000+08:00

Thinking out of the box.

Here are two estates which will go back to owners for reaffirmation before accepting any bid or offer.

So accept no nonsense about the Purchaser not willing to wait etc, if other estates can do it this way, then so can we.

We need to see the MA's calculations

2011-10-07T17:04:00.176+08:00

The Marketing Agent put forward a few slides at the EGM 3 to explain his Reserve Price.

I sent an email off to the sale committee requesting a copy of the data on the screen.

Naturally, they gave no answer.

Anyhow, I did note down a few figures and have waited until now to plug them into the equations. If you ask me, they just don't make sense.

Their claim that 10% in size does not amount to much difference flies in the face of logic.

I wish I could post the figures here for you to see, but obviously I can't.

>First of all, 'RP1' and 'RP2' is a misnomer, because they are the same in both instances: $xxx.
The Sale Price $xxx is the RP.

Comparing $A and $B the marketing agent said there was 'not much difference'.The difference ($A-$B) being around $27 psf ppr. The Purchaser pays $27 psfppr less for higher GFA. $27 * 2,162,659 = ~$57m, so is the purchaser getting a discount of $57m even with a higher DP/Top up? Huh? Do they understand how nutty their rationalization looks? If the 10% was factored into the residual calculation, the benefit would go to the owners, and they would see the RP raised and about $100k added onto the sales proceeds of each unit.

I could reproduce $A and $B easy enough... they seemingly did not recalculate the actual residual calculation. Do they want us to believe that a 10% difference in GFA is only a figure used as a denominator after the other residual calculations have been done? That it will have no effect whatsoever on the Gross Development Value (and subsequently the Sale Price)? I have checked back with the two independent residual valuations given at the STB in round 1 and the larger potential GFA and DC for Balcony bonus was incorporated in their workings. Looking at the MA's original residual calculation in their original proposal, it is not clear what they did as they just gave a lump sum for DP/Top up and did not factor in the 10% Bonus GFA. Their 'justification' now does nothing to correct this. So, it remains a mystery as to why they tweaked the DP/Top-up and have not produced a proper residual recalculation for us all. What are they afraid of?

Therefore, without their complete workings, these figures mean absolutely nothing and their justification remains highly questionable. I am just a regular owner who knows nuts about these things, but I do know when I don't have enough info to draw concrete conclusions. I really dislike being thrown snippets of data at EGMS and having to try and paste a complete picture by filling in the blanks afterward.

Owners should be able to see these NEW calculations on request, since they differ from the original proposal. Just because 137 owners in the estate voted for this RP doesn't make it correct.

Let Owners decide on 'in kind'

2011-10-04T00:33:00.008+08:00

Now that we have an UNDERVALUED RESERVE PRICE, and a clause 8.1.3 that will make the lowering of this already low RP a strong likelihood - it becomes even more imperative that owners can switch to the 'in kind' payment option in order to preserve the equity in their homes. Now 1-for -1 payment need not necessarily be an exact exchange on a square footage basis, Owners should have the flexibility to have a smaller apartment and the remainder in cash on a pro-rata basis. It is for owners to look after their own interests - the forces out there want a cash sale only because it is more controllable and they have a vested interest in seeing it succeed. The CSA takes care to include contingencies that aid the Purchaser. There are no contingencies that protect the Vender.

Look at it as a form of Insurance Policy: To protect ourselves we must insist on this 'in kind' payment option in case things turn ugly and owners are faced with a massive shortfall in a rising market, a forced downgrade or hitherto unknown tricks that may be employed to prize our asset from our hands. How much better it would have been for Waterfront View/Gillman Heights owners had they protected their flanks with this option. They could now be moving into a smaller but brand new Waterfront Waves/The Interlace apartment with the difference in cash. Their new homes would have been pegged to the present day market price and so would have lost no equity. Instead, many are now back where they started 25 years ago; their replacement home is an old HDB with little or no cash in the bank to show for their efforts. Their prime land gone, their share in private property evaporated.

Without an 'in kind' option as an insurance policy, I am afraid this collective sale becomes a high risk roll of the dice. Forget about clause 8.1.14; it is complete garbage. Owners in Gillman and Waterfront were 'invited' and were shocked at the prices of the units offered. TWICE THE PRICE /HALF THE SIZE.
Not only that, they were treated like dirt.

RE: response from subsidiary proprietor to my post here :

Item 24 on my list: By LTSA , payment can be 'in cash or kind or both', yet the CSA only has a cash option.

His response was 'The situation of payment in kind is not being envisaged'

Why has it not been envisaged? What right has the sale committee to casually dismiss a statutory option - a vital option for some owners? Does the SC know how many would want this option? Have they sent out a single survey form on any matter, let alone this one?

The LTSA does not empower the Sale Committee to propose the Terms and Conditions of the CSA. Owners were supposed to vote on those powers at the First EGM under a statutory resolution 'Powers, duties or function of the SC' but were inexplicably denied that right. I note that in 4.4.3 of the draft 2 CSA , the sale committee now seek to empower themselves to propose all the terms and conditions in the Agreement and this is done retroactively. Is the SC proud of the terms it now proposes?

Our Minister of Law Mr. Shanmugam has explicitly stated that owners have the ultimate say and that the sale committee must act in accordance to the owners wishes as stated in the CSA. (Second Reading of the LTSA Amendment Bill, 18 may 2010):

"A Sale Committee has to act in accordance with the mandate specified in its CSA. Thus, it really depends on what mandate is given to the Sale Committee."

"Owners have the ultimate say, they can ask for what they think is necessary for the process, or for them to participate in the process."

"The real point is that owners are free to adopt these measures if they are suitable for their particular circumstances. Thus, the ultimate choice is with the owners themselves on how the sale should be conducted."

I sent in my request to have this 'in kind' option put to the vote in a resolution in the EGM 3, but it was binned. The sale committee has ignored this owner's serious proposal but took care to insert inconsequential resolutions, such as 'allowing free access to the meeting room' instead.

The CSA has not yet been approved and so the sale committee does not have the power or sanction of 4.4.3 to propose all the terms and conditions.

I am resubmitting my request for the '1-for-1 exchange' and 'reaffirmation of sale price' to be included in EGM 4 as resolutions to be voted on by the owners. In Shan's words; I am asking for what I think is necessary for the process. The ultimate choice is with the owners - not me alone, not the sale committee, not the Solicitor and not the marketing agent.

Sale Committee Meeting No. 9

2011-10-01T14:08:00.027+08:00

To be fair, this was a sale committee meeting - not a 'meet-the-blogger' meeting.
It started off friendly enough, here was an opportunity to ask real questions, stupid questions even, but after a while, it became clear I had more questions than they were prepared to answer, and the resistance set in. This is what always happens so no surprises there, it's all right to ask questions, so long as there are no more than 3. But I always have 20 where another person has only 1 and people's patience quickly wears thin. I went in armed with over 100 questions typed out but lost the plot early. I failed, simple as that. I know as little now as I did 3 hours ago*.

Note to self: never attend any of these meetings again, especially on my birthday.

There was a suggestion to meet the solicitor privately. I have thought about it and I think not. Questioning ought to be done in public where the owners can hear the answers for themselves - or the non-answers as the case may be. I am also wary of the legal position that that might put me in vis-a-vis this blog. Quoting or misquoting him is out of the question, as that would open me up to being sued. I have already been warned as much. So there is no point in me asking the solicitor anything directly as a) I can't relay the answers and b) I might be stonewalled with the stock reply about the solicitor in an en bloc being there to advise the sale committee only and not individual SPs. So, today's meeting was a waste of everyone's time, mine included. A second reason is that owner questioning at the EGM 3 was stopped and deferred to this meeting. Observer questioning at this meeting was curtailed and deferred to EGM 4. I am being given the run-around so this is what I am going to do:

I may or may not post a list of questions on this blog, but only after the next draft CSA has been issued to all owners.
They can do with it what they like. This blog is not the 'voice of the people', not read by all owners and if they attach importance to it then that is their look out.
If the sale committee answer any of the questions, they should state whether it is a layman opinion or whether it is after consultation with the lawyer.

I was asked whether I was pro-sale or anti-sale. That is the wrong way to look at things, especially at this point. A Sale cannot be a Sale at any cost. If the process is done well - and by that I mean ethically and not merely complying with the Schedules - then there will be nothing for me to pick on. As it is, there has been a bumper crop of irregularities, missteps, fumbling and bumbling from day 1, topped off with a draft CSA from hell.

I shall most probably be overseas when the next EGM 4 is called. I wont be there to ask annoying questions and waste everyone's time. It is only when I come back and see that the CSA has been approved in all it's glory, only then will I state up front and put at the top of this blog that I am in the anti-enbloc camp, because that's when owners really make up their minds.

*Actually, I found out a couple of interesting things, but more about them later.

Further musings on the draft CSA (dated 23 August)

2011-09-30T14:56:00.046+08:00

Take a very close look at clause 8.3

I do believe the sale price cannot be below the valuation done at close of tender. If the valuation is higher than the RP then the valuation trumps, the RP is bumped up to match the valuation.

Surely, Sellers CANNOT 'approve' to sell the land at an undervalue - and that means at an RP or proposed sale price lower that the valuation.

So, the situation envisioned in 8.3 cannot happen - so this clause is complete nonsense and should be scrapped.

If the valuation is at the RP or higher and the proposed sale price is lower - then that is where shenanigans come into play. The SC/MA will seek a new valuation to match the lower proposed sale price.

And miracles are performed.

This is the reason for the blank cheque in 4.4.1

The Time Line

2011-09-27T23:49:00.008+08:00

According to the LTSA and terms in the draft 2 CSA:

When does the CSA expire?
CSA but no 80%: - 12 months from date of first signature (Agreement Date) (13.1.2 (a))

CSA + 80% but no Sales and Purchase Agreement (SPA) : - maximum 24 months from date of first signature (Agreement Date). (13.1.2.(b))

CSA + 80% + SPA :- no expiry. The CSA will remain in force until completion of sale and vacation of unit. (13.1.1)

In the draft 2 CSA we are told that if there is a supplemental agreement to lower the RP, it is not a fresh agreement and will not add another 12 months to the sale process (8.1.3(d))

BUT according to the following High Court decision, a supplemental agreement is a fresh agreement that adds 12 months to the process, so my question to the solicitor is this:

Question for lawyer: Which carries more weight? The CSA term or the High Court decision?

Koon Seng House High Court Decision

7 Subsequently, however, when bids were invited for purchase of the property, there was only one offer for $18,800,000. Realising that the reserve price then was too high, the owners agreed (after discussion) to reduce the reserve price to $19,800,000. To effect this variation in the CSA, a supplemental agreement was signed. The first signature to the supplemental agreement was appended on 24 March 2007. By 7 May 2007, the owners of 27 out of 33 units (including the nine terrace houses) had signed the agreement. Other owners progressively added their signatures so that by 6 September 2007, the owners of 30 out of 33 units had validly signed the supplemental agreement. This included the owners of 21 out of 24 flats.

36 First, where an earlier CSA had failed to achieve its intended purpose, ie, to sell the land to a purchaser, the proprietors of the land could not be precluded from making a new agreement with a lower reserve price. Hence, the supplemental agreement constituted a fresh agreement. Therefore, time for the purpose of para 1A(a) of the Schedule should be reckoned from the date the first signature was appended to the supplemental agreement.

37 Second, s 84E(3)(b) provides that proprietors holding not less than 80% of the aggregate share value may apply to the Board for a collective sale order. At the earliest, the 12-month period within which application may be made to the Board starts when 80% majority has been reached or first crossed (as the case may be). The plaintiff was therefore wrong to say that time for this purpose started running from the date of the first signature. There are two distinct 12-month periods. As I said, application may be made to the Board as soon as 80% majority has been reached or first crossed. However, this does not mean that the 12-month period within which application must be made to the Board necessarily starts then (see para 1(a) of the Schedule). For example, it could start at a later date when a greater percentage majority is reached so long as the time elapsed from the first signature to the time when such desired majority is reached is also not greater than 12 months (see para 1A of the Schedule).
38 The first signature to the supplemental agreement was appended on 24 March 2007 and the last was on 6 September 2007 (well within the 12-month period within which a majority of not less than 80% had to be reached). The other 12-month period (ie, that within which application to the Board had to be made) commenced on 6 September 2007. Therefore, the application made on 16 April 2008 was well within time.

2011-09-27T22:10:00.003+08:00

The rubbish they build these days : -

The Seaview developer sued for S$14m by angry residents

Residents at The Seaview condo along Amber Road have sued its developer over poor workmanship and defects.

The S$14 million lawsuit is believed to be the biggest yet in the country.

Residents of the “Ardmore Park of the east” allege that the estate has been plagued by defects since they began moving in.

One year after the 546-unit project was completed in 2008, building surveyors discovered at least 32 cases of defects in the swimming pool, lift lobbies, residential units and the basement car park.

The Straits Times reported that complaints include poor workmanship and repugnant odours in the units due to improper installation of floor traps and pipes.

Furthermore, the estate’s water bill for common areas rose from S$4,000 to S$20,000 per month. Experts and maintenance staff found a leak in the pipe supplying water to the swimming pool.

The suit was filed by the condo’s management corporation against Mer Vue Developments, a subsidiary of Wheelock Properties. It also named engineering firm Squire Mech and the main contractor Tiong Aik Construction, RSP Architects Planners & Engineers in the lawsuit.

