Page 1 of 5 12345 LastLast
Results 1 to 30 of 149

Thread: Paying for second / third / forth car park in a condo

  1. #1
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    3,943

    Default Paying for second / third / forth car park in a condo

    The issue has turned out to be very ugly in The Seaview.

    The owners of second / third cars are so aggressive (see New Paper / ST today)

    I still prefer the system in HK, where car park lot is sold separately.
    I also learnt that in Germany, the owner can rent out their carpark lot.

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,368

    Default

    When you buy your condo, you pay a premium for a whole suite of facilities including the car park. You also pay for the communal land of the condo comprising the facilities and the car park. I don't see why residents should pay for extra parking lots, UNLESS there is insufficient lots to go around. If you prefer the "pay per use" concept and not communal living, you really should be buying a HDB flat because you do not own the land around you. Please note all condo residents own the land, not just your unit. Why should anyone pay to use the land that is legally yours? Therefore, I cannot agree to some stupid condos charging pay-per-use or rental for the facilities - it cheapen the whole place and defeat the purpose of staying in a condo. Usually residents who complain are the have-nots, the have-nots who become green-eyed monsters when they see their neighbours with cars or use the tennis court and start to want to punish their neighbours from using the privileges associated with living in a condo. If you don't want to use the parking lot or don't use facilities, that is your perogative, But please do NOT come up with silly policies that penalise residents who use the facilities and make the place feel like home.

    There is a difference between a condo and a HDB flat. The problem is , many of us grow up in a HDB flat environment when you only own your unit. That is when people become really selfish. A person who buy a condo pay for the land surrounding the condo - that's why there is such a huge premium. Why would anyone pay to use this own land which he has already paid the right to use the land upfront? Pay per use should be not applicable.

    It's a different story if there are not enough lots. Then maybe the need to ballot arises. But if there are many empty spaces, there is no reason to charge people from using what is rightfully theirs.
    Last edited by Wild Falcon; 27-11-10 at 13:31.

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,890

    Default

    if enough lots, such not bother.

    I think its an issue of not enough lots..

    Families with 3 cars fighting with another family with 3 cars .. then buay song... other families with 3 cars also join in.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    277

    Default

    Constructive opinion wild falcon, I like your post..

  5. #5
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,368

    Default

    In the case of Seaview, the residents say there are enough lots leh! Then the charging for the second car is NOT justified. The management committee should be serving the residents and not profiteering from the residents!

    Quote Originally Posted by kingkong1984
    if enough lots, such not bother.

    I think its an issue of not enough lots..

    Families with 3 cars fighting with another family with 3 cars .. then buay song... other families with 3 cars also join in.

  6. #6
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    2,890

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Falcon
    In the case of Seaview, the residents say there are enough lots leh! Then the charging for the second car is NOT justified. The management committee should be serving the residents and not profiteering from the residents!
    not wonder must fight. Must hoot the management committee hard hard.


  7. #7
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    156

    Default

    It's true that there are more than enough carparks to go around. In the past, SV residents are allowed to have 2nd or 3rd carpark free on a temporary renewable basis.I suspect this new policy is a mean to increase the maintenance fund for the development. Due to its large compound, the cost of maintaining the development is very high. Currently the MCST fees are already very high and most residents opposed to further increase. So my guess is that this maybe a way to obtain more funds for the management office, rather than across the board increase in maintenance fees.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    Wild u r in a dreamland. Buying a condo does not mean u r given the infinite use of the land. No u r not entitled to buy as many cars as you want. Because the pty is shared, technically speaking u need every one's approval to use the plot. An owner buying 3 4 cars are depriving other owner's entitlement of the land, regardless whether the space is sufficient or not. For example, u have desirable lots over not so desirable ones. And the very idea of knowing there is always a lot available is an attribute of thr quality of the development. Communal living is a shared responsibility. I fully support the mngt council of this condo.

    And I fully agree the HK system is far fairer.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,406

    Default

    Understand many new launch projcets (especially those near to MRT) only allocate 80~90% of carpark lots/Units as the developer assume not all owners will own cars.
    Would expect this kind of complaints to become frequent in the future..

  10. #10
    teddybear's Avatar
    teddybear is offline Global recession is coming....
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    10,800

    Default

    Complaints, and even fights will eventually happen in some of these newer condos where number of lots is less than number of units! How to allocate fairly? Even balloting is unfair! A proper condo should have at least 110% number of car park lots to number of units (the extra 10% for visitors + 2nd cars for some owners)!

    Quote Originally Posted by westman
    Understand many new launch projcets (especially those near to MRT) only allocate 80~90% of carpark lots/Units as the developer assume not all owners will own cars.
    Would expect this kind of complaints to become frequent in the future..

