-
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.
ERA says agent in flipping case done no wrong
- Thread starter besotted
- Start date
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
Gosh ! I am now selling my 3-room mid-price condo but after all these bad news about ERA, I will avoid their agency altogether.
My sentiments exactly. And not just this agent, the AG should investigation the whole property agent scene across the board for such fraudulent practices.
Wishful thinking I guess, will never happen. Some big fishes might just be hauled up in the net, you know what I mean.
Where is justice, what is our world coming to?
- ERA president deems his agent's action as right during the trial?
- ERA considering to appeal against the verdict?
- ERA only decided to suspend those 2 agents? Their actions are worthy of termination of services certainly.
The couple got back the difference in the sales proceeds. ERA probably seek that payment from those 2 agents. Everybody ended up the same as it should have been in the first place.
WHERE IS THE PENALTY FOR THE ERRANT ONES???? I dun trust ERA at all. That ERA president and VP, and the 2 agents should go. No institution with higher integrity will allow such people to stay and run the company.
- ERA president deems his agent's action as right during the trial?
- ERA considering to appeal against the verdict?
- ERA only decided to suspend those 2 agents? Their actions are worthy of termination of services certainly.
The couple got back the difference in the sales proceeds. ERA probably seek that payment from those 2 agents. Everybody ended up the same as it should have been in the first place.
WHERE IS THE PENALTY FOR THE ERRANT ONES???? I dun trust ERA at all. That ERA president and VP, and the 2 agents should go. No institution with higher integrity will allow such people to stay and run the company.
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
*******************************************************
Well said : Everybody ended up the same as it should have been in the first place. LPPL !
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
Feb 8, 2009
ERA COURT CASE
'Flipping' property for a quick profit
Agents speak out on how common practice is, and conditions for an ethical transaction
By Shuli Sudderuddin and Fiona Chan
A couple flipped when they found out that the flat they sold through a property agent had been 'flipped' by his boss' wife.
She quickly resold it - for a big profit.
The couple went to court, and last week a judge decided the agent was unethical, and ordered the firm he worked for to pay the sum of the profit to the couple.
What exactly is 'flipping of property' and - given that there are claims it is a common practice - when is it unethical?
Last week's case sheds some light.
'Flipping' takes place when someone - usually a speculator or even an agent - buys a property and resells it quickly to make a quick buck.
The court heard that Mr Yuen Chow Hin, an IT company vice-president, and his wife, Madam Wong Wai Fan, a housewife, had sold their two-bedroom downtown flat for $688,000.
Their ERA Realty Network agent had told them this was the best price they could get. But they later checked and were shocked to learn that the buyer of their Riverside Piazza unit had immediately re-sold the flat for $945,000.
There was another shock: The first buyer was the wife of their property agent's boss.
The judge, deciding that the agent and his boss had not acted in the Yuens' interest, ordered ERA to return them $257,000.
The Sunday Times spoke to six real estate agencies. Most said the verdict was fair.
Said Mr Steven Tan, executive director of property firm OrangeTee: 'I think the verdict is correct. The moment we decide to let agents represent us, we have to be accountable for their mistakes.'
Agencies agreed that cases similar to the Yuens' are uncommon. But they were divided over how common flipping is among agents.
'I don't think it's widespread... As agents, we are trained and we have a code of conduct and ethics,' said Mr Ho Tian Lam, DTZ's chief executive officer.
Some agencies disallow flipping. At C&H Group, when agents join the company, they must sign an agreement with a clause that they must not act as an agent to buy a property under their own name or a nominee's name, like a wife or a friend.
Other industry players say flipping by property agents is not uncommon but is usually done in an 'ethical' manner.
Mr Mohamed Ismail, chief executive of PropNex, said flipping usually happens in a buoyant market.
'It is not wrong for an agent in a good, speculative market to take a risk by buying property from a client and then selling it,' he said.
But two conditions have to be fulfilled for it to be an ethical transaction, he said.
First, the agent must be transparent to the seller about who the buyer is.
Secondly, if the agent buys the flat, he must buy it at a reasonable price from the seller and he cannot make a 'secret profit' by underpaying the seller.
Said a property agent who wanted to be known only as Ms J. Tan: 'We are human and we buy property too. If we are interested in buying it ourselves, we have to make it known and not keep the owner in the dark.'
Ms Ivy Lee, chief executive officer of Ivy Lee Realty, said that if the agent pays the clients the price of their choice, it is acceptable.
But she added this proviso: 'The agent should make the seller aware of the prices involved relative to the value of the property.'
How did the Yuens smell a rat?
The discrepancy was spotted when the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board asked why they sold the flat well below the valuation obtained by the new buyer.
Said a CPF Board spokesman of its procedure: 'When a member sells his property, he is required to refund the full CPF principal withdrawn and accrued interest.
'If he is unable to do so, because he has to pay the bank first or the sale price is not sufficient to cover the required refund, CPF Board will ask for a valuation report to check that the property is sold at market value.'
There are also agencies which, on their own initiative, take steps to protect clients in the event of a breach by their agents.
Mr Ismail said PropNex ensures that all staff are covered with professional indemnity insurance so clients can make a claim if the agent is professionally negligent.
HSR Property Group is also going to introduce professional indemnity insurance covering each agent for $400,000.
A spokesman said it plans to launch it in phases soon.
Also, there are agents who eschew any form of flipping, which they see as unethical.
