• IP addresses are NOT logged in this forum so there's no point asking. Please note that this forum is full of homophobes, racists, lunatics, schizophrenics & absolute nut jobs with a smattering of geniuses, Chinese chauvinists, Moderate Muslims and last but not least a couple of "know-it-alls" constantly sprouting their dubious wisdom. If you believe that content generated by unsavory characters might cause you offense PLEASE LEAVE NOW! Sammyboy Admin and Staff are not responsible for your hurt feelings should you choose to read any of the content here.

    The OTHER forum is HERE so please stop asking.

Court removes caveat on debtor's HDB flat

hokkien

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Court removes caveat on debtor's HDB flat
K C VijayanThe Straits TimesSunday, Dec 07, 2014
20111028.173104_crime_court_rotator.jpg
Court removes caveat on debtor's HDB flat
0 3 0
0
0
0
Print
A moneylender's bid to recover a loan by blocking the sale or transfer of a debtor's HDB flat has been overruled by the High Court.
The lender, Micro Credit, had placed a notice on a flat owned by Madam Salbiah Adnan and her then husband Zam Zam Muhammad Kassim, both in their 40s, requiring the lender to be informed if someone seeks to sell or transfer the flat.
Moneylenders use such notices, called a caveat, with the Singapore Land Authority, to ensure that borrowers repay a loan before they proceed to remove the notice.
In judgment grounds released on Monday, the court explained that a caveat is not meant to be a kind of mortgage for an unsecured debt.
"If a moneylender wishes to take security over a borrower's property, he should take a mortgage or a charge," said Judicial Commissioner Edmund Leow.
Mr Zam, a senior technician, had borrowed $2,000 in two tranches from the firm in September and October 2009.
Micro Credit had obtained two caveats on the flat owned by the couple in the same year. The first was authorised jointly by the couple.
The second was signed by Mr Zam alone and filed by Micro Credit in November 2009.
Mr Zam repaid the first loan but defaulted on the second after he was jailed for drug offences and the debt owed with interest rose to $28,334 as of January this year.
Madam Salbiah divorced Mr Zam in 2012 in the Syariah Court, which ordered him to transfer the flat to her. But the transfer could not be carried out by HDB because of the notice lodged by Micro Credit.
Madam Salbiah, through lawyer Mohamed Hashim Abdul Rasheed, applied to the court for the caveat to be removed. But Micro Credit's lawyer S.R. Shanmugam argued that the couple's signatures on the loan documents meant the firm had a valid interest in the sale proceeds of the flat.
But the judge found that the loan documents did not grant Micro Credit any interest in the flat or in the sale proceeds when sold.
He said that "even if (his) analysis is incorrect" Micro Credit's interest in the sale proceeds vanished with the Syariah Court order handing ownership of the unit to Madam Salbiah.
This meant Mr Zam had no share in the flat even if it were sold and Micro Credit could not recover its money.
The judge ordered the caveat removed.
He noted that the notice was lodged before new HDB rules took effect in 2010, forbidding the use of an HDB flat as security for loans.
The relevant 2010 provision was "enacted precisely to address cases like the present where a home owner uses the sale proceeds of his HDB flat as security or collateral for a loan", he said.
Citing a speech in Parliament by then National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan, the judge noted that in 2009, there were 546 caveats lodged by moneylenders on HDB flats to claim an interest in the sale proceeds of the flats.
[email protected]

This article was first published on Dec 05, 2014.
Get a copy of The Straits Times or go to straitstimes.com for more stories.
- See more at: http://news.asiaone.com/news/crime/court-removes-caveat-debtors-hdb-flat#sthash.igUa6peV.dpuf
 

Papsmearer

Alfrescian (InfP) - Comp
Generous Asset
This whole case has really indicated what a fucked up system HDB and the judiciary has in singapore. The High Court is absolutely right in this decision. But many questions beg to be asked, of which the SHit Times reporter has failed to do.

1) How many flat transfers has HDB illegally blocked because of these caveats? Its obvious the caveats have no validity in regards to real estate transactions like this type. In these cases, loan sharking companies like Micro credit give loans to people like the defendant based on a personal guarantee and NO collateral. If the borrower does not sign over any collateral like a car or a private property, the lender would be hard pressed to collect on the default debt. The lenders know this and charge a high interest rate to compensate for the lack of physical and marketable collateral. HDB has been complicit in this illegality by helping lenders like Micro Credit to collect their debt by blocking the sale of assets the borrower holds unless the debt was paid off first.

2) How many cases has HDB blocked in the past and what legal recourse is available to these flat owners who had their sale blocked.

3) Why is SLA and HDB even honouring these caveats without legal advice on their validity?

4) what is the impact on other caveats currently registered on HDB flats by such lenders? HDB has to now immediately remove these caveats as they are not legal anymore. I have never seen a housing authority so willing to co-operate with what are essentially loan sharks and help them collect on their debts. Something fishy is happening here. It appears that with so many episodes of loan shark runners painting and padlocking the flats of debtors, and with so many CCTV around the blocks very few runners have been caught vandalizing such properties. Its curious to me why HDB is so co-operative with loan sharks and so tolerant of runner vandals. HDB has to stay neutral in such civil cases between its tenants and one of its debtors. If the tenant chooses to sell his or her flat, then the sale should go thru, regardless of other circumstances of the tenant. That is the extent of HDB's involvement. Any money the tenant gets from the sale, its up to the borrower to collect from them.
 
Last edited:

Narong Wongwan

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Money lenders should have no say in this as its unsecured credit. If secure credit than b a bank.

