View Full Version : Couple suing EC developer for fraud over 20 sqm of space
rymccondo77
21-10-13, 23:23
From Channel News Asia:
http://www.channelnewsasia.com/news/singapore/couple-suing-condo/855928.html
==============================================
A Singaporean couple suing a condominium developer for fraud over 20 square metres of space is being sued in turn.
Poh Her Chiew and Ling Mee Chow, both in their 40s, claim the developer misled them into thinking they were buying an executive condominium unit with a floor area of 167 square metres at Blossom Residences.
They said the actual area should be 147 square metres, as there is 20 square metres' worth of space rendered void.
The unit was priced at S$1.12 million.
Blossom Residences is a project that is still under construction by Grand Isle Holdings Pte Ltd.
Grand Isle Holdings is a subsidiary of City Developments Limited.
The couple's lawsuit states that the developer and its estate agent, ERA, had left out the fact about the void space in the sale brochure and documents bundled with the Option to Purchase (OTP).
It said the issue was only revealed several weeks later in the Sale & Purchase agreement.
The couple then chose not to exercise the OTP and sued the developer.
They wanted to seek repeal of the OTP and damages for wasted expenses and opportunity loss.
Their income has risen higher than the S$12,000 ceiling and this means they are ineligible to buy an alternative executive condominium unit.
While this lawsuit is to be heard in the High Court from Wednesday, the defendant is expected to bring a counterclaim against the buyers on the same day.
This is for under-declaring their monthly income by S$370.
The lawyer representing the developer is expected to ask the court to rule that the buyers forfeit the entire sum of Option Monies of more than S$56,000.
This includes the S$42,000 refunded to the buyers when they did not exercise the OTP.
The buyers are represented by Vijay Kumar Rai of Arbiters Inc Law Corporation, and the developer by Senior Counsel Ang Cheng Hock of Allen & Gledhill.
==============================================
This floor plan? Cant see where is the so called 20sqm void...
http://www.cdl.com.sg/blossomresidences/pdf/b2ph1.pdf
aircon ledge? I think its a case of under declare salary realized cannot run away. instead of loosing the 56K sue to hope to get back the $.
as usual only 1 winner...the lawyer:2cents:
This floor plan? Cant see where is the so called 20sqm void...
http://www.cdl.com.sg/blossomresidences/pdf/b2ph1.pdf
yeah, looks like a pretty standard layout. and no surveyor to ascertan that the sf is smaller by 20sqm cos there is no finish product to survey. doen't look like they have muchof a case.
they should feel lucky there's no RC ledge already.
My friend who bought a 1700+ sqft at Trizon is even more shocking when he moved in and realised that he is paying for a lot of non-utilisation / non-physical space like super-large balcony, double volume space with the mezzanine computed in the floor area, etc.:doh:
This floor plan? Cant see where is the so called 20sqm void...
http://www.cdl.com.sg/blossomresidences/pdf/b2ph1.pdf
the staircase n the empty space is considered void space? thats what my 1loft 9sqm void space which i m paying for is located.
My friend who bought a 1700+ sqft at Trizon is even more shocking when he moved in and realised that he is paying for a lot of non-utilisation / non-physical space like super-large balcony, double volume space with the mezzanine computed in the floor area, etc.:doh:
buy condo is like buying stocks... aunty at kopitiam tell u genting good then u buy? after that lose money want to blame the aunty?
like bro radha say... the only person who gain is the lawyer.
end of the day the plaintiff sure lose big big.. be it 1% or 5% or lawyer fee. citidev only take out 0.001% of their profit to play along
My friend who bought a 1700+ sqft at Trizon is even more shocking when he moved in and realised that he is paying for a lot of non-utilisation / non-physical space like super-large balcony, double volume space with the mezzanine computed in the floor area, etc.:doh:
I quite like the balcony actually. Can double up as dinning area.
thomastansb
22-10-13, 10:00
Sound like Aristo.
My friend who bought a 1700+ sqft at Trizon is even more shocking when he moved in and realised that he is paying for a lot of non-utilisation / non-physical space like super-large balcony, double volume space with the mezzanine computed in the floor area, etc.:doh:
I quite like the balcony actually. Can double up as dinning area.
yes, not only dining area, it is also my kids playing area, my gardening area, I love balcony
bargain hunter
22-10-13, 10:05
could it be the part where they marked "high ceiling"?
that could mean the whole living and dining area (similar to what bro DC had mentioned with regards to trizon double volume air space).
however, CDL is indeed quite vague in this floor plan.
but i think this was before the new regulations on clearer floor plans. its also before the "high ceiling build loft craze" caught on. most people would be unaware that "high ceiling" means double counted air space unless specifically told.
