SGHOUSING.COM 新加坡房地产网

OWNER OF HOME TO PAY $150,000 FOR REPAIRS
Land Authority not responsible as eroded slope is private land

IT has been seven long months since these million-dollar semi-detached houses in Siglap have been void of occupants.

For the two homeowners, it has been one piece of bad news after another.

First, a heavy thunderstorm last December unleashed a mudslide of rubble, sand and rocks which broke through a wall and almost bulldozed through their homes.

Then they were ordered to vacate immediately, as the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) declared the two houses to be structurally unsafe.

The semi-detached houses, which are back-to-back and share a common wall, are at Jalan Tanah Puteh, off Siglap.

They are located next to a disused cemetery on state land, and the top of the slope is as high as the roof of the houses before it drops steeply down.

Ordinarily, if the mudslide had originated from state land, the homeowners may have been able to claim compensation from the authorities.

But their luck ran out one more time, because the erosion was from their private land, which extended about two metres from the slope.

Construction costs of reinforcing the slope and repairs to the houses would cost at least $150,000 for each property, one homeowner, Mr S W Ong, estimated. These include building a retaining wall as well as external and internal repairs.

Mr Ong, 77, said it is unlikely his insurance policy will cover mudslides.

He is now getting quotations for the repairs.

The retiree said in Mandarin: ‘I don’t know how much it will cost exactly, but definitely, it won’t be a small sum of money. What to do? If I don’t repair, no one can live here.’

For him, the mudslide also meant a loss of rental income since he has been renting his place out for the last six years for under $2,000 a month.

SHAKEN BY SLIDE

He said his tenant was resting at home at the time of the mudslide last December when the incident occurred around 5-6pm. The tenant called him after that.

‘He was sleeping when he said he heard a loud sound,’ Mr Ong said.

‘He sounded quite shaken on the phone. But the most important thing was that he was safe and nothing happened to him.’

The tenant had to move away after that.

Mr Ong bought his 2,000-odd sq ft home at No. 36 for about $1.8 million some 10 years ago. It is probably worth around the same value now, he said. Mr Ong said that he knew a part of the slope belonged to him, and the other part was state land.

The part that belonged to him was not fenced in, and he said he does not know how far his land extended until the authorities told him recently.

When he bought the place 10 years ago, the slope was already there. He does not know why the developer did not fully utilise the private land.

The other homeowner from No10 declined to be interviewed.

The Singapore Land Authority (SLA) confirmed that the mudslide involved a private slope, which is owned by the two homeowners.

But it stepped in to help with the slope rectification works since the slope was close to state land.

SLA had first activated its contractor to cover the exposed slope with canvas to divert rainfall, so as to prevent any further mudslide.

Then, workers propped up the affected houses to minimise any structural risks and further slope movement.

SLA said that it is studying further rectification methods with its professional engineer (PE).

The homeowners are also bound by the Building Control Act to appoint a PE to do reinstatement works to the collapsed part to protect surrounding properties from further damages.

An SLA spokesman said: ‘Although the mudslide or failed rubble wall is within private land, the owners had difficulty engaging a competent PE to look into the repair works and make an independent assessment, until very recently.

‘This could have caused some initial delay in the repair works to be carried out on the private land.’

CUTTING PART OF SLOPE

Both the homeowners and SLA’s PEs have recommended that cutting part of the slope may be the best option for now to achieve slope stability.

SLA said it is working with the owners and consulting the relevant agencies to use the safest measure to cut the slope without affecting the cemetery grounds.

A portion of the state land, which is on higher ground, may have to be cut and rectification works done so as to stabilise the slope.

Although there is no danger right now posed to the two properties and their surroundings, SLA understands that the relevant authorities, on the side of caution, is not allowing occupation until the repair and rectification works are completed.
 
Source : New Paper - 28 Jul 2008

Q I am divorced and intend to write my own will. Am I required to state that I am a divorcee, and do I also need to indicate my former husband’s name and the date of the divorce? Does my former husband have any rights to my estate?

A When you make a will, you are free to dispose of your property in any manner that you wish. Only Muslims are required to distribute assets in a certain way, according to the Administration of Muslim Law Act. In fact, the freedom to distribute your estate as you wish is often cited as a strong reason for making a will.

Therefore, your marital status has no effect whatsoever on how you make out your will. As such, your former husband has no right to share in your estate.

Amolat Singh
Lawyer
Amolat & Partners

Advice provided in this column is not meant as a substitute for comprehensive professional advice.
 
Source : Sunday Times - 27 Jul 2008

He’s not only victim who paid man deposit to rent Farrer Park flat

He fell in love with the flat the moment he saw it - so much so that he signed a tenancy agreement on the spot.

But perhaps, he was a tad too hasty in making the decision.

Now, Indian national Rohan Bhattacharjee, who is in Singapore on an employment pass, is $1,400 poorer.

The money was for a rental deposit on a two-room flat at Farrer Park.