  11. #11
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    1,406

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by teddybear
    Complaints, and even fights will eventually happen in some of these newer condos where number of lots is less than number of units! How to allocate fairly? Even balloting is unfair! A proper condo should have at least 110% number of car park lots to number of units (the extra 10% for visitors + 2nd cars for some owners)!

    Another homework to do before making purchase of condo for own stay going forward...

  12. #12
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5,675

    Default

    So much for a gracious society....

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    375

    Default

    Serving in the mgt council is a thankless job. Council members are normal residents and they do not get paid for serving. No sane mgt council will enact by-laws to make profits as whatever policy they make will also hit themselves. Short of committing a criminal act, no money made from fees or fines go to council members.

    Parking lots is communal property. Charging for 2nd, 3rd or even 4th cars is a reasonable policy when cars exceed parking lots. The mistake made by Seaview MC was in introducing the policy when there was no such shortage earlier on, hence not enforcing the policy. Now that they want to enforce, residents will naturally resist. Polcies that hit the pockets must be enforced immediately when the mandate from the House is still fresh.

  14. #14
    Join Date
    Nov 2009
    Posts
    2,368

    Default

    I find it ridiculous for anyone to bring up the stupidest argument that the car park lot increase maintenance costs. The car park lot is there already. How can it increase maintenance costs? If you don't drive, then don't buy a condo with many car park lots and then start complaining about others having free car park lots. Even if the non-drivers want to remove the carpark lot, that small area still has to be cleaned and washed right? What incremental maintenance are we talking about? I have attended some condo AGM and the arguments presented by the non-drivers sometimes are just outrageous. It's green-eyed monster effect. Theoreticaly, why should anyone be upset just because other people enjoy the condo's conveniences and facilities more than you, as long as it doesn't affect you negatively? They bought the condo with their eyes open - next time they should just go around finding condos with no parking lot - then they will be very happy because they don't get jealous about others using more privileges and facilities more than them.

    It's about being gracious. And for those condos with numerous empty lots, it's just ridiculous to prevent owners from using them.

    Anyway, these ungracious condo dwellers who want everyone to pay-per-use for facility within their own land just because they don't use them are doing themselves a big disfavour. Their condo value will surely go down as people are aware what sort low-class and selfish people stay in that condo.

    Quote Originally Posted by blackfire
    It's true that there are more than enough carparks to go around. In the past, SV residents are allowed to have 2nd or 3rd carpark free on a temporary renewable basis.I suspect this new policy is a mean to increase the maintenance fund for the development. Due to its large compound, the cost of maintaining the development is very high. Currently the MCST fees are already very high and most residents opposed to further increase. So my guess is that this maybe a way to obtain more funds for the management office, rather than across the board increase in maintenance fees.
    Last edited by Wild Falcon; 27-11-10 at 20:29.

  15. #15
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    i also think as long as there are enough lots there is no reason to charge for 2nd and 3rd cars...

    after all the $ is going to the sinking fund which is shared by all, so why shld 2nd or 3rd car owners be subsidising the sinking funds this way ~

  16. #16
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    15,307

    Default

    Each unit only entitled one lot in the first plc... Its fair to pay a reasonable sum for 2nd car lot onwards. Even got spare lots shd always leave some for visitors

  17. #17
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by devilplate
    Each unit only entitled one lot in the first plc... Its fair to pay a reasonable sum for 2nd car lot onwards. Even got spare lots shd always leave some for visitors
    look, the developer build the condo with x number of lots
    whether u use your entitled lot or not the developer will still build x number of lots
    when u buy ur condo u know this fact
    u cannot tell the developer hey i dun own a car so i shld pay less for the condo purchase, right?

    if u start charging (even when there is enough lots), the $$ collected from 2nd or 3rd car owners by right shld then go to purposes catered only to 2nd and 3rd car owners (e.g. free car wash for 2nd and 3rd car owners), but this is not the case as the $ goes to sinking fund which is utilised by all owners.. so why shld 2nd or 3rd car owners be subsidising the sinking funds?

  18. #18
    Join Date
    Jun 2009
    Posts
    5,675

    Default

    Can put tissue paper on the parking lot to reserve the place....haa haa

  19. #19
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Wild Falcon
    I find it ridiculous for anyone to bring up the stupidest argument that the car park lot increase maintenance costs. The car park lot is there already. How can it increase maintenance costs? If you don't drive, then don't buy a condo with many car park lots and then start complaining about others having free car park lots. Even if the non-drivers want to remove the carpark lot, that small area still has to be cleaned and washed right? What incremental maintenance are we talking about? I have attended some condo AGM and the arguments presented by the non-drivers sometimes are just outrageous. It's green-eyed monster effect. Theoreticaly, why should anyone be upset just because other people enjoy the condo's conveniences and facilities more than you, as long as it doesn't affect you negatively? They bought the condo with their eyes open - next time they should just go around finding condos with no parking lot - then they will be very happy because they don't get jealous about others using more privileges and facilities more than them.

