View Full Version : Fight fight fight at Parc Oasis (Jurong)
Contentious issues at Parc Oasis include a row over the use of its carpark. Residents will vote on a monthly parking fee of $100 on those owning a second car and $150 for subsequent vehicles.
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/parc-oasis-owners-upset-over-parking-fee-proposal-private-condo-201306
SOME owners at Parc Oasis in Jurong East are up in arms over attempts by the condominium's management council to raise funds and cut costs to cover a shortfall in the maintenance fund.
The revenue-raising plans involve imposing parking fees, but the proposals have caused friction between residents.
Two meetings have already been held with no resolution, and another is set for tomorrow, with owners expecting more rows.
The issue is money. The management council told residents last month that it expects a $118,000 deficit for the year to June 30, and $353,000 in the next fiscal year.
waterviewer88
16-06-13, 13:20
Interesting to know where the shortfall comes from? If it's strictly a shortfall in the maintenance fund, could it not have been anticipated earlier? $350+ K is a big amt to miss :eek:
Contentious issues at Parc Oasis include a row over the use of its carpark. Residents will vote on a monthly parking fee of $100 on those owning a second car and $150 for subsequent vehicles.
http://www.straitstimes.com/breaking-news/singapore/story/parc-oasis-owners-upset-over-parking-fee-proposal-private-condo-201306
SOME owners at Parc Oasis in Jurong East are up in arms over attempts by the condominium's management council to raise funds and cut costs to cover a shortfall in the maintenance fund.
The revenue-raising plans involve imposing parking fees, but the proposals have caused friction between residents.
Two meetings have already been held with no resolution, and another is set for tomorrow, with owners expecting more rows.
The issue is money. The management council told residents last month that it expects a $118,000 deficit for the year to June 30, and $353,000 in the next fiscal year.
Is there a shortage of carparks in the first place? If so then very fair to charge more for a second lot.
The reason why they need to charge car park fee is because owners are unwilling to pay more maintanence fee to maintain their aging property
coughing a few hundred dollars more a quarter to maintain the place nicely so that potential buyers will cough out a few tens of thousand more for any unit in the project is a great decision. the myopic owners are losing sight of the forest for a tree.
bakasa2002
16-06-13, 23:17
Is there a shortage of carparks in the first place? If so then very fair to charge more for a second lot.
Heard there is no lack of spaces but owners w more than one car is used to not paying and mgt wanna charge cos of deflict...
If there is no lack of parking space - then they should not be introducing charges until it becomes an issue where new owners can't park their first car.
Sounds like cheapo owners don't want to face reality of expense of living in a private condo.
If you collect less than you spend - it's easy to see what will happen.
I have seen this stupid stuff at AGM's before where well thought out and presented cases for increasing the monthly contribution to ensure there is no short fall or deficit are voted down by idiots who maybe think magical money will appear from the sky and create a solution.
coughing a few hundred dollars more a quarter to maintain the place nicely so that potential buyers will cough out a few tens of thousand more for any unit in the project is a great decision. the myopic owners are losing sight of the forest for a tree.
Typical. Willing to pay Millions for a prop. refuse to pay $100 to maintain. thats the myopic mind set many have. want cheap cheap mah..
but cost are rising. cleaners, security etc. can expect everything cheap cheap yet pristine condition. while expecting tip top services.
All I can is many are so cheap! :scared-4: :scared-4: :scared-4:
Typical. Willing to pay Millions for a prop. refuse to pay $100 to maintain. thats the myopic mind set many have. want cheap cheap mah..
but cost are rising. cleaners, security etc. can expect everything cheap cheap yet pristine condition. while expecting tip top services.
All I can is many are so cheap! :scared-4: :scared-4: :scared-4:
Sometimes, ppl want the place to rot, then push for enbloc, since maintenance or big overhaul is going to be expensive.
http://www.todayonline.com/business/property/not-oasis-calm-parc
Property
Not an oasis of calm at the Parc
Residents oppose move by condo MC to impose more car parking fees in order to raise funds
By Conrad Raj
-
14 June
SINGAPORE — A battle is brewing over car parking fees at the 950-unit Parc Oasis condominium in Jurong East, as the management corporation (MC) struggles to raise funds to balance its books while trying to maintain service standards.
Some residents with more than one car are opposing a move by the MC to raise money by imposing a fee of S$100 a month for the second car and S$150 a month for subsequent cars. Several owners plan to ask the Strata Titles Board (STB) to make a ruling on the legality of the targeted fee, which will be tabled at an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) of owners tomorrow.
If the fee move succeeds, the MC will raise the condo’s monthly maintenance fees by only S$3 per share. If it fails, the maintenance fee will be jacked up by S$8 monthly. A typical unit has four shares.
The MC had written to residents saying that the 18-year-old condo would be incurring a deficit of about S$19,000 for the year ending June 30, 2013. It had earlier forecast a deficit of S$118,000 but various cost-cutting measures had pared this down.
For the following financial year, a deficit of S$353,000 is forecast unless the fee increases are approved. If not, further cost-cutting measures are to be imposed.
“The practical implication is that we will no longer be able to enjoy a condominium living environment. In fact, the quality of life can be equal to or, more likely, worse than what you would expect in public housing,” wrote MC Chairman Lim Taik Leong in May and earlier this month.
But the owners of more than one car — there are 150 owners in Parc Oasis with a second car and about a dozen with more than two — argue that there are sufficient car parking spaces to accommodate every car. As no added costs are involved, it is unfair to ask them to pay more, they said.
“In October of last year, the MC had attempted to charge S$350 a month for third and subsequent cars as they claimed then that the car park situation was tight. However, it was subsequently discovered that there were applicants for only 650 car lots, meaning there were 300 vacant lots,” an owner of several cars told TODAY.
The resolution was narrowly defeated after the fee move failed to get approval from 75 per cent of the votes cast at the annual general meeting (AGM).
Some residents had in fact written to the STB for a ruling on the matter but withdrew their application following the defeat of the resolution at the AGM.
A resolution at an EGM in January to impose a fee on second and subsequent cars was similarly defeated.
“We got what we wanted then, but we probably will have to make another application to the STB to resolve the matter once and for all,” an aggrieved resident said.
“We are not unreasonable as we are prepared to pay should the car situation worsen and space becomes a problem. But why should we be penalised when there is more than enough space to pitch a few tents?” the resident asked.
bakasa2002
18-06-13, 15:04
" But why should we be penalised when there is more than enough space to pitch a few tents?” the resident asked.
