Mandarin Gardens Enbloc 2020
- Thread starter ckmpd
- Start date
- Joined
- Aug 8, 2008
- Messages
- 28,849
- Points
- 113
As in Indian shitsking?
hahaha...totally correct
- Joined
- Nov 9, 2010
- Messages
- 80,748
- Points
- 113
You are so lucky. Enbloc is definitely positive happening!
True. I am blessed
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 30,569
- Points
- 113
That is good news indeed
Foreigners cant succeed without support of true blue singaporeans
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 30,569
- Points
- 113
Just enbloc and be done with it,,,ir rebuild,,will the leasehold be extended...??? It has less than 60 years left,,,
Rebuild is a very interesting possibility
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 30,569
- Points
- 113
What is the benefit of rebuild ? and if I am not wrong,,Mandarin gardens as in the buildings are actually build well, much better than the potential tofu constructions by ah tiong land companies in singkieland,,,the main issue is the lease extension. I will be worried if there is less than 60 years left,,,its a timebomb like HDB...,.will there still be takers in 20 years time etc?
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 30,569
- Points
- 113
Wrong post
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 30,569
- Points
- 113
One big question concerning the bigger context is the 99 yo lease hold issue,,,what happens when private property leasehold runs out? and these are million dollar apts,,,a lot of unhappy voters,,,not like HDB whereby its few hundred K,...and of course suckers that bought it when it was 700K etc will be stuck, but that is HDB
You are very well informed.
MG was developed by OUB and built by Low Keng Huat. Under Lien Yien Chow's leadership, OUB and LKH took pride in MG and developed it very well. Even after 34yrs, the condo is solid and the development is distinctive. During Enbloc 2018 some owners were reluctant to go for enbloc for one of the various reasons:
1. Wonderful location
2. Sentimental feelings
3. Good sea view
4. why low floor units get same quantum as high floor units?
5. Why sea view units get same quantum as lousy view units
6. why why small units get better money per unit than bigger units.
There is no end to satisfy every owner. Some will still have grouses.
So the rebuild proposal seeks to overcome these objections and make everyone happy
MG was developed by OUB and built by Low Keng Huat. Under Lien Yien Chow's leadership, OUB and LKH took pride in MG and developed it very well. Even after 34yrs, the condo is solid and the development is distinctive. During Enbloc 2018 some owners were reluctant to go for enbloc for one of the various reasons:
1. Wonderful location
2. Sentimental feelings
3. Good sea view
4. why low floor units get same quantum as high floor units?
5. Why sea view units get same quantum as lousy view units
6. why why small units get better money per unit than bigger units.
There is no end to satisfy every owner. Some will still have grouses.
So the rebuild proposal seeks to overcome these objections and make everyone happy
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 30,569
- Points
- 113
Issues 4, 5, 6 can be better addressed. There can be a more fair formula,,,like maybe increase those high floors etc with a few percentage more,,,etc,,can tier it like HDB,,high floors more expensive than low floors..and actually small flats are actually more expensive than bigger flats,,so just throw in a few percentage point to address that issue,,and I was an owner at MG,,i will vote for enbloc because of the lease run down. and at most just buy another one or move to HDB and keep the cash in the bank.
Issues ,2,3 will bankrupt a person because all these are just feelings,,such feelings are not forever,,issue 1 for location,,alot of other good locations ,,not as if the whole of singkieland only got MG which is 'good' location. And concerning the 'view'...views are very over rated because u look at it after a few weeks also sian….to me most important is comfort and convenience and of course a good location not a bad location. To me bad locations are Shitkang, Slumggol and Yislum...but if I desperate,,I will take Yislum,,,lesser of 3 evils in terms of location.
Bottom line is if its a 99yo lease hold,,,better to enbloc and keep the cash,,,depreciating asset
Last edited:
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 30,569
- Points
- 113
Lease hold property..a bad idea>
Leasehold property: What happens when 99 years runs out?
Land in Singapore is held under three main leasehold types: freehold, 999-year and 99-year leases.
For properties built on freehold land, the land belongs to the leasehold owner indefinitely so there’s no need to worry about the lease running out (save for the dreaded government acquisition of course). This extends, to a certain extent, to 999-year leasehold properties as well, since 999 years is certainly long enough to house many generations with ease.
No leasehold property in Singapore has ever run its full course of 99 years
The most worrying of the lot though is 99-year leasehold properties. What rights do owners of this asset class have at the end of the tenure, when the title to the land reverts to its original owners?
