View Full Version : The condo carpark crunch
http://www.straitstimes.com/News/Home/Story/STIStory_516015.html
Apr 18, 2010
The condo carpark crunch
Parking woes hit condos that do not have enough parking spaces to meet the demands of car-owning residents
By Goh Chin Lian
Car-owning condominium residents can get into lots of trouble.
That happens when the number of cars owned exceeds the number of parking spaces allocated to them.
A recent dispute involved a family unhappy with new condo rules that forbid them to park all four of their cars on-site. They live in Hillington Green in Hillview Avenue.
They had faced no such limit when they moved into their penthouse in 2002, said a family member who wanted to be known as Mrs Lim.
The dispute escalated last month when security guards turned away their Mercedes S-Class. Police were called in to mediate.
Managing agents of condos said they increasingly have to find ways to accommodate residents with two or more cars.
In the past, after allocating each family a space, they still had enough for those with more than one car.
But more families became multiple car owners as the price of certificates of entitlement to own a car stayed below $20,000 in recent years.
Mr Derek Soh, a regional director at real estate firm Jones Lang LaSalle, said a common practice now is to charge residents a fee to park their second or third vehicle.
Some residents may then think twice about owning more cars, or find another place to park.
The Sunday Times understands the monthly charge can be $50 to $100. The Centris, above Jurong Point shopping centre in Boon Lay, charges $270.
Balloting was used by one condo in Bukit Timah that Mr Soh's firm previously managed. About 40 people vied for 30 spaces for their additional cars.
'We balloted every quarter but people felt there was no certainty because for one quarter they had a space; for the next quarter, they didn't,' he said.
Allowing residents to park overnight along some driveways in the estate is another solution, said Mr Chan Kok Hong, managing director of CKH Strata Management.
A handful of the 105 condominiums it manages does so.
He also proposed a device that can stack cars vertically.
He estimates one machine occupying one parking space would cost about $10,000, excluding maintenance. The cost could be recouped by charging residents a fee to use it.
However, he is not aware of any condo here doing this.
While some older condos have 15 per cent more parking spaces than homes, those built in the past five years just meet the government standard of one space for each home.
A rule change in 2005 allowed condos within 400m of an MRT or LRT station, or in the Central Business District, to have up to 20 per cent fewer spaces.
Centro Residences, near Ang Mo Kio MRT station, will have 260 spaces for 329 units.
Waterbank @ Dakota, near Dakota MRT station, will have 554 spaces for 616 units.
Both are due to be ready in the next five years.
Some industry observers question the 2005 rule: Home buyers may choose to live near an MRT station not because they do not want to own a car, but for the convenience of their children. Such projects may face parking woes in the future.
For those who want worry-free parking, Mr Chan suggests condos popular with expatriates. They tend not to own cars.
The Lims, however, are staying put in Hillington Green and have engaged a lawyer. Their condo has 480 units and 492 parking spaces.
The new rules passed internally last September allow each home to have only one space. Those who have a second car, can park it in the estate until they sell it.
Mrs Lim said her family is prepared to give up one car and pay for the additional spaces.
[email protected]
http://www.straitstimes.com/News/Home/Story/STIStory_516009.html
Apr 18, 2010
Resident uses visitors' parking space
Mr J. Leong, 51, owns three cars but is allotted only one parking space at his condo in Meyer Road.
The solution? The investment banker parks his Mercedes-Benz in the space given to him. His wife uses one of the spaces meant for visitors to park her BMW.
Their daughter parks her Toyota Corolla Altis by the road outside the condo when she is back from university on weekends.
Mr Leong said: 'I've been doing this for the past two years and I've never been caught by the management. My wife always parks at a different space for visitors.'
http://www.straitstimes.com/News/Home/Story/STIStory_516009.html
Apr 18, 2010
Resident uses visitors' parking space
Mr J. Leong, 51, owns three cars but is allotted only one parking space at his condo in Meyer Road.
The solution? The investment banker parks his Mercedes-Benz in the space given to him. His wife uses one of the spaces meant for visitors to park her BMW.
Their daughter parks her Toyota Corolla Altis by the road outside the condo when she is back from university on weekends.
Mr Leong said: 'I've been doing this for the past two years and I've never been caught by the management. My wife always parks at a different space for visitors.'
Woo.. he wants everyone of his condo mates to know he's doing this? Think the condo mgmt will clamp down on him soon..ha
proud owner
20-04-10, 01:55
[quote=mr funny]http://www.straitstimes.com/News/Home/Story/STIStory_516009.html
Apr 18, 2010
Resident uses visitors' parking space
Mr J. Leong, 51, owns three cars but is allotted only one parking space at his condo in Meyer Road.
The solution? The investment banker parks his Mercedes-Benz in the space given to him. His wife uses one of the spaces meant for visitors to park her BMW.
Their daughter parks her Toyota Corolla Altis by the road outside the condo when she is back from university on weekends.
Mr Leong said: 'I've been doing this for the past two years and I've never been caught by the management. My wife always parks at a different space for visitors.'[/quo
si peh sia sway ... investment banker resorts to such tactics to 'escape' extra cost ...
wonder which bank he works for ...
http://www.straitstimes.com/News/Home/Story/STIStory_516009.html
Apr 18, 2010
Resident uses visitors' parking space
Mr J. Leong, 51, owns three cars but is allotted only one parking space at his condo in Meyer Road.
The solution? The investment banker parks his Mercedes-Benz in the space given to him. His wife uses one of the spaces meant for visitors to park her BMW.
Their daughter parks her Toyota Corolla Altis by the road outside the condo when she is back from university on weekends.
Mr Leong said: 'I've been doing this for the past two years and I've never been caught by the management. My wife always parks at a different space for visitors.'
The fish will not get into trouble if it keeps e BIG mouth shut.
Time to ride motorcycle instead....:D
Lessons learnt:
1) Don't buy into any condo property with number of car park lots < number of units (regardless of location. The further the condo is from CCR, the higher the number of car park lots to number of units is required as people who can afford >$1m condo definitely will want to drive for conveniency and the further away from central area the more necessary a car is).
2) Don't buy into any condo property where you have to pay to park your car (this should already be priced into your property price) regardless of so-called "location" or "view" etc (otherwise the car park lot is not yours and things will change down the road and you are the mercy of the car park providers to charge you the parking fee - Jack up parking fee by 500% and what can you do if you have a car and need park?).
So which condo to avoid? Here is what I know:
1) The Sail (1111 units : 800+ car park lots)
2) UE Square (you have to pay to park your car)
3) Centris
4) Centro
5) Waterbank
6) ???... (some more please add)....
http://www.straitstimes.com/News/Home/Story/STIStory_516015.html
Apr 18, 2010
The condo carpark crunch
Parking woes hit condos that do not have enough parking spaces to meet the demands of car-owning residents
By Goh Chin Lian
Car-owning condominium residents can get into lots of trouble.
That happens when the number of cars owned exceeds the number of parking spaces allocated to them.
A recent dispute involved a family unhappy with new condo rules that forbid them to park all four of their cars on-site. They live in Hillington Green in Hillview Avenue.
They had faced no such limit when they moved into their penthouse in 2002, said a family member who wanted to be known as Mrs Lim.
The dispute escalated last month when security guards turned away their Mercedes S-Class. Police were called in to mediate.
Managing agents of condos said they increasingly have to find ways to accommodate residents with two or more cars.
In the past, after allocating each family a space, they still had enough for those with more than one car.
But more families became multiple car owners as the price of certificates of entitlement to own a car stayed below $20,000 in recent years.
Mr Derek Soh, a regional director at real estate firm Jones Lang LaSalle, said a common practice now is to charge residents a fee to park their second or third vehicle.
Some residents may then think twice about owning more cars, or find another place to park.
The Sunday Times understands the monthly charge can be $50 to $100. The Centris, above Jurong Point shopping centre in Boon Lay, charges $270.
Balloting was used by one condo in Bukit Timah that Mr Soh's firm previously managed. About 40 people vied for 30 spaces for their additional cars.
'We balloted every quarter but people felt there was no certainty because for one quarter they had a space; for the next quarter, they didn't,' he said.
Allowing residents to park overnight along some driveways in the estate is another solution, said Mr Chan Kok Hong, managing director of CKH Strata Management.
A handful of the 105 condominiums it manages does so.
He also proposed a device that can stack cars vertically.
He estimates one machine occupying one parking space would cost about $10,000, excluding maintenance. The cost could be recouped by charging residents a fee to use it.
However, he is not aware of any condo here doing this.
While some older condos have 15 per cent more parking spaces than homes, those built in the past five years just meet the government standard of one space for each home.
A rule change in 2005 allowed condos within 400m of an MRT or LRT station, or in the Central Business District, to have up to 20 per cent fewer spaces.
Centro Residences, near Ang Mo Kio MRT station, will have 260 spaces for 329 units.
Waterbank @ Dakota, near Dakota MRT station, will have 554 spaces for 616 units.
Both are due to be ready in the next five years.
Some industry observers question the 2005 rule: Home buyers may choose to live near an MRT station not because they do not want to own a car, but for the convenience of their children. Such projects may face parking woes in the future.
For those who want worry-free parking, Mr Chan suggests condos popular with expatriates. They tend not to own cars.
The Lims, however, are staying put in Hillington Green and have engaged a lawyer. Their condo has 480 units and 492 parking spaces.
The new rules passed internally last September allow each home to have only one space. Those who have a second car, can park it in the estate until they sell it.
Mrs Lim said her family is prepared to give up one car and pay for the additional spaces.
[email protected]
Lessons learnt:
1) Don't buy into any condo property with number of car park lots < number of units (regardless of location. The further the condo is from CCR, the higher the number of car park lots to number of units is required as people who can afford >$1m condo definitely will want to drive for conveniency and the further away from central area the more necessary a car is).
2) Don't buy into any condo property where you have to pay to park your car (this should already be priced into your property price) regardless of so-called "location" or "view" etc (otherwise the car park lot is not yours and things will change down the road and you are the mercy of the car park providers to charge you the parking fee - Jack up parking fee by 500% and what can you do if you have a car and need park?).
So which condo to avoid? Here is what I know:
1) The Sail (1111 units : 800+ car park lots)
2) UE Square (you have to pay to park your car)
3) Centris
4) Centro
5) Waterbank
6) ???... (some more please add)....
Nah, lessons learnt:
1) Don't buy condos if you have more than one car. Buy landed which can house all your cars! Why pay so much for a condo when you have to be under the mercy of the Mgmt Committee to let you use visitor carpark?
2) Buy boutiques apartment among the landed homes - lots of free parking space for your extra cars
3) Buy condos only that have MRT within walking distance so you dun need to own cars and wun get into this kinda shit!
4) If you drive, dun stay in condos, if you stay in condos, dun drive
Lessons people didn't learn (when they should):
1) Buy landed - start to learn how to catch rats, snakes, scorpions, mosquitoes, houseflies, moths etc. Get to know more contractors so that you have to deal with the quality problems & repairs needed after 10 years.
2) Buy boutique among landed? Ha ha ha! Pay so much money for the boutique and have to see other people's face and get chase left, right, centre because you have no right to park outside their house? :banghead:
3) Buy condo and can't afford cars? Better don't buy condo lah! Don't get the shit from banks!
4) If you don't know how to catch rats, snakes, scorpions, mosquitoes, houseflies, moths etc and don't know any trustworthy contractors - don't buy landed.
If you don't have very thick skin on your face or die die must own car - don't buy boutique! :scared-1:
Nah, lessons learnt:
1) Don't buy condos if you have more than one car. Buy landed which can house all your cars! Why pay so much for a condo when you have to be under the mercy of the Mgmt Committee to let you use visitor carpark?
2) Buy boutiques apartment among the landed homes - lots of free parking space for your extra cars
3) Buy condos only that have MRT within walking distance so you dun need to own cars and wun get into this kinda shit!
4) If you drive, dun stay in condos, if you stay in condos, dun drive
Lessons people didn't learn (when they should):
1) Buy landed - start to learn how to catch rats, snakes, scorpions, mosquitoes, houseflies, moths etc. Get to know more contractors so that you have to deal with the quality problems & repairs needed after 10 years.
2) Buy boutique among landed? Ha ha ha! Pay so much money for the boutique and have to see other people's face and get chase left, right, centre because you have no right to park outside their house? :banghead:
3) Buy condo and can't afford cars? Better don't buy condo lah! Don't get the shit from banks!
4) If you don't know how to catch rats, snakes, scorpions, mosquitoes, houseflies, moths etc and don't know any trustworthy contractors - don't buy landed.
If you don't have very thick skin on your face or die die must own car - don't buy boutique! :scared-1:
There's just so much loopholes in your comments.
1) There is one thing called pest control companies - Why do it yourself? Condos got no pests? Condos no need to do repairs? More users => more wear and tear => more repairs
2) Park outside people's hses - The road is owned by LTA not by the landed owners. Who can chase you except traffic police?
3) The issue is not abt affordability, its abt availability of parking spaces.
4) U see Ah Neh's talking...just dunno what the hack he is talking abt! :p
1) You are going to engage the Pest control company's man to station at your landed everyday? :tongue3:
The rats, snakes, scorpions, mosquitoes, houseflies, moths etc some of these landed friends will visit you everyday and some at unexpected times.