The pre-trial conference for the case will be held in October.

26 Sep 2011

And can you imaging the number of shoebox units they could fit in our 2 million sq ft! The profits would be astronomical at $1500 psf :-

Prices, popularity of shoebox units set to increase

Shoebox units outperformed other condos as an investment last month, according to website iProperty.com.

Prices for the minute flats, normally measuring less than 500 square feet, rose 14 per cent to an average S$1,549 per square foot (psf) in August 2011 from a year ago.

In contrast, psf prices increased 4.9 per cent for condominiums measuring between 501 to 1,500 square feet; and rose 9.9 per cent for condos of more than 1,500 square feet.

The hotspot for shoebox units was District 15 with 513 apartments transacted, while the lowest was in the non-prime area District 21 with only 11 of the total 197 deals crossed in August.

Shaun Di Gregorio, iProperty Group CEO, said the shoebox “present attractive investment opportunities,” despite the steep pricing and market uncertainties posed by European and US debt crises.

Some analysts such as Mr Ku Swee Yong, the CEO of International Property Advisor Pte Ltd, speculate the rise demand for shoebox apartments in August may be due to the spike in such properties being developed during that period.

“We cannot assume that the strong take up of shoebox units is due to the popularity of investors because it is a relatively new market,” said Mr Ku.

CNA 26 Sep 2011

Sale Committee Meeting No 8 Minutes

2011-09-27T15:25:00.011+08:00

SC Meeting 9

Sat 01 Oct 2011
Activity Room Blk 120
(New CSA draft dated 29 August 2011 - limited circulation)

The en bloc Solicitor will be present to answer questions, according to the SC blog.

SC Minutes 8 (Edited)

EGM 3

2011-09-24T23:38:00.040+08:00

The EGM 3 that very nearly didn't happen. The 1 hour deadline for the 30% quorum inched closer and closer and I think they just made it with less than 5 minutes to spare. In the end there was just 31% attendance. This was rather surprising; I was expecting a higher turnout.

Another big surprise was in store. Apparently there was a last minute meeting and a decision taken NOT to proceed with item 2.1 on the agenda 'To resolve and approve the terms and conditions on the Collective Sales Agreement'. A wise decision, as really, this half-baked, ill-conceived draft CSA would never have reached it's intended goal anyhow, which is to garner 80% support from owners. So it's back to the drawing board and owners will be presented with a full draft 3 sometime in the near future. No blank pages or spaces for owners to wonder at, but if they are going to be intransigent on making substantial changes to the body of the draft, then it might be just a colossal waste of time (and MCST money). We are not a virgin estate, we require an extra-ordinary CSA with non-standard terms.

I never thought I would say this, but I have a new-found admiration for out ex-enbloc lawyer and his tremendous organizational skills. He certainly was the en bloc king in that respect.

The EGM 3 wasn't a complete waste of time, the remaining 7 resolutions on the Agenda were voted on.

2.2 To resolve and empower the SC on appointment of an independent property consultant for report on apportionment of Sales Proceeds

Yes: 83%

I voted NO because there's no need. Tampines Court is not a difficult development, we are virtually all the same size and pay the same maintenance fee. It is only complex developments with wide ranging strata area and/or commercial units that might require outside help. The calculations involved for TC are very easy to do.
Problem: This report has to be done before the next draft is sent out, so who is going to pay for it up-front?

2.3 To resolve and decide on the Reserve Price

There was much discussion about this. The marketing agent put up his proposed RP and that's what we voted on.

Yes: 79%

I voted No, it's high enough to entice many owners, but not me.

For reasons of confidentiality, the RP cannot be disclosed on this blog.

2.4 To resolve and decide on the need for independent Valuations prior to fixing the RP and empower the SC to appoint the Independent valuer.

Again a lot of discussion. To me this resolution comes too late, and I was particularly perturbed by Valuations in the plural.

No: 59%

2.5 To resolve and empower the Sales Committee to increase the Reserve Price

Yes: 79%

I voted No; anything to do with the RP and it's the Owners who should decide.

2.6 To resolve and set up an Enbloc sale fund to meet the Preliminary Enbloc Sale expenses (out of pocket expenses, meeting expenses, Independent valuers/property agent fees and authorise the SC to collect and account for such funds

Lots of discussion. People wanted to know the exact sum involved. I believe this will appear as a new clause in the the next draft CSA. My own view is that a proper list should be compiled and a reasonable sum set.

Yes: 64%

2.7 To resolve and authorise the MC to permit the Sales committee to use the conference Room at no cost

Sure, let them have access to a few tables and chairs, it's just a room for goodness sake.
I voted Yes.

Yes: 83%

2.8 To resolve and authorise the SC to use the Void decks for any meeting of the SPs with the Solicitors for signing the CSA or for meeting SC members.

Well where else are they going to go? KFC? At least it will be in the open and I can go nosing around .....
I voted Yes.

Yes: 82%

A female lawyer did a brief presentation of the salient points in the CSA. I think they were trying to counter-argue some of the points in this blog. They seemed to be spooked by my deduction that the purchaser could buy units up individually and were quite adamant that this was not so. If that is true then they will have to remove all ambiguity from the terms and keep things simple and crystal clear. As this was not the EGM to go into too much detail on the terms, questioning by SPs was cut short.

OFFICIAL RESULTS
Shedule time to srat meeting: 1pm
Quorum reached: 1.57pm, 31% (744 Share Values)

2011-09-24T11:50:00.001+08:00

THE EGM 3 STARTS AT 1.00PM

(ends at 6.30pm)

Collective Suicide Agreement DRAFT dated 23 Aug 2011

2011-09-21T10:22:00.087+08:00

UPDATE: 25 SEPT

This draft is not the final draft. Owners will be presented with a NEW draft to decide upon at a special EGM 4 .

I have no legal training whatsoever... the post below is just my own armchair reading of the Draft CSA. You ought to get your own independent legal advice on the CSA before making any decisions.

In a nutshell, by reading between the lines, this is what I think signing the CSA means:-

NOTE: After a rethink, I made some amendments to my original post; especially to the 'completion date'. The OPP, Lease top up and QC are done before application to the STB and not after legal completion. )

I agree to sell the ‘units’ by any mode of sale, and not just by way of tender, auction or private treaty only, as stated in the LTSA. (8.1.1)(Definitions Sale Contract date)
I agree to search for a buyer immediately and not wait for the 80% requisite majority. (8.1.1 & 8.4).
I agree to allow owners sell their ‘units’ directly to the purchaser and I am not sure whether they are party to the CSA or not. These direct sellers might be getting a better deal but I will never know. (8.1.12)
I agree to give myself 3 months to find a new home and vacate Tampines Court. (9.2)
I agree to allow the developer into the estate during those 3 months to start demolition/digging/building of show flats etc (11.26)
I will continue to pay full maintenance, even though the estate is now dirty, dusty, noisy and dangerous. (8.1.8)
I will continue to pay property tax even though, by the Law Society of Singapore's Conditions of Sale, it is for the purchaser to pay for all outgoings after the date of completion (Definition of Outgoing, 8.1.8)
I agree to let the Solicitors retain x% of my Gross Sales Proceeds for payment of outgoings I should not be paying for in the first place (12.4)
I agree to surrender my liberty (and common sense) and sign any piece of paper shoved in front of me sight unseen. (11.7 & 11.21)
I agree to bind myself with the most pernicious of clauses and to hand the Developer a potent weapon to use against me in a court of Law. I am happy to bind myself totally and leave myself with no legal avenue for redress. (11.21)
I agree to make the sale committee all powerful and myself a vassal (4.4 & 11.9 & 11.21)
I agree to spend thousands from the estate's sinking fund to hold any number of EGMs for any reason relating to the sale (4.4.10)
I agree to ignore the new LTSA rule and kick out the sole minority owner on the sale committee even though she has a statutory right to be there until application for sale to the STB. (4.4.10)
I agree to give the sale committee a blank cheque in order to choose a valuer; indeed they can choose as many valuers as they like without regard to cost. Property Consultants can also be engaged in this free spending activity. (4.4.1 & 11.29)
I agree to give the sale committee a blank cheque and allow them to spend my money freely in the engagement of any number of other professionals which might include; senior counsels (remember the three at the STB from round 1!) other solicitors not directly involved in the sale even though by LTSA, I need only engage a 1 solicitor, 1 marketing agent and 1 valuer. (4.4.2 & 11.29)
I agree to another blank cheque which allows the sale committee to spend unlimited amounts of money from my sale proceeds to prosecute my fellow neighbours and myself. They may spend freely on other solicitors and consultants with my blessing. (11.21, 4.4.8 & 11.29)
I agree that I cannot possibly know what the eventual costs and expenses of this sale will be with all this free spending activity going on.
I agree to let the sale committee change the terms in the CSA to suit the purchaser in the sales & purchase agreement (S&P). (9.6)
I agree to go above and beyond the duties of a vendor and what is required by me in the LTSA and help the purchaser in the redevelopment of the land (4.4.7)
I agree that a retention sum of xx% of my Gross Sales proceeds can be withheld until vacant possession by me. (8.1.10)
I agree that a retention sum of xx% of my Gross Sales proceeds can be withheld until the last person has left the estate (9.4)
Hell, I even agree that the retention sum of xx% can, in fact, be as high as 100% if the other sellers agree (and they will) (9.3)
I agree that the Representatives can go ahead with all High Court actions without first asking for my reaffirmation (5.2.6) and spend as much money of my sale proceeds as they like in the defense of the sale (4.4.2 & 5.2.6)
I agree to ignore the LTSA rules and state that the reserve price is in cash only, even though the LTSA says 'in cash, in kind or both'.
I agree that only the sale's committee approval is required to raise the RP. So, if the market rises by 10% and the SC decide to raise the RP by only 1% (giving the Purchaser a nice bonus aka Horizon Towers), I cannot disagree with them. I look forward to repeating the mistakes made by other estates.
I agree that the reserve price (the minimum proposed sale price) can be lowered, but I do not know the time frame or the mechanism involved.
I agree that the minimum sale price may be even lower than the proposed sale price by an undefined amount, which could be millions. (8.1.3)
I agree that if I withdraw my consent to a lower RP then I also agree to be put in legal limbo. I am neither majority owner nor minority owner.
I agree to continually inform the Purchaser of any change in address and telephone for seemingly nothing more that their own data collection (8.1.14)
I agree that only Sellers and not all Owners receive some of the Notices (16.3)
I agree that a Sellers meeting can be held at a drop of a hat with no minimum time of notice. It is entirely possible that I miss these important meetings but that is okay, because I have agreed to vote for any matters concerning the sale in advance. (11.10, 11.9, 11.21)
I agree to bind myself with 33 covenants (11)
I agree to gag myself and keep the CSA and S&P secret (11.8)
I agree to hold myself 100% liable for any costs, any expenses, any damages and claims that may be incurred by the sale committee members and indemnity them for any error or act of omission on their part. Any error or act of omission on my part will be dealt with severely and I shall have no indemnity whatsoever. ( 6 & 11.29, 14.1)
I agree that whatever the sale committee does, it does so in my name (11.27)
I agree that whenever a Sellers Approval is required, I will approve. (My conclusion only from combining clauses; namely 11.7, 11.8, 11.9, 11.10, 11.21, 11.27)
I am aware that the all important COMPLETION DATE is wide open, and that the developer will have the ultimate control on when the S&P expires. I know this from previous collective sales (HT, Gillman Hghts etc) and from TC’s own experience. Extensions to extensions are common practice.

I feel there are some very serious problems with this CSA and the method of sale which it proposes.

(a) First of all, the CSA is incomplete. It is always unwise to approve a document which is still in the earliest stage of drafting. Important pages are left completely blank, information necessary to make an informed decision absent. By the LTSA, the CSA must state the Reserve Price, Method of Apportionment of Sales Proceeds, Solicitor and Marketing Agent Fees, other costs (such as compensation fund), person entitled to interest derived from moneys held by the stakeholder and date of delivery of vacant possession of the lot. Only the marketing agent fees have been included, the rest have not or are vaguely set out. One cannot simply assume or imagine with a document of this importance that the correct information will be appended later on. The CSA has thus been presented to us prematurely and cannot be passed in it's present form.

(b) 'Units' verses the LTSA 'all lots and common property in the strata plan'.

I have to wonder at the wisdom of 'dumbing down' a legal document into the vernacular if the essential meaning gets lost in translation. There needs to be clarification on what is actually being sold in this collective sale. Starting with the Definitions of 'Collective Sale', 'Purchaser' , 'Sale price', and 'Units'; there clearly is no mention of common property. Indeed under 'Units', it refers specifically to the Schedule 1 at the back of the CSA - a Schedule that is completely blank. So we do not know exactly what units will be eventually added to this page - and consequently we do not know what is exactly being sold collectively. Will it be 560 or some other figure? Do not assume, one must see it in black and white as that is the whole point of legal documentation. Further to this point, please take note of clause 8.1.1 whereby Sellers agree to sell their units by any mode of sale and 8.1.12 where the Purchaser may require separate agreements for the sale of each unit. The combination of a loose meaning for 'Units' and a Purchaser going around apparently mopping up units as if they were on the open market makes me wonder if the wording is not intentional after all. If 'Units' is indeed synonymous with 'all lots and common property in the strata plan' then it must specifically say so. The Purchaser cannot buy units individually, they must be sold as a collective package, or not at all.

