Restarting Enbloc - By NOT Being Fair to Owners?

I recently received the CSC Enbloc letter (see below) and the revised CSA that is an attempt to restart the enbloc process at BGV after more than a year long hiatus.

While I cannot stop the CSC from doing so, I want to point out several points that seems to have been ignored from the period of the last EOGM in August 2008 until now which pertains to the fair treatment of all owners, including those staying overseas or off-site and the continued lack of transparent process in the enbloc attempt of BGV.

Upon receiving the enbloc letter, I am, in particular, appalled that an extremely short deadline is imposed on all owners to request for written feedback on the most important document of all - the CSA and the apportionment method. Does this mean, if by this short deadline, no response is provided (which is likely), then the CSC will ASSUME that everyone is happy?

Surely that can't be how a group that is charged with taking care of the collective sale of the estate attempts to get a sense of the sentiments on the ground?

For the sake of fairness and transparency, I have reproduced my email to the CSC for all to see.

"From: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com
Sent: 26 October 2009 02: 01AM
To:
Cc: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

Dear Botanic Garden View CSC,

Your Enbloc letter dated 18 October Sunday and the revised draft CSA were received by hand on 20 October 2009 Tuesday. It can only be assumed that owners who stay off-site or overseas will receive their documents anyday from 21 to 29 October.

There are several points which I wish to raise with the CSC and Credo:

1. The deadline of 30 October 2009 for written feedback is too soon. It is also unclear what is the nature of the feedback that you are requesting to comply by the 30 October 2009 – only the apportionment method, or with regards to the revised draft CSA as well. Given that the revised draft CSA was delivered in this letter, I can only assume that the deadline of 30 October 2009 applies for written feedback for both apportionment method and the CSA.

2. You have therefore effectively given owners only TEN days (and for many, less) to provide their written feedback on important matters such as the CSA of which the apportionment method is a part of. This does not give enough time for owners who reside overseas and also owners who are currently overseas to mull over, consider and respond. Neither does it give time for owners to get in touch with legal counsel with regards to the revised terms of the CSA. Also, it need not be pointed out that it has been more than a year since any formal correspondence was made on this matter, and many owners may have forgotten the exact discussions on pertinent issues by now.

3. At the very least, since the CSC has taken over a year to revise the CSA, the CSC should allow all owners at least 2 months, until the end of December 2009, to consider and respond to these revisions of the CSA (including apportionment method). Anything less will reflect negatively on the way the CSC seems to be giving owners insufficient time to examine the revisions. I can only assume that after this ‘deadline’ whichever date it may be, there will be no further discussion on the matter of the CSA so it is imperative that time be given for all owners to read through the legal document carefully, and under advisement by legal counsel.

4. At the 23 August 2008 EOGM, there were complaints by owners on the apportionment method and yet these issues did not change the apportionment method in the revised draft CSA in any way. It would appear that these complaints were ignored, despite the assurance at the EOGM that all feedback will be reviewed and taken into consideration, written OR verbal.

5. In order for owners to make an informed decision about the apportionment method, I find that the justification provided by Credo in the letter dated 12 September to be insufficient as it does not provide detailed accounts of all 6 different methods described. It is not the responsibility of owners, many of whom are not familiar with proper calculations for apportionment methods, to calculate alternatives as requested by the letter dated 18 October. Instead, it is incumbent upon the CSC and Credo to show to all owners what each owner will be getting from the en-b! loc sale, for each of the 6 methods, and then and only then, can each owner make a decision on which alternatives are more suitable for them.

6. Therefore, I would suggest reprinting the slides from the Credo presentation (included with the 12 September letter) which detailed the apportionment calculations for the 6 methods, and explain in greater detail why you felt that the 70/30 method is far superior to the other 5 methods.

7. Also, on what criteria will you be considering individual owners’ feedbacks? Currently, it would appear that the CSC and Credo is firmly committed to the 70/30 method since it has remained the same despite the EOGM discussions. Likewise, the changes to the CSA appear superficial rather than in response to the numerous concerns over the lower reserve price matter (although I will consult a lawyer on this point). In other words, how will you revert to all owners on the feedback received (ie the exact nature of said feedback), your responses to them, why you made the decisions you chose to make, including why you felt that any feedback is unacceptable.

8. Finally, to be clear and fair to all owners, I believe the CSC should make it explicit that you are requesting for written feedback on the revised CSA in your 18 October letter (it is implied, but not explicitly stated). Otherwise, there needs to be an EOGM to discuss the revised draft CSA, to be fair to all owners. At the very least, as mentioned, the deadline for feedback needs to be pushed by at least 2 months, and the protocols, processes and decisions whereby the CSC will consider such feedback should be made transparent to all owners.

Response from the CSC and Credo to the above points raised would be appreciated. Thank you.

Wong Hwei Ming
Blk 9, #09-17"

Tags: botanic garden, bgv, botanic gardens, botanic gardens view, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, real estate, singapore, collective sale agreement, csa, collective sales committee, sales committee, csc, letter to owners, apportionment

Time to take Action

Dear Fellow Owners and Residents of BGV,

Mr Lee sent an email to some owners on 10 June and later by post, the same email was sent to all owners on 11 June. Mr Tan was forwarded Mr Lee's email on 10 June itself and he responded to Mr Lee's email in his letter which has now been sent to all owners and residents of BGV on 11 June. Below is Mr Tan's letter (which was written before Mr Lee's email came in through the post) in response to Mr Lee's email dated 10 June. Mr Tan's letter is reprinted with his consent.

11 June 2009

Dear fellow owners,

Please give this letter your urgent attention, as it involves your interests as a subsidiary proprietor of Botanic Gardens View.

I have just been forwarded a copy of an e-mail from John Lee dated 10 June 2009. This e-mail appears to have been only sent to selected owners, and not to all. In fact, it was not even sent to me, even though several questions raised by John Lee in it are, somewhat misleadingly, directly addressed to me. I am not sure if the selected owners who were sent this e-mail were aware that it was not even sent to me in the first place.

As John Lee's e-mail deals with a resolution which has been tabled for the upcoming AGM on 20 June 2009 pursuant to my request made in June last year, and which I strongly feel is in the interests of all subsidiary proprietors, I have set out his e-mail in full below, with my responses set out in italics below the relevant paragraphs.

In summary, I feel it is in the interest of every subsidiary proprietor to be protected from any liability or damages which may be caused by the actions or inactions of the collective sale committee, by getting an indemnity from the collective sale committee. Otherwise if anything adverse happens, we as subsidiary proprietors will have to bear the consequences ourselves. The Horizon Towers case is a case in point. There, through no fault of their own, the owners had to suffer months of legal proceedings and incur very substantial personal legal costs, without any contractual recourse against their collective sale committee.