Condo high floor don't have all these pests (but have to pay more lah!) :cheers1:
Condo also need maintenance, but less than landed (because better quality) and also have a person called "estate manager" to take care of everything (except those so called "Boutique development" which don't have such person lah!). :doh:
Condo maintenance paid by each household definitely very much cheaper than landed (because shared mah). :D
2) Seen too many times the landed will call LTA and traffic police and traffic police will chase these people away & issue warning. Don't listen and they will draw double yellow lines and then issue summons. People who don't believe should try. :p
3) It is still about affordability. Have money buy prime luxury condo where there are may be 2 car park lots to 1 unit. Very little money but still want to show-off to be living in private property will buy condo in suburbs especially those with number of car park lots <= number of units (e.g. Boutique because cheaper mah) and then cow-pay cow-bull about not having enough car park space (because people who live in suburbs have to own cars otherwise not convenient!).
4) Those who want to be "carrot" can buy what the COLOUR advocates - D15 landed and boutique! :banghead:
There's just so much loopholes in your comments.
1) There is one thing called pest control companies - Why do it yourself? Condos got no pests? Condos no need to do repairs? More users => more wear and tear => more repairs
2) Park outside people's hses - The road is owned by LTA not by the landed owners. Who can chase you except traffic police?
3) The issue is not abt affordability, its abt availability of parking spaces.
4) U see Ah Neh's talking...just dunno what the hack he is talking abt! :p
Lessons learnt:
1) Don't buy into any condo property with number of car park lots < number of units (regardless of location.
Nah, lessons learnt:
1) Don't buy condos if you have more than one car. Buy landed which can house all your cars! Why pay so much for a condo when you have to be under the mercy of the Mgmt Committee to let you use visitor carpark?
The above two statements are very valid.
Seriously, the developers are creating a time bomb.
Once all these condos TOP and people who can afford to buy million-dollar properties find that:
1. They are not allowed to own more than one car.
2. Their relatives cannot visit them during Chinese New Year unless the relatives arrive by MRT.
3. The cost of time spent playing hide and seek with the Managment Committee and Traffic Police exceeds that doing useful work for their clients/ patients/ bosses (depending on their profession) ...
Better hold on tightly to your landed properties or old condos with sprawling car parks. :p
A practical solution is available: follow the HK style, where parking lots are not entitlements of an apartment, but rather sold separately. about 10% of the price of an apartment. Also lots can be traded subsequently. And you can also rent from the "owner". car park lot itself becomes another investment. although there is no "mortgage" on this as there is no title.
so someone who owns 4 cars will need to pay S$400,000 for 4 lots. Plus quarterly maintenance fee.
Will SG ever come to this ?
Centro is already doing that as the Monthly Maintenance does not include parking, which will be separately charged. :scared-1:
Pay so much ($1200 psf) and still car park not included for free? :banghead:
Centro is already doing that as the Monthly Maintenance does not include parking, which will be separately charged. :scared-1:
Property buyers should just boycott such condo estate here before it becomes the norm. In fact, they should just boycott any condo estate wither number of car park lots < number of units!
A practical solution is available: follow the HK style, where parking lots are not entitlements of an apartment, but rather sold separately. about 10% of the price of an apartment. Also lots can be traded subsequently. And you can also rent from the "owner". car park lot itself becomes another investment. although there is no "mortgage" on this as there is no title.
so someone who owns 4 cars will need to pay S$400,000 for 4 lots. Plus quarterly maintenance fee.
Will SG ever come to this ?
proud owner
22-04-10, 00:05
Better hold on tightly to your landed properties or old condos with sprawling car parks. :p[/quote]
and get ready :
1. LTA/Traffic police tel .. when condo owners start to park outside your landed house ..
2: potted plants / plastic chairs to jaga the road left and right of your landed house
proud owner
22-04-10, 00:09
Property buyers should just boycott such condo estate here before it becomes the norm. In fact, they should just boycott any condo estate wither number of car park lots < number of units!
i think its only fair if number of lots = number of units
but to boycott if lots < units will be tough ... cos the govt has been promoting that ..
Better hold on tightly to your landed properties or old condos with sprawling car parks. :p
and get ready :
1. LTA/Traffic police tel .. when condo owners start to park outside your landed house ..
2: potted plants / plastic chairs to jaga the road left and right of your landed house
Or better still, charge them for parking.
They can buy "season parking" for $300 per month or $0.50 per half hour. :p
It is really up to the buyers right? Developers can follow what the govt promote but if no buyer they go ask the govt to buy from them? :p
So buyers just have to wise up and open their eyes wide wide and don't be the "carrot head" of developers who follow what the govt promote instead of what the buyers want / need / best interest. :D
i think its only fair if number of lots = number of units
but to boycott if lots < units will be tough ... cos the govt has been promoting that ..
It is only fair if number of lots >= 110% of number of units to cater for some owners with 2 cars (big families) & visitors as well.
i think its only fair if number of lots = number of units
but to boycott if lots < units will be tough ... cos the govt has been promoting that ..
1) You are going to engage the Pest control company's man to station at your landed everyday? :tongue3:
The rats, snakes, scorpions, mosquitoes, houseflies, moths etc some of these landed friends will visit you everyday and some at unexpected times.
Condo high floor don't have all these pests (but have to pay more lah!) :cheers1:
Condo also need maintenance, but less than landed (because better quality) and also have a person called "estate manager" to take care of everything (except those so called "Boutique development" which don't have such person lah!). :doh:
Condo maintenance paid by each household definitely very much cheaper than landed (because shared mah). :D
2) Seen too many times the landed will call LTA and traffic police and traffic police will chase these people away & issue warning. Don't listen and they will draw double yellow lines and then issue summons. People who don't believe should try. :p
3) It is still about affordability. Have money buy prime luxury condo where there are may be 2 car park lots to 1 unit. Very little money but still want to show-off to be living in private property will buy condo in suburbs especially those with number of car park lots <= number of units (e.g. Boutique because cheaper mah) and then cow-pay cow-bull about not having enough car park space (because people who live in suburbs have to own cars otherwise not convenient!).
4) Those who want to be "carrot" can buy what the COLOUR advocates - D15 landed and boutique! :banghead:
Wahaha..you really make me laugh..
1) Which landed in Singapore see "rats, snakes, scorpions, mosquitoes, houseflies, moths" everyday? Are you living near the zoo or South Africa?
Talk abt condo maintenance - Your so called "Estate Manager" is just a Manager. He just talk and give instructions, and he doesn't do the job of catching snakes or paint the walls. He only needs to call to get contractors in. And his salary, annual increment, bonuses are all paid by your so called maintenance funds pooled by the residents. Likewise, the security guards are also paid by your pooled fund. And the utilities in the common area are all paid thru the fund. And you know what is most expensive in maintenance expenditure? It is the stupid lift & pool maintenance that 300 families are sharing everyday. So much wastage of funds in such resources and you still think maintenance of landed is higher than condos? And one day, you will get sick and tired of paying maintenance for facilities you hardly get a chance to use. Sick and tired of paying repairs for items in the common area damaged by other residents and not yourself. So think again, don't dream.
2) Nah, there are many roads not drawn using double yellow lines and anyone is free to park there. Call TP oso no use.
3) It's never abt affordability. How many condos offer 2 lots for every unit?
4) We will see who are the real carrots when market corrects. The speculators in the prime districts who paid $3000psf for mickey mouse units or the homebuyers in D15 who paid $1500 psf for double the size?:2cents:
Wahaha..you really make me laugh..
1) Which landed in Singapore see "rats, snakes, scorpions, mosquitoes, houseflies, moths" everyday? Are you living near the zoo or South Africa?
I think the only animal they keep in the zoo is "snakes", while "rats" do not intrude unless the place is really dirty like hawker centres. Scorpions also don't usually come into the house.
The last three can be found everywhere, whether landed or condos.
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/103452620/Rat_Cartoon_MP3.summ.jpghttp://www.puzzlenest.com/media/img/snake_bubbles.jpghttp://kol.coldfront.net/thekolwiki/images/f/f9/Scorpion.gif
http://www.your-fun.com/games/Thumb1/mosquito.gifhttp://www.royaltyfreeclipart.biz/images/illustrations/thumbnail/37281_friendly_big_eyed_fly_with_his_arms_crossed.jpghttp://www.freegamesherald.com/games/images/PPE__thumb_100x100.jpg
Trust me, if you have experienced high floor condo living, you will know these 3 - "mosquitoes, houseflies, moths" will not exist in your house (that is what I like about high floors in condos!). :cheers1:
I think the only animal they keep in the zoo is "snakes", while "rats" do not intrude unless the place is really dirty like hawker centres. Scorpions also don't usually come into the house.
The last three can be found everywhere, whether landed or condos.
http://img.alibaba.com/photo/103452620/Rat_Cartoon_MP3.summ.jpghttp://www.puzzlenest.com/media/img/snake_bubbles.jpghttp://kol.coldfront.net/thekolwiki/images/f/f9/Scorpion.gif
http://www.your-fun.com/games/Thumb1/mosquito.gifhttp://www.royaltyfreeclipart.biz/images/illustrations/thumbnail/37281_friendly_big_eyed_fly_with_his_arms_crossed.jpghttp://www.freegamesherald.com/games/images/PPE__thumb_100x100.jpg
Property buyers should just boycott such condo estate here before it becomes the norm.
:) I share your sentiment on this, although I must say selling parking lots separately is not entirely without merit. In fact HK ppl accept it readily.
Think of it this way, the price of your condo includes a part for the parking lot. So if you do not drive, why should u pay for it ? And if you do drive, and you have more than 1 car, isn't it fair you pay more for what you use ? So those who want to drive 4 cars can simply pay for it, or bid for it when it becomes scarce commodity. The system is very fair. No need to argue with anyone.
I'm not advocating this. But I must say this is a very effective solution.
HK difference lah. Most of their properties there don't come with good and full facilities - may be because of their this way of thinking?
If everyone want to calculate like that, then soon you will find all the condo common facilities must be fenced up and anybody who want to use the facility has to pay extra money because the MC also thinks: "Since my family & I don't use the tennis court, the gym, the swimming pool, the playground, the walk path, the greenery area, the BBQ pits, might as well make anybody who want to use these common facilities pay for it since why should I pay for maintenance of something other people use and wear them off while I don't?". Do we want to go down this path? :banghead:
:) I share your sentiment on this, although I must say selling parking lots separately is not entirely without merit. In fact HK ppl accept it readily.
Think of it this way, the price of your condo includes a part for the parking lot. So if you do not drive, why should u pay for it ? And if you do drive, and you have more than 1 car, isn't it fair you pay more for what you use ? So those who want to drive 4 cars can simply pay for it, or bid for it when it becomes scarce commodity. The system is very fair. No need to argue with anyone.
I'm not advocating this. But I must say this is a very effective solution.
In HK, you have to pay to be able to swim in the pool.
But they had very well maintained facilities. In the one i used to stay, there is a nice chinese restaurant in the clubhouse and there is an indoor heated pool.
Wah! I never know that my prediction already came true! Pay to swim in the pool?!!
As far as I can see, numerous condos in Singapore I have seen despite don't need to pay to swim in the pool also very well maintained. Usually these have restricted number of units in the estate (not those with >200 units type). Some people will say then maintenance sure expensive right? WRONG! In fact, I found those boutique developments to have most expensive maintenance fees when there are so little facilities to maintain!
Clubhouse in condo? Don't need lah. Buy those near shopping malls and MRTs and just walk across the road will do. :D
In HK, you have to pay to be able to swim in the pool.
But they had very well maintained facilities. In the one i used to stay, there is a nice chinese restaurant in the clubhouse and there is an indoor heated pool.
proud owner
23-04-10, 02:37
Wah! I never know that my prediction already came true! Pay to swim in the pool?!!
As far as I can see, numerous condos in Singapore I have seen despite don't need to pay to swim in the pool also very well maintained. Usually these have restricted number of units in the estate (not those with >200 units type). Some people will say then maintenance sure expensive right? WRONG! In fact, I found those boutique developments to have most expensive maintenance fees when there are so little facilities to maintain!
Clubhouse in condo? Don't need lah. Buy those near shopping malls and MRTs and just walk across the road will do. :D
nowadays MM unit so small .. maybe next time also dont have space for washer dryer .. and may end up like in pre war condos in US ..where one has to go to basement or a dedicated laundry room to use common washer dryer ..with coins
Like in student hostel? :eek:
Have common toilets, kitchen & dinning area, living area, and laundry area (Only have private bedrooms)? That sure saves a lot of space! Don't have to pay so much also since all other areas shared except bedrooms? Bedrooms also can rent out at hourly rates while owners are at work during office hours? :scared-1:
nowadays MM unit so small .. maybe next time also dont have space for washer dryer .. and may end up like in pre war condos in US ..where one has to go to basement or a dedicated laundry room to use common washer dryer ..with coins
Like in student hostel? :eek:
Have common toilets, kitchen & dinning area, living area, and laundry area (Only have private bedrooms)? That sure saves a lot of space! Don't have to pay so much also since all other areas shared except bedrooms? Bedrooms also can rent out at hourly rates while owners are at work during office hours? :scared-1:
Then might as well stay in HDB better haa haa....:doh:
HDB no free common facilities like swimming pools, tennis courts, gyms, and fence around the private compound mah! :p
Furthermore don't know what sort of people living there. People living in expensive houses sure less chance of becoming thefts and robbers (although not 100% but nothing is 100% in this world!). :eek:
Then might as well stay in HDB better haa haa....:doh:
HDB no free common facilities like swimming pools, tennis courts, gyms, and fence around the private compound mah! :p
Furthermore don't know what sort of people living there. People living in expensive houses sure less chance of becoming thefts and robbers (although not 100% but nothing is 100% in this world!). :eek:
unfortunately there are artistic car scratchers
Like in Laguna Park?
unfortunately there are artistic car scratchers
BlackKnight
20-12-12, 23:12
Why do condo dwellers who own more than one car willingly pay for their 2nd car? The only reason that you are made to pay is, discrimination. Because you own more than one car.