For this article, we’ll be focusing on the effect of the lease expiry on private property owners (like condominiums and privatised HUDCs). If you’re concerned about HDBs, we’ve written about that here.
Who does the leasehold revert to and what happens then?
More than three-quarters of the land in Singapore is state-owned and held by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) which acts as custodian of the land. The remainder is comprised of the few pockets of freehold land held by other government departments such as HDB, JTC, PSA and private owners.
On the expiry of a 99-year leasehold, ownership of the land reverts back to the state, and the rights of any property owners are effectively extinguished.
But surely property owners will be entitled to fair compensation for their homes that remain on the property Unfortunately not. The tough (and some might say unfair) reality is that the SLA has no obligation to reimburse or pay any sort of compensation at all.
What options do 99-year leasehold property owners have then?
There are two choices available to 99-year leasehold property owners, both of which involve paying the government a premium to extend the tenure of the lease.
They can either top-up the lease on their land with SLA directly, or sell their property to a third-party developer (known as a collective or en bloc sale). Both of these options must be done by all of the owners collectively, and cannot be accomplished on an individual basis.
Lease Top-Up
Here, the property owners apply to the SLA to top their lease back up to 99 years again, with the payment of a land premium. So for example, if there’s 50 years left on the land, owners can top up another 49 years so that the lease reverts back to 99 years.
This premium is assessed by the SLA’s Chief Valuer on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as the number of years remaining in the leasehold.
At this point, it’s in SLA’s discretion whether to approve or reject the application. In making its decision, SLA considers various factors of the lease including whether the extension would fit in with the government’s long-term intention with the land and whether the proposed use would optimise the land’s use.
In the case of a successful lease top-up, property owners may continue occupying their property for the duration of the renewed 99-year tenure.
This would, of course, be the ideal option for most owners of 99-year properties, but unfortunately, the exorbitant land premium charged by the SLA makes this option far too expensive for everyday individuals, and is usually the route taken by companies or other privately-held entities that are able to afford it.
Examples of properties that have successfully received lease top-ups include the former Shing Kwan House and ICB Building (now the SGX Building), the former Overseas Union House (now 50 Collyer Quay) and the former HMC Building (now Lumiere).
Collective (or En Bloc) Sale
The collective, (or as it’s popularly known, en bloc), sale is the option favoured by individual homeowners as it pushes the hefty obligation of the land premium payment on to the private developers or companies who are better able to afford it.
The downside is that, unlike a lease top-up, the owners will no longer be entitled to stay in their property as the rights to the lease transfer to the private developers instead.
What they do get, however, is compensation for their property, which they wouldn’t have been entitled to had their lease simply run its course.
2007 was the peak year for en bloc sales, including the largest en bloc sale to date: the sale of Farrer Court apartments. Its 618 units were sold for a total of $1.339 billion dollars, netting each homeowner a cool $2.122 to $2.238 million dollars (after overhead costs). 2016 also saw the collective sale of two privatised HUDC estates (Shunfu Ville and Raintree Gardens) and we predict this trend of HUDC estates going en bloc to continue unto 2017.
If you’re looking for a rundown on the en bloc sale process, be sure to check out our article on that here.
99-year leasehold properties: Yea or Nay?
If your aim is to purchase a home that you can pass on from generation to generation, a 99-year leasehold property is definitely not for you.
But if you’re content to simply own the home for your lifetime (hey, your kids can fend for themselves), or you’re buying it for purely investment purposes, then it’s seriously worth considering.
We’ve discussed the issue of freehold vs. leasehold properties previously, so be sure to check it out here for a more in-depth comparison.
While the leasehold of a property undoubtedly affects the potential for its appreciation, there are other factors that come into play as well. For example, whether you’re buying freehold or leasehold n, choose a development that’s located near an MRT station, good schools and other amenities (you can do this with 99.co’s search filters that let you narrow down results according to its proximity to various amenities). These make the development more desirable to private developers, upping your chances of securing an en bloc sale down the road.
What’s your take on 99-year properties – smart investment or money pit? We’d love to hear your thoughts, so sound off in the comments below!
Leasehold property: What happens when 99 years runs out?
Land in Singapore is held under three main leasehold types: freehold, 999-year and 99-year leases.
For properties built on freehold land, the land belongs to the leasehold owner indefinitely so there’s no need to worry about the lease running out (save for the dreaded government acquisition of course). This extends, to a certain extent, to 999-year leasehold properties as well, since 999 years is certainly long enough to house many generations with ease.