My view is that if the collective sale committee wishes to impose a relationship under which they take on the power to sell my personal property, especially one as valuable as my apartment, the terms of such a relationship have to be very clearly set out and have to be acceptable to me, and should provide sufficient protection to me in case I suffer any liabilities or incur any obligations due to their actions or inactions in the course of that relationship. The same should apply to each and every subsidiary proprietor.

I would be grateful if you could take the time to consider this very important issue, which I believe affects your own interest as a subsidiary proprietor, and take the necessary action immediately:

John Lee's e-mail of 10 June 2009, and my response in italics

"Dear Owners of BGV,

I refer to the above resolution tabled by Mr Tan Lai Huat for our forthcoming AGM.

This resolution was allowed by the Managing Agent but not approved by the Council. The Council had its final meeting on 8th May 2009. This resolution was not surfaced at that meeting to allow the Council to discuss the merit of allowing this resolution at the AGM. Council Members only received an email from the MA informing them that this resolution will be included in the agenda after the meeting.

This resolution is a Collective Sale matter and has nothing to do with the Management of the estate. It should have been brought up at the appropriate forum. Also the subject matter of the resolution had been fully discussed and recorded in the last AGM (Appendix B in the current AGM Notice pages 10,11,12,13). It is a waste of members' time to rehash the whole issue once again."

Response:
By way of my e-mail dated 5 June 2008 (i.e. last year) to the Secretary and Chairman of the Management Council and to the Managing Agent, I had originally asked for this resolution to be circulated to all owners and tabled at the next duly-convened general meeting, This was pursuant to the relevant provisions of the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act ("BMSMA").

However, the resolution was not circulated or tabled for the AGM last year or the EGM held on 23 August 2008, as the response from John Lee and the Managing Agent was that the EGM was convened by requisition of the en bloc collective sale committee ("CSC") and its supporters, and the BMSMA did not require such a resolution to be circulated and tabled for such EGM.

Having blocked the circulation and tabling of the resolution at that EGM, which would have been a good forum to discuss the issues raised, John Lee now says that this resolution should have been brought up at the relevant EGM and not at the upcoming AGM as it has "nothing to do with the Management of the estate"!

This is incorrect both factually and in point of law. Factually, because I had in fact asked for the resolution to be tabled last year, but was blocked from doing so. In point of law, because the BMSMA requires any resolution brought up by a subsidiary proprietor in accordance with the BMSMA to be duly circulated to all subsidiary proprietors and tabled at the relevant general meeting. It has taken more than one full year for the resolution to be circulated and tabled for consideration by the subsidiary proprietors.

Based on John Lee's arguments, this resolution would never be circulated or tabled at any general meeting at all, as it would not be tabled at an EGM requisitioned by the CSC, and neither would it be tabled at an AGM. In this case, it appears that the circulation and tabling of the resolution was not "approved" by the Management Council, but it should be noted that such approval is not required under the BMSMA as the process is mandatory.

It should be noted that the resolution was not "fully discussed" at the AGM held on 7 June 2008, and it could not have been so discussed, in the absence of the requisite circulation and notice of the resolution to all subsidiary proprietors. The Managing Agent has acted in compliance with the BMSMA to circulate and table the resolution for the upcoming AGM, for proper discussion and resolution by the general meeting.


"Mr. Tan's resolution requires the PERSONAL INDEMNITY, jointly and severally, of the Chairman and all the members of the Collective Sale Committee (CSC). This has never been done before in all en bloc sales in Singapore. Let me ask Mr. Tan this question "In all his (previous) career as a lawyer, has any of his clients requested him to give them an indemnity before he can act for them? If not, why is he requiring the CSC members who are all volunteers to give their indemnity?"

Mr Tan's resolution is a very cunning way of killing off the current en bloc attempt whilst we wait for the market sentiment to improve. If Mr.Tan and his anti-enbloc friends gather enough proxies and passes this resolution, all the CSC members will refuse to give in to this ridiculous request (for their personal indemnity) and will resign instead. This will effectively kill the current en bloc sale of our estate."

Response:
In my 20 years or so of legal practice prior to my retirement, I have never had a client ask me for an indemnity. This is because it was unnecessary - the relationship of solicitor and client is both a contractual and fiduciary one, and the law is clear on the duties, liabilities and obligations owed to the client in such a relationship. Quite apart from that, there is also mandatory professional insurance to protect the client in the appropriate circumstances.

However, the relationship between the subsidiary proprietors and CSC members is a very different one. For one, not all subsidiary proprietors agree to the the appointment of the CSC to act on their behalf to sell their apartments, or the terms on which the CSC members have appointed themselves, or the terms of the sale agreement itself.

Secondly, and more importantly, the parameters of the duties, obligations and liabilities of the CSC members to the subsidiary proprietors have not been clearly established in law, although the recent judgement of the Court of Appeal in the Horizon Towers case has gone some way towards clarifying the position.

Thirdly, even if the CSC members regard themselves as "volunteers", their actions create liabilities and legal obligations on the part of subsidiary proprietors, as they act on behalf of the subsidiary proprietors in a fiduciary as well as contractual capacity. This is especially so where the subsidiary proprietors sign the collective sale agreement (and even where the subsidiary proprietors do not sign the collective sale agreement, they may still become subject to it if so ordered by the Strata Titles Board).

In this respect, subsidiary proprietors should note that in the collective sale agreement, the CSC has not only refused to provide an indemnity to subsidiary proprietors, but have instead provided for the subsidiary proprietors to indemnify the CSC, as well as to excuse the CSC from their liabilities to the subsidiary proprietors! At the appropriate time, subsidiary proprietors should require these provisions to be removed and replaced by an indemnity in their favour, regardless of the outcome of the resolution in this case.

Personally, my view is that if someone wants to impose such a relationship under which he takes on the power to sell my personal property, especially one as valuable as my apartment, the terms on which such relationship are to be established have to be very clearly set out and have to be acceptable to me, and should provide sufficient protection to me in case I suffer any liabilities or incur any obligations due to his actions or inactions in the course of that relationship.

There are therefore good reasons to require an indemnity from the CSC members. Regardless of whether they regard themselves as "volunteers" or otherwise, their actions will create real liabilities and obligations on the part of the subsidiary proprietors. The facts of the Horizon Towers case speak for themselves. I am sure the subsidiary proprietors in Horizon Towers would have dearly loved to have had the protection of an indemnity from their CSC members, after having undergone many agonising months of legal actions and incurring substantial legal costs personally.

Just because something has never been done before does not mean that it should not be done in future. We should learn from the mishaps of previous en bloc sales and take the necessary action to protect our own interests as subsidiary proprietors.