This floor plan? Cant see where is the so called 20sqm void...
http://www.cdl.com.sg/blossomresidences/pdf/b2ph1.pdf
could it be the part where they marked "high ceiling"?
that could mean the whole living and dining area (similar to what bro DC had mentioned with regards to trizon double volume air space).
however, CDL is indeed quite vague in this floor plan.
but i think this was before the new regulations on clearer floor plans. its also before the "high ceiling build loft craze" caught on. most people would be unaware that "high ceiling" means double counted air space unless specifically told.
could you please explain?
Do you mean we need to pay for air space?
bargain hunter
22-10-13, 10:41
i can only say my interpretation which may be right or wrong. need to consult URA to actual answer.
my very simplistic interpretation is 3.7m ceilings which allow developers to build furniture decks (otherwise known as lofts, a disallowed term) that airspace is not calculated. when a ceiling can fit in 2 storey (ie 5m and above) and u can build a real loft, that airspace will need to be paid for. that's what i have seen at showflats.
so everyone, please ask the agent. grill him/her whether u r paying for airspace or not.
could you please explain?
Do you mean we need to pay for air space?
TravieJackie
22-10-13, 10:47
I thought apl the the developers like that. Sell you total total space inclusive of those that cannot be utilized. Some will indicated usable space but most won't.
bargain hunter
22-10-13, 11:19
cannot be utilised space like a/c ledge etc at least u can see and touch if u want. air space, its better to explain clearly so that buyer knows what he/she is buying.
I thought apl the the developers like that. Sell you total total space inclusive of those that cannot be utilized. Some will indicated usable space but most won't.
cannot be utilised space like a/c ledge etc at least u can see and touch if u want. air space, its better to explain clearly so that buyer knows what he/she is buying.
Yes I think today's Straits Times Report had reported that the dispute arose over the air space. No doubt CDL's floor plan (as per earlier postings) is indeed v v vague. Boo boo..... :doh:
could it be the part where they marked "high ceiling"?
that could mean the whole living and dining area (similar to what bro DC had mentioned with regards to trizon double volume air space).
however, CDL is indeed quite vague in this floor plan.
but i think this was before the new regulations on clearer floor plans. its also before the "high ceiling build loft craze" caught on. most people would be unaware that "high ceiling" means double counted air space unless specifically told.
I think you are spot on, thats where the 20sqm void is. Even if they let u build a platform over it, the platform can only be as big as 5 sqm.
bargain hunter
22-10-13, 14:29
is this a rule? only 25% of airspace can be used to build a platform?
i was of the impression that if u paid for the airspace, u can apply to get approval to build a big platform over it.
I think you are spot on, thats where the 20sqm void is. Even if they let u build a platform over it, the platform can only be as big as 5 sqm.
i can only say my interpretation which may be right or wrong. need to consult URA to actual answer.
my very simplistic interpretation is 3.7m ceilings which allow developers to build furniture decks (otherwise known as lofts, a disallowed term) that airspace is not calculated. when a ceiling can fit in 2 storey (ie 5m and above) and u can build a real loft, that airspace will need to be paid for. that's what i have seen at showflats.
so everyone, please ask the agent. grill him/her whether u r paying for airspace or not.
yishun nine residences.. they got loft. but airspace is free. that was what the agent told me.
bargain hunter
22-10-13, 15:22
yes. ceiling should be below 5m?
around 3.7m ceiling, airspace is free. that's why i said. they cannot call it loft. its disallowed. it should rightfully be called furniture deck.
yishun nine residences.. they got loft. but airspace is free. that was what the agent told me.
is this a rule? only 25% of airspace can be used to build a platform?
i was of the impression that if u paid for the airspace, u can apply to get approval to build a big platform over it.