The most worrying of the lot though is 99-year leasehold properties. What rights do owners of this asset class have at the end of the tenure, when the title to the land reverts to its original owners?
For this article, we’ll be focusing on the effect of the lease expiry on private property owners (like condominiums and privatised HUDCs). If you’re concerned about HDBs, we’ve written about that here.
Who does the leasehold revert to and what happens then?
More than three-quarters of the land in Singapore is state-owned and held by the Singapore Land Authority (SLA) which acts as custodian of the land. The remainder is comprised of the few pockets of freehold land held by other government departments such as HDB, JTC, PSA and private owners.
On the expiry of a 99-year leasehold, ownership of the land reverts back to the state, and the rights of any property owners are effectively extinguished.
But surely property owners will be entitled to fair compensation for their homes that remain on the property Unfortunately not. The tough (and some might say unfair) reality is that the SLA has no obligation to reimburse or pay any sort of compensation at all.
What options do 99-year leasehold property owners have then?
There are two choices available to 99-year leasehold property owners, both of which involve paying the government a premium to extend the tenure of the lease.
They can either top-up the lease on their land with SLA directly, or sell their property to a third-party developer (known as a collective or en bloc sale). Both of these options must be done by all of the owners collectively, and cannot be accomplished on an individual basis.
Lease Top-Up
Here, the property owners apply to the SLA to top their lease back up to 99 years again, with the payment of a land premium. So for example, if there’s 50 years left on the land, owners can top up another 49 years so that the lease reverts back to 99 years.
This premium is assessed by the SLA’s Chief Valuer on a case-by-case basis, taking into account factors such as the number of years remaining in the leasehold.
At this point, it’s in SLA’s discretion whether to approve or reject the application. In making its decision, SLA considers various factors of the lease including whether the extension would fit in with the government’s long-term intention with the land and whether the proposed use would optimise the land’s use.
In the case of a successful lease top-up, property owners may continue occupying their property for the duration of the renewed 99-year tenure.
This would, of course, be the ideal option for most owners of 99-year properties, but unfortunately, the exorbitant land premium charged by the SLA makes this option far too expensive for everyday individuals, and is usually the route taken by companies or other privately-held entities that are able to afford it.
Examples of properties that have successfully received lease top-ups include the former Shing Kwan House and ICB Building (now the SGX Building), the former Overseas Union House (now 50 Collyer Quay) and the former HMC Building (now Lumiere).
Collective (or En Bloc) Sale
The collective, (or as it’s popularly known, en bloc), sale is the option favoured by individual homeowners as it pushes the hefty obligation of the land premium payment on to the private developers or companies who are better able to afford it.
The downside is that, unlike a lease top-up, the owners will no longer be entitled to stay in their property as the rights to the lease transfer to the private developers instead.
What they do get, however, is compensation for their property, which they wouldn’t have been entitled to had their lease simply run its course.
2007 was the peak year for en bloc sales, including the largest en bloc sale to date: the sale of Farrer Court apartments. Its 618 units were sold for a total of $1.339 billion dollars, netting each homeowner a cool $2.122 to $2.238 million dollars (after overhead costs). 2016 also saw the collective sale of two privatised HUDC estates (Shunfu Ville and Raintree Gardens) and we predict this trend of HUDC estates going en bloc to continue unto 2017.
If you’re looking for a rundown on the en bloc sale process, be sure to check out our article on that here.
99-year leasehold properties: Yea or Nay?
If your aim is to purchase a home that you can pass on from generation to generation, a 99-year leasehold property is definitely not for you.
But if you’re content to simply own the home for your lifetime (hey, your kids can fend for themselves), or you’re buying it for purely investment purposes, then it’s seriously worth considering.
We’ve discussed the issue of freehold vs. leasehold properties previously, so be sure to check it out here for a more in-depth comparison.
While the leasehold of a property undoubtedly affects the potential for its appreciation, there are other factors that come into play as well. For example, whether you’re buying freehold or leasehold n, choose a development that’s located near an MRT station, good schools and other amenities (you can do this with 99.co’s search filters that let you narrow down results according to its proximity to various amenities). These make the development more desirable to private developers, upping your chances of securing an en bloc sale down the road.
What’s your take on 99-year properties – smart investment or money pit? We’d love to hear your thoughts, so sound off in the comments below!
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 30,569
- Points
- 113
4 years ago · 7 min read · by Marouan Fatti
En Bloc Sales – how does it work?
