Mr Teo Chee Hean
Blk 738 Pasir Ris Drive 10
#01-21
Singapore 510738
Dear Sir,
Salient Points
Salient Points (45 sheets) are arranged in chronological order with comments in italics that referred to the texts below:
1. Neighbour (68 sheets)
2. Sales Agents (60 sheets)
3. CPF Refund (52 sheets)
4. SHB (33 sheets)
5. CPF LIFE (37 sheets)
6. Miscellaneous (81 sheets)
The texts are numbered separately and dated in reverse order. Stapled pages are ordered by the first date found. Some of the dates are either to be found between stapled pages or indicated by sheet number.
Yours Sincerely,
hh
1. SP-Neighbour
15 Jan 99. Letter from HDB Branch Office.
“Thank you for the letter dated 8 Dec 98.”
“We have carried out an inspection to the above flat (unit #...) [i.e. unit no. of upper floor neighbour] and confirmed that there is no excessive noise created.”
(The officer replied to my complaint of 8 Dec 98.)
5 Apr 99. Letter from estates officer, HDB Branch Office
“Thank you for your letter dated 10 Mar 99.”
“We have carried out an inspection to the above flat (unit #...) and confirmed that there is no excessive noise being created.”
(The same officer replied to my complaint of 8 Dec 98, 11 Jan 99 and 10 Mar 99. Her letter to 11 Jan 99 was lost. I had read the letter. Her reply to my complaint of 10 Mar 99 was to a letter I addressed to Head, HDB Branch Office. There was no reply from the Head.
The estates officer and technical officer had visited me once after the complaint of 8 Dec 98. If the estates officer had checked the identity of the occupier then, she would have found that the occupier was neither owner nor tenant of the flat.
After my letter of 10 Mar 99 to Head, HDB Branch Office, I saw the occupier moved out and the technical officer from the Branch Office came to inform me of the eviction. The date of her letter 5 Apr 99 was after my letter of 10 Mar 99 to Head, HDB Branch Office, and my letter of appreciation of 21 Mar 99 to HDB Feedback Unit. (My letter of appreciation to the Feedback Unit was just after I saw the occupier had moved out.) Her letter of 5 Apr 99 was therefore after the eviction. Was she covering her track?)
12 Aug 07. First letter to Head, HDB Branch Office (HBO).
Noise began on 27 Jun 08 more than a month ago. It was most noticeable at the beginning.
The knocking, thumping and other noises through the morning and afternoon resembled that of the previous tenant.
I heard the contractor said HDB officer had pointed out unauthorised alteration in the upper floor unit. The neighbour, upon seeing me at my front door, stopped him from speaking further just as I remembered the loud hacking noise during the alteration. This incident was after the eviction of the previous tenant.
Action to evict the previous tenant/worker was taken after I addressed my letter to the HBO at the time.
The maid was carrying out works other than her household duties from the noise heard during the period 8 Jul 08 to 5 Aug 08 when I kept watch from my doorway from 6.00am to 9.00pm twice a week on random day.
3 Feb 08. Covering letter to the second letter to HBO.
Attachment--Photocopy of the handwritten letter of 3 Feb 08
I made the assumption that the maid in the upper floor flat was disallowed from the poster that appeared in my block some time between Dec 07 to Jan 08.
The man whom I identified as the husband works through the day and the noise consists of drags, knocks, rumbles and thumps.
11 Feb 08. Signed covering letter to the second letter to HBO.
Attachment--Signed photocopy of the handwritten letter of 3 Feb 08
Your Officer-In-Charge (OIC) confirmed that your office may not have received my letter of 3 Feb 08.
Noise continued through the Lunar New Year. When I went up to meet the upper floor neighbour, he answered the door. He said there was no noise from his unit but then said it was for me to get legal advice and for his lawyer to take it up.
(When I handed over the handwritten letter and asked for an acknowledgment, the signed photocopy showed two lines missing that could indicate collaboration with the neighbour. I took the precaution to make a photocopy before the handwritten letter was handed to the office and a comparison with the signed photocopy showed the missing lines.
When I insisted on an appointment with HBO, the meeting was together with the OIC. During the meeting, HBO said he could rally resident committee members. He also said there was a recent transfer of the upper floor unit and I could not make a link to the previous owner as I had in my letters to him.
HBO did not reply to the first and second letter--namely the similar noise made, the eviction and the maid.
The reasons he did make a reply: a) The transfer of the upper floor unit was not recent as he had said, it was in 1999 (as checked against the fact sheet of the OIC) just after the eviction of the worker. b) The maid was removed in Dec 07-Jan 08 but the complaint against the maid was made in the first letter to him on Aug 07.
I pointed out that a poster showing a maid working in a coffeeshop appeared on the noticeboard at the void deck at the same time the maid was not seen that the maid was not registered to work in flat. The husband and wife, who was pregnant at the time, either lived where the maid was registered or the maid was from somewhere asked to do the works in their flat. The purpose was to create a diversion with the noise by the maid. I wrote to Ministry of Manpower (MOM) on 4 Mar 10 to check their record whether the maid was registered at the flat. There was no reply.)
16 Feb 08. First letter to Meet-the-People Session (MPS).
From the date of building completion in 1993 to the present, it seemed there were two owners. The transfer of ownership is relevant to the case. The transfer just after an eviction in Mar 99 would clear their record and so start anew.
I had seen the neighbour and his wife before and after the eviction. An older man, who could be the first owner, had spoken to my mother before the eviction and she saw him again a number of years later after the eviction.
My record showed that there were noise from 2001 to 2003, stopped then re-started in Jun 07. Pearls bouncing on the floor, rumbling from machine tool and heavy thumping. My guess is they are carrying on a craft in jewellery and accessories.
They take steps to conceal their activities and muffle the noise after a complaint. I noticed the man works the whole day. There is light in their unit into the small hours.
19 Feb 08. Letter to me from Senior Executive Estate Officer for HBO.
“We wish to inform you that HDB can only take action against your neighbour under the Housing & Development Act if the noise nuisance is caused by a misuse of the flat. However, noise nuisance caused by inconsiderate neighbours or from daily living activities is outside the scope of the Housing & Development Act.”
(He could be the officer who first visited me together with the Higher Technical Officer (OIC). He was well dressed, would not come in the house when invited and would not give his name when asked. OIC said he just followed.)
29 Feb 08. HBO’s reply with copy to Mr Charles Chong.
“Mr Charles Chong, MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC has asked HDB to look into your feedback that your upper floor flat at #... is being used as an operation room for manual work since 2007.”
“We would like you to know that we can and will take action against HDB lessees only if there is evidence of misuse of HDB flat. Noise from everyday living is not within our control.”
24 Aug 08. First letter to Mr Charles Chong.
Two facts to check--the abrupt transfer of the flat after the eviction and the maid who was not registered to work in the flat.
The previous tenant/worker was evicted because he had threatened. After the transfer noise continued for about 4 years, stopped for about 4 years and started again in 2007 up till now. They were restrained during the no noise period. The noise beginning on Jun 07 was loud for a number of days although I wrote that the maid was causing the noise during the one-month-watch later.
The maid should be registered to work at her employer residence. If she was not registered at the flat, then the man and his wife, who was pregnant at the time, did not live in the flat.
A forced-entry into the flat on 18 Mar 08, but the noise still continued. The stop and start attempts were to check out the noise level.
A noisy drain pipe at the service lobby because the pipe had narrowed due to the nature of their works. I think the unit below mine had complained.
The unit was put up for sale on 20 Aug 98 (ET &Co) and in 2006 (ERA), which could indicate they do not need the unit for living.
(The authorities could check their records on the abrupt transfer of the flat from first owner to the neighbour after the eviction in Mar 99 and on the maid who worked in their flat during the period Aug 07-Jan 08 whether she was registered. Noise continued after the eviction for about 4 years and stopped for about 4 years before re-starting in Jun 07. The reason the noise stopped was because an insider came to live in the flat across the neighbour for a time. They came back with a vengeance when they re-started works. (Please refer second paragraph of 24 Aug 08.) I also concluded from my observation of the people in the flat across the neighbour and of the noise before, during, and the absence of noise for the rest of the day after the forced-entry, that there was a forced-entry at their flat on 18 Mar 08.)
19 Sep 08. Second letter to Mr Charles Chong.
I woke up from a heavy knock followed by bouncing sound at 1.00am, followed by continual knocks through the night, next morning and afternoon. Two weeks earlier there were loud knocking, continuous knocking and undisguised thump. Another week earlier I had sent a letter to you.
The noises were directed at me. Could there be no case against them. Or I have to bear with the noise because of the difficulty in proving a noise nuisance.
Two encounters with the neighbour. The first, just before my meeting with HBO, he denied there was any noise from his flat and asked me to seek legal advice. The second, after the forced-entry, he approached me solely to let him know where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment.
Right from the completion of the building in 1993 there was noise from the unit although the first owner was not seen. After the eviction and transfer of the flat, there was the same type of noise for 4 years.
The occupier was evicted about a week after I sent the letter to the HBO at the time. The estates officer was in contact and the technical officer came to inform me of the eviction. I wrote to Quality Control Manager HDB Feedback Unit. What I am afraid is there may be no record of it all.
(I sent three letters to the HDB Branch Office, the last letter addressed to the HBO at the time led to the eviction of the worker. I wrote a letter to Quality Control Manager, HDB Feedback Unit, to show my appreciation. The dates were 8 Dec 1998, 11 Jan 1999, 10 Mar 1999 and 21 Mar 1999 respectively.
Considering that I wrote three letters before the worker was evicted showed that either the officers were lax in their inspections or they knew there was an arrangement. Please refer to my comment in 5 Apr 99.
The worker, who could be a relative of the owner, had lived there for many years and I had knocked on their door once before and seen his wife. He was evicted because he came pounding at my door and threatened the next morning for knocking on his door the night before because he would not answer.)
25 Sep 08. HBO’s reply with copy to Mr Charles Chong.
“We would like to explain that HDB will take action under the Housing & Development Act against flat owners who create noise nuisance by misusing the flat. However, creating noise in a manner, which caused annoyance, or inconvenience to others is an offence under the Miscellaneous Offence (Public Order and Nuisance) Act. The Police are the appropriate authority to deal in such matter.”
“If the noise nuisance persists, you may wish to seek the assistance of the Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) to enforce under their jurisdiction or instruct your solicitors to obtain a court injunction against your neighbour to cease the nuisance. Alternatively, you may seek the assistance of your Residents Committee (RC) or the Community Mediation Centre (CMC) at Tel no: 63251600 or fax no: 62279201 to settle the matter amicably.”
6 Oct 08. Letter to Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad.
I had seen the present owner before the eviction and it was followed by the transfer of the flat to him. The same type of heavy thumping is heard. A strong case can be made that they wanted to carry on the trade.
I make the connection from what the contractor had said to the present owner that HDB officer had pointed out an unauthorised alteration in the flat. That would the compulsory inspection before the transfer of ownership, which was just after the eviction about the date 21 Mar 99.