I think rule is max 5sqm of platform per unit.
http://www.singaporelawwatch.sg/slw/headlinesnews/32055-couple-sue-developer-over-condo-floor-area.html?utm_source=rss%20subscription&utm_medium=rss
yes. ceiling should be below 5m?
around 3.7m ceiling, airspace is free. that's why i said. they cannot call it loft. its disallowed. it should rightfully be called furniture deck.
i rememmber it's something like 4.2m or thereabouts... they call it loft but watever u call it, it looks quite nice esp when it's free! :)
bargain hunter
22-10-13, 21:55
4.2m is decent if its free. :)
i rememmber it's something like 4.2m or thereabouts... they call it loft but watever u call it, it looks quite nice esp when it's free! :)
proud owner
23-10-13, 00:36
I quite like the balcony actually. Can double up as dinning area.
the only condo I know that can safely turn the balcony into an el fresco is Regency Park ... good size
the other big balcony condos ... the balconies are neither here nor there ...
some have large L shape balcony ...
some are large enough to place a couple of outdoor seatings .. but not dining table and chairs
the only condo I know that can safely turn the balcony into an el fresco is Regency Park ... good size
the other big balcony condos ... the balconies are neither here nor there ...
some have large L shape balcony ...
some are large enough to place a couple of outdoor seatings .. but not dining table and chairs
Once you deck out the planter box, its actually quite spacious, especially for those 4 bedder with regular rectangular shape balcony.
http://cdn-sg2.pgimgs.com/images/thumb/5/3/7/8/5378cb30150850_1_V550.jpg
http://cdn-sg2.pgimgs.com/images/thumb/3/a/f/f/3affee39771528_1_V550.jpg
provided your area no 小飞飞 that will "geh-liao" into your dinner
astroboy8681
23-10-13, 14:42
al fresco dining within own abode is catching up quickly in Singapore.
Small area can hold afternoon tea/pastry session for 2-4 whereas big balconies can easily accommodate more where host likes to entertain friends/colleagues and relatives likewise...
hence i'm incredulously puzzled by someone who's habitat is four walls, a war screen and keyboard to hammer would poke his long nose on al fresco dining topic :beats-me-man:
i mean with a persona like that 24/7 behind that warring screen, what's the point of a balcony or even planter per se???
maybe to hang a punching sand bag as a stress buster at the balcony couldn't be more apt for him :D
*peace* friendly detractor
http://www.straitstimes.com/archive/tuesday/premium/singapore/story/couple-sue-developer-over-condo-floor-area-20131022
Couple sue developer over condo floor area
They say they're misled into buying EC of smaller size, file suit over $1m
Published on Oct 22, 2013
By Selina Lum
A COUPLE has sued a developer claiming they had been misled into buying an executive condominium (EC) with a floor area of 167 sq m when in fact the unit had a floor area of only 147 sq m.
The penthouse unit at Blossom Residences in Bukit Panjang has a second-floor rooftop terrace over the first floor except the living and dining area, which has a high ceiling of 4.2m.
The 20 sq m area in question is the empty space not taken up by the rooftop terrace.
The couple, who paid $56,050 for an option to purchase the $1.1 million unit, have sued condo developer Grand Isle Holdings, a subsidiary of City Developments Limited (CDL), for damages.
Mr Toh Her Chiew, 42, an IT manager and Madam Ling Mee Chow, 43, an accountant, are seeking more than $1 million for the lost opportunity to buy another EC as their income now exceeds the $12,000 eligibility ceiling.
However, the developer maintains that there was no misrepresentation on its part.
"As a reputable developer, it takes a serious view of the allegations and will vigorously defend these claims," said a CDL spokesman in a statement.
The developer notes the couple had under-declared their combined income by $370 when applying to buy the EC.
CDL says its marketing agent had highlighted to the couple that the unit came with a high ceiling over the living and dining area; this was also reflected in the sales brochure.
The developer says the option to purchase signed by the couple clearly stated the area of 167 sq m included the air-conditioner ledge, roof terrace and void.
An eight-day hearing into the case is scheduled to start on Wednesday in the High Court.
In September 2011, the couple visited the sales gallery for the EC, planning to upgrade from their five-room HDB flat.
They decided to buy the penthouse unit, paid $56,050 as the booking fee and signed an option to purchase.
About two months later, the couple complained.
They say they learnt about the void space only after going through documents that were sent to them together with the sales and purchase agreement.
The couple decided not to exercise the option to purchase. As per their agreement, the developer refunded them 75 per cent of the booking fee, which came to about $42,000.
In their lawsuit, the couple allege that the sales agent from ERA Realty Network, hired by the developer to market the condo, had misrepresented to them that the unit had a "built-in area" of 167 sq m.