Said Mr Jeffrey Sim, a property agent with DTZ: 'If there's an opportunity to flip properties, sellers would jump on it. It's only human to do that, but I wouldn't do it because I don't want to take this risk and tarnish my name.'
[email protected]
[email protected]
Additional reporting by Estelle Low and Teo Wan Gek
ERA COURT CASE
'Flipping' property for a quick profit
Agents speak out on how common practice is, and conditions for an ethical transaction
By Shuli Sudderuddin and Fiona Chan
A couple flipped when they found out that the flat they sold through a property agent had been 'flipped' by his boss' wife.
She quickly resold it - for a big profit.
The couple went to court, and last week a judge decided the agent was unethical, and ordered the firm he worked for to pay the sum of the profit to the couple.
What exactly is 'flipping of property' and - given that there are claims it is a common practice - when is it unethical?
Last week's case sheds some light.
'Flipping' takes place when someone - usually a speculator or even an agent - buys a property and resells it quickly to make a quick buck.
The court heard that Mr Yuen Chow Hin, an IT company vice-president, and his wife, Madam Wong Wai Fan, a housewife, had sold their two-bedroom downtown flat for $688,000.
Their ERA Realty Network agent had told them this was the best price they could get. But they later checked and were shocked to learn that the buyer of their Riverside Piazza unit had immediately re-sold the flat for $945,000.
There was another shock: The first buyer was the wife of their property agent's boss.
The judge, deciding that the agent and his boss had not acted in the Yuens' interest, ordered ERA to return them $257,000.
The Sunday Times spoke to six real estate agencies. Most said the verdict was fair.
Said Mr Steven Tan, executive director of property firm OrangeTee: 'I think the verdict is correct. The moment we decide to let agents represent us, we have to be accountable for their mistakes.'
Agencies agreed that cases similar to the Yuens' are uncommon. But they were divided over how common flipping is among agents.
'I don't think it's widespread... As agents, we are trained and we have a code of conduct and ethics,' said Mr Ho Tian Lam, DTZ's chief executive officer.
Some agencies disallow flipping. At C&H Group, when agents join the company, they must sign an agreement with a clause that they must not act as an agent to buy a property under their own name or a nominee's name, like a wife or a friend.
Other industry players say flipping by property agents is not uncommon but is usually done in an 'ethical' manner.
Mr Mohamed Ismail, chief executive of PropNex, said flipping usually happens in a buoyant market.
'It is not wrong for an agent in a good, speculative market to take a risk by buying property from a client and then selling it,' he said.
But two conditions have to be fulfilled for it to be an ethical transaction, he said.
First, the agent must be transparent to the seller about who the buyer is.
Secondly, if the agent buys the flat, he must buy it at a reasonable price from the seller and he cannot make a 'secret profit' by underpaying the seller.
Said a property agent who wanted to be known only as Ms J. Tan: 'We are human and we buy property too. If we are interested in buying it ourselves, we have to make it known and not keep the owner in the dark.'
Ms Ivy Lee, chief executive officer of Ivy Lee Realty, said that if the agent pays the clients the price of their choice, it is acceptable.
But she added this proviso: 'The agent should make the seller aware of the prices involved relative to the value of the property.'
How did the Yuens smell a rat?
The discrepancy was spotted when the Central Provident Fund (CPF) Board asked why they sold the flat well below the valuation obtained by the new buyer.
Said a CPF Board spokesman of its procedure: 'When a member sells his property, he is required to refund the full CPF principal withdrawn and accrued interest.
'If he is unable to do so, because he has to pay the bank first or the sale price is not sufficient to cover the required refund, CPF Board will ask for a valuation report to check that the property is sold at market value.'
There are also agencies which, on their own initiative, take steps to protect clients in the event of a breach by their agents.
Mr Ismail said PropNex ensures that all staff are covered with professional indemnity insurance so clients can make a claim if the agent is professionally negligent.
HSR Property Group is also going to introduce professional indemnity insurance covering each agent for $400,000.
A spokesman said it plans to launch it in phases soon.
Also, there are agents who eschew any form of flipping, which they see as unethical.
Said Mr Jeffrey Sim, a property agent with DTZ: 'If there's an opportunity to flip properties, sellers would jump on it. It's only human to do that, but I wouldn't do it because I don't want to take this risk and tarnish my name.'
[email protected]
[email protected]
Additional reporting by Estelle Low and Teo Wan Gek
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
ABOUT THIS CASE
Mr Yuen Chow Hin, an IT company vice-president, and his wife, Madam Wong Wai Fan, a housewife, sold their two-bedroom Riverside Piazza apartment for $688,000 in 2007.
They let it go at this sum as their ERA Realty Network agent Jeremy Ang said that this was the best price they could get.
Unknown to them, the buyer of the unit turned out to be Madam Natassha Sadiq, the wife of Mr Ang's boss, Mr Mike Parikh. She quickly resold it for $945,000.
The Yuens sued ERA for the 'secret profit' made in the second deal.
Last Thursday, a High Court judge found that the conduct of Mr Ang and Mr Parikh amounted to breach of duty and fraud, and ordered ERA to return $257,000 to the couple.
He also had a stern reminder for the industry of its ethical responsibilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'If I'm interested in buying a client's property, I will always ask his permission. I tell him I'm the one buying it and I will match the price that he is asking for. Often, clients are happy to get the price they ask for and they don't care who buys it. You have to be upfront about it, declare yourself and explain the prices involved.'