You finally found your dream house, you made it your home, life is good – and then someone bulldozes it and decides to build a proverbial highway right through it. While the power of private property is substantial, it is not absolute – and under certain circumstances, the government or property developers can barge in, force you to sell and take over your home. In Singapore, the oft-cited way that such takeovers go down is through a collective sale, colloquially known as the – sometimes loved, sometimes dreaded – en bloc sales.
So, what’s this collective en bloc sale all about?
A collective sale, also known as en bloc, is a sale of two or more property units to a single common purchaser. Whilst smaller collective sales often take place, the best-known example is the iconic grand-scale, full-development sales that you may often come across in newspaper headlines.
Generally speaking, an en bloc sale means that owners, in exchange for collectively parting with their property are each offered a golden handshake, so to speak. The contentiousness arises from the fact that not everybody has to consent to the deal, and as a result, for some, the golden handshake – no matter how golden – is also kind of a slap in the face.
How can your property be sold against your will?
When a development is older than 10 years, at least 80 percent (90 percent when it’s less than 10 years old) of its residents* must agree to part with their home for the deal to go through. Consequently, in the event that a vast majority – to the tune of 80 percent of the residents – decide to sell a collective sum of units (including those that are not theirs), then the whole development can be sold, much to the misfortune of the remaining 20% of residents.
Important*: the government has been flip-flopping considerably on the laws regarding en bloc sales, altering them every few years, most recently in 2007 and 2010. As of today, it is not precisely 80 percent of residents that have to concur with the sale for a deal to be viable. Instead, it is required that the owners holding a minimum of 80% of the share value and 80 percent of the total strata area concur with the sale. Whilst this may merely look like some legal jibber-jabber, it is important to understand; it simply means that votes are assigned based on the share value rather than number of units owned. Evidently then, in the event that a large number of units, or the better valued, more luxurious units, are owned by a relatively small number of individuals, then less than 80% of the residents, and perhaps even a minority may decide the future of the whole block.
For more information on how votes are precisely allocated see this guide by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA).
The Rationale of en bloc
The logic of en bloc sales is such that in land scarce nations, or otherwise densely populated cities, the tides of time will lead different areas and neighbourhoods to develop at different speeds. As time moves on then, the old will sometimes have to make way for the new. Yet, how about those still living in the old?
Imagine a scenario where there would be no laws regarding collective sales, and there would be no way to strong arm anyone to sell their property against their will. If anything, many cases would probably arise where a small minority, or even a single individual would refuse to sell, thereby holding back the entire neighbourhood from developing.
To mitigate against such events the government has brought into life laws regarding collective sales. The idea then is to make it difficult yet possible for en blocs to occur, and so the 80% threshold was called into action to find a reasonably fair midway point between respecting private property laws and holding the common good of neighbourhoods in mind. This way, when a sufficiently large crowd wished to sell a development, then the a minority will have to make way. In practise, it is really not too easy to get 80% of a development to agree to a collective sale, and the financial compensations tend, as such, to be rather high.
En bloc sales: sometimes loved, at times dreaded, yet always worth the watch.How does an en bloc sale occur?
There are generally three ways that an en bloc can go down.
Firstly, and most amicably, there may be an opportunity for a greatly lucrative sale, with the owners coming together and putting the whole bloc up for sale so as to get a better price collectively, than they would get individually.
Secondly, an outside buyer may approach a group of owners and negotiate with them to get enough people to vote and sell the whole development. Often, a battle of sorts would ensue with the owners being divided into stay and sell camps. No jokes, these things can get heated!
Thirdly, a company may approach the owners so as to buy the development, subsequently sell it to a third party and make a quick profit as the middleman.
Before the Global Financial Crisis reached the shores of Singapore (and hence before seven rounds of cooling measures were introduced), expected profits were high and the second and third way occurred most often. Indeed, buyers were widespread, and prices would often go through the roof. Today, developers are far less willing to make the jump, and quite a few developments have been going en bloc repeatedly, only to be disappointed by the lack of response from potential buyers.
The Largest en bloc Sales of Singapore
The largest en bloc sales all went down back in 2007. Most extraordinarily, 618 apartments of Farrer Court were collectively bought for $1.339 billion. Discounting all overhead costs, it amounted to a handover of $2.122 to $2.238 million per apartment. These sums are especially extraordinary seeing as though these same units changed hands for around $500,000 to $600,000 before the collective sales negotiations started. Whilst the previous owners made a hefty profit, the site has been revamped into D’leedon, a behemoth of an apartment complex with more than 1,715 high-end, luxurious, residential units.