Hahahahahaha .................:D
waterviewer88
18-06-13, 17:02
“In October of last year, the MC had attempted to charge S$350 a month for third and subsequent cars as they claimed then that the car park situation was tight. However, it was subsequently discovered that there were applicants for only 650 car lots, meaning there were 300 vacant lots,”
If this is true, then the MC is taking the wrong approach in raising funds for the upkeep of the estate. This approach violates the principle of "user pays" and penalizes car owners in making them foot the bill for non-car related costs. The MC would have made a better case of raising a one-time payment across the board to meet the immediate shortfall and an increase of maintenance fees across the board to meet the long term needs. All these numbers can be easily supported by facts and figures.:2cents:
coughing a few hundred dollars more a quarter to maintain the place nicely so that potential buyers will cough out a few tens of thousand more for any unit in the project is a great decision. the myopic owners are losing sight of the forest for a tree.Now all should be happy coz no potential buyers will enter this place. Too much negative publicity.... :cheers6:
“In October of last year, the MC had attempted to charge S$350 a month for third and subsequent cars as they claimed then that the car park situation was tight. However, it was subsequently discovered that there were applicants for only 650 car lots, meaning there were 300 vacant lots,”
If this is true, then the MC is taking the wrong approach in raising funds for the upkeep of the estate. This approach violates the principle of "user pays" and penalizes car owners in making them foot the bill for non-car related costs. The MC would have made a better case of raising a one-time payment across the board to meet the immediate shortfall and an increase of maintenance fees across the board to meet the long term needs. All these numbers can be easily supported by facts and figures.:2cents:Very poor magnament leh! MA sleeping?
Such condo has units mostly for own-stay by owners, don't need to maintain nice nice since not going to rent out that can collect more money from rental. Therefore, owners majority will not want to pay more maintenance fund, so will be left to rot. Same same for many OCR condos when they become old...
This is so different from CCR condos. Tell you my experience: My condos proposed maintenance fund increase by >15%, so I thought would see many owners turn up during AGM to vote. End up I still see the same few old faces, only 3 "newer" owners turn up and the maintenance fund increase resolution was passed by >75% of votes. See the difference between CCR and OCR condos? :beats-me-man:
coughing a few hundred dollars more a quarter to maintain the place nicely so that potential buyers will cough out a few tens of thousand more for any unit in the project is a great decision. the myopic owners are losing sight of the forest for a tree.
Increase in maintenance fund cannot go through because majority of owners don't want to pay more... :doh:
“In October of last year, the MC had attempted to charge S$350 a month for third and subsequent cars as they claimed then that the car park situation was tight. However, it was subsequently discovered that there were applicants for only 650 car lots, meaning there were 300 vacant lots,”
If this is true, then the MC is taking the wrong approach in raising funds for the upkeep of the estate. This approach violates the principle of "user pays" and penalizes car owners in making them foot the bill for non-car related costs. The MC would have made a better case of raising a one-time payment across the board to meet the immediate shortfall and an increase of maintenance fees across the board to meet the long term needs. All these numbers can be easily supported by facts and figures.:2cents:
A friend of of mine vested there...
Sadly... Parc Oasis mostly rented out...
Not many own stay...
Herd mentality: Since purely investment... why pay more to erode profit? Minority owners (own stay) suffer!
Very poor magnament leh! MA sleeping?
950 units must be lot of fund :eek:
Think better change the mgmt..
Just keep the water features off and swimming pools dry for 1 year. Should have spare funds by then.
Just keep the water features off and swimming pools dry for 1 year. Should have spare funds by then.
Or turn the swimming pool into reservior. Can sell water and make profit. I like this idea as mostly nobody will go swimming bcos next door got nice water park and bikini clad syt.
Didn't realize Parc Oasis mostly rented out but yet owners don't want to pay more to up-keep after collecting rental! So that means OCR property owners mentality are so different from CCR property owners mentality! OCR property owners only want to collect money but bark at paying even little more additional money to up-keep their property! :doh:
A friend of of mine vested there...
Sadly... Parc Oasis mostly rented out...
Not many own stay...
Herd mentality: Since purely investment... why pay more to erode profit? Minority owners (own stay) suffer!
Didn't realize Parc Oasis mostly rented out but yet owners don't want to pay more to up-keep after collecting rental! So that means OCR property owners mentality are so different from CCR property owners mentality! OCR property owners only want to collect money but bark at paying even little more additional money to up-keep their property! :doh:
Not so la... CCR also have this kind of mentality..
Oftenly... investors often care less in upkeep.. own stayers care more and more willing to pay to upkeeing...
Vested in CCR before:
I voted no for fee hike in CCR before as I dunt stay there..
I voted yes for fee hike in OCR as I am staying...
can kinda of conclude no differentiation between both..
Not so la... CCR also have this kind of mentality..
Oftenly... investors often care less in upkeep.. own stayers care more and more willing to pay to upkeeing...
Vested in CCR before:
I voted no for fee hike in CCR before as I dunt stay there..
I voted yes for fee hike in OCR as I am staying...
can kinda of conclude no differentiation between both..
So this solves the mystery: those with 2nd or 3rd car are likely to be owners, who refused to subsidise the landlords who don't stay there and want to pay lower maintenance fees.
So this solves the mystery: those with 2nd or 3rd car are likely to be owners, who refused to subsidise the landlords who don't stay there and want to pay lower maintenance fees.
Yup. That my point.
So this solves the mystery: those with 2nd or 3rd car are likely to be owners, who refused to subsidise the landlords who don't stay there and want to pay lower maintenance fees.
Wah like that? Another slump in the making.
One good reason why not to buy hdb dweller owned condos in heartland.
:D
So this solves the mystery: those with 2nd or 3rd car are likely to be owners, who refused to subsidise the landlords who don't stay there and want to pay lower maintenance fees.
westman said Parc Oasis mostly rented out.
so more investors than own-stay.
likelihood of maintenance fee hike is slim.
owner with 2-3 cars refuse to pay more for parking.
so end result is own-stay owner prefer to live in badly maintained condo?
westman said Parc Oasis mostly rented out.
so more investors than own-stay.
likelihood of maintenance fee hike is slim.
owner with 2-3 cars refuse to pay more for parking.
so end result is own-stay owner prefer to live in badly maintained condo?
Drag everyone down loh. Then wait for enbloc.
darkseed73
19-06-13, 11:13
Drag everyone down loh. Then wait for enbloc.
A lot developer prefer to buy land from govt instead of buying enbloc becos of difficult residents.
Looking at the location of Parc Oasis - they can wait blah for enbloc, developers rather buy JE lands when more is release by govt.
Just keep the water features off and swimming pools dry for 1 year. Should have spare funds by then.I would first boot the management out and replace one. Next, should look through the cost of all the maintenance staff, from cleaners to security guard to landscaping to swimming pool maintenance, etc. Scout for cheaper options where possible. Sure can save a couple of thousand a month. Then consider doing away with one security guard for night shift and one for day shift, and one less pool maintenance a month and one less landscaping a month, etc... sure can get out of the red within couple of months. Then when things are stabilized, then start looking at option of raising maintenance fee and start saving for sinking funds... the management must be strong and efficient! :sleep:
westman said Parc Oasis mostly rented out.
so more investors than own-stay.
likelihood of maintenance fee hike is slim.
owner with 2-3 cars refuse to pay more for parking.
so end result is own-stay owner prefer to live in badly maintained condo?
In Parc Oasis... many jap as Parc Oasis has a small driving range...