(c) The mode of sale is at variance with the LTSA Third Schedule 11.(1)(2)(3).
There are only three methods of sale in the LTSA: public tender, public auction or private treaty. This CSA does not restrict itself to these three alone, but opens the door to any mode of sale in clause 8.1.1. This is a reversion to the old ways and a possible sale aka round 1.
There is no reference at all made to 11.(1) of the Third Schedule in the CSA but there is a lookalike clause in 2.5 . Important words, however, have been substituted, the word 'only' has been scrubbed and there is a subtle change in the meaning. There is no doubt that there will be a tender or auction as we are assured of that in clause 8.1.11 - but it may just be going through the motions of satisfying the mandatory requirement. Any mode of sale means just that, anything is possible. Tender, Auction, Private Treaty, Expression of Interest (8.4), Invitation for an offer to purchase (8.4), separate agreements (8.1.12) - or a mix of of some sort. The 5 possible modes of sale are envisioned and cemented in the DEFINITIONS of "Sale Contract"
I would advocate the removal of clauses 8.1.12 , 8.4, 'any mode of sale' in clause 8.1.1, and the alignment of all related clauses to the exact wording of LTSA 11.(1)

(d) Promises and loss of liberty. The 33 covenants and agreements are not for the fainthearted. A seller may be the legal owner of his property but he is not the master of his home or his destiny - the SC is (and through the SPA, the eventual Purchaser) . Owners need to be aware of clauses 11.7, 11.9, 11.10, 11.21 as being particularly restrictive and controlling. In fact, I believe the acceptance of these clauses will impinge on the Sellers liberty to choose when it comes to executing his 'Approval' on certain matters. I would advocate clause 11.7 come with an exception for those documents that require 'Sellers Approval'. Sellers need to be certain that any non - approval will not be in breach of the Agreement and expose them to being sued under clause 4.4.8. Clause 11.10 needs to be amended likewise, there must be liberty to vote 'against ' and not only 'for' any matters relating to the collective sale. I suggest a rewording to 'vote on' with no negative repercussion on the Seller. Similarly 11.21 should be scrapped in it's entirety as this is the mother of all knuckleduster clauses - it strips the Seller of their right to dissent, even in the event of a disastrous sale. 21 Phoenix Court majority owners found this out the hard way at the High Court when the judge came down very heavily on them drawing on this very same clause. On top of that, as they were obliged to indemnify the sale committee jointly and severally against all losses, damages and expenses ( same as 11.29 in our CSA) they were ordered to pay indemnity costs to all 9 SC members. Thus, such provisions in our CSA should be removed, for owners' protection.

(e) Sellers' Approval for clauses 8.1.3, 8.2.1, 8.2.2, 9.1, 9.3, 12.2. . Owners will need the Solicitor at the EGM to state for the record the exact process by which Seller Approval, especially for clause 8.1.3 would be executed. The actual process is vague which is in stark contrast to the precise legal nature of the rest of the CSA and so should be amended to include the detailed mechanism by which Sellers' Approval is obtained. . Sellers' Approval is required for a) lowering of the RP b) amending the Method of Apportionment and c) extending the SC approved 2 month extension of the Completion Date

Sellers' Approval is a mirage in the SPA
How potent or weak is Sellers' Approval?
Phoenix Court Story: Under the SPA, the sellers had 6 months to obtain the STB approval failing which the SPA would terminate. They received a letter from the Purchaser reminding them that they had to use their best endeavors to perform the SPA failing which the Purchaser was entitled to its remedies under the SPA. They were told that in order to satisfy the requirement of using it's best endeavors under the SPA and to avoid breaching the contract in the event the STB order was not obtained in time, the sellers had to extend the validity of the SPA. The SC called for an urgent sellers meeting and less than 80% approved the extension. 14 angry sellers took the matter to the High Court. The ruling made was very illuminating; clause 3.(i) of their SPA stated that the Agreement would terminate at 6 months if no STB order was obtained. The STB order was not made in the 6 months time frame but because the sellers had given the SC wide-reaching powers including the authority to negotiate and enter into an SPA , because the sellers, by law, have to use their best endeavors to obtain the order from the STB, and because sellers had signed a promise not to do anything whether by act or omission that may prevent or otherwise be detrimental to the Collective sale or the fulfillment of any of the purpose under the CSA or the SPA, the extension was guaranteed. The lesson I have learned from all this is that it does not matter one iota what SPA says with regard to termination or extensions - the Sellers have no choice but to extend or they are landed in hot water.

There is one glaring omission from this list of Sellers' Approval - and that is to seek Sellers' Approval or Reaffirmation before the SC sign for any SPA. If they can take the trouble to get 80% signatures for the above 3 matters - then there is NO REASON why they cannot add this to their list. There is a perfect point in the process where this can be done; the final scheduled Subsidiary Proprietors meeting (but not after the sale, please, that would be preposterous!)
Third Sch: (4) As soon as practicable after the close of the public tender or public auction referred to in paragraph 11 or, where applicable, after the collective sale committee has entered into a private contract under that paragraph, the collective sale committee must convene a meeting of subsidiary proprietors, of which at least 7 days' notice is given —

(a) to provide information on the number of offers received for the collective sale and the respective prices so offered; and
(b) to provide information on the terms and conditions of the sale and purchase agreement.
At the end of the day, this is the most important condition for owners, and if 80% want to proceed from this point onwards, then all the extensions to extensions etc can be happily entered into.

(f) The omnipotent Sale Committee
The powers given to the sale committee are wide-reaching : 4.4.1 to 4.4.13 , 9.6, 5.2.6, 8.1.11
According to the 2nd Schedule (4) “powers, duties or functions shall be decided by ordinary resolution passed at the general meeting. So the extra powers 4.4.1 to 4.4.13 should have be voted on separately and not passed with all the other terms in the CSA.

4.4.1 and 4.4.2 are open to abuse and owners might find themselves severely out of pocket if they sign these clauses. The SPs at EGM 3 on Sat 23 Sep 2011 voted against doing a valuation prior to setting the RP. So 'more' can be deleted in the sentence as only 1 valuation report is called for at close of tender. Is the MA envisioning engaging a second Valuer if the Valuation at close of tender is higher than the proposed SP and the valuer refuses to reconsider? (aka Marine Point 2011). And why are other property consultants added to the list? What is their function? Aren't we paying ERA $X million if the sale is successful? Other professionals can mean a dozen lawyers, senior counsels ...
4.4.3, 4.4.4, and 9.6 is where the real danger lies.
4.4.3 It is not for the sale committee to propose the terms of the Agreement solely - Owners can ask for what they think is necessary for the process, or for them to participate in the process. The ultimate choice is with the owners themselves on how the sale should be conducted.
I wonder if the drafter of this CSA was aware of the significance of the numbers 444 when he chose to use them for this particular clause - it surely is a die-die item! Too much power is being given to the SC, especially when 4.4.4 is combined with 9.6 (which allows them to change the terms and 5.2.6 'take all actions'. The SPA is far more dangerous document that the CSA and owners will not have the luxury of looking over the terms and conditions as the SC will decide (or capitulate) on all the terms. Just by looking at the Sale Term Contingencies (9) you can get a feel for how this marketing agent is readying for a pro-Purchaser Agreement. There is nothing good here, just an ominous warning of things to come. The CSA is taking care to get early clearance for the worst of Purchaser demands when they should be shoring up owners interests and concerns. Worst of all is 9.6; a total repeat of round 1. Why are we bothering to discuss the terms if the SC can change them willy-nilly afterward? Dangerously absurd.

I advocate :-

the removal of clauses 9.6, 4.4.1, 4.4.2, 4.4.3, 4.4.7, 4.4.8, 4.4.10
amendment to 4.4.4 'to ............. purchaser and to seek approval from the Sellers at the Scheduled Owners meeting to which 7 days notice has been given before approving ................................ Sellers'.
amendment to 4.4.13 to include 'all other laws, regulations or government policies '

(g) Lowering of the Reserve Price 8.1.3
This is new ground for Tampines Courters and we should tread very carefully by making sure there are no traps ahead. Owners should first be satisfied that a fair and transparent mechanism for signing any supplemental Agreement is in place. The time frame must be established and adhered to.
Clause 8.1.3 (a) needs to be explained because it makes no sense why 'below' is there if the proposed sale price is already on the table. There is definitely something wrong here.
There is always the danger that some owners might get 'top ups' to encourage them to re-sign. It is illegal, but really, what can you do about it? If it is done in stealth then how to catch them at it? Clause 8.1.12 looks suspicious to me for this reason.
I advocate the removal of 8.1.12 because why give the Purchaser a legal loophole if they are caught topping up.

(h) Solicitor needs to explain these funny clauses
There is another clause that gives me pause for thought: 2.11 and it's 'or otherwise where they enter', because I do not know what supplemental agreement they are talking about. Neither am I sure if all 4 instances are referring to the STB and High Court orders
In clause 2.12, how can there be an 'or otherwise'? Surely only the STB or the High Court can force a minority owner to be bound to the terms of the CSA? Only they have the right to strip owners of their proprietary rights.
Clause 8.1.4: So, if the Solicitor is tardy in sending out the letter, and the Purchaser claims he never received it, these can add months on to the completion of sale. Why is it not 3 months from the date of receipt by the SOLICITOR of the STB's confirmation?

(i) Completion Date (8.1.4, 9.1)
Clause 9.1 blows the completion date right out of the water. The Purchaser can delay the date of completion ' for any other reasons'. So, if the property market takes a sudden downturn, the Purchaser can put the sale on hold for a few years? It all hinges on whether 'Sellers' Approval' has any bite - or is it just whitewash. Will a Sellers' obligation to use his best endeavours to give effect to the terms of the agreement coupled with his multiple covenants render him powerless to refuse? Turn your thoughts back to the gun held to the Sellers heads in Horizon Towers and Phoenix Court and probably many more if I dig deep enough.

(i)Dreadful Sale Term Contingencies
In round 1, some of the SPA terms were owner-friendly: -for example, only 5% of the sales proceeds to be retained until vacant possession, Owners to pay a token $1 rent per month to stay for the FULL 6 months until vacant possession. Over-stayers to pay $300 per day. Non completion due to death or incapacity was 1 month for each occurrence. Owners did not have to give vacant possession simultaneously or moneys held until the last person left. The owners did not have to pay property tax and the Purchaser paid for all outgoings.

Compare that to the full 9. Clause: 9.2, 9.3 (a real bruiser, read it as 100% again with a possible whitewashing Sellers' Approval), 9.4, 9.5. There are people in the estate who haven't moved home in 26 years; you can't expect them to find a new home in 3 months. Only those who have second properties can move out at such short notice. If the Purchaser wants this term then the SC should tell him a straight No! The LTSA allows for 6 months, the Purchaser knows this and should not disturb this condition for collective sale.

We do not need to hobble the Sale Committee in their negotiations by agreeing to pro-Purchaser terms in advance. These are not 'deal breaking' terms, they are arm-twisting terms. Lets have some faith that our negotiating team can do better than this. If not, why are we sending in a bunch of schoolgirls to do man's job? Why are we throwing in the towel before the fight begins?
I advocate the removal of all Sale Term Contingencies

(j) Dreadful Covenants and Agreements
11.5, 11.6 ; Who decides what is sufficient? Why don't we just get a 'cat-o-nine-tails' and whip the owners into submission? We must not leave any owner out to dry like this, I would prefer to see a reasonable set sum ($300 per day) rather than an open 'claims, losses or damages' which would bankrupt anyone . There is no mercy, no discretion, no consideration at all for how an owner would find himself in this predicament. Remember, this is an Agreement between neighbours, have we become that bloodthirsty?

(k) The execution page (page 30)
VERY POORLY DRAFTED -
What's missing:

Name and IC number of Seller(s)
Place of Signature
Contact number
Reserve Price (because it is SO important)
Special Conditions/ Supplemental agreement(s) (if any)
Previous Rescission date (if any)

Some points from an SP

2011-09-21T10:20:00.002+08:00

The following is an email I received from the vice-chairman of the SC. He requested that I post it on my blog. Sorry the format got a bit messed up. I have edited out my proper name only and replaced it with itshometome.