The sale and subsequent development of D’Leedon is interesting for more than its astronomical price tag. Indeed, it follows the familiar en bloc narrative; a relatively uninspiring or not-too-amazing bunch of apartments is bought by courting its owners with attractive compensation. Next, the entirety of the complex is wholly revamped into a more expensive condominium complex, built high into the sky.
Apart from the monster sale of Farrer Court, there were more noteworthy en bloc sales all of which occurred before 2007:
That silver lining …
At the end of the day, en bloc sales can either be a blessing or a curse; depending on how you view it, it can be a welcome financial windfall, or a violation of your private property rights. Whilst it is always unsettling to find oneself within a dissenting minority, forced against one’s will to part with one’s property, there may be a silver lining in that we are in Singapore, where there is enough prime real estate to go around – and as for that golden handshake, it may very well come in handy once you decide to take another look at the real estate market.
En Bloc Sales – how does it work?
You finally found your dream house, you made it your home, life is good – and then someone bulldozes it and decides to build a proverbial highway right through it. While the power of private property is substantial, it is not absolute – and under certain circumstances, the government or property developers can barge in, force you to sell and take over your home. In Singapore, the oft-cited way that such takeovers go down is through a collective sale, colloquially known as the – sometimes loved, sometimes dreaded – en bloc sales.
So, what’s this collective en bloc sale all about?
A collective sale, also known as en bloc, is a sale of two or more property units to a single common purchaser. Whilst smaller collective sales often take place, the best-known example is the iconic grand-scale, full-development sales that you may often come across in newspaper headlines.
Generally speaking, an en bloc sale means that owners, in exchange for collectively parting with their property are each offered a golden handshake, so to speak. The contentiousness arises from the fact that not everybody has to consent to the deal, and as a result, for some, the golden handshake – no matter how golden – is also kind of a slap in the face.
How can your property be sold against your will?
When a development is older than 10 years, at least 80 percent (90 percent when it’s less than 10 years old) of its residents* must agree to part with their home for the deal to go through. Consequently, in the event that a vast majority – to the tune of 80 percent of the residents – decide to sell a collective sum of units (including those that are not theirs), then the whole development can be sold, much to the misfortune of the remaining 20% of residents.
Important*: the government has been flip-flopping considerably on the laws regarding en bloc sales, altering them every few years, most recently in 2007 and 2010. As of today, it is not precisely 80 percent of residents that have to concur with the sale for a deal to be viable. Instead, it is required that the owners holding a minimum of 80% of the share value and 80 percent of the total strata area concur with the sale. Whilst this may merely look like some legal jibber-jabber, it is important to understand; it simply means that votes are assigned based on the share value rather than number of units owned. Evidently then, in the event that a large number of units, or the better valued, more luxurious units, are owned by a relatively small number of individuals, then less than 80% of the residents, and perhaps even a minority may decide the future of the whole block.
For more information on how votes are precisely allocated see this guide by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA).
The Rationale of en bloc
The logic of en bloc sales is such that in land scarce nations, or otherwise densely populated cities, the tides of time will lead different areas and neighbourhoods to develop at different speeds. As time moves on then, the old will sometimes have to make way for the new. Yet, how about those still living in the old?
Imagine a scenario where there would be no laws regarding collective sales, and there would be no way to strong arm anyone to sell their property against their will. If anything, many cases would probably arise where a small minority, or even a single individual would refuse to sell, thereby holding back the entire neighbourhood from developing.
To mitigate against such events the government has brought into life laws regarding collective sales. The idea then is to make it difficult yet possible for en blocs to occur, and so the 80% threshold was called into action to find a reasonably fair midway point between respecting private property laws and holding the common good of neighbourhoods in mind. This way, when a sufficiently large crowd wished to sell a development, then the a minority will have to make way. In practise, it is really not too easy to get 80% of a development to agree to a collective sale, and the financial compensations tend, as such, to be rather high.
There are generally three ways that an en bloc can go down.
Firstly, and most amicably, there may be an opportunity for a greatly lucrative sale, with the owners coming together and putting the whole bloc up for sale so as to get a better price collectively, than they would get individually.
Secondly, an outside buyer may approach a group of owners and negotiate with them to get enough people to vote and sell the whole development. Often, a battle of sorts would ensue with the owners being divided into stay and sell camps. No jokes, these things can get heated!
Thirdly, a company may approach the owners so as to buy the development, subsequently sell it to a third party and make a quick profit as the middleman.