Very rare to see such in most condos.
Since those self-stay resident owners with cars can defeat the resolution to charge for car parking charges, that means more owners than landlords in that estate!
Since maintenance funds also cannot increase as the resident owners call the shot (got more in number), that means resident owners don't want to pay more! :rolleyes:
So this solves the mystery: those with 2nd or 3rd car are likely to be owners, who refused to subsidise the landlords who don't stay there and want to pay lower maintenance fees.
I also cannot understand the logic:
* If Parc Oasis has more landlords than resident owners (if true) & Resident Owners are more willing to pay more to upkeep (if true), then Parc Oasis will not have enough resident owners with 2-3 cars refusing to pay more for parking and yet can defeat the MCST resolution to charge for car parking charges.
So 1 or more of the above "true" statement cannot be "true" right?
westman said Parc Oasis mostly rented out.
so more investors than own-stay.
likelihood of maintenance fee hike is slim.
owner with 2-3 cars refuse to pay more for parking.
so end result is own-stay owner prefer to live in badly maintained condo?
Not so la... CCR also have this kind of mentality..
Oftenly... investors often care less in upkeep.. own stayers care more and more willing to pay to upkeeing...
Vested in CCR before:
I voted no for fee hike in CCR before as I dunt stay there..
I voted yes for fee hike in OCR as I am staying...
can kinda of conclude no differentiation between both..
Think your "CCR" property is the faked "CCR" or you are just "different", the odd-one-out?
All my properties are in genuine CCR and mostly tenanted out and mostly don't even see landlord owners when MCST ask for raise in maintenance fees and the raise always passed!
Not so la... CCR also have this kind of mentality..
Oftenly... investors often care less in upkeep.. own stayers care more and more willing to pay to upkeeing...
Vested in CCR before:
I voted no for fee hike in CCR before as I dunt stay there..
I voted yes for fee hike in OCR as I am staying...
can kinda of conclude no differentiation between both..
Think your "CCR" property is the faked "CCR" or you are just "different", the odd-one-out?
All my properties are in genuine CCR and mostly tenanted out and mostly don't even see landlord owners when MCST ask for raise in maintenance fees and the raise always passed!
Up to you.. am not trying to satisfy your CCR ego..
No energy to try your posting power... I have a life to live....
I also cannot understand the logic:
* If Parc Oasis has more landlords than resident owners (if true) & Resident Owners are more willing to pay more to upkeep (if true), then Parc Oasis will not have enough resident owners with 2-3 cars refusing to pay more for parking and yet can defeat the MCST resolution to charge for car parking charges.
So 1 or more of the above "true" statement cannot be "true" right?
Prob e landlords r not around to vote.
Landlords not around to vote but around to make MCST implement policies to impose car park charges (since they landlords won't be affected and will benefit instead)? That I also cannot understand... :beats-me-man:
Prob e landlords r not around to vote.
Landlords not around to vote but around to make MCST implement policies to impose car park charges (since they landlords won't be affected and will benefit instead)? That I also cannot understand... :beats-me-man:
Likely small group of residents (one car families) n some landlords r concerned abt e deficit, but there r not enough of them to vote against e 2/3 car families. My theory.
Likely small group of residents (one car families) n some landlords r concerned abt e deficit, but there r not enough of them to vote against e 2/3 car families. My theory.
Not vested there and my fren could not care to attend... did not probe deep enough.. but if you do visit PO... you will noticed South Asian and Jap are common there... not much of locals there...
Go check it out on propertyguru... lot of rental ads...
Not vested there and my fren could not care to attend... did not probe deep enough.. but if you do visit PO... you will noticed South Asian and Jap are common there... not much of locals there...
Go check it out on propertyguru... lot of rental ads...
used to have more Japs, not anymore. Nowadays mainly south asians and their noisy children likes to play cricket outside the tennis courts.
used to have more Japs, not anymore. Nowadays mainly south asians and their noisy children likes to play cricket outside the tennis courts.
Have not visited there ever since my fren move to caspian and rented out his parc oasis.. I have the imprrssion of jap and south asian when I last visited the place 1 to 2 year ago..
Prime reason for my fren to move to caspian was primarily due to south asians.
http://www.straitstimes.com/premium/money/story/condo-residents-vote-favour-parking-charges-20130620
PARC OASIS BID TO COVER FUND SHORTFALL
Condo residents vote in favour of parking charges
Published on Jun 20, 2013
By Cheryl Ong
RESIDENTS of Parc Oasis who own more than one car will now have to pay parking charges, after a majority voted in favour of such a proposal.
At an extraordinary general meeting (EGM) held last Saturday, owners of the 950-unit condominium in Jurong East were asked to back the parking charges and pay higher management fees by voting.
The proposed move was aimed at covering a projected shortfall of $353,000 in the maintenance fund for the fiscal year ending June 30, 2014.
The resolution voted on comprised two parts - levying a monthly parking fee of $100 for a second car and $150 for each additional vehicle, and a rise in monthly management fees from $56 to $59 per share value.
For residents who do not wish to pay the parking fees, they will have to cough up higher monthly management fees at $64 per share value.
If the resolution had been rejected, the management said other cost-cutting measures would have been introduced, including reducing landscaping and pest control expenses, and carrying out only repairs that concern safety.
"Some 85 per cent of the residents and their proxies voted in favour of this proposal," said the Management Corporation Strata Title (MCST) chairman Lim Taik Leong.
About 200 residents were present at the EGM, Mr Lim said.
The Straits Times understands that 1,636 shares held by residents were cast in favour of the resolution, while 303 shares were against it.
The shares in favour included those from 366 proxies not present at the meeting.
Mr Lim added that 136 owners will be affected by the new rule.
Separately, people familiar with the matter said fewer than 120 owners have two cars.
"The deficit is still at $353,000. The money that we generate from the collection of the maintenance fund and the monthly parking charges for second and subsequent cars should cover a major part of the deficit," Mr Lim said. He estimated that the new collection would raise about $320,000. Following the vote, the MCST will not be implementing other cost-cutting measures.
In a bid to narrow the deficit, half the lights in the basement carpark have been shut off, and the management has terminated the services of four cleaners and three security guards. But over the next month, the MCST will reinstate the service of one security guard at the condo, said Mr Lim.
A resident affected by the new by-law, who declined to be named, said the revenue collected from the new measures could fall short of the MCST's expectations as some residents want to avoid paying the parking fees.
"Some residents have plans to park their second and subsequent cars at a nearby Housing Board carpark," he said.
[email protected]
BlackKnight
20-06-13, 21:36
To the minority 2-car owners of Parc Oasis, please bring your case before the STB. This is downright bullying. A 980 unit condo short of maintenance funds want the shortfall to fall on the shoulders of a few. The state of disrepair is not the fault of the few residents.
It is so obvious that some people have been hard at work, collecting proxies. Stinks.
There are some very good lawyers who are familiar with the BMSMA, eg, NLC Law Asia. They have won cases for SPs.
