Property News!

[jq75]

April 7, 2009
Resistance level' for DBSS flats, Not more than $500k
Few takers likely above this price due to weak market and restrictions


THE tightening property market and demand for smaller homes have created a dilemma for the HDB's design, build and sell scheme (DBSS) - price flats over $500,000 and buyers could stay away.

That price point has been cited as the 'resistance level' for home seekers with less cash to spend but a wealth of options in a buyer's market.

Experts said DBSS homes - public flats designed, built and sold by private developers - are sandwiched in a fast- narrowing price gap between private condominiums and HDB flats.

To move units, these condo-style homes will have to be priced at about $500,000 or less - under an equivalent- sized flat in a private condo - but that may erode any profits for the developers.

'These are the same people who will buy your resale HDB flat,' said Knight Frank director Nicholas Mak.

PropNex chief executive Mohamed Ismail agreed: 'The resistance level of HDB buyers is around the $500,000 level. If they are going to be priced above $450 per sq ft (psf), they may face resistance.

'Buyers may head for the private market where they can get better value for $500 psf to just below $600 psf.'

Mass-market condos that offer full facilities, such as Rosewood Suites in Woodlands and Caspian in Jurong, have units in that price range. Developers have lowered their prices of some mass-market projects by 20 to 25 per cent while HDB resale prices are also falling, though at a slower pace.

Two DBSS projects are expected to be released for sale this month. The first is a 1,203-unit project in Toa Payoh with three-, four- and five-room flats.

And Parc Lumiere in Simei will have 360 units - 120 four-room and 240 five- room flats. A Hoi Hup-led consortium won the tender for the Toa Payoh site at about $160 psf per plot ratio last August, while Sim Lian won the Simei site at $137 psf last June.

April 7, 2009
'Resistance level' for condo-style HDB flats: $500,000
Few takers likely above this price due to weak market and restrictions

By Joyce Teo
THE tightening property market and demand for smaller homes have created a dilemma for the HDB's design, build and sell scheme (DBSS) - price flats over $500,000 and buyers could stay away.
That price point has been cited as the 'resistance level' for home seekers with less cash to spend but a wealth of options in a buyer's market.

Experts said DBSS homes - public flats designed, built and sold by private developers - are sandwiched in a fast- narrowing price gap between private condominiums and HDB flats.

To move units, these condo-style homes will have to be priced at about $500,000 or less - under an equivalent- sized flat in a private condo - but that may erode any profits for the developers.

'These are the same people who will buy your resale HDB flat,' said Knight Frank director Nicholas Mak.

PropNex chief executive Mohamed Ismail agreed: 'The resistance level of HDB buyers is around the $500,000 level. If they are going to be priced above $450 per sq ft (psf), they may face resistance.

'Buyers may head for the private market where they can get better value for $500 psf to just below $600 psf.'

Mass-market condos that offer full facilities, such as Rosewood Suites in Woodlands and Caspian in Jurong, have units in that price range. Developers have lowered their prices of some mass-market projects by 20 to 25 per cent while HDB resale prices are also falling, though at a slower pace.

Two DBSS projects are expected to be released for sale this month. The first is a 1,203-unit project in Toa Payoh with three-, four- and five-room flats.

And Parc Lumiere in Simei will have 360 units - 120 four-room and 240 five- room flats. A Hoi Hup-led consortium won the tender for the Toa Payoh site at about $160 psf per plot ratio last August, while Sim Lian won the Simei site at $137 psf last June.

Mr Mak estimated the break-even price of the Toa Payoh project at $430 psf to $460 psf and a bit less at Parc Lumiere - $400 psf to $440 psf.

'Demand for DBSS flats depends a lot on the price,' said Associate Professor Sing Tien Foo from the National University of Singapore's real estate department.

The price has to be much lower than that for private flats as there are restrictions involved, particularly on buyers' income.

Assuming a buyer has a monthly household income of $8,000 - the ceiling for a DBSS flat purchase - and negligible savings, he could take up an 80 per cent loan over 20 years to buy a DBSS flat costing at most $550,000, he said.

The first DBSS project, launched at the end of 2006 when private condos were moving beyond the reach of many HDB upgraders, was an instant hit.

Five-room units were priced at just $308,000 to $450,000, compared with close to $700,000 and more at the other three DBSS projects. The latest - Natura Loft in Bishan - recently ran big advertisements to market its unsold units.

'There are pros and cons to buying a DBSS flat. It is good for people who do not want to pay for facilities. Condos have a lot of facilities but you have to pay a higher maintenance fee,' said Prof Sing.

The problem now is that DBSS flat developers have cost constraints and may not be able to lower their prices to a level attractive to HDB buyers, he said.

These developers rushed into the market during the boom, thinking it was a sure-win product. Their risks are keenly felt now that the market has come down considerably, experts said.

'At the end of the day, people must remember that DBSS flats are essentially an HDB product,' said Mr Mak. 'They will likely go through what ECs (executive condominiums) went through until the market recovers.'

Such condos were very hot at one point before demand slumped. 'The down market just makes it harder for DBSS to differentiate itself,' said Prof Sing.

 

[jq75]

April 4, 2009
Doubts about real estate industry's ability to self-regulate
THE comments of Mr Peter Koh, chairman of the executive committee of the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies (SAEA), in the letter "Real estate agencies fully back govt review" (March 30), are certainly incongruous with both the situation in the industry and my unpleasant experience with a few property agencies under its scheme.
Since December, I have been receiving nuisance calls from agents, the majority from PropNex and HSR. To stop these calls which were made to my residential line and severely invaded my privacy, I had contacted these agencies to request that I be taken off their mailing and contact lists. They gave me the nonchalant reply that the calls and mailers were telemarketing efforts by their agents over whom they had no control.

At my wits' end, I then contacted the SAEA and asked it to compel these agencies to act. More than a month has passed since an e-mail message was sent to PropNex and I have not received a response to my complaint.

To date, I am still receiving nuisance calls from property agents, the last being from DTZ, whose agent showed no remorse and told me that such telemarketing calls were normal when I asked what gave her the right to call my residential line.

If the SAEA is unable to solve my problem, I have serious doubts about the effectiveness of its accreditation scheme and the ability of the real estate industry to self-regulate.

Bryan Ong

 

[jq75]

April 5, 2009
Collective sale impetus fizzles out
By Joyce Teo , Jamie Ee Wen Wei
The once fever-hot collective sale market is now stone-cold, and property experts predict it will take at least five years for transactions to reach the pitch seen before.

At the height of the property boom in 2007, 116 collective sales were completed. This figure was whittled down to just eight last year, after the onslaught of the global economic crisis.

There was no collective sale done in the first three months of this year.

Industry players expect the market to stay dormant in the coming months as developers remain mindful of the lukewarm response to new residential launches and have also to contend with high construction costs and tighter credit measures.

Mr Steven Ming, Savills Singapore's director for investment sales, said: 'At this point, developers are not on an acquiring mode, not until they have cleared their inventory of apartments bought over the last few years.'

Most collective sale sites put up for tender late last year have closed without any bids.

They include Spanish Village in Farrer Road, Villa delle Rose off Holland Road and Elizabeth Towers in Mount Elizabeth.

