If the infinity pool is a selling point then the buyers have a right to claim compensation
-
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.
Angry condo penthouse owners want to sue developer over swimming pool
- Thread starter Jah_rastafar_I
- Start date
Sodomised by PAP beyond comprehension
The National Pledge is:
We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation.
Sinkies been duped again and again, pain and pleasure I supposed..又痛又爽
The National Pledge is:
We, the citizens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves as one united people,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a democratic society
based on justice and equality
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our nation.
Sinkies been duped again and again, pain and pleasure I supposed..又痛又爽
rot starts from very top ...
Its not a case of caveat emptor. This is an example of how in cahoots the developers are with the BCA, URA and other govt. regulatory bodies. In this case, I actually believe this buyer has a legal point. But this is singapore. The more politically connected will win in the kangaroo court of law. In this issue, BCA is at fault too. When the controller of housing tries to mediate between the residents and the developer, it means that the Controller aka BCA has fucked up in approving the changes, and then not following up to make sure the amendments were build according to the amended plans.
Some of the salient points I noticed:
- The aussie idiot investment banker relied on the sales brochure and the pictures of the infinity pool to justify his purchase of his penthouse unit. Actually, he should not do this, as the sales brochure always has some caveats and outs in it, along the lines of "actual finished product may not be what is represented in the brochure". Or 'For illustration purposes only".
- Instead, he should have relied on his S & P agreement. His whole unit should have been spec out in the S & P, and a plan of the unit included. It should have shown the exact location and size of his swimming pool. In his case, there was a wall with a glass panel blocking the view of the sea. Was this in the specifications that he received with his S & P? If it was, then he was at fault for not noting it and going ahead with the purchase. He should have questioned the sales agent 'How can I see the fucking sea with this wall blocking my view".
- BCA said that the developer send in amended plans and the plans were approved and the building constructed based on these plans. If these plans eliminated a bay window and replaced it with a blank wall, or in this case, surrounded the infinity pool with a wall and glass window, the developer has to notify the buyer that these changes were made. In fact, if they did not put in some common amenities as mentioned in the article, the developer is also required to inform all the buyers. The buyers have 21 days to object if not, the developer will take it as acceptance and proceed with the changes. So in this case, was the aussie banker informed? And if so, why did he not object? I cannot believe that no buyers objected to this changes. Since the article did not mention the objections, did the developer actually notify the buyers? If not, they have violated the Housing Developers Act.
- I find that if the developer did notify the buyers of the changes, the buyers would have filed an objection. Perhaps they did not and BCA when ahead and approved the changes and issued the TOP when it was complete. BCA should have asked for proof that the notifications were send out. they cannot just suka suka approve any amendments to the plans if there is a rash of objections on the amendments. To do so would be to ignore their own regulations. But if they are in bed with the developers, this would be SOP to just rubber stamp any amendments the developer wants, regardless of how it impacts the buyers. One thing that developers do is that they never do an amendment for the benefit of the buyer. Its always for their own benefit. Maybe they figured out some feature was too costly and they wanted to change the plans accordingly. But its BCA's job to protect the public consumer and i see in this case they have fallen on the job.
Just my 2 sens worth.
-
Last edited:
We, the sillyzens of Singapore,
pledge ourselves to bend down ass up,
regardless of race, language or religion,
to build a Lee Dynasty
based on corruption and cronyism
so as to achieve happiness, prosperity and
progress for our FamiLEE.
Bro , alliance mai ?
muahahahaha..Najibee is laughing
They were building this condo near, where I was living, in their brochure, they had picture of this couple water skiing with a boat. The River next to the Condo to be built ( Now completed & occupied) is just another glorified LONGKANG ( drain), so if BUYERS BEWARE right?....there is no truth in advertising...