Before the Global Financial Crisis reached the shores of Singapore (and hence before seven rounds of cooling measures were introduced), expected profits were high and the second and third way occurred most often. Indeed, buyers were widespread, and prices would often go through the roof. Today, developers are far less willing to make the jump, and quite a few developments have been going en bloc repeatedly, only to be disappointed by the lack of response from potential buyers.
The Largest en bloc Sales of Singapore
The largest en bloc sales all went down back in 2007. Most extraordinarily, 618 apartments of Farrer Court were collectively bought for $1.339 billion. Discounting all overhead costs, it amounted to a handover of $2.122 to $2.238 million per apartment. These sums are especially extraordinary seeing as though these same units changed hands for around $500,000 to $600,000 before the collective sales negotiations started. Whilst the previous owners made a hefty profit, the site has been revamped into D’leedon, a behemoth of an apartment complex with more than 1,715 high-end, luxurious, residential units.
The sale and subsequent development of D’Leedon is interesting for more than its astronomical price tag. Indeed, it follows the familiar en bloc narrative; a relatively uninspiring or not-too-amazing bunch of apartments is bought by courting its owners with attractive compensation. Next, the entirety of the complex is wholly revamped into a more expensive condominium complex, built high into the sky.
Apart from the monster sale of Farrer Court, there were more noteworthy en bloc sales all of which occurred before 2007:
- Leedon Heights (Today known as Leedon Residence) was sold for $835 million
- Grangeford Apartments (today known as the Twin Peaks) was sold for $625 million
- Gillman Heights (today known as the Interlace) was sold for $548 million
- Anderson 18 (today known as the Nouvel 18) was sold for $478 million
That silver lining …
At the end of the day, en bloc sales can either be a blessing or a curse; depending on how you view it, it can be a welcome financial windfall, or a violation of your private property rights. Whilst it is always unsettling to find oneself within a dissenting minority, forced against one’s will to part with one’s property, there may be a silver lining in that we are in Singapore, where there is enough prime real estate to go around – and as for that golden handshake, it may very well come in handy once you decide to take another look at the real estate market.
- Joined
- Jun 27, 2018
- Messages
- 30,569
- Points
- 113
2 years ago · 8 min read · by Ryan Ong
4 ugliest ‘condo MCST vs resident’ fights in Singapore history
We get it, sometimes condo residents get frustrated at their management corporation (MCST), and vice versa. Most time these conflicts result in a bunch of angry emails, questionable legal threats, and a lot of eye injuries (from eyeballs rolled so far back they get stuck). Once in a while, however, disputes between condo MCST and residents escalate and become so ridiculous they make it to the news, such as these epic incidents:
In that year, two major things happened. First, the Global Financial Crisis, brought about by Americans mistakenly believed that mortgage payments were optional. Second, the resulting collapse saw the US Federal Reserve reduce interest rates to zero, which made Singaporean mortgages crazy cheap. (We’re not kidding about “cheap”. At one point the SOR, or Swap Offer Rate, fell so low, it was in negative territory. If not for a minimum rate clause, the banks would have had to pay you for taking a home loan).
Anyway, this led to a property fever. Mandarin Gardens, which was built in 1986 and getting a little old, had en bloc potential. The residents who really wanted an en bloc sale formed a proxy collective sales committee, and had a really good idea as to how to make the sale go through.
That idea was to have a frank discussion with the residents to arrive at a consensus in a mature way — said no one ever.
Instead, the proxy committee decided that there was a shortcut to making the en bloc sale go through if they all collaborated to turn Mandarin Gardens into the garbage dump of the East. Then, no one would want to live there and residents would be compelled to accept an en bloc offer — problem solved.
To pull this off, the proxy committee tried to convince everyone that the maintenance fee charged by the condo management was too high, and should be reduced. The conniving group of residents then went around collecting votes.
It was no small reduction in maintenance fee. In fact, it was to be cut from $300,000 to $50,000. And the proxy committee argued — with a straight face — that reducing maintenance to one-sixth of the norm wasn’t a plan to drive the place to ruin. In response, the condo MCST resigned en masse, leaving the estate with zero management. During this time, approvals for upgrading and maintenance didn’t happen as there was no one to approve them — the condo really did start turning into a dump.
Later on, the proxy committee gave up on the en bloc attempt, not before proving to everyone how selfish and obnoxious they were.
TL;DR: A bunch of people tried to turn their own home into a rubbish dump to force a sale, and succeeded in doing everything except making the sale.