Two months ago, developer Jewel 1 pulled out 20 days before a planned $44 million purchase of Cairnhill Heights. It cited 'difficult, uncertain and deteriorating market conditions' for its decision.

Property experts, however, said low- to mid-range properties may be the one bright spark in the property market.

Mr Ming said the popularity of recently launched 'mass market' condominiums like Caspian and Mi Casa showed that there was still a healthy demand for cheaper, suburban projects.

Mr Karamjit Singh, managing director of Credo Real Estate, noted that the eight collective sale projects which found buyers last year were of lower value.

The experts agreed that any return to the collective sales peak in 2007 was not possible for now.

Mr Ming said: 'Right now, I don't see any return of significant interest in en bloc sales, not until the economic outlook becomes more certain.'

 

[jq75]

April 5, 2009
Horizon Towers owners ready to move on
Some are considering more legal action but most are just glad that the case is finally over

By Jessica Cheam
Majority owners at Horizon Towers are considering their next step following last Thursday's surprise decision by the Court of Appeal to throw out the collective sale.
The owners will meet their lawyers on April 16 to discuss their options, including the possibility of suing the original sale committee for breaching its duties.

The committee bore the brunt of severe criticism in the Court of Appeal ruling.

It cited the committee's hasty agreement to sell Horizon Towers, its failure to follow up on a higher offer, and its negligence in not disclosing a possible conflict of interest.

This centred on two owners who bought additional units just before they were appointed to the estate's sale committee.

The ruling brings to an end the long saga of the collective sale of the Leonie Hill estate.

The sale was mooted in October 2005 and the owners agreed to a reserve price of $500 million the following year.

A deal was signed in January 2007 when the majority owners accepted a price of just below $850 per sq ft of gross floor area from Hotel Properties and its two partners.

The 199 owners of the 99-year leasehold estate would each have pocketed about $2.3 million, while the 11 penthouse owners would each have received $4 million to more than $6 million.

A series of court challenges followed. Some majority owners turned against the deal when they saw how the soaring market had made their sale price look like a giveaway.

The property market has since slumped.

A handful of the minority owners who objected to the sale fought their case all the way to the Court of Appeal.

Meanwhile, some residents had gone on to buy second properties on the assumption the deal would likely go through, and are now feeling short-changed.

But lawyers said that owners will find it hard to make a case in court as it was the individual's decision to buy before the sale was signed and sealed.

An owner who spoke on condition of anonymity said she had bought a second property because she thought she had to move out.

The housewife said she will live at Horizon Towers and will rent out the other flat.

She added that legal action against the sale committee was 'one of the options' some residents had talked about.

But they also felt the chances of success were slim because of certain clauses in the collective sale agreement which may indemnify the committee.

Then there is the question of cost.

Each majority owner has had to cough up $15,000 for legal fees so far, said the owner.

This puts the total cost for the 173 who signed the sale agreement at about $2.6 million.

As the minority owners won the case, it is likely that the majority owners will have to foot their legal bill too - reported to be about $1.5million for owners who fought all the way to the Court of Appeal.

Reclaiming some of these legal fees will be discussed at the April 16 meeting.

One sale committee member, Ms Mamata Kapildev Dave, said the committee will honour the court's decision and is now waiting for its ruling on how to award costs.

Another owner, Mr Bharat Mandloi, 50, spoke of the mood in the estate: 'The general feeling is people are tired of this. I don't think people are in the mood to point fingers. Everyone's thinking, 'Thank God it's finally over.''

April 5, 2009
No ill feelings over failed sale

By Shuli Sudderuddin
Despite not knowing for almost four years whether the Horizon Towers collective sale would go through, resident Mohammed Mehdi is not bitter about the delay or the legal fees he has had to pay.
Even though the fees are 'substantial', Mr Mehdi, 54, a businessman in shipping, does not mind the outcome or the wait.

'We own some properties, so we could move any time if we needed to. Fortunately, the protracted pro-cess did not really inconvenience us,' he said.

'The court's decision also makes sense in view of the fact that the market went up in the middle of the sale.'

He felt that the sale committee had worked hard, and he could not find any fault with its members. He added that he would have been happy either way.

'If the sale had gone through, we would have gotten the money. But without the sale, I get to stay in my home. Where else will you find apartments of this size in such a convenient location?'

His family, including his brother and cousins, have been living in Horizon Towers for more than 10 years.

Originally from Pakistan, he came to Singapore in the 1980s and is now a permanent resident. His family chose the condominium because it is located centrally.

For the past two years, he has been living with his wife and three daughters in a rented fifth-floor apartment at Horizon Towers. He has a son who lives in Britain.

His family owns another apartment on the 14th floor that is being rented out to a banker. They bought it 10 years ago.

When the chance to sell the 14th-floor apartment collectively came, the family unanimously agreed to sign the agreement. They would have received about $2.3 million.

'We thought at the time it was a worthwhile deal, and consensus is what counts the most. We did not want to be in the minority,' said Mr Mehdi, who never tried to oppose the sale.

Asked about the possibility of the majority residents suing the sale committee for not putting in enough effort to sell Horizon Towers well, he replied: 'Why would we do such a thing? We already have to pay lawyers' fees, and this would just mean more money. Whatever happened has happened for the best.'

Happy either way

'If the sale had gone through, we would have gotten the money. But without the sale, I get to stay in my home. Where else will you find apartments of this size in such a convenient location?'

Mr Mehdi


April 5, 2009
Just glad the saga is over

For four years, Mr Bharat Mandloi and his family put their renovation plans for their Horizon Towers apartment on hold because they were awaiting the results of the collective sale.
Mr Bharat, 50, the director of a commodity trading business, is glad that the whole 'roller-coaster ride' is finally over. He had bought the flat 15 years ago and rented it out while he was living abroad.

When the idea of the collective sale was raised in 2005, he was elected as a member of the sale committee. However, he dropped out of it about seven months later when he felt that it was in too much of a hurry to sell the estate and did not try for a better price in the soaring market.

Mr Bharat is a permanent resident here. His family relocated to Singapore from India in the 1990s but moved around the world before coming back here.

Relations between the residents remained very cordial during the three years or so when the collective sale was in limbo, he said. He remained in the group that wanted to sell the estate. He said that he and other owners were shocked at the Court of Appeal judgment.

However, Mr Bharat, who is now on the condominium's management committee, added that the mood is more of relief than disappointment. 'I've got lots of calls from other residents asking me: 'Is this it? Or do we still have to do some more to push for the sale?' I think we're all relieved it's over at last.'

Meanwhile, the management committee has a long list of things to decide on. 'Many things like building repairs and upgrades were pending while we were waiting for the judgment, so now we have to decide what we're going to do.'

The family did not buy another house as they felt the market was moving too fast. 'Now that we know it's not going to be sold, we're discussing whether we want to move or not. After all, it's a 30-year-old property.'

Shuli Sudderuddin

 

[jq75]

April 5, 2009
WHO WON, WHO LOST
The majority sellers: Stuck with their units
By Fiona Chan
When a group of Horizon Towers owners came together more than three years ago to discuss selling their estate en bloc, they had no way of knowing that they would end up among the biggest losers in the whole deal.
Owners Arjun Samtani, Wee Hian Siew, Henry Lim and Tan Kah Gee mooted a collective sale in October 2005 and kicked off the process. All four were eventually appointed to the sale committee, with Mr Samtani as chairman and Mr Wee as secretary.