MY OBSERVATIIONS ON ‘itshometome’‘s QUERIES ON DRAFT CSA ( collective suicide agreement)

8.1.1 “ ANY MODE OF SALE “ , in my view .would include sale that could be a combination of the three methods specified and not by one specifically - I would think these words can be deleted too – SC will request solicitors to clarify.
8.1.1 and 8.1.4 – Clause 8.4 is intended to provide SC a means to test market conditions ahead of 80% and is only a contingency for prudent use.
8.1.12 : This clause is mean to provide “separate sale contracts with buyers by each seller” (if so required by buyer) but the terms of sale will be what has been agreed upon as collective sale – it would not lead to any seller getting a better deal
9.2 -again a contingency condition subject to SC approval - and not a blanket concession to buyers – SC PROPOSES TO DELETE THIS CLAUSE
4.4.7 This clause does not give the buyers the “powers of demolition etc as alleged but only refers to execution of documents that may be needed by buyers-
8.1.8 If any seller does not vacate as agreed upon as per CSA, he is naturally responsible for outgoings if any – how can be he exempted ?
8.1.8 The law society conditions do not apply where seller does not vacate as agreed to him by completion date
12.4 is a logical clause following the failure to complete by completion date- the presumption of the SP does not appear correct
11.7 &11.21 the interpretation given by itshometome is not correct in my view . as it refers to survey or any other documents that are “ INCIDENTAL OR NECESSARY” for the purpose of the CSA agreement - it does not say SP should sign any document of abject surrender or abrogation
11.21 I do not agree with itshometome's inference or stretch of the meaning and effect of this clause – SC WILL REQUEST LAWYERS TO CLARIFY
4.4,11.9 AND 11.21 : Clause 4.4 begins with the CLEAR STATEMENT that the SC has all but only the POWERS , DUTIES AND FUNCTIONS CAST UPON THE SALE COMMITTEE UNDER THE STARTA ACT” and ends with 4.4.12 and 4.4.13 STATING THE FIDUCIARY DUTIES ANDOBLIGATIONS OF THE SC UNDER THE ACT “11.9 refers to “ coopereation “ and 11.21 refers to survey forms or documents having correlation to the purpose of agreement. I DO NOT SEE ANY REASON FOR itshometome’s CLAIM THAT THESE CLAUSES MAKE ANY SIGNATORY A “VASSAL" . SC WILL REQUEST SOLCIITORS TO CLARIFY FURTER IF NEED BE.
4.4.10 This clause only states that SC will convene EGMs in accordance with Strata Act.
In my View this clause needs AMEDMENT since EGM is not necessary to remove any SC member who has not signed CSA as Sale committee itself can do so Solicitors are requested to verify this and amend suitably, if required
4.4.2/11.29 These clauses are not an authority for BLANK CHEQUE “in my view but only provide for a contingency if more than one valuation needed . When a majority of SPs constitute an SC , I do believe that they will also trust SC to exercise the necessary discretion based on evolving market situation (This issue has been considered at recent EGM ON 24.09.2011)
4.4.2 AND 11.29 : 4.4.2 may be deleted though it does not mean a blank cheque situation . Clause 11.29 covers a very possible scenario and does not mention about appointment of more than one solicitor. In SC’S view RHT law LLP has the required expertise to handle these situations on their own.
-
I do not comment as it appears “ free for all “ view and I am unableto ascertain “what free spending activity “ is being referred to .( No clause quoted)
9.6 This clause has been discussed and clarified by the Solicitors at the EGM on 24.09.11. In any case , I am requesting the Solicitors to clarify and amend further if necessary
4.4.7 I do not agree with the views of itshometome on this clause –after all cooperation with any buyer without prejudice to our right of sale or to terms of sale ( within legal bounds) is not to be objected to.
8.1.10 I see no “ illegality “in this clause which is a standard clause .
9.4 Yes itshometome's objection deserves consideration and Solicitors will be requested to re-examine this clause
9.3 “ No , there is no any HELL SITUATION as it is subject to SELLERS APPROVAL
4.4.2/5.2.6 As mentioned earlier clause 4.4.2 may be deleted if so deemed fit. 5.2.6 only refers to appeal to Strata Title Board/High court when required which is a logical process of Collective sale and as per other clauses of CSA.
The situation of payment in kind is not being envisaged
Clauses 8.1.11 and 8.3 specifically provide for sale only at Higher of Reserve Price/ Valuation either by tender or private treaty . I do not see merit in this objection.
26.As it is possible to lower RP only with sellers consent ,obviously an EGM would be required to be called for within the legal time frame available under strata act.
8.1.3 This is a theoretical objection as any Lower price less than RP is subject to Sellers approval and Sellers are not expected to agree to any price -let alone SC endorsing any such price
8.1.3 (B) I do not see the validity of this observation of itshometome – apparently the withdrawing seller is ultimately bound by the eventual outcome if 80% consent is there (barring him)
clause 8.1.14 I see no harm in sharing this data.
Clause 16.3 This was clarified by solicitors at the EGM on 24.9.2011
11.10.11.9 11.21 . Frankly I am unable to understand the deduction arrived at by itshometome from these clauses - these have been clarified earlier
11- Well, any legal agreement has to have some covenants / clauses depending on the complexity of transaction and legal provisions - I would prefer to be guided by my solicitors on these covenants unless I find any thing obviously prejudicial to my interests as c collective seller .
11.8 We can request the solicitors to amend this clause to exempt seller(S) disclosure to their own solicitors
6, 11 .29 and 14.1 I would leave the Solicitors to explain the rationale of these clauses to SPs but I do note that STRATA ACT provides for indemnity for SC members acting in a bonafide manner .
11.27 I would imagine that this clause is required given the nature of the CSA and in any case the key word here is “ in accordance with this agreement “ AND “lawfully” SC will request solicitors to amplify.
11.7.11.8 .11.9 11.10 ,11.21 11.27 - I do not concur with the inference/Conclusion drawn by itshometome from reading these clauses some of which have been dealt with individually earlier . SC will request solicitors to clarify.
Yes it is important observation and I will leave it to be discussed with SPs/Solicitors at the next SC meeting

As regards the VIEWS/OPINIONS expressed by itshometome on:

a) Incomplete CSA ( This a valid point and already discussed at last EGM)

The next EGM should have the complete CSA.

b) Units VERSUS All lots of common property – The observations are well taken, but it is to be noted that clauses 1 and 2 make it clear as what is being sold and the
“ unit or units “ have to be read in the context of these clauses

c) Mode of Sale- The fears of itshometome that “any other mode of sale” paves the way for sale AKA round I do not seem to be justified though the solicitors are being requested to clarify as to the legal import/practical implication of these words

d) Promises and loss of Liberty : itshometome’s fears / considers compromise of individual sellers interest in clauses 11.7. 11.9 11.20 AND 11.21 do not appear justified (in my view) if one reads these clauses fully and in the whole context of the CSA. Of Course, the words” Vote for “ can be amended to “Vote on” .Clause 11.7 refers only to documents

“Incidental “ or required for the “ purpose of this agreement and not for any or all document s

Does clause 11.21 deprive Seller(S) of all rights and is it really “A Knuckeduster clause”.

I Do no think so but I will leave it to Solicitors to clarify .

e) Sellers approval : The Gist of ‘itshometome’’s extensive arguments on this subject (clauses 8.13, 8.2.1, 8.2.2 ,9.1 ,9.3AND 12.2 ) is that “ SELLERS APPROVAL MUST BE OBTAINED BEFOR SIGNING SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT “

The Point is STRATA ACT does not require it and Third Schedule clause 4 quoted by her says” interalia “ that the meeting of subsidiary proprietors must be convened AFTER THE CLOSE OF TENDER /AUCTION OR SALE COMMITTEE ENTERED INTO A PRIVATE CONTRACT ,

TO PROVIDE INFROMATION ON OFFERS RECEIVED/INFORMATION ON SALE AND PURCHASE AGREEMENT ‘S TERMS AND CONDITIONS

This section envisages a Sale and Purchase contract prior to convening the meeting .

It is not therefore clear how itshometome claims that this is the perfect point for sellers affirm UNLESS the sellers/SC agree to do so in advance in CSA.

In my opinion the suggestion of itshometome may be impractical though the merits of the suggestion are unquestionable . This needs to be discussed with Solicitors /SP s.

f) The Omnipotent Sale Committee (4.4to 4.4.13, 9.6,5.2.6 and 8.1.11)

IT MAY NOT BE PROPER ON MY PART TO COMMENT ON itshometome's OBSERVATIONS ON THESE CLAUSES AS I AM A MEMBER OF THE SALE COMMITTEE BUT I CAN ASSURE THAT THIS DRAFT IS PREAPRED BY THE SOLICITORS ON THEIR OWN AND IS NOT ON DICTATES OF ANY ONE .BE IT SC OR MARKETING AGENT.

Clauses 4.4 and 9.6 were briefly discussed at the last EGM and I would deem it best to discuss these clauses with the Solicitors in the SC meeting convened for discussing CSA.

g) Lowering of RP 8.1.3

I do not concur with the view that this clause enables SC to sign “illegal agreements with “topups” for some units . Of course it is agreed that we need to have a fair and transparent mechanism for signing any supplemental agreement with stated purposes with sellers approval ,where necessary .

SC will seek Solicitors opinion on this clause .

h) 2.11 .2.12 and 8.1.14 ( Funny clauses)

It may not be fair to brand these clauses as “ Funny “. The words “otherwise where they enter “ may refer to a situation where they wish to sign ON THEIR OWN VOLITION while STB/HC proceedings are on . Solicitors will be requested to elaborate .

Clause 8.1.4 : Why it should be presumed that the lawyers will be “tardy “ here ? one can Ask “ why not in all situations” – Does one really think any lawyer will be so negligent?

i) DREADFUL SALE TERM CONTINGENCIES -9.1 to 9.6

While I do not think all these clauses require removal , there is a case , for relook at clauses 9.2 and 9.4 ( as has been commented earlier )

The Solicitors will be requested to look into these clauses again .

Pl.note clause 9.3 requires sellers approval.

j) Dreadful Covenants and Agreements.11.5 AND 11.6

My comment is : Should not we have deterrent clauses and conditions to avoid willful default or negligence in any collective sale ? Even in individual purchase and sale , indemnities and recovery of costs of enforcement are provided.

The solicitors will be requested to clarify further.

k) Missing data- Well noted and will be incorporated in Final draft CSA .

VASAN

Note : Though I am a member of the Sale Committee , my above reply /observations to the various queries/observations of itshometome are my own and are not necessarily the formal views/response of SC . My views or replies are based on my understanding of law and errors and omissions in interpretations of legal provisions are excepted.

2nd Draft CSA

2011-09-20T18:58:00.022+08:00

Owners received the 2nd Draft of the CSA today - just 4 days before the EGM.

An incomplete / messy document:

no Reserve Price
Schedule 1: Owners and units: empty
Schedule 2: Method of Apportionment: empty
Schedule 3: terms of Appointment of Solicitors: empty
Schedule 5: members of the Sale Committee: empty
Schedule 6: The Representatives; empty

There was an 'URGENT NOTICE TO ALL SPS FROM TAMPINES COURT SALE COMMITTEE ' dated 09 September, but we only received it on the 20th. Not so urgent afterall?

So, the strata area for individual units is up in the air. I would have thought the marketing agent/solicitor could have and should have made a better effort at this, seeing as owners cannot decide on important matters until they are sure of their facts. The very least they could have done is print out the list of all units and their strata area as ascertained by them from the SLA in Schedule 1, and owners could then be asked to check for any discrepancy in their lot. As it is, we do not know what figures the MA has and so it may all be just a pointless exercise.

If there is a discrepancy then sure, call your solicitor ( not the en bloc guy, he has said he will NOT deal with individual SPs and their questions) and have him do the checking for you, that is probably the safest thing to do, but if not then this is what I did in less than 15 minutes.

First of all, I know my strata area is 156 sqm because my previous owner had bought 1m of recess area before privatisation and so it is reflected in the deeds. But just for fun I dug around to see if it could be confirmed somehow.

My first stop was INLIS ( Integrated Land Information Service) here

I clicked on the 'Property Ownership Information' for $5.25 in the top left hand column.

I just filled in my unit's information on the top right column and clicked go

I bought the info using my Visa.

It was accessible immediately and I downloaded and printed out a copy. The 3 page pdf showed Mukim Lot No, property address, Lot area, tenure, lease duration, Proprietor names, IC numbers and citizenship.

It tallied with my deeds.

The recess area was bought from the HDB, so they too would have a record. Now in 2003, The HDB sent a letter to someone called Mr G. informing the MCST that 305 units in total had bought over all or part of the recess area. They enclosed a list of units under annex A - so I presume the MCST office would still have that list on it's files. I only have the page with my unit number on it.

Waiting for Godot

2011-09-19T08:48:00.010+08:00

We have been reassured by many pro-enblocers pushig this sale that the 'New Rules' will be followed, that the amendments to the LTSA are enough to ensure that there will be no repeat of the disastrous sale attempt in round 1. We are to put our faith in the mechanisms that failed us so badly before.

Ask them to quote which new rules they are referring to, and you will most likely get a blank stare or expert waffle of some sort. It is well to take a re-look at the Land Titles Strata Act to remind ourselves of these new 'safeguards', and see whether in fact the CSA will follow exactly the statutory law, or change the wording to something entirely different.

On the matter of mode of sale, we are told in the Third Schedule that:

Collective sale by public tender or auction
11. —(1) The collective sale of all lots and common property in a strata title plan shall be launched for sale only by way of public tender or public auction.

(2) A valuation report by an independent valuer on the value of the development as at the date of the close of the public tender or public auction shall be obtained by the collective sale committee on the date of the close of the public tender or public auction.

(3) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (1), the collective sale committee may, within 10 weeks from the close of the public tender or public auction, enter into a private contract with a purchaser for the sale of all the lots and common property in a strata title plan.

There is no mention of an Expression of Interest (EOI) because this method caused so much aggravation and unhappiness in past collective sales. The new rules seek to put order where chaos reigned before. There is no leeway for any other mode of sale, either. Take note of small words, such as 'shall' and 'only' as they are not the same as, for example, 'may' and 'any other'.

Remember that.

On the matter of Rescission of Agreement (ie, backing out once you have signed) we are told in the First Schedule that:

5. The collective sale agreement shall be accompanied by a notice, in the prescribed form, that may be used by the subsidiary proprietor to rescind his agreement to be a party to the collective sale agreement.

6. A subsidiary proprietor may rescind his agreement to be a party to the collective sale agreement by serving a notice of rescission referred to in paragraph 5 within the cooling-off period which shall be a period of 5 days (excluding any day which is a Saturday, Sunday or public holiday) after the day on which the collective sale agreement was signed by him.