I have no dealings with them, and have never used them, but I had followed some of their cases.
The council has slept all these years. They should have forecasted and raise maintenance fees gradually.
There are so many ways to raise money, maintenance funds needs only an ordinary resolution to be carried, or a one time levy. Or, there are so many empty car park lots, they could think of renting them out to earn some money.
Why should a few people be punished?
This way of raising fees won't bring them very far, except to create a lot of animosity. People can sell away their cars, or just don't pay. There is nothing the council can do. In the end, send legal letters or bring them to court to recover the money? That would be stupid to throw good money after bad money.
Making people pay $100 or $150 per month is way too much. Even HDB does not discriminate against `1st car or 2nd car. So long there is empty lot, car owners will get a season parking ticket.
Please, the minority few, please bring this bunch of idiots to the STB.
If you are short of funds, someone among you, start a facebook for donations, I will also contribute. And it does not mean that if you lose, you will have to pay all legal costs. I know that kind of stupid resolution is always in the AGM, but it is a fallacy. It depends on who the court orders to pay.
Neighbours oppressing neighbours, neighbours punishing neighbours, what has become of our society
A bylaw passed, even unanimously, does not mean it cannot be challenged. It also does not mean the it cannot be rescinded.
BlackKnight
20-06-13, 22:12
ST Saturday Special : The trouble in condos
http://finance.groups.yahoo.com/group/RealEdge/message/11074
Aug 1 2009
The trouble in condos
More people are buying private homes, but few seem to know or care about what it really takes to look after their estate. Lulled into complacency by the efficiency of government services, they prefer to leave the job of running their condominium to someone else. But a lot can go wrong.
By Tan Hui Yee
A HOME owner in The 101 complex in Beach Road complained to the property's manager earlier this year that the water pressure in her unit was low. The water pump, it seemed, had broken down.
But the residential and commercial building had no money to fix it, says its property manager Vijayen Nair. It was deep in debt of more than $200,000 after messy lawsuits involving disputes over its common area, and some of its apartment owners were withholding maintenance payments.
The home owner herself owed about $2,500 in maintenance fees. She paid up almost immediately to get the pump fixed.
Mr Nair, 52, whose firm Philip Motha Property Management runs about 30 condominiums and commercial buildings, says it is an example of how bad things can get if people do not care about their estates. 'Generally, people do not know what is going on,' he says.
The 101's problems are far from uncommon in Singapore.
The Strata Titles Board, which handles disputes involving private properties, is having to deal with an increasing number of cases these days. The number of disputes not related to collective sale issues has steadily risen from 46 in 2006, to 56 in 2007 and to 66 last year.
While the majority involve neighbours tussling over inter-floor leaks, there are also wrangles over a host of other issues from car parking to financial management.
Four years after the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act was introduced to nudge private home owners into taking proper collective care of their estates, not much progress seems to have been made in this area.
Veteran management council members and estate management professionals all cite the same root problem - Singaporeans, desensitised by the quiet efficiency of government services, turn a blind eye to the needs of their own private estates.
Mr Arthur Ngiam, president of the Association of Management Corporations in Singapore (Amcis) which represents about 300 private estates in Singapore, blames it on apathy.
'The biggest problem is apathetic owners. They don't come for meetings until there is an en bloc sale, or a substantial increase in their maintenance contribution.'
It is feared that this problem could worsen, with more and more individuals trading up from Housing Board flats to condominium apartments.
These upgraders, shut out by sky-high prices during the 2007 boom, are snapping up homes in the current downturn. They helped push condo sales to a record high of 1,825 last month.
Their migration is part of a longer- term trend, with the proportion of private apartments in Singapore growing from 9.4 per cent to 14.9 per cent between 1998 and last year.
Although increasing numbers hanker after the private pools, 24-hour security, well-maintained gardens and the status of a condominium, they seem to be pretty clueless about what it takes to run these developments successfully.
Amazingly, says Mr Ngiam, 'some people even think that the management council is run by the Government'.
Small-scale democracy
UNLIKE public housing estates, where common areas are managed by quasi-government town councils, private condominiums are managed by the owners' collective, called the management corporation. Every year, the collective holds a meeting to elect a management council from among the owners. But with attendance often at the bare minimum, residents are sometimes reduced to voting for neighbours who are not necessarily the most qualified for the role.
Glendale Park chairman Wee Yew Beng, 47, quips: 'If you speak loud, speak fast, make a lot of noise, then by default you are the chairman.'
The often haphazard nature of such elections does not do justice to the power that elected councils wield. The selected group of home owners calls the shots on house rules, the contractors hired and upgrading work. It also manages funds that invariably run into millions of dollars.
For this reason, 80 per cent of 1,900 private residential developments here hire professional managing agents to oversee the day-to-day management of their estates.
This arrangement comes with its own set of risks though, given that managing agents are not regulated. Four condominiums - including three in the upmarket Mount Sophia Road area - found out the hard way how appointing a managing agent can be far from risk-free.
In 2007, at least $200,000 was reported missing from their accounts in total, and the person in charge of managing all four condos disappeared.
Other incidents involving smaller sums have gone unreported.
The managing director of management firm Knight Frank Estate Management, Mr Jordan Neo, who oversees about 100 condos in Singapore, admits that the incidence of theft in this industry is very high, with the bigger firms working harder to police it.
This is despite the fact that the Association of Property and Facility Managers - a trade body for such professionals - runs a voluntary accreditation programme with the Singapore Institute of Surveyors and Valuers. But only 29 of the estimated 200 managing agents here have signed up to the programme, which ties them to a code of conduct.
Lawyer Lim Tat, 46, chairman of Yong An Park, a condominium in River Valley Road, believes councils are not inquisitive enough. 'Most councils rely on their managing agents to bring them the cheques to sign, to tell about areas (which need looking into). Not many bother getting their hands dirty, to ask the right questions.'
Such lax attitudes leave condos open to questionable conduct on the part of managing agents, contractors and even developers.
According to Mr Teo Poh Siang, who heads estate management firm Wisely 98, the owners of a new 300-unit condo discovered some years ago that the developer had used close to $100,000 of the maintenance fund to buy poolside chairs and tables for the estate. But the furniture was to have been provided by the developer as part of the original sale agreement. The developer repaid the sum after the discrepancy was uncovered.
When expectations clash
ADDED to the complexities involved in running a condo are home owners' expectations about condo living.
According to Mr Chan Kok Hong, managing director of CKH Strata Management which looks after 95 condos, the moment people move into a condo, they become less tolerant of bad behaviour, more demanding, and very protective of their rights.
Clashes of lifestyle are harder to mitigate and the hanging of laundry is a case in point. Under the Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act, home owners are not allowed to hang their laundry in public view, as this could be unsightly and possibly devalue the property. But try telling that to HDB upgraders long used to the freedom of drying their linen on bamboo poles hung outside their homes.
The council of a Simei condominium was forced to send a legal letter to a property owner whose tenant hung laundry from the window ledge. The owner had to pay the management corporation back hundreds of dollars in legal fees and later decided to evict his tenant.
