HDB's mistake but she's made to pay - 4 years later

last SG · 2008-01-15T19:10:04+00:00

yes, i'm supposed to take an argument coming from a man who has to pull off topic references to support his point every other sentence seriously. You know,...

shade343 SG

The payment and contract are not mutually exclusive. I believe the woman would have to hand over her keys to the stall and sign a contract ac before the 18k can be credited to her account.

Like I said, the 18k never was an outright gift. Its an offer made to the woman in exchange for giving up her stall.

It is wrong for deathbait to describe the woman as scheming when she is innocent and has fulfilled her part of the bargain.

If HDB desires the 18k back, its only right that they enter into another negotiation with the woman.

will4 SG

Those NSF really hate to complete the service, some AWOL to other countries.

fymk SG

She had her pride and I am not about to argue with that pride. It was her problem , she solved it herself. That's something she was always proud of. What's so wrong with that?

At least she doesn't expect others to clean up her mess.

deathbait SG

If you do not wish for me to use your grandmother as an example, kindly refrain from using it yourself. You do not enter a debate with the clause "i can use this to prove my point, but i suggest you don't try to pick it apart". But I'll respect your request to get off her back.

As for the daughter, I'm not sure if debt is passed on. This is actually an interesting question. Is any debt really passed on by law on death? Still, saying her daughter has nothing to do with it is probably presumptuous. After all, if the TODAY article is to be believed, the daughter was the one who came up with the suggestion after all.

fymk SG

Yes but that doesn't mean that an organisation should hound the lady demanding that she pay 18k in 3-6 months. As we can see from what was posted , she is quite willing to pay it off through working again. It is just unreasonable to expect them to fork up 18k . A mistake is made but that doesn't mean another could be committed . Two lefts don't make a right.

deathbait SG

This post begs the question. We're assuming the woman was innocent. It's not like we've never dealt with bureaucrats before. If they want money from you, they won't stop sending you letters. The benefit of doubt therefore should like with the HDB, and not the woman. If the woman had indeed ignored HDB's letters, would you not agree this was scheming?

fymk SG

You pick it apart but you just don't see the point - she paid her debt up on her own choice or what we call negotiation by force . Instead you choose to call her an old lady who played on sympathy for personal gain which is way far from the truth. If she got the debt waived , then she has gained something but she paid her debt up so how can that even be a gain?

The daughter suggested that the mother retire but the choice is made by her mother. So how could you factor in the daughter for that?

Under the current tribunal laws, the debt problem - I cannot be too sure if the debt is passed on to the daughter . I know medical bills can be passed on to children.

deathbait SG

Actually, her children have agreed to pay it off. The debate here actually started with ppl convinced she shouldn't pay AT ALL. Which was the part where I jumped in.

maurizio13 SG

In my opinion, HDB screwed up, they realised their mistake recently and tried to force squeeze the money out of the old lady.

fymk SG

She should pay but at her own time in consideration of her age. She is not some spritely 20 year old who could run off and find a job.

I think HDB was abit much in the sense that they gave her 21 days or 3-6 months to pay up a huge sum of money like that.

What happens if her children can't pay up at all? Or what happens if she doesn't have any children?

deathbait SG

Like i just said. If you do not wish for me to pick apart your grandmother's case, kindly do not bring it up as a point in a debate. If you so wish to continue talking about your grandmother, it would be extremely silly of me not to respond in kind.

Debts are debts. Doesn't matter if anyone is innocent. It's the way the system works. Our musings of whether the daughter is involved in this is purely philosophical. I'm still unsure if the debt will be passed on. Anyone with experience care to chime in?

deathbait SG

in which case i'm sure they would have agreed at a different compromise.

you will realise that this agreement was struck after considering all conditions?

shade343 SG

Really? If bureaucrats were that efficient, how is it possible it took them 4 years to contact the woman?-and mind you, we live in a small island where all our contacts are available easily. If they couldnt contact her, they could have contact her daughters or other relatives as well.

ALso,why is the NEA involved in this matter as well? If they were efficient, this matter should have been avoided all together.

It is fair to assume that somebody in HDB obviously didnt do their job properly. Having establish the above reasons, the benefit of the doubt lies with the poor old lady.

fymk SG

Being old and experienced as you claim to be , surely you must know how diplomacy can work. You were too high handed in the way you judged her situation. There are things to be said and there are things that should not be strongly said without basis. If you had asked for information before you pronounce your judgement , I would have nothing to say now.

shade343 SG

Why should she payback when its HDB who is trying to renege on the deal?

fymk SG

That's what you get for multi million dollar salaried ministers.

maurizio13 SG

Ermmm....

Whether that $18,000 is classified as a debt is a judgement for the courts. Right now, we can't even be certain that the contract is valid.

If you read my Landlord and Tenant Act from the UK, there is no right for the landlord to evict / not to renew lease for the tenant unless certain conditions are met. There is compensation for the non-renewal of lease.

Then there is the case for "undue influence" based on the age of the old lady.

All these points are still questionable and you can still be certain that it's a debt.

sir_peanuts SG

if this were another country, mah bow tan would have been sacked.

lagrangian1125 SG

No worries....ur reputation is good. Ppl will show u face one. See....till now they are still arguing tactfully without the use of vulgarities. So, no worries... Very Happy

lagrangian1125 SG

Hi all, lets put aside sympathy and "the govt always at fault" mentality and analyze this case proper.

The newspaper states
"Upgrading works were in the pipeline, and stallholders had three options: They could give up their stalls, move to a temporary market across the road or set up shop at another location."

"At her daughter's urging, Mdm Lee surrendered her stall in October 2003, in return for $18,000 in compensation from the Housing and Development Board (HDB)."

"It cited a clause in an agreement Mdm Lee had signed in 1993 that said she would not be entitled to any compensation for the stall."

It is pretty obvious that the old lady did not read her agreement. If in doubt, she can always seek legal advice.

However, if one were to think logically, when one is asked to give up his/her stall, the 1st thing that come to mind should be compensation!

So, how could she miss out such an important clause??! Putting aside the doubts on the honesty of the old lady and her daughter, if they fail to notice the clause, then, in the eyes of the law, they failed to comply to the contract.

Of course, the HDM is screwed up to allow such a mistake to occur. But the old lady noticing that an extra 18k was suddenly deposited in her bank ,she should find something amiss.

Why? In the agreement, since the clause no compensation for the stall was in, there should not be a clause stating an 18K will be reimburse into her bank, so she should not even expect any money.

With an extra 18k in bank, and a monthly letter from the bank, it is obvious that the HDB has accidentally added that money.

It is the duty of everyone to return this kind of money. It is PUBLIC MONEY.

I have my own reservation about the old lady and daughter honesty but that is another matter.

The HBD has to send letter like "The letter, dated Monday, also stated that payment had to be made within 21 days, "failing which we have instructions to commence legal action without further reference"." TO PREVENT PPL IGNORING THEIR REQUEST.

Imagine if the letter is like "no legal action will be taken but pls kindly return us our money. Do u think anyone will return the money after reading this kind of letter??

The paper also states "She can contact us for assistance if she has difficulties in returning the money, " it added." ... so things can be negotiated.

Hence, it is irrelevant for ppl here to argue that the HDB is uncompromising.

I do agree that the mistake HDB made is silly, and I feel the person who make this mistake must be punish by HDB.

However, dragging the whole govt in seems a little too absurd since they do not make the mistake themselves.

Afterall, which employer dare say the employee they employ will never make any mistake.

« Previous Page Next Page »