I believe there is a reason for a lull of about 4 years before they re-started in Jun 07. A forced-entry on the morning of 18 Mar 08 was followed by events that confirmed my suspicion. For an example, the present owner approached me for a “compromise”.
The persistent noise is due to the fact there is profit to be made. It could be like what happened with previous occupier who had lived there for many years.
Noise starts at 10.00am, stops for a number hours in the afternoon and starts again. Less noise at night. A noisy drain pipe. Noise are extended on Saturday and Sunday.
They are not holding back because of the letter I wrote to MP (Mr Charles Chong).
In the letters from Head, HDB Branch Office (HBO), he did not referred to the main issues.
(Rumbling noises before the forced-entry in the morning, followed by two sharp knocks and a thump during the forced-entry and the rest of the day was quiet. An old friend whom I had not been in contact for a long time hailed me during my evening walk of the same day and he would continue to meet me many more times. The neighbour approached me for a “compromise” some time later. HBO did not reply to my first two letters to him nor referred to the issues raised.)
28 Oct 08. Letter to Mr Teo Chee Hean.
Attachment--Sale notice and newspaper clipping
I made a summary of the events and submitted all correspondence and a photocopy of the for-sale notice and newspaper clipping of the upper floor unit.
30 Oct 08. HBO’s reply with copy to Mr Ahmad Mohamed Magad and bcc to RC Chairman.
“We are was glad that [RC Chairman] has approached and assisted you to resolve the matter. We hope that the noise nuisance created by your upper floor neighbour can be settled amicably.”
The bcc (blind copy) sent to the RC Chairman:
“We refer to our joint house visit on 22 Oct 08. During our house visit, there is no noise nuisance being detected. As arranged, you and your member, [Treasurer], visited [his] flat and explained to him being a good neighbourliness in length. We really appreciate your effort and assistance rendered in this matter. Please convey our appreciation to you and your committee members. Thank you.”
(HBO’s letter together with the bcc was sent to me later about the time I was to meet Mr Teo at Meet-the-People-Session (MPS). I noticed there was incessant knocking directly above me at my study room for a few minutes before the Resident Community’s (RC’s) visit on 22 Oct 08. There was line of sight from the flat across the neighbour to my study room one floor down. HBO could be in the flat across the neighbour with RC Chairman during their house visit and he could be in communication with the upper floor neighbour to cause the noise before the arranged visit to my flat.)
7 Nov 08. Letter to Mr Teo Chee Hean.
Counting my meeting with Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad at MPS the first week; noise was heightened and I refused to allow the OIC and a fellow officer entry into my flat to check for noise the second week; the visit by RC Chairman and a RC member the third week; and the letter from HBO that he was glad the RC Chairman had assisted me the fourth week.
Officers from the Branch Office had categorised the noise as not within their control in 4 letters. I will be less credible each time I complain.
If the neighbour knew that they would not be prevented by the Branch Office, the noise would continue.
There was an eviction and a transfer of ownership in 1999, they were restrained during the lull period in 2004-2007 and there was a forced-entry in 2008. The noise still continued.
(The events from the second week were staged. When I refused to let his men checked for noise in my flat, HBO arranged the visit by RC Chairman before giving a reply to Mr Ahmad.
The restrain in 2004-2007 was because of the man who came to live at the flat across the neighbour for a time. It was also why I took note of activities at the flat across the neighbour and of the forced-entry. The bcc indicated HBO and RC Chairman was in the flat. My letter to the President later mentioned the flat and Neighbourhood Police Centre were tasked to investigate, but full investigation was not carried out. Subsequently there were news report that the Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service and Head, Civil Service, spoke of issue not falling within neat domain and of issue not falling neatly into any one agency's work respectively. Please refer to News (31) in my blog.)
24 Nov 08. Letter to Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad.
The previous MPS with Mr Teo was short. He said my problem was localised and suggested I go back to Mr Ahmad. Before the meeting with Mr Teo, I had a lengthy talk with an interviewer on the many instances that let me not to trust the Branch Office but she nevertheless advised me not to complain against the Branch Office.
I checked my mailbox the next day after meeting Mr Teo and found the same letter from HBO except there was a bcc attached. I am quite sure the house visit mentioned in the bcc was #.... There were three instances that involved the flat. You had asked me the reason why the matter should be referred to HDB Main Office on 6 Oct 08.
The neighbour seemed to play game with me. No noise was a respite and reduced noise or louder noise after a complaint. My option is move out.
22 Dec 08. Letter to Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad.
I had seen other persons besides the owner entered the neighbour flat and heard noise from the flat.
Noises are heard mostly in the morning, afternoon and some noise at night. At times noises are light continual knock and rumble. Other times noises are obvious and immediate like knocking, dragging, rustling, pounding and whining.
An incident on 21 Jun 08 that I had not mentioned before. The door lock of my flat was jammed. Going by it, the neighbour are well-connected and in a larger scheme.
2 Jan 09. HBO’s reply with copy to Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad.
(The usual reply.)
5 Jan 09. Letter to Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad, however, meeting was with Mr Teo Chee Hean.
There was no reason to allow the neighbour to continue with their works. I referred to insiders and sensed that community centre members at MPS knew what was going on.
15 Jan 09
Letter from property manager, Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council
Copy and attachment of the letter from Mr Teo to HBO
“We refer to your appeal through Mr Teo Chee Hean for Pasir-Punggol GRC on 5 Jan 09.”
“The Council has transmitted your feedback to the HDB for their attention. We have been informed that the HDB is already looking into the matter. You will hear from them soon.”
(After the letter from Pasir Ris-Punggol Town Council that I would hear from HDB soon, no officer visited. No one visited because the people in the flat across the neighbour kept watch to prevent any inspection whether of the neighbour’s flat or my flat.)
19 Jan 09. Letter to Mr Teo Chee Hean.
The first owner and the present owner of the upper floor flat should be considered together. The first owner transferred the flat to present owner after an eviction.
The people in the flat across the neighbour and the forced-entry should be considered together.
Observation I made about the owners, their workers, the maid and people from the Branch Office and members from Community Centre are also indicative.
The neighbour is in a larger scheme and there is a loophole.
3 Feb 09. HBO’s reply with copy to Mr Teo Chee Hean.
(The usual reply.)
6 Feb 09. Letter to Mr Teo Chee Hean, but meeting was with Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad.
A summary of relevant events.
(The jammed door lock in my flat 3 months after the forced-entry at the neighbour’s flat could be an attempted break-in with assistance from the people in the flat across neighbour.)
23 Feb 09. Letter to Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad.
An unusual amount of information could be uncovered concerning the neighbour.
(At the end of the MPS, Mr Ahmad said he would meet HBO the next day. It was to be my last meeting as the interviewer would have it. The interviewer indicated with a move of his hand and said “ten” to meant I could expect noise after 10.00am. I was to bear with the noise.
Two other incidents with the interviewer showed he knew about the people in the flat across neighbour. In one at a MPS an interviewer called him over to talk to me and he asked him for my benefit whether any noise was heard. In another I unexpectedly came upon him burning incense outside his flat and spoke to him. Later when I switched off the light ready to go to bed, there was a series of loud noises from the neighbour.
The neighbour and workers were organised around the carrying on of a trade and had done so over a long period of time. Officers were aware of what they were doing.)
25 Feb 09. HBO’s reply with copy to Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad.
(The usual reply.)
19 Apr 09. Email to Mr Lee Hsien Loong.
A summary of relevant events.
(I mentioned two events that seemed far off but interesting. A resemblance of name between HBO and a high official and a voiceover over TV to write to an address shown on the screen on ground of perceived injustice.)
19 Apr 09. Email to an address in Mediacorp.
A summary of relevant events.
(In it I requested for the email address I seen on TV so that I could write on ground of perceived injustice. I also called and a women asked the purpose I required the address. I said that if she had already decided not to give it to refer to her superior. She did, but on enquiring further on her return, she placed the phone down.)
24 Apr 09. HBO’s reply with copy to Mr Ahmad Mohd Magad.
(The usual reply, but the letter was withheld for two months probably because Mr Ahmad met him and he sent out the letter to show he knew of the email I sent to Mr Lee. Please refer to 23 Feb 09 and 19 Apr 09 respectively.)
27 Apr 09. Email to social media website.
A summary of relevant events..
27 Apr 09. Email to another social media website.
A summary of relevant events.
7 May 09. Email to Mr Low Thia Khiang of Workers’ Party.
A summary of relevant events.
8 May 09. Reply from Mr Low Thia Khiang.
“Audio record of noise and video record of activities if possible. Lodge joint complaint with neighbours. HDB has the power to evict the owner it there is sufficient proof.”
9 May 09. Reply to Mr Low Thia Khiang.
The neighbour and the officer from HDB Branch Office had countered by asking me to get legal advice. That is good if one could spare the expenses, but there is evidence to support it.
My hope lies in an audience, then maybe the noise will stop.
(I think the members of the Workers’ Party had assisted from what was said at election rallies and in Parliament although not directly. Please refer to my blog under Pronouncement.)
11 May 09. Email to TKL Petition Volunteers and reply.
A summary of relevant events.
“We could publish your letter on our site. Besides that, how else could we help you?”
20 Aug 09. Email from an officer for HBO.
“We have not conducted any eviction at the upper floor unit. Hence, it is incorrect that an eviction has taken place at the upper floor unit during the flat ownership of the previous owner.”
(There was no record of the eviction when in fact an officer informed me of an eviction. What about my letters to HDB Branch Office and HDB Feedback Unit at the time and my observation of people in the flat across the neighbour that I brought to the attention of MPs, President and Police? Is the letters not to be found and the people in the flat across the neighbour were an ordinary household? I am not under constant surveil because of the problem?)
28 Sep 09. Email from officer for Quality Service Manager,SPF.
“HDB informed that they had investigated the matter thoroughly in the previous complaints, and are satisfied that there were no unnecessary noise nor misuse of the flat.”
(The reply after I emailed from a list that included the Commissioner of Police.)
1 Feb 10. First letter to the President.
A summary of relevant events.
There is a network of connection that tried to contain the issue. An example is the people in the [flat] across the neighbour. I hope someone could review the situation as there are facts to support.
(Please refer to my comments in 7 Nov 08.)
1 Feb 10. Email to Mr Mah Bow Tan, MND.
A summary of relevant events.
(Mr Mah replied that he would asked HDB to look into it and asked me to acknowledge that I had received his message.)
1 Feb 10. Email to Customer Relations Branch, SPF.
The bcc from HBO to RC Chairman was further indication that the flat used to monitor the neighbour.
I think there could be a noise recording device in the flat. The flat is occupied since Feb 08 for nearly two years now.
(I made a summary of relevant events in the email.)
2 Feb 10. Email to Customer Relations Branch, SPF.
The problem is more involved because some officers, some Community Centre members and people at the flat across the neighbour keep them informed. What is important may be to check the neighbour’s background.
(I made a summary of relevant events in the email.)
3 Feb 10. Reply from SPF Customer Relations Branch with copy to HDB
“We will refer your feedback to Bedok Police Division for their appropriate action as necessary. You are also advised to contact the Pasir Ris Neighbourhood Centre, for assistance, if the noise created late at night is loud and intolerable.”
