Connect with us

Hi, what are you looking for?


Parkland Residents to AHPETC: “Why We Pay S&CC But Got to Clean Our Own Common Areas Huh?”

For more than 7 months, residents of Parkland Residences took it upon themselves to clean the common areas of the estate.

What’s worse, residents continued to pay their service and conservancy charges during this time.

The standstill was recently resolved.

But residents have been left wondering about the S&CC that they’ve paid during this time.

The Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) project at Upper Serangoon Road falls under the purview of AHPETC, which is currently embroiled in fund mismanagement saga.

But, it had been involved in an impasse with the HDB over maintenance documents such as drawings of water supply and gas pipes and lift maintenance schedule.

HDB director for land administration Koo-Lee Sook Chin said AHPETC “refused to perform its duty until the developer handed over a list of documents and items specified by (the town council)”.

The HDB added that the documents requested were not necessary for AHPETC to carry out its daily maintenance activities, and that the DBSS developer had to proactively help clean up the estate.

Some residents claim that AHPETC continued to collect S&CC, saying that it’s on behalf of the HDB.

Others say they just flatly stopped paying S&CC.

The HDB says it hasn’t collected any of the S&CC from AHPETC.

AHPETC has not commented on what it intends to do with the S&CC collected.

From next month, AHPETC says it will fulfil its duty to manage common property in public housing estates as stipulated under the Town Council Act.

1 Comment

1 Comment

  1. Kaffein

    May 29, 2015 at 10:39 am

    A few loopholes in this article that are so alarming. I think it’s just pure bashing without clarifications. Goodness can some investigative work be done before publishing?

    1. HDB said DBSS developer had to proactively help clean up the estate.
    – Does this mean DBSS under HDB are supposed to be cleaning up the estate but failed to do so?

    2. Were there handover issues from DBSS that put AHPETC into a risky situation?
    – This is akin to TOP date:
    “Temporary Occupation Permit(TOP) is a temporary permit to allow owner to occupy the building when the key regulatory requirements are met as it may take some time to obtain the Certificate of Statutory Completion(CSC). However, application may be made directly for a CSC when all the requirements have been complied with.”

    – There is always a contractual handover date whereby both parties agree on the items completed and sign on the handover. Failure to do so may void or delay the date, I think.\

    3. Was this ever brought up to your WP MPs? What were their responses? Can you please produce your conversations with them?

    4. Are you sure residents of Parkland Residences took it upon themselves to clean? Or did DBSS failed to do so thereby residents had to clean up their estates?

    5. AHPETC may be collecting for HDB on the S&CC fees. This needs an answer from AHPETC. Likewise when HDB says it hasn’t collected any of the S&CC from AHPETC.
    – If AHPETC shows proof that HDB has collected the fees, then can residents sue HDB?

    6. Assuming it is DBSS-HDB who failed to provide cleaning, then the escalation is to HDB via AHPETC.
    – Just because you subscribe to Singtel but have never make a phonecall, it doesn’t exempt you from not paying your phone bills.
    – Of course whether you have a good or poor connection is an entirely different matter which you need to bring up to your service provider.

    -But if what you say is true and clearly AHPETC is failing to perform its duties (which I believe highly unlikely), then this is AHPETC’s fault and should be brought up to them.

    Anyway please be more specific. This article reeks of smearing campaign.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


Copyright © 2023 Redwire Singapore