December 13, 2008 by admin
Filed
under: The New
Paper
New Paper,
13 Dec 2008
New
Paper link
BEING home again
after a two-month trip to Malaysia was not so sweet for Mr Francis
Tan.
First, he could not
get into his one-room flat in Toa Payoh because the lock had been
changed.
Then, he learnt
that it was mosquito-busters who had done it, as authorised under
the law.
They
had broken in to check for mosquito breeding, after failing several
time to gain entry.
Mr
Tan went to the National Environment Agency (NEA) to collect the
key to get in.
That was when he found his
toilet cistern damaged. Water was gushing out. And
the toilet was in a mess.
But
worse was to follow a month later — the 71-year-old retiree
ended up with a $1,200 water bill.
So,
what led to the escape of water over an extended period?
Mr Tan
claimed that all was in order when he left for his holiday at the
end of May.
He thinks it was the
intrusion by NEA officers that could have triggered the
leak.
They
were the only ones who were in his flat when he was away, he
claimed.
When contacted by
The New Paper, NEA said its inspection team was not
negligent.
Under the Control
of Vectors and Pesticides Act, authorised officers may enter any
premises to survey, inspect, search or execute any works stated by
the Act.
Mr
Tan, a divorcee who has been living alone in the flat for the past
two years, does not dispute NEA’s right to break into his
flat.
The
NEA said it had tried informing Mr Tan of its visit.
Mr
Tan showed The New Paper an NEA notice, dated 20 Jun, which arrived
about a month after he had left to visit friends in
Malaysia.
The
notice said its officers had made a ‘few visits’ to Mr Tan’s flat
but no one was home.
It
asked for Mr Tan to be at home from 10am to noon the next day for
the inspection.
When
Mr Tan returned on 30 Jul, he found a notice on the door that said
NEA officers had entered his flat on 26 Jun to check for mosquito
breeding following cases of dengue fever in the
neighbourhood.
The
officers did not find any signs of mosquito breeding.
After they entered
the flat, they replaced the padlock for the metal gate. The notice
asked Mr Tan to collect the key from the NEA Central Regional
Office in Bukit Merah.
After collecting
the key, Mr Tan returned to find another notice outside his flat,
this time from the national water agency PUB.
It
said a PUB officer was at his home earlier to check his water meter
and found ‘high water consumption’.
The
notice read: ‘We found that the dial of the water meter serving
your premises was moving even though no one was in. As this could
be due to a leak in your plumbing, you are advised to check for
leakage.’
As a
precaution, the PUB had turned off his water mains.
When
Mr Tan turned the mains on, he found water leaking from the cistern
in his bathroom.
He
recalled: ‘When I lifted the cover of the cistern to check, one of
the pipes inside was bent sideways. The water was flowing out like
a tap. I ran out to turn the mains off.’
He
said the floor around the kitchen was also dirty and
messy.
He
contacted NEA the next day.
Over
the next few days, he had to manually flush the toilet by pouring
water into the toilet bowl.
On 2
Aug, a plumber from the Housing Board (HDB) came to fix the
cistern. But it did not end there.
In
September, Mr Tan received his utilities bill for August from SP
Services.
The
water bill, which he showed us, was for more than $1,200 — about
$900 for water and more than $300 for water conservation
tax.
‘I
was shocked. I had expected the water bill to come up to no more
than $200 (even with the leakage),’ Mr Tan said.
The
bar graph for past consumption that was printed on the bill also
showed a sharp spike upwards for water consumption in
August.
He
said he usually pays about $5 a month for water. He showed us
copies of his previous utilities bills as proof.
Could he have left
a tap running when he left for his holiday?
He said: ‘I’m very
cautious when it comes to using water and
electricity.’
Was
the damage man-made? The New Paper tried contacting the plumber,
but he could not be reached.
Mr Tan has so far refused to pay
the $1,200 bill. He said he did not have the means to pay
even if he wanted to.
‘Would I be living
in a one-room flat if I could pay?’
He now faces the
prospect of having his utilities supply cut
off.