The couple, represented by Mr Vijay Kumar Rai, say that the agent hid or omitted to mention the existence of the void space, which made about 12 per cent of the unit's total area unusable.
The developer, represented by Senior Counsel Ang Cheng Hock, says the agent did not use the term "built-in area" but told the couple the "size" of the unit was 167 sq m, which was true.
CDL is now seeking the return of the $42,000 which it had refunded to the couple, on the grounds that they had falsely declared their income.
[email protected]
Didn't CDL know that the couple underclaim their income in the beginning? how do they know now? Is there any wrong-doing in the CDL sale process?
This couple also like to complain. They know they are not clean-handed, yet still want to make everything open to the public.
Whatever the case, looks like tough times for CDL...The Sail residents also up in arms with them...The couple perhaps is trying to capitalize on this...maybe get CDL to settle:doh:
Didn't CDL know that the couple underclaim their income in the beginning? how do they know now? Is there any wrong-doing in the CDL sale process?
This couple also like to complain. They know they are not clean-handed, yet still want to make everything open to the public.
you though CDL don't want sales ? they want quickly sell off their units, then say "100% sold, thank you for your support", why wait, wait for durian drop ? don't know what tactic they use lah .... after that kena complain here complain there .....
yishun nine residences.. they got loft. but airspace is free. that was what the agent told me.
if it is a loft concept, it is unlikely to be free. should be built into the pricing somewhere, somehow.
having said so, the couple never read the floor plan carefully before committing??! novice or not, 20sqm is a pretty big space to miss out on.
if it is a loft concept, it is unlikely to be free. should be built into the pricing somewhere, somehow.
absolutely. where got free lunch in sgp, esp with ppty launch.
absolutely. where got free lunch in sgp, esp with ppty launch.
Singaporean mentality mah. every bloody thing must also be free. Coz now many have the entitlement mentality.
if it is a loft concept, it is unlikely to be free. should be built into the pricing somewhere, somehow.
having said so, the couple never read the floor plan carefully before committing??! novice or not, 20sqm is a pretty big space to miss out on.
If someone really want to cheat, they will cheat. Same thing if floor plan hide the details and it was marketed to you w/o even mention about void, will you know ? No wonder now the rules to draw up floor plan, breakdown of floor areas and showflat must match WYSIWYG, at least buyers are protected from cheated by this....
Actually, if a person is a novice, they won't even know what is "loft", what is "void space" that they need to pay etc...
Developers used to give out full-detail dimension floorplans and price list of all units for transparency.
However, the same developer all now don't give out full-detail dimension floorplans and price list of all units anymore!
Why? I suppose it is not wrong to say they want to hide these dimensions information?
if it is a loft concept, it is unlikely to be free. should be built into the pricing somewhere, somehow.
having said so, the couple never read the floor plan carefully before committing??! novice or not, 20sqm is a pretty big space to miss out on.
The ERA sales agent must be in hot soup with CDL, for sure his ass kena fired by CDL.
I'm not sure if the mere statement that "built-in area is 167 sqm" constitutes misrepresentation per-se. Sure, the agent did not mention the 20sqm void space: the legal issue should be - whether the agent is under a positive duty to advice the buyers of such matters.
My guess is that the court will not impose a positive burden on the housing agent to specifically mention to potential buyers that all the air-con ledge, balconies, planters will be xx sqm. It is for the buyers to peruse the floor plans and all other documents that I believe are available to them when they pay the Option monies at the showflat.
You don't commit & pay Option money & merrily sign the documents first, then go back home to read through the documents. Buyers are duty bound to read through the documents first, satisfy themselves on all matters, only then commit to the purchase & pay the Option money. :banghead:
The only legal question remains then: 1) whether the relevant documents were available to the buyers for their inspection when they were at the showflat, before they paid the option money.
2) Under URA & BCA regulations, are the developers obliged to disclose the actual size of the non-usable space upfront to potential buyers at the showflat under the relevant laws?
If someone really want to cheat, they will cheat. Same thing if floor plan hide the details and it was marketed to you w/o even mention about void, will you know ? No wonder now the rules to draw up floor plan, breakdown of floor areas and showflat must match WYSIWYG, at least buyers are protected from cheated by this....
as a potential buyer, won't you ask and conduct due diligence? if this was a cheating case, there should be a class action from buyers of the PHs.
can't just shift the blame when the buyer hasn't done his homework
Actually, if a person is a novice, they won't even know what is "loft", what is "void space" that they need to pay etc...