By July 2006, they had launched the sale, formed a sale committee, appointed a marketing agent and obtained the necessary 80 per cent consensus from their neighbours for the sale.

But what the other owners did not know was that Mr Samtani and Mr Tan had bought extra units of Horizon Towers just a few months previously, relying on bank loans to do so, according to the Court of Appeal.

If the collective sale had gone through, each of the 199 owners of the 99-year leasehold condominium would have received about $2.3 million and the 11 penthouse owners, at least $4 million.

Now that the sale has failed, the owners who had wanted to sell their units are stuck with them in a plummeting property market. Some had even gone ahead and bought a second home on the assumption that the sale would succeed.

Mr Samtani and Mr Tan, with their extra financing burdens, are probably among the worst off.

The other owners are also said to be considering the option of suing them and the other members of the original sale committee for breach of duty.


April 5, 2009
WHO WON, WHO LOST
The majority-turned- minority: Mixed feelings
In January 2007, a buyer was finally found for Horizon Towers in what seemed like a pretty good deal.
Unit owners were told, when they signed the collective sale agreement, that the reserve price of $500million would give them 80 per cent more for their apartments than if they were to sell them individually. At the time, the price would also make Horizon Towers the biggest collective sale in Singapore's history.

In any case, it looked as though the estate's owners did not have many options. The first four bids for the estate had all come in below the reserve price and the bidders refused to pay any more.

So when a consortium led by tycoon Ong Beng Seng's Hotel Properties agreed to pay $500 million, the sale committee rushed to seal the deal.

But even as the ink was drying on the collective sale agreement, the reserve price was losing its lustre as the property market emerged from its long slumber and roared back to life. With the values of individual units suddenly soaring, the collective sale premiums that had been promised to the owners started to disappear.

The committee was aware of this but decided not to go back and consult the owners as that would delay the sale, the Court of Appeal found. It also did not actively pursue another higher offer of

$510 million that had been made by a Hong Kong firm, Vineyard Holdings.

The Horizon deal started to look more and more unattractive to the sellers, especially when they realised that property prices were rising so quickly that a replacement home would cost much more than their collective sale gains.

Now that the sale has been scrapped for good, it is likely that these majority owners-turned-minority supporters have mixed feelings. While they get to keep their homes, they have missed out on the whole property boom.




April 5, 2009
The buyers: A good deal that turned sour
While the sellers are probably bearing the brunt of the failed sale, the buyers - HPL, Morgan Stanley Real Estate and Qatar Investment Authority - are far from happy either.
The consortium thought it had bagged a good deal when it inked the deal to buy the estate for $500 million, or $800 per sq ft, at the start of the huge property upswing. Within six months of the sale, Horizon Towers' value had doubled on paper.

But the profits the buyers envisioned never materialised.

Instead, HPL and its partners found themselves dragged through legal brawl after legal brawl as owners who objected to the sale vigorously contested it.

HPL, a property and hospitality group, is run by Singaporean tycoon Ong Beng Seng. It was expected to develop a super-luxury block of apartments on the Horizon Towers plot. Indeed, soon after the purchase, HPL's stock price shot up as the luxury property market boomed.

But the sale kept running into snags. A mediation session was organised by the Strata Titles Board (STB) but failed to reach a satisfactory conclusion, leading to the formation of a formal STB tribunal. STB rejected the sale on a technicality, prompting the HPL consortium to sue the majority sellers for lost profits.

The majority sellers scrambled to fix the deal, taking the case up to the High Court. High Court judge Choo Han Teck threw out the STB decision to abort the sale in October 2007, leading the STB to finally approve it. The buyers' luck continued when the minority owners appealed to the High Court against the STB approval and lost.

But then the minority owners' last-ditch attempt to block the sale - culminating in the Court of Appeal judgment last Thursday - finally put the last nail in the coffin of the Horizon Towers deal.

Now the buyers are an estimated few million dollars out of pocket in legal fees - with no land to show for it.

Then again, in today's property slump, that may not be such a bad thing after all.

'Prices are back to about the 2007 level, which was when HPL closed the deal,' said Mr Nicholas Mak, director of research and consultancy at Knight Frank. 'Now that developers want to offload their assets and trim their debt, losing this site may be a blessing in disguise.'



April 5, 2009
Troubled Towers: A timeline
October 2005: Some Horizon Towers owners moot idea of collective sale and kick off process.

March 2006: Two of them, Mr Arjun Samtani and Mr Tan Kah Gee, buy more units.

April 2006: Sale process formally launched. Within three months, the sale committee - which includes Mr Samtani and Mr Tan - obtains consent level for a sale.

May 2007: Some majority owners circulate a letter asking neighbours to band together to back out of deal.

August 2007: Strata Titles Board (STB) throws out collective sale. HPL sues majority owners.

January 2007: Hotel Properties Limited (HPL) and partners agree to buy estate for $500 million, or about $800 per sq ft (psf) of potential gross floor area.

April 2007: Neighbouring Grangeford Apartments sets a record asking price of $2,016 psf.

September 2007: Sale committee quits, leaving deal in limbo. HPL chief Ong Beng Seng meets owners to discuss sale, after which owners vote to extend sale deadline. About a week later, owners go to High Court to reverse STB's dismissal of the sale. HPL adjourns its suit against the owners.

October 2007: High Court judge Choo Han Teck overturns STB's ruling to abort deal. The majority owners go back to STB in second attempt to get approval for sale.

December 2007: STB approves sale this time around.

January 2008: Nine sets of minority owners appeal to High Court to overturn STB's decision. When hearing starts two months later, two sets of minority owners drop out.

July 2008: Justice Choo dismisses minority owners' appeal.

February 2009: Four of the remaining sets of minority owners make a last-ditch attempt to save their homes by taking the fight up to the Court of Appeal.

April 2, 2009: The Court of Appeal, comprising Chief Justice Chan Sek Keong and Judges of Appeal Andrew Phang and V.K. Rajah, finally rejects sale for good, noting various errors by the sale committee, STB and High Court.

 

[jq75]

April 5, 2009
Minority owners: Sweet victory but 'no winner'
The epic legal tussle over the $500 million collective sale of Horizon Towers finally ended last Thursday with the Court of Appeal's decision to dismiss the deal.
This final judgment marks the first time Singapore's highest court has decided in favour of minority owners in a collective sale dispute.

While the four sets of minority owners who took their battle all the way to the end are jubilant about their victory, not all the other parties are as satisfied.

In the time that it took to wrap up the Horizon Towers saga, the property market has gone through its biggest boom and a record bust.

Owners of the condominium in Leonie Hill are now sitting on units that are losing more of their value every day in this recession.

They have also spent millions of dollars on the court case, which dragged on for 21/2 years.

When everything is said and done, who are the real losers and winners of Singapore's longest collective sale battle?