If there are more lots than flats, why do owners with more than 1 car need to pay? If there are more flats than cars, why do owners with more than 1 car pay only?
Let me give you a teaser. Under the penal code, the punishment for murder is death. Suppose, you saw someone killing another, can you put the killer to death on the sport? If not, why not? Because the law does not allow citizens to punish one another.
No one neighbour has the right to punish another neighbour by making him pay more maintenance fees, just because he owns more than one car. This is discrimination. The often cited reason is, you wear the road/lot out more than others. Utter rubbish! Ask for proof.
In a condo, strata-titled developments, every square inch of common property is already co-owned.
So, if there are more lots than flats, why should those with more than one car be punished by paying for a parking lot?
If there are more flats than lots, why should only those with more than one car be punished?
What about those who own no cars?
The law of equal misery should apply, otherwise, it is only pure envy. If your neighbours want to penalise you because you have more than one car, push for a bylaw that everyone who owns a car must pay, to be fair to those who own no cars.
Challenge the parking fee bylaw. There is nothing that the MC can do to you if you do not pay. They cannot levy late payment interest on it. The BMSMA does not allow it.
Don't believe that you cannot park your car along the driveway, so long it does not obstruct others. The MC cannot unreasonably deny you permission.
Bylaws, even passed unanimously, can still be repealed. The BMSMA gives MCs leeway to pass bylaws by way of special resolution, it also allows any owner to challenge the bylaws
Same goes for wheelclamps. Some condos have signs that say, pay $200 to unlock wheelclamps. If you are a resident, and wheels got clamped, challenge the "fine". They can only inconvenience you, but they cannot fine you.
I agreed with you totally. So far, the estate I living in and had lived in before have never imposed fees for parking of 2nd car.
Worse still, I heard there are estates where you book for anything (e.g. tennis court etc) also need to pay! Their reason? Turn on spot light need extra electricity! Flooring will wear off need extra repair etc! :doh:
Why do condo dwellers who own more than one car willingly pay for their 2nd car? The only reason that you are made to pay is, discrimination. Because you own more than one car.
If there are more lots than flats, why do owners with more than 1 car need to pay? If there are more flats than cars, why do owners with more than 1 car pay only?
Let me give you a teaser. Under the penal code, the punishment for murder is death. Suppose, you saw someone killing another, can you put the killer to death on the sport? If not, why not? Because the law does not allow citizens to punish one another.
No one neighbour has the right to punish another neighbour by making him pay more maintenance fees, just because he owns more than one car. This is discrimination. The often cited reason is, you wear the road/lot out more than others. Utter rubbish! Ask for proof.
In a condo, strata-titled developments, every square inch of common property is already co-owned.
So, if there are more lots than flats, why should those with more than one car be punished by paying for a parking lot?
If there are more flats than lots, why should only those with more than one car be punished?
What about those who own no cars?
The law of equal misery should apply, otherwise, it is only pure envy. If your neighbours want to penalise you because you have more than one car, push for a bylaw that everyone who owns a car must pay, to be fair to those who own no cars.
Challenge the parking fee bylaw. There is nothing that the MC can do to you if you do not pay. They cannot levy late payment interest on it. The BMSMA does not allow it.
Don't believe that you cannot park your car along the driveway, so long it does not obstruct others. The MC cannot unreasonably deny you permission.
Bylaws, even passed unanimously, can still be repealed. The BMSMA gives MCs leeway to pass bylaws by way of special resolution, it also allows any owner to challenge the bylaws
Same goes for wheelclamps. Some condos have signs that say, pay $200 to unlock wheelclamps. If you are a resident, and wheels got clamped, challenge the "fine". They can only inconvenience you, but they cannot fine you.
buttercarp
21-12-12, 02:12
Same goes for wheelclamps. Some condos have signs that say, pay $200 to unlock wheelclamps. If you are a resident, and wheels got clamped, challenge the "fine". They can only inconvenience you, but they cannot fine you.
I did not know that they have no right to fine residents!
Thanks for pointing out.
No wonder they relented when my neighbor threatened to sue them for potential damage to his car when they clamped his wheels.
NorthernStar
21-12-12, 06:04
if the fine / regulation are imposed and passed by the AGM or management committee and gotten approval from authority(LTA) to use the wheel clamp device within the condo compound, i can't find the reason why the at-fault residence cannot be fined.
Usually, security are appointed/assigned to do that. So, make it clear that someone murderred somebody, doesn't mean you(residents) can execute him but the judge (MA) make the final decision and official(security) from prison execute it.
NorthernStar
21-12-12, 06:14
use more pay more...
Say ,my HDB estate got extra carpark and i paid town-counsel monthly maintenance + 1 car park lot fee. Does mean that i can get my 2nd car park lot free? :2cents:
if condo management allow the extra car park free.. i can easily rent few lots to my neighboring HDB friends right? Got free security and i got extra income too.:D
Nah, lessons learnt:
1) Don't buy condos if you have more than one car. Buy landed which can house all your cars! Why pay so much for a condo when you have to be under the mercy of the Mgmt Committee to let you use visitor carpark?
2) Buy boutiques apartment among the landed homes - lots of free parking space for your extra cars
3) Buy condos only that have MRT within walking distance so you dun need to own cars and wun get into this kinda shit!
4) If you drive, dun stay in condos, if you stay in condos, dun drive
1) Don't buy condos if you have more than one car. Buy landed which can house all your cars! Why pay so much for a condo when you have to be under the mercy of the Mgmt Committee to let you use visitor carpark?
No lah.. Condo like The Arte have lots of parking space which allows owners to have 2nd or even 3rd car to park inside. 10 visitors cars come one time for function also no problem.
2) Buy boutiques apartment among the landed homes - lots of free parking space for your extra cars
Buy boutiques apartment worst.. can't even have 2nd car. AnD only a few visitors lots..
So 10 visitors come all go park landed housing area??
3) Buy condos only that have MRT within walking distance so you dun need to own cars and wun get into this kinda shit!
Buy a condo which have sufficient car park lots lor.. problem solve
4) If you drive, dun stay in condos, if you stay in condos, dun drive
Stay HDB so convenience & lot of amenities.. need to pay for Season parking.. so dun drive lah.
Stay condo.. mostly maintenance fee already incl one car lot.. if you dun drive, still have to pay the same amt..... Unlike some condo like The Mezzo.. maint. fee does not incl. one car.. have to buy separately.. so you pay less if you dun drive
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 08:50
if the fine / regulation are imposed and passed by the AGM or management committee and gotten approval from authority(LTA) to use the wheel clamp device within the condo compound, i can't find the reason why the at-fault residence cannot be fined.
Usually, security are appointed/assigned to do that. So, make it clear that someone murderred somebody, doesn't mean you(residents) can execute him but the judge (MA) make the final decision and official(security) from prison execute it.
High rise littering is an offence. If you see your neighbours littering, do you have the right to fine them? They are at fault right?
Parking at double yellow lines is an offcence, do you have the right to issue a ticket? They are at fault right?
It does not mean that bylaws passed at AGMs, even with unanimous agreement is law. No.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 08:54
use more pay more...
Say ,my HDB estate got extra carpark and i paid town-counsel monthly maintenance + 1 car park lot fee. Does mean that i can get my 2nd car park lot free? :2cents:
No reason why you should pay for 2nd car. There are always other means to settle this. Read the BMSMA. Why must your condo neighbours punish you because you have a second car? Does it mean that they make you pay, you will sell it? No.
if condo management allow the extra car park free.. i can easily rent few lots to my neighboring HDB friends right? Got free security and i got extra income too.:D
No, you cannot. The condo estate is a private estate. Only those who own a unit in the estate can use the facilities.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 09:39
if the fine / regulation are imposed and passed by the AGM or management committee and gotten approval from authority(LTA) to use the wheel clamp device within the condo compound, i can't find the reason why the at-fault residence cannot be fined.
A rejoinder. Provided that LTA enforces the wheelclamping, and the fines are issued by LTA, and paid to LTA. MC has no right or power to impose fines of any kind, or collect penalties.
You cant have your cake and eat it too.
If you want to live in condo, you just need to live with whatever law that has been passed during AGM, and you cant expect that the law to bend just for your own interest.
There are people in condo who feels that as residents, they are above law and the are living in private estate etc. but when things goes wrong, eg hit and run, security breached, run out of parking lot etc, the same people will start pointing their fingers of the management saying they are not doing their job
Personally, I would prefer that if owner own second or third car they should park their car at visitor parking lot and reserve those lots around the lift lobby for first car only.
As for wheel clamped. I am all for it and dont let those lazy people bring inconveniences to others
No reason why you should pay for 2nd car. There are always other means to settle this. Read the BMSMA. Why must your condo neighbours punish you because you have a second car? Does it mean that they make you pay, you will sell it? No.
No, you cannot. The condo estate is a private estate. Only those who own a unit in the estate can use the facilities.
so if every owner got 2-3 cars then how?
so if every owner got 2-3 cars then how?
I presume he will get priority lot because he put his tissue paper on the lot first.
totally don't make sense. if a condo development has 500 units, do u think they have 1k - 1.5k lots?
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 10:02
Similarly fines for not clearing pets' waste should also not stand.
Singaporeans learned classical conditioning since a long time ago. They are fined into conformation. So they think they can go about issuing fines to their neighbours. They think the only solution to problems is to hit where it hurts - the wallet. Not true.
Condos with such bylaws should review it.
What can the MC do if the pet owners refuse to pay? Sue them? Or deny them to vote in AGMs? I think not, because the rule cannot stand in the first place.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 10:03
so if every owner got 2-3 cars then how?
First car usually gets privilege. Next cars subject to lot availability. Roster.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 10:05
totally don't make sense. if a condo development has 500 units, do u think they have 1k - 1.5k lots?
If the MC can penalise 2nd/3rd cars by making the owners pay, there must be sufficient lots, right? Otherwise, punish them for a million dollar a lot also no use, if there are no lots.
If a project has 500 flats, only 400 lots, make every car owner pay, then roster the use of the lots. Those who don't get a lot, park somewhere in the condo grounds. If really no space, park outside.
If the project has 500 flats, but 550 lots, every car owner pays, owner of 2nd car pays for 2 cars, roster the remaining lots. Priority given to 1st cars. No space in condo for 2nd cars, these cars park outside.
This is the law of equal misery. Not just to punish those with more than one car. This will benefit those with no car, because, essentially, they don't have to pay so much for the maintenance of the carparking lots.
If no one wants to pay, fair. Roster the lots, if there are more flats than lots. Roster the remaining lots for 2nd cars, giving 1st cars priority, if there are more lots than flats.
First car usually gets privilege. Next cars subject to lot availability. Roster.
Roster?? so when it's not ur turn u park where?
If the MC can penalise 2nd/3rd cars by making the owners pay, there must be sufficient lots, right? Otherwise, punish them for a million dollar a lot also no use, if there are no lots.
If a project has 500 flats, only 400 lots, make every car owner pay, then roster the use of the lots. Those who don't get a lot, park somewhere in the condo grounds. If really no space, park outside.
If the project has 500 flats, but 550 lots, every car owner pays, owner of 2nd car pays for 2 cars, roster the remaining lots. Priority given to 1st cars. No space in condo for 2nd cars, these cars park outside.
This is the law of equal misery. Not just to punish those with more than one car. This will benefit those with no car, because, essentially, they don't have to pay so much for the maintenance of the carparking lots.
If no one wants to pay, fair. Roster the lots, if there are more flats than lots. Roster the remaining lots for 2nd cars, giving 1st cars priority, if there are more lots than flats.
So who pay for the manpower to "roster" the lots and maintain such system? u pay?
Honestly u sound like a whiny auntie. though some of what you've mentioned i agree too.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 10:16
You cant have your cake and eat it too.
If you want to live in condo, you just need to live with whatever law that has been passed during AGM, and you cant expect that the law to bend just for your own interest.
There are people in condo who feels that as residents, they are above law and the are living in private estate etc. but when things goes wrong, eg hit and run, security breached, run out of parking lot etc, the same people will start pointing their fingers of the management saying they are not doing their job
Personally, I would prefer that if owner own second or third car they should park their car at visitor parking lot and reserve those lots around the lift lobby for first car only.
As for wheel clamped. I am all for it and dont let those lazy people bring inconveniences to others
There are already prescribed bylaws in the BMSMA with regard to condo living.
Agree with you that 1st cars get priority. Residents also cannot reserve lots. If every first car owners want to park near the lift lobby, this will give rise to another set of problems.
Preferred lots can also be rostered. More work for the MA, but that's what they are for.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 10:17
So who pay for the manpower to "roster" the lots and maintain such system? u pay?
The MA. Rostering the lots is not a new idea. It has been implemented in many condos.
Honestly u sound like a whiny auntie. though some of what you've mentioned i agree too.
Well, perhaps. But it is time that people know their rights, and not allowed others to bully or bulldoze them into agreement.
There are already prescribed bylaws in the BMSMA with regard to condo living.