If the consequence of the resolution being passed is that the CSC members will choose to resign instead of taking full responsibility for their actions, that is entirely a matter for the CSC members to decide. In terms of timing, as I have pointed out above, I had asked for this resolution to be tabled more than a year ago.


"Let us now examine Mr. Tan's resolution to see whether it is more bark than bite? As is usual with some lawyers, they love to pick on something insignificant and irrelevant and blow it up into something that can be potentially catastrophic. At the centre of Mr Tan's resolution is his gripe that the AGENDA for the first collective sale EGM held on 12th January 2008 was not properly drafted by a lawyer which could potentially lead to disastrous consequences as elaborated by him. I attach the relevant AGENDA of the 12th January 2008 Notice of EGM (Please refer to attachment 1). Mr Tan, please tell us which of the 5 Agenda items do you consider defective and could potentially be hazardous to those who sign the CSA. Let us be specific and tell us how and why? If you are not able to answer our simple question, then you are guilty of making a mountain out of a molehill and using scare tactics to prematurely bring an end to the work of the en bloc committee."

Response:
Whether there are appropriate grounds to challenge the original appointment of the CSC and the subsequent actions of the CSC are for a court of law to judge. My point has consistently been that if the collective sale is challenged and subsequently set aside, whatever the basis, then all subsidiary proprietors (and especially those who sign the collective sale agreement) should require that they have satisfactory protection from any liabilities and obligations which they may become subject to by reason of the collective sale and the actions of the CSC. If John Lee has full confidence that the appointment and actions of the CSC will be upheld in any event, then he should have no problem providing the indemnity to the subsidiary proprietors.


"Finally, let me urge all owners who support the ongoing en bloc effort to attend the meeting to vote against Mr Tan's resolution. If you are unable to attend the meeting, please give your proxy to me (see attachment 2) or anyone of the current CSC members (listed above). Please confirm with them that they are able to attend the meeting also.

With best wishes,
John Lee
Chairman,
Collective Sale Committee"

Response:
As in previous EGMs, John Lee is again seeking proxy votes to support his own interest in the collective sale. As I have mentioned, I have proposed the resolution primarily to protect my own interest, but I feel it is also in the interest of ALL subsidiary proprietors, whether you support the en bloc sale or not. I would urge you to please obtain your own legal advice on this, for your own peace of mind, and attend and vote at the AGM accordingly.

If you wish to support the proposed resolution, but are unable to attend the AGM or are unsure of your attendance, you may wish to appoint me as your proxy for this purpose, by depositing your duly-signed proxy form in the letterbox at Block x, #xx-xx by 17 June 2009 (as the deadline for depositing the proxy form with the Management Council is 2 p.m. on 18 June, 2009). If you do in fact attend the AGM, the proxy will automatically become void by law, and you will be able to exercise your own vote at the AGM.

In any case, please consider the issues carefully and take such action as you think fit to protect your own interests. Thank you for taking the time to read this.

Yours sincerely,

Tan Lai Huat

To reiterate Mr Tan's concern, regardless of whether you are for or against the BGV enbloc, we as subsidiary proprietors, should protect our own interests as no one, including the CSC members, can do that for us. The Horizon Towers case is a lesson for all of us. In Mr Tan's words, "We should learn from the mishaps of previous en bloc sales and take the necessary action to protect our own interests as subsidary proprietors".

It is time to take action.

Tags: bgv, botanic garden, botanic gardens, botanic gardens view, condo, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, collective sales, collective sales committee, csc, sales committee, AGM, EOGM, subsidiary proprietors

Letters, Truths, ACTION!

After Mr Tan L. H.'s letter (dated 15 August), Mr John Lee sent out via email his rebuttal of the points mentioned in Mr Tan's letter on 20 August. For the benefit of all, we have put up Mr Lee's email on scribd. Below is Mr Tan's letter in response to Mr Lee's email of 20 August. Mr Tan's letter has been sent to all owners and residents of BGV on 21 August.

"21 August 2008
Dear fellow subsidiary proprietor,

In response to my letter dated 15 Aug 2008, John Lee has sent an e-mail dated 20 Aug 2008 to various parties. In his e-mail, he makes certain statements which are clearly incorrect and misleading, and which I feel I need to set the record straight on. My comments are set out in italics below John Lee's statements:

1. He says that my "letter contain (sic) misleading information which needs to be corrected. He is writing like he is protecting the interest of the owners, but he is in fact trying to create doubts in your mind about the integrity and rectitude of the Collective Sale Committee."
My comments: My letter makes it very clear that it states my own concerns and suggestions in relation to the formula for allocation of sale proceeds and the terms of the Collective Sale Agreement. As I emphasised several times in my letter, each owner should consider his own circumstances and take independent advice. I certainly did not claim to be protecting the interests of the owners. And I certainly did not say anything at all about the "integrity and rectitude" of the Collective Sale Committee anywhere in my letter, which touches solely on the issues involved.

2. John Lee says that "*The formula for apportionment of the sale proceed has been changed.* This is true. The Sale Committee found the previous method of apportionment (of 1/3 area, 1/3 share value and 1/3 valuation) to be cumbersome and complex. It raises more questions than answers. The valuation component can be challenged - e.g. why this valuer and not that valuer or why not 2 valuers instead of 1 valuer or will valuation done at the beginning of the en bloc still be applicable at the end of the en bloc (a period of 12 - 24 months)? The Sale Committee decided to use a straight ratio of area vs share value to avoid controversy and overcome complications. The ratio of 70% area and 30% share value was chosen because 1) it is the closest to the previous method under current valuation 2) as advised by the Consultant, it will pass the equity test of the Strata Title Board 3) it is used by other condos with the same configurations, i.e. 1 share value for differing sizes of the units and 4) this formula has been upheld by the High Courts in the case of Holland Hill Mansion."
My comments: is it true that the ratio of 70/30% is "the closest to the previous method under current valuation", and what exactly does that mean? The critical question is why was this new ratio chosen, when the previous sale committee - which John Lee chaired - applied the previous formula which is now lightly dismissed as "cumbersome and complex"? Which formula is in the best interests of subsidiary proprietors? And why 70/30% instead of 50/50%? John Lee should explain what has changed since the previous attempted en bloc sale to justify such a change.

Further, is John Lee saying that the Consultant has guaranteed that the 70/30% formula will be approved by the Strata Titles Board? If so, this should be obtained in writing from the Consultant, and incorporated in the terms of the agreement with the Consultant.

He should also let us know which successful en bloc sales "with the same configurations" applied the 70/30% formula.

And speaking of being misleading, in fact, in the Holland Hill Mansion en bloc sale that he mentions, the statra area/share value formula was indeed upheld by the Strata Titles Board, the High Court and the Court of Appeal - but the ratio applied was 50/50%, and not 70/30%!