    It's about being gracious. And for those condos with numerous empty lots, it's just ridiculous to prevent owners from using them.

    Anyway, these ungracious condo dwellers who want everyone to pay-per-use for facility within their own land just because they don't use them are doing themselves a big disfavour. Their condo value will surely go down as people are aware what sort low-class and selfish people stay in that condo.
    There is something wrong with your eye sight, so please see your doctor. Where did you see that I said extra carpark lot will increase maintenance cost? I just suspect that this could be a method employed by the MCST to increase the maintenance fund kitty. You see, in SV there are a handful of residents who do not own a car (mostly expats), whereas on the hand, there are many residents who own more than 1 car. Hence, one equitable way is to charge extra for those who need more than one carpark to assist in the maintenance of the project, rather than across the board increase in maintenance fund. Whether this is right or not is debatable. You are right to say that u do own a portion of the land, depending on the share value, but it doesn't mean that u can use the facilities as and what u deemed fit. For example if the swimming pool is hardly use, can u open a swimming school there on the excuse that u own a unit and the swimming pool is hardly use? Use your brain lah, condo is not landed properties, you need to look at the overall welfare of the residents.

  20. #20
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    edited ...

  21. #21
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by blackfire
    There is something wrong with your eye sight, so please see your doctor. Where did you see that I said extra carpark lot will increase maintenance cost? I just suspect that this could be a method employed by the MCST to increase the maintenance fund kitty. You see, in SV there are a handful of residents who do not own a car (mostly expats), whereas on the hand, there are many residents who own more than 1 car. Hence, one equitable way is to charge extra for those who need more than one carpark to assist in the maintenance of the project, rather than across the board increase in maintenance fund. Whether this is right or not is debatable. You are right to say that u do own a portion of the land, depending on the share value, but it doesn't mean that u can use the facilities as and what u deemed fit. For example if the swimming pool is hardly use, can u open a swimming school there on the excuse that u own a unit and the swimming pool is hardly use? Use your brain lah, condo is not landed properties, you need to look at the overall welfare of the residents.
    car park, swimming pool, etc all these are under common area/facilities
    is for all to use
    whether one chooses to use them more or less one still pay same maintenance fee
    is not pay per use leh ~

    i dun see how someone who has 2 or 3 cars will deprive the welfare of non-car owning owners when there are more than enough lots

    is like saying hey i cannot swim so i dun use the pool.. so somehow those swimmers who use the pool are depriving my welfare ~ lol

  22. #22
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    Blackfire excellent point ! Wild while u r talking abt being gracious, the idea of "I bought a condo therefore I can do whatever I want" is most definitely not gracious.

    Why 2nd and 3rd car owners deprive other owner's "welfare"? Say I have 1 car. I know for a fact there will always be an empty lot near my lobby if every one just have 1. Now if everyone starts parking their 2nd and 3d car, very soon the lots will be full, and I have to drive to the end of the compound to get a lot. Imagine if I have old folks. You are depriving my "welfare". Those empty lots are collectively owned by me too. U have no rights to make it yours. Can u guarantee ur 2nd car parked only at the extreme end where "visitor" I.e. Extra lots are designated ?

    While asking 2nd car owners to pay may not be equitable, I fully understand the rationale: to dissuade 2nd car, and if u insist, channel funds to compensate the community for making something collectively owned exclusively yours.

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    3,721

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by amk
    Blackfire excellent point ! Wild while u r talking abt being gracious, the idea of "I bought a condo therefore I can do whatever I want" is most definitely not gracious.

    Why 2nd and 3rd car owners deprive other owner's "welfare"? Say I have 1 car. I know for a fact there will always be an empty lot near my lobby if every one just have 1. Now if everyone starts parking their 2nd and 3d car, very soon the lots will be full, and I have to drive to the end of the compound to get a lot. Imagine if I have old folks. You are depriving my "welfare". Those empty lots are collectively owned by me too. U have no rights to make it yours. Can u guarantee ur 2nd car parked only at the extreme end where "visitor" I.e. Extra lots are designated ?

