and now, you have to drag the whole salary increment, the gst
increase into this small matter, can you for once in your freaking
life, make any sense at all,
If you can't open up your eyes and see, how about this?
FORMER hawker Mdm Lee Ah Muey, 75, wishes she could turn back time
and perhaps reverse a decision that has led to an $18,000
headache.
.
Four years ago, she gave up her stall selling clothes at Hougang
Ave 1 hawker centre. 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).
.
Then, last September, an officer from the National Environment
Agency (NEA) came knocking.
.
The officer informed the widowed mother of five that the HDB had
made a mistake with the payout and the money had to be returned.
According to the board, its earlier attempts to contact her since
2004 had failed.
.
Earlier this week, the letter of demand from the HDB arrived.
.
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.
.
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".
.
Ms Gina Lau regrets the advice she gave to her mother, who would
have preferred to continue working to keep herself busy. "If HDB
had told us earlier, I wouldn't have asked her to give up the
stall," said the 46-year-old insurance agent.
.
"We understand a mistake has been made but why did they take so
long to find out? And they should give us alternatives, instead of
just the letter of demand."
.
In response to Today's queries, however, the HDB said that since
2004, it had sent several letters and gone to Mdm Lee's home to
inform her to return the $18,000, an ex gratia payment given in
respect of the loss of her stall. "However, all the attempts to
contact Mdm Lee were futile," said a spokesperson.
.
The HDB only finally managed to get in touch with her in September
last year.
.
The board also said Mdm Lee had not indicated any difficulty in
returning the money when its officers visited her.
.
"She can contact us for assistance if she has difficulties in
returning the money," it added.
.
Ms Lau said she and her siblings can put together the $18,000 and
they "don't mind paying" but there is a twist.
.
She hopes that the NEA, at the same time, can help secure a new
stall for her mother at the refurbished hawker centre, "as my
mother's friends are all there".
.
The reason? Mdm Lee still enjoys "selling things", even though she
does not need to work. Her five children earn enough to support her
and home is a semi-detached house near Bartley Road paid for by a
relative years ago.
.
"I don't like to stay at home. I didn't want to give up the stall
in the first place," said the widow.
.
According to lawyers whom Today interviewed, money paid out by
mistake is claimable by law.
.
In cases where an innocent mistake is made and "there is an
unexpected beneficiary to the mistake, the usual process is for the
paying party to explain the situation and to make a claim", said
lawyer Kirpal Singh. But a discount or a longer period for payment
may be given, particularly if the "innocent receiving party did not
exercise any criminal intent in acquiring the monies in the first
place", he added.
.
A recent high-profile case of mistaken compensation was the court
battle between the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore
(IDA) and SingTel in 2002, when IDA sued SingTel for the return of
$388 million. The money was part of a $1.5 billion compensation sum
for the early opening of the telco market to competition, and was
for a tax that SingTel never had to pay.
.
The judge ruled that SingTel was entitled to keep the entire sum of
IDA's compensation.
.
In a case like Mdm Lee's, Mr Singh said that one possible defence
in court is change-of-position.
.
"If the woman can show she is no longer in possession of the monies
or is no longer in a position to return the monies for example,
if she is bankrupt then the claim would be defeated," he said. 4
years later, ex-stallholder learns she must return sum
Neo Chai Chin
[email protected]
FORMER hawker Mdm Lee Ah Muey, 75, wishes she could turn back time
and perhaps reverse a decision that has led to an $18,000
headache.
.
Four years ago, she gave up her stall selling clothes at Hougang
Ave 1 hawker centre. 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).
.
Then, last September, an officer from the National Environment
Agency (NEA) came knocking.
.
The officer informed the widowed mother of five that the HDB had
made a mistake with the payout and the money had to be returned.
According to the board, its earlier attempts to contact her since
2004 had failed.
.
Earlier this week, the letter of demand from the HDB arrived.
.
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.
.
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".
.
Ms Gina Lau regrets the advice she gave to her mother, who would
have preferred to continue working to keep herself busy. "If HDB
had told us earlier, I wouldn't have asked her to give up the
stall," said the 46-year-old insurance agent.
.
"We understand a mistake has been made but why did they take so
long to find out? And they should give us alternatives, instead of
just the letter of demand."
.
In response to Today's queries, however, the HDB said that since
2004, it had sent several letters and gone to Mdm Lee's home to
inform her to return the $18,000, an ex gratia payment given in
respect of the loss of her stall. "However, all the attempts to
contact Mdm Lee were futile," said a spokesperson.
.
The HDB only finally managed to get in touch with her in September
last year.
.
The board also said Mdm Lee had not indicated any difficulty in
returning the money when its officers visited her.
.
"She can contact us for assistance if she has difficulties in
returning the money," it added.