10 Feb 10. Reply from Commanding Officer, Pasir Ris NPC.
“We are working closely with the Housing Development Board (HDB) to look into your complaint of noise pollution caused by your neighbour residing above your unit.”
(He also asked me to contact or email the senior station inspector for information or inquiries.)
12 Feb 10. Email from estates officer for HBO.
“Please be informed that PRBO will refer your case to the Ministry of Community Development, Youth & Sports (MCYS) and the Police in order for us to resolve your neighbourly dispute amicably.”
18 Feb 10. Email to the senior station inspector, Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC).
“Someone called my mother yesterday over the phone at around 4.30pm asking questions about me and her.”
“I doubt he was from the police. Was there a call from the police to my mother yesterday?”
19 Feb 10. Email to the senior station inspector, Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC).
“The early morning noise could start at 4.00am, I went out of my block to check and there was light in their unit. The noise were light knocking and continual knock.”
22 Feb 10 (Postmarked). Letter from officer, Service Quality Branch, Bedok Police Division.
“We would like to inform you that we acknowledge the concerns raised and have since referred the matter to the relevant officer(s)/agencies for their consideration and follow-up action.”
(The date 10 Feb 2009 of the letter was a typographical error.)
4 Mar 10. Email to Mr. Gan Kim Yong, MOM.
“The Ministry of Manpower could confirm whether there was a maid employed from 8 Jul 07 to 5 Aug 07 at the neighbour’s flat at (address).”
(Please refer to the last paragraph of 12 Aug 07, first paragraph of 3 Feb 08 and the last three paragraph of my comments in 11 Feb 08.)
4 Mar 10. Letter from Commanding Officer, Pasir Ris NPC. Copy to officer from President’s Office, Istana Singapore.
“Police were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence. Nonetheless, Police have paid your neighbours a visit and reminded them of the importance of exercising consideration and tolerance towards neighbours in Singapore’s high-density living environment.”
(In reply to my letter to the president of 1 Feb 10 above, the Neighbourhood Police Centre (NPC) “were unable to find evidence of the alleged noise or criminal offence.” Please refer to my comments at 7 Nov 08.)
20 Mar 10. Letter from an estates officer for HBO.
“I refer to your email dated 19 May 2010 to Prime Minister Mr Lee Hsien Loong, Ms Penny Low (MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC), HDB Chairman Mr James Koh Cher Siang, HDB CEO Mr Tay Kim Poh and Chairman of the Public Service Commission Mr Eddie Teo regarding noise disturbance from your immediate upper floor neighbour.”
“We have carried out several investigations based on your current and previous feedback but were not able to establish that there was undue noise pollution from your upper floor neighbour’s flat. There are also no signs of unauthorised commercial activities, misuse of flat or recording devices as you have claimed. Interviews with several neighbours in your vicinity have supported our findings.”
(I emailed from a list each time I posted in my blog. The estates officer got hold of an email with the names of persons I sent to.)
29 Mar 10. HBO’s reply. Copy to Mr Christopher de Souza, MP for Holland-Bukit Timah GRC, and Ms Penny Low, MP for Pasir Ris-Punggol GRC.
“We have carried out several investigations based on your information but were not able to establish that there was undue noise pollution from your upper floor neighbour’s flat. There are also no signs of unauthorised commercial activities, misuse of flat or recording devices as you have claimed. Interviews with several neighbours in your vicinity have supported our findings.”
(Although there may be no recording devices in the flat across the neighbour, the point to note is the flat across the neighbour. The original purpose of the people in the flat across the neighbour was to monitor the neighbour because they were carrying on a trade. From the events listed under Findings of Record (1) in my blog, I was sure of a forced-entry. Instead of the action taken they turned around to assist the neighbour and prevented anyone from assisting me with an investigation of the site. The reason: I had stumbled upon the fact that the first owner had transferred ownership of the flat to their own people after an eviction with no record of the eviction kept.
I mentioned that there may be a recording device in the flat because I heard stop and start attempts to check noise level.
Please refer to my other comments or press Ctrl+F to search the text.)
12 Oct 11. Reply from customer relation officer, SPF
Officers Colluded With Neighbour
“ We refer to your email of 15 September 2011 to the President’s Office .
2 As the matter has been adequately addressed previously, we will not be corresponding with you on the same matter further.”
(Please refer to the email at President (26) in my blog.)
2. SP-Sales Agents
30 Sep 13-26 Oct 13
Transcript of Text Messages Between Seller and Salespersons
(Messages, which included my comments in italics, showed the problem with the two salespersons. The other salesperson without the contract assisted the first.)
30 Oct 13
Submission of Complaint Form to CEA
“In the interest of transparency and sound reasoning the salesperson should give the name and contract number of all buyers and buyer’s salespersons who called to the seller. The salesperson should ask the buyer and buyer’s salesperson for an offer only after viewing and in the presence of the seller. Buyer and buyer’s salesperson could negotiate with seller’s salesman after viewing because I am more interested in the buyer’s initial offer and the number of buyers the salesperson could bring in. I need the name and contact number of all buyers and buyer’s salespersons to gauge their number and to make counteroffer.”
(Text messages were enclosed. No official reply from CEA as to whether the above statement is an encroachment on the exclusive contract with the sales agent.)
6 Nov 13
Email to MPs
“1. Ah Wong said I could email you during the Meet-the-People Session on 21 Oct. I met you afterward with the DVD and said CEA would investigate my complaint. But it seemed my complaint was blocked.”
7 Nov 13-9 Nov 13
Termination of contract
(The sales agent asked for costs incurred. No cost was collected.)
12 Nov 13
Letter from real estates company.
Vice President, Admin / Corporate Sales
“Should you have any question, please feel free to call us. Our goal is to serve you well.”
(The exclusive contract with second sales agent was from a listed company.)
21 Nov 13
Email to MP
1. I need your assistance again. The salesperson I engaged from … would not follow my request in the newspaper ad and in propertyguru and stproperty on the web.”
(Text messages were enclosed.)
23 Nov 13
Termination of contract
(Termination letter to the second sales agent. Text messages were enclosed. No official complaint was submitted this time.)
23 Nov 13
Reply from the sales agent
(He agreed to terminate the contract, but from his viewpoints.)
25 Nov 13
Letter from real estates company
(The real estates company confirmed the termination.)
29 Nov 13
Email from Manager Licensing, CEA
“Please refer to your complaint against ….”
“In general, salespersons do not provide the seller with details of the prospective buyers and their salespersons.”
“...we have found that there is no misconduct on the part of the salesperson….you may wish to discuss with the salesperson about the termination of the exclusive estate agency agreement.”
(The reply concerned the first sales agent after the termination of contract of 7 Nov 13-9 Nov 13. It was not a reply to the complaint of 30 Oct 13.)
30 Nov 13-14 Dec 13
Replies to manager, CEA
“I asked for name of buyer, whether there was an offer and their contact number should I make an counteroffer. No other details were required, but I was not provided.”
30 Dec 13
Letter from real estates company
Vice President, Admin / Corporate Sales
(An exclusive contract with the third sales agent. He was the second sales agent from the same real estates company and I engaged him mainly because he was a top producer.)
17 Mar 14
Tax invoice from real estates company
(Amount payable upon completion of sale.)
8 Apr 14
Letter from customer relations manager, HDB
Resale of Flat
(Please refer CPF-Refund for the text.)
8 Apr 14
Letter from customer relations manager, HDB
Resale of Flat
Appointment date for completion of sale between buyer and seller
(Please refer CPF-Refund for the text.)
19 Apr 14
Email to the real estates company
“I asked the officer why portion of the money was not refunded to CPF Board. I did not request for a withdrawal. He said he was unable to answer my question as the handling officer was on leave and, on my request, referred me to another officer.”
“What is the rationale behind CPF Board returning the money used for the purchase of a flat in my case….”
“Could you give a rough number of such cases [your company] has come across? Or whether such cases are normal.”
“I will hold on to the cheque and wait for your reply whether the return of my CPF money from the sale of my flat was a mistake or not.”
(There was no reply from the real estates company. The sales agent was present at the meeting, which was the completion of sales. Please refer to my comments at SP-CPF Refund 6 May 14.)
28 Apr 14-23 Nov 13
Email to real estates company
Request for a discount (letter to MPs and text messages were enclosed)
(I wrote that the salesperson gave minimal attention and ask for a discount.
The letter to MPs on why I cannot sell my flat included text messages with over twenty sales agents when I was selling on my own.
The salesperson was in agreement with the HDB officer, whom I asked to talk to about the reason for the no refund the moment I received the cheque for the whole amount. He was supposed to be the company top producers and the company did not reply to my letter whether the refund was normal in my case.)
12 May 14
Reply from assistant manager, real estates company 5/12/14
to Daniel, me
(In reply to my email of 28 Apr 14, he was unable to accede to my request.)
16 May 14
Email to real estates company
Request for a discount
“The last buyer negotiated with me as a result of intervention from the MPs. The announcement in Parliament one day before the 1st appointment (for completion of sale at HDB Hub) that price negotiation between buyer and seller is a requirement was not a coincidence.”
(Text messages were enclosed.)
23 May 14
Reply from assistant manager, real estates company
(In reply to my email of 16 May 14, he was unable to accede to my request.)
6 Jun 14
Letter from senior legal manager, real estates company
“You are required to confirm if you wish to have the matter mediated and accordingly, to also let us know your choice of the mediation centre. If you do not reply or do not expressly make any election in writing within 3 weeks from the date of receiving this letter, you shall be deemed to have elected in writing not to proceed to mediation. All [the company’s] rights to proceed against you through other avenues then are reserved.”
17 Jun 14
Reply to the letter from senior legal manager, real estates company
“From a number of letters I sent to your company since 23 Nov 13, mediation at approved mediation centres referred to in your letter may not be fair in my case because they will mediate based solely on the agreement. As you intended to claim the full amount and reserved the rights to proceed against me through other avenues if I do not elect to mediate, I have no other choice but to sent you the payment.”
(I made my payment and asked for the contract agreement because someone had offered to go through it. Please also refer to my comment at SP-Miscellaneous 3. Seller Who Do Not Engage A Salesperson.)
3. SP-CPF Refund
12 Jan 11
HDB agreement order
Attachment--Tax Invoice
(Payment of option fee and 5% down payment of studio apartment.)
2 Sep 13
Taking possession for studio apartment
Attachment--Tax Invoice
(Payment of balance purchase price of studio apartment.)
11 Mar 14
Financial plan for seller
Attachment--Tax Invoice
(A deposit of $5000 for the sale of our 5-rooms flat under my mother and my name.)
8 Apr 14
Letter from customer relations manager, HDB
Resale of Flat
Appointment date for completion of sale between seller and buyer
8 Apr 14
Letter from customer relations manager, HDB
Resale of Flat
(Amount payable to me after deducting the deposit of $5000 from the sale of our 5-rooms flat. I do not know what the deposit is for or where it is now. Should not the deposit be returned some time later?)
