Mr Teo Chee Hean
Blk 738 Pasir Ris Drive 10
#01-21
Singapore 510738
Dear Sir,
Documents Provide The Explanation
1. There are a number of mistakes made in the five issues of my case. They are not complicated issues. The process of checking documents of government departments is required to arrive at a conclusion.
There were mentions that it is for the court to decide. It can be, but it gets complicated with the many layers of government and a host of other matters with little connection to the issues. A weak rival is likely to give up with the delays, expenses and lack of resources.
If the mistakes are to be decided by the court, will it not affect the integrity of the department concerned? In my case internal investigations are only required to reach a conclusion. But there are resistance to carry out investigations that will implicate officers. There seem to be not enough good people who will make the difference.
It is not the fine points of the law that needs to be clarified. Most, if not all, of the issues are in the document provided by departments or to be found in departments.
It will be in the public interest to correct the mistakes made or to explain the positions taken according to the documents. The issues could also be brought up to the prime minister for a determination since it has not been addressed.
The case has been for years as more issues cropped out.
2. The refund to CPF Account is an example. It is common knowledge that refund is required after sale of flat for fund used to purchase the flat. Yet officers continue to mislead. When asked to show proof, a senior assistant director quoted Section 15(15)(e) of 2012 CPF Act, which is another misleading statement because we did not make an application through Section 15(15)(e). No application was made, therefore the refund should have proceeded as usual.
3. The purchase of two additional CPF LIFE is another. The document showed there was no need for additional CPF LIFE. It was stated there will be two deductions of annuity premiums from Retirement Account (RA), the first deduction was upon issuance of the CPF LIFE INCOME Plan and the second will be two months before the Draw Down Age (DDA).
With the first additional CPF LIFE, I was asked to purchase under dubious circumstances. No important notes, no grace period and no explanations were given. The form was prepared ready for my signature. It could be the only additional CPF LIFE sold in this way. The reason for it: I made my complaint to HDB on noise from the neighbour for years then blogged about it.
Of the second additional CPF LIFE purchased under the Silver Housing Bonus Scheme, why was there a need for the compulsory purchase with the balance in RA? It was stated, the second deduction to CPF LIFE will be done automatically to include the balance in RA.
The CPF LIFE INCOME Plan gave the highest payout of the five plans offered at the time because there was no bequest. But calculation in my spreadsheet showed the rate of return of the two additional CPF LIFE to be low compared to the CPF LIFE I purchased when it was first introduced. The fourth calculation, which was part of the second additional CPF LIFE, was a mistake because it was too low.
It was not in my interest to have purchased the two additional CPF LIFE. First, the CPF LIFE INCOME Plan I purchased had no bequest even if the monthly payout at age 65 has not started yet. Second, any purchase of additional CPF LIFE should offer equal or better return than the 4% in RA. Third, the Important Notes on CPF LIFE covered all situations for purchase of additional CPF LIFE before and after DDA and with additional money in RA after DDA but it did not include the situations for the purchase of the two additional CPF LIFE.
I should also quote from the Important Notes on CPF LIFE:
“The CPF LIFE Scheme is subject to the provisions of the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder and any amendments thereof, as well as such terms and conditions which may be imposed by the Board from time to time.”
Does the purchase of the two additional CPF LIFE comes under the Scheme? As shown, the purchases were disadvantageous to the policyholder and uncalled-for by the Important Notes on CPF LIFE. The Important Notes on CPF LIFE in Salient Points (40) was submitted at Meet-the-People Session, Ang Mo Kio.
4. The $5000 deposit deducted from the resale price as shown in the document is yet another. If the Resale Operation Section of HDB was upfront about it, they would have stated the deposit was the option exercised by the buyers and formed part of the resale price. The intent to conceal was part of an elaborate scheme to cause monetary losses.
The Resale Operation Section had sent the Option To Purchase (OTP) I requested but could not produce a receipt that payment of $5000 was made to us. In the OTP we had signed against the two portions showing the option fee of $1000 and the option exercise fee of $4000. It seemed we had received payment. What happened was the two portions were left blank when we signed it. Together the two portions to be filled should not exceed $5000. It could be a dollar for the option fee and a dollar for the option exercise fee. All I knew at the time was I had negotiated the price directly with the buyers in the presence of salespersons for the buyer and seller without any mention of option. If the option was of any import, I would have received a fee when the OTP was signed on the same day that the buyers had agreed to the price. The original copy of the OTP would have been handed to me as required together with a receipt showing payment.
The explanatory notes from the Exclusive Estate Agency Agreement For The Sale of Residential Property stated “An agreement for sale and purchase may take the form of an executed sale and purchase agreement or an option to purchase which has been exercised by the Buyer.” Although the OTP was filled by the salesperson from the buyer, witnessed by the salesperson from the seller and signed by us, we did not receive a copy of OTP and fee and the OTP was not explained. In the case the sale was executed at the Resale Operation Section with no need of an option.