Agree with you that 1st cars get priority. Residents also cannot reserve lots. If every first car owners want to park near the lift lobby, this will give rise to another set of problems.
Preferred lots can also be rostered. More work for the MA, but that's what they are for.
why not volunteer yourself to take up a position in the MC? That why you could then put your own suggestions into practice and the world will be a better place.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 10:22
why not volunteer yourself to take up a position in the MC? That why you could then put your own suggestions into practice and the world will be a better place.
If people want to serve, they must serve selflessly. Unfortunately, many who sit in MCs serve with self interest.
These are not my suggestions, but observations from some well run condos.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 10:23
The intent of my posting here is to highlight that neighbours cannot enact rules to punish each other. These rules will not stand if challenged.
The intent of my posting here is to highlight that neighbours cannot enact rules to punish each other. These rules will not stand if challenged.
I thought if the rules are passed as by-laws, then they can be enforced. If not, why would BCA bother having by-laws?
If everybody dispute the by-laws, then how would the MC or MA run the condo? Eg. any car can park inconsiderately e.g across 2 lots, allow visitors to park in residents' lots, etc.
At risk of being overly Singaporean (i.e. law abiding), I think we should respect the by-laws. If not happy, then propose at AGM to change, or like what some suggested, serve as MC (not advisable though - thankless job unless you have own agenda to pursue).
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 10:45
I thought if the rules are passed as by-laws, then they can be enforced. If not, why would BCA bother having by-laws?
Prescribed bylaws in the BMSMA, everyone must follow. No choice. But bylaws passed at AGMs can be challenged, even with unanimous agreement, if they contradict the BMSMA.
If everybody dispute the by-laws, then how would the MC or MA run the condo? Eg. any car can park inconsiderately e.g across 2 lots, allow visitors to park in residents' lots, etc.
What can you do about this - straddling 2 lots? Scratch his car? Wheelclamp him? So what if he still refuses to move? Who gets more inconvenienced? Or he turns around and accuses whoever of damaging his car, or he gets out from the clamp himself, which is not hard to do.
People like that are in the minority.
At risk of being overly Singaporean (i.e. law abiding), I think we should respect the by-laws. If not happy, then propose at AGM to change, or like what some suggested, serve as MC (not advisable though - thankless job unless you have own agenda to pursue).
I respect bylaws too, only if the intent is right.
Agree with you that many serve in the MC for personal agenda.
buttercarp
21-12-12, 10:49
so if every owner got 2-3 cars then how?
If got no space to park, I will move out.
The charges are there for a reason.
It's true that problematic SPs are a minority. But when they appear, they tend to bahave as if the entire communual areas is meant for their exclusive enjoyment, with absolutely no consideration for others. The house rules/ Bylaws exist to put these SPs in their place. If the house rules, Bylaws did not exist from day 1, and the problem appears, and the MC has to rush to call EGM to tackle the problem, the MC/MA will appear to be targetting a particular SP.
With regards to 1 lot per unit, that is the average. If there is no rule from day 1, then suddenly there is a shortage as it The Seaview case, then it will appear that early birds gets the worm. This is a very unprofessional way to manage a condo, and will appear to be favouritism and assigning carpark lots based on personsal reasons.
What can you do about this - straddling 2 lots? Scratch his car? Wheelclamp him? So what if he still refuses to move? Who gets more inconvenienced? Or he turns around and accuses whoever of damaging his car, or he gets out from the clamp himself, which is not hard to do.
People like that are in the minority.
If got no space to park, I will move out.
New condos have v limited car parks. If you are lucky, a few extra spaces over and above the number of units....if you are unlucky, in some devts there aren't even enough spaces to match the number of units and I have heard some owners have to ballot for car park lots.
Those holding onto older condos with enough space to park more than one car, do treasure them and hold onto them. They will become rarer in times to come.
Suggestion..
Everyone gets 1 lot... Very fair
If you want more than 1 lot, bid for it, like Coe system. Let the people who are willing to pay more get the lot, money goes towards maintenance. People without extra car happy too...:cheers2:
buttercarp
21-12-12, 11:12
New condos have v limited car parks. If you are lucky, a few extra spaces over and above the number of units....if you are unlucky, in some devts there aren't even enough spaces to match the number of units and I have heard some owners have to ballot for car park lots.
Those holding onto older condos with enough space to park more than one car, do treasure them and hold onto them. They will become rarer in times to come.
Sis, you went to sparklee.com :) !
Yup, old condo got luxury of space and I really appreciate it especially when it is covered during rainy days.
Next time shift to landed then no more shaded carpark if I park outside.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 11:33
The charges are there for a reason.
It's true that problematic SPs are a minority. But when they appear, they tend to bahave as if the entire communual areas is meant for their exclusive enjoyment, with absolutely no consideration for others. The house rules/ Bylaws exist to put these SPs in their place. If the house rules, Bylaws did not exist from day 1, and the problem appears, and the MC has to rush to call EGM to tackle the problem, the MC/MA will appear to be targetting a particular SP.
With regards to 1 lot per unit, that is the average. If there is no rule from day 1, then suddenly there is a shortage as it The Seaview case, then it will appear that early birds gets the worm. This is a very unprofessional way to manage a condo, and will appear to be favouritism and assigning carpark lots based on personsal reasons.
Parking woes spark a parking war at Sea View condo
One vexed condo resident resorts to blocking condo entrace with his 'sick' car for an hour. -TNP
Mon, Nov 29, 2010
The New Paper
The car's owner, Mr Sia Kong Wah, used his car (above) to block the entrance of Sea View condominium to show his frustration over the estate's new parking rules.
By Hedy Khoo
FOR more than an hour on last Wednesday afternoon, a silver Nissan was parked at the entrance to this condominium estate on Amber Road.
The car's owner, Mr Sia Kong Wah, 55, refused to move his vehicle, which was blocking cars from entering the 546-unit private estate, The Sea View.
Mr Sia left the car's bonnet open and switched on the hazard indicator lights.
Asked why the vehicle was there, Mr Sia, who is retired, claimed that his car was "sick" and that his mechanic was on the way from Johor Bahru.
The incident resulted in the police having to be called in to settle the matter.
But Mr Sia's antics were the culmination of anger simmering since October among a group of residents at The Sea View towards the condo's management committee (MC) over car parking issues.
The MC comprises 14 owners who volunteer their time to manage the estate.
When The New Paper turned up at the estate on Wednesday, Mr Sia was standing near a lift lobby, about 6m from his car, saying he "had no choice" but to do so.
He said he had applied with the management office for a temporary carpark slip for his sister-in-law who would be visiting from Malaysia on Sunday. He claimed that the management had demanded that his sister-in-law produce the log card for her car on arrival.
He said: "For two years, she has been visiting us frequently and stayed over almost every weekend. There has never been an issue over the parking. Suddenly there are all these new regulations."
Saying the MC chairman wouldn't meet him, he said: "This is the only way to get her attention. I wanted her to solve my problem."
Sick car can't move
Click on thumbnails below to view more photos. Story continues after photos.
(Photos: TNP)
On the dashboard and back windscreen of Mr Sia's parked car were four A4-sized copies of an unsigned handwritten note.
The notes were attentioned to the "residents of Sea View (with or without grievances)". They said that the vehicle "is very angry" with the management of The Sea View "for setting ridiculous carpark rules".
The note ended with an apology: "Sorry for the inconvenience caused."
As a result of Mr Sia's car blocking the driveway, the condo security guard had to divert incoming traffic via the exit driveway.
One resident who came downstairs to see the commotion was Mr Dawson Lim, 32, a senior executive with a bank.
He said that while the obstruction at the barrier gates was inconvenient, there was an alternative entrance along East Coast Road.
At 4.30pm, two policemen arrived and spoke with Mr Sia. Another three policemen arrived on the scene. They spoke with Mr Sia and staff of the management office.
Mr Sia, who owns two units in the estate, was overheard telling the officers that he wanted to see the MC chairman.
A staff member from the management office, who only identified himself as Mr Pung, showed up. He spoke with the condo security guards and the policemen.
He later told this reporter to leave and even raised his voice. A police officer advised him to calm down.
Mr Sia finally moved his car at 5.15pm. However, he stayed around the area and continued speaking with the policemen.
Thursday's drama wasn't the first incident last week. On Wednesday, 10 residents including Mr Sia, tried to submit a petition signed by 159 residents, each representing one unit.
The petition called for transparency in the way that the council has decided to impose the carpark charges, as well as a removal of the charges. The group gathered outside a meeting room in the basement carpark where the MC was having a meeting.
Mr Sia gave his name to a security guard stationed outside the room and entered the room to ask who the chairman was.
He also wanted an update on the status of his visitor lot application.
When told by the chairman that he was not allowed to speak, Mr Sia demanded to see the rules. A heated exchange ensued.
Two security guards were then called in to escort Mr Sia out of the room.
In the end, the residents who were waiting outside the room to submit the petition were turned away.
Frustrated, a few of them tried to prevent the council members from leaving. Others whipped out their camera phones and took videos and photographs.
New charges, but residents say there are enough lots
ON OCT 7, residents at The Sea View received a letter from the condo management informing them of new parking charges for their second, third and fourth cars.
Residents were advised to apply for new car decals and pay by Nov 1. The rates are $120 for the second car, $300 for the third car and $400 for the fourth car.
The circular stated that as of Sept 1, the number of issued carpark labels was 115 per cent of the available lots at the estate.
The New Paper spoke to six residents with more than one car, who feel there are more than enough lots in the estate.
In the letter, the council stated that each unit is given one carpark lot.
There are another 30 lots for emergency vehicles, the handicapped and visitors.
The letter said the council had agreed during the first annual general meeting (AGM) held last year that "should the allocation of parking spaces go above 85 per cent, the MCST would act to restrict the allocation of second, third and fourth car lots using a combination of parking fees and outright restrictions"."
Council chairman Tan Lee Keng told The New Paper: "The management reserves the right to impose the charges or any other amount that may be decided.
"So, there are no conditions attached to how we can exercise this by-law, but we just have to do it for the best benefit and best interest of the estate."
When asked for the numbers of cars issued with carpark labels, Ms Tan replied: "We do not have to give absolute numbers because they fluctuate all the time."
Several residents who refused to pay the fees found their vehicles wheel-clamped from Nov 8.
They had to pay $160.20 per car to have the wheelclamps removed.
Resident Madam Sim Kain Kain, 45, who runs a real estate business, was one of them.
She owns three cars together with her husband but parks only two at the condo. She leaves her third car at her office carpark.
On Nov 18, she drove the third car as the car she usually drove was sent for servicing.
She claimed she had explained that to the guard and got a temporary parking slip.
Said Madam Sim: "They have my unit number and name. The security could have easily contacted me via the intercom and let me know if there is any problem before putting the wheelclamp on my car."
Mr Ken Lum, 31, an operations manager at a bank whose family owns three cars, feels the carpark charges are unjustified: "This is absurd. There is no reason for the fees because there are more than enough lots available for residents and visitors."
On Nov 15 and Nov 18, at 1am, his mother and other residents counted the number of cars parked in the estate. The tally was 368 cars for the first day, and 383 cars for the second. Residents say there are 570 lots in the estate.
Their findings and petition were submitted to the council on Thursday morning when the residents made a second attempt to hand it in at the management office.
On Friday the council chairman, Ms Tan, said a resolution had been passed to reduce the carpark charges to $70 for the second car, $250 for the third car and $350 for the fourth car, from February.
Rules, fees depend on estates
DIFFERENT estates each have their own policy when it comes to issues like parking.
However Mr Francis Zhan, 65, the chief executive of the Association of Management Corporations in Singapore, said having parking charges set at $400 per month for a resident's fourth car is quite unusual and exorbitant.
In estates where there is a shortage of lots, it is common practice to charge residents a nominal fee of $50 per month for parking a second car and $100 for a third car.
Said Mr Zhan: "Usually there is no parking charge set for a fourth car because the assumption is that if a resident can be allowed to park a fourth car, it means there are sufficient lots which would not justify the high charges."
This is a case where "there are no conditions attached to the bylaws", so implement according to whims and fancies. Note how exhorbitant the charges are. There is also no shortage of parking lots. The residents should challenge the bylaw.
Envy?
There should be no case of "early bird catches the worm", if there is a fair rostering system if there is really a shortage of parking lots.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 11:48
It is confirmed that there is no shortage of parking lots at the Seaview. Residents can have any number of cars, but must pay. So, why MUST pay? Residents already each pay for the maintenance of those excess lots.
That underlines my point - why penalise your neighbour when he owns more than one car, and when he also pays for the maintenace of the excess lots?
Singaporeans are all so docile, people say must pay, fine, we all pay without question.
Sis, you went to sparklee.com :) !
Yup, old condo got luxury of space and I really appreciate it especially when it is covered during rainy days.
Next time shift to landed then no more shaded carpark if I park outside.
Sis I liked your signature, so went out to try it out at sparklee. Thanks!
Some landed have basement car park. If it's outside and there is no awning, then getting in and out during heavy down pours can get your wet. Keep an umbrella in the car at all times.
buttercarp
21-12-12, 12:45
Sis I liked your signature, so went out to try it out at sparklee. Thanks!
Some landed have basement car park. If it's outside and there is no awning, then getting in and out during heavy down pours can get your wet. Keep an umbrella in the car at all times.
:)
Seldom see you, sis, so active on this forum in the day time.
You must be on leave this festive season?