CKH Strata Management's Mr Chan recalls an occasion when he had to make a housecall to a laundry offender.
'The woman was adamant that was the only way to dry clothes. And she said she would face court action if necessary.'
Such tensions can skew the make-up of management councils.
Mr Poh Teng Ban, director of managing firm Ace Body Corporate Management, thinks that one of the weaknesses of the management corporation system is that a small number of people can hold a whole group to ransom.
The home owner with an axe to grind is always more motivated to canvass for support than those who do not have one.
With low turnouts a common feature at annual general meetings, a disgruntled and organised group can easily hijack proceedings and throw out a council so that things are done their way.
Residents who attend such meetings can also find themselves electing those with personal agendas.
Knight Frank's Mr Neo says: 'Some council members come in with the intention to do good, some come because they are a nobody at the workplace and think 'this is my castle and I want to be king'.'
Ms Julie Yeo, a businesswoman in her 60s who sat on the council of a small condo in the central area for three years, recalls how a fellow council member refused to pay the monthly $65 fee levied on those who park their second car in the estate. 'Word got around and the other owners, who were not on the council, refused to pay the fee as well,' she says.
There is still a stalemate, with the only people paying the fee being the condo's tenants.
Lawyer Amolat Singh, 53, who was a council member of Kentish Green in Oxford Road for six years, recounts how a council member gave guards trouble because they did not greet him whenever he went in and out of the estate.
He adds: 'There was another council member who wanted to store his spare furniture in the electrical room and, when told that he could not, blurted out 'then what is the point of being in the council?'.'
Creating awareness
ONE way to counter apathy and abuse is to clearly flag any emerging issues.
National University of Singapore real estate associate professor Alice Christudason suggests councils issue bi-monthly newsletters detailing problems on an estate and what they are doing about them.
'In this way, the home owners can gain a better understanding about the way the estate is being managed. They will be then more cooperative in relation to the actions being taken by the council,' she adds.
Given the diversity of opinions within each council, members could also appoint an individual spokesman from their ranks, suggests Mr Albert Cheng, 56, chairman of The Serenade@Holland condo council. This would mean only one person giving instructions to the managing agent, so that it can better deal with the contractors providing services to the estate.
This approach is best when it comes to balancing competing interests.
Take the case of The Tropica in Tampines. In recent years, residents of ground-floor units have erected trellises over their patios, citing safety concerns about litter dropped from higher floors. But this worried second-floor residents who felt the trellises could help intruders break into their units.
According to chairman Kenny Khoo, 40, the management council found the trellises could be deemed to breach building guidelines. But rather than force the removal of the trellises immediately, the council set up a question-and-answer session last week with a lawyer present, allowing residents to have their questions addressed.
Another suggestion being looked at is to get councils to share information more so that, for example, rogue contractors have fewer places to hide and best practices can be more widely adopted.
There has been limited progress made in this area though.
Amcis was formed in 2002 by a group of 200 estates banding together for economies of scale. And by 2006, it has about 300 estates.
The same year, however, it became entangled in an ugly dispute over its own financial management. Founder Francis Zhan, 65, was eventually fined $2,000 over forged signatures on cheques. Another council member, Mrs Constance Ames, suggests something more radical - that council duty be rotated among all home owners.
The retiree in her 50s is a council member of St Martin's Apartments off Orchard Road and also a council member of a Hong Kong development. The Hong Kong condo requires all home owners to take turns running the council for two years at a time.
'That is fair. It'd be good for smaller developments. They get to know one another, and also what problems the estate faces,' she says.
With few willing to step forward, council members have no choice but to stay on. The job, almost all say, is a thankless one.
Parc Oasis chairman Lim Taik Leong, 50, acts like a talent scout, seeking out neighbours to persuade them to try for a council post. Stepping down is out of the question until the condo is in safe hands.
'The council members have all known one another for a long time. We are friends. If you step down, it's like letting your friends down,' says Mr Lim.
'And if you step down, other people will step down.'
tanhy@...
But the residential and commercial building had no money to fix it, says its property manager Vijayen Nair. It was deep in debt of more than $200,000 after messy lawsuits involving disputes over its common area, and some of its apartment owners were withholding maintenance payments....
how can an MCST goes into debt? does it issue IOU notes, promissory notes etc?
can creditors sue MCST and declare MCST bankrupt?
what will happen if MCST declare bankrupt? all unit owners have to pay to clear the debt?
BlackKnight
20-06-13, 23:47
how can an MCST goes into debt? does it issue IOU notes, promissory notes etc?
can creditors sue MCST and declare MCST bankrupt?
what will happen if MCST declare bankrupt? all unit owners have to pay to clear the debt?
MCST goes into debt - can. Didn't pay for services. I guess they mean owing legal fees. $200k is a huge sum. That's the thing. It would be absolutely silly for the MC to sue its own SPs, using everybody's funds.
I am sure anyone can sue and declare someone bankrupt if debts are owed. In an MCST, a decision made by the council is deemed decision by the whole MCST. Therefore, technically speaking, arrears can be recovered from the SPs. The MCST is formed by all the SPs in that condo project.
If many SPs are withholding maintenance fees, then the MA is snoring. Or the council is also sleeping along.
To the minority 2-car owners of Parc Oasis, please bring your case before the STB. This is downright bullying. A 980 unit condo short of maintenance funds want the shortfall to fall on the shoulders of a few. The state of disrepair is not the fault of the few residents.
It is so obvious that some people have been hard at work, collecting proxies. Stinks.
There are some very good lawyers who are familiar with the BMSMA, eg, NLC Law Asia. They have won cases for SPs.
I have no dealings with them, and have never used them, but I had followed some of their cases.
The council has slept all these years. They should have forecasted and raise maintenance fees gradually.
There are so many ways to raise money, maintenance funds needs only an ordinary resolution to be carried, or a one time levy. Or, there are so many empty car park lots, they could think of renting them out to earn some money.
Why should a few people be punished?
This way of raising fees won't bring them very far, except to create a lot of animosity. People can sell away their cars, or just don't pay. There is nothing the council can do. In the end, send legal letters or bring them to court to recover the money? That would be stupid to throw good money after bad money.
Making people pay $100 or $150 per month is way too much. Even HDB does not discriminate against `1st car or 2nd car. So long there is empty lot, car owners will get a season parking ticket.
Please, the minority few, please bring this bunch of idiots to the STB.
If you are short of funds, someone among you, start a facebook for donations, I will also contribute. And it does not mean that if you lose, you will have to pay all legal costs. I know that kind of stupid resolution is always in the AGM, but it is a fallacy. It depends on who the court orders to pay.
Neighbours oppressing neighbours, neighbours punishing neighbours, what has become of our society
A bylaw passed, even unanimously, does not mean it cannot be challenged. It also does not mean the it cannot be rescinded.