When the concerned family asked the condo MSCT for permission to install a safety grille on the balcony, it was flat out rejected. Their stand was that the family was allowed to set up a grille in the living room that would block access to the balcony, but no way could they, or anyone else, put grilles on that exquisite balcony as doing so would affect the condo facade’s aesthetics.
Well, if there’s one thing that overrides the safety of children, we suppose it’s keeping glass and concrete buildings uniform (as if a valuer will look at the condo and insist the property value has been destroyed by balcony grilles). The condo management turned down the family’s request for permission twice, before the family finally appealed/complained to the Strata Titles Board. Fortunately, common sense prevailed as the Board overruled the condo MCST.
TL;DR: To maintain the aesthetics of the building facade, a condo’s management had forbade owners to install safety grilles in their balconies — not even to ensure their childrens’ safety.
Plenty of condo management corporations have issues with late-paying residents; maintenance fees aren’t cheap in a condo. The usual methods around it are charging interest, sending threatening legal letters, or outright guilt-tripping the resident (“Hey, is that a new wide-screen TV? We’ll just tell the cleaner with two children she won’t be paid because you need that. Enjoy your Christmas. Her children won’t”.)
But the condo MSCT of Castle Green went one big step further. The condo managing agent straight up plastered the names of people who owed money — along with the amounts owed — on notice boards all around the condo. The justification was that such a method “worked in other condos”.
Now, before you decide these residents all deserved to be shamed, bear in mind these mitigating factors. One of the residents never even lived there — she was divorced, and her husband was the one who agreed to make payments (but did not). Another resident claimed he never even got any letters or invoices, barring a last-minute reminder.
On top of all this, condos typically charge a high interest rate for late payment, ranging from 10 to 15% per year. It’s not uncommon for some owners to just accept the interest rate, and pay a month or two later. It happens all the time, such as when landlords have problem tenants who haven’t paid up.
So, most management corporations accept that late payments do occur and work with the residents. While there’s perhaps some hidden merit in a gung-ho, adversarial style of condo management, we all know how well things turn out if you get aggressive with people who have the power to fire you.
TL;DR: Condo management deploys loan shark style tactics to name and shame residents who defaulted on their maintenance fees.
You see, the committee was trying to get the estate privatised in 2012 by buying land and common areas from the Ministry of Finance. In response, 26 residents put up questions for the committee regarding this ahead of the Annual General Meeting (AGM). The committee took offence at the phrasing of these questions, and promptly decided to sue the group of residents. These were the questions:
In any case, the management committee also decided that it was a good idea to pay for the lawsuit’s legal expenses using the estate’s funds and do so without going through the due process of an internal vote. They also sneakily decided to park the legal costs of $427,700 under “privatisation fees”. Now it has to pay $420,000 back, by hook or by crook.
Perhaps the surprisingly (or unsurprisingly), the outgoing president of the wretched committee told the Straits Times that the decision to sue was to “protect the committee’s integrity” and “not for personal reason”. Right.
TL;DR: A management committee decided to sue its residents for defamation using estate funds, failed miserably, and is ordered to pay the funds back.
Know of any other epic condo MCST vs resident disputes? Tell us in the comments section or on our Facebook community page.
4 ugliest ‘condo MCST vs resident’ fights in Singapore history
We get it, sometimes condo residents get frustrated at their management corporation (MCST), and vice versa. Most time these conflicts result in a bunch of angry emails, questionable legal threats, and a lot of eye injuries (from eyeballs rolled so far back they get stuck). Once in a while, however, disputes between condo MCST and residents escalate and become so ridiculous they make it to the news, such as these epic incidents:
- Mandarin Gardens fights itself until literally everyone gives up
In that year, two major things happened. First, the Global Financial Crisis, brought about by Americans mistakenly believed that mortgage payments were optional. Second, the resulting collapse saw the US Federal Reserve reduce interest rates to zero, which made Singaporean mortgages crazy cheap. (We’re not kidding about “cheap”. At one point the SOR, or Swap Offer Rate, fell so low, it was in negative territory. If not for a minimum rate clause, the banks would have had to pay you for taking a home loan).
Anyway, this led to a property fever. Mandarin Gardens, which was built in 1986 and getting a little old, had en bloc potential. The residents who really wanted an en bloc sale formed a proxy collective sales committee, and had a really good idea as to how to make the sale go through.
That idea was to have a frank discussion with the residents to arrive at a consensus in a mature way — said no one ever.