Yup, I always have an umbrella in the car and in my handbag at all times.
But during heavy downpour, it is difficult to stay dry especially when getting in and out of the car.
Back to the carpark issue.
I see some small development with elevator parking.
Wonder if any bro or sis live in such a development.
Any problems with the lift and is their maintenance fee high because of the lift?
aiyo, I have one property
the MCST is so bold that rent out the carpark to outsiders without the consent from AGM..
buttercarp
21-12-12, 13:14
aiyo, I have one property
the MCST is so bold that rent out the carpark to outsiders without the consent from AGM..
So the outsider who rents the carpark can use the condo facilities too ?
Dear Blacknight,
Thank you for thoughts regarding the limits of MC powers regarding carpark lots.
I am concerned about installing grills in balconies and windows for children's safety.
Do you think MC can ask me to remove me the grills and/or fine me and/or remove my right to vote if I dont comply?
With regards to the following article
http://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/forum/2012/forum12-08.html
buttercarp
21-12-12, 14:08
Hi BlackKnight, what happens if you don't pay the fine for parking illegally, since you don't want to pay the monthly charges for the second car?
Can the MCST take you to court?
Is the MCST empowered by the law to fine people?
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 14:21
Dear Blacknight,
Thank you for thoughts regarding the limits of MC powers regarding carpark lots.
I am concerned about installing grills in balconies and windows for children's safety.
Do you think MC can ask me to remove me the grills and/or fine me and/or remove my right to vote if I dont comply?
With regards to the following article
http://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/forum/2012/forum12-08.html
Actually there is nothing that they can do to you if you installed the grills.
But, for the matter of consistency, and uniformity, follow their guidelines, where possible, if there is one. I say, "where possible", because it depends on how old your condo is. If the design/colour is defunct, nothing that anyone can do.
So long you do not build structures that enlarge your floor space, no one can do anything to you.
You cannot vote only if you owe them money, ie, maintenance in arrears, late payment interest with regard to maintenance.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 14:24
Hi BlackKnight, what happens if you don't pay the fine for parking illegally, since you don't want to pay the monthly charges for the second car?
Can the MCST take you to court?
Is the MCST empowered by the law to fine people?
Your last question is the most important one - NO. No citizen is empowered to fine/punish/penalise or use any law to suppress/oppress another. That is the whole essence. If they are not allowed to take the law into their hands, so to speak, how can they penalise another for having a second car?
The MC will think that they can sue, but that would be interesting. Singapore already has so many thousands of condos for ages, have you read that someone is being sued for car parking charges owed? They have no right to impose late payment interest on so-called parking fees, because the fees in itself is a punishment. How can people pile punishment upon punishment?
The law allows your neighbours to seize your flat to sell it if you owe maintenance, but not for any other things else besides. Even that, you have to prove that you have exhausted all avenues to recover the money.
If you are the owner of a flat in the condo, there is no such thing as "illegal" parking in the estate. You and your belongings, so long these are lawful (no guns, drugs, etc.), have a right to be there if you own the place. But be considerate, whether one car or two, park properly. Park within the confines of a lot, don't block fire hydrants, or entrances. In other words, don't make a nuisance of yourself.
What about being wheel-clamping at shopping centre carparks?
Technically, it is not a fine, but a service fee imposed.
buttercarp
21-12-12, 14:39
Your last question is the most important one - NO. No citizen is empowered to fine/punish/penalise or use any law to suppress/oppress another. That is the whole essence. If they are not allowed to take the law into their hands, so to speak, how can they penalise another for having a second car?
The MC will think that they can sue, but that would be interesting. Singapore already has so many thousands of condos for ages, have you read that someone is being sued for car parking charges owed? They have no right to impose late payment interest on so-called parking fees, because the fees in itself is a punishment. How can people pile punishment upon punishment?
The law allows your neighbours to seize your flat to sell it if you owe maintenance, but not for any other things else besides. Even that, you have to prove that you have exhausted all avenues to recover the money.
If you are the owner of a flat in the condo, there is no such thing as "illegal" parking in the estate. But be considerate, whether one car or two, park properly. Park within the confines of a lot, don't block fire hydrants, or entrances. In other words, don't make a nuisance of yourself.
So you can just park anywhere as long as you don't make a nuisance to others?
Btw, this was what I was told - if an accident occurs within the premises of the condo, eg a car goes against the supposed flow of traffic, it is a civil case, right?
The supposed violater is actually not considered wrong as it is within private premises, and all road users within the private premise should exercise caution on their part.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 14:40
What about being wheel-clamping at shopping centre carparks?
Technically, it is not a fine, but a service fee imposed.
Yes, it is a fine in the guise of a service fee.
I can't comment on shopping malls as it would depend on whether the peripheral roads belong to the malls or are public roads. If it is so easy to wheel clamp, you will see it everywhere already. Just like signs in the malls' carparks that say, "Park at owners' risk", but really? Is that so? I don't think so.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 14:41
So you can just park anywhere as long as you don't make a nuisance to others?
Btw, this was what I was told - if an accident occurs within the premises of the condo, eg a car goes against the supposed flow of traffic, it is a civil case, right?
The supposed violater is actually not considered wrong as it is within private premises, and all road users within the private premise should exercise caution on their part.
Please note, I did not say you can park anywhere. Traffic rules whether inside condos or outside are still traffic rules. Respect the traffic rules. You can't bend the rules, neither can you use it to oppress others.
buttercarp
21-12-12, 14:47
Please note, I did not say you can park anywhere. Traffic rules whether inside condos or outside are still traffic rules. You can't bend the rules, neither can you use it to oppress others.
I know.... you mention as long as you don't be a nuisance.
What I meant was that technically speaking, you can park anywhere you like as long as you don't obstruct people and don't be a hazard.
The MCST would probably just issue you warning letters but can't do anything to you.
If they clamp your wheel, you can sue them for damaging your vehicle.
But, is one willing to go through all this, especially it is one's home and everyday one return to it, one wants to be happy and at ease and not feel upset that one has to fight with someone.
Actually there is nothing that they can do to you if you installed the grills.
But, for the matter of consistency, and uniformity, follow their guidelines, where possible, if there is one. I say, "where possible", because it depends on how old your condo is. If the design/colour is defunct, nothing that anyone can do.
So long you do not build structures that enlarge your floor space, no one can do anything to you.
You cannot vote only if you owe them money, ie, maintenance in arrears, late payment interest with regard to maintenance.
Not true lah. When you sell your apartment, everything you owe them will be collected back including interest.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 14:54
Not true lah. When you sell your apartment, everything you owe them will be collected back including interest.
Not true only if you allow them to deduct. What one can owe:
(a) maintenance fees,
(b) late interest on the above,
(c) money for making good properties damaged by you in the common areas.
All others can be challenged.
Yes, it is a fine in the guise of a service fee.
I can't comment on shopping malls as it would depend on whether the peripheral roads belong to the malls or are public roads. If it is so easy to wheel clamp, you will see it everywhere already. Just like signs in the malls' carparks that say, "Park at owners' risk", but really? Is that so? I don't think so.
There is no consistency in what you are saying. condo and shopping malls are both private property, it has got nothing to do with LTA or TP etc.
Your earlier argument is that you can park anywhere you want in your condo because its private property. But in shopping mall, very often we so see wheel clamp zone signs and also cars being wheel clamped etc. Can you insist the mall security to release the clamp without paying?
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 14:58
I know.... you mention as long as you don't be a nuisance.
What I meant was that technically speaking, you can park anywhere you like as long as you don't obstruct people and don't be a hazard.
The MCST would probably just issue you warning letters but can't do anything to you.
If they clamp your wheel, you can sue them for damaging your vehicle.
But, is one willing to go through all this, especially it is one's home and everyday one return to it, one wants to be happy and at ease and not feel upset that one has to fight with someone.
One poster said, people should not do anything they like in the condo, same goes for the MC too. They too, are people in the condo. They are first resident-owners, then MC people.
If they make life miserable for others, why should others not fight back? Being afraid to offend one's neighbours even in the face of injustice is a disease.
There is always give and take in condo living. You pay for maintenance of say, the children's playground. If I don't have children, I pay too. So, if I have more than 1 car, you don't, why charge?
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 15:01
There is no consistency in what you are saying. condo and shopping malls are both private property, it has got nothing to do with LTA or TP etc.
Your earlier argument is that you can park anywhere you want in your condo because its private property. But in shopping mall, very often we so see wheel clamp zone signs and also cars being wheel clamped etc. Can you insist the mall security to release the clamp without paying?
You may want to refer here:
The full articles may be accessed from the Factiva e-database, via our e-resources website (http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg) at the multimedia stations in the libraries.
[1] $1,000 to unclamp wheels - is it enforceable?, by Conrad Tan Philip Allen
Straits Times, 25 May 2001
Extract: "The fine for unauthorised parking in Guthrie House's reserved lot may not be legally enforceable, lawyers say...
But whether it is enforceable legally remains unknown. Two lawyers, when asked, believe the penalties are not legally enforceable. Former Law Society president Chandra Mohan K. Nair said: 'It boils down to a question of reasonableness.' Another lawyer, Mr Amolat Singh from Amolat & Partners, said: 'Ifanother person parks in the reserved place, the owner is entitled to some form of compensation for the inconvenience caused, but $1,000 would probably be too much.' Both also said that the owner would have no right to detain theoffending vehicle, even if the driver refused to pay the release fee. So what can the owner do? 'He could ban the offenders from enteringthe carpark again or track them down after they leave the building andinitiate legal proceedings against them,' said Mr Amolat Singh...."
That is why I said the rule can be challenged.
NorthernStar
21-12-12, 15:03
From BCA's pdf document:
"Contributions by subsidiary proprietors
A subsidiary proprietor (SP) is a purchaser to whom the developer has transferred ownership of a unit, as shown on the strata certificate of title. Each SP is required to pay a certain amount of contribution to help maintain and manage the common property of the development. This amount is levied by the management corporation (MC). If you don’t pay your contributions, the MC has a right to recover any unpaid contribution from you as a debt [SECTION 40], or register it as a charge against the strata lot [SECTION 43]. "
You may want to refer here:
The full articles may be accessed from the Factiva e-database, via our e-resources website (http://eresources.nlb.gov.sg) at the multimedia stations in the libraries.
[1] $1,000 to unclamp wheels - is it enforceable?, by Conrad Tan Philip Allen
Straits Times, 25 May 2001
Extract: "The fine for unauthorised parking in Guthrie House's reserved lot may not be legally enforceable, lawyers say...
But whether it is enforceable legally remains unknown. Two lawyers, when asked, believe the penalties are not legally enforceable. Former Law Society president Chandra Mohan K. Nair said: 'It boils down to a question of reasonableness.' Another lawyer, Mr Amolat Singh from Amolat & Partners, said: 'Ifanother person parks in the reserved place, the owner is entitled to some form of compensation for the inconvenience caused, but $1,000 would probably be too much.' Both also said that the owner would have no right to detain theoffending vehicle, even if the driver refused to pay the release fee. So what can the owner do? 'He could ban the offenders from enteringthe carpark again or track them down after they leave the building andinitiate legal proceedings against them,' said Mr Amolat Singh...."
That is why I said the rule can be challenged.
To a lawyer anything can be challenged, as long as you show them the money.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 15:11
There is no consistency in what you are saying. condo and shopping malls are both private property, it has got nothing to do with LTA or TP etc.
Your earlier argument is that you can park anywhere you want in your condo because its private property. But in shopping mall, very often we so see wheel clamp zone signs and also cars being wheel clamped etc. Can you insist the mall security to release the clamp without paying?
I did not say you can park anywhere you want.
Here is another article. Read what the lawyers say.
She pays $500 to remove a wheel clamp
The car owner is bristling at the thought of the stiff penalty. Other places only charge about $100 to $200. -TNP
Rennie Whang
Mon, Nov 21, 2011
The New Paper
She entered the carpark at the Enterprise Centre in Bukit Batok Crescent and decided to park her car in a driveway, right in front of one of the shops.
One hour later, Madam Gloria Tan, 49, returned to her champagne-coloured Toyota Altis and found to her dismay that her front right wheel had been clamped.
The financial consultant had parked outside Lim Ming Precision Engineering, which had put up a sign on the wall outside its premises that the release fee would be $500.
The driveway, about three cars wide and one car deep, is privately owned. One of the company's owners, Mr Lin Sin Jye, 36, was just then standing at the doorway of his shop.
When she asked him why her car had been clamped, he replied: "Didn't you see the sign?"
She apologised to him. It was her first time in the building, she said, and the sign had escaped her notice.
Madam Tan then tried negotiating for a smaller penalty, and offered to be charged what might be usually the fine for such an offence at other buildings - at most $150, or $200.
But Mr Lin was adamant, and would not accept any other offer.
Following one hour of negotiation, Mr Lin said that he was leaving and asked her to pay.
But Madam Tan did not have the cash on hand, so Mr Lin asked her what her bank was and if she had an ATM card.
He then drove her in his car to an ATM machine five minutes away, so she could withdraw the $500 to pay him back.
Said Madam Tan of the incident: "I had to leave for a trip to Hong Kong in three days' time. He put me in such a stressful situation that I just paid the fine."
After the transaction, she made sure to ask for a receipt. He printed one out with his company's letterhead, stating the offence and the fee.
For Madam Tan, the thought of the stiff penalty still rankles.
Elsewhere in Enterprise Centre, the management has imposed a $100 penalty for unauthorised parking on its premises, including the common area of the carpark.