My 2 cents is almost all condos these days charge second car levy. So parc oasis is already quite fortunate not to do so until now. However the quantum of the levy ($100 for second car) is a tat high. $50-70 would be easier to stomach.
but i dont think it qualifies as "bullying". Because the car levy collected from the few (even at $100) will not be significant enough to cover the deficit - which defeats the notion that the burden of the shortfall falls on those few owners with more than 1 car. Also they did raise the maintenance, which affects all, and this will cover the shortfall.
What happens if owner/s refuse to pay maintenance?
If all owners have more than 1 car. Car park cannot accomodate, what happens?
I heard owners at Centris 'earn' from visitors using the csrpark at jurong point. So probably those who have no cars or those with 1 car could offset their maintenance from those who has more than 1 cars. :D
What happens if developers kay siao didnt finish their obligation and handover to MCST? MCST will surely have to pay to make good. Example: anti skid on surface of carparks.
.....
I am sure anyone can sue and declare someone bankrupt if debts are owed. In an MCST, a decision made by the council is deemed decision by the whole MCST. Therefore, technically speaking, arrears can be recovered from the SPs. The MCST is formed by all the SPs in that condo project.
....
what you say is scary. if what you say is correct, ,then MCST is like a unlimited liability partnership.
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 12:10
what you say is scary. if what you say is correct, ,then MCST is like a unlimited liability partnership.
Not scary, but a fact. That is why be prudent, check your council members, and the MA. Keep them on their feet.
There are many, many condos in Singapore which puts only $10 in their sinking fund every month. $10 won't be enough for emergency large scale repairs. When it comes to levy, everyone won't vote for it. Pain.
Most council members are clueless.
My council "chairmeh" is an ang moh, a megalomaniac with a chip on his shoulders. He wants power and glory. But not sure if he knows what to do. The previous chairman had done a lot, unfortunately, he got manoeuvred out by a new bunch who wanted things done their way.
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 12:16
My 2 cents is almost all condos these days charge second car levy. So parc oasis is already quite fortunate not to do so until now. However the quantum of the levy ($100 for second car) is a tat high. $50-70 would be easier to stomach.
but i dont think it qualifies as "bullying". Because the car levy collected from the few (even at $100) will not be significant enough to cover the deficit - which defeats the notion that the burden of the shortfall falls on those few owners with more than 1 car. Also they did raise the maintenance, which affects all, and this will cover the shortfall.
The problem with Singaporeans is, "others do", therefore I also do. No one has challenged, everyone guai guai pays.
Why do you think it is ok to charge a few people more to subsidize others? What if a bylaw is passed that rental be collected from those who leave belongings in the common areas? That should be valid, right?
Or people who use the common facilities pay, each time they enter the swimming pool or book the courts? Because not everyone uses these facilities. Those who don't use should not pay.
I suggest people who think that everything is enforceable to familiarise themselves with the BMSMA.
Why did you think that the council member in the 2009 article mentioned that there is still a stalemate going on that people are refusing to pay for second car?
A council member cannot serve if he is in arrears, then why is he still serving in the council that he had refused to pay second car levy?
Where in Singapore law says that 2nd car must pay more? Even the HDB didn't have that rule.
I still urge the bullied minority at Parc Oasis to challenge the bylaw.
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 12:32
What happens if owner/s refuse to pay maintenance?
If all owners have more than 1 car. Car park cannot accomodate, what happens?
I heard owners at Centris 'earn' from visitors using the csrpark at jurong point. So probably those who have no cars or those with 1 car could offset their maintenance from those who has more than 1 cars. :D
What happens if developers kay siao didnt finish their obligation and handover to MCST? MCST will surely have to pay to make good. Example: anti skid on surface of carparks.
Not paying maintenance fees and levies is against the law. The MCST can recover the fees by bringing the SP to court, they can also recover by selling his flat, he will also lose his voting rights at all AGMs.
But despite that, there are still many recalcitrant people who don't mind paying the legal fees and late payment interests. Late payment interests can only be levied once. But all outstanding maintenance fees will be deducted from the proceeds of the sale of the property when they sell it.
As for developer not fulfilling obligations, there is also the law to go against them.
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 12:38
SPs who think that just because their neighbours who own more than one car should pay more maintenance fees have a big problem, a very unhealthy problem called RED EYE DISEASE or ENVY! The self-righteous, judgemental mentality. The law does not work that way.
In fact, if there are share values, those who own larger units already pay more. They should rightfully have more space. When it comes to enbloc, they get higher compensation as well. Notwithstanding, there is no reason for anyone to pay extra for the use of common areas, because they are already paying to maintain them.
Not scary, but a fact. That is why be prudent, check your council members, and the MA. Keep them on their feet.
There are many, many condos in Singapore which puts only $10 in their sinking fund every month. $10 won't be enough for emergency large scale repairs. When it comes to levy, everyone won't vote for it. Pain.
Most council members are clueless.
My council "chairmeh" is an ang moh, a megalomaniac with a chip on his shoulders. He wants power and glory. But not sure if he knows what to do. The previous chairman had done a lot, unfortunately, he got manoeuvred out by a new bunch who wanted things done their way.
so before buying resale condo for own stay, buyers really need to request for the statement of accounts from the agent or seller.
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 13:17
The best strategy for the PO 2-car owners is NOT to pay. Co-operate with each other, and don't pay. Let them sue at the STB. Let them test the law. But pay maintenance fees promptly.
Those who buy dual key technically only considered single unit with one parking lot but actually sold with the concept of 2 units rolled into one... how? 1 parking lot or 2? Those who bought penthouse has one unit but double storey for 2 families also considered one unit with 1 parking lot... Sigh! Best buy landed cluster house with 2 parking lots per unit! :spliff:
Many many years ago, in a RCR condo I owned, there was a council chairman who wanted to impose all sort of charges for usage of facilities, parking for 2nd car etc, main reason being he doesn't use them! Not only that, it seemed that contracts were always awarded to the same "familiar" few vendors who always so mysteriously were always able to quote at slightly lower price (at $50 or so) than the 2nd lowest quotes. Furthermore, he was very smart. He always raised the issue or some unfriendly charging policy and hope that other council members will follow through (which frequently happened) and then when it was introduced, it became the other council member's suggestion and effort and not his! As such, he was always the owners' friendly ones, the good guy who was against such "unfriendly" policy but he had no control as he was out-voted (as words I heard from a council member who knew his ruses and knew he said these to other owners), while the other council members became the "bad guys" for introducing all these "unfriendly" policies! :doh:
Not only that, the MA didn't do a good job but this chairman would always justify that the existing MA still did reasonable job and changing MA was undesirable as there need to be continuity. The council member I knew spilled that he believed that MA and that Chairman seem to support each other seamlessly, as though in cohort. MA would always be pushing issues and policies that the Chairman liked, without him having to be the bad guy! They seem to always support award to same group of familiar vendors!
I raise the above incident to let all know of such cases happened and would always be happening, and don't be the stupid ones to follow up on these hypocrat's suggestions! :rolleyes:
SPs who think that just because their neighbours who own more than one car should pay more maintenance fees have a big problem, a very unhealthy problem called RED EYE DISEASE or ENVY! The self-righteous, judgemental mentality. The law does not work that way.