19 Apr 14
Email to CPFB
“I asked the officer why portion of the money was not refunded to CPF Board. I did not request for a withdrawal. He said he was unable to answer my question as the handling officer was on leave and, on my request, referred me to another officer.
I, my mother and the salesperson I engaged went to meet him. He said the CPF money was returned because I was over 55 of age and my Minimum Sum had topped out. On whether the policy was applied uniformly, his reply was vague. He said he knows where I was coming from but he could not provide the statistics. He can only speaks for HDB, not for CPF. He said I could ask CPF Board three questions: Why was the money returned?, Could I placed it back? and Why not?
I could also check out the website asiaone and press releases from four years ago about the time CPF Life was started. Before, CPF money used to purchase a flat had to be refunded but not after. But not to quote him.”
(I asked for the rationale behind CPFB returning all the money from the sale of my flat in a cheque. Logically I should refund into CPF account the money used in the purchase the flat.
Please refer to 17 Jun 14 on the handling officer who was on leave when I received the cheque.)
6 May 14
Reply from executive officer, CPFB
“Prior to 1 January 2013, members aged 55 and above were required to refund their Minimum Sum deficiency (MSD) to their Retirement Account. No refund was required to be made to these members’ CPF accounts if they could set aside the full Minimum Sum in their CPF accounts.”
“For your information, the current CPF refund rules from 1 January 2013 are for members regardless of age to refund their CPF principal amount withdrawn for their property and its accrued interest, when they dispose their properties. Hence, only further withdrawals made for the property from 1 January 2013, would need to be refunded to the member’s CPF account, with accrued interest, when they subsequently dispose their property.”
(The replies from the executive officer were incomplete. Her reference to the policy of 1 Jan 2013 was not the whole text. She did not refer to the relevant portion. When I pointed to the text in question, a senior assistant director stated that it did not apply to me. When I wrote to reply to a director whether she agreed with the senior assistant director, there was no reply. Suffice to say the policy of 1 Jan 2013 stated automatic disbursement but refund upon application and 2012 CPF Act, which the senior assistant director quoted from, required refund unless informed of the reason by CPF.)
7 May 14
Reply to executive officer, CPFB
“1. What exactly is the rule change of 1 Jan 13? Are you saying that if I had withdrew CPF money for the purchase of a flat after 1 Jan 13 then sold it, the whole withdrawal would have to be refunded to CPF regardless of age and Minimum Sum requirement? That I was not wrong in asking whether the return of my CPF money (that is money withdrew from CPF account but not refunded back because of age 55 and above with Minimum Sum) was equitable and the rationale for it. I withdrew CPF money for the purchase of a flat before 1 Jan 13 and sold it on 17 Apr 14.”
27 May 14
Reply from executive officer, CPFB
“The refund rules in respect of sale of property, have been changed with effect from 1 January 2013. The general position is that where completion of the sale of property takes place on or after 1 January 2013, the requisite CPF refund is the principal CPF amount withdrawn together with accrued interest (“P+I”), regardless of member’s age. For member of age 55 years and above, the refunds will be used to top up his/her Retirement Account up to his/her Minimum Sum Deficiency and Medisave Account (up to the current Medisave Required Amount). Thereafter, any housing refunds will be automatically disbursed to him/her.”
“With the implementation of the new refund rules from 1 January 2013, members above age 55 who have fully set aside their cohort Minimum Sum in their Retirement Accounts as at 31 December 2012 are only required to refund any CPF principal withdrawn for the property on or after 1 January 2013 plus its accrued interest (“new usage”) and the pledged amount, if they have pledged their property to withdraw their RA savings as cash (if any), when they sell the property. The CPF principal withdrawn for the property on and before 31 December 2012 plus its accrued interest (“old usage”) ceased to be refundable. This is the reason why you were not required to refund the old usage to your CPF accounts upon the sale of your flat and would receive the cash proceeds directly from HDB.”
(The first paragraph quoted above now referred to automatic disbursement. The second paragraph now referred to withdrawal from RA (Retirement Account). The two passages were intended to mislead and no reason was given for no refund on and before 31 Dec 12 except for writing “This is the reason why….”)
1 Jun 14
Reply to executive officer, CPFB
“1. After the rule change of 1 Jan 13, money withdrawn from CPF needs to be refunded to CPF upon sale of flat. But why should the money withdrawn before 1 Jan 13 be returned to a member when he sold his flat after 1 Jan 13 when he did not request for it. The rule change should apply to all member when nothing has change for members, only that the rule had changed. Members in fact benefit from the higher CPF interest rate. This is the reason I ask for its rationale when money from the sale of my flat was returned to me.”
“3. You also did not mention the increased Minimum Sum come July 14 whether I would be eligible for the cash bonus if I do not top up my CPF.”
8 Jun 14
Email to MPs
“I am afraid I am being set-up again. During the final appointment at HDB, the officer said that about four years ago money withdrawn from CPF account to purchase a flat was to be refunded to CPF after sale of the flat. After that, at about the time of the introduction of CPF Life, there is no need for the refund to CPF. CPF's website did state that the rest of sale proceed from the sale of the flat is to be returned to member after the topping up of Minimum Sum and Medisave. He did not mention the rule change of 1 Jan 13, which now requires the whole amount withdrawn to be refunded to CPF, and the information provided at the website is not updated. I gave an account of the conversation with the officer and salesperson in my letter.”
“As seen from the CPF officer's replies to my letter, she stated that the return of my CPF money withdrawn before 1 Jan 13 is correct and I and my mother are not eligible for the Silver Housing Bonus. She did not refer to its rationale when I asked, did not refer to her superior when I suggested and delayed her replies.”
10 Jun 14
Reply from MP
(I was to revert if they did not reply in 2 weeks.)
10 Jun 14
Reply from executive officer, CPFB
“The new refunds rules as stated in paragraph 2 of our email of 27 May 2014 (“new refund rules”) does not apply to you when you sell your flat. This is because the charge to secure the repayment of withdrawals from your CPF Account(s) has ceased when you were able to set aside, in full, the Minimum Sum applicable to you on 30 August 2010 before the new refund rules came into force.”
(Please refer to my comment and letter at 6 May 14 above and 19 Dec 14 Item 6 below respectively.)
12 Jun 14
Return of CPF Money and Eligibility for SHB
Reply to executive officer, CPFB
“In reply to your reply dated 6 May 14 I asked What exactly is the rule change of 1 Jan 13? You had not replied to the question nor had you explained the difference before and after 1 Jan 13 when nothing had changed for members.
You state the charge to secure repayment to CPF Account has ceased when I had full Minimum Sum on 30 Aug 10. If you could give the rationale for the rule change on 1 Jan 13, that could be an explanation otherwise you are just saying so without an explanation.”
17 Jun 14
Reply from estate manager, HDB
MP's Appeal: Return of CPF Money and Eligibility for Silver Housing Bonus
“3 Meanwhile, if you have any questions, I will be glad to assist you. My contact details can be found above. Please do not reply directly to this email.”
(This officer made the same reply twice after I wrote to MPs, here and 10 Jul 14 below. In such replies, where there was no record of an email she could avoid taking responsibility for her action. The officer could be the same person who processed the meeting with the buyer and for the whole payment in a cheque to me in the two letters dated 8 Apr 14 above. The name was the same except it was a full name and a different designation here.
At the time two messages were relayed to my sales agent that they wanted to see the death certificate of my father and, before the appointment, the cheque was delayed a few days. What does it mean?
It was here that I was prevented the return of CPF money that I used to purchase the 5-room flat and, later, prevented from obtaining the application form for SHB. Without the application form I was let to sign my name to the studio apartment because it was allowed. My mother, who was co-owner of the five-room flat we sold, would then not be eligible for SHB. I wrote to enquire later and the executive officer wrote that she was not eligible because she was not co-owner of the studio apartment.)
26 Jun 14
Email to MP
“I have doubt about both officers. The CPF officer would not reply to my questions and would not refer to her superiors. The HDB officer has the same name as the officer who processed my application for the first and final appointment in which she asked for document not listed in the first appointment letter and delayed the date of the final appointment without giving a reason when asked in both instances.”
3 Jul 14
Reply from MP
“Has HDB reverted to you on the matter?”
3 Jul 14
Reply to MP
“Not yet.”
9 Jul 14
Letter from senior estate manager. Copy to MP.
“2. Our record shows that you and your mother co-owned the above resale flat under the Joint-Tenancy (JT). Under a JT, all co-owners have an equal and undivided interest in the flat, regardless of how much each had contributed to the flat purchase. If the flat is sold and when HDB is acting for the sellers, the cash proceeds, if any, will be issued in a cheque to both the sellers jointly.”
(During the appointment I was asked who the cheque would be written to and I said to me. The cheque whether in joint names with my mother or in my name was not an issue with us. But it was a setting of two traps:
a) It seemed to me that with the cheque in my name, I had committed myself to the automatic disbursement. The automatic disbursement was stated in the Changes to the CPF Housing Refund Policy Effective 1 January 2013 (the rule) and refund was not required. However, the rule also left open the option to refund by application to CPFB. There was a choice and the officer should have explained it to me.
The senior assistant director while referring to 2012 CPF Act also referred to the rule as the current Act although she wrote that the rule did not apply to me. But 2012 CPF Act only allowed withdrawal by application or informed of the reason by CPF that refund was not required as listed in the Act. I did not made an application, I was not informed of the reason by CPF and I wrote to CPFB to make the refund in which the rule stated refund by application to CPFB.
b) Now consider that payment of the $5000 deposit in the Resale of Flat of 8 Apr 14 above as made in my name, a reset would be required because the deposit then was for payment by co-owners with “equal and undivided interest” under Joint-Tenancy. (Please refer to the quote from the senior estate manager above.) It was a setting for me to sign my name to the studio apartment. My mother would then not be eligible for SHB as the executive officer had stated because she was not a co-owner of the studio apartment and I was not eligible because I had already top up my retirement account. The application form for SHB, which included other terms such joining CPF LIFE, was kept from me. When my application for SHB for my mother and me was approved later because we were co-owners, the principal estate manager who filled up the form did not let me looked at the Important Notes. He asked me to use the online Transfer of HDB Flat Ownership form meant for new owner to include my mother that delayed my application for 10 weeks and a payment of $219.60 transfer fee before he would release the form to CPF.
Please also refer to my comments at 17 Jun 14.
The senior estate manager in this letter stated that refund was not required. It was stated in the rule, but the rule also stated refund by application to CPFB.)
10 Jul 14
Reply from estate manager, HDB
Return of CPF Money and Eligibility for Silver Housing Bonus
“3 Meanwhile, if you have any questions, I will be glad to assist you. My contact details can be found above. Please do not reply directly to this email.”
(Please refer to my comment of the same reply from the estate manager in 17 Jun 14 above.)
17 Jul 14
Email to MPs
“And it is not clear how the rule change of 1 Jan 13 affects members retrospectively.”
4 Aug 14
Photocopy of Public Housing Scheme from CPF website.
(Changes to the CPF Housing Refund Policy Effective 1 Jan 2013, in particular the two sentences:
If you wish to retain the excess housing refunds in your CPF account, you may apply to CPFB to do so.