A visit to the site revealed that adjacent shops did not appear to have any wheel clamp rules.
Said Madam Tan: "Even illegally taking up handicapped parking in our HDB blocks gets a $50 fine. Have I caused him so much detrimental loss?"
When The New Paper visited Lim Ming on Wednesday, the owners would only say that the hefty sum was meant to deter motorists.
Said Mr Lin's father, who declined to be named: "Just because I'm the first unit that cars encounter when they come into the carpark, I have many problems."
TAKE ADVANTAGE
Mr Lin's mother, who declined to be named, claimed that people sending their cars for repair next door at a car tyre company would also take advantage of their driveway.
She added: "We bought this space, and it's okay if I want to put $2,000 as a penalty."
Both the car tyre company and the management of the Enterprise Centre declined to say if illegal parking in front of Lim Ming was a common occurrence.
When asked if they would consider a lower sum, $100 for example, Mrs Lin demurred. She said: "If it's so low, people will just park here the whole day."
The management of Enterprise Centre confirmed that the driveway Madam Tan had parked in was private property. As such, the incident was a private matter between Madam Tan and the property owner.
Mr Patrick Yeo, litigation partner at KhattarWong, said there currently exists no statutes in Singapore Law which regulate the amount a private property owner charges for illegal parking.
He said: "So the question arises, how do you justify the amount? To look at what is reasonable, one could compare to prices charged on other properties, by other enforcement agencies."
A survey of penalties for illegal parking at shopping centres and condominiums revealed that most do not meet this mark set by Lim Ming.
Most condos charge between $100 and $200 for removal of wheel clamps. Malls such as Ngee Ann City in Orchard Road charge $107. Only the Marina Bay Sands integrated resort matches the sum exactly.
This is not the first time a wheel clamp penalty has been called into question.
Mr Yeo pointed to the instance of Guthrie House, which was in the news in 2001 for imposing a $1,000 fine for illegal parking on a lot reserved for its executive chairman.
A security guard at the centre said that the $500 sign at Enterprise Centre has been in place for about six months.
He claimed that many people passing by have also commented on the oddity of the sum.
He said: "They like to say, 'This guy must be really rich by now!'"
This article was first published in The New Paper.
So, you can challenge if they have the right to fine you. This woman paid, she should have called the police, or leave the car and get a lawyer.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 15:12
To a lawyer anything can be challenged, as long as you show them the money.
I would do so, as a matter of principle. Not necessary that you have to pay costs too.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 15:14
From BCA's pdf document:
"Contributions by subsidiary proprietors
A subsidiary proprietor (SP) is a purchaser to whom the developer has transferred ownership of a unit, as shown on the strata certificate of title. Each SP is required to pay a certain amount of contribution to help maintain and manage the common property of the development. This amount is levied by the management corporation (MC). If you don’t pay your contributions, the MC has a right to recover any unpaid contribution from you as a debt [SECTION 40], or register it as a charge against the strata lot [SECTION 43]. "
Yes, that's what I said, this is with regard to maintenance fees. Your neighbours can seize your property and sell it if you are in arrears for years. So, when you sell, there is a charge, meaning must refund the money. But if they want to sell your property to recover the arrears, they must first prove that they have exhausted all other avenues of recovering the debt.
If a bylaw is passed at the AGM to impose fee for 2nd/3rd car, then I suppose it has legal binding. It is no a decision by MC only but by all SPs.
Generally it is a fair rule. Or else resident without a car is subsiding those who 2 or more cars.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 15:19
If a bylaw is passed at the AGM to impose fee for 2nd/3rd car, then I suppose it has legal binding. It is no a decision by MC only but by all SPs.
Generally it is a fair rule. Or else resident without a car is subsiding those who 2 or more cars.
Any bylaws can be passed, even with unanimous decision, but these can still be challenged, and be repealed, if the intent is not right.
How so is that residents are "subsidizing" those with 2 cars? How about residents who have no cars? Shouldn't the more that the law of equal misery applies? All pay, regardless one car or two. That is the most equitable way.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 15:25
http://www.rodyk.com/front/poppage/95
Indeed, like what I have advocated. All pay.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 15:42
http://statutes.agc.gov.sg/aol/search/display/view.w3p;ident=e0bc2a7e-28ab-4b1e-9d21-f21edab526ca;page=0;query=CompId%3Abbbc9abc-8e65-4a8f-9a71-cdf79b9c6100;rec=0;resUrl=http%3A%2F%2Fstatutes.agc.gov.sg%2Faol%2Fbrowse%2FtitleResults.w3p%3Bletter%3DB%3Btype%3DactsAll#pr90-he-.
PART VI
DISPUTES AND STRATA TITLES BOARDS
...
Division 1 — Strata Titles Boards
Order revoking amendment of by-law
105.
—(1) Where, pursuant to an application by any person entitled to vote at a meeting of the management corporation or subsidiary management corporation (including both a first mortgagee and a mortgagor of a lot), a Board considers that, having regard to the interest of all subsidiary proprietors in the use and enjoyment of their lots or the common property or (as the case may be) limited common property, an amendment or repeal of a by-law or addition of a new by-law should not have been made or effected, the Board may order that the amendment be repealed, that the revoked by-law be revived or that the additional by-law be repealed.
(2) When making an order under subsection (1) in respect of an exclusive use by-law referred to in section 33 or 82 (in relation to limited common property), a Board may direct the payment by the management corporation or subsidiary management corporation, as the case may be, of compensation to the subsidiary proprietor of the lot referred to in the by-law.
(3) A payment ordered to be made under subsection (2) is recoverable by the subsidiary proprietor as a debt in a court of competent jurisdiction.
[LT(S)A, s. 95]
Order invalidating purported by-law
106. Where, pursuant to an application by a person entitled to vote at a meeting of a management corporation or subsidiary management corporation (including both a first mortgagee and a mortgagor of a lot), a Board considers that the management corporation or subsidiary management corporation, as the case may be, did not have the power to make a by-law purporting to have been made by it, the Board may make an order declaring the by-law to be invalid.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 16:04
Hmmmm... it appears that late payment interest on maintenance fees arrears may also not be valid. Point to ponder.
felicia_sg
21-12-12, 16:30
If there is sufficient car park, no reason to impose charges.
The Sea View case very strange. If they can have 159 signatures to petition, the car park charging by-laws would not have passed the AGM or EGM in the first place! Don't tell me the MC just impose without passing the rule through the AGM/EGM? If so, they have no right to enforce.
Anyway, the lesson is this: never ever buy any condo where the number of parking lots is not >110% of the total number of units in the estate! When people face parking problem, it is because they are stupid to buy estate with insufficient parking lots! :doh:
It is confirmed that there is no shortage of parking lots at the Seaview. Residents can have any number of cars, but must pay. So, why MUST pay? Residents already each pay for the maintenance of those excess lots.
That underlines my point - why penalise your neighbour when he owns more than one car, and when he also pays for the maintenace of the excess lots?
Singaporeans are all so docile, people say must pay, fine, we all pay without question.
felicia_sg
21-12-12, 16:33
MC cannot prevent you from installing grills in balconies and windows, they can however stipulate a certain standard design which you have to follow (and cannot be changed once set from the start).
Dear Blacknight,
Thank you for thoughts regarding the limits of MC powers regarding carpark lots.
I am concerned about installing grills in balconies and windows for children's safety.
Do you think MC can ask me to remove me the grills and/or fine me and/or remove my right to vote if I dont comply?
With regards to the following article
http://www.ura.gov.sg/pr/forum/2012/forum12-08.html
felicia_sg
21-12-12, 16:34
The answer to your question is "YES", as long as the by-laws have been passed in AGM/EGM.
Hi BlackKnight, what happens if you don't pay the fine for parking illegally, since you don't want to pay the monthly charges for the second car?
Can the MCST take you to court?
Is the MCST empowered by the law to fine people?
felicia_sg
21-12-12, 16:40
Actually, the solution is very simple lah. Get enough people to sign a letter to MA of the condo to hold an EGM, over-throw whatever rules the MC set. You can even vote all the existing MC members out by electing new MC members. Simple as that! :p
One poster said, people should not do anything they like in the condo, same goes for the MC too. They too, are people in the condo. They are first resident-owners, then MC people.
If they make life miserable for others, why should others not fight back? Being afraid to offend one's neighbours even in the face of injustice is a disease.
There is always give and take in condo living. You pay for maintenance of say, the children's playground. If I don't have children, I pay too. So, if I have more than 1 car, you don't, why charge?
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 17:00
The answer to your question is "YES", as long as the by-laws have been passed in AGM/EGM.
The court can also repeal the bylaw.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 17:17
If there is sufficient car park, no reason to impose charges.
The Sea View case very strange. If they can have 159 signatures to petition, the car park charging by-laws would not have passed the AGM or EGM in the first place! Don't tell me the MC just impose without passing the rule through the AGM/EGM? If so, they have no right to enforce.
Anyway, the lesson is this: never ever buy any condo where the number of parking lots is not >110% of the total number of units in the estate! When people face parking problem, it is because they are stupid to buy estate with insufficient parking lots! :doh:
Problem is no one attends AGMs. This kind of bylaw needs a special resolution, 75% share value to agree. To overturn in an EGM, they also need 75%.
The best is to challenge in STB.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 17:18
The answer to your question is "YES", as long as the by-laws have been passed in AGM/EGM.
Yes, they can sue people in court, but they may not win. And who's money they are using?
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 17:20
If there is sufficient car park, no reason to impose charges.
Anyway, the lesson is this: never ever buy any condo where the number of parking lots is not >110% of the total number of units in the estate! When people face parking problem, it is because they are stupid to buy estate with insufficient parking lots! :doh:
I know of one condo, 120% lots to units, yet MC wants to charge for second car. More than half the lots are not occupied. Red eye disease.
No where in the BMSMA says that MC can charge anyway, whether sufficient car park lots or not.
Please lah, the MC are also residents who volunteer to serve. Talk as though they are big bullies. If you so good then volunteer yourself to be the chairman and manage it. If I am the mc, I will make sure you being punished severely, until you move out.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 17:25
Please lah, the MC are also residents who volunteer to serve. Talk as though they are big bullies. If you so good then volunteer yourself to be the chairman and manage it. If I am the mc, I will make sure you being punished severely, until you move out.
If they serve selflessly, I respect them. If they serve with personal agendas, they are worse than bullies. Punish your neighbours? Not a chance. Some MCs work like exclusive clubs. They get proxies to vote themselves in year after year. Problem is, people give proxies not wanting to offend their neighbours, and some don't even know what proxies are for.
buttercarp
21-12-12, 17:31
If they serve selflessly, I respect them. If they serve with personal agendas, they are worse than bullies. Punish your neighbours? Not a chance. Some MCs work like exclusive clubs. They get proxies to vote themselves in year after year. Problem is, people give proxies not wanting to offend their neighbours, and some don't even know what proxies are for.
I think most who sign proxy form don't know what is the agenda.
NorthernStar
21-12-12, 17:42
I know of one condo, 120% lots to units, yet MC wants to charge for second car. More than half the lots are not occupied. Red eye disease.
No where in the BMSMA says that MC can charge anyway, whether sufficient car park lots or not.
From BCA document also.. So MC can grant the exclusive use of 2nd, 3rd carpark and collect rental??:D
"Exclusive use by-laws
Apart from the by-laws governing the behaviour of owners and residents, the MC can also make by-laws that give owners exclusive use of the common property for certain duration.
Example
With the support of an ordinary resolution, the MC can grant an owner
exclusive use of part of the common property for less than a year.
With a special resolution, the owner may be given exclusive use for a
period of more than a year but less than three years. A 90% resolution
is required to grant exclusive use for periods longer than three years.
Exclusive use include the rental of a kiosk on common property or designated car parking lots for owners. [SECTION 33]"
Wah..... so vindictive one ah.
Please lah, the MC are also residents who volunteer to serve. Talk as though they are big bullies. If you so good then volunteer yourself to be the chairman and manage it. If I am the mc, I will make sure you being punished severely, until you move out.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 18:50
From BCA document also.. So MC can grant the exclusive use of 2nd, 3rd carpark and collect rental??:D
"Exclusive use by-laws
Apart from the by-laws governing the behaviour of owners and residents, the MC can also make by-laws that give owners exclusive use of the common property for certain duration.
Example
With the support of an ordinary resolution, the MC can grant an owner
exclusive use of part of the common property for less than a year.
With a special resolution, the owner may be given exclusive use for a
period of more than a year but less than three years. A 90% resolution
is required to grant exclusive use for periods longer than three years.
Exclusive use include the rental of a kiosk on common property or designated car parking lots for owners. [SECTION 33]"
Yes, with conditions, including that the SP be responsible for the maintenance and upkeep of the lot. This applies not only to specific carparking lots, but also a space in a common area.
This bylaw must be passed at an AGM. SPs can vote against it.
Therefore not wrong to say that if someone is made to pay, he can request for a dedicated parking lot.
At today's property psf, I don't think it is unreasonable to charge a for a second or more lot as a matter of principle. It can be a token sum not necessarily for profit.
There is a fluorishing market for carpark spaces in countries like Hong Kong and Japan.
It is something for your condo to decide. If the MC that you voted in decides then so be it, I don't think you should begrudge anyone.
I know of one condo, 120% lots to units, yet MC wants to charge for second car. More than half the lots are not occupied. Red eye disease.