In fact, if there are share values, those who own larger units already pay more. They should rightfully have more space. When it comes to enbloc, they get higher compensation as well. Notwithstanding, there is no reason for anyone to pay extra for the use of common areas, because they are already paying to maintain them.
Many many years ago, in a RCR condo I owned, there was a council chairman who wanted to impose all sort of charges for usage of facilities, parking for 2nd car etc, main reason being he doesn't use them! Not only that, it seemed that contracts were always awarded to the same "familiar" few vendors who always so mysteriously were always able to quote at slightly lower price (at $50 or so) than the 2nd lowest quotes. Furthermore, he was very smart. He always raised the issue or some unfriendly charging policy and hope that other council members will follow through (which frequently happened) and then when it was introduced, it became the other council member's suggestion and effort and not his! As such, he was always the owners' friendly ones, the good guy who was against such "unfriendly" policy but he had no control as he was out-voted (as words I heard from a council member who knew his ruses and knew he said these to other owners), while the other council members became the "bad guys" for introducing all these "unfriendly" policies! :doh:
Not only that, the MA didn't do a good job but this chairman would always justify that the existing MA still did reasonable job and changing MA was undesirable as there need to be continuity. The council member I knew spilled that he believed that MA and that Chairman seem to support each other seamlessly, as though in cohort. MA would always be pushing issues and policies that the Chairman liked, without him having to be the bad guy! They seem to always support award to same group of familiar vendors!
I raise the above incident to let all know of such cases happened and would always be happening, and don't be the stupid ones to follow up on these hypocrat's suggestions! :rolleyes:
What were you doing about it? :confused:
I sold that property and move on (I was much younger at that time and have no time to deal with them)...
Oh Yes, I forgot to mention that the chairman seemed to have some a support group of council members (his gang) to form a simple majority and they could always push through policies/by-laws they wanted (though the few of them were more quiet). To avoid more owners from joining as council members and spoiling their control of the Management Council, they purposely restricted the number of council members that can be elected during AGM so that they always have a simple majority vote to win all resolutions/motions being discussed in council meetings!
However, now I am very free. If such thing happens again, I would use their ruses and apply back to them:
- Find evidences to cast doubts on what they are doing
- Get other owners to out-vote them during AGM when they try to restrict the number of council members
- Grab the Chairman-ship with the help of kaki-council members (like he did), sack the MA, revamp the Management Council, scrutinize all their "preferred" vendors and ensure other vendors' lowest quotes are not being leaked to these "preferred" vendors.
- Emphasize & act on transparency and accountability so that they cannot continue to play their same old game... :simmering:
What were you doing about it? :confused:
darkseed73
21-06-13, 15:29
The best strategy for the PO 2-car owners is NOT to pay. Co-operate with each other, and don't pay. Let them sue at the STB. Let them test the law. But pay maintenance fees promptly.
:doh: I am not sure why ppl can spend few hundred k to buy a car yet expect free parking and wants to "fight" about such things.
If u stay in HDB and u own more then 1 car, money may not even buy u a lot did you know that? Just becos there is free lot, doesn't mean everyone is entitled more then one.
What if yowetan buy 10 vans to store his things in carpark? Since parking is free and buying a van to store things is totally legit?
There is too much grey area when u allow this and that especially when car is a personal item.
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 15:50
Teddybear, what you have posted is very real.
There are many people like that. They sit in the council with personal agendas. They always have the same few people, like an exclusive club, and they run the place like as if they own it.
I know of a council which had one lawyer in it. She comes up with all kinds of stupid rules, and the people blindly vote for them. And guess who is the biggest culprit in flouting the rules in the Act?
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 15:54
:doh: I am not sure why ppl can spend few hundred k to buy a car yet expect free parking and wants to "fight" about such things.
If u stay in HDB and u own more then 1 car, money may not even buy u a lot did you know that? Just becos there is free lot, doesn't mean everyone is entitled more then one.
What if yowetan buy 10 vans to store his things in carpark? Since parking is free and buying a van to store things is totally legit?
There is too much grey area when u allow this and that especially when car is a personal item.
The difference between HDB and condos:
(a) HDB - you only own the space within the 4 walls.
You buy a season parking ticket which allows you to "rent" a space for your car. The "rental" goes towards the maintenance of that lot also.
(b) Condos - you own the space within the 4 walls, PLUS, collectively own the common areas.
You already own the space, and you also already pay for the maintenance of that space from your maintenance fees. So why is there a need to pay again?
You may ask, why maintenance fees increase, even if I did not agree, but 50% of the majority agree, I must also pay? That is the law of equal misery. Because everyone pays the same.
As for 2nd car - those who voted for it do not pay. It is forced onto those who do not want to pay. This is oppression, and is not how the law works.
Therefore, even if you own a $5m car, it is a matter of principle, that people should still be treated equally.
Therefore, those affected by such unfair rules should not pay. There is really nothing much they can do.
That is why I said in an earlier post, not a smart way to raise money. This will not be a continuous revenue stream. Those who do not want to fight, can park their car elsewhere, or can sell their car, so no more revenue. Unlike maintenance fees, so long you own the property there, you must pay,
even if you don't live in it.
If u stay in HDB and u own more then 1 car, money may not even buy u a lot did you know that? Just becos there is free lot, doesn't mean everyone is entitled more then one.
Glad you brought up this point. If a condo has fewer lots than cars, will money, ie, paying a huge sum, get you a lot? Same, right? The solution will still be people have to either (a) park elsewhere, (b) sell their car, or (c) move out. By the way, the common areas are not free. The SPs own them, and have already paid for in maintaining them.
The solution for the MCST would be taking turns to use the lots. I know of one condo which does this very, very well. They have a queue, everyone has a turn every one month. No need to fight.
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 15:59
What if yowetan buy 10 vans to store his things in carpark? Since parking is free and buying a van to store things is totally legit?
There is too much grey area when u allow this and that especially when car is a personal item.
You example is a little extreme although it can happen. But who would buy 10 vans to store things, when it is cheaper, far cheaper to go rent a space from Lock N Key or StorIt! They have to pay 10 road taxes, 10 insurance renewals each year. Not worth it lah.
And you rightfully said, that a car is a personal belonging, so do you pay a "levy" to bring a personal belonging home?
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 16:07
so before buying resale condo for own stay, buyers really need to request for the statement of accounts from the agent or seller.
Very wise. Include a clause in your OTP, ask for a copy of the MCST statement from your seller. Ask if there are levies or intention to levy. Ask for the minutes of the last AGM.
Check too, if there are any ongoing disputes. You don't want to walk into one like PO, of 101 apartments in Beach Road.
Very soon, it will be a buyers' market. Do your homework.
Sharing two cases in my condo :
case one :
a second car dealer
case two :
a resident owning a company with >5 cars, and he wants to park all 5
so, MCST imposed charges....