3. John Lee said: "He says: "*There is no protection in the CSA for you as a subsidiary proprietor*.... and the case of Horizon Towers is again mentioned. It is true that the owners of Horizon Towers who signed the CSA were sued by the Purchaser to honour the Sale and Purchase Agreement. If you recall, the consenting owners at Horizon Towers changed their minds about selling their property after they have entered into a contract with the Purchaser, when they realised that a neighbouring property was sold for twice what they got for their property. Of course, the purchaser has the right to enforce their contractual rights under the terms of the Sale and Purchase Agreement. Will this be repeated in BGV? Not likely if consenting owners do not change their mind after entering into a contract."
My comments: Another misleading statement on John Lee's part. The majority owners in Horizon Towers were not sued because they "changed their minds". They failed to comply with certain legal requirements in their submission to the Strata Title Board, and the buyer sued on the basis that the sellers had failed to perform their contractual duty to make a proper application. Whether or not this was based on a change of the majority sellers' minds is an inference from the facts.

So the real question to be asked is, if the CSC makes a faulty application or some other mistake in the sale process, leading to the owners being sued, what recourse would the owners have against the CSC? As the CSA is currently drafted, none. Not only that, the CSA provides that the owners indemnify the CSC - in 2 clauses, no less (clause 6.1.38 and clause 10.3)! Why should the CSC not be held liable for their actions, when they are acting as agents and fiduciaries in relation to valuable properties? Why should the owners indemnify the CSC?

As an aside, it is unclear why there should be 2 indemnity clauses. And it should be noted that though the indemnity in clause 6.1.38 is at least limited to acts of the CSC "in connection with" the CSA, the Collective Sale and applications to the Strata Title Board, there is no such limitation in clause 10.3. So theoretically under clause 10.3 the owners indemnify the CSC against "all actions, costs, expenses, damages and claims" whether or not related to the CSA or the Collective Sale. How can this be acceptable to owners?

4. John Lee says: "*There is no provision for a performance bond from a bank to guarantee that the buyer will complete the sale and make full payment of the sale proceeds*. If Mr Tan is correct, then he should show us a Sale & Purchase Agreement with such a preposterous provision. No Developer will accede to this demand. It has not been done before and it will never be done ever. Our protection is in the 5 - 10% deposit placed with our solicitor, which will accrue to the owners in case of a default, and the advice of our Consultants on the bona fide status of the purchaser.
My comments: I have said in my letter that we are likely to be told it is not market practice. But that is no reason why we should not have a performance bond if the purchaser is really keen to buy our estate. Market practice has to start somewhere, doesn't it? And should we not learn from the lessons of other estates whose purchasers pulled out of their enbloc sales, to begin a market practice that protects us? The deposit is insufficient protection, as the potential damages for an owner who has contracted to buy another property may be much larger than his share of the deposit. I believe this is what happened in the aborted en bloc sales earlier this year.

In any event, if the purchaser is bona fide and does not intend to default, then it should have no problem giving the bond. But my point is that no one can say for certain that a seemingly strong company will not collapse - look at Bear Stearns and Enron, just to name 2 of the largest, most successful corporations that have collapsed without warning. The CSC should in fact be the party insisting on this in order to protect all owners' interests, and not say that "it has not been done before and will never be done ever". Is this indicative of how the CSC will be negotiating to protect owners' interests?

5. *He says: "The power of the CSC to enter into a sale below the reserve price, and other important terms of the sale, should be subject to approval of the subsidiary proprietors. *It is misleading and mischievous to suggest that the CSC can enter into a sale below the reserve price without the approval of the subsidiary proprietors. Clause 4 - Sale Terms Reserve Price: $630,000,000/ Higher if increased with the Sale Committee's approval and Sellers are deemed to agree to such increase. If the proposed sale price is less than the Reserve Price, the Sellers' Approval is required before accepting such lower sale price. Sellers' Approval is defined in Clause 11 of the CSA as "the approval of sellers constituting at least 80% of share value and at least 80% of the strata title area of all units". Similarly the terms and conditions of the CSA cannot be changed willy nilly without the approval of the owners.
My comments: if John Lee had read the letter carefully, he would have seen that I was referring to changes in the terms of the sale and purchase agreement to be entered into with the buyer, not the CSA. Under the CSA, the committee is empowered to change the terms of the sale and purchase agreement. And what is wrong with saying that if the CSC wants to enter into a sale below the reserve price, it should get the owners' approval? In fact, this should be done before any such sale is entered into, with clear explanations why the CSC recommends such action, and why the reserve price cannot be achieved.

Further, it is unclear how and when each owner's decision whether to agree to the sale below the reserve price is to be ascertained, and what time period an owner is given to make such a decision. In all, the mechanism for a sale below the reserve price is unclear, and owners would do well to ensure that it is clearly specified if they agree at all to such a provision. It could be said to look like advance preparation for a sale below the reserve price. Is there something owners should know about now?

In fact, having taken a closer look at the CSA, clause 5.6 does purport to give the CSC the power to change both the CSA and the sale and purchase contract willy-nilly, subject only to what is stated in the CSA and the law requiring Sellers' Approval!

6. John Lee says: “He is also trying to collect as many proxies as possible to influence the outcome of the EGM in his favour. Do not be misled and confused by him.”
My comments: In fact, it is John Lee and his CSC members who have been collecting proxies all along, making it appear like there is a majority in favour of the en bloc sale, when actually it is a minority. It just looks like a majority because this group of en bloc sale supporters attends and votes at the EOGMs, usually through proxies held by John Lee and his CSC members. So the end result is that resolutions passed at the EOGMs appear to be overwhelmingly supported, while in reality, the majority have not attended or voted.

Thus, I would urge all owners to attend the EOGM this Saturday, and all future EOGMs, so you can hear for yourself and make up your own mind about how the various issues raised above, and other issues that other owners raise at the meeting itself, will affect your own circumstances. Otherwise you leave your fate in the hands of a vocal, persistent minority who act with their own interests at heart.

Yours sincerely,
Tan Lai Huat
Blk x Taman Serasi #xx-xx
Singapore xxxxxx "


Below is a letter sent to our BGV email by an owner and the owner asked for the letter to be put on the BGV blog. We have reproduced it here for the benefit of all.

"21/08/2008
Dear Vanessa and Hwei Ming,

I’ve held back on making comments, but the latest email from John Lee about Tan Lai Huat has really infuriated me. Just as John Lee has answered point by point, I want to bring to the attention of readers and owners these points he made:

1. “His letter contain misleading information which needs to be corrected”.

In fact, I believe the information he provided is not misleading, but enlightening. The points raised by John Lee in his rebuttal is incorrect, and I’m sure they will be brought up at the EOGM, which I encourage as many of you to attend. For example, he suggested comparing ‘two documents’. I suggest you compare the CBRE CSA and the Credo CSA to see the ‘great disparity’. When compared in terms of sale proceeds, owners from Blk 1 stand to loose over $100k under the new CSA! I guess it is purely coincidental that none of the CSC members own units in Blk 1 so will not face this loss.