No where in the BMSMA says that MC can charge anyway, whether sufficient car park lots or not.
AFP
Monday, Nov 26, 2012 HONG KONG - An individual car parking space has sold for HK$1.3 million (S$205,029) in Hong Kong, reports said on Monday, as investors seek new ways of making money amid sky-high property prices.
Buyers have turned to parking lots to make quick gains after the government imposed a series of measures last month to try to cool the Chinese city's overheated housing market.
But the soaring price of a car park space is raising concern that money flowing into the city could further inflate the red-hot property market, the South China Morning Post reported.
Tycoon Li Ka Shing's flagship Cheung Kong Holdings made HK$600 million over the weekend after it sold 514 car park slots, according to the Post and The Standard newspapers.
Some of the slots, priced between HK$980,000 and HK$1.3 million and located in the New Territories bordering mainland China, were quickly resold for profits of up to HK$300,000 each, the reports said.
Cheung Kong could not immediately confirm the sales when contacted.
The parking lots reportedly can be rented out at HK$3,800 to HK$4,700 a month, fetching a yield of about four per cent and attracting investors after housing market sentiment was dented by the cooling measures.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 19:02
At today's property psf, I don't think it is unreasonable to charge a for a second or more lot as a matter of principle. It can be a token sum not necessarily for profit.
There is a fluorishing market for carpark spaces in countries like Hong Kong and Japan.
It is something for your condo to decide. If the MC that you voted in decides then so be it, I don't think you should begrudge anyone.
Woebetide if we go the way of HK. People already pay for the common areas, everyone collectively own the common areas, when they buy their condo flat, so the psf is irrelevant. In HK, the parking lot belongs to the flat owner, that is why they can sell it.
However, if there should be a charge on parking, then ALL cars should be subject to it. The MC cannot decide on the bylaws, it is the SPs who can vote for or against it. But some dumb MCs think they can do anything.
Vote the MC out.
Vote in the MC that thinks like you... better still get yourself in.
If you cannot get an MC in your favour voted in, accept the process.
I once stayed in a condo that had excess lots but no control. One resident was a boss of a used car dealership. He parked all his transit cars and cars on consignment at the condo's carpark. Sometimes the choice lots would be all occupied for weeks.
Woebetide if we go the way of HK. People already pay for the common areas, everyone collectively own the common areas, when they buy their condo flat, so the psf is irrelevant. In HK, the parking lot belongs to the flat owner, that is why they can sell it.
However, if there should be a charge on parking, then ALL cars should be subject to it. The MC cannot decide on the bylaws, it is the SPs who can vote for or against it. But some dumb MCs think they can do anything.
At today's property psf, I don't think it is unreasonable to charge a for a second or more lot as a matter of principle. It can be a token sum not necessarily for profit.
There is a fluorishing market for carpark spaces in countries like Hong Kong and Japan.
It is something for your condo to decide. If the MC that you voted in decides then so be it, I don't think you should begrudge anyone.
Why are we only discussing about the carpark lot?
Why not talk about whether a resident is entitled to bring more than 1 guest into the gym or the swimming pool , thereby depriving a paying resident of his rights to the gym or pool space during the time he desired?
I think it's live and let live.. If got carpark spaces, just give lah.. Now I also waiting for approval for my 3 cars in Dakota. Subject to approval... the best part is the carpark is half full most times.
buttercarp
21-12-12, 21:14
Why are we only discussing about the carpark lot?
Why not talk about whether a resident is entitled to bring more than 1 guest into the gym or the swimming pool , thereby depriving a paying resident of his rights to the gym or pool space during the time he desired?
I think it's live and let live.. If got carpark spaces, just give lah.. Now I also waiting for approval for my 3 cars in Dakota. Subject to approval... the best part is the carpark is half full most times.
Wow focus, your household got so many cars :) !
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 21:46
focus, you are right, give and take. Unfortunately, there will always be those who are envious about others. I would want to believe that most MC people serve because they want to, but I can't help but say that many serve because of own personal agenda.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 21:54
Vote the MC out.
Vote in the MC that thinks like you... better still get yourself in.
If you cannot get an MC in your favour voted in, accept the process.
I once stayed in a condo that had excess lots but no control. One resident was a boss of a used car dealership. He parked all his transit cars and cars on consignment at the condo's carpark. Sometimes the choice lots would be all occupied for weeks.
I am not discussing who should be in the MC, but whether the MC has the power to penalise others. Obviously not, according to the BMSMA. But there are MCs who are clueless, MAs just as bad, and they get clueless residents to vote in agreement to implement invalid bylaws.
I think people owning more than 1 cars should be glad that they are given a choice of paying for their 2nd lot. Many condo these days dont even have that possibility, unless you are living in one of those old development or project which is are main occupied by tenant who doesnt drive.
People just got to remember that having that 2nd lot is a privilege, not an entitlement.
Vote the MC out.
Vote in the MC that thinks like you... better still get yourself in.
If you cannot get an MC in your favour voted in, accept the process.
I once stayed in a condo that had excess lots but no control. One resident was a boss of a used car dealership. He parked all his transit cars and cars on consignment at the condo's carpark. Sometimes the choice lots would be all occupied for weeks.
All these arm chair critics should at least give themselves a chance to serve their residents instead of always Kpkb. My guess is that these people dont even bother to attend the annual AGM.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 22:16
I think people owning more than 1 cars should be glad that they are given a choice of paying for their 2nd lot. Many condo these days dont even have that possibility, unless you are living in one of those old development or project which is are main occupied by tenant who doesnt drive.
People just got to remember that having that 2nd lot is a privilege, not an entitlement.
All car owners should pay, owners with no cars need not pay. First car parking is also is a privilege because like you said, some projects have less lots than flats.
Its possible we are discussing about carpark lots because the title of the thread is "The condo carpark crunch"
Why are we only discussing about the carpark lot?
Why not talk about whether a resident is entitled to bring more than 1 guest into the gym or the swimming pool , thereby depriving a paying resident of his rights to the gym or pool space during the time he desired?
I think it's live and let live.. If got carpark spaces, just give lah.. Now I also waiting for approval for my 3 cars in Dakota. Subject to approval... the best part is the carpark is half full most times.
The second car owner paid for that privilege himself that others envy.
pay already still kpkb for what. no class leh.
BlackKnight
21-12-12, 22:27
pay already still kpkb for what. no class leh.
No, I misread your post, I have amended my post already.
FYI, I have served in the MC for some 8 years, until I quit in disgust. I certainly know how MCSTs work. I loathe some MC people punishing, oppressing others for self benefit!
To challenge in STB, you also also need 75% share value to agree right? STB also needs to follow BMSMA & if not in BMSMA then follow existing laws and reasonableness.
If many people are concerned, you would be able to overturn in EGM, otherwise in next AGM since many people against this by-laws would turn up and the existing MC members won't get the 75% share value "YES" votes they need. These by-laws are only valid for 1 year and need to be renewed at every AGM.
Problem is no one attends AGMs. This kind of bylaw needs a special resolution, 75% share value to agree. To overturn in an EGM, they also need 75%.
The best is to challenge in STB.
There are always such member in MC (but below to minority), but if you are not happy, why not get a few kakis to join MC to vote against them isn't that better? :D
I know of one condo, 120% lots to units, yet MC wants to charge for second car. More than half the lots are not occupied. Red eye disease.
No where in the BMSMA says that MC can charge anyway, whether sufficient car park lots or not.
Why are we only discussing about the carpark lot?
Why not talk about whether a resident is entitled to bring more than 1 guest into the gym or the swimming pool , thereby depriving a paying resident of his rights to the gym or pool space during the time he desired?
I think it's live and let live.. If got carpark spaces, just give lah.. Now I also waiting for approval for my 3 cars in Dakota. Subject to approval... the best part is the carpark is half full most times.
Sign..... after change management, my condo rules become very strict. I wonder do other condos have such things like wheel clamp or not. Park at residents lot, wheel clamp at 7pm, visitor lots wheel clamp at 11pm (if want to release the wheel clamp, must pay $107), no visitors for the gym and swimming pool only allows 4 guests. Last time, 2nd car was free, now need balloting, if got it, have to pay $150 for 3 months. Aiya, all because of those residents "red eyes" lah, said since can afford 2nd car, so should be able to afford to pay for the 2nd parking lot.:mad:
What is so eye sore about rules on carpark charging beyond 1st car?
It is simply common sense to control the demand as most carpark is designed to have 1 lot per unit. I had been in MC too. I will go for even more drastic and fairer measure of allocating one lot to each unit when there are such dispute. Go and beg others for 2nd lot parking lo. Come back to square one of paying for 2nd car parking isn't it?
2nd car parking is not a privilege. It is MC being nice to let you have it (doesn't matter pay or not) if the carpark has suffcient spaces. Do prepare to give it up when the capacity is reaching limit. The condo and people living there do not owe you anything.
What is so eye sore about rules on carpark charging beyond 1st car?
It is simply common sense to control the demand as most carpark is designed to have 1 lot per unit. I had been in MC too. I will go for even more drastic and fairer measure of allocating one lot to each unit when there are such dispute. Go and beg others for 2nd lot parking lo. Come back to square one of paying for 2nd car parking isn't it?
2nd car parking is not a privilege. It is MC being nice to let you have it (doesn't matter pay or not) if the carpark has suffcient spaces. Do prepare to give it up when the capacity is reaching limit. The condo and people living there do not owe you anything.
I actually have no clue why would people think that by having a 2nd car others will envy them.
honestly if grown up kids wishes to live with their parents, chances are they will have more than 1 cars, and why is that a big deal?
I think more people able to drive in the family generally means more ability to go out to earn income (two cars are better than one).
Thus it feels fair to pay for second lot if the space is close to maximum capacity. Just like HDB... Unless you live in landed, which also faces their own problems of parking as well.
Wah..... so vindictive one ah.
Call what you like. Tired of this typical "I have my rights" mentality.Instead of doing something, add oil to the fire to get yourself heard & instigate others as well. Merry Christmas to you!
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 10:32
To challenge in STB, you also also need 75% share value to agree right? STB also needs to follow BMSMA & if not in BMSMA then follow existing laws and reasonableness.
Going to the STB is a one on one. Yes, law hinges on reasonableness.
Don't initiate the suit because they are covered by PL. Let them sue.
If many people are concerned, you would be able to overturn in EGM, otherwise in next AGM since many people against this by-laws would turn up and the existing MC members won't get the 75% share value "YES" votes they need. These by-laws are only valid for 1 year and need to be renewed at every AGM.
From reading most of the posts here, it would appear that most people have no qualms in "punishing" others because they see it "right". That, unfortunately is the attitude of most Singaporeans. Apathy, so long it does not affect self, or why bother so long there is no confrontation.
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 10:36
Sign..... after change management, my condo rules become very strict. I wonder do other condos have such things like wheel clamp or not. Park at residents lot, wheel clamp at 7pm, visitor lots wheel clamp at 11pm (if want to release the wheel clamp, must pay $107), no visitors for the gym and swimming pool only allows 4 guests. Last time, 2nd car was free, now need balloting, if got it, have to pay $150 for 3 months. Aiya, all because of those residents "red eyes" lah, said since can afford 2nd car, so should be able to afford to pay for the 2nd parking lot.:mad:
My point exactly.
People buy a home to enjoy, not a prison or army camp.
It is not hard to get out of wheelclamps. These wheelclamps are not expensive, about $200+ can get a set. Let them clamp, and don't do anything, see how many sets of clamps they can have, and who get more inconvenienced.
Limiting number of visitors for use of common facilities is acceptable because outsiders do not own anything in the estate, neither do they pay for upkeep.
I am dead against charging for car parking discriminately. Want to charge, all must pay. If pay, there is the provision in the BMSMA, ask for a dedicated lot.
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 10:42
What is so eye sore about rules on carpark charging beyond 1st car?
It is simply common sense to control the demand as most carpark is designed to have 1 lot per unit. I had been in MC too. I will go for even more drastic and fairer measure of allocating one lot to each unit when there are such dispute. Go and beg others for 2nd lot parking lo. Come back to square one of paying for 2nd car parking isn't it?
2nd car parking is not a privilege. It is MC being nice to let you have it (doesn't matter pay or not) if the carpark has suffcient spaces. Do prepare to give it up when the capacity is reaching limit. The condo and people living there do not owe you anything.
What is "controlling demand"? Even the government failed. Just see how COEs escalate. Allocating one lot each is great, but the excess lots are still co-owned by all, maintained from the same common funds that everyone pays. No one owes anyone anything, but no one is allowed to punish another.
The estate not the private property of the MC, neither are they the parliament who can make rules and bend rules to suit them.
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 10:45
I think more people able to drive in the family generally means more ability to go out to earn income (two cars are better than one).
Thus it feels fair to pay for second lot if the space is close to maximum capacity. Just like HDB... Unless you live in landed, which also faces their own problems of parking as well.
HDB does not discriminate against 2-car households. The only rule is, availability, and all pay, which is, equal misery for all.
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 10:48
I actually have no clue why would people think that by having a 2nd car others will envy them.
honestly if grown up kids wishes to live with their parents, chances are they will have more than 1 cars, and why is that a big deal?
I know envy, because it was implied several times in meetings. The problem is many MC people themselves break the bylaws or exploit loopholes to suit themselves. I know this, because I have served for 8 years, and was really disgusted. One wanted a reserved parking lot for himself because he serves, citing committee privilege like serving in a club.
so blackknight has been holding his ground. good job.
has any of you come to his thinking?
