“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Prospect
September 18, 20091. Could the owner look towards a solution in an article of the Business Times dated 22 May’09? Quote: ” the government is on the lookout for ’bold and visionary’ leaders and people who can adapt to changing enironments.” and ” Minister-in-Charge of Civil Service, said in the Prime Minister’s Office’s addendum to the President’s address that the government would strive to boost the quality of the public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments.”
2. How is it relevant? After the owner made his request to by-pass Head,HDB Branch Office(HBO), Mr. Teo Chee Hean wrote to Town Council. They in turn wrote to HDB and informed the owner he would hear from HDB soon, but it was HBO who wrote a reply with a copy to Mr. Teo. HBO had replied to all the letters the MPs wrote to HDB. When the owner decided it was going to be his last meeting at the Meet-the-People Session, the MP said he would meet HBO the next day. The owner observed noise was then reduced.
3. A letter was sent to help the owner by someone who knew the workings from the inside. The letter was from HBO to the owner with a bcc to the RC Chairman. The note in the bcc on their house visit provided informations significant to the owner. There was also a timely TV message on perceived injustice the owner could write to although he could not get hold of the address.
4. A MP had asked the owner whether he considered selling his flat. And why has not a few good officers confirmed by random visits what he wrote was continuous noise for many hours each day. In fact, he was asked whether someone came to see him after a letter was sent to the Town Council, (Item. 2).
5. The owner thinks personnel still occupied the flat across the neighbour. The neighbour knows about the flat because there was a force-entry and later, through a recording device in the flat, attempted to lower the noise they were causing to a tolerable level. That could be the reason why no officer came to visit him. Without the personnel the owner could also be worse off left on his own.
6. Many times the neighbour would made loud noise after certain events to tell the owner they were informed, and is why the noise has not stop. Who would not be afraid when people in and out of a flat could be watched and noise recording made. The owner noted the couple and their two children do not live-in as a family would and there were change of persons, and constant noise may be detected as sound conducts better through the floor and depending on the sensitivity of the equipment.
7. An officer wrote to the owner after he posted on the web there was no noise during their numerous inspections with local Residents Committee, and there was no eviction at the upper floor unit. Why had they not visited the owner. On no eviction it would seemed procedure was not being followed when the owner saw the present owner with the contractor. The contractor attended the compulsory handover inspection conducted by HDB, and informed the present owner of an unauthorised alteration when he came later in the evening. Thus the present owner was known to the first owner before the tranfer of ownership to him as the transfer could not be effected until after the inspection was completed. It seemed the eviction was the cause of the transfer that followed. The owner knows there was an eviction when he saw the occupier shifted out within a week of his complaint, an officer visited to inform him and he wrote to HDB Feedback Unit to thank the officers involved.
8. Are the observations made by the owner valid? He wrote noise is a continuation of works carried in the flat from the first owner to the present owner, a warning was given to the present owner, the maid was not registered to work in the flat, a force-entry into the present owner’s flat and a break-in into the owner’s flat.
9. The problem the owner faces is not minor. Currently there are knocks in the early morning and reduced noise in the day showing work is continuing. When he is force to leave all that happened is kept out. Is it not of public interest something is done.
10. The owner hopes to attract an audience so the matter may be discussed. Though he may not succeed, having an audience would be worthwhile.
Note: Comments are allow at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Pervasive Case
September 11, 20091. The upper floor neighbour is making use of his flat to carry out works as seen and heard by the owner.
2. An earlier complaint let to an eviction of an occupier, which was followed by a tranfer of the flat from the first owner to the present owner. In fact, the owner saw the present owner with a contractor who attended what could be the compulsory handover inspection required before the transfer of the flat. The contractor said HDB officer had pointed out of an unauthorised alternation before the present owner could stop him. The date of transfer just after the date of eviction was disclosed by the Officer-in-Charge(OIC). The owner recognised the present owner he had seen many years earlier before the occupier. In all it indicated the first owner, the present owner and the occupier knew each other and carried out the same type of works in the flat from the noise heard.
3. There was an observation the present owner was given a warning before the current complaint in Jun’07. A man had came to lived in the flat across the neighbour for a short time and noise stopped for four years. When the owner made his second complaint, he saw personnel moving into the same flat across the neighbour but it did not have the same effect. The period from the first to the second complaint spanned more than seven years. The second and current complaint is now into the third year.
4. After personnel move into the flat, the owner is quite certain there was a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat and a break-in into his flat although no one would say it had happened.
5. There were people who had assisted the owner. The blind copy he received, just after his meeting with a third MP, was significant to him in a number of ways. First, it showed Head,HDB Branch Office(HBO) asked the RC Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner, and a week earlier the owner had refused the Officer-in-Charge and a fellow officer who wanted to check for noise in his flat. It would not had boded well for the owner. Second, it confirmed to the owner a flat was used to monitor the neighbour and the neighbour had a previous record with HDB. Third, it indicated a noise recording device in the flat, which could be an effective method in proving noise coming from the neighbour’s flat. And fourth, it adds to the certainty there was a force-entry and a break-in because there would had been a place to conduct an operation from.
6. The message broardcasted on TV was timely. It was some times between the first letter from HBO to the owner asking him to obtain a court injunction and other suggestions in Sep’08 and the blind copy received in Nov’08. It stated one could write on ground of perceived injustice to the an address flashed on the screen. A check could be made. If there was only one broadcast and it was on the night the owner was watching, it would increase the probability the message was intended for him.
7. The owner did not took note of the address but he called and wrote to Mediacorp. The woman who received the call did not gave him the address even after she checked with her superior, and there was no reply to his email. On the same topic, HBO had a posting on a car parking placed on the same page as CNA Forums that the owner thinks was intended for him not to publicise his problem there. His first mentioned of discussion groups/forums to a friend was on 26Mar’09, and he spoke about the posting to the volunteers from Civic Advocator who visited him on 18May’09, the dates may be the determinants when HBO posted and withdrew the posting.
