Signup
LoginHDB's mistake but she's made to pay - 4 years later
161 posts
-
-
HDB's mistake but she's made to pay - 4 years later
By Leong Sze Hian
A close friend whom I have known for about 20 years, a 75 year-old widow, has received a registered letter from the HDB, informing her that "HDB had mistakenly paid her the sum of $18,000 under the impression that she was eligible for the said sum under the Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme".
If not for the HDB's mistake, she would not have given up her hawker stall four years ago.
HDB's letter ended with "We hereby demand you pay back the sum of $ 18,000 to HDB within 21 days from the date of this letter, failing which we have instructions to commence legal action without further reference".
Since it was the HDB's mistake, the HDB should try to give her back the hawker stall which she had been renting for more than 10 years.
About a month ago, an officer from the National Environment Agency (NEA), came to her house at 8 a.m. , without any prior notice or appointment, to tell her that she had to pay back the $ 18,000.
After she asked as to whether she could have her stall to rent again, an application for hawker stall rental form was received by her in the mail, without any covering letter.
She duly completed the application form and sent it to the NEA office.
Someone from the NEA subsequently called her to say that no stall was available yet.
I feel that the HDB's action by sending the registered letter of demand to an illiterate 75 year-old Singaporean, is rather high-handed, considering the chain of events described above.
This has caused undue stress to her.
As she doesn't mind waiting until a stall is available for her to rent again, I would like to suggest that the HDB consider the possibility of delaying their legal action.
She gave up her livelihood of over 20 years as a hawker, in exchange for $18,000.
Since it was the HDB's mistake, I think they should be flexible, and try to give her a stall, before demanding a lump sum payment back from her.
If the HDB can take four years to discover their mistake, I think they should at least give more time for her to wait for a rental stall.
By the way, what if she had already spent the $ 18,000 on her medical expenses over the last four years ?
So, no stall, no livelihood, and now no more money too.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/231596.asp
-
-
-
running Singapore like a company.....
"If you had a mother who's been working all her life, would you still want her to work at such an advanced age?", Ms Gina Lau asked when explaining why she had advised her mother to give up the stall at the Hougang Ave 1 hawker centre in 2003.
In return for giving up her business, Mdm Lee was given $18,000 by the Housing and Development Board (HDB) under its Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme.
(The Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme (HUP) was launched in Feb 2001 at an estimated cost of $420m to upgrade markets/hawker centres over a period of 10 years. - NEA)
4 years later, her good intentions have resulted in a controversial decision by the HDB demanding that her mother, Mdm Lee Ah Muay, return the $18,000 compensation given to her in 2003.
Ms Lau told theonlinecitizen (TOC) that business was poor in 2003 and that was another reason why she advised her mother to give up the stall. Mdm Lee made an average of $500 per month from her business of selling clothes then.
Letter of demand
The HDB, according to a TODAY report, said that "its earlier attempts to contact her since 2004 had failed". However Ms Lau questioned how this could be so. "Why didn't they leave any notes at my door at least?", she asked. We also understand that no phone calls were made to Mdm Lee.
In September last year, an officer from the NEA visited Mdm Lee and informed her that "HDB had made a mistake with the payout and the money had to be returned". Ms Lau questions why it took the authorities so long to find out about the mistake.
In Jan 2008, a letter of demand from the NEA was sent to Mdm Lee, giving her 21 days to return the $18,000.
Ms Lau had earlier said, according to the TODAY report, that she "regrets the advice she gave her mother" and she hopes the NEA "can help secure a new stall for her mother at the refurbished hawker centre" as her mother prefers to keep working and also that her mother's friends were all there.
Compromise by the HDB?
After the media broke the news, Mdm Lee and Ms Lau visited HDB officials on Friday afternoon and was told that the HDB would "put them on a priority list" for a new stall. The HDB, according to Ms Lau, has also offered them an installment plan to return the $18,000 within a period of 3 to 6 months.
TOC understands that NEA officers will visit her again on Monday (14 Jan) to discuss the issue of providing her with a new stall.
Questions raised
The obvious question one would have to ask is: Why was the HDB and then the NEA so ineffective in getting in touch with Mdm Lau since 2004? It is quite unfathomable that Mdm Lau would not be contactable for 4 years.
Was someone dragging his feet at the HDB or NEA?
If the mistake by the HDB was discovered, as can be inferred from the TODAY report, and dealt with earlier, the whole saga would have been avoided. Mdm Lau was still operating a stall at the temporary hawker centre from 2004 to 2005 when the original one was being refurbished.
As such, how did the HDB and then the NEA fail in their attempts to contact her?
Ms Lau told TOC that the NEA even asked her mother, in 2006, to pay her hawker licence fee.
Who is in charge?
As far as TOC understands, there is no such "priority list' for application of hawker stalls under the HUP. Is the HDB going to install one now? Also, why is it that it is the HDB and not the NEA which gave Mdm Lee the assurance that it will put them on a "priority list"?
