Tag: DBSS

  • Hougang DBSS Resident Files Court Application To Demand S&CC Refund From AHPETC

    Hougang DBSS Resident Files Court Application To Demand S&CC Refund From AHPETC

    A resident of a new Housing Board development in Hougang has gone to court to obtain a refund for the service and conservancy charges (S&CC) she paid to the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC).

    Corporate travel manager Melinda Teo, 37, lodged a report with the Small Claims Tribunal on Monday (June 22), in a bid to get back the $367.20 that she paid in S&CC between November last year and May this year.

    Ms Teo, who lives in the 680-unit Parkland Residences, a Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) project, said she should not have to pay the fees to the Workers’ Party-run town council as it took over the management and maintenance of the property only on June 1.

    Before that, the project’s developer, Kwan Hwee Investment, had to step in to clean the common areas.

    Earlier this month, more than 300 residents of Parkland Residences sent a petition to the town council demanding to have their S&CC waived or refunded. But their appeal was not answered by either the town council or the Workers’ Party MPs, said Ms Teo.

    However, an AHPETC spokesman had said in response to media queries earlier this month that the town council would have to compensate Kwan Hwee Investment for the maintenance work done before June 1. As such, it cannot return the S&CC to residents, it told reporters.

    Following Ms Teo’s move to take court action, a representative of AHPETC must attend a meeting at the Small Claims Tribunal on July 2, according to a court document issued to the town council.

    Otherwise, an order could be given against the town council in its absence. The order could include a mandatory compensation to the claimant for claims below $10,000.

    Ms Teo said she decided to go down the legal route as “our e-mails and petition have only received the silent treatment from the MPs and town council”. She added that several neighbours have expressed interest in filing similar claims with the tribunal.

     

    Source: www.straitstimes.com

  • DBSS Woes: Because HDB Went Flat?

    DBSS Woes: Because HDB Went Flat?

    fter it has happened so many times, you have to ask: What the hell is going on?

    The latest DBSS fiasco to hit the Internet is Pasir Ris One, located beside the neighbourhood’s White Sands shopping mall. Residents are complaining that the common corridor – exactly 1.2m-wide – is too narrow, even if it is built to fire safety standards. Owners who picked up their keys over the last two months have formed a private Facebook group to discuss the issue. So far, more than 200 home-owners – about half of the 447 units available – have signed up. Members are required to present a letter or any official document that proves ownership in order join the group.

    Residents who spoke to TMG complained about several building defects, including uneven ceilings and exposed pipes. The size of the flat and its rooms appear to have caught several by surprise, although the developer had stuck to the specified dimensions. The chief complaint was the dark and narrow corridors, which is “shocking, too small and with a ceiling that is worse than a factory and a car park”, as Ms Jynny Chew, 50, a soon-be-resident in Block 530C said.

    Commissioned by the G, DBSS flats are designed and built by private developers. They typically come with better fittings and finishings than standard Build-to-Order flats, though unlike Executive Condominiums, these projects do not have facilities such as pools and gyms.

    Pasir Ris One, launched in April 2012, was built by private developers SingHaiyi Group Ltd and Kay Lim Holdings. The last of the 13 projects offered under the Design, Build and Sell Scheme, an average four-room flat costs around $550,000 to S$670,000, compared to a reported S$350,000 for a four-room BTO flat around the area.

    This latest spate of complaints follows a handful of other DBSS projects which have been under fire for shoddy workmanship despite the premium price such flats command.

    Just last month, DBSS estate Trivelis in Clementi made headlines when residents told of shower room glasses that shattered easily, water seepage into units from floods in corridors and rusty lift doors.

    Earlier in the year, Centrale 8 in Tampines was lambasted by residents over what they perceived to be the low quality of its finishes and fittings. Residents faced faulty balcony locks, toilets, and even bursting water pipes.

    In 2013, The Peak in Toa Payoh was attacked for the dreadful state of its 1203 units, with inferior materials used, such as flimsy lamination, topping the list.