In
mid-October, he received a reminder notice from SP
Services.
Later that month,
another notice informed Mr Tan that his utilities supply may be cut
off if he does not pay by 6 Nov.
So
far, the supply has not been stopped.
Mr
Tan said he has called and written to NEA several times. He showed
us three replies from NEA, denying responsibility.
NEA’s latest reply
to him, dated 15 Oct, said that its officers had entered Mr Tan’s
house ‘in the presence of two police officers and two Resident’s
Committee members’.
It said that NEA is
‘unable to accept
that the water leakage and (Mr Tan’s) high utilities bill were a
result of our entry into (his) flat’.
Mr
Tan is sticking to his guns and refusing to pay the
bill.
‘I
will let (my utilities supply) be cut off (if it has to
be).’
ITS
inspection officers were not to blame for Mr Tan’s high water bill,
an NEA spokesman told The New Paper.
‘Our
investigations show that there is nothing to suggest any negligence
or fault on the part of NEA’s inspection team,’ the spokesman
said.
‘The
leak could have been a latent or pre-existing condition and it may
have gone unnoticed by our team or occurred later due to fair wear
and tear.’
NEA
officers had carried out checks for mosquito breeding on flats at
Blocks 163, 168, 170 and 174, Lorong1 Toa Payoh from 3 Jun onwards
due to a dengue fever outbreak in the area (there were 45 cases
from 3 Jun to 22 Jul).
The
spokesman said Mr Tan’s flat at Block 170 was among 12 flats the
officers could not inspect despite notices being left for the
owners.
Notices were left
outside Mr Tan’s flat on 20 and 22Jun.
Said
the spokesman: ‘As there was still no response from Mr Tan and in
light of the increasing number of dengue fever cases in the area,
we were compelled to invoke Section 36 of the Control of Vectors
and Pesticides Act to (enter) Mr Tan’s flat.’
They
did it ‘with the assistance of a locksmith and in the presence of
police officers and grassroots leaders’.
‘We
had lifted the cover of the toilet cistern to check for mosquito
breeding and then added granular insecticide into the cistern,’ the
spokesman said.
The
officers had not damaged any property inside Mr Tan’s
flat.
But
the NEA spokesman said that ‘in light of the circumstances and on
compassionate ground’, NEA is considering helping Mr Tan to settle
his water bill, and will be in touch with him.
END-MAY: Mr Tan
leaves for Malaysia.
20-21 JUN: NEA
officers try to check on mosquito breeding at Mr Tan’s flat, leave
notices to say they will return.
26 JUN: NEA
officers enter flat. They leave notice to inform Mr Tan of their
entry. They replace padlock on his gate.
30 JUL: Mr Tan
returns from M’sia, gets key from NEA office. PUB officer leaves
notice at flat about high water consumption. Mr Tan goes home, sees
notice, finds water leaking from cistern.
31 JUL: Mr Tan
reports leaking cistern to HDB.
2 AUG: Plumber
from HDB fixes cistern.
EARLY SEPT: Mr
Tan gets August utilities bill of more than $1,200.
31 JUL-24 NOV: Mr
Tan calls and writes to NEA six times. NEA replies, denies
responsiblity for water leakage and high bill.
A
normal cistern or toilet tank has two main mechanisms to ensure it
does not overflow: The overflow pipe, and the float ball and
valve.
OVERFLOW
PIPE
Directs water from
tank into the toilet bowl when there is too much water in the
tank
FLOAT
BALL
Rises as water
level in tank rises. Closes the fill valve when the tank reaches
its maximum water level limit
PISTON
Connected to flush
lever. Releases water into toilet bowl when lever is pushed He said
one of the pipes inside his cistern was bent sideways.
Old
valves may fail to close tightly, which may result in continued
water flow into tank
Dented or damaged
overflow pipe may fail to direct overflow water into toilet
bowl
Punctured or
damaged float ball may keep valve from closing properly
Source:
http://www.sgpolitics.net/?p=1550#more-1550