The new housing refund policy applies to members whose legal completion of the sale falls on 1 January 2013 or later.)
7 Aug 14
Email to CPFB
“I refer to my email dated 19 Apr 14 including its follow-ups and your website just updated in Aug 14 to include Changes to the CPF Housing Refund Policy Effective 1 January 13.”
“I wonder why I was not informed of the rule change that came into effect more than a year after I sold my flat. HDB officers and the real estate company and their salesperson either misled or kept silent about the rule change. When I enquired further, the CPF officer was unable to give a direct reply. To me the replies from the CPF officer is not consistent with the rule change listed under Frequently Asked Questions of CPF’s website.
In accordance to the rule change which is Changes to the CPF Housing Refund Policy Effective 1 January 13 from the website, I wish to have the excess housing refunds retained in my CPF account. If granted, could I have the amount of P+I (Principal plus Interest) to prepare a cheque?”
(I made my request to CPFB to have the excess housing refunds retained in my CPF account. I also emailed the MPs the same day below.)
7 Aug 14
Email to MPs.
Some Inconsistencies
“I referred to the two sentences in Changes to the CPF Housing Refund Policy Effective 1 Jan 2013 of 4 Aug 14 above.”
21 Aug 14
Email to MP
“It have been delayed for four months. Could there be a conclusion?”
22 Aug 14
Reply from MP
“I refer to your e-mail dated 21 Aug 2014. You may wish to note that usually the agency will take about 14 to 21 working days to reply directly to the resident.
Please let me know if you have yet to receive a reply from CPFB by then. Thank you.”
1 Sep 14
Reply from MP
“Fundamentally, the issue is whether those aged 55 and above can keep any excess funds above the min sum in their CPF accounts. I will be raising this issue in parliament. Hopefully, this will expedite the outcome of your appeal.”
2 Sep 14
Reply from senior assistant director, CPFB. Copy to MP and an officer.
“As explained in our previous email of 24 June 2014, you were not affected by the change in CPF refund policy, which came into effect on 1 January 2013, as you had already set aside the full Minimum Sum in your Retirement Account (RA) on 30 August 2010.”
(She made two points, one before and one after 1 Jan 13. Following what she wrote, refund was not required whether before or after 1 Jan 13 in my case. You would expect her to show the difference with the comparison. And the clause “whichever was lower” without the context did not apply in my case. This was in reply to my email of 7 Aug to MPs where I referred to the two sentences in Changes to the CPF Housing Refund Policy Effective 1 Jan 2013 that allow it.
The reason she gave was as quoted above. A lapse of charge before 1 Jan 13 was also mentioned. But where in the law, rule or directive was it stated? Her reference to 2012 CPF Act did not show it to be so. Please refer to my replies of 27 Nov 14 and 19 Dec 14 below.)
5 Sep 14
Reply to senior assistant director, CPFB
“What you wrote above did not state any differently from my email Some Inconsistencies. If you could point to where I went wrong, you would have weaken my case. Because you did not do so, you have not replied to the many issues.”
“The email of 24 Jun 14 that you referred to, I do not think I received it. If it was from the officer who I corresponded with since my first email to CPFB on 19 Apr 14, her replies were not consistent with what was published at CPF’s website. Similarly, your reply was not consistent when you stated that as I was 55 before 1 Jan 13 no refund was required to CPF Account upon sale of flat in Apr 14 where the website states the new refund policy applies to legal completion of sale on or after 1 Jan 13, not on age 55 before or after 1 Jan 13.”
“Could CPFB consider my application to refund into CPF Account as separate from whether there was wrongdoing by officers? My case has been delayed for over four months since my first email dated 19 Apr 14.”
5 Sep 14
Reply to MP
“A limit is set for RA (Retirement Account) but not for OA (Ordinary Account). Money used to purchase a flat from OA and proceeds from sale of flat used to refund OA is being consistent. For those age 55 and above if they then wish to withdraw from OA for their own use, they may do so but RA and MA (Medisave Account) need to be topped up to its limit.“
5 Sep 14
Email to MP
“I have forwarded the email from an assistant manager and a senior assistant director of CPFB. It looks like there is going to be further delay because mistakes were made.”
10 Sep 14
Reply from senior assistant director, CPFB
“I refer to your email of 5 September 2014.
We are sorry that we are unable to accede to your request to effect a refund back to your CPF accounts because the CPF charge to secure the repayment of withdrawals from your CPF accounts has ceased when you set aside your Minimum Sum in full, before the new refund rules came into force on 1 January 2013.”
19 Sep 14
Email to MP
“Could my case be brought before a director or board of directors of CPF? Could it be investigated by a special committee or commission of inquiry as it has an effect on every Singaporean who has an account with CPF?”
1 Oct 14
Reply from senior assistant director, CPFB. Copy to fellow officers.
“As we have considered your requests numerous times and we are unable to accede to it for reasons explained earlier, we regret to inform you that we would not be replying to you again on the same matter.”
5 Oct 14
Email to MP
“The senior assistant director in her last letter dated 1 Oct 14 states that they will no longer reply to me on the same subject. But on what ground? She has not address the issues in my letters. The issues are not frivolous.”
7 Oct 14
Reply from personal assistant to DPM
“DPM Teo has requested CPF Board to look into your queries and reply directly to you, please.”
4 Nov 14
Email to personal assistant to DPM, addressed to the DMP
“Regarding refund to CPF Account, officers, real estate agency and salesperson kept silent about the rule change of 1 Jan 13, which was in effect for more than a year, from me when I asked why the sale proceed was issued directly to me. According to the rule change that was posted later at CPF’s website on Aug 14, the P+I
5 Nov 14
Reply from personal assistant to DPM
“I have checked with CPF Board. I was told that CPF Board has already replied to you that they are unable to accede to your requests after considering them numerous times.”
5 Nov 14
Reply to personal assistant to DPM
“Please refer to the last paragraph of my email dated 5 Oct 14 and your reply dated 7 Oct 14. The senior assistant director stated that they will not reply to me
The senior assistant director has not been able to address the issue.”
6 Nov 14
Reply from assistant manager, CPFB
“We wish to invite you to our Service Center at Robinson Road for a discussion on your case.”
7 Nov 14
Reply to assistant manager, CPFB
“I will keep the appointment on 10 Nov 14 at 3pm.”
10 Nov 14
Reply from senior assistant director, CPFB
“We wish to clarify that upon the sale of your flat in April 2014, you are not required to refund any CPF monies to your CPF account. The Board has no basis to require nor accept refund of the amounts used for your flat as the charge on the flat ceased to be in force when you set aside the full Minimum Sum in your CPF account as at 31 December 2012.”
11 Nov 14
Reply to the senior assistant director
“1. I refer to the meeting you called on 10 Nov 14 at Service Centre, Robinson Branch.”
“2. When I asked whether there was anything new, you said there was not. For perspective I place the two questions-and-answers on the rule change from CPF’s website that we discussed and quote from your emails dated 1 Oct 14 and 15 Sep 14 below.”
“4. You think Minimum Sum in full, age 55 before 1 Jan 13 and CPF charge to secure refund lapsed in the previous rule applies to me, but I think the rule change of 1 Jan 13 applies to me. Could the facts you presented apply to me and the facts posted at the website do not? If what you wrote is true, you will refer to context, directive or law in support of your facts. If you had, you would provide a service and show goodwill. Otherwise the facts you presented seem underhanded because you just state that the rule change did not apply to me without reasonable explanation. Besides what you wrote is not disclosed to public while the website is under public scrutiny.”
“8. I read your letter dated 10 Nov 14 and it refers the same to your emails quoted above.”
“9. Could you reply to each of the point made?”
14 Nov 14
Reply to senior assistant director, CPFB
“I refer to your email dated 10 Nov 14, could the rule change of 1 Jan 13 supersede the CPF Act you mentioned?”
14 Nov 14
Reply to senior assistant director, CPFB
“Further to my letter dated 11 Nov 14 allow me to point out a mistake, but correct me if I am wrong.
I cover all the point you made. Unless you have a reasonable explanation, you should not continue to delay my application to retain P+I in Ordinary Account.”
16 Nov 14
Email to MPs
“The portion of the rule change is as follows:
Q: I am aged 55 and above. Can I withdraw the housing refunds credited to my CPF account upon the sale of my property?
A: Yes, if there are any excess housing refunds after topping up the Minimum Sum you need to set aside in your Retirement Account and the current Medisave Minimum Sum in your Medisave Account. The excess housing refunds will be automatically disbursed to you. If you wish to retain the excess housing refunds in your CPF account, you may apply to CFPB to do so.
Q: I am aged 55 and above, and selling my property. If I choose to retain the excess housing refunds in my CPF account, will I be able to use the refunds for future housing purchases?
A: Yes. Any excess housing refunds remaining in the Ordinary Account can be used for housing purposes.
Q: I am aged 55 and above, and selling my property. I have set aside my cohort Minimum Sum and current Medisave Minimum Sum. Do I need to refund my principal amount withdrawn for housing and accrued interest?
A: Yes, but any excess housing refunds will be automatically disbursed to you within 5 working days from the crediting of the refund to your CPF account.”
(It is quite clear from the questions and answer above that the excess housing refund could be retained in the Ordinary Account.)
21 Nov 14
Reply from senior assistant director, CPFB
(The senior assistant director quoted from 2012 CPF Act. She referred to the change in law as of 1 Jan 2013 as the Current Act, which she wrote did not apply to me. I asked for most recent Act at the central library, but they could not produce it for me.)
27 Nov 14
Reply to senior assistant director, CPFB
“4. I repeat the whole quote from 2012 CPF Act in your email but place in bold the only relevant sentence pertaining to my case. Could you expand on the portions that ¨(ii) are no longer required by any regulations made under section 77(1) to be repaid to the Fund¨ from law/directive in support of your assertions/statements? Until then, you have nothing concrete. To be clear your position is no-refund/disbursement for me after 1 Jan 13, my position is refund/repayment to CPF Account based on the rule change of 1 Jan 13.”
“8. Since there was no disbursement before 1 Jan 13 in my case, there could not be a lapse in CPF charge on 1 Jan 13 when the rule change came into effect. Your own words in bold: ¨Instead of requiring the refund of any deficiency in the Minimum Sum for a member age 55 and above who sells his property on or after 1 Jan 2013, if there is a CPF charge still in force as of 1 Jan 2013, the Current Act now requires the full refund of principal and interest to a member’s CPF accounts upon sale of the property, regardless of age.¨ Could you now stop delaying the refund of P+I into my Ordinary Account?”
(My reasoning based on 2012 CPF Act that the senior assistant director had quoted and from her assertion.)
27 Nov 14
Email to MPs
“There is a change in the senior assistant director assertions/statements in that she now allows CPF charge after 1 Jan 13. She has failed to show that any part of the 2012 CPF Act supported her previous assertions/statements and she did not address any of the point made based on the rule change in my emails dated
(Please refer to officers’ statements of 10 Jun 14 and 27 Nov 14 above and my reply of 19 Dec 14 below on full minimum sum and lapsed of charge before 1 Jan 13. There may not be a change of statements, but where is the proof of the statements?)