2. “He is writing like he is protecting the interest of the owners, but he is in fact trying to create doubts in your mind about the integrity and rectitude of the Collective Sale Committee”.

This couldn’t be more obvious than the misinformation from the CSC’s own blog. For example, they stated clearly on their blog in response to the question: Can the reserve price be lowered after owners sign the CSA? Their answer was: “No. The reserve price is the minimum that owners agree to sell at. If the reserve price is not achieved, a sale does not take place”. I urge you to read clause 4.1.4 carefully to see if “a sale does not take place”. Such a clause about a lower sale price is not present in the CBRE CSA, but this just points out that the CSC is clearly preparing for a lower offer and is preparing to accept such a lower offer. Why else have this clause?

Some more “true facts” from their blog. In their “Timeline of Events”, they stated that in Jan 2008, “Owners present vote overwhelmingly in favour of formation of Collective Sale Committee”. Sounds like the entire estate is “overwhelmingly” for the sale, right? But actually, only 61 units out of 146 total attended and could vote. A total of ONLY 37% of the ENTIRE estate voted for the new CSC. That, my dear neighbours, is the “true fact”. A MINORITY GROUP has decided to push THEIR OWN AGENDA with no regard for the MAJORITY who are not keen on the sale.

And the most insulting, which many of you who received John Lee’s correspondence will remember, is now put up under “Alternative Places to Stay”. He has omitted certain sentences that were in his original letter, which I’ll now include, IN BOLD:

… It will not make much sense for us to sell our precious home and then splurge on a super luxurious home at 8Napier, Grange Residences, St Regis, etc. It will be plain stupid!

…Here are some estates where you can find homes with market value from $1-1.8 million: Normanton, Ridgewood, Pandan Valley, Pine Grove, Central Green, and many more in the east, west and central. Or, how about Punggol 21, the idyllic new town with shopping, nature, stream and MRT?

Some of the above estates are attempting to go en block, but they are not likely to succeed because they are huge estates, they have development charge issues, and most of them will not make it in time before the new Amendments become law.

Why did he omit these sentences? Because he called owners “stupid” just because we have a right to decide what kind of home we’d want to buy, luxurious or not. And how many of us were insulted that he would even suggest Punggol 21? I certainly do not see him moving out of his super luxurious home to this “idyllic new town”! And to add insult to injury, he suggests that we downgrade, downsize and move out of a perfect, central and beautiful location at BGV!!

3. “He is also trying to collect as many proxies as possible to influence the outcome of the EGM in his favour. Do not be misled and confused by him.”

Isn’t this the pot calling the kettle black? Isn’t he just as aggressively collecting proxies to influence the outcome of a general meeting? Didn’t he already achieve that, to great effect and to possible detriment of our estate, during our AGM when he steamrolled his pro-sale team into the management committee, courtesy of proxies?

I’m sorry but I’m quite disgusted by John Lee’s high and mighty attitude. Given his attitude, his bullish behaviour, his misinformation, I’m now greatly concerned that it is only one step away from our estate becoming like that of Laguna Park – with people living in fear of enbloc vandals who will not hesitate to bully the rest into signing the CSA.

At the end of the day, the only *TRUE FACT* is this – now is NOT the right time to sell. And unless we get rid of the CSC, our estate will be sold for less than what it’s truly worth.

A very disgusted owner
Name withheld for fear of vandalism. Not everyone parks near the guard house daily."

Dear Owner,
We thank you for your letter. We can understand your reason for withholding your name for fear of vandalism but we hope you can contact us as soon as you see this blog post. Thank you.

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, collective sale agreement, apportionment, proxy, EOGM, Letters to Owners, sale agent, sales committee

Coming EOGM and BGV AGM

Dear fellow owners and residents,

We have a couple of things to mention today. First, there is a letter from Mr John Lee of the Sale Committee (a) calling for another EOGM and (b) asking for proxy votes for the AGM, which, as you know, will be held this Saturday, 7 June 08. Curiously, despite this letter being dated the 22nd of May, neither of the two main contributors to this blog has received sight or sound of it (just to make it clear, we are not actually surprised at this). Just in case this discrimination is directed at other owners besides ourselves, we are happy to republish the letter on this blog as a public service. Second, there is the AGM.

Concerning the EOGM, we fully expect that the course of events will be the same as for the previous two EOGMs. That is, the Sale Committee and its minority supporters will be the principal attendees and everyone else will stay away, having better things to do than argue about the division of spoils from the sale of other peoples' homes. Some of us will be there, of course, so that you will have a reasonably objective account of events. However, the division of proceeds is something that should interest at least some of us owners. I refer to those of us would be willing to sell for the right price (ie not during this current extremely bad market). It is usual in en-bloc sales for the owners of larger or better-situated flats to suffer, since their share of the proceeds of sale rarely reflects a fair apportionment taking into account the superior value of, for instance, larger flats on higher floors. Since as our addresses make clear we are both in this position, we will make no comment but simply leave it to you all, dear fellow owners and residents, to reflect upon your own interests in this matter and decide for yourselves whether the protection of those interests merits your attendance at this EOGM. Since neither of us is in the slightest degree interested in selling our homes, how their price is to be divided up is a matter of indifference to us.

Concerning the AGM will be held this Saturday, 7 June 08. We thought that we would take this opportunity to urge everyone to attend. The AGM deals with the real, bread and butter issues of the management of our estate, not merely with the attempt to sell it out from under us. These are things that will affect all us in our daily lives: who will comprise the Management Council for the coming year? What has happened to the ongoing five-year maintenance programme? Will this estate continue to be maintained in good condition? We are all aware of what can happen when the Management Council of an estate is hijacked by people whose only interest is to sell.

We are pleased that Mr Lee's letter also expresses his intentions to maintain this estate in good order. However, this does not remove the inherent conflict of interest involved in being both a member of the Sale Committee ( which serves the interests of those who wish to sell our estate) and of the Management Council (which exists to maintain the estate in good condition for all of us, including the majority who do not wish to sell). We know that calling on the Sale Committee to do the right thing and end its members' involvement in the Management Council is a hopeless endeavour. We, the owners, are the only ones who can compel them to do so. How?

