The En-bloc Madness Continues...

Dear Fellow Owners and Residents,

We are very sorry to report that the fight to save our homes is not yet over. The former Sale Committee, having disbanded, has now decided to relaunch the whole process "with immediate effect". We attach for your information the letter dated 15 October 2007 sent by Mr John Lee, the head of the former Sale Committee.

He is now calling for a General Meeting of the owners in order to elect a new Sale Committee. In order for a General Meeting to be called, 20% of the ownership by share value must support it. If a new Sale Committee is formed, the majority owners, who have already refused to support his proposals, will be put through this entire painful, expensive and damaging (to our interests) process again.

In the few days since the new en-bloc regulations came into effect, there has been no change in the reasons to oppose selling Botanic Gardens View en-bloc. We therefore urge you, as fellow owners, as always, to consider the matter carefully and seek independent legal advice, before making your decisions. We ourselves, and owners who have contacted us, will not be signing this document and we hope that our other fellow majority owners will do the same. Since the majority of the owners have already refused to support an en-bloc sale, we see no reason to recreate the Sale Committee.

The possibility of this en-bloc madness hanging over our heads for the next 12-24 months is very real, and frustrating for some owners. If you feel that this attempt should not be restarted at this point in time, please contact us.

Vanessa Chan
c/o Ms Sim Bock Eng, Wong Partnership, One George Street
Blk 9, #10-09, Botanic Gardens View

Wong Hwei Ming
things.unfair@gmail.com
Blk 9, #09-17, Botanic Gardens View

or through this blog

We will be updating the blog with more details at a later date.

Post-Amendment Update

Dear Owners and Residents,

On 8 October 2007, CBRE wrote a letter to all owners addressing the amendment to the Land Titles (Strata) Act, the signing status and "moving forward". The letter is reproduced here for those who did not receive it. It stated that 74 units or 50.68% have signed the CSA although it did not state which date this was valid at. It also stated that the law firm Rajah & Tann "has advised that the CSA has been invalidated and the entire process would have to be reinitiated".

The two important points in the letter are that CBRE "believe [they] should be able to achieve the 80% mark if given more time" and that they "will keep you updated of further progress".

We also received an email from another owner of BGV requesting the immediate disbanding of the current protem sales committee (PSC), of which we quote 2 paragraphs from his email:

"Should there be any further endeavour, I wish that none of the original members of this Sales Committee be voted in for the mere fact, that thus far, there is no transparency as many of my legitimate queries have been ignored.

I was amazed that CBRE also did not response to my queries too in spite of reminders. Therefore, I hope that CBRE is not ever to be the marketing agent for BGV."


We want to raise several points in light of these two correspondences :

1. Is the left hand talking to the right? Is CBRE not aware of the PSC's and Mr Lee's letters (14 September 2007 and 25 September 2007 respectively) which stated quite clearly, twice, that "the current en block effort will come to a halt and the Sales Committee will be disbanded" should they fail to achieve 80%? If that is the case, without an existing committee, how can (a) CBRE continue to work on behalf of BGV (b) "further progress" be possible?
2. If the PSC is not disbanded contrary to their explicit and repeated statements of intent, because they are heartened by the possibility that 80% can be achieved "if given more time", what people of integrity are the members of the PSC if they would state one thing and do another?
   
3. The honorable thing that the PSC needs to do now would be to disband the PSC and stop the effort, and inform all owners of this, in accordance with their intent dated 14 September and 25 September. Otherwise, none of their words can be seen to hold any truth and neither can owners have confidence in people who do not hold to their words.
4. Despite efforts to scare (with tsunamis and the threat of the en bloc failing), entice (with increased asking price), and offer suggestions that clearly show the lack of understanding of owners of BGV, the fact remains that about half of the estate do not believe in the collective sale, whether at this time or at all. We have heard of Spanish Village going up for tender at $1700 psf ppr, and rumours of an estate in Newton going en bloc at $2300 psf ppr. The market has already continued to climb up in these 2 months.
   
5. If despite all of the above, CBRE and the PSC is going to go ahead with continuing their efforts, then be prepared for the following: (a) Given the new amendments, every agent and law firm will be trying to calculate new costs for their work, and the beginning year will contain fees that are not indicative of the market rates (not stabilised, not benchmarked); it'll be a time for firms to make a mark up in their profit margins, undoubtedly citing more work required of them. (b) Many sales committees, agents and lawyers are still unclear of the protocols for the new amendments with regards to EOGMs. To continue now would be to see a repeat of the confusions that happened in 1999 when the LT(S)A amendments kicked in then. (c) The existence of a PSC that is as non-transparent and do not have the integrity to honor their words.
   

This en bloc "effort" has now split our humble community into two, causing for some irrevocable damage to neighbourly relations. If you feel enough is enough, the agents and committee have given their best shot and failed, let's have some peace in BGV and let's move on, please contact us. We are compiling a list of owners who feel that, for various reasons, the collective sale is not to their advantage or their wishes. Your support will be greatly appreciated.

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, botanic gardens, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc

New law takes effect 4 October 2007

According to the Ministry of Law, the Land Titles (Strata) (Amendment) Act takes effect today on 4 October 2007. This means that by law, the existing en bloc sale of BGV is not legitimate, especially since the "sale committee" has not been elected in by the Subsidiary Proprietors, nor was there an election on whether to conduct the collective sale or not.

The sales committee letter dated 14 September 2007 stated that the increased reserve price was an incentive to push owners to sign the CSA, so that "enough owners will come forward to join our CSA to bring us over the 80% mark before the date of implementation of the Amendments or 15 October 07, whichever is earlier." It further stated: "If we do not achieve the 80% before the new Amendments are made law, the current en block effort will come to a halt and the Sales Committee will be disbanded."

The date of implementation of the Amendments has occurred today. We noticed that the first 8 weekly mandatory notices around the estate were put up for only ONE day since they have now been covered by minutes of the 11 Sep Council Meeting. This is ILLEGAL - they are to be affixed to "a conspicuous part of each building" and covering them up will negate the purpose of having the notices up in the first place.

We spotted the notices yesterday - they stated that 73 units of 146 total signed (50%) dated 2 October. Putting aside the fact that all notices were conveniently covered by the minutes, if the 80% mark has not been achieved as of midnight 4 October 2007, will the existing sales committee agree to graciously halt the sale attempt and disband?

Tags: taman serasi, botanic gardens view, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, en-bloc sale, enbloc, enbloc sale, collective sale