    The woes of the DBSS residents have surfaced an issue: what are the responsibilities of the Housing Board and the private developer for the state of the finished product?

    So far, HDB has remained in the background, preferring to let private contractors handle the matter while it monitors changes. The private developers, on the other hand, are falling mainly on the “one-year defects warranty” to placate residents who want the place spruced up.

    In the case of Centrale 8, developer Sim Lian was adamant about not extending the defect liability period or provide financial compensation despite the impending expiry of the residents’ one-year “warranty”. This is even as residents maintained that defects were still surfacing.

    Trivelis residents were told by developer ELD that contractors would continue to engage the Trivelis Residents Working Committee and see to their problems.

    As for structural work that doesn’t quite constitute surface defects and which would require extensive work, it’s probably too hard a case to make.

    Like common corridors.

    Most of the 447 units in the four Pasir Ris blocks were unoccupied when TMG visited the area on Monday. What stood out immediately was the width of the corridor that ran along the units. At 1.2 metres across, the passageway is at the minimum width permitted by the Singapore Civil Defence Force. This means that residents aren’t allowed to place items along the passageway, as they would impede movement during an emergency.

    Mr Ali, 42, who was at his four-room flat with his family of six, never expected the corridor to be so narrow. The police officer, who had moved in with his family a month ago, said that with the door grilles open, a person would have to edge past the grilles sideways to get through the corridor.

    Photo By Shawn Danker
    The corridors of Pasir Ris One are so narrow that the Fire reel doors on opposing sides will block each other if opened at the same time.
    Photo By Shawn Danker
    An open gate shows how much walking space is left in the corridors of Pasir Ris One after a resident opens their doors.
    Photo By Shawn Danker
    Mrs Chew pointed out that the ceiling pipes on her floor were all exposed and lacking a false ceiling to cover them up.

    While another resident, Ms Vera Foo, 26, an administrative executive, didn’t mind the narrow space, her mother, on the other hand, was outraged. It was “ridiculous” that people had to pass through the corridor in a single file, she said. She recalled how a construction worker had to wait for her to pass into a wider part of the corridor before proceeding past her. “If others come to visit during the festive season like Chinese New Year, there might be a problem of congestion in there”, she said pointing to the passage.

    One resident who was not too fussed about the corridor is Mrs Lynn Pang, 44, a housewife. Her four-room flat is situated at the end of a passage which widens into a lift lobby and staircase. “I am satisfied with my place but I don’t know how our neighbours are going to move in through that corridor”, Mrs Pang said.

    There will be no more DBSS woes simply because this is the last DBSS project but it appears that even residents in new BTO flats have a problem with the quality of work. It makes one wonder if the push to provide more housing in quicker time over the past few years is leading to some compromise of quality. A quick, but not very good, job done?

     

    Featured photo by Shawn Danker. 

     

    Source: http://themiddleground.sg

  • Pasir Ris One DBSS – Yet Another Development Under Fire

    Pasir Ris One DBSS – Yet Another Development Under Fire

    In what is becoming a recurring series of incidents, another group of homeowners of new flats are crying foul at the shoddy workmanship and design of their homes.

    The Online Citizen (TOC) understands that some of the owners of the new Pasir Ris ONE have just received their keys to their new homes which are located at the junction of Pasir Ris Central and Pasir Ris Drive 1, a stone’s throw away from the Pasir Ris MRT station.

    The 447-unit development is one under the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS), and consists of three-, four- and five-room flats.

    The purchase prices of these homes are reported to be between S$390,000 to S$470,000 for 3-room flats, and S$550,000 to S$670,000 for 4-rooms.  (See here.)

    The Pasir Ris ONE website lists the prices for 5-rooms as follow:

    comparisons-chart

    DBSS flats are supposed to come with better finishings and design, as buyers pay a premium for them.

    However, since owners had entry to their homes the last few months, it has emerged that the workmanship has left a lot to be desired.

    For a start, the corridors of the flats are so narrow that two persons can hardly walk side by side.