MS IVY LEE, chief executive officer of Ivy Lee Realty
'Last year, the market was very hot so there were a lot of speculators, and a lot of agents earned money from flipping. Such cases do happen, but I will not do this. I feel that there will be a conflict of interests. If I were the seller, I would trust the agent to sell the property at the best price. There is no way to safeguard against people who may cheat clients when they flip property.'
MR MUHAMAD SALLEH, property agent from HSR Property Group
Close window
Mr Yuen Chow Hin, an IT company vice-president, and his wife, Madam Wong Wai Fan, a housewife, sold their two-bedroom Riverside Piazza apartment for $688,000 in 2007.
They let it go at this sum as their ERA Realty Network agent Jeremy Ang said that this was the best price they could get.
Unknown to them, the buyer of the unit turned out to be Madam Natassha Sadiq, the wife of Mr Ang's boss, Mr Mike Parikh. She quickly resold it for $945,000.
The Yuens sued ERA for the 'secret profit' made in the second deal.
Last Thursday, a High Court judge found that the conduct of Mr Ang and Mr Parikh amounted to breach of duty and fraud, and ordered ERA to return $257,000 to the couple.
He also had a stern reminder for the industry of its ethical responsibilities.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
'If I'm interested in buying a client's property, I will always ask his permission. I tell him I'm the one buying it and I will match the price that he is asking for. Often, clients are happy to get the price they ask for and they don't care who buys it. You have to be upfront about it, declare yourself and explain the prices involved.'
MS IVY LEE, chief executive officer of Ivy Lee Realty
'Last year, the market was very hot so there were a lot of speculators, and a lot of agents earned money from flipping. Such cases do happen, but I will not do this. I feel that there will be a conflict of interests. If I were the seller, I would trust the agent to sell the property at the best price. There is no way to safeguard against people who may cheat clients when they flip property.'
MR MUHAMAD SALLEH, property agent from HSR Property Group
Close window
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
License all agents, say experts
By Mavis Toh
The Consumers Association of Singapore wants an accreditation scheme to be put in place for the property industry.
Its executive director, Mr Seah Seng Choon, said that he has been in talks with various government agencies over the last six months to work on this.
'The industry is very disorganised and it is really in need of proper regulation to ensure that buyers' and sellers' interests are protected,' he said yesterday.
The accreditation scheme should hold companies responsible for their agents' conduct. 'Currently, many say that the agents are their associates and they are not responsible for their conduct. The scheme will put the agents' conduct under their purview so they can't deny responsibility.'
He hopes to put the scheme in place after talks with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras), the Housing Board, the Institute of Estate Agents (IEA) and the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies (SAEA) are completed.
The number of complaints against property agents has been on the rise. Consumers lodged 1,113 complaints related to the property industry in 2007, up from 991 in 2006 and 672 the year before.
Currently, anyone who wants to broker a property deal need only join one of about 1,700 agencies here. No minimum qualifications are needed.
Although agencies may have some form of in-house training, some agents broker deals before they complete the course.
At present, only agencies are licensed by the Iras. Agents operating under them are not. There are an estimated 30,000 agents in the industry.
Mr Jeff Foo, president of the IEA, wants individual agents to be licensed so that they are accountable for their actions.
Errant agents fired from an agency can now simply 'waltz into another licensed agency to continue his bad practice', he said.
'It's time for a top-down approach to legislate agents so that the market will correct itself. If not, there will still be cowboys.'
Mr Seah agrees that agents should be licensed, and urged the Iras to issue individual licences.
Besides also calling for the licensing of individual agents, the SAEA wants the Common Examination for Salesperson (CES) to be made a compulsory entry qualification.
Currently, agencies have their own in-house training courses. SAEA also conducts a Common Examination for House Agents and the CES for interested agents.
But industry experts said the problem is that there are too many schemes and none is mandatory.
The IEA also has a central register that displays on its website the names of more than 20,000 agents. This allows the public to verify if someone is employed by an agency he claims to represent.
The registry also alerts bosses if an agent is working for more than one company and if he had been blacklisted before.
But it is not compulsory for agents to sign up with the registry. Said Mr Peter Koh, chairman of the SAEA: 'At this point we need the authorities to come in. If they don't, it's hard for the industry to self-regulate.'
[email protected]
Should estate agents be licensed? E-mail [email protected]
By Mavis Toh
The Consumers Association of Singapore wants an accreditation scheme to be put in place for the property industry.
Its executive director, Mr Seah Seng Choon, said that he has been in talks with various government agencies over the last six months to work on this.
'The industry is very disorganised and it is really in need of proper regulation to ensure that buyers' and sellers' interests are protected,' he said yesterday.
The accreditation scheme should hold companies responsible for their agents' conduct. 'Currently, many say that the agents are their associates and they are not responsible for their conduct. The scheme will put the agents' conduct under their purview so they can't deny responsibility.'
He hopes to put the scheme in place after talks with the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras), the Housing Board, the Institute of Estate Agents (IEA) and the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies (SAEA) are completed.
The number of complaints against property agents has been on the rise. Consumers lodged 1,113 complaints related to the property industry in 2007, up from 991 in 2006 and 672 the year before.
Currently, anyone who wants to broker a property deal need only join one of about 1,700 agencies here. No minimum qualifications are needed.
Although agencies may have some form of in-house training, some agents broker deals before they complete the course.
At present, only agencies are licensed by the Iras. Agents operating under them are not. There are an estimated 30,000 agents in the industry.