16 Dec 14
Reply from senior assistant director, CPFB
“As we have considered your requests to refund P+I numerous times and we are unable to accede to it for reasons explained earlier, we regret to inform you that we would not be replying to you again on the same matter.”
(Similar statement by the same senior assistant director was made on 1 Oct 14.)
19 Dec 14
Email to MPs
“1. I forward the two replies dated 21 Nov 14 and 16 Dec 14 from the senior assistant director to show the statements she made are illogical.”
“3. I did not bring up section 21B(11)(b) because an application has to be made for a charge to be cancelled. Since I did not make such an application I do not see any relevant. It was not clear from section 21B(11)(b) how setting aside Minimum Sum resulted in the lapse of housing charge even if there was such an application.”
“5. I quote from her email dated 16 Dec 14:
The portion of the 2012 CPF Act that you have indicated in bold, i.e. section 21B(11)(a)(ii), refers generally to regulations under the CPF Act, which are not relevant to your case. In your case, the relevant provision is section 21B(11)(b). As explained to you in paragraphs 4 and 5 of our email dated 21 Nov, the event referred to in section 21B(11)(b), i.e. the setting aside of your Minimum Sum, has occurred to result in the lapse of your housing charge. You may refer to those paragraphs for a more detailed explanation.
With regard to your statement in paragraph 8 that there was no disbursement before 1 Jan 2013, our records show that you have in fact withdrawn your CPF for the payment towards the flat prior to 1 Jan 2013. As you had set aside your Minimum Sum as at 31 Dec 2012, the CPF charge on a property had already lapsed under the 2012 CPF Act. Hence, the provisions in the Current Act will not be applicable to you since there is no existing CPF charge. The Current Act does not “revive” any CPF charge which had lapsed under the 2012 CPF Act.”
“6. The 2012 CPF Act she quoted in support of her statements actually showed her statements to be faulty. It included her statement that the lapse of a charge occurred with full Minimum Sum and remained in force until the disbursement, which was after the rule change of 1 Jan 13. How would full Minimum Sum be implemented when its limit changes every year? Also the rule change did not mention full Minimum Sum and carrying forward of disbursement from before 1 Jan 13.”
“8. The senior assistant director states for the second times they will stop replying to me. She did copy the email to her colleagues
“9. Could CPFB give a reply?”
(Second paragraph quoted above “With regard to your statement in paragraph 8 that there was no disbursement before 1 Jan 2013, our records show that you have in fact withdrawn your CPF for the payment towards the flat prior to 1 Jan 2013.”, the senior assistant director was referring to my first purchase of the flat from HDB as the disbursement and, upon topping up to full Minimum Sum, a lapse of CPF charge/no existing CPF charge on the flat.
Third paragraph quoted above asked ”How would full Minimum Sum be implemented when its limit changes every year?”
Unless the senior assistant director gives an explanation, there is a disconnect between full Minimum Sum and lapse of CPF charge on flat/property purchased with CPF fund. Aren’t the two separate issues?)
9 Jan 15
Email to MPs
“On 19 Apr 14 a cheque was issued to me for proceeds from the sale of my flat when part of it should have been returned to CPF Account.
Since then there were many correspondence with officers who gave statements that were not supported by the 2012 CPF Act even as they made reference to it.”
16 Mar 15-14 May 15
Correspondence with MPs, director and assistant director of CPFB
“2. Are you in agreement with the senior assistant director that there is to be no refund of proceeds from sale of flat to CPF Account? The 2012 CPF Act and Changes to CPF Housing Refund Policy Effective 1 January 2013, however, allow for refund.”
(Please also refer to my comments at SP-CPF LIFE for final correspondence on the issues of CPF refund, SHB scheme and CPF Life.)
4. SP-SHB
19 Apr 14
Email to CPFB
Return of Money from CPF Account to Person Reaching 55 Who has Minimum Sum Upon Sale of Flat
“2. The reason I top up my CPF account each year even though I am not working is because CPF Board gave a higher interest rate than banks. Similarly with the Silver Housing Bonus (SHB), which gave up to $20,000 for downgrading to a smaller flat and the purchase of CPF Life once the person has Minimum Sum, here again, I had voluntarily purchased CPF Life when it was first introduced. Does it means I do not get the $20,000? The same with my mother, who was a joint owner of the flat just sold and a housewife, I opened an CPF account for her and topped up once using her money many years ago. Would she be eligible for SHB? There could be a problem here because I downgraded to a studio apartment which did not require her name. Therefore technically she did not downgrade to a smaller flat.”
6 May 14
Reply from executive officer, CPFB
7 May 14
Reply to executive officer, CPFB
“2. Concerning SHB I asked, Does it means I do not get the $20,000? and Would my mother be eligible? Again I asked for its rationale. You had not answered.”
27 May 14
Reply from executive officer, CPFB
“As your Retirement Account (RA) has already been topped up beyond the Minimum Sum (MS), you are unable to perform any further top-ups with your Net Sale Proceed from the housing transaction to receive the Silver Housing Bonus (SHB) of $20,000. According to the rules, applicants can only receive the $20,000 cash bonus per household by using the Net Sale Proceed from the sale and purchase of their flat to top up their RA. In addition, your mother is not the co-owner of the downgraded flat and therefore she is not eligible to participate in SHB.”
1 Jun 14
Reply to executive officer, CPFB
“2. In my letter I said I voluntarily topped up my CPF. Should I be penalised for topping up to Minimum Sum because by doing so I could not receive the Silver Housing Bonus. Similarly with my mother. She was co-owner of our five-room flat but when I downgraded to a studio apartment which required only my name for a owner, she is not eligible for the Silver Housing Bonus. It seems that if I had not topped up my CPF and if I had included my mother's name in the studio apartment we would be eligible for the cash bonus. This again is the reason I ask for its rationale.”
8 Jun 14
Email to MP
“Regarding the Silver Housing Bonus (SHB), its seems that because I topped up to Minimum Sum I could not be eligible for the SHB. Similarly with my mother, she could not be eligible because I had not included her name in my studio apartment which only required my name. Otherwise we meet all the conditions laid out for SHB.”
10 Jun 14
Reply from MP
10 Jun 14
Reply from executive officer, CPFB
“The Silver Housing Bonus (SHB) scheme is targeted at the asset-rich but cash-poor elderly, who usually also has very little CPF savings. To fund their daily expenses, some of these elderly monetise their asset by shifting to a smaller flat. For those who makes an additional top-up of at least $60,000 from the sale proceeds to save more for their retirement, the Government rewards them with a cash bonus of $20,000 under the SHB scheme. Typically, the cash-poor elderly would not have the cash flow to save or make regular top-ups to their CPF. We note that you had been making voluntary cash top-ups to your CPF since 2010 and is thus unable to make another top-up of at least $60,000, to receive the full SHB of $20,000. However, we are glad that you are taking an active approach to save more for retirement on your own and hope you understand the intention of the scheme as described above.”
12 Jun 14
Reply to executive officer, CPFB
“You said SHB scheme targeted the asset-rich but cash-poor elderly. So when I topped up my CPF since 2010 I am presumed to be cash-rich and not eligible for SHB. (Actually I was asset-rich and became cash-poor through topping up because I did not have an income.) Then when I downgraded to a smaller flat I become cash-rich and also because my Minimum Sum is full, I am not eligible for SHB. It is your presumption that the asset-rich cash-poor is eligible and the asset-poor cash-rich is not eligible. One can becomes the other by selling or buying a flat. (Again you are just saying so without the rationale.) The net worth of a member could be a better guide. I suppose high net worth member is not given SHB.
You did not reply as to why my mother is not eligible for SHB and its rationale. Should not I be able to topped up her Minimum Sum and received SHB?”
17 Jun 14
Email to me from estate manager, HDB, in reply my email to MP
MP's Appeal: Return of CPF Money and Eligibility for Silver Housing Bonus
26 Jun 14
Email to MP
“I have doubt about both officers. The CPF officer would not reply to my questions and would not refer to her superiors. The HDB officer has the same name as the officer who processed my application for the first and final appointment in which she asked for document not listed in the first appointment letter and delayed the date of the final appointment without giving a reason when asked in both instances.”
3 Jul 14
Reply from MP
3 Jul 14
Reply to MP
10 Jul 14
Email from the estate manager, HDB
Return of CPF Money and Eligibility for Silver Housing Bonus
17 Jul 14
Email to MPs
“It is not clear from the brochure that because I topped up to Minimum Sum every year I am not eligible for SHB and my mother, who I could have included as co-owner of the studio apartment, is not eligible.”
4 Aug 14
Letter from senior assistant director, CPFB. Copy to MP.
Request to participate in Silver Housing Bonus scheme
“The objective of the CPF Minimum Sum (MS) is to help CPF members have a monthly income to meet their basic living expenses in old age. Aligned with this, the SHB scheme only requires applicants to top up their Retirement Account (RC) up to the current MS, using the net sale proceeds after their housing transactions.”
“In our email to you on 24 June 2014, we had also suggested for you to include your mother as a co-owner of your Studio Apartment if she wishes to enjoy the SHB.”
(I cannot find the email of 24 Jun 2014. If there was one, who was the officer and what was the reply? I requested assistance from MPs from 8 Jun 14 to 17 Jul 14 and the matter was not settled. Please also refer to the email of 16 Nov 14 to MPs below.
The email of 24 Jun 14 was also referred by another assistant senior director at CPF-Refund 2 Sep 14 and my reply at CPF-Refund 5 Sep 14 that I did not received it.)
16 Sep 14
Letter from assistant manager, CPFB.
Request to participate in Silver Housing Bonus scheme
“...we attach 2 financial plans for your information.”
17 Sep 14-7 Oct 14
Application for Silver Housing Bonus (SHB)
(In my first email of 17 Sep 14 to the principal estate manager I wrote:
“I asked whether the fee could be waived because I could have been informed to include my mother’s name as she was eligible for SHB. It was only after I wrote to a CPFB following the sale of my flat that an officer informed me I was not eligible because my Minimum Sum was full and my mother was not eligible because she was not a co-owner. It took a while to clear up, but we were eligible.”
The principal estate manager did not address the issue. What he wanted was to introduce the online transfer of flat ownership form to cause delay and a fee.)
7 Oct 14
Application for transfer of HDB flat ownership
Financial plan (confirmed)
(Conveyancing fee and registration fee that I and my mother had to pay to include her as co-owner because, without informing me about our eligibility for SHB, I was let to sign only my name to the studio apartment. With the delay and after payment, the principal estate manager released the application for SHB to CPF. Below, on the same date, is the letter that CPFB had received confirmation from HDB that the inclusion of my mother as co-owner had been completed successfully.)
7 Oct 14
Letter from officer, CPFB.
Application for SHB scheme
8 Oct 14-22 Dec 14
Application for Silver Housing Bonus (SHB)
(The correspondence here were with the principal estate manager at HDB Hub and, after he directed it, with the senior estate manager at Punggol Branch.