Never has a group of minority owners successfully managed to block the collective sale of an estate, until now.
As the landmark decision by the Court of Appeal sinks in, celebration is in the air for those owners of Horizon Towers who never wanted to sell their units to begin with. 'For us, the price was never an issue,' said Ms

J. Tan, who had objected to the collective sale from Day One.

It has not been an easy battle.

When one of the minority owners, Mr Hendra Gunawan, tried to find a lawyer to help him and his neighbours block the sale in 2007, three firms turned them down before Harry Elias Partnership agreed to represent them. Although 33 owners out of the 210 in total objected to the sale, only nine filed an official objection with the Strata Titles Board (STB).

Besides Mr Gunawan and his wife, the minority owners who fought on to the end were Mr Rudy Darmawan, Madam Ong Sioe Hong and Mr Ng Eng Ghee.

Mr Gunawan, an Indonesian who has lived in Horizon Towers with his wife and two sons for eight years, runs his family's business back in Indonesia. Mr Darmawan, another Indonesian, is believed to be an executive at a multinational corporation.

Madam Ong is the managing director of department store Metro and the sister of Metro Holdings boss Jopie Ong. She, her husband and their two sons have lived in Horizon Towers for more than 20 years.

Mr Ng is a retired property developer and is listed as a director in firms such as Hi-Rise Builders and Bideford Realty.

The first victory for the minority owners came in August 2007, when the STB unexpectedly rejected the sale of Horizon Towers on the technical ground that the sale application did not contain all the required documents.

High Court judge Choo Han Teck disagreed with the decision, saying the technical errors were not serious enough to halt the sale. In December 2007, the STB gave the green light for the collective sale.

This only spurred the minority owners to renew their fight and take it to the Court of Appeal.

Last Thursday, after more than two years of legal wrangling and over $1 million in legal fees from their own pockets, the minority owners finally got the decision they had been waiting for - and made history in the process.

But Mr Gunawan said that there is 'no winner' in the whole process, which 'dragged on too long'. 'We are just protecting our homes,' he said. 'It's so tiring. The money we spent, we don't know whether we can get it back.'

The court has yet to award costs, but it is likely that the majority owners will have to pay a portion of the minority owners' legal fees.


April 5, 2009
The lawyers: 21/2-year bonanza of billable hours

It was not just the property industry which closely followed the Horizon Towers saga: Legal eagles could not take their eyes off the drama either.
After all, some of the biggest names in Singapore's legal fraternity were assembling in the same courtroom to slug it out over the sale of the estate.

No fewer than six Senior Counsel and virtually all the major law firms here joined in at various points in the protracted legal wrangle, which added up to a cool 21/2 years' worth of billable hours. Some estimate that the lawyers' bills would come up to at least $4 million.

The majority sellers as a whole were represented by a team from Tan, Rajah and Cheah led by Senior Counsel Chelva Rajah.
A different group of 13 majority sellers was represented by Senior Counsel Andre Yeap from Rajah and Tann.
Some of the unhappy majority owners who regretted signing the sale agreement hired Wong Partnership to advise them.
Former Senior Counsel and current Law Minister K. Shanmugam also made an appearance, heading the Allen & Gledhill team representing the estate's buyer, the HPL consortium. In fact, Mr Shanmugam's last submission in court was for Horizon Towers - which also means he lost his last court case.
The four minority owners who fought all the way had Harry Elias Partnership, which fielded Senior Counsel K. S. Rajah, partner Philip Fong, and its own founder, Senior Counsel Harry Elias.
Another minority owner, Ms Jasmine Tan, was initially represented by Mr Tan Kok Quan but later decided to go it alone.
Yet another minority owner engaged Phang & Co, which brought in Senior Counsel Michael Hwang.
Law firm J. S. Yeh & Co also made a surprise appearance on behalf of a majority owner.
So just how much have all these lawyers reaped from the battle?

The law firms would not disclose their fees, but it is understood that the 173 majority owners have already paid up to $15,000 each, or about $2.6 million in all.

Ms Tan has said her group of three minority owners coughed up about $1.5 million in fees. Legal experts say the fees for the buyers probably amounted to a few million dollars.

Then there are the conveyancing fees charged by Drew & Napier, which handled the collective sale.

The court has yet to decide who will pay the costs of the appeal, but one thing is for sure: In this epic court battle, the biggest winners are the lawyers.

Fiona Chan

 

[jq75]

April 5, 2009
Rising interest in lifts for landed homes
By Huang Huifen
Advertising director Janet Tan's standard of living just got a lift - literally.
The new terrace house in Sembawang that the 47-year-old bought has a lift. Located in the dining hall on the first floor, it makes it easy for her to access the other levels of her four-storey home.

She paid $1.3 million for the 99-year leasehold property.

Her home is in a development of 14 houses. That project is one of five in Sembawang - all with lifts - by developer Fragrance Homes.

All together, there are 65 such homes priced between $1.3 million and $1.5 million. Seventeen houses in two of the projects launched last November were sold out within two months.

Over in Tanjong Katong, another builder, Wenul Development, is also touting homes with lifts. Five of the 10 properties, priced between $3.4 million and $3.8 million, have found buyers since last November.

'Our customers, who are usually in their 50s, find the lift very convenient to move from the basement to their rooms on the third floor,' said Mr Calvin Tan, 30, managing director of Wenul.

'As for the young crowd, they think it's cool to have a lift.'

Certainly, the interest in home lifts has given lift companies, well, a lift.

Mr Ganesh Annamalai, managing director of Schindler Lifts, said he has noticed a growing number of inquiries from customers. He did not want to reveal sales figures.

Hitachi Asia said it has supplied lifts to developers of about 20 projects, including those in Sentosa, since 2006.

'Since 2006, some developers have included home lifts as an option,' said Mr Siew Yat Hung, senior sales manager at Hitachi Asia.

Schindler, Hitachi Asia and Otis are the lift suppliers to Fragrance's projects in Sembawang.

Developers told The Sunday Times that the cost of installing a lift is about $100,000. The home owner has to pay $20 to the Building and Construction Authority for a licence each year and an annual maintenance fee of about $2,000.

Not that Ms Tan is overly bothered about having to pay such fees.

'When I'm old and cannot climb the stairs, the lift becomes an advantage,' said Ms Tan, who lives there with her husband and their two children. They share the house with her brother, his wife and their two daughters.

 

[jq75]

April 5, 2009
More expats fall prey to rogue property agents
Many caught in rental scams unable to get back their deposits
By Elizabeth Soh

Mr Jones took his claim to the Small Claims Tribunal, which ruled in his favour but he still has not been able to recover his money.

More expatriates have become victims of tricky landlords, dodgy tenancy agreements, disappearing deposits and other rental snares.
According to the Consumers Association of Singapore (Case), foreigners lodged 32, out of a total of 365, complaints against real estate agents from last October to March this year.

This was a 23 per cent increase from the 26, out of 516, complaints within the same period a year earlier .

The Institute of Estate Agents itself has received five complaints from foreigners since last October. None of the agents mentioned was registered with it.

Case executive director Seah Seng Choon said that most of the complaints it received concerned rental agreements.

Commonly cited were overcharging and failure to honour agreements, especially with regard to refunds.

The onset of the economic crisis, with many retrenched foreigners terminating their leases early, may be a push factor for rogue agents.