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 20:07
Sharing two cases in my condo :
case one :
a second car dealer
case two :
a resident owning a company with >5 cars, and he wants to park all 5
so, MCST imposed charges....
Good one.
Firstly, if there are more than enough car parks, use the unused lots to earn some money from outsiders, for the estate. PO should take a leaf from you.
Secondly, only cars belonging to, and registered in the name of SPs/residents living in the condo can park in the estate. All else is trespassing.
Even in HDB u pay for 2nd lot, although there might be unused lots.
Overturning the passed resolution will be tough, but not impossible. You just need to canvass for support and votes. If go the legal and BCA route, then just be prepared to pay.
end of day just weigh the pros and cons.
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 21:47
Even in HDB u pay for 2nd lot, although there might be unused lots.
HDB pay for even the first lot, which is fair, because HDB dwellers do not own the car parking space. Second car no extra levy subject to availability.
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 21:49
Overturning the passed resolution will be tough, but not impossible. You just need to canvass for support and votes. If go the legal and BCA route, then just be prepared to pay.
end of day just weigh the pros and cons.
Not true that overturning is difficult. No need votes. There is provision for SPs to do so.
But, the best strategy is to just not pay, wait for them to make the first move.
All affected SPs co-operate, don't pay.
There is nothing that anyone can do.
That is why even council members in other condos who do not support also won't pay.
It won't go to BCA, but to the STB. Not necessary must pay. Depends on the court order.
HDB pay for even the first lot, which is fair, because HDB dwellers do not own the car parking space. Second car no extra levy subject to availability.
V interesting, but this might not be how HDB parking works :beats-me-man:
What happens if owner/s refuse to pay maintenance?
If all owners have more than 1 car. Car park cannot accomodate, what happens?
I heard owners at Centris 'earn' from visitors using the csrpark at jurong point. So probably those who have no cars or those with 1 car could offset their maintenance from those who has more than 1 cars. :D
What happens if developers kay siao didnt finish their obligation and handover to MCST? MCST will surely have to pay to make good. Example: anti skid on surface of carparks.So don't anyhow take over before doing a thorough check on the development... once taken over, all repair cost falls on you.... :banghead:
BlackKnight
21-06-13, 22:42
V interesting, but this might not be how HDB parking works :beats-me-man:
Care to enlighten?
Here is the website for HDB parking:
http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10327p.nsf/w/CarPark1NewSP?OpenDocument#Allocation
There is even a Family season parking scheme at 50% discount:
http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10327p.nsf/w/CarPark1FSPT?OpenDocument
Not true that overturning is difficult. No need votes. There is provision for SPs to do so.
But, the best strategy is to just not pay, wait for them to make the first move.
All affected SPs co-operate, don't pay.
There is nothing that anyone can do.
That is why even council members in other condos who do not support also won't pay.
It won't go to BCA, but to the STB. Not necessary must pay. Depends on the court order.
okay, good luck. :)
Care to enlighten?
Here is the website for HDB parking:
http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10327p.nsf/w/CarPark1NewSP?OpenDocument#Allocation
There is even a Family season parking scheme at 50% discount:
http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10327p.nsf/w/CarPark1FSPT?OpenDocument
You have to pay close to $100 p.m. for your 1st car sheltered lot, 2nd car is also another $100 p.m. and so on. There is no such thing as 1st car parks for free like in condo. So the arrangement in Parc Oasis is similar to every HDB household pays conservancy charges for common areas, but if you want to park more cars, you pay for it. It was once commented by many that if you factor in the use of facilities and first free parking lot, condo households actually pay a lot less than HDB households.
You have to pay close to $100 p.m. for your 1st car sheltered lot, 2nd car is also another $100 p.m. and so on. There is no such thing as 1st car parks for free like in condo. So the arrangement in Parc Oasis is similar to every HDB household pays conservancy charges for common areas, but if you want to park more cars, you pay for it. It was once commented by many that if you factor in the use of facilities and first free parking lot, condo households actually pay a lot less than HDB households.Depending on which condo. Some condos asking only $2xx/mth including parking so that might be pretty cheap but still more expensive than HDB of $80 conservancy + $90 parking = $170/mth. Some condos paying $4xx/mth leh. :scared-2:
Office Boy contribute late!
This is the difference between OCR and CCR condos.
There is something which layman cannot quantify ~ standard of living and standard of people.
Office Boy stay OCR condos before, you just got to live with strange people. I overheard in carparks where one auntie tells another :"Next time, or anytime, you bring your families over la! Can use the swimming pool and other facilities ~ all FREE one! Because we already pay maint every month ma! And not cheap leh! So we want to open up these to all of you! Come come ok? Dont need pai seh, use as much as you all can!"
Hope the above can shed some light on this issue.
If still got doubt, you can always ask Barbarella, Lulu and Leticia!
DKSG
BlackKnight
22-06-13, 13:52
You have to pay close to $100 p.m. for your 1st car sheltered lot, 2nd car is also another $100 p.m. and so on. There is no such thing as 1st car parks for free like in condo. So the arrangement in Parc Oasis is similar to every HDB household pays conservancy charges for common areas, but if you want to park more cars, you pay for it. It was once commented by many that if you factor in the use of facilities and first free parking lot, condo households actually pay a lot less than HDB households.
Ok, my bad. I didn't mean park for free. I meant, first car, must pay, second car also pay, but no tiered payment.
But cannot agree with your explanation on PO. Maintenance is already paid by all households of the common areas. No reason why must pay extra. No one there is denied a lot. The SPs already collectively own the common area.
Even if not a single soul owns a car, all the SPs must still maintain it.
As for HDB car parks, they are not owned by the HDB dwellers, but by either HDB or URA. Different. The HDB dwellers do not pay for their maintenance.
BlackKnight
22-06-13, 14:10
Ok, my bad. I didn't mean park for free. I meant, first car, must pay, second car also pay, but no tiered payment.
I am referring to HDB car parks.
darkseed73
22-06-13, 23:36
Office Boy contribute late!
This is the difference between OCR and CCR condos.
There is something which layman cannot quantify ~ standard of living and standard of people.
Office Boy stay OCR condos before, you just got to live with strange people. I overheard in carparks where one auntie tells another :"Next time, or anytime, you bring your families over la! Can use the swimming pool and other facilities ~ all FREE one! Because we already pay maint every month ma! And not cheap leh! So we want to open up these to all of you! Come come ok? Dont need pai seh, use as much as you all can!"
Hope the above can shed some light on this issue.
If still got doubt, you can always ask Barbarella, Lulu and Leticia!
DKSG
Officeboy: that is becos OCR usually are HDB upgraders which means their friends are all staying/continue to stay in HDB, so to prevent ppl from saying u move to condo liao haolian, that is a courteous speech.
Those in CCR, their friends probably all ready stay in condo or landed. U tell them "come use my pool" the friends probably say "I think my pool is bigger then yours" lol
Thus we cannot blame the aunties lar. Different group of friends mah.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.