    When TOC measured the corridor of one block, it was precisely 1.2m wide.

    DSC_0456

    This is believed to be the minimum required by HDB and the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) safety rules.

    According to the Singapore Civil Defence Force (SCDF) website:

    scdf1

    Guidelines_HDB_1

    It is also worth noting that in a parliamentary reply in 2013 to a question of ensuring “clear passages along common corridors of HDB flats”, the Ministry of National Development said it was revising the clearance required from 1.2m to 1.5m, to provide for safety and rescue purposes.

    “To prepare for an ageing population and to provide wider access routes for people using mobility aids, BCA announced revisions to the Code on Accessibility last month.

    “The revisions include a wider minimum clearance width of 1.5m along corridors for buildings with plans submitted for regulatory approval on or after 1 Apr 2014.”

    Some of the gates at the main doors of opposite flats along the corridors are so close together that the gates almost touch each other when they are swung open.

    It is thus unclear how the homeowners of the Pasir Ris ONE flats would have the requisite allowable and safety space in their corridors if they were to, for example, place a shoe rack or a bicycle outside their main doors.

    Another curious placement issue is the way the gas vents have been installed on the ceilings along the corridors.

    DSC_0488
    Besides its questionable aesthetic design, is there also a safety issue here if an incident of leakage or fire should happen, especially with the narrow corridors?

    Besides safety, there are also concerns of security with how the flats are designed.

    Burglars or others with ill intention could gain easy entry into their homes through the air-conditioner ledges, for example, and enter the flats though the windows.

    Here is how it looks like, outside a ground floor flat:

    DSC_0460

    Here is another view:

    DSC_0491

    It would not be too hard for someone to climb to the upper floors through these balconies.

    And for some unknown reasons, TOC understands that the owners cannot make use of the entire ledge, although the floor area of the ledge is included as part of the size of the flat.

    And even over at the community barbeque pits, the design also came under fire, as one resident posted on the Pasir Ris ONE Facebook page on 4 June:

    bbqcomplaint

    TOC measured the height of the pit and it was about 1.3m high – from the ground to where the wire mesh would be. This would make it hard for anyone who is below, say, 1.7m to manage the barbeque.

    This writer – who is 1.7m tall – is pictured here at the pit:

    bbqpit

    When it comes to drying the laundry, the clothes rack isn’t something to crow about either.

    The rack is so small it can hardly dry any clothes; and also, the sun is blocked by the ledge above the rack which is presumably to prevent litter from the upper floors from reaching the lower ones.

    These would make drying your laundry quite a challenge.

    DSC_0462

    These are some issues which residents have with the external surroundings of the flats.

    What about the insides?

    Not much better.

    TOC understands that owners face many defects which need to be rectified.

    These include tiles in the living room which were either scratched, or have different shades of colour, or the groutings were poorly finished, while others have uneven flooring which need to be corrected.

    Some of the grilles at the balcony were also badly painted, and others had leaky pipes in the kitchen.

    The placement of the water heater in their kitchens is also another issue.

    When it is turned on, the heater can become a safety hazard, and it also contributes to warming up the kitchen when cooking is also in process because of the inefficient ventilation design.

    In the bedrooms, there were more defects – there were windows which took some effort to open, and toilet and shower doors were designed such that one has to close one in order to have enough space to open the other.

    And then there were the cracked tiles and poor grouting work.

    Some bedroom doors were also faulty, leaving big gaps between the door and the floor. There were also faulty window screws, window frames, door handles, chipped doors, bad wiring, dirty toilet bowls, and poorly installed floor tiles, among many other complaints.

    Some have complained that the master room, which is 15sqm, is so small it can barely fit a king-sized bed, leaving scarce room to walk.

    According to HDB rules, homeowners have one year to inform the developer of any defects.

    Pasir Ris ONE is a joint project between Sing Haiyi Group and Kay Lim Holdings.

    Homeowners have since created a private Facebook group  to highlight the flaws in their homes.