8. During the one month the owner was watching the neighbour, the maid was an evidence the neighbour was starting up works again. Mentioned in the first letter to HBO it had aroused suspicion for someone to check on the maid. Noise started in Jun’07 and the letter was sent in Aug’07. The maid was not seen afterwards except for one day during the Lunar New Year in ’08. She was probably not registered to work in the flat, and was there as a cover for the noise that was being made.
9. A number of events showed that the neighbour may not live in the flat. Noise in the early morning to late at night indicates works could be continuous with one or two persons taking turn. Noise may be undisguised or reduced when they wanted to. Some noises are from machine-tools. The force-entry into their flat at 10.00am when rambling noise stopped suddenly would had found evidences of tools and materials. Other instances indicated the forced-entry took place. The owner surmises they were let off.
10. The matter is also known to CC members at the Meet-the-People Session. Each time a CC member would draft the owner’s request before meeting with a MP. From some of their questions he sensed they were awared of the situation. He had seen two CC members at his block at the time the neighbour’s flat was being monitored, and there were indications of involvement.
11. The MPs did their best to assist. Together, they wrote to HDB, Town Council, Police and went to meet HBO.
12. The owner thinks there is a larger issue. HBO answered all letters sent to HDB when he had requested many times for the MPs to write to a higher authority.
Note: Comments are allow at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Neighbour
September 4, 20091. Loud noise started in Jun’07 for a number of days before the owner decided to watch the neighbour. A similar incident happened in Dec’98 when the occupier was evicted after the owner complained.
2. The owner has a view of the lift lobby at his floor, and could take note of people living at the upper floor since there was no lift there. The neighbour’s flat is directly above his own with a staircase alongside their flats. He kept watch for eight days spread over a month.
3. The neighbour’s family consisted of a man, his wife, a child and a maid. On the second day of his watch, he saw the maid, child and, probably, a mother and a sister of the couple. The mother and sister were there for a few days. The owner saw that the mother was self-conscious coming down the staircase and at the lift lobby in a few instances. She knew the owner was watching from his doorway. And the sister answered the door when the owner went upstair as noise became unbearable.
4. The noise continued with the maid present in the flat. Initially the wife, who was pregnant, would come in the morning when she knew the owner was watching and that day was quiet. The man was seen only on the first day, the evening before the last day, and the last day of the his watch. It would seemed the couple was not living in the flat during the month he was watching.
5. The maid was there to bring the child to a kindergarden nearby giving an appearance of a family, but continuing with the noise from her works. The matron, whom the owner saw earlier before the watch, could had been her trainer. When the maid was no longer seen with the family some times after the owner sent his first letter to HDB Branch Office, he concluded the maid was not registered to work in the flat. She was a substitute for the loud noise when it first started. If the maid was registered at another address and she was with the family, then the family live at this other address.
6. The neighbour’s flat could have been put up for sale in ’06 a year earlier before the noise started. The descriptions including the floor area in the real estates agent’s flyer would so indicated.
7. To add to the list the neighbour may not be living in the flat, there was a quiet period of four years before the noise restarted. A man had came to live in the flat across the neighbour for a short period; and a lady had given the owner his full name after he explained he was watching the people living at the upper floor because of the noise, and may had offended her when he looked at her. It may be the neighbour was given a warning because the noise stopped.
8. The owner felt certain there was a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat, because the neighbour approached him a few days later. He said as a compromise the owner let him know where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment. The owner had spoken to him before, but he denied there was any noise from his flat and asked the owner to seek legal advice. It was his concession to the owner knowing he was covered.
9. From observations over a long period of time the neighbour is part of a larger operation. Noise started with the first owner, next the occupier, then the present owner after the eviction of the occupier. The owner was not awared of the tranfer of ownership until Head,HDB Branch Officer(HBO) informed him during a meeting. He had seen the couple, and thought they were the owners after the eviction of the occupier who lived there for many years. He had not seen the first owner but his mother did. When he realised there a tranfer, he related it to the eviction and the evening the contractor informed the present owner HDB officer had pointed out an unauthorised alteration in the flat. So when the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) visited him a few days later after the meeting, he asked him the date of the transfer which was just after the eviction.
10. The evening the contractor said HDB had pointed out an unauthorised alteration would be the date of compulsory handover inspection before the tranfer of ownership. It seemed the inspection was carried out with the contractor without the first owner being present, and when the present owner came later in the evening the contractor informed him. To note: there was a relationship between the first owner and the present owner before the tranfer, and an arrangement was made as there could be no record of an eviction that was the cause of the transfer in the first place. An officer wrote to the owner there was no eviction after he posted on the internet recently. It is logical to assume the event at Item.7 followed when they were given a warning a number of years after the tranfer.
11. After the noise restarted various persons were seen and types of noise heard. There were two men in neat dark blue uniform, a matron, another couple, a few other persons and food delivery services. There were different noise patterns. They concealed their activities by muffling the noise, varying the works and keeping up appearance.
12. Once the owner wrote to a MP a list of pointers the neighbour was carrying out works in the flat, they made noise to let the owner know they knew of the letter. Noise was used to intimidate after the owner met the second MP. Noise may be reduced for a short period after certain events but it was back to the usual.
13. The types of noise are heavy tamp and ramble heard before and after the eviction. Other noises are knock, drag, rustle and whine. Draining of water up to an hour is sometimes heard. The heavy tamp and ramble are from machine-tools. The noisy drainpipe at the service lobby is due to a narrowed pipe from deposits accumulated over the years.
14. The items they work-on could be small and easily concealed, and works may be continuous through the day and night by a change of person. There are noises at night, but generally the nights are kept quiet.
15. There was reduced noise after the MP said he was going to meet HBO the next day, and was reduced again when the owner was about to publish a report in a blog. The noises are now muffled thug, continual knock,ramble and drain in the day and some noise at night. At times the noise would worsen.
16. The owner is clear about his situation. People had assisted him. There are questions to be asked, and his observations could be corroborated since the neighbour is not an unknown.
Note: Comments are allow at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Officers
August 28, 20091. Although the owner called HDB Branch Office then HDB Hub, he was only able to contact the Officer-in-Charge(OIC). OIC said the office did not received the owner’s second letter so he handed over a copy at the office, and asked for an acknowledgement. The signed acknowledgement showed two lines missing from the original. Could it be a mistake made during the photocopying? The copy was reduced in size with margin all round, and there was more than sufficient space for a chop. The two lines referred to the OIC’s visit — rambling noise for three to four hours just after his visit and two weeks quiet period before his visit. He called back to check with the owner on the situation after the noise. A copy of the acknowledgement and the orginal was sent to a third MP the owner saw when noise worsen many months later.
2. Head,HDB Branch Office(HBO) allowed a meeting with the owner the same day with the OIC in the room. He told the owner there was tranfer of ownership, and the owner could not establish a link between the first owner and the present owner. In the owner’s first letter to HBO he had referred to an eviction of an occupier, and similar noises were heard before the eviction. He left the meeting without the matter being resolved.
3. A few days later OIC and a fellow officer visited him. OIC said he had been about his flat for about 15 minutes and there was no noise, his fellow officer was his witness. During their conversation the owner asked him for the name of owner at the upper floor and the date of transfer of ownership mentioned at the meeting with him in the room. OIC would not gave the name of the present owner but gave the date of tranfer from his fact sheet. It confirmed for the owner not only was the first owner and present owner seen before and after the eviction, but the transfer was immediately after the eviction.
4. The owner listed his observations, including a force-entry, in two letters to the first MP was followed by a reply from HBO. He wrote about “noisy manual work was conducted by unknown flat owner” and “sublet the flat to unknown owner”, which the owner wondered when he said it. That there was no evidence the neighbour was using the flat as a workshop. If noise persisted the owner may obtained a court injunction, called the Police, or seek assistance from Residents Committee or Community Mediation Centre. When the owner went to see the second MP he sent the OIC and the RC Chairman to meet him before he gave a similar reply a month later.
5. Someone was to sent the letter from HBO to the owner again but with an attachment. The attachment referred to his house visit with the RC Chairman where no noise was detected, and he asked the RC Chairman to give the owner a talk on good neighbourliness. The RC Chairman and a member, who was arranged to meet him separately, then visited the owner. The OIC and a fellow officer had earlier wanted to enter the owner’s flat to check for noise but the owner refused to let them. The RC Chairman and OIC could each be a witness to an unreasonable man if it had gone awry for the owner.
6. HBO wrote no noise was detected during his house visit with RC Chairman but the owner heard incessant knocking at his study room in the morning. It was the same morning the RC Chairman and the member visited him. He mentioned the noise during their discussion, and said if they come without the upper floor neighbour knowing they may hear some noise.
7. The house visit was in the flat used to monitor the neighbour, and there was a noise recording device inside. The owner had seen people moving into the flat after his complaint at his first Meet-the-People Session, and HBO wrote “there is no noise nuisance being detected” during the house visit would seemed to indicate there was a recording device.
8.. Some times after a message on perceived injustice was flashed on TV, the owner began seeking out the address so he could write to them. He called and wrote to Mediacorp, talked to his friend about it, but he could not get the address. He checked the discussion groups, and found HBO had a posting at CNA Forums on car parking. It seemed out-of-place, and may not be usual to have a separate posting on the same page as the forums. Both the broadcast and the forums are with Mediacorp.
9. The owner had many times mentioned to the MPs to go direct to HDB when writing on his behalf. There were five such letters each with a reply from HMO and a copy to a MP. One letter from Town Council informed the owner HDB was already looking into the matter and he would hear from them soon, and there was a note to HBO that a copy of the letter from Mr. Teo Chee Hean was enclosed for his information. Clearly Town Council got to HDB but HBO replied. No one came to see the owner.
10. After the owner’s last meeting with a MP, who said he would meet HBO the next day, noise was reduced. The owner presumed the MP had a message for HBO.
Note: Comments are allow at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller. Comments were not allowed here because I am one person and not up to the task.
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Short Version
August 21, 20091. An owner made his complaints to HDB Branch Office, several MPs and finally wrote an open letter to HDB. Over a period of over two years from Jun’07 the noise from the upper floor neighour has not stop.
2. Ten years ago a similar situation resulted in an eviction. There was a change of ownership just after the eviction, and the owner observed both the first owner and the present owner were seen before and after the eviction.
3. The owner is awares the neighbour knows from experience they could get away with the noise they caused.
4. The problem was how to prove the present owner is carrying on a trade of some kinds. Noise that is heard over many hours each day is not considered evidence unless there is credible witness. Video and noise recording might do. They are aware of the facts for they will ask the owner to get legal advice or go through mediation. Both involve lawyers and they require evidence to work with.
5. Item they work-on could be small and easily concealed, noise created may not be too obvious and works could be varied. And they take care to put up an appearance of a family. It affected the owner because noise could be loud, and works are continuous through the day with change of person.
6. Once the owner began to writing to MPs, they use noise to let the owner know they knew and to intimidate. Noise was lowered after a MP said he would meet Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) the next day in Feb’09, and when the owner wanted to publish his report in a blog in Jun’09. It was in many such instances that the owner thinks his problem is not being addressed.
7. To give some examples of help the owner had received, someone re-sent a letter from HBO to the owner but with an attachment. The attachment indicated a flat was used to monitor the neigbour, and a noise recording device in the flat. HBO wrote “During our house visit, there is no noise nuisance being detected.” during his house visit with the RC Chairman. On “no noise nuisance being detected”, the owner heard incessant knocking before the RC Chairman and one of his member were invited into owner’s flat the same morning after the house visit. In the attachment HBO asked the RC Chairman to explained to the owner about being a good neighbour in length.
8. Someone checked out the maid referred to in the first letter the owner sent to HBO. Noise stopped for a few weeks at the same time a poster showing a maid was placed in the noticeboard. The maid in the poster is saying she cannot work at the coffeeshop, and can only do housework at the adddress stated on her work permit card. After that the maid was no longer seen with the neighbour. The owner assumed the maid was not registered to work in the flat, she was there as a cover for the noises just before the owner began to keep watch.
9.There was a quiet period of a four years before the current complaint. The owner thinks the present owner had been warned before. He remembered a lady who gave him the full name of the person,who came to live for a short period in the same flat used to monitor neighbour, following which the noise had stopped.
10. The owner hopes HDB could corroborate these findings and others in a report at his first posting. MPs and Town Council wrote to HDB on his behalf but HBO replied to these letters. He wrote an open letter as last recourse.
“Strange” business going around at HDB flat: Report
August 3, 2009Call to HDB
A Pervasive Case
Summary
An owner complained about noise from an upper floor neighbour. He thinks the noise is a continuation of the same line of works starting from the first owner. The first owner had transferred the flat to the present owner shortly after an eviction of an occupier.
A meeting with and written replies by Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) were unsatisfactory. However, the owner appreciated the assistance given at the Meet-the-People Sessions.
He hopes to present his case to HDB.
Content
1.Introduction
2.Overview
3.Findings
4.Conclusions
5.Recommendations
Introduction
The owner had a posting ” ‘Strange’ business going around at HDB flat ” on 11 May’09 at http://civicadvocator.net/category/forem. A call was made from the site for someone to write a report. Later two volunteers from civic advocator went to interview the owner and collect a set of correspondence. These were letters sent to HDB and MPs, replies from the authorities and some others.
This report is prepared by the owner in third person.
Overview
2.1 The owner first noticed occasional bouncing sound and noises from the ceiling, but he did not mind too much. At the time, he saw a young couple who is now the present owner. A girl, possibly relation of the first owner, who the owner saw recently on Lunar New Year ’08. Another couple who lived in the flat for many years before they were evicted.
2.2 The mother of the owner saw the first owner on three occasions, two times before the eviction when he spoke to her and one time after when he did not. The owner had noted down the date her mother said she saw the first owner with two young daughters after the eviction.
2.3 The owner wrote a few letters to HDB Branch Office from Dec’98 to Mar’99 when noise was at its peak. There was low level knocking during the day, a few heavy tamps and some loud knocks. Some of the noises were at night. The owner was relieved of his ordeal when his letter to HBO at the time let to an eviction. The estates officer had replied there was no excessive noise to two previous letters the owner wrote. After the eviction the techical officer visited the owner to inform and also to enquire. He wanted to know what the owner did that let to the eviction. The owner wrote to the Feedback Unit, HDB, to thank the officers involved.
2.4 One evening following the event, the owner was returning to his flat when he recognised the present owner who was with a contractor. The contractor was saying HDB had pointed out an unauthorised alteration in the flat before the present owner could stop him. The owner knew he referred to an area near the balcony where he had heard loud hacking noise before. The contractor carried out some repair works at the balcony, and cement chips were left alongside the wall. There was no major renovation to indicate a transfer of ownership. Later he deduced a compulsory inspection of the flat, required before handover, had taken place; the date of eviction and the date the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) said was the transfer of ownership were close.
2.5 There was still noises that the owner felt compelled he should at least know who the neighbours were at the upper floor. Afterall, they had to use the lifts at his floor. It was one evening when a young lady turned around and scolded him for staring. He apologised and explained the neighbour was causing noise, and he wanted to know all the neighbours living at the upper floor. She then gave the full name of the person who lived upstair across the neighbour. The owner had greeted this person once. He lived there for a short period, and noise from the neighbour stopped for four years before restarting again in Jun’07.
2.6 There was loud noises for a number of days. Having gone through it once before, the owner decided to keep full watch this time. He had a view of the lift lobby, and left the door of his flat opened from 6 am to 9 pm, two days a week for a month. He saw from their actions they wanted to give an appearance of a family. Constant observation gave them away. The couple did not lived in the flat. The maid causing the noise was a substitude for what went on before. Two uniform men and a matron seen before the watch indicated there was commercial interest. It becomes clearer when the owner discovered the flat could be put up for sale in ’06 from a real estates agent’s flyer. The maid may not had been registered to work in the flat. And works are continuous through the day and night by a change of person, though noises are heard mostly in the day.
2.7 The owner had approached them twice. A woman, who could be a sister of the wife, said the noise was caused by the maid moving furniture. Later the present owner denied there was any noise from his flat, and asked the owner to seek legal advice.
2.8 The owner wrote the first letter to HBO after the watch. Noise had stopped for two weeks when the OIC and another man visited him. The OIC had checked his fact sheet when the owner said both he and the neighbour had lived there since building completion. Next they went upstair to talk to the neighbour. The owner suspected there was an arrangement with the neighbour because rambling noise was heard for three to four hours two days later. The OIC followed with a telephone call to the owner to check. The OIC was to telephone and visit the owner many times over a period of nearly two years on his own accord.
2.9 The owner brought a copy of his second letter to HDB Branch Office as he was informed they did not received it. He asked for an acknowlegdement, and insisted on an appointment with HBO. A meeting was allowed the same day with the OIC present in the room. The owner did not made his complaint against the OIC since he was present. HBO told him there was a transfer of ownership, and the owner could not established a link between the first owner and the present owner. His letters to HBO had indicated there was an eviction and similar noises were heard. In the signed acknowlegdement, two lines were missing from a page that referred to the noise just after the OIC’s visit and no noise between the period of the first letter and the OIC’s visit.
2.10 In the second letter the owner wrote, he saw a poster placed on the noticeboard at the same time the noise from the neighbour stopped for a few weeks. The poster showed a maid working at a coffeeshop saying she cannot work there, and can only do housework at the address stated on her work permit card. The owner noted if the maid was not registered to work at the flat then the couple did not lived there.
2.11 The owner then went to his first Meet-the-People Session. No MP was in at the time, and he left a letter with the member who interviewed him. HBO replied to the letter that a MP had asked HDB to look into the matter. After which, the owner saw people shifting into the flat upstair across the neighbour. On the morning of 18 Mar’08 at 10.00 am rambling noise stopped suddenly, followed by two sharp knocks and a tamp, and was quiet the rest of the day. The owner thinks it was a force-entry.
2.12 The owner wrote two letters to a MP. He made a list of all that was known to date including the force-entry. He did not included the break-in into his flat because he only suspected
it. The second letter was on noise directed at the owner to let him know they knew about the first letter. The MP said they would asked the neighbour to lower the noise, and sent the two letters as attachment to HDB. HBO replied there was no evidence the neighbour was using the flat as a workshop. If noise persisted the owner may obtained a court injunction, seek assistance from Mediation Center or Residents Committee, or called the Police. His reply was in Sep’08.
2.13 The owner next went to see another MP because he wanted the matter brought to HDB, a higher authority than the Branch Office. This was a critical period, noise was heightened, and HBO sent the OIC and RC Chairman to meet the owner before his reply a month later. The owner refused to let the OIC and a fellow officer enter his flat to check for noise, and invited the Chairman and one of his member in for a discussion. The owner had said there was noise before they came in, and if they come without the neighbour knowing they may hear some noise. Later someone sent the letter from HBO to the owner again, but attached to the letter was a blind copy addressed to the RC Chairman.
2.14 The blind copy provided information the owner had already suspected, and reinforced what he had observed about the force-entry and break-in. HBO wrote, during the joint visit with the Chairman to the house no noise was detected, and asked him to give a talk to the owner about good neighbourliness. The house referred to the flat, which was used once before to monitor the neighbour that let to four years of quiet, (Item 2.5).
2.15 Not long before the blind copy was received on Nov’08 a TV message was broadcasted one night. The voice-over stated one could write on ground of perceived injustice. The owner called and wrote to Mediacorp to obtain the address, which he had not taken note of when the message was flashed, but they did not help.
Findings
3.1 A number of events indicated there was a force-entry on 18 Mar’08:
1. The owner heard the rambling sound stopped, followed by two sharp knocks and a tamp at 10.00 am. There was quiet the rest of the day. Usually noise is many hours in the morning and afternoon.
2. In the evening of same day he met an old friend. It was not a coincident. A year later, just after the owner sent an email to PM, his old friend called over the telephone to say he was coming to meet him.
3. Two of his neighbours had smiled knowingly at the owner after the event.
4. The neighbour approached him a few days later to compromise. He would only gave his nickname.
5. The owner’s sister called to say HDB could repair the leak in his bedroom. The leak was in Jun’00 and the owner had solved it.
3.2 A confluence of events occurring before a possible break-in at the owner’s flat on 21 Jun’08:
1. The owner left the door of his flat opened to signal to the neighbour. To let them know he knew a different person was working in the flat from the different noise pattern heard. The neighbour’s wife responded by coming down the stairs loudly. The owner began writing to an MP at his study room that has line-of-sight from the flat used to monitor the neighbour.
2. The owner went out on two consecutive days in the morning and came back in the afternoon. He went to top-up his CPF on the second consecutive day, which was a Saturday. The evening when he returned home he found the lock of the door jammed. It was not his routine to go out in the morning but his routine to go out in the evening.
3. The neighbour across the owner usually go out with his family and come back at night on a Saturday. When he came back he noticed the owner had left his bag of grocery outside his door, and he came out to enquire when the owner called a locksmith and the police.
4. It was the owner routine to go out in the evening for three hours, but the Saturday he took a shorter route and came back in about an hour.
3.3 Why would they broke into the owner’s flat? The owner thinks they thought he had connection, and wanted to know more about him. For examples, someone checked out the maid referred to in his letter, took action so noise stopped for a while, and placed a poster on the noticebroad. Someone probably sent him the TV message on perceived injustice as it was well-timed. And someone sent him the blind copy that indicated a flat was used to monitor the neighbour. Also, the continuous nature of the neighbour’s works indicated a larger operation and more involvement.
3.4 HBO wrote five similar letters to the owner asking him to obtain a court injunction and other suggestions. These were in replied to letters MPs wrote to HDB and Town Council. In particular the letter written by Mr.Teo Chee Hean to Town Council, and reply from Town Council to the owner and a note to HBO. The reply was the owner would hear from HDB soon, and the note stated a copy of the letter from Mr.Teo Chee Hean was attached for his information. No one came to see the owner and HBO replied to the letter. It would seemed there were no higher authorities to refer the matter other than HBO.
3.5 In the blind copy HBO wrote to RC Chairman a sentence stated “During our house visit, there is no noise nuisance being detected.” Let assumed the place of the house visit could be outside the owner’s flat, outside or inside the neighbour’s flat, or inside the flat across the the neighbour. What would be the likelihood of each when the sentence ended with “there is no noise nuisance being detected.”? The last possibility could mean there was a noise recording device in the flat.
3.6 Although HBO wrote no noise was detected during the house visit, the owner heard incessant knocking at his study room in the morning. It was the same morning the RC Chairman and a member, who was arranged to meet him, called on the owner. There followed two days of quiet before noise started again.
3.7 Earlier before the owner received the blind copy, he noted in his first letter to a MP there were many start-and-stop attempts after the force-entry. He thinks there was a device that detect or record noise in the flat, and the people in the flat had communicated with the neighbour to reduce noise to a tolerable level.
3.8 The owner was suspicious from the OIC who telephoned and visited him many times, his meeting with HBO at the Branch Office, and when HBO sent the OIC and the RC Chairman to meet him after his meeting with a second MP. Uniform men, matron, maid, change of person and use of food delivery service at the neighbour’s flat indicated they do not have legitimate purpose. They would made noise to let the owner know they knew about letters sent to the MPs. When asked, they would lower the noise for a day or two, but works continued amidst the complaints and have not stop.
3.9 So far as the owner could tells the items they work-on are small, and could be easily concealed in a bag. The heavy tamp and rambling noise are from machine-tools. Other noises heard are knock, drag, rustle and whine. Draining is heard from water used. The noisy drainpipe at the service lobby is caused by a narrowed pipe due to deposits accumulated over the years.
3.10 The works could be continuous through the day and night. Light knocking early in the morning to final drain late at night. Most of the noise are in the morning and afternoon for many hours. A change of person was also seen.
3.11 After the last meeting with a MP, who said he would meet HBO the next day, noise was reduced. The owner still hears muffled tamp, heavy sound, knocking and draining consistent with works being carried out.
3.12 HBO had a posting on car parking at CNA Forums, which the owner found odd from the page layout. Was it intended for him not to enter into discussion at the forums showed on the page? The owner had enquired about the TV message at Mediacorp and talked to his friend about it, but it was without success either.
Conclusions
4.1 There were two lines missing from the signed acknowlegdement. The two lines referred to noise just after the OIC’s visit, and no noise for two weeks before the OIC’s visit. The owner had enquired about the handwritten letter, which they did not received, and had handed over a handwritten copy at the HDB Branch Office. If he had not photocopied another he would not have the evidence.
4.2 The blind copy written by HBO to RC Chairman indicated a flat was used to monitor the neighbour. The owner saw people shifting into the flat, and heard a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat. There were other signs of a force-entry.
4.3 The owner had assumed the maid was not registered to work in the flat. He could be right as the maid was no longer seen except for one day on Lunar New Year ’08. (The maid working in the flat was a substitude for the noise that went on before.) Since the maid was with them, it showed the neigbour did not lived in the flat. It tied in with the fact their flat could had been put up for sale one year earlier, and the preceding four years was quiet.
4.4 The neighbour is carrying on a trade from the types of noise, duration and change of person noted. The owner complained about the same group of people in Dec’98 and from Jun’07 currently. He and his mother had recognised persons before and after the eviction in Mar’99, and rambling and heavy tamping were similar types of noise made.
4.5 Observations made by the owner should be checked for accuracy. Examples could be noisy drainpipe at the service lobby, neighbours who may know about the force-entry, the TV message, and his comments on personnel and the neighbour in his letters . Earlier examples could be whether there was eviction, date of eviction and transfer of ownership, and was there a warning given to the present owner before the current complaint.
4.6 The owner requested a number of times for the MPs to write to HDB, a higher authority than the Branch Office. Town Council made a special effort because the owner was asked whether someone came to see him, but HBO replied to this and other letters sent to HDB. During the owner’s last meeting at the Meet-the-People Session the MP said he would meet HBO the next day, and noise was reduced. The owner presumed the MP had a message for HBO.
4.7 If there was a device used to detect or record noise in the flat, it would had been a deterrence. The blind copy could indicate there was a recording device, and the owner was puzzled at first when he heard five start-and-stop attempts.
4.8 The owner have some supports from MPs, people from the Meet-the-People Session and others. Some of the people he knows, some he does not.
4.9 The reader will have to decide whether there was a force-entry and a break-in given the circumstances.
Recommendations
An article in the Business Times on 22 May’09 may be related to Item 3.4, and the posting at http://civicadvocator.net/category/forem on 11 May’09. “Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said that the government is on the lookout for ‘bold and visionary’ leaders and people who can adapt to changing environments.” and “the government would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments.”
The neighbour is part of a larger operation, and profit is the motive; the works they carried out could be easily concealed, and noise affected the household below them. If HDB do not take action no one could.
A Pervasive Case
Summary
An owner complained about noise from an upper floor neighbour. He thinks the noise is a continuation of the same line of works starting from the first owner. The first owner had transferred the flat to the present owner shortly after an eviction of an occupier.
A meeting with and written replies by Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) were unsatisfactory. However, the owner appreciated the assistance given at the Meet-the-People Sessions.
He hopes to present his case to HDB.
Content
1.Introduction
2.Overview
3.Findings
4.Conclusions
5.Recommendations
Introduction
The owner had a posting ” ‘Strange’ business going around at HDB flat ” on 11 May’09 at http://civicadvocator.net/category/forem. A call was made from the site for someone to write a report. Later two volunteers from civic advocator went to interview the owner and collect a set of correspondence. These were letters sent to HDB and MPs, replies from the authorities and some others.
This report is prepared by the owner in third person.
Overview
2.1 The owner first noticed occasional bouncing sound and noises from the ceiling, but he did not mind too much. At the time, he saw a young couple who is now the present owner. A girl, possibly relation of the first owner, who the owner saw recently on Lunar New Year ’08. Another couple who lived in the flat for many years before they were evicted.
2.2 The mother of the owner saw the first owner on three occasions, two times before the eviction when he spoke to her and one time after when he did not. The owner had noted down the date her mother said she saw the first owner with two young daughters after the eviction.
2.3 The owner wrote a few letters to HDB Branch Office from Dec’98 to Mar’99 when noise was at its peak. There was low level knocking during the day, a few heavy tamps and some loud knocks. Some of the noises were at night. The owner was relieved of his ordeal when his letter to HBO at the time let to an eviction. The estates officer had replied there was no excessive noise to two previous letters the owner wrote. After the eviction the techical officer visited the owner to inform and also to enquire. He wanted to know what the owner did that let to the eviction. The owner wrote to the Feedback Unit, HDB, to thank the officers involved.
2.4 One evening following the event, the owner was returning to his flat when he recognised the present owner who was with a contractor. The contractor was saying HDB had pointed out an unauthorised alteration in the flat before the present owner could stop him. The owner knew he referred to an area near the balcony where he had heard loud hacking noise before. The contractor carried out some repair works at the balcony, and cement chips were left alongside the wall. There was no major renovation to indicate a transfer of ownership. Later he deduced a compulsory inspection of the flat, required before handover, had taken place; the date of eviction and the date the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) said was the transfer of ownership were close.
2.5 There was still noises that the owner felt compelled he should at least know who the neighbours were at the upper floor. Afterall, they had to use the lifts at his floor. It was one evening when a young lady turned around and scolded him for staring. He apologised and explained the neighbour was causing noise, and he wanted to know all the neighbours living at the upper floor. She then gave the full name of the person who lived upstair across the neighbour. The owner had greeted this person once. He lived there for a short period, and noise from the neighbour stopped for four years before restarting again in Jun’07.
2.6 There was loud noises for a number of days. Having gone through it once before, the owner decided to keep full watch this time. He had a view of the lift lobby, and left the door of his flat opened from 6 am to 9 pm, two days a week for a month. He saw from their actions they wanted to give an appearance of a family. Constant observation gave them away. The couple did not lived in the flat. The maid causing the noise was a substitude for what went on before. Two uniform men and a matron seen before the watch indicated there was commercial interest. It becomes clearer when the owner discovered the flat could be put up for sale in ’06 from a real estates agent’s flyer. The maid may not had been registered to work in the flat. And works are continuous through the day and night by a change of person, though noises are heard mostly in the day.
2.7 The owner had approached them twice. A woman, who could be a sister of the wife, said the noise was caused by the maid moving furniture. Later the present owner denied there was any noise from his flat, and asked the owner to seek legal advice.
2.8 The owner wrote the first letter to HBO after the watch. Noise had stopped for two weeks when the OIC and another man visited him. The OIC had checked his fact sheet when the owner said both he and the neighbour had lived there since building completion. Next they went upstair to talk to the neighbour. The owner suspected there was an arrangement with the neighbour because rambling noise was heard for three to four hours two days later. The OIC followed with a telephone call to the owner to check. The OIC was to telephone and visit the owner many times over a period of nearly two years on his own accord.
2.9 The owner brought a copy of his second letter to HDB Branch Office as he was informed they did not received it. He asked for an acknowlegdement, and insisted on an appointment with HBO. A meeting was allowed the same day with the OIC present in the room. The owner did not made his complaint against the OIC since he was present. HBO told him there was a transfer of ownership, and the owner could not established a link between the first owner and the present owner. His letters to HBO had indicated there was an eviction and similar noises were heard. In the signed acknowlegdement, two lines were missing from a page that referred to the noise just after the OIC’s visit and no noise between the period of the first letter and the OIC’s visit.
2.10 In the second letter the owner wrote, he saw a poster placed on the noticeboard at the same time the noise from the neighbour stopped for a few weeks. The poster showed a maid working at a coffeeshop saying she cannot work there, and can only do housework at the address stated on her work permit card. The owner noted if the maid was not registered to work at the flat then the couple did not lived there.
2.11 The owner then went to his first Meet-the-People Session. No MP was in at the time, and he left a letter with the member who interviewed him. HBO replied to the letter that a MP had asked HDB to look into the matter. After which, the owner saw people shifting into the flat upstair across the neighbour. On the morning of 18 Mar’08 at 10.00 am rambling noise stopped suddenly, followed by two sharp knocks and a tamp, and was quiet the rest of the day. The owner thinks it was a force-entry.
2.12 The owner wrote two letters to a MP. He made a list of all that was known to date including the force-entry. He did not included the break-in into his flat because he only suspected
it. The second letter was on noise directed at the owner to let him know they knew about the first letter. The MP said they would asked the neighbour to lower the noise, and sent the two letters as attachment to HDB. HBO replied there was no evidence the neighbour was using the flat as a workshop. If noise persisted the owner may obtained a court injunction, seek assistance from Mediation Center or Residents Committee, or called the Police. His reply was in Sep’08.
2.13 The owner next went to see another MP because he wanted the matter brought to HDB, a higher authority than the Branch Office. This was a critical period, noise was heightened, and HBO sent the OIC and RC Chairman to meet the owner before his reply a month later. The owner refused to let the OIC and a fellow officer enter his flat to check for noise, and invited the Chairman and one of his member in for a discussion. The owner had said there was noise before they came in, and if they come without the neighbour knowing they may hear some noise. Later someone sent the letter from HBO to the owner again, but attached to the letter was a blind copy addressed to the RC Chairman.
2.14 The blind copy provided information the owner had already suspected, and reinforced what he had observed about the force-entry and break-in. HBO wrote, during the joint visit with the Chairman to the house no noise was detected, and asked him to give a talk to the owner about good neighbourliness. The house referred to the flat, which was used once before to monitor the neighbour that let to four years of quiet, (Item 2.5).
2.15 Not long before the blind copy was received on Nov’08 a TV message was broadcasted one night. The voice-over stated one could write on ground of perceived injustice. The owner called and wrote to Mediacorp to obtain the address, which he had not taken note of when the message was flashed, but they did not help.
Findings
3.1 A number of events indicated there was a force-entry on 18 Mar’08:
1. The owner heard the rambling sound stopped, followed by two sharp knocks and a tamp at 10.00 am. There was quiet the rest of the day. Usually noise is many hours in the morning and afternoon.
2. In the evening of same day he met an old friend. It was not a coincident. A year later, just after the owner sent an email to PM, his old friend called over the telephone to say he was coming to meet him.
3. Two of his neighbours had smiled knowingly at the owner after the event.
4. The neighbour approached him a few days later to compromise. He would only gave his nickname.
5. The owner’s sister called to say HDB could repair the leak in his bedroom. The leak was in Jun’00 and the owner had solved it.
3.2 A confluence of events occurring before a possible break-in at the owner’s flat on 21 Jun’08:
1. The owner left the door of his flat opened to signal to the neighbour. To let them know he knew a different person was working in the flat from the different noise pattern heard. The neighbour’s wife responded by coming down the stairs loudly. The owner began writing to an MP at his study room that has line-of-sight from the flat used to monitor the neighbour.
2. The owner went out on two consecutive days in the morning and came back in the afternoon. He went to top-up his CPF on the second consecutive day, which was a Saturday. The evening when he returned home he found the lock of the door jammed. It was not his routine to go out in the morning but his routine to go out in the evening.
3. The neighbour across the owner usually go out with his family and come back at night on a Saturday. When he came back he noticed the owner had left his bag of grocery outside his door, and he came out to enquire when the owner called a locksmith and the police.
4. It was the owner routine to go out in the evening for three hours, but the Saturday he took a shorter route and came back in about an hour.
3.3 Why would they broke into the owner’s flat? The owner thinks they thought he had connection, and wanted to know more about him. For examples, someone checked out the maid referred to in his letter, took action so noise stopped for a while, and placed a poster on the noticebroad. Someone probably sent him the TV message on perceived injustice as it was well-timed. And someone sent him the blind copy that indicated a flat was used to monitor the neighbour. Also, the continuous nature of the neighbour’s works indicated a larger operation and more involvement.
3.4 HBO wrote five similar letters to the owner asking him to obtain a court injunction and other suggestions. These were in replied to letters MPs wrote to HDB and Town Council. In particular the letter written by Mr.Teo Chee Hean to Town Council, and reply from Town Council to the owner and a note to HBO. The reply was the owner would hear from HDB soon, and the note stated a copy of the letter from Mr.Teo Chee Hean was attached for his information. No one came to see the owner and HBO replied to the letter. It would seemed there were no higher authorities to refer the matter other than HBO.
3.5 In the blind copy HBO wrote to RC Chairman a sentence stated “During our house visit, there is no noise nuisance being detected.” Let assumed the place of the house visit could be outside the owner’s flat, outside or inside the neighbour’s flat, or inside the flat across the the neighbour. What would be the likelihood of each when the sentence ended with “there is no noise nuisance being detected.”? The last possibility could mean there was a noise recording device in the flat.
3.6 Although HBO wrote no noise was detected during the house visit, the owner heard incessant knocking at his study room in the morning. It was the same morning the RC Chairman and a member, who was arranged to meet him, called on the owner. There followed two days of quiet before noise started again.
3.7 Earlier before the owner received the blind copy, he noted in his first letter to a MP there were many start-and-stop attempts after the force-entry. He thinks there was a device that detect or record noise in the flat, and the people in the flat had communicated with the neighbour to reduce noise to a tolerable level.
3.8 The owner was suspicious from the OIC who telephoned and visited him many times, his meeting with HBO at the Branch Office, and when HBO sent the OIC and the RC Chairman to meet him after his meeting with a second MP. Uniform men, matron, maid, change of person and use of food delivery service at the neighbour’s flat indicated they do not have legitimate purpose. They would made noise to let the owner know they knew about letters sent to the MPs. When asked, they would lower the noise for a day or two, but works continued amidst the complaints and have not stop.
3.9 So far as the owner could tells the items they work-on are small, and could be easily concealed in a bag. The heavy tamp and rambling noise are from machine-tools. Other noises heard are knock, drag, rustle and whine. Draining is heard from water used. The noisy drainpipe at the service lobby is caused by a narrowed pipe due to deposits accumulated over the years.
3.10 The works could be continuous through the day and night. Light knocking early in the morning to final drain late at night. Most of the noise are in the morning and afternoon for many hours. A change of person was also seen.
3.11 After the last meeting with a MP, who said he would meet HBO the next day, noise was reduced. The owner still hears muffled tamp, heavy sound, knocking and draining consistent with works being carried out.
3.12 HBO had a posting on car parking at CNA Forums, which the owner found odd from the page layout. Was it intended for him not to enter into discussion at the forums showed on the page? The owner had enquired about the TV message at Mediacorp and talked to his friend about it, but it was without success either.
Conclusions
4.1 There were two lines missing from the signed acknowlegdement. The two lines referred to noise just after the OIC’s visit, and no noise for two weeks before the OIC’s visit. The owner had enquired about the handwritten letter, which they did not received, and had handed over a handwritten copy at the HDB Branch Office. If he had not photocopied another he would not have the evidence.
4.2 The blind copy written by HBO to RC Chairman indicated a flat was used to monitor the neighbour. The owner saw people shifting into the flat, and heard a force-entry into the neighbour’s flat. There were other signs of a force-entry.
4.3 The owner had assumed the maid was not registered to work in the flat. He could be right as the maid was no longer seen except for one day on Lunar New Year ’08. (The maid working in the flat was a substitude for the noise that went on before.) Since the maid was with them, it showed the neigbour did not lived in the flat. It tied in with the fact their flat could had been put up for sale one year earlier, and the preceding four years was quiet.
4.4 The neighbour is carrying on a trade from the types of noise, duration and change of person noted. The owner complained about the same group of people in Dec’98 and from Jun’07 currently. He and his mother had recognised persons before and after the eviction in Mar’99, and rambling and heavy tamping were similar types of noise made.
4.5 Observations made by the owner should be checked for accuracy. Examples could be noisy drainpipe at the service lobby, neighbours who may know about the force-entry, the TV message, and his comments on personnel and the neighbour in his letters . Earlier examples could be whether there was eviction, date of eviction and transfer of ownership, and was there a warning given to the present owner before the current complaint.
4.6 The owner requested a number of times for the MPs to write to HDB, a higher authority than the Branch Office. Town Council made a special effort because the owner was asked whether someone came to see him, but HBO replied to this and other letters sent to HDB. During the owner’s last meeting at the Meet-the-People Session the MP said he would meet HBO the next day, and noise was reduced. The owner presumed the MP had a message for HBO.
4.7 If there was a device used to detect or record noise in the flat, it would had been a deterrence. The blind copy could indicate there was a recording device, and the owner was puzzled at first when he heard five start-and-stop attempts.
4.8 The owner have some supports from MPs, people from the Meet-the-People Session and others. Some of the people he knows, some he does not.
4.9 The reader will have to decide whether there was a force-entry and a break-in given the circumstances.
Recommendations
An article in the Business Times on 22 May’09 may be related to Item 3.4, and the posting at http://civicadvocator.net/category/forem on 11 May’09. “Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said that the government is on the lookout for ‘bold and visionary’ leaders and people who can adapt to changing environments.” and “the government would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments.”
The neighbour is part of a larger operation, and profit is the motive; the works they carried out could be easily concealed, and noise affected the household below them. If HDB do not take action no one could.