Mr Jeff Foo, president of the IEA, wants individual agents to be licensed so that they are accountable for their actions.
Errant agents fired from an agency can now simply 'waltz into another licensed agency to continue his bad practice', he said.
'It's time for a top-down approach to legislate agents so that the market will correct itself. If not, there will still be cowboys.'
Mr Seah agrees that agents should be licensed, and urged the Iras to issue individual licences.
Besides also calling for the licensing of individual agents, the SAEA wants the Common Examination for Salesperson (CES) to be made a compulsory entry qualification.
Currently, agencies have their own in-house training courses. SAEA also conducts a Common Examination for House Agents and the CES for interested agents.
But industry experts said the problem is that there are too many schemes and none is mandatory.
The IEA also has a central register that displays on its website the names of more than 20,000 agents. This allows the public to verify if someone is employed by an agency he claims to represent.
The registry also alerts bosses if an agent is working for more than one company and if he had been blacklisted before.
But it is not compulsory for agents to sign up with the registry. Said Mr Peter Koh, chairman of the SAEA: 'At this point we need the authorities to come in. If they don't, it's hard for the industry to self-regulate.'
[email protected]
Should estate agents be licensed? E-mail [email protected]
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
ERA imposes stricter ethics guidelines
ERA Realty Network has implemented stricter ethics guidelines for its 3,000 agents.
It has also suspended the two agents involved in the case - Mr Jeremy Ang and Mr Mike Parikh.
The property agency will now require all agents to sign an undertaking at the start of each sale transaction, assuring customers that all possible conflicts of interest will be 'properly disclosed to the best of the agent's knowledge', ERA said in a press statement last Friday night.
This disclosure, modelled on similar forms used in the insurance and financial services industries, will assure clients that they are the top priority of their respective agents, it added.
Every time a buyer makes an offer to buy a property marketed by ERA, he will also have to sign a declaration that he is not an ERA agent or a member of an agent's immediate family.
A similar disclosure is already in place for buyers who purchase their units directly from property developers, although resale transactions do not require this.
The property agency will also implement an 'extended' code of ethics for agents and customers, ERA president Jack Chua said. This will be finalised within the next three months.
The other measures will come into effect immediately, he added, pointing out that the new ethical measures were 'not about whether we were right or wrong in the court case'.
'They are to tighten the whole selling process, and to improve transparency and accountability.'
Mr Chua added: 'We just want to make it clear so in future, we don't have to dispute whether there are conflicts of interest. At the moment I think there are some grey areas.'
Fiona Chan
ERA Realty Network has implemented stricter ethics guidelines for its 3,000 agents.
It has also suspended the two agents involved in the case - Mr Jeremy Ang and Mr Mike Parikh.
The property agency will now require all agents to sign an undertaking at the start of each sale transaction, assuring customers that all possible conflicts of interest will be 'properly disclosed to the best of the agent's knowledge', ERA said in a press statement last Friday night.
This disclosure, modelled on similar forms used in the insurance and financial services industries, will assure clients that they are the top priority of their respective agents, it added.
Every time a buyer makes an offer to buy a property marketed by ERA, he will also have to sign a declaration that he is not an ERA agent or a member of an agent's immediate family.
A similar disclosure is already in place for buyers who purchase their units directly from property developers, although resale transactions do not require this.
The property agency will also implement an 'extended' code of ethics for agents and customers, ERA president Jack Chua said. This will be finalised within the next three months.
The other measures will come into effect immediately, he added, pointing out that the new ethical measures were 'not about whether we were right or wrong in the court case'.
'They are to tighten the whole selling process, and to improve transparency and accountability.'
Mr Chua added: 'We just want to make it clear so in future, we don't have to dispute whether there are conflicts of interest. At the moment I think there are some grey areas.'
Fiona Chan
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
Feb 8, 2009
CURRENT OWNER
Buyer dragged into legal tussle
All Mr Teo Su Kee wanted was to buy an apartment in the Clarke Quay area to invest in. He got more than he bargained for.
The engineer was dragged into a lawsuit between the previous owners of his two-bedroom apartment and property giant ERA Realty Network, over the latter's unethical behaviour.
Mr Teo, 48, who works in a multinational company, was called to appear in court to give his account of how he bought the flat.
'I am just an innocent buyer, I do not wish to be involved in this. I am very frustrated,' he said of having to take time off work to testify.
In July 2007, Mr Teo responded to an advertisement put up by ERA senior group division director Mike Parikh for the sale of a Riverside Piazza apartment.
He told The Sunday Times yesterday that he checked out the apartment with Mr Parikh and another man, whom he could not remember.
Mr Teo had been eyeing several apartments in River Place and Riverwalk that were going for more than $1,000 per sq ft (psf). When Mr Parikh offered him $998 psf for the flat, he accepted readily.
'It was a good deal as I had been surveying the prices of several properties in this area, and it was within the market value,' he said.
He learnt about seller Madam Wong Wai Fan's plight only when she visited him at his Toa Payoh home.
'I was surprised that she sold the apartment at a price that was way below the market rate,' he said.
There was another twist to the tale - Mr Teo found out from his wife that Madam Wong used to be her boss in a recruitment agency.
With the court case over, he wants to put the experience behind him.
He intends to sell the flat, but not immediately after his tenant, Mr Yuji Kubo, moves out. He also does not know the price he might get.
A resident at Riverside Piazza, who got a valuation from a bank, told The Sunday Times yesterday that the unit is likely to fetch only about $860,000 now.