My email to the principal estate manager on 2 Oct 14:
“I have checked the online form. I have to select a reason for the transfer of flat, but the list of reasons do not apply to us. I and my mother were co-owner when we sold our flat. If the officer had informed me that my mother would be eligible for SHB (Silver Housing Bonus), I would have included her name in the studio apartment. I left her name out because it was allowed for studio apartment and I thought there was no difference. But there is no transfer of flat either from me to my mother or vice versa because we were co-owner in the first place.”
After my email to MP on 3 Oct 14, DPM Teo requested the principal estate manager to look into the issue and reply. His reply was that he had clarified with Punggol Branch on the state of affairs.
The clarification from the principal estate manager on 7 Oct 14: “there are various reasons of transfer that we have in our E-application. In your case, you can select “Gift” as the reason for transfer”.
The clarification from the senior estate manager on 10 Oct 14: “We wish to inform you that a transfer of flat ownership refers to a change of flat ownership between family members. There are different types of transfers, for example: Inclusion of co-owner(s) (e.g. A to A & B), Deletion of existing co-owner(s) (e.g. A & B to A), etc.”
Please also refer above to 17 Sep 14-7 Oct 14 and 7 Oct 14 for my comments. The principal estate manager did not address the issue. I was prevented from obtaining the application form for SHB in the first place.
A more in depth explanation is in 16 Nov 14 below and SP-Refund 9 Jul 14.)
4 Nov14
Email to personal assistant to DPM
“Regarding SHB, officers kept silent about our eligibility. When I asked for the application form as stated in the brochure, the officer at HDB would not give it to me. Later I asked at CPF, but they could not find the form. I therefore dropped a feedback to Quality Assurance and with the help of a supervisor signed off a note for the form to be sent to me. There was no reply from them. Could the form have included my mother for SHB? Could it be the cause of so much delay without it? Later CPF wrote to allow the inclusion of my mother’s name in my studio apartment so that she could be eligible for SHB.
During our appointment with the principal estate manager, he indicated the forms to use for inclusion of my mother, cost could be from a few dollars to about two hundred dollars, that the fee may be waived and he needed to check how long it would take for them to process. No mention of transfer of flat ownership to be undertaken by Punggol Branch Office, which is in his domain.
The use of the online form for transfer of flat ownership was not appropriate because the intent was not transfer. Such transfer would not have made my mother eligible for SHB if she was not a co-owner of the previous flat sold. Besides the form is intended for new owner, loan application, valuation of flat and others. Also the list of items to be selected under reason for transfer of flat ownership do not apply to us. The principal estate manager asked me to select Gift as the reason. Earlier he could have expedited matter, now he would not address it when informed that the online form was not appropriate.
By asking me to fill in the form, the officers could charge fees and delay our cash contribution to Retirement Account and cash bonus, in which the
5 Nov 14
Reply from personal assistant to DPM
5 Nov 14
Email to personal assistant to DPM, addressed to the DMP
Application for SHB
Fees for transfer of flat ownership
Proposed completion date of transfer: 09 Dec 2014
(I emailed MP the fees required for the transfer of flat ownership. Please refer to my comments at SP-CPF Refund of 17 Jun 14 and 9 Jul 14.)
16 Nov 14
Email to MPs
Q: I am aged 55 and above, and selling my property. If I choose to retain the excess housing refunds in my CPF account, will I be able to use the refunds for future housing purchases?
A: Yes. Any excess housing refunds remaining in the Ordinary Account can be used for housing purposes.
“The second question [quoted above] clears up any confusion about the transfer of flat ownership when I and my mother met all requirement for SHB. [From the brochure on SHB] To be eligible
I was not given the opportunity when the officer would not give me the application form when I came to know about SHB from the brochure given on the day I took possession of the keys to the studio apartment. I could have been informed [that] my mother and I was eligible or else the application form would have indicated, but I was prevented from knowing. It was only through many emails to CPF that it was accepted we were eligible for SHB. The online form for the transfer of flat ownership we were asked to fill was not appropriate because it was not for co-owners but intended for new owner which entailed attendant fees and long processing time.”
(It seemed to me that when I was prevented the refund of money from the sale of our flat, it also meant my mother would not be eligible for SHB. The record would show that I bought the studio apartment using my cash (sheet R1 to R5 in 3. CPF Refund). My mother would seem to have no share in it. Was it the reason why I was prevented from obtaining the application form for SHB? And when it was confirmed that my mother was eligible for SHB because she was co-owner of the flat sold, the principal estate manager insisted on a transfer of ownership to include her as co-owner of the studio apartment. His logic was that my mother was not co-owner until the transfer of ownership was affected. But he would have known it was a trap from his behaviour after being informed of the circumstances.)
9 Dec 14
Financial plan (confirmed)
(Payment of $219.60 to include the name of my mother in my studio apartment. I was prevented from obtaining the application form for SHB scheme when it supposed to be freely available. As my mother was a co-owner of our 5-room flat who right-sized to a studio apartment, approval would have been given. The application for SHB scheme would not have taken 10 weeks to process and payment of a fee. However, the principal estates manager from HDB instructed me to use the online application form for transfer of HDB flat ownership (which was intended for new owner) to force the delay and fee. I was to select Gift to include my mother as co-owner, to select No loan and to select any of the options provided so as to proceed with the application as the system would not be able to determine whether stamp duty was payable at the point of application. Only after the delay and payment of the fee would the principal estates manager release the application form for SHB to CPF.)
30 Dec 14
Application for SHB scheme, CPFB
12 Jan 15
Letter from Lifelong Income Department, CPFB
Issuing of CPF LIFE under SHB scheme
(Please refer to 6. CPF Life for the text.)
23 Jan 15
Letter from assistant director, CPFB. Copy to MP.
Request to cancel CPF policy issued through participation of SHB scheme
(Please refer to my comments at SP-CPF Life 23 Jan 15.)
3 Feb 15
Letter from officer, CPFB.
Bonus disbursed under the SHB scheme
10 Feb 15
Reply to officer, CPFB
“4. Your statement ¨In addition, we understand that you were given a copy of the list of conditions for SHB scheme when you submitted your application at HDB. In that list of conditions, we have indicated that all SHB scheme applicants who are already participating in CPF LIFE will have an additional CPF LIFE policy of the same plan type issued to them.¨ is not supported. A brochure on SHB (Silver Housing Bonus) was given to me at HDB but the relevant portion is not at all similar to your statement.”
26 Feb 15
Reply to assistant director, CPFB
Additional CPF LIFE Income Plan
“1. I refer to your reference ... dated 23 Jan 15 together with the attached Application for the Silver Housing Bonus Scheme your department received on 7 Oct 14.”
“2. I could see why the application form was not given to me when I requested for it at CPF and HDB earlier…”
“5. I could now look through the application form you sent only because your officer had to support his statements by referring to it. Please refer to my email dated 10 Feb 15.”
10 Mar 15-14 May 15
Correspondence with MPs, director and assistant director of CPFB
“3. Why was there no reply from CPF within the 7 working days stated in the application form for SHB submitted by the principal estate manager? Approval to include my mother in the studio apartment was given by CPF before the principal estate manager got us to sign the application form. He did wrong by not showing us the attached Important Notes that came with the application form, which included a reply within 7 working days, and asking me to fill the Transfer of Flat Ownership form intended for new owner, which took 10 weeks and a fee, when it was clear that approval was given because my mother was a co-owner who right-sized to a studio apartment.”
(Please also refer to my comments at SP-CPF LIFE for final correspondence on the issues of CPF refund, SHB scheme and CPF Life.)
5. SP-CPF Life
4 Sep 09
Letter from Lifelong Income Department
“Please complete and return the application form in the enclosed Business Reply envelope.”
27 Dec 09
Letter from Lifelong Income Department
“You have chosen the LIFE Income Plan….See Annex A for details.”
“If you wish to make any changes to your CPF LIFE plan, please write in to us within thirty (30) days from the date of this letter.”
27 Sep 10
Letter from Lifelong Income Department
“An additional annuity premium of $8,843.06 was deducted on 27 September 2010.”
(This was to be a point of contention. I maintained that I was led to sign unknowingly without any explanation given and no important notes and grace period given. At that point in time, were there any other such application made?
In fact there was no situation where this was allowed. Please refer to 12 Jan 15 below on the Important Notes on CPF LIFE.
Doing so reduced my monthly payout at age 65. Please refer to 10 Mar 15 below for an explanation. They got back at me for the problem with the neighbour that started in Jun 07 and was still continuing at the time.
The Important Notes in 12 Jan 15 below stated that the second annuity premium will be deducted automatically two months before your DDA. There is no need for the additional annuity premium.)
12 Jan 15
Letter from Lifelong Income Department
Issuing of CPF LIFE under the Silver Housing Bonus scheme
“This letter replaces the previous CPF LIFE letter sent to you. Please retain this letter and the enclosed documents for your reference.”
(This letter bears no name and signature of officer. “This letter replaces the previous CPF LIFE letter sent to you” could refer to the letter of 27 Sep 10 from Lifelong Income Department. The enclosed documents is the Important Notes on CPF LIFE. 3 situations are listed under CPF LIFE Annuity Premium, but none covers the situation where additional annuity could be purchased if you join CPF LIFE before your Draw Down Age. But the additional annuity of 27 Sep 10 was purchased after I joined CPF LIFE before my Draw Down Age. Therefore, I was tricked into it.)
23 Jan 15
Letter from assistant director, CPFB. Copy to MP
Request to cancel CPF LIFE policy issued through participation of SIlver Housing Bonus scheme
(The letter stated that on the 2 occasions where I applied for CPF Life, a policy letter was sent to inform me of the details and the third annuity (including the top-up made under SHB) was made known to me with the issuance of the additional annuity of the same plan type using my entire RA balance. The application for SHB (of the third occasion) that I had signed was enclosed. I am fine with the first occasion. Please refer to 27 Sep 10 above for my comments on the second occasion. Please refer to my reply of 1 Feb 15 and the letter from CPFB of 10 Mar 15 with the application for additional annuity under CPF Life (of the second occasion) enclosed below on the third occasion.
The application form for SHB included Important Notes and Declaration and Acknowledgement. The principal estate manager did not explain nor let me read, but filled in the form himself and asked us to sign. I found only later that the form stated CPFB would reply on the outcome of the application within 7 working days after all required documents are submitted. And under Declaration and Acknowledgement, the entire balance in my RA will be used to buy a CPF LIFE plan.
I attached the brochure/notes on SHB here. Under When and how to apply?, “Application will be available from 1 February 2013.” However, I was not given when I first asked for it at HDB and later at CPF Tampines that included dropping a note to Quality Assurance, CPF.)