Banks also got no right previously until vile pappies allowed banks to do hdb loans.
Money lenders lodging caveats started when they infiltrated the housing agents.....pap back peddle and tweaked the laws to plug loopholes but as usual only addressing symptoms not the root of problem.
 

The_Hypocrite

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
Tat wat pap is good for...plugging holes n bowing to all sort of crap interest groups.

Banks also got no right previously until vile pappies allowed banks to do hdb loans.
Money lenders lodging caveats started when they infiltrated the housing agents.....pap back peddle and tweaked the laws to plug loopholes but as usual only addressing symptoms not the root of problem.
 

Reddog

Alfrescian
Loyal
Wah a loan of $2000 can grow to a debt of $28,334 with interest. No wonder so many want to be Ah Long. Fantastic margin leh.
 

krafty

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
dun talk thru your arse, stupid fuck...from my analyst, ah longs in s'pore are run by syndicates positioned overseas. the runners here are made use of by these syndicates to mend their operation. many debtors turn runners, even they are caught and jailed, there will be others to fill in their position. it's a vicious cycle, as long as money collected, these runners can be anybody local. that's why i see there is no way spf can crash the overseas syndicate, those who they caught are merely sinkie runners who helped the syndicate.

Same same as 'finance companies' in hk....all exclusively owned by triads.
 

garlic

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
The most important part is never explain how to grow 2000 to 28000 legally and can hire lawyer to defend that.
 

Narong Wongwan

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
dun talk thru your arse, stupid fuck...from my analyst, ah longs in s'pore are run by syndicates positioned overseas. the runners here are made use of by these syndicates to mend their operation. many debtors turn runners, even they are caught and jailed, there will be others to fill in their position. it's a vicious cycle, as long as money collected, these runners can be anybody local. that's why i see there is no way spf can crash the overseas syndicate, those who they caught are merely sinkie runners who helped the syndicate.

Hehe Krafty now the criminal expert.
Indepth ah long syndicates knowledge indeed.
Dun reply for the sake of replying to stalk me.
Talk taxi talk jilted by girl etc topic maybe I lose to you la.
Dun pretend or come here talk about such topics with me.
No need flash my credentials enough bros here PM me regarding such matters.
Hehe try something else fuckface.
 

krafty

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
whoa, do u mean credentials for crashing whtsapp huh...:rolleyes:


Hehe Krafty now the criminal expert.
Indepth ah long syndicates knowledge indeed.
Dun reply for the sake of replying to stalk me.
Talk taxi talk jilted by girl etc topic maybe I lose to you la.
Dun pretend or come here talk about such topics with me.
No need flash my credentials enough bros here PM me regarding such matters.
Hehe try something else fuckface.
 

joety

Alfrescian
Loyal
the case for judicial precedent purposes just means that an unsecured loan, whether be it with banks or licenced monylenders is not a caveatable interest for a HDB property.

no need to read too much into it.

what is a caveatable interest is prescribed by common law cases.

of course the singapore judiciary cases takes priority over the other common law cases in England, etc.
 

Froggy

Alfrescian (InfP) + Mod
Moderator
Generous Asset
$2,000 became $28,000 what the fuck PAP doing to the citizens giving licenses to fuck us? Wonder if these licenses given to PAP cronies or not?
 

joety

Alfrescian
Loyal
$2,000 became $28,000 what the fuck PAP doing to the citizens giving licenses to fuck us? Wonder if these licenses given to PAP cronies or not?

that is a seperate matter altogether.
it has nothing to do with the court.
 

Narong Wongwan

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
whoa, do u mean credentials for crashing whtsapp huh...:rolleyes:

Dun peng prata la fuckface.
What fuck you know about ah longs/moneylending?
Share share dun talk thru your arse.....
Overseas syndicates? From which countries? How the modus operandi?
Runners are locals?
 

krafty

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
you better stick to your whatsapp crashing...:rolleyes:

Dun peng prata la fuckface.
What fuck you know about ah longs/moneylending?
Share share dun talk thru your arse.....
Overseas syndicates? From which countries? How the modus operandi?
Runners are locals?
 

Narong Wongwan

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
you better stick to your whatsapp crashing...:rolleyes:

Keep going.....
I know fucktards like you value your online 'credibility and reputation'....
I'm going to show you up as a fraud.....
Fucking shameless attention whore empty vessel talking thru your arsehole.
Continue to be the resident clown and irritating moron.
Posting about your taxi adventures and loser jilted 'love' stories will at least keep us entertain.....dun share your low IQ thots about subjects that are more cheem....not your cup of tea.
 

krafty

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
ya, you still haven't taught me on how to crash my friends whatsapp so that i cannot contact them...lol...:biggrin:

Keep going.....
I know fucktards like you value your online 'credibility and reputation'....
I'm going to show you up as a fraud.....
Fucking shameless attention whore empty vessel talking thru your arsehole.
Continue to be the resident clown and irritating moron.
Posting about your taxi adventures and loser jilted 'love' stories will at least keep us entertain.....dun share your low IQ thots about subjects that are more cheem....not your cup of tea.
 

Narong Wongwan

Alfrescian (Inf)
Asset
the case for judicial precedent purposes just means that an unsecured loan, whether be it with banks or licenced monylenders is not a caveatable interest for a HDB property.

no need to read too much into it.

what is a caveatable interest is prescribed by common law cases.

of course the singapore judiciary cases takes priority over the other common law cases in England, etc.

Law already changed.
Many property agents were ganging up with ah longs to fleece low income flat owners back then.
This case from before law change
 
Top