.
Ms Lau said she and her siblings can put together the $18,000 and
they "don't mind paying" but there is a twist.
.
She hopes that the NEA, at the same time, can help secure a new
stall for her mother at the refurbished hawker centre, "as my
mother's friends are all there".
.
The reason? Mdm Lee still enjoys "selling things", even though she
does not need to work. Her five children earn enough to support her
and home is a semi-detached house near Bartley Road paid for by a
relative years ago.
.
"I don't like to stay at home. I didn't want to give up the stall
in the first place," said the widow.
.
According to lawyers whom Today interviewed, money paid out by
mistake is claimable by law.
.
In cases where an innocent mistake is made and "there is an
unexpected beneficiary to the mistake, the usual process is for the
paying party to explain the situation and to make a claim", said
lawyer Kirpal Singh. But a discount or a longer period for payment
may be given, particularly if the "innocent receiving party did not
exercise any criminal intent in acquiring the monies in the first
place", he added.
.
A recent high-profile case of mistaken compensation was the court
battle between the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore
(IDA) and SingTel in 2002, when IDA sued SingTel for the return of
$388 million. The money was part of a $1.5 billion compensation sum
for the early opening of the telco market to competition, and was
for a tax that SingTel never had to pay.
.
The judge ruled that SingTel was entitled to keep the entire sum of
IDA's compensation.
.
In a case like Mdm Lee's, Mr Singh said that one possible defence
in court is change-of-position.
.
"If the woman can show she is no longer in possession of the monies
or is no longer in a position to return the monies for example,
if she is bankrupt then the claim would be defeated," he said. 4
years later, ex-stallholder learns she must return sum
Neo Chai Chin
[email protected]
FORMER hawker Mdm Lee Ah Muey, 75, wishes she could turn back time
and perhaps reverse a decision that has led to an $18,000
headache.
.
Four years ago, she gave up her stall selling clothes at Hougang
Ave 1 hawker centre. 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).
.
Then, last September, an officer from the National Environment
Agency (NEA) came knocking.
.
The officer informed the widowed mother of five that the HDB had
made a mistake with the payout and the money had to be returned.
According to the board, its earlier attempts to contact her since
2004 had failed.
.
Earlier this week, the letter of demand from the HDB arrived.
.
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.
.
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".
.
Ms Gina Lau regrets the advice she gave to her mother, who would
have preferred to continue working to keep herself busy. "If HDB
had told us earlier, I wouldn't have asked her to give up the
stall," said the 46-year-old insurance agent.
.
"We understand a mistake has been made but why did they take so
long to find out? And they should give us alternatives, instead of
just the letter of demand."
.
In response to Today's queries, however, the HDB said that since
2004, it had sent several letters and gone to Mdm Lee's home to
inform her to return the $18,000, an ex gratia payment given in
respect of the loss of her stall. "However, all the attempts to
contact Mdm Lee were futile," said a spokesperson.
.
The HDB only finally managed to get in touch with her in September
last year.
.
The board also said Mdm Lee had not indicated any difficulty in
returning the money when its officers visited her.
.
"She can contact us for assistance if she has difficulties in
returning the money," it added.
.
Ms Lau said she and her siblings can put together the $18,000 and
they "don't mind paying" but there is a twist.
.
She hopes that the NEA, at the same time, can help secure a new
stall for her mother at the refurbished hawker centre, "as my
mother's friends are all there".
.
The reason? Mdm Lee still enjoys "selling things", even though she
does not need to work. Her five children earn enough to support her
and home is a semi-detached house near Bartley Road paid for by a
relative years ago.
.
"I don't like to stay at home. I didn't want to give up the stall
in the first place," said the widow.
.
According to lawyers whom Today interviewed, money paid out by
mistake is claimable by law.
.
In cases where an innocent mistake is made and "there is an
unexpected beneficiary to the mistake, the usual process is for the
paying party to explain the situation and to make a claim", said
lawyer Kirpal Singh. But a discount or a longer period for payment
may be given, particularly if the "innocent receiving party did not
exercise any criminal intent in acquiring the monies in the first
place", he added.
.
A recent high-profile case of mistaken compensation was the court
battle between the Infocomm Development Authority of Singapore
(IDA) and SingTel in 2002, when IDA sued SingTel for the return of
$388 million. The money was part of a $1.5 billion compensation sum
for the early opening of the telco market to competition, and was
for a tax that SingTel never had to pay.
.
The judge ruled that SingTel was entitled to keep the entire sum of
IDA's compensation.
.
In a case like Mdm Lee's, Mr Singh said that one possible defence
in court is change-of-position.
.
"If the woman can show she is no longer in possession of
the monies or is no longer in a position to return the monies for
example, if she is bankrupt then the claim would be defeated," he
said.