1 Feb 15
Reply to CPFB
Additional CPF LIFE Income Plan
“I have doubt when I saw that the CPF LIFE payout is only $4 more than the CPF LIFE payout in the previous CPF LIFE letter dated 16 Sep 14. The difference in payout is due to an addition of an interest amount of $1757.88 to the amount in Dec 13 to arrive at the amount in Dec 14 used in the calculation, all other things being equal including the top-up for SHB (Silver Housing Bonus). The $1757.88 is present value, but even without considering interest rate and inflation over time the additional $4 per month after DDA (at age 65) over lifetime adds up to less than $1757.88. Another outcome is if the $1757.88 is invested in annuity for say 30 years at the lower range of 3.75%, the calculated amount will be $8.14 per month.”
4 Feb 15
Letter from officer, CPFB
CPF Life
“We refer to your email of 1 Feb 2015 regarding your CPF LIFE Plan.
We noted that you had recently applied to join the SHB scheme and a policy letter dated 12 Jan 2015 was sent to inform you of the details of your coverage. We would like to reassure you that even though our letter had not been signed off by any CPF staff, the Board would still be accountable for the information stated therein as the letter bears the CPF logo.”
(If he was referring to the enclosed pre-printed material, he would be right in that no name and signature was required. But the letter referred to the issuance of CPF LIFE under SHB scheme and I had doubt on the additional $4 monthly payout from the accrued interest of $1757.88 in my email of 1 Feb 15. Please refer to 1 Feb 15 on what I wrote.)
7 Feb 15
Email to CPF
“While waiting for your reply, the last day of the 30-day grace period will expire on 11 Feb 15 for the additional CPF LIFE Income Plan.
Therefore I give notice not to have the additional CPF LIFE Plan before the 30-day grace period.
I will appreciate a reply to my earlier email.”
10 Feb 15
Reply to officer, CPFB
“2. You did not clear my doubt.”
“3. I quote from your letter: ¨We would like to reassure you that even though our letter had not been signed off by any CPF staff, the Board would still be accountable for the information stated therein as the letter bears the CPF logo.¨ I think CPF members would naturally prefer to know the name and designation of officers who wrote to them.”
10 Feb 15
Email to MPs
10 Feb 15
Reply from personal assistant to DPM
26 Feb 15
Reply to assistant director, CPFB
Additional CPF LIFE Income Plan
10 Mar 15
Letter from assistant director, CPFB
Silver Housing Bonus (SHB) scheme and CPF LIFE
(The assistant director explained that a Transfer of Flat Ownership took 8 to 10 weeks to process and incurred a fee. On a different top up amounts written on the SHB application form, it was an internal note. That if I had waited for the additional policy of 27 Sep 2010 (inclusive of my SHB proceeds) to be issued two months before DDA, my payout would be less.
a) The application form for Transfer of Flat Ownership was for new owner. As my mother was a co-owner, it should not take 10 weeks to process as was the case. Also refer to SP-SHB Oct 14 on the delay tactics. b) The different top up amounts was signed by an officer. c) My concern is over the additional policy of 27 Sep 2010, not a hypothetical case that my payout would be less if the additional policy (inclusive of my SHB proceeds) was issued two months before DDA. Please refer to 12 Jan 15 above, it was also hypothetical because there was no SHB then. Whether intentional or not, I think she made a mistake. It is to be expected that rate of return from annuity could be less than rate of return from fixed deposit rate of bank or rate of return from RA of CPF in my case and a lump sum payment nearer the end of life gives a higher payout due to the lesser number of months it have to divide into i.e. payout should be more.)
16 Mar 15
Reply to assistant director, CPFB
Additional CPF LIFE Income Plan
(I wrote on 4 issues. I informed MPs and a director of the issues later.)
31 Mar 15
Letter from assistant director, CPFB
CPF housing refund, Silver Housing Bonus (SHB) scheme and CPF LIFE
(The assistant director had her explanation for each of the issues. The letter she referred to as 16 Sep 15 is SP-SHB 16 Sep 14.
”policy letters were computer generated...it had not been signed off,,,the Board will still be accountable for the information stated as the letter bears the CPF logo” referred to the letter 12 Jan 15. My comment is at 4 Feb 15 above.
Please also refer to my comment at 10 Mar 15 above on the same officer.)
5 Apr 15
Reply to assistant director, CPFB
Officers Acted Against Rules
27 Apr 15
Email to MPs
Wrongdoing by Officers
(I informed MPs of the issues.)
30 Apr 15
Letter from director, CPFB. Copy to DPM
CPF LIFE and Silver Housing Bonus (SHB) scheme
“As the issues raised in your latest email are similar to those we have replied you on numerous occasions, we seek your understanding that [we] will not be replying further unless you have new enquiries.”
(The director made a summary, but did not reply to the issues posed and reposed as 4 questions on 7 May 15 below.)
7 May 15
Reply to director, CPFB
Wrongdoing by Officers
“4. Is the $4 more in payout correct? The additional $4 per month after DDA (at age 65) adds up to less than the interest income of $1757.88 over a lifetime. And if the $1757.88 is invested for say 30 years at the lower range of 3.75%, the calculated amount will be $8.14 per month.”
“5. Back in Aug 10 at CPF Tampines, why [was] the application form for additional CPF LIFE Plan without any attached important notes in which I was led to sign unknowingly? The important notes would have stated that CPF LIFE allowed for only two deductions with the second and final deduction two months before Draw Down Age (DDA) and a 30-day grace period to cancel additional CPF LIFE Plan. It makes sense to purchase additional CPF LIFE Plan only if interest income from the purchase of Singapore Bond for CPF LIFE exceeds the 4% in CPF Retirement Account.”
(I asked the director 4 questions.)
14 May 15
Email to MPs
“The director of CPF has not reply after I showed wrongdoings.
Officers cause on-going monetary losses on three occasions. From higher interest I could get from Ordinary Account compared to bank accounts with a refund of proceeds from sale of flat, from reduced payout from CPF LIFE Plan because an additional CPF LIFE was issued in
6. SP-Miscellaneous
1. Rainwater Seepage
11 Feb 95-29 Jun 00
(Of the seepage the officer from HDB Branch Office wrote “Our investigation on Apr 2000 revealed that the cause of the water seepage into your bedrooms was due to the decay of your air-con wooden panel.” Actually the splashing of rainwater outside the window was the cause of the wall seepage, the decay of the air-con wooden panel and the stain of parquet flooring along the wall. After the forced-entry of the neighbour’s flat on 18 Mar 08, there was a mention by HDB to repair the wall seepage. Please refer to Report (1) under Findings.)
2. Lawyer Consultation Fee
22 Jul 09
Invoice from lawyer
In the matter of claim against HDB
“Particulars: To our profession fees for consultation and general advise rendered.
Charges: $750.00”
(The lawyer looked carefully at the two photocopies of the handwritten letter, one with two lines missing with signed acknowledgement from the HDB Branch Office and one without the lines missing that I took the precaution to photocopy beforehand. Was HDB Branch Office trying to cover up wrongdoing? Please refer to Report (1) under Conclusion.
The fee was $1500, but reduced to $750.)
18 Jun 09
Email from a lawyer
Consultation
“I charge $500 for consultation (which I will waive if you engage my legal services after the consultation). I do not give free advice through email.”
18 Jun 09
Email to lawyer
Consultation
“Because it is a complaint primarily against Head, Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office (HBO) and an officer, what are the likely adverse consequences for me? How do I mitigate it?”
3. Seller Who Do Not Engage A Salesperson
09 Oct 13
Valuation report from valuer
24 Nov 13
Acknowledgment from HDB
Resale checklist for sellers who do not engage a salesperson
1 Dec 13
Invoice from SPH
Classified advertisement
2 Dec 13
Terms and conditions
(I tried to sell on my own because I knew I was in a fix, but the market was cornered. Please refer to SP-Sales Agents 28 Dec 13-23 Nov 13 where sales agents (I contacted over twenty sales agents and only one phone enquiry after the classified advertisement) went through the motion to bring in buyers. SP-Sales Agents 30 Dec 13, I reverted to an exclusive deal with the sales agent because he was a top producer of a listed company. SP-Sales Agents 19 Apr 14, the real estates company did not reply whether no refund to CPF was normal in my case. SP-Sales Agents 28 Apr 14-23 Nov 13, the request for a reduction of their fee from 2% to 1% was refused. SP-Sales Agent 6 Jun 14, letter of demand from senior legal manager of the real estates company. The reason behind the preceding three sentences was the company and mediation centres followed the contract to the letter and could turn a blind eye to the circumstances leading to the sales including any shortcoming.)
4. CPIB
2 Jun 15-20 Jul 15
Submission at CPIB website
(I referred to my two blog sites in the first submission. A resubmission was made when I was unable to check status of complaint using my password and user ID. Although I referred to the neighbour, Pasir Ris Branch Office, CPF, real estate agency as examples of wrongdoing (malice and corruption), the two replies from the officer was “The information provided does not disclose an offence of corruption. Accordingly, CPIB is not pursuing the matter.”)
5. Installation Defects: Fluorescent Fitting at Kitchen of Studio Apartment
30 Jan 16-10 Jun 16
(I wrote to Punggol, HDB Branch Office, on what caused the fluorescent fitting in my kitchen to drop and the probability of more cases. In the end I told them I would start to distribute note of warning to the other 187 studio apartments. During my round I came to know of two more cases. I probably talk to less than a quarter of all the households, but did leave behind my message at all the households.)
6. Activation of Singpass 2FA
22 Jun 16-13 Jul 16
(In the events, from first to last, officers did not sent the mailer required for me to activate Singpass 2FA. I was able to activate without the mailer using only the OneKey token because insiders accommodated and I did the same for my mother’s.)
7. Change of Singpass Password
21 Jul 16-19 Sep 16
(Officers, one after another, took a jab at me with their replies. The object was to prevent me from changing the password of my mother at Singpass website. They were vying with me to see who had the upper hand. I still have not change my mother’s password.)
8. Select Committee / Commission of Inquiry
27 Feb 18
Letter to Select Committee
Select Committee On Fake News
(I listed the reasons why the complaint remains unresolved over a long period of time, Item 2 to 6.)
27 Apr 18
Letter to MP
Parliamentary Select Committee / Presidential Commission of Inquiry
(The reasons why the complaint could only be resolved in Parliament.)
9. Online Shopping
13 May 18-25 Jun 18
I registered at 4 online sites for the purpose of buying a new Chromebook. I was successful only at one site that seemed to know the trouble I was having, they gave prompt delivery of my 3 orders (including replacement parts for my old Chromebook.
Briefly the 1st site sent a wrong model, did not gave a full refund for the postage back as required and promised, prevented subsequent purchase and prevented subscription of membership that came with a 30 days free trial. Neither Customer Service nor Feedback provided explanation.
The 2nd site cancelled a confirmed order for spurious reason. They made a request to provide them with a screenshot of payment from PayPal after having sent a text message by phone and an email to cancel the order. I made a reply the same day without knowing of the request. In any case they wrote that because I did not respond to their request they cancelled the order and initiated refund. No time was given to respond to the request. In fact the first cancellation from phone text to the second cancellation that screenshot was not provided was all within two and a half hours. They had not intended to fulfil the order.
The 3rd site allowed login but on an order, I was shown an error page.
Please also refer to my comments in Item 11 and Item 36 at 6. Miscellaneous.
No comments:
Post a Comment