    Such problems in new developments have been reported  by new owners of other DBSS flats at the Trivelis in Clementi and Centrale 8 in Tampines in the last two months, along with several other groups of owners of build-to-order flats, such as in Punggol and Bukit Panjang, in the last few years.

    In its response to all these, the HDB said earlier in June that the defects were merely “surface imperfections.”

    “This is due mainly to the inherent features of natural materials or the nature of construction works that are dependent on manual labour,” a HDB spokesman said.

     

    Source: www.theonlinecitizen.com

  • Property Experts: DBSS Losing Its Relevance

    Property Experts: DBSS Losing Its Relevance

    Property experts say the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) is losing its relevance and should be scrapped.

    The scheme was suspended in 2011, but came under the spotlight after recent complaints by residents over defects in their new DBSS flats. The Housing and Development Board (HDB) says the scheme is not currently its priority.

    One four-room DBSS unit at Ang Mo Kio gave its owner nightmares. Forty-five-year-old Ng Tong Seng had moved into the flat – which cost more than S$500,000 – in December 2012. Within weeks, he found numerous flaws, from bug infestation to cracks on the walls.

    It was a painful process for Mr Ng, who had to spend months getting the developer to rectify the defects.

    “The number of defects filed by the residents was a lot,” he said. “And they were having a difficult time catching up with all the work. We have about one year to get all these rectified by the developer and the developer took their own sweet time.”

    He said the HDB did not offer much help.

    “We are being left alone by authorities,” he said. “We bought the house under the ruling of HDB. They threw the rule books at us, but when we faced problems and approached them for help, they said, ‘Sorry, I can’t do anything’. So, that is frustrating. On one side, you try to govern me, on the other side, you can’t help me. So, I’m very confused about their rule.”

    Residents of the Trivelis DBSS estate in Clementi have also questioned HDB’s role in the scheme. About 500 of them have complained about problems such as rusty dish holders and flooding in the corridors.

    The housing board says it oversees the scheme, but under the sale and purchase agreement, developers must rectify defects reported by buyers within a year.

    HDB brought on board private developers to bring diversity and creativity to public housing designs, when it introduced the scheme in 2005. The condominium-like furnishings of DBSS units initially grabbed attention.

    But experts say the quality of Build-to-Order (BTO) flats has gone up.

    Associate Professor Sing Tien Foo from the Department of Real Estate at the National University of Singapore said: “I think the differentiation has become smaller. So, if the price differentiation is relatively big, it makes DBSS less attractive in that sense compared to BTO flats, because there’s still a price gap between BTO and DBSS flats.

    “So, we might see that the DBSS scheme may no longer be necessary in the near future. So, this is probably a good time to phase it out.”

    The scheme was intended to cater for the “sandwiched class”, which referred to those who could not afford private condominiums, but did not qualify for BTO flats because their income exceeded the qualifying ceiling, which was then set at S$8,000.

    However, analysts say prices between private and HDB units are narrowing, which means the scheme is losing its target group. Furthermore, the income ceiling for BTO flats was raised to S$10,000 in 2011, the same as that for DBSS properties.

    With not much difference in quality, they added that home buyers will be more inclined to purchase BTO flats, which are cheaper. This would lower demand for DBSS flats.

    Still, one expert says it’s better to suspend the scheme than scrap it totally.

    “Because we never know that, perhaps one day when prices start to escalate quickly again, there may be a need to bring back a scheme that is similar to DBSS,” said Mr Nicholas Mak, an executive director for research and consultancy at SLP International Property Consultants. “But I think in the next two or three years, the chances of it coming back are not high.”

    There have been 13 DBSS projects since the scheme was introduced.

     

    Source: www.channelnewsasia.com

  • Residents Forced To Clean Common Areas, Query AHPETC Collection Of S&CC Charges

    Residents Forced To Clean Common Areas, Query AHPETC Collection Of S&CC Charges

    SINGAPORE — For more than seven months, the residents and the developer of a Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) project at Upper Serangoon Road had to clean and maintain the common areas themselves, because of an impasse involving the Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council (AHPETC) and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) over maintenance documents.