Hua
ng Huifen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE TENANT
'All I know is that there has been a change of ownership, but I'm still paying the same rent, thus it is nothing related to me.'
MR YUJI KUBO, 57, tenant of the Riverside Piazza apartment, on the legal tussle between the unit's previous owners and ERA
CURRENT OWNER
Buyer dragged into legal tussle
All Mr Teo Su Kee wanted was to buy an apartment in the Clarke Quay area to invest in. He got more than he bargained for.
The engineer was dragged into a lawsuit between the previous owners of his two-bedroom apartment and property giant ERA Realty Network, over the latter's unethical behaviour.
Mr Teo, 48, who works in a multinational company, was called to appear in court to give his account of how he bought the flat.
'I am just an innocent buyer, I do not wish to be involved in this. I am very frustrated,' he said of having to take time off work to testify.
In July 2007, Mr Teo responded to an advertisement put up by ERA senior group division director Mike Parikh for the sale of a Riverside Piazza apartment.
He told The Sunday Times yesterday that he checked out the apartment with Mr Parikh and another man, whom he could not remember.
Mr Teo had been eyeing several apartments in River Place and Riverwalk that were going for more than $1,000 per sq ft (psf). When Mr Parikh offered him $998 psf for the flat, he accepted readily.
'It was a good deal as I had been surveying the prices of several properties in this area, and it was within the market value,' he said.
He learnt about seller Madam Wong Wai Fan's plight only when she visited him at his Toa Payoh home.
'I was surprised that she sold the apartment at a price that was way below the market rate,' he said.
There was another twist to the tale - Mr Teo found out from his wife that Madam Wong used to be her boss in a recruitment agency.
With the court case over, he wants to put the experience behind him.
He intends to sell the flat, but not immediately after his tenant, Mr Yuji Kubo, moves out. He also does not know the price he might get.
A resident at Riverside Piazza, who got a valuation from a bank, told The Sunday Times yesterday that the unit is likely to fetch only about $860,000 now.
Hua
ng Huifen
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE TENANT
'All I know is that there has been a change of ownership, but I'm still paying the same rent, thus it is nothing related to me.'
MR YUJI KUBO, 57, tenant of the Riverside Piazza apartment, on the legal tussle between the unit's previous owners and ERA
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
Feb 8, 2009
THE SELLERS
They thought they had good deal
By Debbie Yong
Her name was Natassha Sadiq.
They thought that sounded like she was from the Middle East, which meant she had to be rich and could afford to pay top dollar for their property.
And so the Yuens told their property agent: Okay, done deal.
But six months after Mr Yuen Chow Hin, 50, and his wife Wong Wai Fan, 48, sold their Riverside Piazza apartment to Madam Sadiq for $688,000, they discovered their error.
Madam Sadiq was actually the wife of the boss of their property agent.
And even before she had inked the deal to buy their unit, she had already resold it for $945,000.
That turn of events eventually led to a High Court case that ended last Thursday with the judge ordering property agency ERA Realty Network to pay the Yuens the $257,000 difference.
The saga began in June 2007.
Less than a fortnight after the Yuens engaged ERA property agent Jeremy Ang to sell their Riverside Piazza apartment near Clarke Quay, they were told that a buyer had been found.
Mr Ang said a regular client of his was offering $650,000 for the two-bedroom unit, which is just below 1,000 sq ft.
He added that OCBC Bank had valued the flat at between $650,000 and $700,000.
When the couple asked why they were not offered $700,000, Mr Ang said it was because they had recently renewed a two-year lease with their tenant Yuji Kubo, a 57-year-old Japanese trader. The couple charged him $2,000 in monthly rent.
Madam Wong told The Sunday Times yesterday that she took Mr Ang's word about the price, and did not check with other property agents if this was an industry norm.
'We had no reason to be suspicious. Our main thought was that agents will try to get the best price for us because it means they get a higher commission too,' she said.
Of the potential buyer, she noted: 'Jeremy said Madam Sadiq had bought many properties from him before and, judging by her last name, we got the impression that she was a rich Middle Eastern woman who regularly invests in property. We assumed we were getting a fair price.'
The housewife and her husband, a vice-president in an information technology firm, live with their two teenage sons in a terrace house in Serangoon Gardens.
The couple had bought the Riverside Piazza property in 1995 as an investment - the first time they had done so - paying about $609,000.
They decided to sell it to help pay for a new condominium unit in Serangoon, jointly owned by Mr Yuen and his sister, for Mr Yuen's aged parents to live in, said Madam Wong.
'I had told Jeremy to liaise directly with Mr Kubo about scheduling visits from potential buyers. Once, Mr Kubo complained to me that Jeremy had turned up at the flat without notifying him first, so I assumed Jeremy was doing his job,' she added.
She said they did not set any price and had asked Mr Ang to obtain a bank valuation.
The Yuens offered to sell the flat to Madam Sadiq for $688,000 on July 12. The latter said 'yes' on July 26. The couple did not meet Madam Sadiq in person.
'For most lay people, once the price is agreed upon, you hand it over to the lawyers, banks and the CPF Board. It's a process that you don't think about because it's too complex,' said Madam Wong.
In October 2007, the Yuens received a call from the Central Provident Fund Board about the discrepancy between the value of the flat - based on a valuation done by the new owner's bank - and the amount they had sold it for. That was when they sensed that something was amiss.
After getting their lawyers to check on the caveat lodged on the property, they tracked down the new owner, engineer Teo Su Kee, 48, at his Toa Payoh home.