Quite simply, by voting against any candidate for the Management Council who is simultaneously a member of the Sale Committee. Mr Lee makes no secret (except to us, of course) about his desire to collect proxy votes, ostensibly to support his blameless and worthy endeavours to maintain this estate in good condition. We find this frankly unbelievable. The inhabitants of this estate are sensible people. No reasonable proposal for the management and maintenance of this estate has ever been refused by the AGM. Apart from the attempt by the Sale Committee and its cohorts to sell our homes against our wills, there is no major dispute or disagreement among the owners concerning the maintenance and management of this estate (really, does anyone here actually support the parking of heavy vehicles in the car-park? Is there a secret pro-heavy-vehicle faction among the owners, who must be fought tooth and nail?). We fully believe that there is no purpose behind this collection of proxy votes except the attempt to remove all remaining members of the Managment Council who do not support the Sale Committee, and effectively turn the Management Council into the mere tool and mouthpiece of the Sale Committee. Obviously, this result will be to the detriment of both the estate and the majority of its owners. After all, if the Management Council ever consists of a majority of pro-en-bloc sale people, what is to prevent the Council from making decisions AFTER the AGM which may directly or indirectly cause the estate to deteriorate in their attempt to encourage people to sell? The owners are not blind to see that a letter from the BGV En Bloc Office encouraging people to improve the estate goes against their push for a fast sale. Why proxy Mr John Lee when it is equally valid to proxy some other member of the Management Council, eg the Chairperson? How many of us have heard certain people saying that the estate is getting worse, and it's best to collectively sell now before it's too late?

We need only be reminded of the massive problems that can happen to the management of an estate when that is hijacked by pro-sales owners - Look at Mandarin Gardens and Bayshore Park to see what can happen when too many proxy votes end up in the hands of Sales Committee members:http://www.sghousing.com/2008/05/05/en-bloc-uproar-at-bayshore-park-mandarin-gardens/http://www.sghousing.com/2008/05/05/en-bloc-system-needs-relook-as-bayshore-shows/

In summary therefore, we hope that as many of us as possible will:

(a) Attend the AGM
(b) Scrutinise with the utmost care both the past year's maintenance activities and the plans for future maintenance
(c) Vote AGAINST any candidate for the Managment Council who will not dissociate themselves completely from the Sale Committee.

and of course, continue to Just Say No to whatever piece of paper the Sale Committee waves under our noses.

We will be doing all of these things and we hope that you will too.

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 BGV blog email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, EOGM, AGM, voting, conflict of interest, Management Coucil

The Missing CSC Letter

Dear fellow owners and residents,

It appears that the Sale Committee continues its tricks. Reproduced below is the letter sent by the chairman of the Sale Committee to some but not all owners and residents.

“26 March 2008

Dear Fellow Owners,

We thank those who have attended the 1st EOGM held on 12th January 2008 and for your overwhelming support (over 85%) in voting in the five members Collective Sale Committee (CSC).

We were somewhat taken by surprise when CB Richard Ellis, citing market conditions, told us that they will not consider reappointment for our collective sale. Five other major Consultants were approached to give us their proposals for the collective sale. Two of them declined.

Thankfully, the other three agreed, and have submitted their proposals to the CSC. The Committee was pleased with the proposals and the reserve prices that were suggested.

We now need to call the 2nd EOGM to discuss and decide on the appointment of the Consultant and the Lawyer who will be handling our collective sale. To do this we need to collect requisitions signed by not less than 20% of the share values or owners of BGV. The requisition is attached for the signature of the owner or one or more of the owners if the unit is under joint ownership.

Kindly sign the requisition as soon as possible and either mail or deposit the signed requisition in our letterbox at Blk 9 Taman Serasi #01-11, Botanic Gardens View, Singapore 257720. The sooner we receive your requisition, the sooner we can call the EOGM. Your immediate attention to this matter will be greatly appreciated.”

As you can see, if you compare it to the email cited in the last blog post, there are some significant differences.

Not least, the Sales Committee continues to make willfully misleading assertions as to the extent of its support within Botanic Gardens View. In the very first paragraph of this latest letter, it is stated that 85% (it is implied, of the whole ownership) voted for the Sale Committee.

Why do we say that this is misleading? The people who voted for the Sale Committee were NOT the entire ownership of Botanic Gardens View! They were merely those who attended the EOGM that elected the Sale Committee i.e. 53 units voted, representing 36.30% of the total estate. The Sale Committee is therefore supported by barely a THIRD of all BGV owners. This is of course a much less impressive figure, which is probably why the Sale Committee has chosen to disguise it.

The other important difference between this letter and the email is that it contains a requisition form for a 2nd EOGM. The Sale Committee, obviously, did NOT send this form to those owners who only received the email. We leave you to draw your own conclusions as to why the Sale Committee might be engaging in this frankly unethical and discriminatory behaviour and continues to engage in such behaviour as with an earlier letter which was only sent to some owners and residents.

The 2nd EOGM will ask us to approve the appointment of the new property consultant and a law firm. We ask you to consider very seriously whether you wish to place your trust in these persons, in view of the fact that several reputable agencies have already declined the Sale Committee’s business.

Any Collective Sales Agreement produced in such suspicious circumstances should be examined with even more care than we have already recommended. It should be a provision of the Collective Sales Agreement that each member of the Sale Committee should fully indemnify the owners for any loss or damage arising out of their actions or negligence in the attempted enbloc sale. The owners should NOT be the ones indemnifying the Sale Committee as we have seen in some other collective sales agreements. Given the less-than-transparent attitude of the Sale Committee, and given that our estate will almost certainly receive bids from major developers with large financial and legal clout, we are rightly concerned that the nightmares that have faced owners of other en bloc’d estates caught out by irresponsible Sale Committees, will occur to us. It is NOT sufficient that we ‘implicitly trust’ our Sale Committee; there must be legal protection for us owners who should not be the brunt of any legal proceedings.

There should also be a performance guarantee by any purchaser. This will protect signatories who have incurred costs, such as in the purchase of a replacement property, in the event that a buyer withdraws from the sale agreement, as occurred recently in the case of Tulip Garden and Pender Court where the purchaser, Bravo has postponed several times the settlement dates for both sales.

Any Collective Sales Agreement that does not contain these provisions will put the owners at great disadvantage.

In conclusion, we note that if the Collective Sales Agreement achieves 80% support, even non-signatories will be caught by its provisions, however disadvantageous they may be to our interests. We therefore urge everyone, once more, to keep our signatures to ourselves, in defence of those interests.


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 BGV blog email: enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com

PS. We would like to thank the owner who alerted us to the above letter which was sent by the CSC chairman to selected owners. We would also like to thank all owners and residents who have shown us support and who continue to give us support.

Tags: Botanic Gardens View, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, EOGM, Collective Sales Agreement

Missing-In-Action Letter

We have received news from some residents that they did not get a letter from John Lee dated 23 November 2007, and would like to ask other blog readers and concerned owners if they received this letter or not? And if not, is this the beginning of a selective and systematic means by which the sales committee (yet to be elected!) seeks to exclude passing on important information to people they suspect will not be in favour of the sale? If it is just a plain error, then we expect that the letter should be available to all owners again, but if it ISN'T an error, then WHAT ELSE are they keeping from you as a legitimate owner of BGV? This is a serious cause for concern.

