The role of the Housing and Development Board (HDB) in resolving disputes on defects in Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) projects came under scrutiny in Parliament today (July 13), with Members of Parliament (MP) seeking clarification on the powers the HDB could exercise, and questioning if the authority could do more.
This comes after some DBSS projects, which are built by private developers and marketed at premium prices for better design and finishes, recently made headlines following complaints from residents about the state of their homes, such as Trivelis in Clementi, Centrale 8 in Tampines and Pasir Ris One.
In response to questions about the number of complaints about both DBSS and Build-to-Order (BTO) flats, Minister of State for National Development Desmond Lee said that an average of one-third of all new residents approach the Building Service Centre (BSC) for assistance with defects in BTO flats after collecting their keys.
The vast majority of defects reported are surface imperfections such as hairline cracks on walls, scratches on timber floors or uneven tile joints, he said.
However, similar statistics for DBSS projects were unavailable, as residents facing issues with defects report them to the BSC managed by private developers during the Defects Liability Period (DLP).
Mr Lee pointed out that the ramping up of supply of BTO flats has not compromised quality, given that the number of defects reported has not changed significantly. An independent assessment of building quality by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA), known as the Construction Quality Assessment System score, has shown that BTO flat quality has improved, with scores rising from 79 in 2003 to 89 last year.
For DBSS projects, Mr Lee said the HDB sets broad parameters such as buyer’s eligibility, the mix of flat sizes and facilities, but gives developers flexibility to design, price and construct the flats within requirements set by relevant authorities such as the BCA and the Urban Redevelopment Authority. But the HDB, he added, has “zero tolerance” for defects that compromise structural or safety standards.
Non-Constituency MP Yee Jenn Jong questioned if the DBSS failed its intent to meet housing aspirations of higher-income flat buyers, while Jurong GRC MP David Ong asked about the ministry’s direction with premium flats in future, given the prices narrowing between BTO and DBSS flats.
In response, Mr Lee said there was no need to rush a decision about scrapping the DBSS, which has been suspended since 2011. “We should take time to review this and consider this, as market conditions could be different. There may well be reasons to bring back the DBSS in some form.
“Not to trivialise the defects and concerns that first-time home buyers in particular feels … but I think you shouldn’t … use these current few points that have been in the public eye to condemn the entire scheme as a failure. Many people have indeed lived and made homes in these projects.”
Mr Zaqy Mohamad (Chua Chu Kang GRC) suggested extending the DLP to give residents more time to engage developers or contractors to rectify defects.
He also proposed postponing mortgage payments for homeowners in disputes, citing a similar approach in Australia where payments are withheld until defects are resolved.
Mr Lee reiterated that the sales and purchase agreements provides for the rectification of defects within a year under the DLP. Buyers can also undertake works and file claims with the developers. He stressed that it is not true that “the HDB entirely takes no responsibility” when it comes to differences over DBSS projects.
For instance, the HDB had followed up on concerns from residents living in the Trivelis project with the developer and the advisers to reach a resolution. The developer has made an offer to residents, Mr Lee noted.
Source: www.todayonline.com