They discovered that the transaction was handled by ERA agent Mike Parikh, who had put up newspaper advertisements - dated July 7, 9 and 14 - for their unit.
They also found that Mr Teo exercised his option to buy the flat from Madam Sadiq on July 25 - a day before she agreed to buy it from the Yuens.
Suspecting an internal arrangement among the parties, the Yuens checked with the Registry of Marriages and found out that Madam Sadiq was married to Mr Parikh.
It was a 'surprise', said Madam Wong. Mr Parikh had handled the sale of her brother-in-law's HDB flat in Pasir Ris in 2006.
Mr Parikh had also recommended Mr Ang, his subordinate, to handle the sale of her mother-in-law's HDB flat in Hougang in early 2007.
The smooth transactions led the Yuens to entrust Mr Ang to sell their property as well.
They wrote to ERA about their findings and refused to pay Mr Ang's commission of $7,361.
'We tried to arrange a discussion with their directors. We only wanted some accountability and answers,' said Madam Wong.
ERA wrote back to say that the two agents had done nothing wrong. In January last year, it made a claim against the couple at the Small Claims Tribunal for failing to pay the commission.
It was this that prompted the Yuens to file the lawsuit against the company.
Now that the judgment has been passed, Madam Wong said she feels some relief as the saga had caused her sleepless nights.
But with ERA saying last Thursday that it intends to appeal against the court's decision, she acknowledged that 'it's not over yet'.
'We don't know what the next step will be, but we will try to put it aside for now and get on with our Chinese New Year celebrations,' she said, adding that she has not made any plans for the money yet.
'I will be more careful the next time and definitely not be so trusting,' she added.
[email protected]
Latest comments
totally lacking in ethics.. i will not ever use ERA again
Posted by: JudithLowCL at Sun Feb 08 10:16:42 SGT 2009
It is interesting to note that Mdm Sadiq had sold the property which she does not own (option signed after buyer purchased). Given that Mr Ang was the agent, how did the "the transaction was handled by ERA agent Mike Parikh, who had put up newspaper advertisements - dated July 7, 9 and 14 - for their unit" It is obvious that they are aware that the property was underpriced.
Posted by: aussietan1 at Sun Feb 08 10:09:57 SGT 2009
THE SELLERS
They thought they had good deal
By Debbie Yong
Her name was Natassha Sadiq.
They thought that sounded like she was from the Middle East, which meant she had to be rich and could afford to pay top dollar for their property.
And so the Yuens told their property agent: Okay, done deal.
But six months after Mr Yuen Chow Hin, 50, and his wife Wong Wai Fan, 48, sold their Riverside Piazza apartment to Madam Sadiq for $688,000, they discovered their error.
Madam Sadiq was actually the wife of the boss of their property agent.
And even before she had inked the deal to buy their unit, she had already resold it for $945,000.
That turn of events eventually led to a High Court case that ended last Thursday with the judge ordering property agency ERA Realty Network to pay the Yuens the $257,000 difference.
The saga began in June 2007.
Less than a fortnight after the Yuens engaged ERA property agent Jeremy Ang to sell their Riverside Piazza apartment near Clarke Quay, they were told that a buyer had been found.
Mr Ang said a regular client of his was offering $650,000 for the two-bedroom unit, which is just below 1,000 sq ft.
He added that OCBC Bank had valued the flat at between $650,000 and $700,000.
When the couple asked why they were not offered $700,000, Mr Ang said it was because they had recently renewed a two-year lease with their tenant Yuji Kubo, a 57-year-old Japanese trader. The couple charged him $2,000 in monthly rent.
Madam Wong told The Sunday Times yesterday that she took Mr Ang's word about the price, and did not check with other property agents if this was an industry norm.
'We had no reason to be suspicious. Our main thought was that agents will try to get the best price for us because it means they get a higher commission too,' she said.
Of the potential buyer, she noted: 'Jeremy said Madam Sadiq had bought many properties from him before and, judging by her last name, we got the impression that she was a rich Middle Eastern woman who regularly invests in property. We assumed we were getting a fair price.'
The housewife and her husband, a vice-president in an information technology firm, live with their two teenage sons in a terrace house in Serangoon Gardens.
The couple had bought the Riverside Piazza property in 1995 as an investment - the first time they had done so - paying about $609,000.
They decided to sell it to help pay for a new condominium unit in Serangoon, jointly owned by Mr Yuen and his sister, for Mr Yuen's aged parents to live in, said Madam Wong.
'I had told Jeremy to liaise directly with Mr Kubo about scheduling visits from potential buyers. Once, Mr Kubo complained to me that Jeremy had turned up at the flat without notifying him first, so I assumed Jeremy was doing his job,' she added.
She said they did not set any price and had asked Mr Ang to obtain a bank valuation.
The Yuens offered to sell the flat to Madam Sadiq for $688,000 on July 12. The latter said 'yes' on July 26. The couple did not meet Madam Sadiq in person.
'For most lay people, once the price is agreed upon, you hand it over to the lawyers, banks and the CPF Board. It's a process that you don't think about because it's too complex,' said Madam Wong.
In October 2007, the Yuens received a call from the Central Provident Fund Board about the discrepancy between the value of the flat - based on a valuation done by the new owner's bank - and the amount they had sold it for. That was when they sensed that something was amiss.
After getting their lawyers to check on the caveat lodged on the property, they tracked down the new owner, engineer Teo Su Kee, 48, at his Toa Payoh home.