It was the NEA which informed Mdm Lee that HDB had made a mistake in giving her the $18,000 payout. But it was the HDB which issued the letter of demand to Mdm Lee and has given her the assurance of a new stall today.
Who, therefore, is in charge of the case now HDB or NEA?
Legal view
Leong Sze Hian, who first heard of Mdm Lee's predicament and brought her case to the attention of the local media, says:
After sending my letter to the newspapers' forum pages, I spoke to 4 lawyers, who were of the opinion that the HDB may be estopped from claiming the return of the $18,000, because she gave up her hawker stall and livelihood as a hawker by accepting HDB's offer of $18,000.
Wikipedia:-
Estoppel is a legal doctrine recognised both at common law and in equity in various forms. It is meant to complement the requirement of consideration in contract law. In general it protects a party who would suffer detriment if:
* The defendant has done or said something to induce an expectation
* The plaintiff relied (reasonably) on the expectation
* and would suffer detriment if that expectation were false.
In English law, the concept of legitimate expectation in the realm of administrative law and judicial review is estoppel's counterpart in public law, although subtle but important differences exist.
Perhaps the obstacle for Mdm Lee in bringing her case to the courts would be her signing of a Letter of Undertaking when she first took ownership of her stall in 1993. In the undertaking, she agreed that she will not seek any compensation in the event of any upgrading of her stall.
This, however, throws up the question of whether it was fair for the HDB to have hawkers sign such a document in the first place.
Perhaps those who are well-versed in the law can provide clarification.
Pressured to give up stall?
TOC understands that Mdm Lee was given 3 weeks to decide if she wanted to give up her stall in 2003. Officers from the HDB were also sent to advise her to do so. As the documents were in English, the question of proper translation and detailed explanation by the officers is important.
Perhaps the HDB (or NEA) should explain whether officers are sent to induce hawkers to give up their stalls and how such "persuasion" is done.
HDB should be penalised as well
Lastly, since it was HDB's mistake by its own admission shouldn't the HDB be penalised for sloppy work? Why is the burden of the mistake being squarely and totally shouldered by a 75 year old woman?
HDB's manner of recovering the $18,000 through a Letter Of Demand smacks of intimidation and highhandedness. This is especially unbecoming of a government agency which obviously (for reasons stated above) failed miserably in trying to contact Mdm Lee.
Perhaps the HDB should offer Mdm Lee a discount on the $18,000 to be repaid, and thus accepts its part of the mistake.
It would be in line with MM Lee's recent comments about being a gracious society.
Mdm Lee
Mdm Lee, who has 2 sons and 3 daughters, suffers from diabetes, and has had to purchase a "medical chair" for $10,000, according to her daughter. She has also used the money from the payout on her medical fees the last 4 years or so. In addition, she also paid $7,000 to the HDB in 2004 for her stall at the temporary market.
But what she misses most is being active in running her business. She also misses being with her friends. When asked if she visits the refurbished hawker centre to chit chat with her friends, she said that she no longer does, except when she needs to buy some things.
-
-
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:
[b]HDB's mistake but she's made to pay - 4 years later
By Leong Sze Hian
A close friend whom I have known for about 20 years, a 75 year-old widow, has received a registered letter from the HDB, informing her that "HDB had mistakenly paid her the sum of $18,000 under the impression that she was eligible for the said sum under the Hawker Centres Upgrading Programme".
If not for the HDB's mistake, she would not have given up her hawker stall four years ago.
HDB's letter ended with "We hereby demand you pay back the sum of $ 18,000 to HDB within 21 days from the date of this letter, failing which we have instructions to commence legal action without further reference".
Since it was the HDB's mistake, the HDB should try to give her back the hawker stall which she had been renting for more than 10 years.
About a month ago, an officer from the National Environment Agency (NEA), came to her house at 8 a.m. , without any prior notice or appointment, to tell her that she had to pay back the $ 18,000.
After she asked as to whether she could have her stall to rent again, an application for hawker stall rental form was received by her in the mail, without any covering letter.
She duly completed the application form and sent it to the NEA office.
Someone from the NEA subsequently called her to say that no stall was available yet.
I feel that the HDB's action by sending the registered letter of demand to an illiterate 75 year-old Singaporean, is rather high-handed, considering the chain of events described above.
This has caused undue stress to her.
As she doesn't mind waiting until a stall is available for her to rent again, I would like to suggest that the HDB consider the possibility of delaying their legal action.
She gave up her livelihood of over 20 years as a hawker, in exchange for $18,000.
Since it was the HDB's mistake, I think they should be flexible, and try to give her a stall, before demanding a lump sum payment back from her.
If the HDB can take four years to discover their mistake, I think they should at least give more time for her to wait for a rental stall.
By the way, what if she had already spent the $ 18,000 on her medical expenses over the last four years ?
So, no stall, no livelihood, and now no more money too.
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/231596.asp[/b]Read the article 1st. This has been posted before. The author Leong Sze Hian is not truly understanding the case. So just read the article 1st!