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 10:57
Can anyone give good, legitimate reasons why only those with 2 cars need pay, other than the run-of-mill "not enough lots", "privilege not right", or "more wear and tear" because all these excuses cannot stand reason?
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 11:01
Call what you like. Tired of this typical "I have my rights" mentality.Instead of doing something, add oil to the fire to get yourself heard & instigate others as well. Merry Christmas to you!
Merry Christmas to you too!
If you don't fight for your rights, who will?
If anyone is so easily instigated without first processing the information must be someone who is very weak will.
There are resources everywhere, you only need to know where to find them.
I am tired of seeing others misuse the law and manipulate it.
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 11:04
Merry Christmas all!
Nice talking to you.
Whether you agree with me or not matters little, because the law will prevail when it comes to head.
Just don't accept everything without question, because it could be you the next time, who need recourse.
You are right. Parking of 2nd or 3rd car in condo is going to be hot issue in the coming years. There are going to be fights and law-suits over it.
Moral of the story is: don't expect to be able to park your 2nd or 3rd car in your condo car park in the future unless you buy old resale condo with a lot of parking lots. But even those may have problems. I met a couple viewing my condo some weeks ago. They said they have THREE cars. If every new buyer of my condo has 2 or 3 cars, it will be jialat. We already converted some of the 1st car lots into 2nd car lots. But 3rd car??? :doh:
Wow focus, your household got so many cars :) !
aiya... 2 korean hyundais and 1 merc.
but all bought when COE was <$20k.
The 2 koreans are already >5yrs old..
now have to wait for COE to drop before buying again.. sigh..
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 11:21
You are right. Parking of 2nd or 3rd car in condo is going to be hot issue in the coming years. There are going to be fights and law-suits over it.
Moral of the story is: don't expect to be able to park your 2nd or 3rd car in your condo car park in the future unless you buy old resale condo with a lot of parking lots. But even those may have problems. I met a couple viewing my condo some weeks ago. They said they have THREE cars. If every new buyer of my condo has 2 or 3 cars, it will be jialat. We already converted some of the 1st car lots into 2nd car lots. But 3rd car??? :doh:
Ha, ha! So true. I noticed most viewers would ask these questions:
1. how much is maintenance?
2. parking got problem or not, must pay or not?
Charging for parking invariably means raised maintenance fees. People are asked to pay more because they own more than 1 car.
For larger units, people may be more willing to accept higher maintenance fees, for the smaller 1200 sq ft units, it will not be so. These days, many young couples will own 2 cars.
Agree, car parking will be a problem, but not an insurmountable one.
What is so eye sore about rules on carpark charging beyond 1st car?
It is simply common sense to control the demand as most carpark is designed to have 1 lot per unit. I had been in MC too. I will go for even more drastic and fairer measure of allocating one lot to each unit when there are such dispute. Go and beg others for 2nd lot parking lo. Come back to square one of paying for 2nd car parking isn't it?
.
The whole point is... why not go further and control the number of guests allowed in the gym and the swimming pool. you are also depriving another paying resident of his rights to use the facilities if you guests are occupying the facilities.
So live and let live.. if the carpark is only half-FULL .. why you need to create so much control ? .. I can understand if car park is always full.. but HALF-FULL? Com'on!
You are right. Parking of 2nd or 3rd car in condo is going to be hot issue in the coming years. There are going to be fights and law-suits over it.
Moral of the story is: don't expect to be able to park your 2nd or 3rd car in your condo car park in the future unless you buy old resale condo with a lot of parking lots. But even those may have problems. I met a couple viewing my condo some weeks ago. They said they have THREE cars. If every new buyer of my condo has 2 or 3 cars, it will be jialat. We already converted some of the 1st car lots into 2nd car lots. But 3rd car??? :doh:
Yes.. if everyone have 3 cars and the carpark is 90% full..with no vacany for visitors.. then by all means..go ahead and impose charges on 2nd car and above.. but if it's half-full... why bother? .. Talking about my condo .. hehe..
Anyway, lucky for me.. i still got HDB carparks outside my condo.. so not so bad.
.....
So live and let live.. if the carpark is only half-FULL .. why you need to create so much control ? .. I can understand if car park is always full.. but HALF-FULL? Com'on!
would it be easier to nip the problem in the bud?
Yes.. if everyone have 3 cars and the carpark is 90% full..with no vacany for visitors.. then by all means..go ahead and impose charges on 2nd car and above.. but if it's half-full... why bother? .. Talking about my condo .. hehe..
Anyway, lucky for me.. i still got HDB carparks outside my condo.. so not so bad.
Car park only half full? That's good. Old resale condo? Or very near MRT and many renting out?
Car park only half full? That's good. Old resale condo? Or very near MRT and many renting out?
Dakota residence near MRT.. but also becoz it's build with 1 lot to 1 unit from the get go.
I doubt Waterbank will be so lucky coz they underbuild the lots.. Most probably they will be full perpetually.
The whole point is... why not go further and control the number of guests allowed in the gym and the swimming pool. you are also depriving another paying resident of his rights to use the facilities if you guests are occupying the facilities.
So live and let live.. if the carpark is only half-FULL .. why you need to create so much control ? .. I can understand if car park is always full.. but HALF-FULL? Com'on!
Give privileges very easy, withdraw is 10 times more difficult...
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 15:41
Give privileges very easy, withdraw is 10 times more difficult...
When people buy the condo, they already bought the privileges. Nobody gives anyone any without him having already paid for it.
Give privileges very easy, withdraw is 10 times more difficult...
Yes that is absolutely true.... people don't understand that.
To wait for the condo car park space reach capacity before taking action would be too late and will likely cause more disharmony amongst residents.
My condo has a fair number of retirees so at the moment First Car lots are not yet fully utilised. They converted some First Car lots to Second Car lots. They have different labels for the windsreen.
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 17:19
Yes that is absolutely true.... people don't understand that.
To wait for the condo car park space reach capacity before taking action would be too late and will likely cause more disharmony amongst residents.
Absolutely agree that condo MC should plan, and not cause disharmony. Therefore it is perfectly legitimate to have a system in place, which is fair and not punish or discriminate.
The problem with Singaporeans is that they have grown up in a "fine" environment. So they equate money with power, and that using money (power) is the only way to solve problems. Not at all true. Money power makes people lose their minds.
Can anyone give good, legitimate reasons why only those with 2 cars need pay, other than the run-of-mill "not enough lots", "privilege not right", or "more wear and tear" because all these excuses cannot stand reason?
When I was staying in a condo, I supported the motion to charge for a second car. This was despite having also 2 cars myself and excess available lots.
The charge was for the second car was only a nominal token sum and subject to balloting. This was to be done every year.
I supported this because I foresee a problem in the future. Unfortunately due to strong lobbying, the residents were shortsighted and voted it out.
3 years downstream as the residents got more affluent, cheap COEs and changing needs of the residents, there was a sudden increase in the car population. The car park was getting full and people were quarelling over parking lots. Soon enough there were more cars than lots.
The idea of charging for the 2nd car onwards was revisited and there was an uproar.... Families with like 3 or 4 cars protested that they had bought the cars before the the capacity was reached. And because they had bought their cars on the premise that there were lots, they refuse to be subjected to balloting as there was a chance they be balloted out and denied a slot.
So my point is that it is not so much about the money but about having a system.
Take the extra charge for the 2nd or more car to be an administrative charge (not a fine)... it is a piece of real estate afterall. It need not be much.
Merry Christmas and Happy New Year to you too!
Call what you like. Tired of this typical "I have my rights" mentality.Instead of doing something, add oil to the fire to get yourself heard & instigate others as well. Merry Christmas to you!
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 21:38
So my point is that it is not so much about the money but about having a system.
Take the extra charge for the 2nd or more car to be an administrative charge (not a fine)... it is a piece of real estate afterall. It need not be much.
There are some estates with very good rules, without having to charge a levy. I won't name them here to protect their privacy.
One estate had people quarrelling who should park in the limited covered parking lots. The MC came up with a system, everyone who wants to park in those lots register their interest - but limited only to 1st car. They then ballot, and took turns down the line. Every month, there is rotation. New owners, join the end of the queue. Those who sold 1st car and want to escalate their 2nd car to 1st car status, go back to the end of the queue. Those who are rotated out, park in the uncovered open air lots.
It worked wonderfully. There you go, not the money, but the system.
It is unusual as how your previous estate got into such a mess. People should be glad to have at least a guaranteed lot even for a short one month, than having to fight for one every day.
Even if you levy a charge for the cars, would that deter them from buying, that they are even prepared to quarrel everyday for a lot? Or what if some rich foreign owners are willing to bid up the price of parking lots denying local citizens their place, especially when there are condos with lesser lots than flats?
BlackKnight
22-12-12, 21:46
Take the extra charge for the 2nd or more car to be an administrative charge (not a fine)... it is a piece of real estate afterall. It need not be much.
It is not how any individual sees the charge, but how the law treats it. Many people think that any bylaw can be passed in an AGM, and it works. Not quite true.
thanks blackknight for highlighting the issue of MC and bylaws and fines
this should be an interesting read for all of us here.
a recent case in 2012.
http://www.mnd.gov.sg/STB_APPfiles/judgment/20120412091252756.pdf
para 54 - claim of MC for BK to pay .... is dismissed
but note para 51 - could still seek recourse through STB or take civil action via the courts.
thanks once again for opening our eyes
............
why u delete?
that made for good reading for those who hasnt read yet.
but are residents' decision to buy a car dependent on availability of parking lots?
1) initial stage, many parking lots, so a few residents buy cars
2) middle stage, people see still got space, those who have no car now buy car
3) final stage, people see no parking space, those who have no car dont buy car.
BlackKnight
23-12-12, 16:29
thanks blackknight for highlighting the issue of MC and bylaws and fines
this should be an interesting read for all of us here.
a recent case in 2012.
http://www.mnd.gov.sg/STB_APPfiles/judgment/20120412091252756.pdf
para 54 - claim of MC for BK to pay .... is dismissed
but note para 51 - could still seek recourse through STB or take civil action via the courts.
thanks once again for opening our eyes
Thank you for the link. It goes to show that a bit of knowledge is dangerous for MAs and the MC people. The BMSMA should be read in its entirety and not have sections taken out of context.
Para 51 states that if SPs do not observe bylaws, MCs can seek recourse through STB or take civil action via the courts.
So, do you think they still have the right to charge for 2nd car?
COE for parking is coming...
The intent of my posting here is to highlight that neighbours cannot enact rules to punish each other. These rules will not stand if challenged.
But they can brought the matter up in the meeting and get the votes.
There are some estates with very good rules, without having to charge a levy. I won't name them here to protect their privacy.
One estate had people quarrelling who should park in the limited covered parking lots.
I would think that it should base on first-come-first-serve basis.
Whoever come back first and have the lot will have the right to park. The condo that I live in allows max 2 cars, 1st car is free while 2nd cars need to pay but subject to balloting quarterly. Those that are unsuccessful ones will have to find their parking elsewhere (HDB carpark) but they will automatically get a lot next quarter without balloting. The condo allows unsuccessful car owner to park inside the condo but have to leave by 11pm. Those successful one will divided into 2 batches, 1st batch will be under the confirmed list while 2nd batch will be under the revoke list, this batch is to set aside in case there are new 1st car owners later on after the balloting, if there is, then those under the revoke list will have to re-ballot again.
I would think that it should base on first-come-first-serve basis.
Whoever come back first and have the lot will have the right to park. The condo that I live in allows max 2 cars, 1st car is free while 2nd cars need to pay but subject to balloting quarterly. Those that are unsuccessful ones will have to find their parking elsewhere (HDB carpark) but they will automatically get a lot next quarter without balloting. The condo allows unsuccessful car owner to park inside the condo but have to leave by 11pm. Those successful one will divided into 2 batches, 1st batch will be under the confirmed list while 2nd batch will be under the revoke list, this batch is to set aside in case there are new 1st car owners later on after the balloting, if there is, then those under the revoke list will have to re-ballot again.
Sounds siong being the mc of your condo, but v resident-oriented.
Sounds siong being the mc of your condo, but v resident-oriented.
I don't know whether is the MC siong or the other way round, sign..... But I should agree that being a MC is not easy especially when there are so many complain kings and queens. Actually my condo has lots of empty parking lots one leh, don't know why the MC don't release. One weekday night, I came back late at about 1.30am, saw >10 empty parking lots :scared-1: . Last quarter there are >10 unsuccessful 2nd car owners, this quarter, only one, funny hor.
I don't know whether is the MC siong or the other way round, sign..... But I should agree that being a MC is not easy especially when there are so many complain kings and queens. Actually my condo has lots of empty parking lots one leh, don't know why the MC don't release. One weekday night, I came back late at about 1.30am, saw >10 empty parking lots :scared-1: . Last quarter there are >10 unsuccessful 2nd car owners, this quarter, only one, funny hor.
Maybe some gave up cars due to high COE?
Maybe some gave up cars due to high COE?
I think some might have 2 houses and occassionally stay at the other house or that they have rented out this condo. That's why our mc ever said that must give allowance for those 1st car owners who might suddenly come home.
I think some might have 2 houses and occassionally stay at the other house or that they have rented out this condo. That's why our mc ever said that must give allowance for those 1st car owners who might suddenly come home.
So it's up to the 2nd car owners to work up some sort of deal with the owners without cars... May be a win-win situation for both...
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.2 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.