7. The notice of rescission shall be signed by the subsidiary proprietor and shall be served personally on the advocate and solicitor appointed by the collective sale committee before 5 p.m. on the last day of the cooling-off period.

8. A subsidiary proprietor shall not be entitled to serve a notice of rescission more than once for the same collective sale agreement.

Once only, so if you use up your solitary chance at the beginning, during the cooling off period, you can not rescind again later in the process, Also, there is no mention that the owner who rescinds has to give up any of his rights along with the rescission. If 'rescission' has the same legal meaning as 'withdrawing' from the agreement for any other reason , then watch out, because you may find yourself in a catch 22 situation and unable to withdraw.

Remember that

Sale Committee Meeting No 8 Notice

2011-09-18T10:05:00.002+08:00

Tues, 20 Sept, 8pm, Activity Room

They should consider postponing the CSA EGM as they have failed to provide owners with a draft CSA in reasonable time.

CSA botch-up or hardball tactics?

2011-09-17T07:53:00.004+08:00

EGM 3 in 4 Days

No update on the Sale Committee website
No apology for missing draft CSA
No explanation for said missing CSA
No reassurance of draft CSA in near future
No answer to request for copy of draft CSA

This is what the management office has to say:-

By the BMSM Act, the managing agent has to give 2 weeks notice to all owners when holding an EGM/AGM. Owners received the Notice on Friday 9th Sept as the EGM is set for Sat 24 Sept. The managing agent received an email shortly before sending out the Notice saying not to attach the CSA as 2 documents were missing. Until the managing agent receives the 2 missing documents the CSA distribution has been put on hold.

So, we shall eventually receive the draft CSA, but the question is, when and will it be too late? Anything less than a week and the EGM should be postponed. Owners will have insufficient time to read the document fully and/or show it to their legal advisers.

I am beginning to wonder if the delay is in fact intentional. Are we being played for chumps? There is absolutely no reason why the main body of the CSA could not have been sent along with the Notice and the two missing 'documents' attached later as an addendum. This the draft CSA afterall, not the real deal.

EGM No 3

2011-09-09T08:08:00.039+08:00

Notice for the EGM No 3 to be held on Sat 24 Sept has been sent out and I received my copy today. This EGM is mainly to resolve and approve the terms and conditions of the Collective Sale Agreement.....

ONLY NO DRAFT CSA IS ATTACHED

My previous post on the Agenda here

Subsidiary Proprietors have not been given a copy of the draft CSA for their perusal before the EGM. I believe since the CSA was mentioned in the Notice and is the main focus of the meeting, it should have been attached as a supporting document.

If we do not receive the CSA soon, and I mean very soon, then this hardball tactic at bulldozing the CSA through the mandatory EGM before owners can have time to peruse and contemplate on the document is not fair. There are many, many owners in the estate whose English is not strong enough to take in pages of information at one sitting, never mind asking relevant questions. I have read this draft CSA, and believe me it is a horror to behold.

Sale Committee Meeting No 7 Minutes

2011-09-05T14:27:00.028+08:00

SC Minutes 7 (Edited)

'Emergency Meeting' at KFC .... on the morning of the 10th of August; I believe this to be a typo error, it should be Sat 27 Aug (unconfirmed).

Anyway, my suspicion that the worst of the sale committee members (whose election should have been voided due to her gross non-disclosure) had somehow been removed was right. Her name was absent from the last minutes. Two members have 'resigned due to personal reasons'. There are 4 new owners left with 10 declared properties between them.

The SC noted that the amended CSA has been received from the Lawyers

I doubt if there have been any substantial changes, and the 2 week notice before the next EGM should be ample time to reappraise the text.

The SC noted the Solicitors advice that they would not be able to respond directly to the Letters/Notice of Motion sent by SPs. since they are engaged by the SC, and it would not be possible for them to deal with issues raised by individual SP(s).

So you see, these lawyers are not YOUR lawyers, they are not acting on YOUR behalf and even though you will eventually pay them thousands of dollars in fees, they will not answer a single question you pose, unless you are thinking about signing the CSA that is. This should not deter you from writing to them however, and maybe even start CC-ing your emails to the STB or even the Ministry of Law...

the individual SP(s) may take up with SC or at the EGM , and SC to advise SP accordingly the SC are in the dark, too, and cannot answer the kind of legal questions I may wish to ask. At the EGM, there may not be enough time given over to Q&A and with no stationary microphone it is all too easy to ignore some SPs raised hands. I expect the en bloc lawyer and marketing agent to talk for a very long time, eating up as much time as possible before allowing owners a limited chance to speak.

The issue of strata area was discussed and pending re-verification of the exact strata area

which may take some time, it was agreed to seek postponement of the EGM by few days from the scheduled date of 17.09.2011

So, my accusation about the marketing agent using the wrong total strata area at the last EGM didn't fall on deaf ears. It is well to make them double check and produce the Singapore Land Authority confirmation of total strata area, with the breakdown per unit because either:-

the current marketing agent is wrong, in which case the proposed sales proceeds on a per unit basis would have to be adjusted downwards, or
the last set of figures given in the affidivat at the STB was erroneous in which case some owners would have received more than their fair share of the sales proceeds.

I have found just a single 1m discrepancy in our last en bloc lawyers figures. It rests on this marketing agent to prove their figures are correct (which I do not believe they are).

And what about their basis for using only 85% efficiency when it should be 95% at least?

I have handed the SC the formal valuations under affidavit at the STB for verification; the Bonus GFA is added to the GFA when computing the residual land value.

The EGM has been postponed to Sat 24 Sept

DC Rates Sept 2011

2011-09-01T08:51:00.005+08:00

September Revision of Development Charge rates: URA Media Release
Tampines Court is Sector 98, Use Group B2: DC Rate: $3150

In the light of the change in DC rate, the marketing agent should resubmit their calculations for the Differential Premium and Lease Top-up for owners to view.

The change should not reflect in a lower reserve price as they have already lopped off 10% efficiency in their calculations and they should not use this change as an excuse to lower the RP even further.

Sept Media

2011-09-01T08:39:00.018+08:00

Average mass market home prices hit $1million - 23 Sep 2011
Developers to hold back on future land bids - 20 Sep 2011
Private housing market continues to surprise -
Oversupply risks in OCR -
Parkway View up for sale with $81m price tag - 22 Sep 2011
Private property demand not expected to ease up - 19 Sep 2011
Worry more about risk levels and less about supply - 16 Sep 2011
Housing demand will remain stable - 14 Sep 2011
Dynasty Garden freehold site up for sale - 6 Sep 2011
Daisy Apartments sold en bloc for $14.62m - 6 Sep 2011
Park West up for en bloc - 6 Sep 2011
Kovan residences sees prices hit $1267 psf - 5 Sep 2011
Hoi Hup set to buy Whitley Heights for $159m in collective sale - 2 Sep 2011
MND raises devt charges for new building projects 01 Sept 2011

Pubic Tender or Public Auction?

2011-08-19T13:07:00.014+08:00

3rd Schedule of the LTSA:

Collective sale by public tender or auction
11. —(1) The collective sale of all lots and common property in a strata title plan shall be launched for sale only by way of public tender or public auction.

(2) A valuation report by an independent valuer on the value of the development as at the date of he close of the public tender or public auction shall be obtained by the collective sale committee on the date of the close of the public tender or public auction.

(3) Notwithstanding sub-paragraph (1), the collective sale committee may, within 10 weeks from the close of the public tender or public auction, enter into a private contract with a purchaser for the sale of all the lots and common property in a strata title plan.

I have highlighted the pitfalls of a Private Treaty, so I thought I'd look into the difference between a Tender and an Auction.

We know a tender is purely an exercise to satisfy a statutory regulation (11.-(1)). The Private Treaty is what whets the marketing agent's lips ( and I am speaking generally here) because they have their buyer waiting in the wings since their Expression of Interest Exercise. We know it to be an elaborate con game really.

SC Minutes No 6: To a query from a (SC member) on sale by Public auction , the (lawyer) mentioned that for a property such as TC sale by Tender is best.

Well! He will have to expand on that for us simple owners. First let us educate ourselves on what an Auction means in property transactions. God Bless our ex-en bloc lawyer for leaving behind a treasure trove of information that even today throws up new and interesting nuggets / sources of information. From our old S&P (which is worth a revisit by anyone who wants to know just what is in store), I found the following reference:

THE LAW SOCIETY OF SINGAPORE 'S CONDITIONS OF SALE 1999

1.       Biddings
1.1 On a sale by auction, the following Conditions apply:
(a)           the property must be sold to the highest bidder;
(b)           if there is a dispute about any bid during the auction, the property must be put up again at the last undisputed bid;
(c)          The sale is subject to a reserve price;
(d)          the Vendor or his Agent may bid; and
(e)          the increase in each bid will be regulated by the Auctioneer.

1.2    When the property is offered for sale in lots, the Auctioneer may –
(a)          alter the order in which the lots are auctioned; or
(b)          put up any lot or lots separately or together in any combination.

1.3    The Auctioneer may withdraw the property or any lot or lots without declaring the reserve price.

1.4    No bid may be withdrawn.

Now doesn't that sound more open and transparent than fishy tenders and shady private deals! This GUARANTEES the owners at least the Reserve Price- something which the marketing agent and lawyer seemingly do not want to do - yet owners sign on the expectation that that is what they will get.

Owners should seriously consider this method of sale and NOT be put off by shallow offhand replies.

Sale Committee Blog & SC Meeting No 6 Minutes

2011-08-16T19:34:00.041+08:00

Welcome, Sale Committee, to the blogosphere! Click here for their blog. What a pity it isn't comment enabled.

SC Meeting No 6 MINUTES can be found here

SC Minutes 6 (Edited)

"As the Managing Committee is not obliged to help us in any way", and I should hope not! They are there to take care of the maintenance matters in the estate and not to take sides. I don't want them showing favour and using MCST funds (or waiving fees which amounts to the same thing) for a select group of owners. We all pay the same fees and we should all respect the neutrality of the MC/MA.

"Interested SPs can email their request to : (email address) for a copy of the CSA and give their comments/views on the draft CSA if any".
I expect anyone who reads the draft will have a lot of comments/views. It really is a diabolical document but I will say no more until all owners receive their draft copy.

On the other hand, I see the vice-chairman and chairman valiantly trying to get it right by starting a blog and asking owners to help them in their task. I don't mind helping the good guys, but.........

I worry about how the sale committee votes; '(2) A decision of the majority of members of the collective sale committee present and voting at any meeting of the collective sale committee shall be a decision of the collective sale committee (3rd Sch)' Since there is an even 12, what happens in a tie? When they kick out the sole minority owner, the flipper group will be in control.

I do not wish to inadvertently aid a flipper group who are on the path to gaining a voting majority on the SC.

After reading the minutes of the 6th meeting posted on the Notice Board ( and now their Blog), it is clear that the marketing agent and lawyer are going to be intransigent on the CSA. On one point the MA threatened to quit (and it was underlined as if it really matters) if a certain clause was inserted that seemed eminently reasonable and what owners would want to see. The Vice chairman must have put up a vigorous fight on behalf of the real owners and managed to have an option put in for owner consideration.

If the MA and lawyer object so strongly to the provision suggested by the V-Chairman; "that the SC cannot sell by Private treaty at a price not less than the Valuation amount or Reserve price whichever is higher", then that portends to only one thing; TC is being prepared to be sold for less than the RP.

The excuse given mocks our intelligence: "if it so happens that the price is slightly less than valuation amount , say even by few hundred or few dollars . This will defeat the very intent of collective sale process". So, a developer will not raise his offer by even a few dollars to secure the sale? That a developer will be willing to walk away from a multi-million dollar gold mine over a few hundred dollars? That there will be no effort at all made at negotiation? If they can't negotiate a few dollars, then surely we have the wrong guys.

Alternatively, let the owners decide, I want to see reaffirmation from owners before any Sale Contract is signed. Owners must not make the same mistake twice.

The flippers on the committee and in the estate would not like to see owners take up this option and if the MA quits because of it then so be it. Expect him to threaten as much at the meeting, but remember this legal document will be binding on you, the terms have to be agreeable to you and he has no say in it whatsoever. The eventual sale price - and not just the reserve price - has to be agreeable to you.

This sudden bearish sentiment and lack of confidence in his own reserve price is in stark contrast to the bullish picture he painted on his appointment just a few weeks ago. Just as the premium was no where guaranteed in the last CSA, this time round the RP itself is in jeopardy. When the marketing agent refuses to cement in a reserve price he himself proposed, that surely must send up a flare.

I'm afraid the SC missed out an awful lot of stuff, but that is not surprising since they couldn't have had a lot of time to fully examine the document before the meeting. There is no need for haste, indeed, the slower the better on this item.

UPDATE: 17th September rescheduled to 24th September

Sale Committee Meeting No. 6

2011-08-11T18:58:00.022+08:00

There was a SC last night at the MCST office, but no notice was put up on the board informing owners. There was no general invitation to all interested owners to attend as observers. Now that there is an en bloc lawyer on board, I expect this is the way it will be from now on.

Phase 1, ladies and gentlemen, is over.

Phase 2: We are in deeper waters now, our experience from round 1 tells us that the en bloc lawyer will take over the running of the show from here on in. Will we ever hear the moderate voices on the SC ever again? Are they strong enough to put these professionals in their place? Will they be able to spot all the dangerous clauses in the CSA?

