(10-09-2013, 10:03 AM)CityFarmer Wrote: For those vested...
(not vested)
Sentosa Cove condo developer sued over ‘defects’
SINGAPORE — Angered by what they allege to be “defects” on their property — which include termite-infested pool decking, flooded staircases in common areas and incorrectly-installed electrical fittings — 108 owners of an upscale condominium on Sentosa Cove have taken property developer Ho Bee Investment and three contractors to court.
Ho Bee has denied some of the claims, said its Executive Director Desmond Woon. “We’re looking into the matter. The amount they are suing us for is not quantified yet. It’s very common to claim for defects ... some claims are natural wear and tear; it’s not just the termites,” he said.
The property managers of The Coast filed papers in the High Court on July 31.
Ho Bee is represented by Mr Ling Tien Wah of Rodyk & Davidson while the homeowners are represented by Mr Edwin Lee of Eldan Law.
Court documents showed that the contractors being sued are Kim Seng Heng Engineering Construction, Architects 61 and Bescon Consulting Engineers.
...
http://www.todayonline.com/singapore/sen...er-defects
CLARIFICATION OF MEDIA REPORTS – THE COAST AT SENTOSA COVE
Singapore, 10th September 2013 – Ho Bee Investment Ltd (“Ho Bee”) issued a statement
in response to media reports on a law suit filed by the MCST of The Coast (the “MCST”)
against Ho Bee Cove Pte. Ltd. (“Ho Bee Cove”), the developer of The Coast, over
alleged defects to the common property of the development.
On 26th February 2013, Ho Bee Cove received a letter from the solicitors representing the
MCST demanding that we rectify defects identified by their building expert, the cost of
which was estimated to be in excess of S$2 million.
Our consultants and main contractor reviewed the list of defects/claims in the letter and
advised that many of the defects were not construction defects that Ho Bee Cove was
liable for but due to fair wear and tear or the lack of adequate and proper maintenance.
Further, Ho Bee is of the view that the claims estimated at more than S$2 million were
grossly inflated.
As a responsible developer, we engaged a well regarded and experienced professional
building expert, M/s Robinson Jones & Associates Pte Ltd (“RJA”), to provide an
independent assessment of the alleged defects set out in the letter of 26th February 2013.
RJA similarly assessed that most defects were not genuine building defects, but due to
fair wear and tear or the lack of adequate and proper maintenance. Insofar as genuine
defects are concerned, RJA’s view is that the cost of the rectification works would not
exceed S$200,000.
Despite our repeated offers to rectify genuine building defects, the MCST had been
non-responsive and non-committal to our offers. Instead, on 5th August 2013, the MCST
served a Writ of Summons on Ho Bee Cove, the architect, the M&E consultant and the
main contractor in relation to the alleged defects.
In its defence filed on 27th August 2013, Ho Bee Cove maintained that the majority of the
alleged defects were not genuine building defects, but due to fair wear and tear or the lack
of proper maintenance. Ho Bee Cove has maintained that it is responsible and committed
to the MCST to rectify genuine defects throughout the entire process.
Ho Bee Cove will vigorously defend the MCST’s claims as many of the alleged defects
are, in their and RJA’s view, frivolous and the alleged cost of rectification is simply
inflated.
Source:
http://infopub.sgx.com/FileOpen/HBI_Medi...eID=255767
Homepage
PR Newswire