Another point to note is that the letter was sent by and signed off as from John Lee, Member, BGV En Bloc Sales Committee. It would seemed: either they never did disband as promised in their various letters to owners or they have already elected themselves as the Sales Committee even before the EOGM on 1 December 2007.

Tags: Botanic Gardens, Botanic Gardens View, Singapore Botanic Gardens, Taman Serasi, collective sale, collective sales, en bloc, en-bloc, enbloc, singapore

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

Fear and Doubt, Tsunamis and Eggs - Responding to Mr Lee's Letter

Dear fellow owners of Botanic Gardens View,

We have become aware that two letters were circulated recently, one on 14 Sept 2007 from the Sale Committee and one dated 25 Sept 2007 from Mr John Lee (reproduced here). Some of us did not receive the first letter, either by post or by e-mail; we have not yet established how widely the second has been circulated. We urge the Sale Committee, collectively and individually, to ensure that ALL owners receive copies of their communications, in order to avoid concerns about the lack of transparency that results from partial circulation. For the information of all owners, the 14 Sept letter is available online via a private secure link from us; please email to us by clicking here or to enbloc_bgv@hotmail.com.

The Sale Committee continues to put pressure on owners to sign the Collective Sale Agreement. At least one of us has been subjected to continual telephone calls from CBRE, including to a family member at his workplace. Nonetheless, we continue to recommend strongly to owners that before doing so, they should seek independent legal advice. By signing the CSA you will hand over all control of this matter to the Sale Committee. At least one of the owners of Botanic Gardens View is also an owner in Horizon Towers and signed their CSA. Since the matter is now the subject of legal action we will not go into details. It is enough to say that she has reason to regret having done so.

We would like to mention a number of points that may be of interest to owners. The URA has never explicitly stated that it will in reality (rather than in our hopes) permit a developer to rebuild up to a plot ratio of 1.8. We cannot blithely assume that it will do so. The URA has, however, confirmed to us that the existing development restrictions on this plot will remain. The height limit of 4 stories (due to this plot’s proximity to the Botanic Gardens) will be retained for any new development (as shown here). And of course, there is currently no interested developer in sight anyway.

Another to which we would like to draw your attention is the reserve price. The Sales Committee has said that it has increased the reserve price. However, we have received no formal notification of this from the lawyer, Rajah & Tann, and therefore we cannot treat this as an official increase. This sudden change of mind also has implications for the Collective Sale Agreement, in that some owners will have signed under the old reserve price and some may have signed under the alleged new one, which may cause confusion (at the least) in future. Not to mention that there is no indication of what is the formulae used for apportionment and in particular, valuation. We paid for our units on the basis of their floor area, level and facing, not on the basis of share value. Will the price be apportioned fairly between three-bedroom units and two-bedroom ones? The Collective Sale Agreement is silent on this rather important point.
We are also disappointed by the tone of the Sale Committee’s letter. Contrary to what they pretend, one estate is not interchangeable with another. The location of Botanic Gardens View has unique and irreplaceable value, as we have pointed out before. Calling owners “plain stupid” because we prefer to stay in this location rather than in an inferior one is insulting and patronising and reveals perhaps more desperation than common sense.

Mr John Lee in his letter has implied that the Sale Committee’s failure to attract interest in the Collective Sale Agreement is due to “fear and doubt” spread by bloggers hiding “behind the cloak of anonymity”. We are somewhat confused by this, since our identities are not hidden (our names and addresses and contact information are all written at the bottom of this post and the previous letter distributed by mail and reproduced on this blog). We prefer to attribute owners’ reluctance to a clear understanding that their interests are not in reality being served by this attempt to evict them from their homes. Mr Lee claims that the forced sale of Botanic Gardens View into an overcrowded market would give owners a “nest egg”. Perhaps, for someone for whom this is not a primary (or sole) residence. For the rest of us, however, where exactly is the “nest egg” that he speaks of when it must be spent on somewhere that is smaller, more expensive and more inconveniently located than here? A nest egg, after all, requires a nest first. Not to mention that any other location may itself be subject to an en-bloc attempt in the near future!

We would also like to highlight to Mr Lee that we are ourselves owner-volunteers. If the en-bloc was not attempted, we would not have to put in our energies, time and expenses (from our own pockets) to keep owners informed and let owners hear another perspective so that they may make informed decisions.

In short, dear fellow owners, we hope that we will all continue to think the matter over carefully and be advised by our own independent legal advisers. Do not let a false sense of urgency push any of us into unconsidered decisions. A Sale Committee that acts in good faith and has the owners’ support has no reason to fear the new Amendments, which are after all designed to protect the interests of owners.

We remain, fully identified, fully resident, fully owner-volunteer,

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

Note: A blog reader has posted 7 comments in separate posts anonymously. We will attend to your responses in due time.

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

Another Resident Speaks Out

This was received from another resident of BGV, who calls him/herself "BGV Resident"...! We reprint this email verbatim, and add our own comments below. It goes to show that when the Protem SC becomes pushy, rather than becoming more transparent, they are actually becoming less so. We only anonymise the newly increased reserve price (henceforth $Y).

BGV Resident writes:

"I have just read the fresh circular letter from Mr John Lee today. Funny how he says he doesn't have any problem with the new law - as if he has a choice - and goes on to say that they have been guided by the same principles of "transparency and accountability". Is that why: -

1. there was no proper survey to show whether even more than 50% owners wish to embark on the enbloc exercise?
2. there was no general meeting called to properly initiate a sales committee?
3. the self-styled protem sales committee took it upon themselves to choose for all owners, the agent and lawyer, and inform owners only after the fact?
4. we are told that one member of the sales committee is employed by a "property developer" but we do not know which developer, and cannot decide for ourselves whether there is truly no conflict of interest, as Mr Lee claimed at the August owners' meeting?
5. Mr Gan the lawyer was proudly introduced as Deputy President of the Strata Titles Board at the August meeting while he was at the same time acting for the committee to move this CSA along, as if there is no conflict of interest?
6. till this day, the slides presented at the August owners' meeting (containing vital explanations, estimates, figures and other proposed terms) have not even been circulated to all owners, even though this was requested at the meeting?
7. we have no explanation of how the figure of $Y psf ppr was decided upon, as opposed to any other figure? [The only clue in the letter is that it says Ardmore Park went for $2337 and for some reason their new figure is close to this (rather than the latest figure in the list, $1810 psf ppr for Grangeford.) What would an up-to-date valuation report of BGV say - we are way off or on the mark?]
   

