SGHOUSING.COM 新加坡房地产网

MS SUSAN Prior’s letter, ‘En bloc sales eroding our sense of kampung’ (March 17), about the sense of kampung in condominiums is certainly not overstated. The kampung spirit in condominiums is very much better than in HDB estates where residents hardly interact with each other.

In fact, all en-bloc sales are motivated by greed, worsened by en-bloc speculators who hope to make quick profits by flipping the properties without any feelings for the residents who do not want to sell. It is a load of rubbish to say that enbloc is good for rejuvenation of an estate. In this regard, I would suggest that the Government raise the percentage of approval required from the present 80 per cent to 90 per cent in order to protect the interests of the minority owners.

William Tay Kay Chiak

Source : Straits Times - 29 Mar 2008

MR K.S. RAJAH’S letter, ‘Right to hold property guaranteed by law’ (March 20), rebuts Ms Susan Prior’s comment in an earlier letter, ‘En bloc sales eroding our sense of kampung’ (March 17), that ‘your home is not really your home’.

Mr Rajah’s interpretation that ‘the right to acquire, hold and dispose of property is enshrined in the Constitution…’ may well be correct in the case of properties that are freehold, or even 999-year leasehold. But can the same be said to apply where leases are of only 99-year tenure, straddling barely a couple of generations, as is typical of public housing and many private estates, like the one where I am residing, with a quarter of the lease already run out?

Seen in this latter context, anybody who has made payment on such a leasehold property can be said to have not much more than what used at one time to be known as ’squatting rights’, and would be liable to eviction when the lease expires. In the very early 1950’s, the 100-year lease to the site of where Malayan Banking presently stands in Battery Road was on the point of expiry, and failed to attract a bid when put up for auction owing to the uncertainty of an extension by the authorities. This is the likely scenario when these 99-year leases also wind down. Ms Prior may therefore not be altogether wrong to think, and feel, that ‘your home is not really your home’.

Narayana Narayana

Source : Straits Times - 29 Mar 2008

Firm files claim for $4,000 against flat owners… and loses
WHY should you pay for service which you never received?

That was what a family in Ang Mo Kio asked when they refused to pay their housing agent because the latter allegedly failed to help them sell their flat.

But the real estate company said it was the family that did not want to proceed with the deal after it had found a buyer.

The company filed a claim against them at the Small Claims Tribunal for its commission of about $4,000 in January.

More than 1 1/2 years after the family hired the agent to sell their three-room flat, the case was settled, on 17 Mar.

The tribunal ordered the family to pay the realtor just $250 - half the $500 option fee received from the potential buyer.

The order was met with relief by fishmonger Tan Tian Siong, 60, and his wife, Madam Hong Yin Ching, 48, who said they put their home up for sale because of severe financial difficulties.

The couple, who have a combined monthly income of $700, have three children.

Their 21-year-old son is intellectually disabled, while their 8-year-old son was born with a cleft lip and his right arm had to be amputated at the elbow when he was 3, after an illness.

Their 22-year-old daughter is in polytechnic and the money from the sale of the flat was meant to pay for her education.

Said Madam Hong in Mandarin: ‘We’re so glad it’s finally over. It was so stressful.’

The real estate company, ERA Realty Network, said it had claimed the commission as it had secured a ready and willing buyer for the flat.

But Mr Eugene Lim, ERA’s assistant vice-president, said the company accepted the tribunal’s decision.

The saga started in August 2006, when the Tans hired ERA agent Jeremy Ang, and put their Ang Mo Kio flat on the market.

They thought it should be easy to sell their flat and Mr Ang found them a buyer in December that year. But, at the last minute, the buyer backed out.

Then in April last year, Mr Ang found them another set of buyers, who wanted to buy the flat for $193,000.

The Tans said the potential buyers signed an option to purchase and paid them an option fee of $500 on 22 Apr.

After they received a copy of the option form from Mr Ang, they said they realised there was no start or expiry date on it.

They showed a copy of the dateless option form to The New Paper.

The Tans claimed that for one month, they kept calling Mr Ang but could not reach him.

They called HDB and found out that an option to purchase usually expires in two weeks.

Tired of waiting, they called HDB in late May to cancel the application to sell the flat.

They showed The New Paper a letter from the HDB dated 29 May confirming the cancellation.

That same week, they received a bill from ERA for $4,053 as commission.

The Tans ignored the bill and filed a complaint against the agent with the Consumers Association of Singapore.

Said Madam Hong: ‘Why do we have to pay him commission when he didn’t manage to sell my flat after one whole year? I would rather use the money to pay for my children’s needs.’

In July, they received a lawyerâ€^TMs letter from the potential buyers.

The potential buyers claimed they had given Mr Ang another $500 to exercise the option on 3 May and asked why the Tans had cancelled the sale.

