Thank you very much PAP. There is absolutely no end user consumer protection here for buyers of condos. Considering how much money developers make and how much the owners have to pay, you would think the govt would enact some laws to make it at least an even ground between buyer and developers. In many countries, the law is even skewered in favour of the buyers. Looking at the case of The Seaview condos in
So, High Court justice Chan Sen Onn ruled that the Management Company representing the owners of Seaview cannot sue the Developer, Architect, or the Main Contractor for the numerous defects in their condos. What the fuck? SO, I guess there is now an open license for any shit developers to cut corners and get away with it. The implications of this ruling are huge. It means that developers can promise this and that, but when they don't deliver, there is no penalty to them. How can this be? The logic used by Justice Chan is ludicrous. Almost as bad as the not loitering outside the polling station ruling by then Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. Some of this defects included water seeping into the underground carpark, wooden planks rotting in the pool area, foul smells, leaking windows, blocks of concrete falling, pool tiles popping, paint peeling from the walls, etc.
Apparently, Justice Chan S O ruled that since all the accused parties hired competent independent contractors, they cannot be held liable for these shoddy works. WTF? If the accused parties had really hired competent independent contractors, then non of these problems should have been happening, right? The existence of these problems is prima facie evidence that these contractors are not competent and the onus was on the accused party to hire competent ones in the first place. It seems they were remiss in their duties.
Added to this is the apparent lack of monitoring and supervision the accused parties had over their independent contractors. Surely, that has to be a point against them when the Judge considered all the facts, but apparently it was not. How can they just hire independent contractors and leave them alone, and just say everything is fine and dandy? What about the reputation of the developer Wheelock? Who will buy further projects from them? Is their reputation not worth $32 million? Its peanuts money to them. If developers and main contractors can simply use the independent contractor defence, then what recourse does the buyer have? Non, it seems. Even worse, buyers of resale units of Seaview are not even eligible to sue the developer for the defects because they did not buy the units from them directly. This is bullshit. No sane country recognizes this. If you were to buy a second hand Volkswagen diesel car before the emissions scandal, does that not mean that you cannot now be part of the class action lawsuit against Volkswagen? I don't think so. Volkswagen misrepresented its product, just like the developer in Seaview misrepresented theirs.
In many countries, developers are required to give a warranty for their properties to new buyers and this property warranty is transferable to subsequent owners who buy the property on the resale market. Portions of the new development could be warrantied up to 10 years. Why is this not available in Singapore, considering how expensive it is to buy condos? where is the consumer protection for the most expensive item that most Sinkies will buy?
Furthermore, what is the role of BCA in this whole process and why were they not named in the lawsuit too? BCA is a stat board that regulates, inspects and approves the engineering and construction plans for Seaview. They must have made inummerable site inspections and visits to such a large development and signed off on all the stuff they inspected. Did their inspectors just walk on the job site, collect some kopi money, sign a few forms and then leave? Truly, this is a big mystery, or are the BCA staff really that incompetent. I can tell you that an experienced inspector can already determine by visually looking at the concrete pour, the consistency of the concrete, the colour, etc. and know whether its done right. A strength test on the concrete later on just confirms it. And if it fails the strength test, they then order the whole pour to be removed and re-done. So what happened in the Seaview case? Blocks of concrete falling off does not indicate to me they were build to spec.
The only conclusion I can draw is the involvement of the GLCs. The PAP has them all owning land development divisions. We are not only talking about Capitaland, but Keppel also has its development arm, and even fucking SPH, the most tightly controlled GLC. In theory, an adverse decision in this case against the developer could also impact all the current and future projects of these GLCs, and I am sure they put out several thousand units a year. The PAP is just protecting them from condo owner lawsuits in the future. What a piece of shit the PAP is.
So, High Court justice Chan Sen Onn ruled that the Management Company representing the owners of Seaview cannot sue the Developer, Architect, or the Main Contractor for the numerous defects in their condos. What the fuck? SO, I guess there is now an open license for any shit developers to cut corners and get away with it. The implications of this ruling are huge. It means that developers can promise this and that, but when they don't deliver, there is no penalty to them. How can this be? The logic used by Justice Chan is ludicrous. Almost as bad as the not loitering outside the polling station ruling by then Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong. Some of this defects included water seeping into the underground carpark, wooden planks rotting in the pool area, foul smells, leaking windows, blocks of concrete falling, pool tiles popping, paint peeling from the walls, etc.
Apparently, Justice Chan S O ruled that since all the accused parties hired competent independent contractors, they cannot be held liable for these shoddy works. WTF? If the accused parties had really hired competent independent contractors, then non of these problems should have been happening, right? The existence of these problems is prima facie evidence that these contractors are not competent and the onus was on the accused party to hire competent ones in the first place. It seems they were remiss in their duties.
Added to this is the apparent lack of monitoring and supervision the accused parties had over their independent contractors. Surely, that has to be a point against them when the Judge considered all the facts, but apparently it was not. How can they just hire independent contractors and leave them alone, and just say everything is fine and dandy? What about the reputation of the developer Wheelock? Who will buy further projects from them? Is their reputation not worth $32 million? Its peanuts money to them. If developers and main contractors can simply use the independent contractor defence, then what recourse does the buyer have? Non, it seems. Even worse, buyers of resale units of Seaview are not even eligible to sue the developer for the defects because they did not buy the units from them directly. This is bullshit. No sane country recognizes this. If you were to buy a second hand Volkswagen diesel car before the emissions scandal, does that not mean that you cannot now be part of the class action lawsuit against Volkswagen? I don't think so. Volkswagen misrepresented its product, just like the developer in Seaview misrepresented theirs.
In many countries, developers are required to give a warranty for their properties to new buyers and this property warranty is transferable to subsequent owners who buy the property on the resale market. Portions of the new development could be warrantied up to 10 years. Why is this not available in Singapore, considering how expensive it is to buy condos? where is the consumer protection for the most expensive item that most Sinkies will buy?
Furthermore, what is the role of BCA in this whole process and why were they not named in the lawsuit too? BCA is a stat board that regulates, inspects and approves the engineering and construction plans for Seaview. They must have made inummerable site inspections and visits to such a large development and signed off on all the stuff they inspected. Did their inspectors just walk on the job site, collect some kopi money, sign a few forms and then leave? Truly, this is a big mystery, or are the BCA staff really that incompetent. I can tell you that an experienced inspector can already determine by visually looking at the concrete pour, the consistency of the concrete, the colour, etc. and know whether its done right. A strength test on the concrete later on just confirms it. And if it fails the strength test, they then order the whole pour to be removed and re-done. So what happened in the Seaview case? Blocks of concrete falling off does not indicate to me they were build to spec.
The only conclusion I can draw is the involvement of the GLCs. The PAP has them all owning land development divisions. We are not only talking about Capitaland, but Keppel also has its development arm, and even fucking SPH, the most tightly controlled GLC. In theory, an adverse decision in this case against the developer could also impact all the current and future projects of these GLCs, and I am sure they put out several thousand units a year. The PAP is just protecting them from condo owner lawsuits in the future. What a piece of shit the PAP is.