But two days before he was due to move in, Mr Bhattacharjee’s ‘landlord’ disappeared.

Mr Bhattacharjee, 27, has been unable to contact the man since. The New Paper understands that the ‘landlord’ Mr Bhattacharjee dealt with is not the owner of the flat.

Mr Bhattacharjee, who came to Singapore in 2004, previously rented a room in a three-room flat in Bukit Batok. He is here with his wife, 19, also an Indian national.

On 23 May, he saw a newspaper advertisement offering the Farrer Park unit for rent. He decided to view the flat four days later as it was nearer his workplace at City Hall.

He works in a law firm as a clients liaison manager.

REASONABLE RENT

He said of the flat: ‘It was clean and well-furnished. It was also big enough for my parents to stay if they visit me from India.’

The monthly rent of $1,600 was reasonable, he thought.

Though he had other viewing appointments for other units, he and his wife were so happy with the Farrer Park flat they signed the tenancy agreement immediately.

Mr Bhattacharjee paid the ‘landlord’, whom he described as a man in his early 30s, a deposit of $1,400. They arranged to meet on 13Jun to settle the $200 balance and for Mr Bhattacharjee to get the keys.

But on that day, the ‘landlord’ did not show up for their meeting at the flat. His handphone was turned off when Mr Bhattacharjee called.

He could not reach the man for the next two days either.

On 15Jun, Mr Bhattacharjee left a note for the man on the door of the flat, asking the latter to call him.

The next day, he got a call, but not from the ‘landlord’. Instead, it was a fellow Indian national, who told him he was working here as a doctor.

Mr Bhattacharjee said: ‘He told me he also signed a tenancy agreement with the same man.’

They met the next day and the other man showed Mr Bhattacharjee his agreement.

‘He signed it one day after I did!’ Mr Bhattacharjee said.

After advising the man to make a police report, Mr Bhattacharjee did so himself the next day. The police said they are investigating the matter.

Mr Bhattacharjee said he did not hear from the other man again and has lost his contact number.

But they may not be the only victims.

A neighbour who lives next to the Farrer Park unit, who gave his name only as Mr Feng, told The New Paper that five different men had turned up at the flat within a week.

‘They told me they rented the flat and were looking for the owner. They showed me photos of the man from whom they rented the flat.’

But Mr Feng, who moved into his flat only at the start of July, did not recognise the man in the photos.

‘I met a man who told me he was the flat’s owner and he does not look like the man in the picture. I don’t think it is the same person.’

Mr Bhattacharjee said: ‘I think the man (with whom I signed the tenancy agreement) could have been a tenant.’

He said he has given up hope of getting his money back and has deleted the man’s number from his handphone.

‘What can I do? I will take it that I lost my wallet with $1,400 inside,’ he said.

When The New Paper visited the flat on 4 Jul, no one came to the door.

We saw an orange plastic bag wedged between the door and the gate. But it was gone when we went back three days later. We went again two days later and still, no one was home.

Mr Bhattacharjee is now renting a room in a Bendemeer flat and said he would go through an agent the next time he wants to rent a flat.

He said: ‘Even if I find the man, I may not get my money back. I just want to share my story so others can be careful.’

Source : New Paper - 14 Jul 2008

‘Landlord’ evicted, so victim’s lease terminated
‘Landlord still owes her $1,600′
 
FIRST, there were bed bugs and cockroaches in her rented three-room HDB flat.

Next, the water and power supply were cut off.

When she complained to the ‘landlord’, she was shocked to discover the woman was not only a bankrupt, she did not even own the flat.

To top it off, she had to leave when the actual owner evicted her ‘landlord’ for failing to pay rent and subletting the room.

The tenant, who wanted to be known only as Miss Cui, is a 25-year-old Chinese national who is working here as a sales executive. She signed a one-year lease for the master bedroom of a flat in Clementi for a monthly rent of $600.

Now she says she is losing more than $1,500 which she had paid to the ‘landlord’.

She had found the room through a property agent who had advertised in the press.

‘When I went to view the room, I did ask them if the landlord was the flat owner and she claimed to be,’ said Miss Cui.

She signed the tenancy agreement the next day as the agent said there were other interested tenants, and moved in on 20 Mar.

The ‘landlord’ and her husband stayed in the other room of the three-room flat.

DIRTY

Miss Cui was soon bothered by the bed bugs.

‘The infestation was so bad, you could see the bugs crawling around the furniture and even on the wall,’ she claimed. ‘The flat appeared clean when I first viewed it. I did not expect it to be so dirty.’

She complained repeatedly to the ‘landlord’ who changed her mattress.

‘But it was worse - the replacement mattress was old, dirty and it had many stains on it,’ she said.

And there were cockroaches in the kitchen.

‘It was very scary. When I opened the drawers, I saw cockroaches and cockroach eggs. I just slammed it shut,’ she said.

The ‘landlord’ finally called the pest control people, but Miss Cui had to pay them.