Ah, the proof is in the pudding, they say, so we shall have to wait and see.

Last night they were discussing the proverbial pudding; the draft CSA. We shall have to wait for the minutes of that meeting, which must be posted on the notice board within 7 days to have the smallest glimpse of what went on. Don't expect too much in the way of detail.

153 An SC clearly has a duty to act conscientiously in exercising the power of collective sale. We note that trustees owe a duty of care to their beneficiaries and are bound to take all precautions in the management of the trust property as an ordinary prudent man of business would take in his own affairs

My Request

2011-08-08T10:06:00.015+08:00

Letter sent today to the Sale Committee and 'presumed' en bloc lawyer (still no confirmation on this).

I cc'd the letter to the SC email address: feedbacktampcourt@yahoo.com.sg
and the en bloc lawyer's email found on his website RHT Law LLP @@@@@@
and the TC MCST email just for completeness.

Missing EGM Minutes etc

2011-08-03T10:27:00.006+08:00

The SALE Committee should be renamed the SILENT Committee. It has been one month since the EGM2 and NOT A WORD from them to the owners.

Owners have not been informed about which marketing agent was selected
Owners have not been informed about which en bloc lawyer was selected. According to the explanation given by the managing agent at the AGM held on 21 Aug 2011, there was a Summary of that meeting put up on the Notice Board. I don't remember seeing one, do you? I don't have a record of a Summary from the managing agent.
Owners have yet to see a copy of EGM 1 minutes. There is a Transcript of the meeting, but if owners want a typed copy they will have to pay $100 for it. If they want a CD copy they can request for one at the Office. No minutes were attached to the Notice of EGM 2.
Owners have yet to see a copy of EGM 2 minutes.. The EGM 2 Minutes will be written by the Sale Committee and the managing agent will print and attach a copy to the Notice of the EGM 3
Since no notice of SC meetings has been put up on the notice board, does this mean the SC has not met since 2nd July?
Has there been a change in protocol now that an en bloc lawyer is on board?

From the Third Schedule:

Keeping of records
9. —(1) The collective sale committee shall keep minutes of its proceedings and shall cause minutes of general meetings convened in accordance with the Second Schedule to be kept.

(2) If the management corporation is required by its by-laws to maintain a notice board, the collective sale committee shall cause a copy of the minutes of a meeting of the collective sale committee to be displayed on the notice board within 7 days after the meeting.

If at first you don't succeed.....

2011-08-01T19:34:00.002+08:00

Recently Marine Point went before the Strata Titles Board, and there was some question raised about the Valuation.

ERA was the marketing Agent for Marine Point

The story (as far as I know, though I have to doublecheck):

Valuer (A) did a Valuation report at the close of tender of the sale.

The Valuation was higher than the Proposed Sale Price
There was a Supplemental CSA and a new tender.

They wanted Valuer (A) to lower his valuation but he refused because he felt his first valuation was correct.

So, the Sale Committee got Valuer (B) to do a fresh Valuation and this, they claimed remained sealed and unknown until the close of the second tender.

When they opened up this second valuation they found it to be just right and the sale could then go through!

It must have been magic! It just shows, if you wish hard enough for a perfect match between valuation and proposed sale price, and are prepared to pay for repeated Valuations and cross all your fingers and toes, and swear in court that you didn't influence the outcome in any way, then your wish will certainly come true!

Could this be Tampines Court's fate?

Aug media

2011-08-01T09:14:00.003+08:00

Developers pack more units in some property sites - 23 Aug 2011
More HDB upgraders turning t private properties - Aug 18 2011
Private home sales up 17% in July - Aug 15 2011
The bayshore area sees renewed interest - Aug 8 2011
Grand Tower sold en bloc for $88.5m - Aug 4 2011

We are being surrounded...

2011-07-27T16:21:00.006+08:00

......by MRT stations within easy walking distance.

Construction of Tampines West, Bedok reservoir MRT stations to start this month

Why an Independent Valuation is necessary.....

2011-07-25T15:49:00.058+08:00

Anonymous said:

"Those who suggest independent valuation before setting the RP are naive. You get 10 different valuers, you will get 10 very different valuations. I can tell you now that you will get 10 different figures ranging from $1.2m to $2m for each unit. Those who have work with valuers will know. Valuation is not science but very much an art. Do not waste our money(probably cost from $20k to $100k, again different valuers charge differently) going for valuations!!!"

Those who suggest independent valuation before setting the RP are naive.

No, those who suggest an independent valuation do so from first hand experience of a failed en bloc, having been to court, having sat and listened to how a valuation can be scrutinized and dissected into it's smaller parts. Having watched a valuer from a 'top' company squirm in his seat trying to justify the unjustifiable.

An independent valuation is the only way to counter an improper marketing agent proposal, it will definitely make him squirm first. An independent Valuer (at the beginning of the process) is paid for his services and has no vested interest in setting the price at other than the computed amount. A marketing agent has a vested interest in setting the price low enough for his commission. He will fight to stop owners from getting a valuation done.

It is the owners who feel they can trust a marketing agent to set the reserve price are the ones being naive - doubly naive for being fooled twice with the same trick.

Valuation is not science but very much an art.

Yet, it is still imperative that one be done because no one buys, sells or builds anything without doing a valuation first. Has a developer ever said "let's dispense with this arty valuation and bid any price we feel like? " or" Let's just build without checking the valuation figures, it's not science'. Will a marketing agent dare approach a developer with a piece of land without having worked out the figures to show in advance (not the ones shown to us 'naive' owners) ...Noooo! Developers and Agents apply this 'art' very well (and they have the means and personnel to do it in-house ) and it is an indispensable part of the construction and real estate industries. We, in Tampines Court, require this art, too. We need to know what our land is worth to these other 'artists'. We are not content with just the marketing agent's own 'artistic' valuation.

The Residual Land Value method is the trusted method used by the developers themselves to work out costs.

It is based on IMMUTABLE FIGURES such as site area, plot ratio, development baseline.

It is based on KNOWABLE figures for Tax, Stamp Duty, Government levies and other Financial costs. Without the RLV no developer could ever tender for land or put one stone on top of another. Agents want this RLV to be hidden from owners. They want you to look at their computations only.

No formal valuation means owners have nothing with which to challenge Agent figures
No formal valuation means no basis on which to compare the Valuation done at tender closing.

They want you to wait 2 years to do the compulsory Valuation by which time no valuer can be truly independent knowing that a big developer is waiting for his prize and a valuer cannot afford to offend the big boys and jeopardize his business in the long run. (It took MONTHS for the minority in round 1 to find a single valuer brave enough to go up against the majority valuer at the STB. At one point, it looked like an overseas valuer was the only option left).

Do not waste money!

$67 / unit ($30k / 80% )

But more than that, more than the few miserable dollars it would cost collectively....

Owners who set about selling off their neighbours' homes against their wishes have a MORAL DUTY and a DUTY OF CONSCIENTIOUSNESS to see it done properly. The above Anonymous cavalier attitude and parsimonious approach is a affront to all the decent, hardworking and honest people in this estate.

And why it is too late to do one now....

With regard to Comment no. 1; he makes a very good point. I've had to pull myself up and weigh between my desire to see things done straight down the line and acknowledge my gut feeling that it will do more harm than good as it will clearly come too late in the process.

An independent valuation should be the first order of the day in any collective sale. It is not a question of price, an ethical owner would not begrudge the minor cost if he had the best interests of the estate at heart. It should be done before a the marketing agent is chosen and before anyone can muddy the water with their prejudice. How to collect the money, how much and from whom should have been the first priority of the sale committee, but it was not. TC has missed the boat on that one again. Who knows what went on at the committee meetings; I am sure some SC members must have thought it necessary to do a valuation, but the fact that it has not been even attempted up to now means they are possibly being out-gunned on the votes. I do not know, I am just hypothesizing.

Because Round 2 has been an agent-driven en bloc right out of the starting block, getting a valuation done was never going to happen. Yes, it appeared as a possible resolution on 3 of the requisition forms - you can promise the moon when getting people to requisition - but it did not make it to the agenda of the 2 EGMs held up to now. Even if it were included in the next EGM and passed by the floor, it can never be trusted to be truly independent as we now have a marketing agent on board and a RP on the table. It might be as worthless as the rubber-stamping valuation at the close of tender. Who will it serve best; the owners or the marketing agent? The marketing agent.

Both the sale committee and the owners have lost the high ground, indeed we lost it at the first EGM when TC owners sent the SC on it's merry way without direction. We have let agents run the show and so have little choice left except to let them pick up their under-valued ball and run with it.

As, comment no. 3 correctly says: discerning owners will not sign for this under-valued ball.

EGM 3

2011-07-23T10:20:00.061+08:00

Reset for 24 SEPT 2011

Here is the Requisition Form for EGM 3. The 'at least 20% by share value' owners are requisitioning for these motions to be on the Agenda.

We are 7 months into the collective sale attempt and it is clear things are not being done in a logical order. Indeed as a property-agent-driven-sale from the start, things are going exactly the way the property agent brigade want matters to go: ie the old way.

The main issues above could have and should have been dealt with by the owners 7 MONTHS AGO, they also could have been raised in EGM 2 under 'other matters'. But they weren't.

It was at the FIRST EGM under the missing half of the motion AND ITS POWERS, DUTIES OR FUNCTIONS of the sale committee that the valuation report/ slush fund for miscellaneous matters could have been decided. We were denied half the motion by our managing agent, even though I had written in with a motion to amend the motion for it's inclusion and had my list of powers, duties or functions all ready on the day (Valuation Report before marketing agent selection being No. 1 on the list). The herd mentality from the floor was strong, the speakers were property agents and en bloc raiders determined to do things their way and the mood swayed in their direction. The leader in this en bloc sale attempt, the requisition starter, the one who wanted questioning of sale committee candidates restricted, has turned out to be none other than the Marketing Director for Team ERA.

Resolutions

1: To resolve and approve the terms and conditions on the CSA.

2. To resolve and empower the SC on appointment of an independent property consultant for report on apportionment of sale proceeds.

And when are the owners going to decide on their preferred method of apportionment? Will there be an EGM 4? Or are we being asked to let 10 owners decide alone on this matter?
The SC should not be allowed to choose the valuer; that can easily be done by the owners themselves at the scheduled LTSA Owners' meeting between 80% and tender. The SC can line up 3 valuers for owners to choose from.

3. To resolve and decide on the Reserve Price

4. To resolve and decide on the need for independent Valuation prior to fixing RP and empower the SC to appoint the independent valuer.

It is too late now. The well is poisoned, we have an MA on board and a proposed RP .
.

7. To resolve and authorize the MC to permit the sales committee to use the conference room at no cost.

8. To resolve and authorize the SC to use the void decks for any meeting of the SPs with the Solicitors for signing the CSA or meeting SC members.

This EGM will be the CSA EGM and the CSA MUST include the following (FIRST SCHEDULE):

3. The collective sale committee shall provide a preface to the collective sale agreement stating the clause numbers and page numbers in which the following information are found:
(a) the reserve price for the development;

(b) the apportionment method for the proceeds of sale;
(c) the fees payable to the advocate and solicitor, marketing agent and other person involved in handling the collective sale;
(d) the amount of the compensation fund, if any;

(e) the person entitled to any interest derived from moneys held by any stakeholder; and

(f) the date of delivery of vacant possession of the lot or flat.

NOTE WHEN MAKING COMMENTS:

PLEASE DO NOT STATE THE RP IN YOUR COMMENTS AS IT IS OSTENSIBLY CONFIDENTIAL - THOUGH IT WILL SOON BE AN OPEN SECRET.... IT IS A HASSLE FOR ME TO DELETE

Lengthy Silences

2011-07-21T18:57:00.012+08:00

I have been very lenient on the sale committee up to now as they cannot all be tarred with the same brush. There are some good 'old' owners who genuinely want to see the sale done properly. They have tried to be inclusive by inviting all owners to attend their meetings and the last few minutes have been well written and informative, as they were written by the same 'old' owners mentioned above. So, it is difficult for me to be anti-SC without giving due regard to those good contributors but - in my humble opinion - there is the other half of the sale committee which cannot be trusted one inch.

With a new en bloc lawyer on board, things might go on very differently from now on. We shall see.

We have heard nothing from the sale committee since the EGM. We do not know the official outcome of that meeting, whether the elected lawyer and marketing agent have signed an agreement, or indeed seen the agreement that they signed. It is binding on owners, so we need to see it, thank you. When can we expect the minutes of the meeting to be posted? Will there be a transcript? And what of the CSA, what is happening there? Are owners requests being pooled? Has there been any attempt to canvas for owner input?

My main grouse is this: the sale committee has not developed a direct and speedy form of communication with the masses. Some owners rely entirely on my blog for information which should not be, as I glean my info from here and there and not from the SC directly. The SC emails owners on a selective basis (eg. the minutes of meetings); I have a very serious problem with 'selective' because to me anything 'selective' should be avoided at all costs. There is no way the SC can gather every email address in the estate, and even if it tries, there are bound to be some who simply never use the computer. What are the options open to them?

A blog: no attempt at all on this front as yet.

The letterboxes are locked, and even though the managing agent does have a master key it cannot be used in the service of owners, no matter what group they belong to. I would scream blue murder if I found an anonymous letter or (unfranked) SC letter nestling in there. The managing agent cannot be there at the beck and call of ANYONE.

