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

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

Minutes and Comments from the Owners' Meeting 8 September 2007

It took us a while to compare notes and compile this, but we now have what we think is a comprehensive set of minutes and comments on the 8 September 2007 meeting.

For your information, the revised RP was done after this meeting, and of course, the Parliament has now passed the new amendments, which means it is now law.

Because the document is over 6 pages long, we have decided not to include everything in here. Readers can go to scribd (an online document storage site) and download or view the entire minutes here. We have included our overall comments below instead (it is the same as the last part of the document). We suggest you read the document on scribd first.

Overall Comments

During his brief about the new amendments, Mr Gan repeatedly pointed out that the new amendments will be other than them being a hassle (waste of time, effort and money), Mr Gan neglected to mention the benefits for us owners with these EOGMs which is to discuss the selection of property consultants, lawyers with all owners, to discuss the terms and conditions of CSA and SPA, apportionment methods and so on with all owners. Thus, showing transparency and accountability and fairness. He said that if every owner agrees that the SC has been very transparent, then there should be no need to follow the new amendments. However, we question whether the SC has been transparent or not – failure to provide slides, failure to provide formula for apportionment and valuation, failure to call for a meeting with sufficient time for owners, hard push to obtain 80% rather than taking the effort to conduct matters properly.

Mr Gan finally said that if he were to speak honestly, he will not do the sale for BGV under the new amendments because it would be laborious for him – he has to witness the signing, explain and clarify to owners with queries, sign off the notice of consent level every 4 weeks. In effect, it is more work for him. If it’s more work, even discounting the new amendments, what happens when things get complicated (eg legal complications that appear)? Will he back out because it is more work and most costly? We have to seriously question the ‘honesty’ of Mr Gan as a lawyer that is committed to the sale if he can say that under new amendments he will not do the sale since it’s too much work and effort.

Mr Gan also mentioned that it is not stated in our CSA that the sinking fund and maintenance fund will be given to us rather than go with the purchaser. But in the SPA when the tender goes out, they will try. So that means it is not a guarantee we have the funds returned to us. Did you know that under the new amendments, all management and sinking funds will be returned to the owners? That we don’t have to ‘try’ but we are entitled to the funds. We believe that there’s a substantial amount left in the sinking funds, and it should be duly returned to us, especially under the new amendments.

CBRE Mr Lake spoke saying the volume of successful transactions in the last 3 months (June:20, July: 12, August: 6) have been trending downwards. Mr Lake pointed out one strategy that exists at the moment is to hit 80% at whatever price you can, then worry about price later. He raised the spectre of Pacific Mansion and Rivershire where they raised their RP but did not succeed in a bid that satisfied the RP. He said that this is not the right basis or approach. The gist of the message is to hurry because the market might be turning down. However, we would like to point out a few things:-

1. CBRE’s own report in the Straits Times on 18 September painted a very rosy outlook for the property market (“Investment Sales to hit $50B in ’07: CBRE”) where the article cited CBRE’s bullish prediction of Singapore ending the year on a strong footing with sales hitting an all time high. Residential investments (en blocs) comprise a large proportion of their prediction and target.
2. If he is disdainful of the strategy of pushing up the RP to obtain 80% as Pacific Mansion and Rivershire did, why did he approve the SC decision to raise the RP up by more than 10%? Does this not defeat Mr Lake’s careful analysis of surrounding market rates which was his justification for arriving at $2000 in the first place?
3. What if the higher RP does not achieve a successful tender? Is the SC empowered to decrease the RP (even below $2000) without the consent of the owners? The CSA is silent on this matter. After all, 5.2.1 states clearly amendments of a substantial nature must be made only with written approval by all Selling Owners, and yet we wonder if written approval was obtained for raising the RP (which the SC is entitled to under 14.(b)(ii) but it is still a substantial amendment). What if he/she does not approve of the amendment, especially if it is a downward revision of the RP? Again the CSA is silent on this matter. After all, 24.6 of the CSA states that “The Selling Owners hereby irrevocably represent agree and undertake from time to time and at all times to ratify and confirm whatsoever the Solicitors and/or the Property Consultants shall lawfully do or cause to be done by virtue of this CSA”. In other words, anyone who signs the CSA shall “ratify and confirm” anything done by virtue of the CSA. That is carte blanche to do anything they want in our books.

As a sidenote, we noticed that the new RP in Mr Lee's letter are different in 2 places. Do see if you can spot it. Some say it's a minor amount, but an error is an error.

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

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

Reserve Price Increase - Trying to Pre-empt the New Law

Apologies for the lack of update. We've been busy compiling our notes and comparing them from the last meeting. We'll be putting these notes up shortly as well as our comments on them.

In addition, another letter arrived from Mr Lee. This time they have increased the Reserve Price (RP) by about 18%. We knew this was going to happen as it is a common tactic by agents and SCs to bump up the RP when the signature collection has stagnated, things are not moving along, or when they are facing a deadline.

And what deadline is this? Not the worry about financial market tsunamis, but of a Law coming into existence. Here's 3 things to think about before you sign the dotted line:

1. A bump of 18% is significant. CBRE and the PSC obviously knows that this can be done. So why start at the amount stated in the CSA (henceforth named "X")? Improved market conditions (but didn't he worry about tsunamis?)? Or is it because $X is easier to secure a sale with a buyer? In other words, rather than getting the best possible value for your property, by initially starting with $X, the PSC has opted for the FASTEST way of selling your property. Put it another way, if 80% signed at $X on the 5 Aug, then ALL of us would not have received the 18% extra present.
   


2. By increasing the RP, they are now pushing for the FASTEST way of getting 80%. But this beckons - if they can bump up by 18%, does that not speak volumes about HOW MUCH MORE THE ESTATE IS WORTH? Think about it this way - from not signing, you have just witnessed an 18% increase in value in your unit in less than 2 months. We reiterate our point - that we as owners need not worry about how valuable our estate is - we KNOW it is valuable, and it should be us who dictate the selling price. Eng Lok didn't become the highest en bloc sale of its time because it followed the market; it LED the market.


3. The latest letter was very silent of concerns by owners about the Horizon Towers situation. Lately there are even more cases being brought to court or STB that are contested on legal grounds. Increasingly, points of law around the sale and the CSA are brought to question. Considering that the sale of the property will be of the same range as that of Horizon Towers and it is likely that only major developers like CDL, SC Global, HPL, Capitaland, etc will attempt to buy the estate, what are the consequences for majority owners if major issues are brought up at STB hearings or in court that might lead the case to be dismissed? Issues that are may be recognised and prevented under the new Law because it will force things to become systematic, transparent and fair? We are ultimately small buyers versus a major developer if it comes down to lawsuits and there is no written guarantee that what happened to Horizon Towers will not happen to us.
   

We will post our notes of the 8 September Owners' Meeting and you can judge for yourself if you feel safe signing your rights away in the increasingly risky process of en bloc sales. We ask for your patience as this is not a matter anyone wants to take lightly. It isn't simply a matter of signing on the dotted line, as much as the PSC would want you to believe.

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