They discovered that the transaction was handled by ERA agent Mike Parikh, who had put up newspaper advertisements - dated July 7, 9 and 14 - for their unit.
They also found that Mr Teo exercised his option to buy the flat from Madam Sadiq on July 25 - a day before she agreed to buy it from the Yuens.
Suspecting an internal arrangement among the parties, the Yuens checked with the Registry of Marriages and found out that Madam Sadiq was married to Mr Parikh.
It was a 'surprise', said Madam Wong. Mr Parikh had handled the sale of her brother-in-law's HDB flat in Pasir Ris in 2006.
Mr Parikh had also recommended Mr Ang, his subordinate, to handle the sale of her mother-in-law's HDB flat in Hougang in early 2007.
The smooth transactions led the Yuens to entrust Mr Ang to sell their property as well.
They wrote to ERA about their findings and refused to pay Mr Ang's commission of $7,361.
'We tried to arrange a discussion with their directors. We only wanted some accountability and answers,' said Madam Wong.
ERA wrote back to say that the two agents had done nothing wrong. In January last year, it made a claim against the couple at the Small Claims Tribunal for failing to pay the commission.
It was this that prompted the Yuens to file the lawsuit against the company.
Now that the judgment has been passed, Madam Wong said she feels some relief as the saga had caused her sleepless nights.
But with ERA saying last Thursday that it intends to appeal against the court's decision, she acknowledged that 'it's not over yet'.
'We don't know what the next step will be, but we will try to put it aside for now and get on with our Chinese New Year celebrations,' she said, adding that she has not made any plans for the money yet.
'I will be more careful the next time and definitely not be so trusting,' she added.
[email protected]
Latest comments
totally lacking in ethics.. i will not ever use ERA again
Posted by: JudithLowCL at Sun Feb 08 10:16:42 SGT 2009
It is interesting to note that Mdm Sadiq had sold the property which she does not own (option signed after buyer purchased). Given that Mr Ang was the agent, how did the "the transaction was handled by ERA agent Mike Parikh, who had put up newspaper advertisements - dated July 7, 9 and 14 - for their unit" It is obvious that they are aware that the property was underpriced.
Posted by: aussietan1 at Sun Feb 08 10:09:57 SGT 2009
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
Other dirty tricks some agents play
REFUSING TO CO-BROKE A PROPERTY
Co-broking is when more than one agent is involved in a property transaction - for example, if one agent introduces a buyer to another agent.
Because the commission from a co-brokered sale will have to be shared, some agents may refuse to meet or follow up on clients from other agents, to avoid splitting up their commission.
'This prevents a client's property from getting maximum exposure and is not in his best interests.
'To see if this is the case, clients can call their agent from an unknown number, pretend to be another agent, and see what they say,' said Mr Mohamed Ismail, chief executive officer of PropNex.
OVERPROMISING
'Some agents tell sellers they have a ready buyer for a very high price so that sellers will appoint them exclusively for a period of time,' said Ms Florence Choo, a real estate agent in her 50s.
'It may then turn out they did not actually have a ready buyer, and sellers may be forced to settle for a lower price as they cannot hold on to the property any longer.'
WORKING FOR MORE THAN ONE COMPANY
Agents should work for only one company, but some carry more than one name card - that is, they get to access more than one firm's client listings.
Because different agencies have different pay structures, such an agent may take a client under one agency's listing but close the deal under another agency which pays him better.
In such a situation, the client may not suffer a loss but the affected property firm gets the bum rap.
HIJACKING
Hijacking refers to an agent going behind another agent's back and stealing his clients by promising them a better deal and urging the clients to sign with him instead.
'It's really not nice and unethical of some agents to approach the seller on their own without notifying the original agent and stealing their client,' said Ms Susan Lim, 28, a property agent.
This is an example of the cut-throat competition among property agents.
REFUSING TO CO-BROKE A PROPERTY
Co-broking is when more than one agent is involved in a property transaction - for example, if one agent introduces a buyer to another agent.
Because the commission from a co-brokered sale will have to be shared, some agents may refuse to meet or follow up on clients from other agents, to avoid splitting up their commission.
'This prevents a client's property from getting maximum exposure and is not in his best interests.
'To see if this is the case, clients can call their agent from an unknown number, pretend to be another agent, and see what they say,' said Mr Mohamed Ismail, chief executive officer of PropNex.
OVERPROMISING
'Some agents tell sellers they have a ready buyer for a very high price so that sellers will appoint them exclusively for a period of time,' said Ms Florence Choo, a real estate agent in her 50s.
'It may then turn out they did not actually have a ready buyer, and sellers may be forced to settle for a lower price as they cannot hold on to the property any longer.'
WORKING FOR MORE THAN ONE COMPANY
Agents should work for only one company, but some carry more than one name card - that is, they get to access more than one firm's client listings.
Because different agencies have different pay structures, such an agent may take a client under one agency's listing but close the deal under another agency which pays him better.
In such a situation, the client may not suffer a loss but the affected property firm gets the bum rap.
HIJACKING
Hijacking refers to an agent going behind another agent's back and stealing his clients by promising them a better deal and urging the clients to sign with him instead.
'It's really not nice and unethical of some agents to approach the seller on their own without notifying the original agent and stealing their client,' said Ms Susan Lim, 28, a property agent.
This is an example of the cut-throat competition among property agents.
