WP to use part of paid S&CC to reimburse Parkland’s developer

SINGAPORE — The service and conservancy charges (S&CC) paid by residents at Parkland Residences over a seven-month period, when they and the developer had to clean the common areas themselves, will be partly used to reimburse the developer, said Workers’ Party chief Low Thia Khiang in a letter to the residents dated Tuesday.

He added that the town council would scrutinise the justification of the reimbursement claims from the developer, Kwan Hwee Investment. Part of the money collected from S&CC charges will also have to be transferred to Aljunied-Hougang-Punggol East Town Council’s (AHPETC) sinking fund under the Town Councils Act, said Mr Low in the letter.

Speaking to TODAY before his Meet-the-People session yesterday, Mr Low said he felt it was fair for the developer to seek reimbursement “since it had been maintaining the place”.

Adding that he was not aware of any official claims submitted by the developer, he said: “Where it’s justifiable, we’ll be prepared to pay them. We have to look at what is claimed and scrutinise it. We can’t just pay like that because this is residents’ money ... We also have to abide by financial rules to make sure there are proper invoices and proper approval.”

Mr Low’s comments came after TODAY reported last week about an impasse involving AHPETC and the Housing and Development Board (HDB) over maintenance documents, which had led to the town council refusing to take over the maintenance of the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) project in Upper Serangoon Road.

The gridlock has been resolved and since the start of this month, AHPETC has been cleaning and maintaining the property’s common areas as required under the Town Councils Act.

However, residents have questioned the need for AHPETC to collect S&CC charges for the period between November and last month. Some residents had continued to pay the charges, although others had stopped doing so as a matter of principle.

The developer also told TODAY earlier that it would be seeking reimbursement for the expenses it had incurred for temporarily taking care of the common areas. It declined to respond yesterday on how much reimbursement it would be asking for and when it would be filing the claims with the town council.

Residents interviewed generally felt it was reasonable for AHPETC to reimburse the developer, but some said the town council should not be using the S&CC charges paid by residents to do so. In fact, it would be unfair to those who had paid, given that others had not, they said.

A 37-year-old resident, who asked to be known only as Ms Teo, said: “If it wants to reimburse the developer, that is between the town council and developer — it shouldn’t be using the S&CC charges because this is the money residents paid the town council for its services ... The town council did not deliver the services.”

Ms Teo, who works in the information technology industry, said she had been paying S&CC charges regularly since November. “There are some who didn’t pay S&CC charges at all ... so what about those (residents)?” She has been collecting signatures from residents asking for AHPETC to refund the S&CC charges collected. So far, about 100 residents have given their signatures.

Another resident, Mr Lew S K, a 52-year-old engineer, said: “It’s not fair because (the work done by) the developer’s cleaners isn’t (of) the same standard as (that done by) the town council’s cleaners.”

Still, there were residents who brushed off the issue, such as a 42-year-old store assistant who wished to be known only as Mr Lee. He has been paying S&CC charges regularly since the start of the year. “We don’t nit-pick over such stuff. There were cleaners doing their job any way.”

On whether AHPETC intends to claw back S&CC charges from residents who did not pay, Mr Low said the town council would “look at all the cases”. “I suppose residents know they have to pay us S&CC ... Whatever it is, I think we’ll have to take a look at some of them. I think either they overlooked or the town council did not communicate with them, because we had not taken over. We’ll write to them in due course to resolve the issue.”