    While asking 2nd car owners to pay may not be equitable, I fully understand the rationale: to dissuade 2nd car, and if u insist, channel funds to compensate the community for making something collectively owned exclusively yours.
    this is stretching logic leh
    u mean single car owners wont park near to lobby or watever desired lot(s)? the number of cars will always exceed the number of these desired lots anyway, no?

    until u can prove that those cars parked always to your desired lot(s) belong to owners with more than 1 car, u are just blaming the fact that u cannot park there (probably due to timing or watever) on those who have more than 1 car.. very flimsy logic

    besides how big is your condo? is it as big as D'leedon which will have over 1700 lots such that u have to walk 500m from one end to reach your tower lobby? also there are always drop off points even in basement condo parking.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Posts
    15,307

    Default

    Buy landed lah. Haha.... If not buy 3 or more units n rent out the rest to tenants without cars! Haha

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by august
    car park, swimming pool, etc all these are under common area/facilities
    is for all to use
    whether one chooses to use them more or less one still pay same maintenance fee
    is not pay per use leh ~

    i dun see how someone who has 2 or 3 cars will deprive the welfare of non-car owning owners when there are more than enough lots

    is like saying hey i cannot swim so i dun use the pool.. so somehow those swimmers who use the pool are depriving my welfare ~ lol
    Well you have a point, so that is why this is debatable. The only solution is for the residents who are unhappy to volunteer to be the council members and vote for the change.

  26. #26
    Join Date
    Aug 2009
    Posts
    2,988

    Default

    A properly designed car park will always try to evenly distribute the lots ard the units, so overall there are no "hot spots". However with the 2nd cars, areas with plenty of 2nd cars will become hot spots, regardless whether the car park is evenly distributed or not. These hot spots bring great inconveniences to 1 car owners, that's why it is very unfair.

    (In many cases, due to design constraint, certain areas are hot spots even when everyone has only 1 car. Like those design where there is a concentration of units in particular corner. For these cases, you buy your units with eyes open. You know your area will be tight. So you should not complain when you cannot get a good lot when u come back late. But this is different from hot spots created by 2nd car owners)

    You have to remember, those empty lots are not free. 1 car owners own them too. This is what communal living is.

    Swimming pool is the same. I know of one project in the east, Water something. Since the pool is not used much, one resident uses the pool to conduct diving lessons, to his clients outside.

    Btw thanks for the concern. my place has plenty of car park lots. I have 2, my neighbor has 3. And yet the car park is still quite empty. That's not the point though.

  27. #27
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by august
    this is stretching logic leh
    u mean single car owners wont park near to lobby or watever desired lot(s)? the number of cars will always exceed the number of these desired lots anyway, no?

    until u can prove that those cars parked always to your desired lot(s) belong to owners with more than 1 car, u are just blaming the fact that u cannot park there (probably due to timing or watever) on those who have more than 1 car.. very flimsy logic

    besides how big is your condo? is it as big as D'leedon which will have over 1700 lots such that u have to walk 500m from one end to reach your tower lobby? also there are always drop off points even in basement condo parking.
    There is no stretching of logic, it is based on personal circumstance and view. The system is very democratic, the majority wins. Attend the general meetings and vote for your preference. Buy landed if you don't like the system.

  28. #28
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Posts
    9,217

    Default

    What if one who does not have cars now but own a car later and there is no more parking lots as some residents have 2nd or 3rd car? Should this person be given top priority as this is the first car of the household then?

  29. #29
    Join Date
    Mar 2009
    Posts
    156

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DC33_2008
    What if one who does not have cars now but own a car later and there is no more parking lots as some residents have 2nd or 3rd car? Should this person be given top priority as this is the first car of the household then?
    Good point. They should be given the first priority. Supposedly the carparks are full with the 2nd and 3rd cars, the first car owner may need to wait for the 2nd or 3rd cars temporary permits to expire before they can officially park their cars there.

  30. #30
    Join Date
    Aug 2010
    Posts
    375

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by DC33_2008
    What if one who does not have cars now but own a car later and there is no more parking lots as some residents have 2nd or 3rd car? Should this person be given top priority as this is the first car of the household then?
    This is a common but sticky problem. Once cars exceed parking lots, there must be balloting. Priority goes to 1st cars which are guaranteed a lot, then subsequent cars. For practical purpose, balloting is held once a year so there may be instance where 1st car owners may have no lot if they bought the car after the ballot. There is no ideal system as far as I know

Similar Threads

  1. Replies: 0
    -: 09-02-19, 11:52
  2. how much are you paying your condo per share?
    By mygeemeel in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 2
    -: 28-10-14, 07:35
  3. Seasons Park Condo
    By crystech in forum Central North
    Replies: 21
    -: 03-09-12, 21:59
  4. Savannah Condo Park ?
    By dansmacible in forum East
    Replies: 19
    -: 20-03-12, 09:34
  5. Singaporeans spend half of their lives paying off condo loan
    By hyenergix in forum Singapore Private Condominium Property Discussion and News
    Replies: 73
    -: 20-02-11, 06:55

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •