HDB MUP - How long it takes to complete a MUP for a Precinct
-
My precinct currently undergoes MUP, it has been slightly more than 2years. However it seems the MUP might take a year more to complete.
I had sent several emails to the project manager from Surbana. Other than the first email which I cc to my MP, the other 2 emails, he simply ignore.
My patience is running out, the 2 lifts took 2 years to retrofit (and at last).
To update all on the progress, after 2 years:
a. 3 lifts still undergoing upgrading. The 3 lifts started upgrading only in Aug 04.
b. lift lobbies for the other 3 lifts still not complete. Despite the 3 lifts commissioned in Jul 04.
c. lighting not complete, despite started to retrofit lighting in Oct 04.
d. roof top railing not complete, despite start to retrofit in Oct 04.
e. new letter boxes, nowhere in sight.
f. repainting not even started, despite stated to start in Nov 04.
g. rewiring not complete, even though it has been ongoing since Sep04.
h. amphitheatre started aggressively for 3 months, and now seems to stop totally.
i. all projects do not seem to have completed.
What can a resident do to request HDB, Surbana to expedite the MUP? What' more frustrating the project manager refuse to reply to my email, refuse to state when is the expected completed date for my precinct.
And my precinct is Holland Park View.
Do you have similar experiences? -
If you cannot get any satisfactory reply, you could write to the higher up to ask them why no actions were taken on the following according to contract:-Originally posted by iamgoondu:My precinct currently undergoes MUP, it has been slightly more than 2years. However it seems the MUP might take a year more to complete.
I had sent several emails to the project manager from Surbana. Other than the first email which I cc to my MP, the other 2 emails, he simply ignore.
My patience is running out, the 2 lifts took 2 years to retrofit (and at last).
To update all on the progress, after 2 years:
a. 3 lifts still undergoing upgrading. The 3 lifts started upgrading only in Aug 04.
b. lift lobbies for the other 3 lifts still not complete. Despite the 3 lifts commissioned in Jul 04.
c. lighting not complete, despite started to retrofit lighting in Oct 04.
d. roof top railing not complete, despite start to retrofit in Oct 04.
e. new letter boxes, nowhere in sight.
f. repainting not even started, despite stated to start in Nov 04.
g. rewiring not complete, even though it has been ongoing since Sep04.
h. amphitheatre started aggressively for 3 months, and now seems to stop totally.
i. all projects do not seem to have completed.
What can a resident do to request HDB, Surbana to expedite the MUP? What' more frustrating the project manager refuse to reply to my email, refuse to state when is the expected completed date for my precinct.
And my precinct is Holland Park View.
Do you have similar experiences?
(1) Project has exceeded the contractual date of completion. - very few project has such a long contractual completion date as 24 months.
(2) The liquidated damage at usually S$1,000 - S$5,000 per day for delay should be applied for delays in completion without compromise. If there is any compromise the anti-corruption agency may be informed.
(3) The officer to certify practical completion should have certified progress, completion and delays according to contract. If he fails to do so, he owes the public including HDB owners an explanation because the owners are affected.
(4) Any non-compliance with contract in MUP upgrading would have to be certified too with appropriate deductions made. If officer does not do that, residents may get together and submit a presentation for such deductions to MP with copies to ministers.
Residents in private estates have protected their contractural right in upgrading by conducting a management audit. If interested in such an audit, you may get in touch with estates which did this to share their experience how to do it. (If you need to pm me)
Management Audit would be more substantive to protect rights of residents rather than pure complaints to MP or HDB.
-
Thanks for your professional advise.Originally posted by robertteh:If you cannot get any satisfactory reply, you could write to the higher up to ask them why no actions were taken on the following according to contract:-
(1) Project has exceeded the contractual date of completion. - very few project has such a long contractual completion date as 24 months.
(2) The liquidated damage at usually S$1,000 - S$5,000 per day for delay should be applied for delays in completion without compromise. If there is any compromise the anti-corruption agency may be informed.
(3) The officer to certify practical completion should have certified progress, completion and delays according to contract. If he fails to do so, he owes the public including HDB owners an explanation because the owners are affected.
(4) Any non-compliance with contract in MUP upgrading would have to be certified too with appropriate deductions made. If officer does not do that, residents may get together and submit a presentation for such deductions to MP with copies to ministers.
Residents in private estates have protected their contractural right in upgrading by conducting a management audit. If interested in such an audit, you may get in touch with estates which did this to share their experience how to do it. (If you need to pm me)
Management Audit would be more substantive to protect rights of residents rather than pure complaints to MP or HDB.
However how many precinct (if any) managed to secure compensations from HDB? I doubt my precinct is the only that was delayed. Perhaps my precinct was the only that was not published in press.
Where's the contract that we owners had signed prior start of this MUP? Perhaps it already has a clause that excludes HDB or SUrbana from compensation from project delays.
What's the role of Surbana? Should we seek compensation from Surbana from poor project management., or from main contractor from failed delivery?
I am keen to start a management audit, however the fight against HDB, Ssurbana, daunt me. Moreover I see the role of Surbana as a management audit, acting on residents behalf on managing the project. Moreover I do not wish to put my MP in a tight spot.
I hate to escalate this matter, however the progress is far from satisfying, despite assurances that they are looking into it. -
Did your existing contractor novate from other contractors which has gone bankrupt? If so, extension of time may be granted. It's not easy taking over a huge project, hence the delay.
-
Nope, it was the same main contractor, Cheng Poh, since day 1. It seems our MUP is providing them a lifeline. A lifeline to tight over the economy downturn.Originally posted by bratpig:Did your existing contractor novate from other contractors which has gone bankrupt? If so, extension of time may be granted. It's not easy taking over a huge project, hence the delay. -
The news on this MUP progress was reported on 12 Mar in the Straits Times.
And now:
1. The block was whitewashed for Blk 2.
2. New Electrical lighting fixtures were fixed and lights up for Blk2.
3. Workers (only 2 however) even work on Sunday on the amphitheatre.
4. An obvious cleaner environment at the lift lobbies.
5. Some concrete structures were lifted and fixed at the rooftops.
6. New lift motors and structure were lifted and fixed at the upgrading lift.
7. NEA officers were seen inspecting the precinct.
8. Workers were seen fixing the new electrical lighting fixtures on Sunday.
Wow, so much was done after the news got reported! -
Hello iamgoodu,
For accountability to the residents, Town Council should publish : (1) Date of completion (2) Officer certifying the delay completion (3) Liquidated damages certified (4) Non-completion items and deductions. -
Oh yes, Surbana had sent a notice to all residents notifying on the progress of this MUP (sent on the day the news got published in paper).Originally posted by robertteh:Hello iamgoodu,
For accountability to the residents, Town Council should publish : (1) Date of completion (2) Officer certifying the delay completion (3) Liquidated damages certified (4) Non-completion items and deductions.
In the notice,
Surbana acknowledged projects delays. The whole precinct had completed 66% so far. The whole precinct could be up and ready by Dec 05. A 6 months delays from earlier promised date, 2nd Quarter 05. Though expected completed date in HDB website says early 2005.
Surbana quote 'technical difficulties' results in delays.
However, Surbana failed to say if residents were to bear the additional costs due to project delays. My understandings in computing MUP upgrading costs was:
"Under the Main Upgrading Programme, the upgrading cost is payable only when the upgrading works in the flats, blocks and precinct are completed. Billing will only commence after the upgrading costs for the precinct is finalised and the lessees' share of the upgrading cost is computed. The lessee who is the owner of the flat at the date of billing has to pay for the upgrading cost. Subject to changes by HDB, billing is not expected to take place within the next 3 months for those precincts still undergoing upgrading."
Does the above clause means that residents from different precinct would pay different amount (subject to the total upgrading cost of the precinct)?
Unfortunately, the news report didn't address this issue. Should inconvenienced residents absorbed the additional costs? What's a irony?
Remember the newspaper report about a couple sue a developer for they are expecting a full length window across their living rooms? And the developer delivers only three quarter (?) of full length window across their living rooms? And the couple sue for lost of panoramic city view???
Can the resident takes Surbana for failed delivery of a ROUND ROOF TOP GARDEN, (from the PROTOTYPE display during the MUP polling exhibition)? What we had is a SQUARE ROOF TOP GARDEN?
Should Surbana accept delivery from contractor without acceptance/consultations from residents? Whats my chances for this case??? -
If upgrading projects are indeed community projects partly financed by collections or levies from residents and partly by Government because government initiates them for upgrading of common areas and its own political social or other objectives, then it is clear that residents should not be made to bear any additional costs due to any delays in completion.Originally posted by iamgoondu:Oh yes, Surbana had sent a notice to all residents notifying on the progress of this MUP (sent on the day the news got published in paper).
In the notice,
Surbana acknowledged projects delays. The whole precinct had completed 66% so far. The whole precinct could be up and ready by Dec 05. A 6 months delays from earlier promised date, 2nd Quarter 05. Though expected completed date in HDB website says early 2005.
Surbana quote 'technical difficulties' results in delays.
However, Surbana failed to say if residents were to bear the additional costs due to project delays. My understandings in computing MUP upgrading costs was:
"Under the Main Upgrading Programme, the upgrading cost is payable only when the upgrading works in the flats, blocks and precinct are completed. Billing will only commence after the upgrading costs for the precinct is finalised and the lessees' share of the upgrading cost is computed. The lessee who is the owner of the flat at the date of billing has to pay for the upgrading cost. Subject to changes by HDB, billing is not expected to take place within the next 3 months for those precincts still undergoing upgrading."
Does the above clause means that residents from different precinct would pay different amount (subject to the total upgrading cost of the precinct)?
Unfortunately, the news report didn't address this issue. Should inconvenienced residents absorbed the additional costs? What's a irony?
Remember the newspaper report about a couple sue a developer for they are expecting a full length window across their living rooms? And the developer delivers only three quarter (?) of full length window across their living rooms? And the couple sue for lost of panoramic city view???
Can the resident takes Surbana for failed delivery of a ROUND ROOF TOP GARDEN, (from the PROTOTYPE display during the MUP polling exhibition)? What we had is a SQUARE ROOF TOP GARDEN? Should Surbana accept delivery from contractor without acceptance/consultations from residents? Whats my chances for this case???
Furthermore, reasons for delay can be rather wide-ranging and beyond the control or desire of any residents to want to take part in such schemes except for madatory compliance with majority decisions initiated by government.
Possible reasons may include: (1) Delay by contractors (2) Poor coordination by Town Council/HDB/Agents (3) Incorrect forms of contract to prevent unjustified claims (4) Poor supervision. (5) Non-completion (6) Poor quality or workmanship (7) Deductibles for contractual breaches e.g. liquidated damages (say S$3,000 x 183 days = S$549,000)
If government is to initiative such projects, it should ensure that all the above-mentioned delays or losses will be made good by government in the event of contractors going bust.
The principle is clear: Someone has to be made in charge and accountable in the event of anything going wrong contractually or otherwise. Without such principle, there would be chaos as the residents were not legally bound to answer for management or supervision or take control of projects supervision or administration.
It is right to ask Town council and Sebana to answer to the above-mentioned possible delays or losses and show that they have tried every means to get contractor pay for losses by way of contracts or performance bonds. Banks will have to pay if contractors don't.
In this kind of projects there may be no one responsible for any excesses in expenditures except the government/town council/HDB/agents. -
How did HDB handle the Marine Parade MUP delays? Are the contractor penalised for delays? Too bad the newspaper did not report about HDB receiving any compensation from contractors.Originally posted by robertteh:If upgrading projects are indeed community projects partly financed by collections or levies from residents and partly by Government because government initiates them for upgrading of common areas and its own political social or other objectives, then it is clear that residents should not be made to bear any additional costs due to any delays in completion.
Furthermore, reasons for delay can be rather wide-ranging and beyond the control or desire of any residents to want to take part in such schemes except for madatory compliance with majority decisions initiated by government.
Possible reasons may include: (1) Delay by contractors (2) Poor coordination by Town Council/HDB/Agents (3) Incorrect forms of contract to prevent unjustified claims (4) Poor supervision. (5) Non-completion (6) Poor quality or workmanship (7) Deductibles for contractual breaches e.g. liquidated damages (say S$3,000 x 183 days = S$549,000)
If government is to initiative such projects, it should ensure that all the above-mentioned delays or losses will be made good by government in the event of contractors going bust.
The principle is clear: Someone has to be made in charge and accountable in the event of anything going wrong contractually or otherwise. Without such principle, there would be chaos as the residents were not legally bound to answer for management or supervision or take control of projects supervision or administration.
It is right to ask Town council and Sebana to answer to the above-mentioned possible delays or losses and show that they have tried every means to get contractor pay for losses by way of contracts or performance bonds. Banks will have to pay if contractors don't.
In this kind of projects there may be no one responsible for any excesses in expenditures except the government/town council/HDB/agents.
However my main contractor may be differentt, he did not go bust. It seems he might just go away with 6 months delays. Anyway with MP and HDB going after them, they better buck up and complete the MUP by end 05. -
Yes, you may be right. Follow precedents set in Marine Parade MUP if it is to your benefit. If not, ask the questions based on basic principles governing community project. Residents should not be made responsible or liable for any extra costs under any circumstances for such a project. Sorry I do not have information how Marine Parade resolved the delays with the contractor or whether residents were made to pay for extra costs.Originally posted by iamgoondu:How did HDB handle the Marine Parade MUP delays? Are the contractor penalised for delays? Too bad the newspaper did not report about HDB receiving any compensation from contractors.
However my main contractor may be differentt, he did not go bust. It seems he might just go away with 6 months delays. Anyway with MP and HDB going after them, they better buck up and complete the MUP by end 05.
Resdients have the right to ask for facts and figures and if short-changed they should discuss with the politicians to have better understanding of the nature of community projects to protect residents' interests.
Second approach is based on normal project and contract management practices. Contractors have to be made responsible for delays or works not fulfilled under the normal standard contract.
In this case, claims should be submitted on residents' behalf for delays after the contractual completion date (original date not Dec 05) and pay the amount of liquidated damages for delays and other normal compensations for non-completions and poor workmanship etc.
Town council and HDB/agents should know that based on Public Sector form of contract (Turnkey) for alterations and additions, contractor is liable and should work towards protecting residents' interests and not hold back information. They should give information when asked for by residents through the MP. -
The contractor will never compensate anything to HDB, the owner.Originally posted by iamgoondu:How did HDB handle the Marine Parade MUP delays? Are the contractor penalised for delays? Too bad the newspaper did not report about HDB receiving any compensation from contractors.
However my main contractor may be differentt, he did not go bust. It seems he might just go away with 6 months delays. Anyway with MP and HDB going after them, they better buck up and complete the MUP by end 05.
The other way, is whether HDB have impose liquidated damages on contractor for the delay by contractor; amount depending on contract. -
Just received a notice (dated 24 Mar) that our upgrading precinct will be provided with a new facility, a vehicle drop-off point infront of Blk 2 (along Holland Ave). This new facility was not part of the masterplan, that is residents had casted their votes with no knowledge of this facility.Originally posted by Lowclassman:The contractor will never compensate anything to HDB, the owner.
The other way, is whether HDB have impose liquidated damages on contractor for the delay by contractor; amount depending on contract.
They are not binded to provide us with such facility.
That's of course a piece of good news for all residents in the precinct.
Could that be interpreted as a form of compensation (to residents)?
Perhaps residents in Marine Parade are provided with some additional facilities (not in the upgrading package) in compensation for the delays.....
Of course I won't rule out the fact that they are sincere in providing such facility for the benefits of all residents, and there is no linkage between providing such facility and delays compensation. Of course the timings may sound otherwise. -
Contract would provide for certifications on delays, compensation etc.
The team of project managers and personnel involved should have submitted a written certification which was in accordance with professional practices in the industry.
At the bottom of this certification, then there is a dollar and cents of how much the contractor is required to compensate the project owner or Town Council.
If this has not been done and there is a off-set by some give and take then it is quite unusual practice. -
Instead of being served by 6 lifts, the 22 storey block was now served by 1 lift (on 5 april).
2 new lifts breakdown,
3 old lifts undergoing upgrading. -
Oh dear, the people's representative who was elected by the resident really ought to conduct a management audit. By next year, the lift maintenance cost would be S$3,000 - S$4,000 per month to add to the overall problems.Originally posted by iamgoondu:Instead of being served by 6 lifts, the 22 storey block was now served by 1 lift (on 5 april).
2 new lifts breakdown,
3 old lifts undergoing upgrading.
Just divide the additional sum into the number of units in the block. How are the residents going to pay this kind of monies? -
Just to clarify, the ward (right after becoming a GRC) was a walkover in 1997 (Tangjong Pagar GRC) and 2001(Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC).Originally posted by robertteh:Oh dear, the people's representative who was elected by the resident really ought to conduct a management audit. By next year, the lift maintenance cost would be S$3,000 - S$4,000 per month to add to the overall problems.
Just divide the additional sum into the number of units in the block. How are the residents going to pay this kind of monies?
The lifts broke down (for an hour) were an act of vandalism. Unfortunately his inconsiderate act has inconvenienced his neighbours. Why would one do such silly acct?
Anyway it served as an opportunity to request them to expedite the remaining 3 lifts upgrading. -
Residents are not happy because lifts broke down due to vandalism right? They were inconvenienced right? If the MPs in the GRC were doing their jobs they have no excuse and should not even blame the problem on vandalism.Originally posted by iamgoondu:Just to clarify, the ward (right after becoming a GRC) was a walkover in 1997 (Tangjong Pagar GRC) and 2001(Holland-Bukit Panjang GRC).
The lifts broke down (for an hour) were an act of vandalism. Unfortunately his inconsiderate act has inconvenienced his neighbours. Why would one do such silly acct?
Anyway it served as an opportunity to request them to expedite the remaining 3 lifts upgrading.
The fact that the MPs are now talking about vandalism show that they do not understand people need help. People can understand vandalism but government do not hesitate to act when people are at fault. When they are slow or not admitting problems there is no one to hold them liable. People must grow up and understand that they must stand for their right to demand MPs take some proactive actions to overcome delays in completing lifts.
Go and ask for the schedule of completion of lifts and what penalty contractor has to pay and if not the project manager should answer. Then MPs in the area will know that people know their rights and will act accordingly. -
Just hope it's not another vandalism again.
The 2 lifts were pitched dark (from 1930 to 2100h) on 15 Apr.
Now I probably unnderstand why there is a need for our town council to raise the conservancy fees. -
Actually in many private properties, any managing agents who do not measure up will be replaced. In Town council, it may be difficult to get the agents in charge to answer to questions like raised by you on this upgrading projects.Originally posted by iamgoondu:Just hope it's not another vandalism again.
The 2 lifts were pitched dark (from 1930 to 2100h) on 15 Apr.
Now I probably unnderstand why there is a need for our town council to raise the conservancy fees.
It is all a matter of maturity of our town council system. Will it respond to people's queries and problems. If not residents will continue to face problems. -
Vandalism, probably the outcome of anger and frustrations. Anger and frustrations of delays. I think only recently that vandalism had taken root in my block. Vandalism, though an unacceptable social behaviour, is a tell tale sign of residents dissatisfaction. And town councils probably have to fork out more maintenance bills.Originally posted by robertteh:Actually in many private properties, any managing agents who do not measure up will be replaced. In Town council, it may be difficult to get the agents in charge to answer to questions like raised by you on this upgrading projects
It is all a matter of maturity of our town council system. Will it respond to people's queries and problems. If not residents will continue to face problems.
As someone had written to ST forum, why feedback was taken more seriously once it was published in papers?
I do have the same doubt, if my earlier doubts and mails (july 2004) were taken seriously, the delays could have been arrested earlier. Not until when the delays go publish in papers (mar 2005), and you start to see workers, cranes, noise, dust working/flying in the precinct.
'Proper channel' may be the correct method, but not always the best method.
As in office practice, when you write your mail, you would cc to your boss. Now I realise, when I need something to be done concerning my upgrading woes, whom to cc to.
-
Wow people are dissatified vandalism is rampant. It is obvious that the delays and continuing inefficiency has caused vandalism. It will be interesting to tell the press that the damage is caused by delays not vandalism and call in a social psychologist to present such an case.Originally posted by iamgoondu:Vandalism, probably the outcome of anger and frustrations. Anger and frustrations of delays. I think only recently that vandalism had taken root in my block. Vandalism, though an unacceptable social behaviour, is a tell tale sign of residents dissatisfaction. And town councils probably have to fork out more maintenance bills.
As someone had written to ST forum, why feedback was taken more seriously once it was published in papers?
I do have the same doubt, if my earlier doubts and mails (july 2004) were taken seriously, the delays could have been arrested earlier. Not until when the delays go publish in papers (mar 2005), and you start to see workers, cranes, noise, dust working/flying in the precinct.
'Proper channel' may be the correct method, but not always the best method.
As in office practice, when you write your mail, you would cc to your boss. Now I realise, when I need something to be done concerning my upgrading woes, whom to cc to.
I agree that the MP has lost power to represent real interests or problems of the people nowaday and will toe the establishment line because of too much to lose in siding with residents.
The press is always wary about negative reporting to the government so you need to have a topic of interest. Residents can arrange a meeting to present the happening to the MP to ask for an independent management audit if there is a further delay or problem. If the MP does not listen petition to the PM. Such common stand may gain momentum and affect voting pattern at next election if the problems get worse. -
My MP has to scratch his head again!
In 1996 (just before the election), he had to handle some residents grudges that they would prefer not to relocate (SERS, Blk 18 and Blk 19 Holland Drive) to Strathmore Road.
And now in 2005, he had to handle residents grudges again cos their flats (Blk 20, and Blk 21 Holland Drive) were not under the SERS (SERS, Blk 14~17, Blk 22 ~23, Holland Ave/Drive). Worst their 25 storeys blocks will be surrounded by 40 storeys blocks!
They even have a online petition, http://community.updatelog.com/login -
How can SERS be carried out in such a blatant manner !!! Any community leaders or MPs of common sense should know that the residents of blk 20 and 21 would be unhappy in having their blocks surrounded or towered over by 40 storey new blocks.Originally posted by iamgoondu:My MP has to scratch his head again!
In 1996 (just before the election), he had to handle some residents grudges that they would prefer not to relocate (SERS, Blk 18 and Blk 19 Holland Drive) to Strathmore Road.
And now in 2005, he had to handle residents grudges again cos their flats (Blk 20, and Blk 21 Holland Drive) were not under the SERS (SERS, Blk 14~17, Blk 22 ~23, Holland Ave/Drive). Worst their 25 storeys blocks will be surrounded by 40 storeys blocks!
They even have a online petition, http://community.updatelog.com/login
Who want to have their airy apartment blocks blocked off and made less valuable for enjoyment ?
That is the reason why the MP system of representation needs to be reviewed as the MPs are always afraid to speak out against the establishment preferring to play safe to safeguard their own career and no longer able to represent residents' interest or wellbeing.
I cannot view their website as I cannot enter it without passwords. But I expect to see their total disappointment in being neglected in the SERS and subsquent suffering the double blow of downgrading of their properties. -
By 2010, I am expecting a new Holland MRT station. By 2010, residents in Blk 20 and 21 welcome new homes for 900 households.
My sympathy to them. One who has been enjoying greenery, serene and tranquility for years, has to brave with noise, dust for many years to come.
Despite appeals and appearing on TVs, they still enjoy no SERS.
Despite the potential fall in house assets, HDB bears no mercy.
Perhaps for whatever policies, at the end of the day the people are not always in the receiving end.
Here's the latest update on my MUP after 2.5 years:
a. 3 lifts still undergo upgrading.
b. 2 lifts ccompletion date extended from May to June 2005.
c. lift lobbies not done yet.
e. external, wall painting not completed yet.
f. cloth railings not completed yet.
g. re-wiring not completed yet.
h. amphitheatre not completed yet.
i. hand rails not started yet.
j. shelters not started yet.
k. letter boxes not started yet.