Which brings us to the topic of Notice Boards:

There are 23 Notice Boards in the estate (including the MC office board). The Notice Board is common property and is managed by the Management Office. They are locked and no one can put things up willy-nilly, it would have to be approved by the managing agent first. As common property, it is maintained with estate funds, which naturally come from all owners in the estate. The sale committee cannot use estate funds for it's activities, save holding the required EGMs. The LTSA states that the meeting minutes and the very important 4 weekly CSA signature collection notices be affixed to the Notice Boards.

The sale committee are requesting to use the Notice Board to post other material.

Now, the sale committee is just one group in the estate, albeit elected, but still just a group of owners with a cause to peddle. It does not seem right that the Notice Board be opened to them alone since there are other individuals/groups who would have equal claim to air their viewpoint and therefore equal claim to use the board. We all pay the same fees remember.

The simple nub of the matter is this: special consideration cannot be shown to one group alone, as it would breach the impartiality of the managing agent and improperly annex common property to further the cause of one faction . The Notice Board, if it is to be open at all, must be universally open to every owner in the estate to post as he or she pleases (within rules laid down by the management office, of course). It must be a case of ALL or NONE.

NEXT EGM: possibly set for 10 Sept, or so I believe. Agenda? No idea as yet.

That patch of land next door...

2011-07-20T11:17:00.001+08:00

The HDB are going to build 148 STUDIO APARTMENTS called GOLDEN CARNATION on the land.

Not bad!

Studio apartments are reserved for the elderly - mere whippersnappers at 55yrs if you ask me.

I doubt if this will result in more traffic pouring out onto Street 11 as they probably won't have too many cars between them. Some might say that this will depreciate the value of TC, but this is sheer nonsense. I am sure they will be quite nice, replete with a nice garden area. Since we are surrounded by HDB already, one more won't make any difference.

What's happening about town

2011-07-14T19:05:00.016+08:00

At the STB today:
ERA is handling the collectives sale at MARINE POINT.
CapitaLand to acquire Marine Point - CNA Jan 2011

A valuation on the estate had been done some time previously ( date unknown to blogger).

The tender for Marine Point closed on November 18, 2010 with no tender bids. It was subsequently sold by Private Treaty. A new valuation was done by Knight Frank which showed that the older valuation was too high. The RP was reduced and 80% of the owners signed for the reduced RP. The minority (a 70yr old woman who speaks no English and is clueless about valuations) is objecting to the sale at the STB. She is not being legally represented and cannot fight fire with fire.

At the High Court tomorrow:
Glenville High Court at 10am.

Just discovered:
The STB has finally decided to put up it's written decisions on past collective sales here (alas, TC is not one of them). Excellent decision by someone at the STB. If only MinLaw would be so good. All such decisions (legal and quasi-legal) are public, paid for out of the public coffers, and should by right be accessible to the public freely and for free.
IMPORTANT READING: FINLAND GARDENS : A lesson on how sneaky agents can be, paying off the last 3 owners to reach the 80% (conditional signers), fending off higher offers because 'negotiations are at an advanced stage' with another customer.

EFFICIENCY

2011-07-11T14:22:00.017+08:00

Since I do not have inside information on how much of the permissable GFA a development has utilized, I shall try and figure out an APPOXIMATION ONLY by using a deductive method.

Now we know the permissable GFA is site area * plot ratio.
The 10% bonus GFA is added on to give a total of 110% GFA.

We can trawl the government data bases to choose recently sold out or nearly sold 99yr developments in the suburbs. One website gives the total number of units & the total number of units sold in a given development. Another website tells you the strata area of each unit sold by the developer (New Sale). Now the developer will sell non-GFA area as GFA (ie planter boxes, PES etc) and I am assuming here than all this sold GFA must not exceed the Master Plan GFA + 10%.

You know by now, how I love making tables:

I estimate the outstanding Strata Area of un-caveated units to be a conservative 93sqm (1000sqft). Given this conservative figure, it seems most of the estates are running at high efficiency - remember 110% is the max.

I shall be keeping an eye on these estates to see how their actual caveats add up. This may not be the best way to figure out the efficiency, but without access to actual developer data, I cannot think of another way.

Actually, I can; if a developer is kind enough to publish the strata area of all the units in the estate either in it's sales brochure on on it's website (and very few are), then that would be a big help. I undertook to do this job last year but after the tedious task of adding up all the units in The Interlace *, The Minton, Flamingo Valley & Lincoln Suites, I pretty much gave up the ghost. But I have added the figures to the table... and surprise, surprise - those estates have estimated efficiencies that look like 95% + 10% to me.

*I could only find the strata area for the 1040 units in The Interlace, the house strata area is therefore unknown

Snippet of info.......

2011-07-10T11:14:00.032+08:00

Did you know that in some collective sales, it is the marketing agents themselves who foot the bill if an en bloc attempt fails, it is not underwritten by the parent company? If anything goes wrong the parent company is not liable and owners would have to go after the individual agents for recompense? Some en bloc sales are purely agent driven; a consortium of agents from different companies banding together to give it a whirl.

I would like to see the sale committee confirm whether 'TEAM ERA' is a consortium of agents acting for ERA or with just ERA's blessing (ie, with no underwriting or liability).

Also, are they co-broking with other non-ERA agents and if so, what are their names.

I think they should seek the lawyers advice on this matter, and make sure that the LETTER OF ACCEPTANCE or APPOINTMENT OF MARKETING AGENT is with ERA REALTY NETWORK PRIVATE LIMITED, SINGAPORE and not just TEAM ERA or property agents.

It is important to know exactly who you are doing business with; so a complete list of the names of agents (and their license numbers) allowed to roam the estate must be published. Also, if there is to be any marketing material/ en bloc information emailed/posted/dropped on doorsteps to owners, then it must comply with the new CEA rules regarding Practice Guidelines on Ethical Advertising. All emails/flyers must have the agent's name and number and the source of their information.

Also, the sale committee should immediately stop the practice of roping in owners on the MC and/or NC to do their mass emailing - it is not the right thing to do. I would like to know in what official capacity they are emailing owners: SC member, ERA agent, MC member or NC member?

LAGUNA PARK

2011-07-06T12:19:00.000+08:00

Laguna Park’s 2nd en bloc sale offer closes

The tender for the collective sale of Laguna Park has closed with no confirmation of a buyer.

Its marketing agent Knight Frank declined to elaborate if any bids were received in the tender, or if the bids matched its reserve price.

But Mr Nicholas Wong, executive director of Investment at Knight Frank said that it is, “in the process of negotiating with an interested party”.

The marketing agent has another 10 weeks to finalise a sale or negotiate a private treaty with interested parties, before the en bloc process collapses.

Experts speculate that Knight Frank’s reluctance to reveal more details could mean a lack of strong interest for the site.

“It doesn’t sound very good because from experience when the agents are very confident, they will say they have received six bids, and they may say things like the bids have mostly exceeded the reserve price,” added a property analyst who declined to be named.

“Off course, they have an agenda when they say something like that because if that gets published, the potential bargaining power of the developers is not so strong.

“But if the agent does not want to say anything, it may not be a good sign, it may mean that, for an example, all the bids are below the reserve price,” the analyst added.

This is the second time the 33-year-old condominium has been put up for sale.

The asking price this time is S$1.33 billion, about 11 per cent higher than the S$1.2 billion price tag in an earlier attempt in October 2009.

If the sale goes through this time, Laguna Park residents could pocket about S$2.2 million each from the successful sale of the property.

Observers said the timing of the tender closure could go against the sellers.

“The market sentiment has been quite weak lately. Right now, there’s a debt crisis in Greece and a possibility of a default. It would have been better if it closed a bit later,” said Mr Colin Tan, head of research and consultancy at Suntec Chesterton International.

“Some recent en bloc sales have also lowered their asking prices from previous attempts,” he added.

Based on the potential gross floor area of about 1.9 million square feet, the land price on a per square foot per plot ratio basis works out to be about S$975.

This suggests a breakeven price of S$1,400 to S$1,500 per square foot, which according to some experts is slightly too pricey, compared to similar projects in the area.

“The asking price is a bit too high, a more realistic figure is about 20 per cent lower,” said Mr Nicholas Mak, executive director of research and consultancy at SLP International.

“For such a massive land size, I don’t think there will be more than five bids. The bids may also come with conditions attached such as a clause to hedge the amount of development charge it is liable for,” he added.

Laguna Park is located along Marine Parade Road and has a land area of around 678,000 square feet.

It is zoned for residential use at a plot ratio of 2.8, potentially able to yield about 1,600 units at 1,200 square feet each.

Laguna Park currently comprises 516 residential apartments and 12 commercial units, ranging from 1,453 square feet to 3,390 square feet.

Knight Frank believes the site is attractive because it has unblocked sea views spanning 300 metres and a clear city skyline.

Source : Channel NewsAsia – 5 Jul 2011

The Myth, The Hoodwink, & The Reality

2011-07-03T16:10:00.024+08:00

The JLLS lady said a very true thing yesterday when she said that developers are not content with 10% profit. It is a myth; the minimum percentage that is factored into the residual valuation, the actual profit margin can be much higher, even obscenely higher.

The whole point of a proper residual valuation is to have an honest base on which to work from. If it turns out that the actual Net Site Value is very high then it is for the OWNERS to decide whether or not to dangle a carrot at the developers in the form of a discount. It is not for others to slice and dice the figures on their own accord. It is not their land.

The game has become more sophisticated this second time round, the MA has a smaller fig leaf to hide behind, and we are subjected to a new range of tactics. Yesterday, we were presented with never-seen-before-but-please-take-a-quick-look-before-you-pass-it-around laminated pictures/data of a would-be development on our TC site... oh, and by the way, do not take any photos of it ..... This MA thinks we are goondus.

Why? Why would a MA be bothered about how a make-believe development will look like? What business is it of the Sellers (us) to concern ourselves with how the Buyers intend to divide up their GFA? We do not care if they build 2000 shoe boxes or 20 mansions.

I will tell what I think; I think it was a feeble attempt to justify why they took 15% off the GFA, why they rate efficiency at 85% and not 95%. Whilst others ogled the picture I quickly jotted down the data underneath. I did not have enough time, but that was the whole point of producing this article out of the blue, so that people would NOT have time to study and scrutinize it too deeply. The SC had better demand a copy immediately as it was not in the original proposal but presented to owners on the day. They must get a copy for record purposes, before it disappears..

% PERMISSABLE GFA

Balcony: 10%

PES: 1%

A/C: 2%

Circulation: 9%

Other GFA: 4%

Let us, as amateurs, look at each one in turn, using the link for the URA Handbook on Gross Floor Area. How did they arrive at 85% GFA? Were they correct in doing so?

Balconies:

So, it is (GFA) + (10% Bonus GFA)

PES (Private Enclosed Space):

Found under 'Items not counted as gross floor area'.

So, even though PES is not GFA deductable, they deducted it from the GFA anyway.
Now we have (99% GFA) + (10% Bonus GFA)

A/C (I am assuming this stands for A/C ledges):

So, even though A/C is not deductable from the GFA, they dedusted it anyway.
Now we have (97% GFA ) + (10% Bonus GFA)

CIRCULATION:

I assume this is for all those other GFA items.

It is worth noting here that water tanks, bin centre, PUB switch room/ cable chambers, general car parks, driveways, drop-off points, the first main entrance, letterboxes, covered linkways, skybridges, M&E spaces, rooftop pavilions, planterboxes (facing outwards), pump rooms, refuse chutes (hollow chamber), shadow areas (this one is interesting....a developer can increase the saleable GFA by building weird shaped buildings), shadow area of columns (another cracker!), first floor landscaped areas, lushly landscaped sky terraces, swimming pool, tennis courts do not use GFA.

Common things that use GFA are: guard house, lift motor room, refuse chamber (the bottom), staircases (design dependent), void decks, 2nd/3rd+ main entrances , service ducts, lift shaft or lift lobby (which ever is smaller), walls and columns.

Now, please, 9% for this list of items? 177,000 sqft for these? How enormous will the guard house/lifts or lift lobbies be? New mass market developments do not allow for void decks aka HDB. Even in house refuse chutes are becoming rarities. From the $32k formal valuation and JLLS proposal, 5% for 'circulation' is quite ample. A smart architect can work around these exemptions to the developer's best advantage.

So, now we have (88% GFA) + (10% Bonus GFA)

Other GFA:

Unbelievably there is still yet an 'other' undefined GFA!! What 'other' is there left?

So we have a final count: (84% GFA) + (10% Bonus GFA)

Disingenuously paraded as a round 95% GFA

Are they right? I don't know, but there is a big question mark over their assumptions. My query rises out of how the valuations at the STB in 2008 were treated by the experts. At no point did the experts question the 95 + 10% and 100 + 10% GFA efficiency - it did not raise an eyebrow and so, in my opinion, must have been considered normal.

It is my guess that high-end condos in posh locations probably do not utilize all the GFA and instead have more open space and greenery to make the place feel exclusive and luxurious. But lets get real here, TC will be a low end mass market condominium surrounded by HDB. The developer will most likely maximize every square inch of GFA- every inch means more money in his pocket. Just look at the 4 estates crammmmmmmed onto ex-Waterfront View to get a more realistic idea of any future development .

The Sale Committee did well when they requested to have the residual valuation breakdown from our newly elected MA. Faced with their proposal, they should now seek independent advice on the following:

QUESTION 1 :

What is the 'usual' efficiency percentage in a suburban mass market project. Find out what it is in the Waterfront Collection etc

QUESTION 2 :

Do you or do you not add in the 10% Bonus GFA when calculating for the Gross Development Value ( the gross sales proceeds received by the developer before any costs are deducted).