Instead, the proxy committee decided that there was a shortcut to making the en bloc sale go through if they all collaborated to turn Mandarin Gardens into the garbage dump of the East. Then, no one would want to live there and residents would be compelled to accept an en bloc offer — problem solved.
To pull this off, the proxy committee tried to convince everyone that the maintenance fee charged by the condo management was too high, and should be reduced. The conniving group of residents then went around collecting votes.
It was no small reduction in maintenance fee. In fact, it was to be cut from $300,000 to $50,000. And the proxy committee argued — with a straight face — that reducing maintenance to one-sixth of the norm wasn’t a plan to drive the place to ruin. In response, the condo MCST resigned en masse, leaving the estate with zero management. During this time, approvals for upgrading and maintenance didn’t happen as there was no one to approve them — the condo really did start turning into a dump.
Later on, the proxy committee gave up on the en bloc attempt, not before proving to everyone how selfish and obnoxious they were.
TL;DR: A bunch of people tried to turn their own home into a rubbish dump to force a sale, and succeeded in doing everything except making the sale.
- A condo MCST decides it’s okay for kids to risk death
When the concerned family asked the condo MSCT for permission to install a safety grille on the balcony, it was flat out rejected. Their stand was that the family was allowed to set up a grille in the living room that would block access to the balcony, but no way could they, or anyone else, put grilles on that exquisite balcony as doing so would affect the condo facade’s aesthetics.
Well, if there’s one thing that overrides the safety of children, we suppose it’s keeping glass and concrete buildings uniform (as if a valuer will look at the condo and insist the property value has been destroyed by balcony grilles). The condo management turned down the family’s request for permission twice, before the family finally appealed/complained to the Strata Titles Board. Fortunately, common sense prevailed as the Board overruled the condo MCST.
TL;DR: To maintain the aesthetics of the building facade, a condo’s management had forbade owners to install safety grilles in their balconies — not even to ensure their childrens’ safety.
- A condo MCST finds inspiration… from debt collectors
Plenty of condo management corporations have issues with late-paying residents; maintenance fees aren’t cheap in a condo. The usual methods around it are charging interest, sending threatening legal letters, or outright guilt-tripping the resident (“Hey, is that a new wide-screen TV? We’ll just tell the cleaner with two children she won’t be paid because you need that. Enjoy your Christmas. Her children won’t”.)
But the condo MSCT of Castle Green went one big step further. The condo managing agent straight up plastered the names of people who owed money — along with the amounts owed — on notice boards all around the condo. The justification was that such a method “worked in other condos”.
Now, before you decide these residents all deserved to be shamed, bear in mind these mitigating factors. One of the residents never even lived there — she was divorced, and her husband was the one who agreed to make payments (but did not). Another resident claimed he never even got any letters or invoices, barring a last-minute reminder.
On top of all this, condos typically charge a high interest rate for late payment, ranging from 10 to 15% per year. It’s not uncommon for some owners to just accept the interest rate, and pay a month or two later. It happens all the time, such as when landlords have problem tenants who haven’t paid up.
So, most management corporations accept that late payments do occur and work with the residents. While there’s perhaps some hidden merit in a gung-ho, adversarial style of condo management, we all know how well things turn out if you get aggressive with people who have the power to fire you.
TL;DR: Condo management deploys loan shark style tactics to name and shame residents who defaulted on their maintenance fees.
- A management committee decides to sue its own residents… using estate funds
You see, the committee was trying to get the estate privatised in 2012 by buying land and common areas from the Ministry of Finance. In response, 26 residents put up questions for the committee regarding this ahead of the Annual General Meeting (AGM). The committee took offence at the phrasing of these questions, and promptly decided to sue the group of residents. These were the questions:
- Who would be responsible for paying for that land, and
- Would residents please give their considerations on the income and expenditures for the budget that year, and the following year
In any case, the management committee also decided that it was a good idea to pay for the lawsuit’s legal expenses using the estate’s funds and do so without going through the due process of an internal vote. They also sneakily decided to park the legal costs of $427,700 under “privatisation fees”. Now it has to pay $420,000 back, by hook or by crook.
Perhaps the surprisingly (or unsurprisingly), the outgoing president of the wretched committee told the Straits Times that the decision to sue was to “protect the committee’s integrity” and “not for personal reason”. Right.
TL;DR: A management committee decided to sue its residents for defamation using estate funds, failed miserably, and is ordered to pay the funds back.
Know of any other epic condo MCST vs resident disputes? Tell us in the comments section or on our Facebook community page.
Similar threads
