Help! Can I Cancel Reno Agreement ?

[Renovictim 0]

A summary to my previous post.

Seems like quote commmands did not work for me...

1) I agree on legal clinics, but unfortuantely there are few. Not many people have lawyers as friends.

2) Agreed.

3) Case, Radac and the Mediation Centre are all avenues for the people to seek redress without having to resort to expensive legal action.

4)Yes most people will get turned off (contractors) and there are of course other forms of approach. But for me, hard evidence is important. Keeping a log of progress helps as well.

As for the contract that you have mentioned, it is very unlikely that they will find such a contract.

And yes, please do not pay deposits at renovation fairs.

5) Agreed.

Edited October 21, 2007 by Renovictim

[waileong 0]

3) Case, Radac and the Mediation Centre are all avenues for the people to seek redress without having to resort to expensive legal action.

Your original point is that Case, Radac, BCA, CAD, etc. know of all these shady contractors yet refuse to do anything. And it seems that you expect them to take proactive and preventive action since you claim they know about all these for years.

In my view, taking "proactive" action is not what Case, Radac, BCA, CAD, etc. are set out to do. As you said later, they are helpful in seeking redress, which is something that they can do after someone has a dispute. That's definitely not a proactive or preventive action.

As you well know, govt agencies can only act according to the statute that empowers them, and they usually investigate only when there is a complaint. A contractual dispute is unlikely to be a criminal matter and thus will not likely be acted upon by govt agencies. That's what the civil courts are for.

Maybe Case and Radac can take proactive actions, such as endorsing certain contractors and coming up with acceditation schemes, etc. However, as you know these are voluntary and limited in their effectiveness. In other words, there's no requirement for a contractor to join Radac, and you can't prevent someone from engaging a non-Radac contractor, etc.

In other words, I do not agree with you that BCA, CAD, etc. know about these things for so many years and refuse to do anything. The fact of the matter is, it's not their job to do these things. In some cases, it's not even relevant for them (eg BCA's job is building safety, it has nothing to do with reno disputes).

We should reflect on the deeper meaning of caveat emptor. It means "buyer beware". At a more fundamental level, it means you take your own risks when you contract with someone. And since you take your own risks, you have to put in your own risk mitigation measures and you have to deal with the consequences should the risks materialise.

No one else is responsible but you. Hence, "buyer beware"-- because no one else can help you.

Edited October 21, 2007 by waileong

[Renovictim 0]

Your original point is that Case, Radac, BCA, CAD, etc. know of all these shady contractors yet refuse to do anything. And it seems that you expect them to take proactive and preventive action since you claim they know about all these for years.

In my view, taking "proactive" action is not what Case, Radac, BCA, CAD, etc. are set out to do. As you said later, they are helpful in seeking redress, which is something that they can do after someone has a dispute. That's definitely not a proactive or preventive action.

As you well know, govt agencies can only act according to the statute that empowers them, and they usually investigate only when there is a complaint. A contractual dispute is unlikely to be a criminal matter and thus will not likely be acted upon by govt agencies. That's what the civil courts are for.

Maybe Case and Radac can take proactive actions, such as endorsing certain contractors and coming up with acceditation schemes, etc. However, as you know these are voluntary and limited in their effectiveness. In other words, there's no requirement for a contractor to join Radac, and you can't prevent someone from engaging a non-Radac contractor, etc.

In other words, I do not agree with you that BCA, CAD, etc. know about these things for so many years and refuse to do anything. The fact of the matter is, it's not their job to do these things. In some cases, it's not even relevant for them (eg BCA's job is building safety, it has nothing to do with reno disputes).

My feel is that they should be taking a pro-active role in having legislation or guidelines laid out.

The government has done such pro-active roles on more than one occasion and I do not see why they cannot do the same for the renovation industry which is so loosely regulated.

En-Bloc sales was something they recently took a pro-active approach in addressing the issue of en-bloc sales.

Unfortunately not all home owners have the necessary knowledge equipped and in order for holes to be plugged, the respective agencies have to come together and help regulate this particular industry.

They can be further empowered. Accredition can be made compulsory instead of voluntary.

Nonetheless, this is my last post with regards to this matter as it will not affect the approach of the respective agencies.

[waileong 0]

And rightly so. Less regulation should be done, rather than more. Singapore is already known as the place where people expect the govt to spoonfeed them, and expect the govt to step in whenever something goes wrong.

The list of industries with bad apples is tremendously long-- used car dealers, timeshare companies, property agents, travel agents, etc. How can one single out the reno industry alone?

In the case of enbloc, they came out with a set of procedures, but there's no regulation of the market players, ie a company does not have to be licensed to participate in the market. I think it was driven by political considerations (ie to allay the many disgruntled homeowners) and also a social/political consideration (to stem the runaway enbloc prices).

Regulation is always a difficult question, the govt has to balance the social cost of regulation vs the its pro-business stance, the political impact of regulation, benefits vs cost, etc. Where regulation has been applied, our govt has always tried very hard for it to be pro-business, eg. safety regulations, environmental standards, minimum paid-up capital, security bond requirements, etc. but generally not interfering in how contracts are structured between market participants.

Edited October 21, 2007 by waileong

[zirhk3355 1]

And rightly so. Less regulation should be done, rather than more. Singapore is already known as the place where people expect the govt to spoonfeed them, and expect the govt to step in whenever something goes wrong.

One of the few occasions that I would agree with you.

Let's not forget also that the Singaporeans asking for protection and spoonfeeding from the government are also the same people who lambaste our systems for being too rigid, "Law By Law", no democracy, no media freedom, etc.

Classic example of wanting the whole cake and eat it too.

[Cantona7 0]

I think we are abit sidetrack then to help Dreamgirl

[totomaster 0]

I have been in this situation few months back. Same amount of deposit and I hope not the same company as the thread starter. I also signed up during the expo. It was a very stupid mistake for a first time flat owner like me. ID abused us a lot in terms of delaying the quotation. Most of the prices also been blowned up. I almost give up after most of my friends told me that I can no longer get the deposit. The ID even threatened us saying that the drawings had been done which I definitely believe is a lie. To our surprise, when I called the big boss of the ID firm, the boss immediately refund my money and even told me that he will confront the ID on what he had done. That's customer service. I salute to big boss that they do not tolerate their ID on these things.

[waileong 0]

I think we are abit sidetrack then to help Dreamgirl

The advice has already been given.