Developers used to give out full-detail dimension floorplans and price list of all units for transparency.
However, the same developer all now don't give out full-detail dimension floorplans and price list of all units anymore!
Why? I suppose it is not wrong to say they want to hide these dimensions information?
i don't think brochures contain detailed floorplans and price list. hence, i would always ask questions till i'm satisfied. since the floorplan is to scale, i can roughly gauge the area size too.
My guess is if the current regulations do not require developers to disclose in a written document upfront to buyers the size of all non-usable areas, the Court will throw out the case (maybe CDL will also win the counter-suit) & pass the ball back to the government to look into amendment of the legislation if govt thinks further measures are needed to protect buyers' interest.
Since a law firm is typically employed by the developers to assist them in preparation of all legal documentation in the launch, and CDL being a seasoned bird, they are unlikely to overlook such important regulatory requirement, if there is indeed one.
The court cannot usurp govt's role in making laws & regulations if such laws and regulations are not currently in place.
My guess is if the current regulations do not require developers to disclose in a written document upfront to buyers the size of all non-usable areas, the Court will throw out the case (maybe CDL will also win the counter-suit) & pass the ball back to the government to look into amendment of the legislation if govt thinks further measures are needed to protect buyers' interest.
Since a law firm is typically employed by the developers to assist them in preparation of all legal documentation in the launch, and CDL being a seasoned bird, they are unlikely to overlook such important regulatory requirement, if there is indeed one.
The court cannot usurp govt's role in making laws & regulations if such laws and regulations are not currently in place.
it isn't required. listing all details is tedious and has no much benefit to a lay person. besides, everything listed in the brochure has an acceptable margin of error too.
the couple has no case unless the floorplan and documents state specifically otherwise
just a commentary on mindset.
people work 1 month to earn that $12k.
and yet not willing to spend time to do the homework. just spend maybe 2hour? to sign otp 5% of $60k, that's like 5 months of work.
and if cancel otp, lose $12k, that is one month's worth of their salary.
when i see returned units, i only shake my head, how many months of their salaries wasted for that "spur-of-the-moment" decision?
does people actually cherish the time and sweat wasted to earn that 3.75% foregone?
when i see low wage workers smoking away a big part of their income, i also shake my head.
Something amiss. If the void place is not a balcony, planter or air-con ledge and truly void I.e not for even standing, see through area than it should not be included as floor area at all.
just a commentary on mindset.
when i see low wage workers smoking away a big part of their income, i also shake my head.
i used to think that too. just like how they can splurge like $100-200 on 4D/toto, when the salary only 1k or so. then as i grew older and wiser, i realised that in their life, nothing pretty much will change. salary will not increase, life is the same day in day out with nothing much to look forward to.
with that mindset, you realise that smoke or 4d (hope) is what little there is left in life to look fwd/enjoy. then, maybe, it makes some sense after all.
i used to think that too. just like how they can splurge like $100-200 on 4D/toto, when the salary only 1k or so. then as i grew older and wiser, i realised that in their life, nothing pretty much will change. salary will not increase, life is the same day in day out with nothing much to look forward to.
with that mindset, you realise that smoke or 4d (hope) is what little there is left in life to look fwd/enjoy. then, maybe, it makes some sense after all.
for 4d/toto, at least they buy a hope. smoking? that's asking for death
Something amiss. If the void place is not a balcony, planter or air-con ledge and truly void I.e not for even standing, see through area than it should not be included as floor area at all.
precisely! unless the documents show otherwise, it just shows that the buyers were careless
creative_vitamin
31-10-13, 14:50
precisely! unless the documents show otherwise, it just shows that the buyers were careless
this is normal for penthouse
this is normal for penthouse
it is also normal for developers to list only built space as part of the floor area. if the unit is marketed as a loft, then it is a legit to include the supposed loft area.
CDL ... what a big and rich giant .. but if you really abused the power you should face the music ... sources confirmed that the case will continue in early April ... you have been watch by the whole world on how this case will end... bravo to the couple ...
From most showflats I had seen, either the developer charged buyer directly for the airspace or bundled into the psf. Other penthouse buyers seemed to accept this except for the couple.
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.