I also wonder why Mr Lee is concerned about the coming legislative changes regarding EOGMs etc, since Mr Gan the lawyer was so confident in explaining during the August meeting that his drafting of the CSA (paragraph 25 on page 18) would take care of any changes to the law and that the CSA would not be badly affected.

Finally, the last page of Mr Lee's letter shows what a sad state they are in - to argue that we should move to other enbloc-possibility condos (out of the frying pan into the fire), some even older than BGV, and to even faraway Punggol 21 (forgetting the fact that we currently enjoy living near the one and only original Botanic Gardens, Tanglin Mall, Orchard Road, Bukit Timah Road and Holland Village, in a location that people would die for and is not replaceable by any of those he mentioned)! Talk about comparing apples with pears, as far as Punggol 21 is concerned."

Many thanks to BGV Resident for your honest response. We would like to add the following as well:-

1. It is really a bitter pill to swallow when Mr Lee's letter on "Where to Stay" lists out places that are condos that are ONGOING en blocs (eg Pandan Valley, Normanton, Pine Grove, Ridgewood etc), or even Punggol 21, when he himself lives in his comfortable bungalow nearby (as verified in the White Pages). It is questionable if the chairman even stays in BGV. It really doesn't matter to him if you miss Botanic Gardens because it's only a stone's throw from his home.
   
2. Is the PSC's idea of transparency one where a letter is sent out on the 4th Sep 2007 for an Owners' Meeting on 8th Sep 2007? Sure, everyone received the letter (eventually) but how many could change their appointments at the last minute, especially during the school term break, to attend an urgent meeting with Mr Gan? Less than 40 people turned up including the PSC.
3. How transparent is the PSC when they failed to inform you that URA refuses to support the PSC's application for a 10 storey redevelopment? That the maximum allowable height in the event of a total redevelopment is STILL FOUR STOREYS? We will inform you in the immediate future our own discussions with URA and what we found out (especially about the 1.4 vs 1.8 plot ratio).
4. Does the revised RP $Y mean that CBRE will benefit from the excess fee charge (since it already exceeds $X as stated in the last agreement)? Or will $Y be fixed at 0.38%?
5. Where is the calculation for valuation that is a part of the method of distribution? It was promised (along with the slides) to everyone that the valuation formula and rationale would be sent to all owners.
   

Is the sale done in 'good faith'? It is beginning to appear that good faith is beginning to go out the window in the rush to get that 80% that the PSC desperately needs.

Tags: Taman Serasi, Botanic Gardens View, en-bloc, collective sale

Letter to All Owners of BGV - 30 Aug 2007

This letter was sent out to all owners of Botanic Gardens View, dated 30 August 2007. We are reproducing the letter here.

Dear fellow owners of Botanic Gardens View,

We represent a number of owners do not wish to sell our apartments in an en-bloc sale. We do not refer to ourselves as “minority owners”, because we are not in the minority. Despite the pressure that has been brought to bear, there is no evidence that the majority of the owners, particularly the resident owners, actually wish to go against their own long-term interests and sell their apartments into an overcrowded market. This being the case, we ask our fellow owners, both resident and non-resident, to consider the following points:

1. At the meeting on 5 August, one of the Sales Committees presented a Collective Sale Agreement (CSA). We will not comment about the terms, since these are for each owner to consider. However, we would like to emphasise that a CSA is a binding legal document, with significant legal obligations and financial consequences for anyone who signs it. Signatories of the CSA give up important rights and acquire equally important obligations. As the Horizon Towers case shows, changing your mind after signing will entail a great expense of time and money. We would therefore urge all owners to take independent legal advice and consider carefully not only what is in the CSA but what is not, before they sign.



2. For our fellow owners’ consideration, we attach a table setting out some of the discrepancies we found when we ran the method of apportionment and calculation of the minimum sale price through a spreadsheet. We note various errors, from the simple calculation error on Schedule 3 (Error 4) to differences when the Sale Proceeds are calculated based on the defined apportionment ratio (Error 3) to a discrepancy of over $7000 (Error 1). We urge you to double check the figures yourself; enter the values as defined in Schedule 3 and 5 in a spreadsheet and ensure decimal values for apportionment ratio are set to 6 points as defined in Schedule 5. (The table is sent to all owners via post)
   



3. At the recent August meeting, it was suggested that owners who sell could buy replacement properties in developments such as Fontana Heights, Grange Residences, One Jervois, Regency Park, The Equatorial and Waterfall Gardens. Now, apart from the risk that these developments too will suffer an en-bloc attempt, the fact of the matter is that none of them offers the same combination of advantages that Botanic Gardens View has in terms of (i) location, (ii) size, (iii) layout, (iv) land-holding tenure and again, (v) location. Even if we were able buy any apartment in these developments (which is not guaranteed), we would inevitably lose out on at least one and possibly all of the above factors. We are in effect being told that in exchange for losing our property here we can pay out more and get less in return. There is no logical reason why we would wish to do that. Those of us who live here precisely because of this location will inevitably lose out, since it will not be possible for us to buy a unit in a redeveloped Botanic Gardens View. 8 Napier, the former Eng Lok Mansions, will be selling for S$4000 per square foot. There is no reason why a redeveloped Botanic Gardens View should be sold for a lower price. The reserve price proposed by the Sales Sub-Committee is certainly not going to cover that.



4. This leads us to our major point: We were told at the 5th August meeting that we should go for an en-bloc sale because the market may be reacing its peak and we will “miss the boat” if we do not sell now. We respect the professional expertise of the agents, and the opinions of the owners who wish to sell, but the truth is that their interest is in making the sale, rather than helping all owners to maximize their long-term benefits. The loss of amenity to the residents is not a factor for them, since it will not be a factor in the sale price. Before worrying about “missing the boat” we need to ask ourselves whether the boat’s destination is anywhere that we want to go to, and just as important, whether there will not be other boats in future. Given the number of developments that are now on the market for en-bloc sale, or which have already been sold, we also need to ask ourselves whether we are truly maximizing value by selling now into a market that is already loaded with properties, in which we might well be forced to reduce our reserve price even further in order to find a buyer. This would make no sense at all.



5. Property booms come and go. This one will indeed end at some time. So what? We are strongly of the view that Botanic Gardens View’s unique and irreplaceable location will ensure that its value will be maintained regardless of the property cycle. As one of the few remaining prime parcels in the centre of town, Botanic Gardens View would in fact be even better placed for the future. And in the meantime we residents will continue to benefit from its many and irreplaceable advantages. We should not let ourselves be pushed blindly into signing legally-binding documents without thought or professional advice.

Any owners interested in further discussion can contact us (Click on name to email):

(a) Vanessa Chan (Blk 9, #10-09)

(b) Wong Hwei Ming (Blk 9, #09-17)

or through this blog.

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