What happened to the $5000? Since there was nothing unusual about the transaction, all procedures required of the salespersons and of the officers at the Resale Operation Section should have been as normal with no missing or addition of parts. All documents should be checked.
5. The sale agreement with the salesperson had attached explanatory notes and duties of estate agent. It was under the explanatory notes and duties of estate agent that the salesperson had failed. He and his company did not attend to my enquiry why there was no refund to CPF Account (Item 2) and the requirement of an option was not brought to my attention (Item 4). It pointed to collaboration between the handling officer at Resale Operation Section and the salesperson to cause monetary losses. When I requested to reduce their fee to 1%, the senior legal manager of the company stated that the company reserved all rights to proceed against me.
6. Is there any official document to indicate the neighbour was carrying on a trade in the flat? The government should have details of occupation, residence and place of work of the first and second owner of the flat. There was evidence of a working relationship that caused them to transfer the flat from the first owner to the second owner that was facilitated by officer after an eviction. There was also evidence that the people in the flat across the neighbour were there to protect the neighbour. This from the fact that after I had informed the police, no action was taken and their reply did not refer to the people in the flat across the neighbour.
Is there any record of quarrels with other households in other places over noise considering that they are a group of people operating a business over a long period?
After two years of complaint to the authorities, I blogged. All troubles encountered and the monetary losses listed that were caused by officers started from here.
Yours Sincerely,
hh
I should also quote from the Important Notes on CPF LIFE:
“The CPF LIFE Scheme is subject to the provisions of the Central Provident Fund Act (Chapter 36) and the subsidiary legislation made thereunder and any amendments thereof, as well as such terms and conditions which may be imposed by the Board from time to time.”
Does the purchase of the two additional CPF LIFE comes under the Scheme? As shown, the purchases were disadvantageous to the policyholder and uncalled-for by the Important Notes on CPF LIFE. The Important Notes on CPF LIFE in Salient Points (40) was submitted at Meet-the-People Session, Ang Mo Kio.
4. The $5000 deposit deducted from the resale price as shown in the document is yet another. If the Resale Operation Section of HDB was upfront about it, they would have stated the deposit was the option exercised by the buyers and formed part of the resale price. The intent to conceal was part of an elaborate scheme to cause monetary losses.
The Resale Operation Section had sent the Option To Purchase (OTP) I requested but could not produce a receipt that payment of $5000 was made to us. In the OTP we had signed against the two portions showing the option fee of $1000 and the option exercise fee of $4000. It seemed we had received payment. What happened was the two portions were left blank when we signed it. Together the two portions to be filled should not exceed $5000. It could be a dollar for the option fee and a dollar for the option exercise fee. All I knew at the time was I had negotiated the price directly with the buyers in the presence of salespersons for the buyer and seller without any mention of option. If the option was of any import, I would have received a fee when the OTP was signed on the same day that the buyers had agreed to the price. The original copy of the OTP would have been handed to me as required together with a receipt showing payment.
The explanatory notes from the Exclusive Estate Agency Agreement For The Sale of Residential Property stated “An agreement for sale and purchase may take the form of an executed sale and purchase agreement or an option to purchase which has been exercised by the Buyer.” Although the OTP was filled by the salesperson from the buyer, witnessed by the salesperson from the seller and signed by us, we did not receive a copy of OTP and fee and the OTP was not explained. In the case the sale was executed at the Resale Operation Section with no need of an option.
What happened to the $5000? Since there was nothing unusual about the transaction, all procedures required of the salespersons and of the officers at the Resale Operation Section should have been as normal with no missing or addition of parts. All documents should be checked.
5. The sale agreement with the salesperson had attached explanatory notes and duties of estate agent. It was under the explanatory notes and duties of estate agent that the salesperson had failed. He and his company did not attend to my enquiry why there was no refund to CPF Account (Item 2) and the requirement of an option was not brought to my attention (Item 4). It pointed to collaboration between the handling officer at Resale Operation Section and the salesperson to cause monetary losses. When I requested to reduce their fee to 1%, the senior legal manager of the company stated that the company reserved all rights to proceed against me.
6. Is there any official document to indicate the neighbour was carrying on a trade in the flat? The government should have details of occupation, residence and place of work of the first and second owner of the flat. There was evidence of a working relationship that caused them to transfer the flat from the first owner to the second owner that was facilitated by officer after an eviction. There was also evidence that the people in the flat across the neighbour were there to protect the neighbour. This from the fact that after I had informed the police, no action was taken and their reply did not refer to the people in the flat across the neighbour.
Is there any record of quarrels with other households in other places over noise considering that they are a group of people operating a business over a long period?
After two years of complaint to the authorities, I blogged. All troubles encountered and the monetary losses listed that were caused by officers started from here.
Yours Sincerely,
hh
No comments:
Post a Comment