On 4 Apr, Miss Cui said the ‘landlord’ asked for an advance payment of another 10 days worth of rent. Said Miss Cui: ‘I found it strange. The ‘landlord’ told me she had no money.’

Nevertheless, Miss Cui handed over$240. On 5 Apr, a Saturday morning, the ‘landlord’ told Miss Cui that if she wanted to shower, she should do so quickly as the water supply was going to be stopped.

‘She told me there were going to be repair works, but it wasn’t true. The power supply was cut off too,’ fumed Miss Cui.

It was only later that she discovered that the landlord had failed to pay the water and electricity bills.

Miss Cui finally learnt the truth when on 13 Apr, the real owner of the flat came with policemen to evict her ‘landlord’. She said she left the flat to avoid trouble.

Later that night, she met the agent and the ‘landlord’.

Recalled Miss Cui: ‘The ‘landlord’ said she was not the flat owner, and that there was nothing she could do as she was a bankrupt.’

The agent returned her commission to Miss Cui.

But, she asked: ‘Who is going to pay me the cost I incurred moving?’

The property agent when contacted, declined to comment.

AVOIDED CALLS

Miss Cui, who found another room for rent in a private apartment, claimed the ‘landlord’ owed her $1620.50, including a penalty she could claim according to the contract she had signed.

‘She has avoided my calls, and I doubt I will get my money back,’ she said.

A check with the Insolvency & Public Trustee’s Office revealed that the ‘landlord’ is an undischarged bankrupt.

The New Paper was unable to reach her on her handphone.

A spokesman for the Insolvency & Public Trustee’s Office said that when obtaining a loan of $500 or more from another person, an undischarged bankrupt has to inform the credit provider of his or her bankruptcy status.

Failure to do so is an offence which carries a fine of up to $10,000, or a jail term of up to three years.

Mr Mohd Ismail, 44, vice-president of the Institute of Estate Agents, said tenants should take precautions when renting by asking to see proof of the property ownership, such as property tax statement or conservancy charges.

He said: ‘The tenant should also state in the tenancy agreement that ‘the tenant is hereby renting the premises at the agreed price with the following conditions’.’

In the event of a dispute between the tenant and landlord, a claim may be lodged at the Small Claims Tribunal.
 
Source : New Paper - 7 Jul 2008

Anthony Soh plans to use proceeds to pay off his mortgage and step up legal fight to clear his name

The businessman at the centre of the bungled Jade Technologies buyout is cashed up for his legal battles in Singapore and Australia after pocketing a huge profit from the sale of his lavish home.

Dr Anthony Soh had to take a big cut from his asking price of $13.88 million for the Windsor Park Road bungalow, but the dramatic rise in property prices over the past year still meant he could walk away well ahead.

He bought the 21,800 sq ft house in January last year for $7.95 million and spent $400,000 on renovations but sold it for $11.8 million - a profit of $3.85 million.

Dr Soh told The Straits Times in May that he wanted to sell the house to pay off his mortgage with OCBC Bank, and raise cash for legal fees he expected to incur in his fight to clear his name following the Jade buyout.

He has instigated legal actions in Australia against failed Melbourne broker Opes Prime and investment bank Merrill Lynch over the seizure of millions of Jade shares.

The profitable sale of his house will allow him to step up his legal fight.

‘I now have extra funds to hire two Queen’s Counsel to fight Merrill and others who took my shares,’ said Dr Soh last night.

He pledged the Jade shares to Opes to secure a loan. When the broker went belly up in March, however, Merrill, an Opes creditor, seized the stock.

This left Dr Soh with insufficient funds, forcing him to abort the Jade buyout. He contends that Merrill had no right to sell what he considers to be still his shares. This contention is at the heart of the legal action he has started in Australia against the investment bank and Opes.

The debacle had also resulted in a number of inquiries being launched into Dr Soh’s role in the events that left many investors in the red after their Jade shares plunged in value.

Funds from the house sale will also likely be used to fund legal costs on this front.

The buyer was businessman Jonathan Lim Keng Hock, who moved fast after reading about the property in The Straits Times on May 28.

Sources close to Mr Lim, 47, said he promptly made an appointment that day to view the lavish bungalow, which boasts a swimming pool and a badminton court.

Mr Lim, who had been looking for a place for months, signed the option agreement the following day.

Property agents said the $11.8 million price was a fair one, given the subdued state of the market and considering that the house, while a good class bungalow, is not in the prime Bukit Timah district.

Dr Soh told The Straits Times last night: ‘I am pleased that the buyer of the house is happy with the deal. He likes the house and got it at his price.’

Mr Lim is the main investor and chairman of electronics firm SNF Corporation. His stake of 26.99 per cent is worth about $3.68 million

He is also the founder and managing director of Romar Positioning Equipment International, a private firm that makes automation equipment for handling and welding in the energy and transportation industries.

The firm has more than 180 staff, a turnover exceeding $90 million and estimated profits of about $11 million. It was acquired by a European multinational corporation earlier this year.

Source : Straits Times - 3 Jul 2008