-
-
-
they rather give the money to FTs as scholarship and not give the money to the poor lady... that's how heartless s'pore government is
remember the old lady also contribute to the economy one way or annother, raise sons/grandsons for army, apy all kinds of fees and taxes... but s'pore government treats these idiotic FTs better... haiz
-
-
-
It's amazing to see how "crooked" the way the administrations played the game on a 75-yr old woman whose livelihood from a stall was taken away from her under the promise of upgrading and they failed to restore the means quickly for her to earn a living again. Instead, they left her stranding without another stall replacement. What was she going to live on while the administrators draw fat salaries year on year? And now they're going after her for a mistake they made.
An administration that does not serve nor protect the public but only for itself is no different from a loanshark.
-
-
-
Originally posted by macjoe:It's amazing to see how "crooked" the way the administrations played the game on a 75-yr old woman whose livelihood from a stall was taken away from her under the promise of upgrading and they failed to restore the means quickly for her to earn a living again. Instead, they left her stranding without another stall replacement. What was she going to live on while the administrators draw fat salaries year on year? And now they're going after her for a mistake they made.
An administration that does not serve nor protect the public but only for itself is no different from a loanshark.
welcome to singapore.
-
-
-
They have small print to say they can recall the payment etc … you got no redress one.. want to complain plenty .. my neighbour moving out last week just told us. When they bought the flat, HDB approve the door and gate. When they sell, they say not approved and they had to change. All argument failed and if they don’t change cannot sell … so lan lan lor … this is only one example … there are many more .. you now know why we are paying millions to be treated such . . .
-
-
-
The Landlord and Tenant Act 1954, Part 2 (Notices) Regulations 2004 UK
Compensation
If you cannot get a new tenancy solely because one or more of grounds (e), (f) and (g) in section 30(1) applies, you may be entitled to compensation under section 37. If your landlord has opposed your application on any of the other grounds as well as (e), (f) or (g) you can only get compensation if the court's refusal to grant a new tenancy is based solely on one or more of grounds (e), (f) and (g). In other words, you cannot get compensation under section 37 if the court has refused your tenancy on other grounds, even if one or more of grounds (e), (f) and (g) also applies.
If your landlord is an authority possessing compulsory purchase powers (such as a local authority) you may be entitled to a disturbance payment under Part 3 of the Land Compensation Act 1973.
If you have a right under the 1967 Act to buy the freehold or an extended lease but the landlord is able to obtain pos-session of the premises, compensation is payable under section 17(2) or section 18(4) of the 1967 Act. Your solicitor or surveyor will be able to advise you about this.
The subsections mentioned (e), (f) and (g):
Singapore does not have a Landlord and Tenant Act, so this is the best we could use as a reference.
Edited by maurizio13 15 Jan `08, 12:45PM
-
-
-
The original contract would be captured under the Unfair Contract Terms Act (UCTA), the Landlord's exemption clause from compensation does not absolve him from liabilities.
Varieties of exemption clause.
13. (1) To the extent that this Part prevents the exclusion or restriction of any liability it also prevents
(a) making the liability or its enforcement subject to restrictive or onerous conditions;
(b) excluding or restricting any right or remedy in respect of the liability, or subjecting a person to any prejudice in consequence of his pursuing any such right or remedy;
(c) excluding or restricting rules of evidence or procedure,
and (to that extent) sections 2 and 5 to 7 also prevent excluding or restricting liability by reference to terms and notices which exclude or restrict the relevant obligation or duty.
(2) But an agreement in writing to submit present or future differences to arbitration is not to be treated under this Part as excluding or restricting any liability.Edited by maurizio13 15 Jan `08, 8:33PM
-
-
-
Don't you love how omitting a few crucial facts can turn an innocent party into a villain?
To give credit where credit's due, this link was provided by Andrew:
http://www.todayonline.com/articles/231596.asp
Let's do a breakdown of the facts shall we?
1) woman signs a contract which waives payment
2) HDB makes a mistake and pays her
3) HDB cannot contact her for 4 years(i wonder why?)
4) HDB finally manages to get her to pay back the 18k
Who is the bad guy here? Probably no one. But if there were one, it would be the woman who got a 4 year 18k interest free loan from HDB.
-
-
-
It is also interesting to note how easily ppl here a persuaded it is the government's fault when something goes wrong.
The only error HDB made was giving the woman money in the first place. It was not a retraction of payment. It's not some small print that gave HDB the right to take back money anytime. The fact of the matter is, the woman was never entitled to the 18k in the first place.
I'm constantly amused by how some of you complain the PAP is dirty, and then turn around and support parties who are fighting dirtier. The article posted by TS is just short of slander.
-
-
-
Originally posted by ^tamago^:simi article?
Read the thread by Andrew pkyap.
He posts the same article as yours....
All the comments and flames are inside his thread.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=302422
-
-
-
Originally posted by lagrangian1125:Read the thread by Andrew pkyap.
He posts the same article as yours....
All the comments and flames are inside his thread.
http://www.sgforums.com/?action=thread_display&thread_id=302422oh no. i think my thread will either be closed or turn into a flaming ground.
-