Mr Chris Koh, a director at realty company Dennis Wee Group, said: 'There are probably dishonest agents acting alone, desperate to collect their full commission, who resorted to underhand tactics to withhold deposits.'

American technician Robert Jones, 36, and Mauritian IT professional Ashwin Ramdeehul, 29, spoke to The Sunday Times. They claimed they were cheated out of their deposits by the same person they had separately contacted.

Both had sought an HDB flat to rent, and had contacted an 'agent' through his advertisement.

When taken to view their prospective units, they were introduced to the 'landlord', a 40-year-old woman.

In Mr Jones' case, he signed a tenancy agreement with her on Feb 20 to rent a four-room HDB flat in Woodlands for $1,050 a month. He wanted to move in without delay as his wife was due to give birth to their first child soon.

He said that in his haste to rent, he did not pursue the fact that the owner was listed as someone else, but the 'landlord' on the documents was listed as the woman.

After paying her $5,250 (the deposit plus four months' rent), he then found he was unable to contact her. Anxious, he approached the owner's family at the Woodlands flat on Feb 23 and was told that the unit was being rented to the woman from March 7.

The owner assured him that he could move in as agreed on March 20.

He later went to the flat again, just to be sure, but was told that the woman had found another tenant. 'I was offered another flat in Ang Mo Kio, which I rejected,' said Mr Jones, who then asked for a full refund from the woman.

However, he was told he would get only $4,200, or four months' rent, as $1,050 was being forfeited because he 'backed out' of the agreement, a contention he disputed.

When contacted by The Sunday Times, the woman said: 'The owner did not want to rent to him because he was a nuisance who harassed them even before he was allowed to move in.'

She said she was acting on behalf of the owner, and produced a written agreement that was signed by the owner.

To date, she said, she has refunded Mr Jones $1,889 and added she would repay him $4,200 eventually.

However, Mr Jones wants all his money back. 'I paid $5,250, never got the house, and now she wants to return me $1,050 less?' he said.

He made a police report on March 5 and furthered his case at the Small Claims Tribunal on March 25, where he was granted a money order to collect the full amount from her. However, he has yet to get the money as she has remained uncontactable.

Like Mr Jones, Mr Ramdeehul paid a deposit in December last year to the same woman after signing a tenancy agreement for a two-room flat in Ang Mo Kio. He said she even provided a set of keys.

But he claimed she later told him the owner no longer wanted to rent out the flat and offered to find him a similar unit. When he refused, she returned only $550 of his $3,200 deposit, he said.

He made two police reports after he used the keys she had given him. 'When I opened the door, I saw a family who told me that she never gave them my deposit like she had promised,' he said.

He, too, filed a complaint at the Small Claims Tribunal and was issued a money order to collect the full amount but, like Mr Jones, has been unable to contact her since.

A check by The Sunday Times found an advisory on the Chinese Embassy's website which said that since many cases of rental disputes involve the sublease of property estates handled by that woman, 'the embassy would like tenants to stay alert when working with her'.

The Sunday Times spoke to other foreigners here who found themselves involved in complicated rental disputes or were allegedly cheated of money.

Mrs Nadya Begum, 37, and her engineer husband from Manchester, England, said they have been cheated not once but thrice in their seven years here.

'The first time, we were ignorant and did not ask for the agent's personal details. We ended up paying a deposit for a flat which had already been 'rented' out to four other couples, also foreigners.

'The second time, the agent cut off his phone line after he collected our deposit. The last time, in November 2008, we were smart enough to get the details of the agent and all the paperwork, but the landlord absconded with the money and is still uncontactable.'

ERA Reality associate director Eugene Lim said: 'Some unethical agents prey on the ignorance of foreigners, especially those who cannot speak English or Chinese and face a language barrier.'

South Korean housewife and study mama Kim Ae Ran, 46, said she was cheated of a $6,000 housing deposit by a real estate agent who claimed to be working for PropNex agency.

When she decided on Dec 9 last year to terminate her lease early and return to South Korea because her husband's business in Seoul was ailing, she gave two months' notice via e-mail to her landlord through her agent.

The landlord replied, also via e-mail, that he would refund her the full deposit of $6,000 with the 'expiry or lawful termination' of her lease.

But it has been 11/2 months since she and her two children moved out. They are now staying with a friend and she has not received any of the promised money.

When contacted by The Sunday Times, the agent said that Mrs Kim had 'unlawfully terminated' her lease and was not entitled to her deposit. He added that he was 'only an agent, not responsible for the sum', and that the landlord was away in China and uncontactable.

When PropNex was contacted, it investigated and found that the agent had already left the company when he signed the tenancy agreement with Mrs Kim.

It also found that the tenancy agreement he drew up stated that commission would be paid to an agent of 'PropNex Reality', rather than 'PropNex Realty'.

PropNex has since lodged a police report against the man.

Meanwhile, industry players say the recent announcement in Parliament to review and regulate agents could not have come sooner.

Mr Koh of Dennis Wee Group said: 'At the moment, only about one-third of real estate agents here are CEHA-certified.'

CEHA is the Common Examination for House Agents started in 1996 to raise the standards of real estate agents here.

He added: 'The industry badly needs both regulation and proper training, as well as penalties for rogue or scamming agents - it should be a two-pronged approach.'

 

[jq75]

April 5, 2009
YOUR LETTERS
Rents down, why not property tax?
I refer to the report, 'Rents in prime areas head south' (March22), and wonder why the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) is not reducing property tax this year despite the falling property prices and rents.
I understand Iras needs to be prudent about collecting taxes, but it also has to be proactive and adjust the annual values of properties downwards, in line with the market.

David Goh

 

[satayxp]

April 5, 2009
YOUR LETTERS
Rents down, why not property tax?
I refer to the report, 'Rents in prime areas head south' (March22), and wonder why the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) is not reducing property tax this year despite the falling property prices and rents.
I understand Iras needs to be prudent about collecting taxes, but it also has to be proactive and adjust the annual values of properties downwards, in line with the market.

David Goh

thot i saw a piece of news few days ago they r lowering the annual value & hence tax payable ~

 

[jq75]

April 6, 2009
Crunch time for building sector
Smaller firms and those relying on private projects most affected
By Jessica Cheam
CONSTRUCTION firms that rely heavily on private-sector projects face tough times ahead as more property developers delay building works.
Even public spending recently earmarked for infrastructure work may not be enough to tide contractors over the slump in demand, as 60 per cent of such spending is for specialised civil engineering works which a typical contractor cannot take on.

The Government recently pledged $18 billion to $20 billion for public infrastructure works this year, and another $15 billion to $17 billion each for next year and 2011.

Of the amount, 40 per cent is for building works such as schools, hospitals and museums, said the Building and Construction Authority (BCA).

The other 60 per cent will go to civil engineering contracts such as extending the Downtown MRT Line and the widening of the expressways.

Industry experts told The Straits Times that contractors which build private residential condominiums will feel the full brunt of the global recession - likely to be after next year, when existing projects are completed.

While the private sector contributed an estimated $20 billion in construction demand last year, this is expected to plunge to between $5 billion and $9 billion this year.

Revenue from private residential projects, in particular, is expected to drop from $6.5 billion last year to just $1.7 billion to $2.3 billion this year, said BCA.

Contractors say this figure could be worse come 2010 and beyond, and it looks like the public pie will not be big enough for everyone.

Mr Lim Yew Soon, managing director of a unit of local builder Evan Lim & Co, noted that civil engineering projects are very specialised, which 'only very few' experienced contractors can carry out.

The rest of the industry has to fight for the remaining 40 per cent of public building work, if private-sector projects all but dry up.

A check on BCA's online directory showed three times the number of contractors listed for building works - 2,751 - compared to 975 for civil engineering.

'A lot of these private projects have been shelved for obvious market reasons,' said Mr Desmond Hill, president of the Singapore Contractors Association.

'Credit is tight, and it's difficult to get financing to build projects, especially if people are not buying,' he said.

Those who strictly depend on private- sector projects may begin to get worried next year, he added, and this will have a knock-on effect on the smaller specialist sub-contractors.

Keppel Land, for example, announced recently it has deferred the construction of two projects - Marina Bay Suites in Marina Bay and Madison Residences in Bukit Timah - because of the downturn.

Late last year, a City Developments- led consortium deferred construction of the mega development South Beach on Beach Road, while developers such as GuocoLand have postponed redevelopment plans for acquired collective sale sites, and putting them back on the rental market.

'It's obvious private-sector work has dried up, there's no question about it,' said CIMB-GK Research construction industry analyst Lawrence Lye.

Even companies which have begun foundation works have been told to stop completely, he said. 'It's no surprise that everybody will now try to compete for public-sector projects.'

Firms such as Yongnam will survive the recession better as they specialise in civil engineering, and will have plenty of public-sector work, he added.

Mainboard-listed construction firms Lian Beng Group and KSH Holdings, on the other hand, are contractors that have built numerous condominiums and are now turning their eye to the public pie.

KSH Holdings recently had one of its contracts - Madison Residences - put on hold. Its executive chairman and managing director Choo Chee Onn said that currently, 50 per cent of its projects are private, and it expects to bid for more public ones in the future.

Lian Beng's executive chairman, Mr Ong Pang Aik, has a similar strategy.

Both are A1-grade contractors, a status which allows them to tender for public- sector construction projects of unlimited value.

Mr Hill estimates that construction industry revenue needs to hit $22 billion a year on average to sustain the building sector. If this demand is not there, firms might start to go under and professionals will get laid off or leave the industry, as in the last construction industry bust following the Sars crisis of 2003.

When the market eventually recovers, the industry might find itself short on local manpower, just as it did in the recent boom, he added.

All eyes are now on the market and whether developers will launch enough projects from the massive land bank they accumulated in the run-up to the 2007 property boom to sustain the industry.

CIMB-GK's Mr Lye said the bigger, fitter contractors are likely to survive the tough couple of years ahead.

Smaller firms are at greater risk. If their order book is small, all it takes is just a few cancelled or delayed projects to sink them, he said.



WHAT IS CIVIL ENGINEERING?
CIVIL engineering jobs typically involve non-building works such as cable and pipe laying, and the improvement of transport networks such as roads and railways. Some of the leading firms in civil engineering include Ssangyong Engineering & Construction, Tiong Seng Contractors and Woh Hup.
Examples of the work include the construction of:

MRT Downtown Line Stage 1
Marina Coastal Expressway
Widening of the Central Expressway from Braddell Road to Ang Mo Kio Avenue 1
PUB's sewerage and drainage projects
Singapore Power's utility and cabling projects
A new yard involving construction of dry docks wharves, quays, piers and other ancillary works by Jurong Shipyard

 

[jq75]

April 6, 2009
WARRANT WATCH
Property issues hog spotlight
THE large capitalised property counters put in a good showing last week, undeterred by the news that home prices here had shrank 14 per cent in the first quarter of this year.
News that pending home sales in the United States had risen while home prices in Britain rose last month for the first time since October 2007 gave local property developers a fillip.

CapitaLand was up 11.6 per cent in just a week, rising from $2.42 to $2.70. City Developments climbed 12.6 per cent in the space of a week.

These property counters outperformed the benchmark Straits Times Index, which rose by only 4.3 per cent over the same period.

One call warrant issued by Macquarie Securities on CapitaLand would have given the holder a whopping return of 53.8 per cent. Expiring next month, with an exercise price of $2.816 and a conversion ratio of 1,000 shares to 1,657 warrants, the CapitaLand warrant rose 3.5 cents to 10 cents. But only 10,000 units changed hands for this particular warrant.

An active warrant which offered a conversion ratio of 1,000 shares to 1,657 warrants and an exercise price of $2.319 was 3.5 cents higher at 29 cents. Nearly six million units were traded.

Keppel Corp was another counter on the rise. It rose 9 per cent in just a week, closing at $5.75 on Friday. A call warrant issued by Macquarie rose 23 per cent or 1.5 cents to eight cents. About 50,000 units were traded. The warrant expires in October, has an exercise price of $6.80 and a conversion ratio of one share to 12 warrants.

A call warrant lets an investor buy into a stock or index at a preset price over three to nine months. A put warrant lets an investor sell the stock or index at a preset price.

 

[jq75]

April 6, 2009
En bloc sales: Have safeguards against conflicts of interest
I REFER to Ms Susan Prior's letter, 'Relook en bloc rules' (April 4), and fully agree with her views. There has been a lack of proper governance over en bloc sales.
I am glad the Court of Appeal has taken issue with both the sales committee and the Strata Titles Board (STB), even if it is now too late to stop other en bloc sales that may have been engineered by sales committees and approved by STB panels against which similar questions could be raised.

En bloc sales are too important, in terms of the dollar amounts and the impact on people's lives, for their approval to be left to a poorly governed STB, which does not pay enough attention to conflicts of interest.

In one case, a managing director of a property consulting company that is one of the most active in en bloc sales sat on the STB panel approving a transaction. Objections were casually dismissed with a rather flippant 'in Singapore, everybody knows each other'.

While I understand the need for expertise on STB, expertise coupled with conflicts of interest - without adequate safeguards to manage such conflicts - will often lead to biased outcomes.

In a recent overseas study on corporate governance, the results show that boards with investment bankers on them undertake acquisitions that perform three times worse than those made by boards without such bankers.

Clearly, boards with investment bankers have greater expertise. However, even if his firm is not directly involved in a particular transaction, the investment banker is more likely to be sympathetic to acquisitions, even those that destroy shareholder value, because investment banks make a lot of money from acquisitions.

Similarly, a property consultant sitting on the STB panel would have a strong vested interest in successful en bloc transactions.

It may be quite a while before we again see a flurry of en bloc transactions. Next time, we better get the governance of the entire en bloc process right, without minority owners having to go through what those in Horizon Towers had to undergo.

 

[jq75]

April 7, 2009
Seletar Camp residents quit after rent hike

Mr Soh's family will be moving out after 12 years, as the monthly rent for their home will more than treble to $3,900.


By Tessa Wong
A GROUP of Seletar Camp tenants, many of them long-term residents, have chosen to move out en masse because of a steep increase in rent.
About 15 out of 47 affected households, mostly clustered around Mornington Crescent, Edgware Road and Sussex Gardens, have decided not to renew their leases after their landlord, the Singapore Land Authority (SLA), trebled their rent.

Motorcycle-riding instructor Soh Leng Huat, whose family has lived there for 12 years, was told in September that upon renewing his lease in January, his rent would be $3,900 instead of the usual $1,200 per month.

As a result of the rent hike, units are emptying out in a neighbourhood coveted for its unique bucolic feel.

These homes are unaffected by the upcoming aerospace hub, with construction resulting in nearly half of the 378 black-and- white colonial homes in Seletar Camp to be razed.

The 47 households are among a growing number of people living in government-owned properties who have been hit with drastically increased rents recently.

In December, residents at Chip Bee Gardens in Holland Village petitioned their landlord, JTC Corporation, after their rents nearly doubled.

The Seletar residents have followed in their footsteps and 31 residents sent a petition to SLA requesting lower rents earlier this year, questioning the SLA's timing.

Said musician Rick Smith, a 56-year-old Singapore permanent resident: 'The government said that in times of difficulty, they would help to reduce the crunch. But here you have residents, some of whom have had pay cuts, who have seen increased rent for government- owned property.'

In response, the SLA's spokesman said that the statutory board, which oversees land use in Singapore, charges rent 'based on the prevailing market rate'.

The Straits Times understands that there is usually a one-month gap between valuation and the SLA's decision on the new rate.

The spokesman added that it has reacted to the recent softening of the property market by lowering guide rents for available Seletar Camp units by 40 per cent in the last six months.

After the tenants' appeal, the SLA reduced rent by between a few hundred dollars and a thousand dollars in some cases.

But such concessions are not enough for those walking out, as they say that they still cannot afford the revised rates.

 

[jq75]

April 15, 2009
EN BLOC SALES
Think of the elderly
I REFER to Madam Asha Nathirmal's Forum Online letter yesterday, 'Scrutinise future collective sales to protect home owners'.
The Horizon Towers saga has highlighted an issue that has thus far escaped serious attention by the authorities: That is, the intense anxiety such sales arouse among elderly residents, who may suddenly find themselves being uprooted and relocated to unfamiliar places despite their objections.

The process of hunting for a new home and moving out, especially if it involves a new location, can be demanding and frustrating for the elderly. This is especially so if they had bought the previous home for retirement.

There have been instances where seniors had to move yet again after buying a new home because it had become part of another en bloc sale.

The Ministry of Law, in reviewing en bloc rules, should examine how the concerns of the elderly can be managed to alleviate their anxiety.

It could consider the feasibility of introducing a timeframe of, say, 20 years before which any en bloc sale would be disallowed unless there is 100 per cent approval from residents.

Such caveats will offer elderly residents some peace of mind and an assurance of a fairly lengthy period of living in their homes.

It will also help prospective buyers to make an informed decision about the residence.

Henry Lim

 

[jq75]

April 8, 2009
Straits Trading selling 10 apartments
$3m asking price for each Gallop Gables unit comes with rental guarantee

Gallop Gables, a freehold four-storey 140-unit development, has seven low-rise blocks. Straits Trading is asking $1,156 psf for its 10 units there. --
By Joyce Teo
INVESTORS are being offered 10 units in the 12-year-old Farrer Road district residential development Gallop Gables at the knock-down price of around $3 million each - complete with a rental guarantee.
The seller is Straits Trading, which has had a year to conduct a strategic review of its assets after Ms Chew Gek Khim's Tecity group took over as a controlling shareholder.

The firm's new executive vice-president Eric Teng told The Straits Times the sale is to enable it to invest in distressed assets that may surface locally and regionally - even though the sale itself is being done at a reduced price. 'This is just our financial discipline. Before you buy something, you should sell something,' said Mr Teng.

The average sale price per sq ft (psf) is about 23 per cent lower than what Straits Trading was seeking for the units last July.

Gallop Gables is a freehold four-storey 140-unit development near the Botanic Gardens. It has seven low-rise blocks.

For each of the 10 units, Straits Trading is offering a guaranteed rental yield of 7 per cent for two years. It will also absorb the maintenance fee for two years.

The units are fairly big, from 2,800 sq ft to 3,200 sq ft each. The firm said it is offering investors a 'rare opportunity' to invest in 'a solid piece of real estate, with an unprecedented yield of 7 per cent a year or 14 per cent for two years'.

At that kind of yield, the rent should be about $12,000 to $13,000 a month. But right now, the yield for the estate should be only around 4 to 5 per cent, said a property expert who declined to be named.

The firm's average asking price for the 10 units is $1,156 psf, slightly above the average $1,130 psf registered for two recent deals in the development.

Last July, the firm invited expressions of interest at $1,500 psf, or about $4.5 million each, for 38 tenanted units there. The property market has since deteriorated markedly.

That sale bid had come about three months after Tecity gained control of Straits Trading. Tecity is the parent of a group of investment companies built by the late Tan Chin Tuan, former OCBC Bank chairman - Ms Chew's grandfather.

He had helped OCBC acquire Straits Trading in the 1950s.

In the 1980s, Straits Trading's share price was more than $4, almost twice its price between 1995 and 2003. Tecity paid $6.70 a share for Straits Trading.

Yesterday, the shares closed five cents higher at $3.20 each.

In a separate announcement, Straits Trading said Mrs Victoria Tse will be retiring as the senior executive vice-president and group chief financial officer on July 7. She will be succeeded by Mr Eldon Wan, financial controller of Tecity, from yesterday.

It has also appointed Mr Iqbal Jumabhoy, who has more than 20 years of executive management experience, as chief executive of hospitality to oversee its hospitality management arm and hotel assets.

Mr Teng was named executive vice-president of property sales and leasing as well as adviser, corporate communications. He retains his role as adviser to Tecity and CEO of Tan Chin Tuan Foundation.

Mr Teng will oversee the sale of completed residential property owned by the group as well as the leasing of the Straits Trading Building in Battery Road. This office block will be ready by the end of the year and is now about 25 per cent leased.

Straits Trading was founded in 1887. Apart from hotels and property, its other business is in tin mining.

 

[jq75]

April 9, 2009
Rental-scam cheat conned 127 people
He is jailed for collecting deposits from them and then disappearing

By Esther Tan
PAYBACK time has come in the form of a jail term for a serial rental con artist.
The ruse of Eric Heng Jit Siang was to pose as the owner of a property seeking to rent it out, milking the tenant of a deposit on the rent, and then pulling a disappearing act.

Using both landed properties and flats he had rented, the 33-year-old conned 127 people, mainly foreigners and permanent residents, out of more than $242,500 in rental deposits between last April and January.

For doing this, he was yesterday put behind bars for six years and three months.

He pleaded guilty to 40 counts of deception and three of other crimes.

The court heard that he rented 10 properties across the island, got the keys to them and then placed advertisements in newspapers and train stations seeking tenants.

When people responded to his advertisements, he posed as the owner of these properties and arranged to show them the units.

When the tenancy agreement was signed - and each unit was 'rented' out to more than one house-hunter - he collected money from each of them as a deposit on the rental or the utility bill.

The victims found out that they had been taken for a ride only when they realised on moving day that they were not the only ones who had 'rented' the place.

This was Heng's cue to make himself scarce.

Mr Amit Gurung, a 26-year-old graduate student at a private school, told The Straits Times yesterday that he paid Heng $2,800 to rent a flat in Ang Mo Kio Avenue 5 last August.

Everything seemed plausible then. The Nepalese said: 'He introduced me to his wife and daughter. He said he wanted to rent out the flat because they were going to stay with his mother as she was ill.'

Three weeks later, as he was cleaning the unit before moving in, he had visits by no fewer than six people, all claiming to have rented the flat from Heng. They had the keys too.

Unable to reach Heng on his cellphone, Mr Gurung went to the police.

Deputy Public Prosecutor Andre Moses Tan pushed for a deterrent sentence, saying the offences were 'deliberate' and not committed in 'a moment of folly'.

In sentencing, District Judge Eddy Tham reprimanded Heng: 'What you have done is despicable. It has caused a lot of anxieties to these people.'

Heng, jobless at the time of his offences, was also fined $600 for driving without a valid driving licence.

He was arrested in February after having been on the run since last year.

None of the victims has got his money back. Mr Gurung said he is not banking on it.

No official data on rental scams exists, but the Consumers Association of Singapore said it has handled a steadily rising number of cases involving rental disputes, including misleading claims or misrepresentation.

The figures were 123 in 2006, 177 in 2007 and 231 last year. There have been 57 cases so far this year.

Last December, a Malaysian couple and a Japanese expatriate apparently lost $10,300 in all to a bogus property manager-cum-landlord of a terrace house in Serangoon.

Two agents from property agency ERA were apparently also duped by the man. It is not known whether he is still in hiding.

 

[jq75]

April 9, 2009
New malls offer rent rebates to get tenants
Move is in contrast with landlords' refusal to do the same for older malls
By Lim Wei Chean & Tessa Wong
ANOTHER new mall is going the tried-and-tested route of getting tenants: Cutting rents.
Orchard Central, slated to open in early June, has cut rents by 10 per cent to 30 per cent for some of its tenants on a 'case-by-case basis'.

It becomes the latest new mall to do so; Ion Orchard last month announced that it would offer rental rebates of up to 30 per cent for stores that are ready for business by the time it throws its doors open in July.

The mall, located at Orchard MRT station, has achieved 80 per cent occupancy.

Orchard Central, which is at Somerset MRT station, currently has 65 per cent occupancy. It hopes to increase this by tweaking rents.

Other new malls which have offered rent cuts or rebates include Tampines 1 and Iluma, at Bugis.

Such moves have shown results.

Tampines 1, which waived rentals for the first month, has enticed 75 per cent of its tenants to open when it begins operations today.

Tenants at the new Iluma mall, which had its soft opening last month, said they were offered the same deal, on condition that they opened on March 28.

Iluma's developer, Jack Investment, did not respond to queries on its occupancy rate yesterday. But the mall looked to be about 60 per cent full when The Straits Times visited yesterday. Another 10 per cent of the units were also furnished and looked ready to open soon.

'It's a good incentive, especially with the economy not doing so well. We don't have to worry so much about costs for a while,' said Mr Raphael Lim, the sales and operations executive at Artisan Exchange, a men's boutique at Iluma.

Such moves are in contrast with landlords' stand on older buildings. Despite a push for blanket rent reductions led by the Singapore Retailers Association, mall owners are standing firm.

Even Far East Organization, which is building Orchard Central, has resisted offering cuts to more than a handful of tenants, usually those who signed leases when rents were at their peak, or those who hold big units. Ms Susan Leng, its director of retail management, said: 'It is not equitable to give across the board rental cuts.'

To date, she said, some 17 of its 123 tenants have asked for help, and fewer than 10 have received cuts, which will last till October. Other landlords like AsiaMalls have indicated that they prefer to spend on promotions and advertisements to draw traffic.

Small stores, however, are crying out for help. They say sales have dipped to such an extent that they need rent cuts to stay open. They threw the word 'inequitable' into the mix as well, saying promotions and the like favour bigger players.

Meanwhile, Orchard Central - the first new mall to hit Singapore's premier shopping strip in more than 10 years - is all set for a grand opening. It organised a media tour yesterday to show off its see-through glass facade and an air-conditioned shopping 'street' within.

Among its other attractions: Singapore's first indoor rock-climbing wall and $9 million worth of artwork scattered through the mall. The 213,000 sq ft mall will have 259 shops, mostly familiar names such as Osmose and Vincent Watch.

 

[jq75]

April 5, 2009
YOUR LETTERS
Rents down, why not property tax?
I refer to the report, 'Rents in prime areas head south' (March22), and wonder why the Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) is not reducing property tax this year despite the falling property prices and rents.
I understand Iras needs to be prudent about collecting taxes, but it also has to be proactive and adjust the annual values of properties downwards, in line with the market.

David Goh

April 9, 2009
Property tax reduced due to real estate slump
OWNERS could pay up to 60 per cent less property tax after the taxman reduced the value of tens of thousands of sites following the real estate sector's slump.
The Inland Revenue Authority of Singapore (Iras) recently held its annual review - brought forward in the light of dire market conditions - which found that 99 per cent of assessed properties had their values reduced.

Together with the 40 per cent property tax rebate announced in January's Budget, owners of these properties will now pay 45 per cent to 60 per cent less property tax.

The values of properties are reviewed by Iras annually to ensure that they reflect prevailing rental market rates for property tax assessment.

Falling property prices and rents had prompted calls for Iras to also reduce property tax in line with market conditions.

The tax authorities reviewed a total of 116,200 properties in the first quarter.

Of the 84,900 private residential sites assessed, 99 per cent had values reduced by between 5 per cent and 20 per cent.

The total reduction in property tax payable for these homes is about 45 per cent to 50 per cent.

Of the 15,600 offices reviewed, 92 per cent had their annual values lowered by between 10 per cent and 35 per cent. This translates to a total reduction of tax liability by 45 per cent to 60 per cent.

And 98 per cent of the 9,700 industrial properties reviewed suffered a loss in value of 5 per cent to 30 per cent, translating to a total reduction of tax liability by 45 per cent to 60 per cent.

Based on current rentals, the annual values of HDB flats 'should be higher than the existing 2009' ones, but Iras is keeping them unchanged 'in view of the poor economic conditions and uncertainties in the HDB rental trends in the coming months'.

The taxman said that it would review the values of all private properties, including retail ones, by the third quarter.

MICHELLE TAY

 

[satayxp]

April 15, 2009
Private home sales stay firm
Sales of private homes are holding up.

Property developers sold 1,220 units of new private homes in March, compared with 1,332 units in February and 108 units in January.

February sales - boosted mainly by the strong response to two new launches Alexis and Caspian - were the highest since August 2007.

Figures released by the Urban Redevelopment Authority on Wednesday showed that 832 new housing units were launched in March, compared with 1,072 units in February and 204 units in January.

The best-selling project in March was the 646-unit Double Bay Residences in Simei.

Developer UOL Group and Kheng Leong launched 320 units and sold 264 of them at a median selling price of $659 per square foot, or from just $409 psf to $898 psf.