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
Seller, protect yourself
A property agent should work in his client's best interest, so look out for anything that indicates otherwise.
1 Do your homework. Always get a valuation done on the property so you know if you are being cheated, said
Mr C.M. Tan, 64, a retired bank manager who has worked on home loans.
2 Don't rush to appoint an agent. Meet a few and have detailed discussions with them before deciding on one, said Ms Ivy Lee, chief executive of Ivy Lee Realty.
3 Get a reputable agent from recommendations by friends.
4 If an agent is unwilling to advertise or co-broke your property, he is not exposing it to a maximum number of buyers, said experts.
5 Be wary of agents who make promises that sound too good to be true, said Ms Lee.
6 Do not leave your agent alone to do his work. Check up on him every two weeks or so to ensure that he is working hard to sell the property.
A property agent should work in his client's best interest, so look out for anything that indicates otherwise.
1 Do your homework. Always get a valuation done on the property so you know if you are being cheated, said
Mr C.M. Tan, 64, a retired bank manager who has worked on home loans.
2 Don't rush to appoint an agent. Meet a few and have detailed discussions with them before deciding on one, said Ms Ivy Lee, chief executive of Ivy Lee Realty.
3 Get a reputable agent from recommendations by friends.
4 If an agent is unwilling to advertise or co-broke your property, he is not exposing it to a maximum number of buyers, said experts.
5 Be wary of agents who make promises that sound too good to be true, said Ms Lee.
6 Do not leave your agent alone to do his work. Check up on him every two weeks or so to ensure that he is working hard to sell the property.
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
******************************************************
Urgent: Laws to tighten property brokerage trade
IT HAS taken a High Court judgment to amplify an alarm that something is rotten in the real estate business. Justice Choo Han Teck said this week in a civil action, over which he found for the plaintiffs against ERA Realty Network, that property agents owed their primary duty of care to their client, not to themselves or to third parties related to them. It is an indictment of the trade and a comment on the shambles of its self-policing, that a judge needed to remind practitioners of what is commonsensical, so as to avoid conflicts of interest.
What ought to follow the development is a policy review by the Inland Revenue Authority, which licenses real estate agencies but, oddly, not individual agents. The objective should be legislation to professionalise the practice and subject violators to statutory penalties in the form of fines, suspension or a permanent ban. The only way ethical conduct can be entrenched is to require people wanting to be property brokers to pass a common national-level written test to obtain a licence. Practitioners will be subject to a professional code, with obligations, responsibilities and forms of censure spelt out.
Just now, the trade is a jumble of in-house courses, half-hearted tests that no one takes seriously, and non-existent censure for such common infractions as misleading clients, abetting payment of kickbacks and gross misconduct, as in the case Justice Choo heard. An agent sacked for questionable practices can work for another firm. And anybody can be an agent. During the last boom in 2007, numbers swelled to about 30,000. Complaints to the consumers' association against shoddy service peaked that year, no surprise as brokerages and agents were in a race to make easy money. Many were nomads, who shipped out as soon as deals thinned.
It is partly the absence of a professional compliance code that has rendered the vocation vulnerable to abuse. It is an abysmal state of affairs that agents can work unregulated in a sector whose value to the economy is reckoned in the billions of dollars. It need scarcely be said that home ownership also defines Singaporeanness, a bedrock value of citizenship.
Until the vocation is tightened and even after, consumers have also a duty to themselves to not rely on an agent completely. In the case before Justice Choo, the plaintiffs, Mr and Mrs Yuen Chow Hin, could have saved themselves grief if they had obtained an independent valuation of the flat they were selling. Their agent not only gave them a low, false value but also did not advertise the flat for sale. The shabbiness could not have happened if there was an enforceable compliance code.
quote from above:...
They also found that Mr Teo exercised his option to buy the flat from Madam Sadiq on July 25 - a day before she agreed to buy it from the Yuens.
Suspecting an internal arrangement among the parties, the Yuens checked with the Registry of Marriages and found out that Madam Sadiq was married to Mr Parikh. Unquote
.............. this means the ERA chaps were cheating!!!!!Outright PLAIN CHEATING!!!!!! internal arragements premeditated schemiing property agents asking people to buy and sign option when they are not effectively the owner yet knowing the other part is kept in the dark and psycho to selling it cheap . !!!! LikeI said 99.9999% of ALL property agents and developers are scums and plain crooks. I say spread the news around and Boycott these cheats and unscrupulous agnets and their companies!!!!!!!!!!!!! Liars and cheaters. Great the judge effectively blasted them and if you rtead his judgement calling them unethical which means cheating . Hope CPIB and IRAS investigate the cheats, scumbags.
Last edited:
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/rem...ml?utm_source=rss subscription&utm_medium=rss
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
M
Mdm Tang
Guest
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Jeremy had just prior to his engagement by the plaintiffs, found a buyer for a flat owned by the mother of the first plaintiff and was recommended to the plaintiffs as a competent agent. Jeremy worked as a subordinate to one Mitul Ratilal Parikh, known as “Mike”. Mike had at all material times, about 200 agents working under him, all of whom used the defendant’s ERA name and logo
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Jeremy had just prior to his engagement by the plaintiffs, found a buyer for a flat owned by the mother of the first plaintiff and was recommended to the plaintiffs as a competent agent. Jeremy worked as a subordinate to one Mitul Ratilal Parikh, known as “Mike”. Mike had at all material times, about 200 agents working under him, all of whom used the defendant’s ERA name and logo
$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$$
Similar threads