2 formal Residual Valuations, and 1 informal Residual Valuation said YES

1 informal Residual Valuation said NO

Logically the answer should be yes, as there is a construction cost/financing cost/ DC for balcony etc to the 10% GFA Bonus. If these deductions are reflected in the calculations, but the Bonus GFA is not reflected in the GDV, .....well, then owners are not being shown the full figures.

Meet the Professionals

2011-07-02T23:02:00.013+08:00

The EGM to select the en bloc lawyer and marketing agent was held today.

Marketing Agent with 61% of the vote

TEAM ERA

En bloc lawyer with 75% of the vote

RHT Law Advocates and Solicitors

When it came to choosing the lawyer, the SPs showed uncommon common sense by voting against their pocket. RHT has the breadth of experience and the depth of manpower required of an estate as large as ours. $250 signing fee is not a lot of money. The rival candidate, whilst young and eager, ought to try and cut his teeth on something smaller and less thorny than Tampines Court. I wish him luck.

It was a closer call with the marketing agents but in the end people voted for the higher RP.

Did they vote well? We shall see.

The men in blue - so named for their dashing navy blue jackets - did not give as good a presentation as their rival, whipped out completely irrelevant plans for a make-believe development at our site, had a lower the GFA and still people voted for them.

I will thrash out the reasons why I think 85% GFA is shortchanging our estate in my next post.

I would like to say something about how the EGMs are being played out. The EGM is the only time an owner can ask questions, not just for their own edification, but for the sake of others, too. The presentations went on for far too long and not enough time was given for Q&A. Indeed, the general feel from the floor was that people who ask questions are making a nuisance of themselves. It seemed all very rushed. If the time has to be extended by 1 hour, then extend it, these are our homes we are discussing, not maintenance matters. I was quite annoyed there was no standing microphone yesterday as it meant owners who put up their hands could be ignored.

The CSA is the next big one - and owners will definitely want at least 2 hours of Q & A.

July Media

2011-07-01T21:38:00.003+08:00

Market watchers expect lower tender bids for GLS - CNA 27 Jul 2011
What a difference a month makes - 22 Jul 2011

Lets take a closer look at the numbers - 8 Jul 2011

S$1,000psf – the new normal?

Some years ago, analysts forecast that mass market residential properties will rise to an average of S$1,000psf, thanks to rising household incomes and rising HDB prices. An upgrader who has accumulated a lot of equity in his 10-year-old HDB flat would be able to afford a private condominium if he sold the HDB flat, added some cash or CPF funds, and took on a new mortgage.

According to the data, it seems the mass market will be reaching that point soon.

While the size of the average unit shrunk from 1,265 sq ft to 1,131 sq ft in the OCR, the average value of each transaction increased from S$916,153 in the fourth quarter of 2009 to S$989,880 in the first quarter of this year.

As a result, the average price per square foot jumped from S$724 to S$875, a 20-per-cent leap over six quarters. And in each quarter, we see that peak transacted prices in the supposedly “mass-market” segment to have exceeded S$1,400psf.

Given that 33 per cent of transactions within the OCR in the first quarter of this year exceeded S$1,000psf and that the average price transacted was S$875psf, it seems that we are not too far off from reaching the new normal.

Will history repeat itself? - 8 Jul 2011
Singapore's property market looks good, says analyst - CNA 7 Jul 2011
Laguna Park's 2nd en bloc sale offer closes - CNA 6 Jul 2011
Daisy Apartments up for en bloc sale - CNA 5 Jul 2011

Including an estimated development charge of S$744,000 for the 10 per cent bonus gross floor area for balconies, the land rate reflects approximately S$727 per square foot per plot ratio.

DBSS land sales halted - CNA 4 Jul 2011

Some expect developers, especially those in the mass market sector, to gain because of spillover demand from home buyers who would otherwise purchase a DBSS flat.

MND confirms it is reviewing HDB’s DBSS - CNA 4 Jul 2011
Grand Tower up for en bloc sale - CNA 4 Jul 2011

Sale Committee Meetings nos. 4 & 5:

2011-07-01T15:16:00.012+08:00

SC Meeting no 4 Minutes can be found here
SC Meeting no 5 Minutes can be found here

En Bloc lawyer presentations

Candidate No. 1
A rookie en bloc law firm with no prior experience.

At this point, I believe owners might know more about the process than they do as en bloc is definitely a process that has to be experienced first hand - it cannot be known by reading the Schedules alone.

Candidate No. 2

If you recall the news, they are the 30? 40? lawyers who broke away from Khattar Wong in April this year.

Honey, I shrunk Tampines Court

2011-07-01T09:33:00.011+08:00

The best part about going through an en bloc a second time round is the amount of information you have accumulated from the first. Our previous en bloc lawyer and MA furnished a wealth of information at the Strata Titles Board - information you couldn't drag from them with wild horses had there not been serious objections.

It is highly uncommon for the Valuer or MA to reveal their computations unless they are legally bound to (ie before a court of law). The Valuers have to sign affidavits. So it is with these two FORMAL, INDEPENDENT and COSTLY residual valuations from round 1 that I can compare with the two INFORMAL and FREE valuations proffered by the MAs in round 2.

Now, I know that prices have risen and costs have changed since the first round - what has not changed are the base figures, the constants that underline the whole complicated calculation. Tampines Court has not gotten any smaller, it has not changed it's plot ratio and the URA still offers the 10% GFA bonus on top of the potential GFA.

The valuations/proposals have about the same proposed GFA

Round 1 Formal Valuations

Saleable Area: over 2 million sqft (2,162,640 sqft & 2,064,336 sqft to be exact.

Efficiency:

Majority valuer: 110% GFA (including Bonus GFA)

Minority Valuer: 105% GFA (including Bonus GFA)

Round 2 MA proposals (no specifics, just approximations):

Net Floor Area, - around 1, 867, 000+ sqft.

Efficiency:

MA 1: 95% GFA (excluding Bonus GFA)*

MA 2: 95% GFA (including Bonus GFA)

* this was the chosen Marketing agent!!!!

This 10-15% haircut makes a big difference.

I would like to have an explanation. What basis is there for chopping off up to nearly 300,000sqft?

Click on following link for the:

URA HANDBOOK  ON GROSS FLOOR AREA

BONUS GROSS FLOOR AREA (GFA) ABOVE MP ALLOWABLE INTENSITY

4 URA grants bonus GFA incentives to encourage the provision of specific building features or uses. Essentially, the GFA of the incentivised features are allowed above the MP GPR control. These bonus GFA incentives are given to help realize various planning objectives for the city. For example, the balcony scheme encourages skyrise greenery while the lighting incentive scheme helps to enhance our city's image and highlight the distinctive Singapore skyline.

te.

The 10% bonus GFA incentive schemes are listed below:

Green Mark Incentive Scheme
Balcony
Rooftop ORA Community
Community / Sports Facilities (for commercial properties)
Underground Pedestrian Linkages to MRT (a bit far for TC....)
Conserved Bungalow
Lighting Incentive Scheme (for CBD and Marina Centre)
Art Incentive Scheme (central area)
Orchard UD features

Click here for: URA Circular

At the end of the day, setting the RP should be done using a formal, independent Valuation. Because owners were denied conferring 'powers, duties or functions' on the sale committee at the first EGM, they were not directed to do a formal valuation. That should have been their first order of the day. It's a challenging task to raise the necessary money ($30k) but nothing is impossible. If 32 minority owners could fork out this large sum in round 1, surely hundreds of would-be majority owners can do the same in round 2? Don't look around and see what your fellow neighbours are doing, just go ahead and do it. It's the right and proper thing to do.

If 40% of owners voted for the collective sale at the EGM 1, then they should donate $150 each to the cause.

High profit margins for DBSS developers

Developers can earn gross profit margins of up to 76 percent from the public housing projects they develop under the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS), according to a Business Times report.

In the report, five out of the seven DBSS projects launched since 2008 have achieved gross profit margins of at least 28 percent.

This is similar to the 30 to 40 percent gross profit margins that real estate groups earn when developing private mass-market projects.

In some cases, however, DBSS margins were even higher.

Sim Lian Group, for example, can make a gross profit margin of approximately 76 percent from its recently launched Centrale 8 in Tampines — even after revealing that prices are now lower than previously announced.

Hoi Hup Sunway generated the highest gross profit for its 1,203-unit The Peak @ Toa Payoh, generating some S$257 million in total.

Using a generous construction cost estimate of S$200 psf ppr, the report included the land and building costs in computing the total development cost of each project, to determine the breakeven price. Industry watchers noted that construction costs could be as low as S$160 psf ppr, in some cases.

“I am surprised that the margins are so high,” said Ku Swee Yong, Chief Executive at International Property Advisor.

“All the more reason for us to re-examine the raison d’etre for DBSS in view of the need for a massive supply of affordable flats to satisfy the past five years of pent-up demand.”

Ha! I told you the the professed 10% gross profit margin was all poppycock; it is so obvious from the hard data I've been collecting under 'Developers Windfall'. They know how to get the most out of the GFA - there are a thousand ways to do it.

Property Agents

2011-06-30T09:40:00.010+08:00

New rules today for Property Agents, applicable from Aug 1, but I think we can demand them of any MA now as en bloc stretches over 2 years. If they don't then delay their engagement until after 1st August.

MUST read:

Go to the Council for Estate Agencies website and scroll down to the

Practice Guides and Circulars.

EGM 2

2011-06-23T15:59:00.003+08:00

EGM 2 REQUISITION FORM

EGM 2 AGENDA

No. of requisitionists: 117 (unconfirmed)

Resolutions 3,4,5,6 from requisition form are absent from the agenda.
Is the requisition still valid?

June Media

2011-06-20T10:00:00.002+08:00

CEA issues new guidelines for estate agents - CNA 29 Jun 2011
Increase in private home prices 'has accelerated' - Today 29 Jun 2011
Non-landed private home prices up 2.5% in May - CNA 28 Jun 2011
Resale of private homes continue to rise - CNA 27 Jun 2011
River Valley apartment sold en bloc for S$70.5m - CNA 27 Jun 2011
Collective sale market to remain healthy: Credo - CNA 27 Jun 2011
Balmoral Condo sold for $141m - CNA - 22 Jun 2011
Tulip Garden back in collective sale bid - CNA 22 Jun 2011
Braddell Park sells for 85m - PropGuru, 22 Jun 2011
With a lower RP, Whitly heights is on the market again - Today, 16 Jun 2011
Expect bubble to burst in 2013 - New Paper 11 Jun 2013
New condos demand fat premiums - BT Jun 11 2011
2013. Market crash or ghost towns?- 10 Jun 2011
Property prices worry National Development Minister - CNA 9 Jun 2011
More Government Land Sales slated for 2nd half of 2011- CNA 9 Jun 2011

Today, 7 Jun, 2011

More Government land Sales - Today 1 Jun 2011
As supply of new flats is ramped up.. - Today 1 Jun 2011

Tampines Court En bloc/Anti-En bloc & beyond

TOP POST: No Underselling, please

Slipped through the net

Sale Committee - 1 year on

In the News

4-Weekly Statutory Notices & Accounts

Signing

ENBLOC SALE FUND

HUDCs in the News

Who pays what and when?

EGM 4

Chequebooks at the ready

Collective Sale Agreement : EGM4 Draft (9 Dec)

Quorum

Supplementary CSA to Lower the Reserve Price

NOTICE FOR EGM 4

In escrow

The power of money

GLS 1st Half 2012

Over 100 units sold at Archipelago preview

Sale Committee Meeting No 11 Minutes

Total number of units en bloc-ed to date

Sale Committee Meeting No 12 Notice

URA finally acts

They're back

Sale Committee Meeting No 11 Notice

Sale Committee Meeting No 10 Minutes

Sale Committee Meeting No. 9 Minutes

Gimcrack rules

Waiting for Godot yet again

Nov Media

Reaffirmation in action

We need to see the MA's calculations

Let Owners decide on 'in kind'

Sale Committee Meeting No. 9

Further musings on the draft CSA (dated 23 August)

The Time Line

The Seaview developer sued for S$14m by angry residents

Prices, popularity of shoebox units set to increase

Sale Committee Meeting No 8 Minutes

EGM 3

Collective Suicide Agreement DRAFT dated 23 Aug 2011

Some points from an SP

2nd Draft CSA

Waiting for Godot

Sale Committee Meeting No 8 Notice

CSA botch-up or hardball tactics?

EGM No 3

Sale Committee Meeting No 7 Minutes

DC Rates Sept 2011

Sept Media

Pubic Tender or Public Auction?

Sale Committee Blog & SC Meeting No 6 Minutes

Sale Committee Meeting No. 6

My Request

Missing EGM Minutes etc

If at first you don't succeed.....

Aug media

We are being surrounded...

Why an Independent Valuation is necessary.....

EGM 3

Lengthy Silences

That patch of land next door...

What's happening about town

EFFICIENCY

Snippet of info.......

LAGUNA PARK

Laguna Park’s 2nd en bloc sale offer closes

The Myth, The Hoodwink, & The Reality

Meet the Professionals

July Media

Sale Committee Meetings nos. 4 & 5:

Honey, I shrunk Tampines Court

High profit margins for DBSS developers

Property Agents

EGM 2

June Media