The buyers also lodged a caveat - a notice of their claim to the property - against the Ang Mo Kio flat.

Said Madam Hong: ‘We were so shocked. We never received the $500 exercise fee.’

They had to hire a lawyer, and after several rounds of letters, the potential buyers agreed to withdraw the caveat, and each side paid its own legal fees.

The Tans’ bill came to about $1,500. They borrowed from relatives to pay it.

But ERA’s Mr Lim has a different version of what happened.

MUTUAL UNDERSTANDING?

He said that there was a mutual understanding between the Tans and the potential buyers that the option form be left undated until the buyers got a loan approval letter from the bank.

That was why it was eventually dated 2 May. And he said the Tans were fully aware of this.

He said ERA tried several times to pass the $500 exercise fee to the Tans, but the couple kept rejecting the money. The buyer’s agent also tried to do so.

After the case was decided last Monday, Madam Hong said: ‘It’s like a weight is finally off our shoulders. Now, we can finally move on.’
 
Source : New Paper - 29 Mar 2008

Analysts think the 99-year leasehold site may fetch $230-$270 psf ppr

THE Urban Redevelopment Authority yesterday launched a 1.9-hectare residential site in Choa Chu Kang Drive for sale by public tender.

Analysts reckon the 99-year leasehold site could fetch $230-$270 per square foot per plot ratio (psf ppr), or $131.7 million to $154.6 million in all.

The site has a maximum gross floor area of 572,600 sq ft.

It is within walking distance of Choa Chu Kang MRT station and should prove attractive to developers, analysts say.

‘Judging by the healthy response to recent government residential land sale tenders in West Coast Drive and Yishun, this site should attract a fair number of bidders - possibly two to three genuine bids and two to three other opportunistic bids,’ said Tay Huey Ying, director of research and consultancy at Colliers International.

‘Bidders may include Far East Organization, Allgreen and Centrepoint,’ she said.

Going by the response to nearby Yew Tee Residences when it was launched last year, a project on the latest site should be popular with mass-market buyers, she feels.

Ku Swee Yong, director of marketing and business development at Savills Singapore, agrees that the project will be popular: ‘Mass market private homes are still in good demand because of the strong HDB market, where many sellers are getting large amounts of cash-over-valuations (COVs) for their flats. There is also a ready pool of HDB upgraders in Choa Chu Kang.’

Colliers’ Ms Tay says that at a bid price of $230-$250 psf ppr, the breakeven price will come to about $560 to $580 psf. According to her, ‘Developers would be looking to sell the new units at prices ranging between $620 and $650 psf’.

Units in The Warren condominium have transacted at an average of $570 psf between July 2007 and now, while units in Yew Tee Residences are changing hands at an average of $535 psf, she said.

Mr Ku, on the other hand, believes units on the upcoming site could go for about $700 psf. Some 500-550 homes can be built on the land, he said.

The plot is one of four new residential sites to be launched for sale as confirmed sites under the government land sales programme for the first-half of 2008.

Source : Business Times - 28 Mar 2008

The trust attributes the 14.2% surge to improving industrial property market

ASCENDAS Real Estate Investment Trust (A-Reit) said yesterday the book value of its investment properties rose $483.6 million - about 14.2 per cent - during the latest annual valuation exercise.

A-Reit attributed the increase - from the previous book value at Feb 29, 2008 - to an improving industrial property market, which has led to higher occupancy and higher rents across its portfolio.

The latest valuations will be reflected in A-Reit’s financial statements for the year ending March 31, 2008, the trust said.

Valuations were revised upwards across all sectors, with the business & science parks sector registering the largest appreciation of $244.4 million.

Properties in the high-tech industrial sector appreciated $116.5 million, while those in the light industrial sector (including flatted factories) and logistics & distribution centres registered gains of $60.2 million and $63.2 million respectively.

A-Reit’s third development property - HansaPoint@CBP, which was completed in January 2008 - appreciated by $43.2 million, or 166 per cent, from its development cost. Post-revaluation, the annualised net property income yield of the property portfolio is about 6.4 per cent, which is in line with the prevailing market, A-Reit said.

The adjusted net asset value, based on the Dec 31, 2007 balance sheet, will be $1.85 per unit.

The valuations were done by DTZ Debenham Tie Leung, CB Richard Ellis, Chesterton and Jones Lang LaSalle, A-Reit said.

The trust said the increases in valuation are testament to the ‘manager’s proactive asset management strategies in maintaining high occupancy rates and the manager’s ability to deliver value to unit-holders by pursuing attractive acquisitions and development opportunities while maintaining a disciplined approach to ensure risks are mitigated’.

A-Reit’s shares closed nine cents higher at $2.29 yesterday. The stock price has shed 6.9 per cent since the start of the year.

Source : Business Times - 28 Mar 2008