    Following discussions, the standstill at Parkland Residences was recently resolved and from next month, the town council will fulfil its duty to manage common property in public housing estates as stipulated under the Town Council Act.

    However, as far as the residents and the developer are concerned, the matter is not fully resolved: Residents, several of whom had moved in as early as October last year, said that during that period, some of them continued to pay service and conservancy charges (S&CC), even though others had stopped paying as a matter of principle. Meanwhile, the developer, Kwan Hwee Investment, said it hopes to seek reimbursement for the expenses it had incurred for taking care of the common areas between November and this month.

    The situation came to light after TODAY reader Julia Ng wrote to the newspaper last week about the problems she and her neighbours face at Parkland Residences.

    Among other things, Ms Ng wrote about how residents were billed for the S&CC upon collecting their keys but “there were no subsequent reminders, and many of us have not been making payment”.

    She added: “It did not seem required, since there was no maintenance as evidenced by the dirty corridors and surroundings, especially in the earlier months when many residents took it upon themselves to clean the corridors.”

    Ms Ng said the residents understood that the development had not been handed over to the town council and that the S&CC “were collected on behalf of the HDB, which the latter denied”.

    Replying to Ms Ng’s letter, HDB director (land administration) Koo-Lee Sook Chin clarified that the S&CC collected by AHPETC “are not collected on behalf of HDB”. She revealed that AHPETC had “refused to perform its duty until the developer handed over a list of documents and items specified by (the town council)”.

    “HDB has clarified that these documents and items were not required for AHPETC to carry out its day-to-day cleaning and maintenance,” Mrs Koo-Lee said.

    She added that as AHPETC had “refused to maintain the common areas”, the HDB asked the developer to clean the estate in the interim, “to ensure that the hygiene of residents’ living environment would not be compromised”. The developer has been cleaning the estate since Nov 12 last year, Mrs Koo-Lee said.

    “Pending AHPETC’s execution of its duties to maintain the estate, HDB will work with the developer to ensure that the estate is maintained in the interim, for the benefit of all residents,” she said.

    Speaking to TODAY, Mr Philip Tan, Kwan Hwee Investment’s project manager for Parkland Residences, confirmed that the AHPETC wanted HDB’s endorsement for maintenance documents — such as drawings of water supply and gas pipes and lift maintenance schedule — but the HDB disagreed.

    Mr Tan said these documents are needed to assist a town council in taking over the maintenance of services. He added that the developer had deployed cleaners on a daily basis. “We hope to seek some form of reimbursements for the cleaning work that we have done since November,” he said.

    Responding to TODAY’s queries, an AHPETC spokesman said the town council “agrees that there is room to improve the handover procedures between the developer, the HDB and the town council with regard to DBSS developments”. He added that the town council was “exercising its due diligence in the handover”. Nevertheless, the town council has since reviewed its internal process, he said.

    The spokesman did not reply to questions on the S&CC, including which period was the AHPETC collecting the S&CC and what it intends to do with the S&CC collected. Residents at Parkland Residences said the situation has improved, but they recalled their frustrations in the initial months.

    “There was a rat infestation at my block,” said resident Joyce Wong, 27. “The bins at the lift lobbies just started piling up because no one was clearing them. When residents complained, the developers took away the bins, but then we didn’t have anywhere to discard our rubbish at.”

    Another resident, a homemaker who only wanted to be known as Mrs Chan, said: “We asked the HDB whether we should pay (S&CC), but they said they hadn’t handed over to the town council yet and were not collecting. When we approached the town council, they said they were collecting on behalf of HDB, but the HDB said they didn’t know anything.”

    Human resource manager Sim Bee Lay, 39, said she has not paid the S&CC since she moved into her flat.

    “We only received one letter and there were no reminders following that,” she added.

     

    Source: www.todayonline.com