Problems of (In)Validity and (Un)Reliability with the CSC Survey Form

Dear Fellow Owners and Residents of BGV,

We are pleased that the BGV Collective Sale Committee has made one change in its proposed new draft Sale Agreement, to the apportionment method. As can be seen from the various blog posts highlighting the efforts that owners have taken to examine the CSA in depth, including various legal aspects of the contract, the CSC has nevertheless chosen to ignore most of their concerns with the proposed CSA. We wish to reiterate that the points listed here are not trivial matters but have legal and binding consequences for all owners.

Therefore, we wish to point out the following:

1. There is still no guarantee that the BGV Enbloc Sale will sell at $xxx,000,000 (figure removed due to its sensitive nature). This is because of the clause in the CSA that allows the CSC to accept a lower sale price.


2. There is ambiguity in the process of informing owners of a lower sale price and getting their approval, opening up the possibility of loopholes, abuse and a lack of transparency in how matters will be properly conducted.


3. We now have three different apportionment methods offered to owners – (1) the CBRE’s 1/3 share values:1/3 strata area: 1/3 valuation; (2) Credo’s 70:30 method; (3) Credo’s revised 60:40 method. The latest revision seems to be an arbitrary one that does not seem to conform with the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers’ recommendations. No rationale is provided for the change in apportionment method, either.


4. The revised CSA does not address the issue of adequate legal protections for the subsidiary proprietors and the MCST from liability and damage caused by actions of the CSC, as well as from non-performance by an intended purchaser. The recent law suit against the Horizon Towers CSC will serve as a reminder of the need for legal protection for all owners to be addressed.


5. Lengthy discussions at the last EOGM and extended written feedback from owners have resulted in minor changes in the CSA and apportionment methods without addressing the serious concerns owners have. This raises the question of to what extent does the CSC take feedback from owners seriously.

We note that the CSC wishes to ascertain our views in respect of the continuation with or termination of the BGV Enbloc Sale. We have no objection in principle. However, we note certain problems with their Survey Form, which if uncorrected will render this exercise pointless. The most obvious problem is that there is no provision for the signatory to confirm their identity. There is therefore no way to determine whether a returned Survey Form is genuine or not. There is nothing to stop any party from, for instance, photocopying fifty forms and filling out names and addresses, on the side that pleases them, either for or against. Accordingly, the result of such a survey, whether for or against, could not properly form the basis of any decision. An attempt to use such forms to support the continuation of the BGV ENbloc Sale and the Sale Committee's existence, for instance, would certainly be open to legal challenge.

We therefore strongly suggest that:
(a) the survey form be modified to include provision for the signature of all subsidiary proprietors of the unit;
(b) all survey forms that do not have the name(s), apartment number or signature(s) should be discounted; and
(c) the survey forms should be counted by the entire MC.

We understand that many people are concerned about the possibility of harassment if they reveal their views. The events in, for instance, Laguna Park, where pro-sale elements committed acts of criminal vandalism and then tried (unsuccessfully) to blame them on anti-sale apartment owners, show that this is not an unfounded fear. However, if strict security is maintained, and the Survey Forms are not revealed to anyone but the MC and the CSC, any act of harassment should be easily traceable and appropriate action can be taken.

We therefore urge the BGV Collective Sale Committee to take account of the above and (i) revise the new proposed draft CSA to address the feedback highlighted above and (ii) revise the Survey Form so that it is actually valid, useful and usable.

Tags: apportionment, Collective Sale Agreement, collective sales committee, csa, CSC, En-bloc Sale, enbloc, EOGM, harrassment, Management Council, sales committee, survey

CSC Letter cum Survey

On 3 February, those of us staying at BGV received a letter from the BGV CSC. For those living off-site or overseas, they would have received the letter anytime from 4 to 9 February.

The letter from CSC is reproduced below.



The main points in the CSC letter are that:
1. The CSC has agreed to a marginal compromise with regards to the apportionment method in the CSA.
2. The CSC seeks to determine if BGV owners wish to continue or to call off the BGV enbloc sale via a survey.

While we applaud the CSC for wanting to hear from us owners with regards to our thoughts about the enbloc sale of BGV via the survey form, we have serious concerns with the validity and reliability of the survey form. We shall address our concerns in the next post.

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