Recovering investment money can be arduous

Posted on 8 May 2015 | Comments Off on Recovering investment money can be arduous

Singaporeans who have invested in overseas properties but ran into problems are finding it tough to get their money back, as filing legal complaints against foreign developers is hard due to the unfamiliar rules abroad, revealed media reports.

Moreover, class action suits tend to drag on if all the claimants do not agree on decisions, said an attorney who is working with several clients to recover their monies from foreign developers, including EcoHouse.

Reportedly, the property firm promised a return of 20 percent for a 12-month contract with a minimum investment amount of £23,000 (S$46,467) per Brazilian housing unit. However, many investors have yet to receive their capital or the promised returns.

In another case, his clients invested around US$20,000 (S$40,398) in a US property fund, but the returns have yet to materialise.

Despite the arduous process of filing legal complaints against foreign entities, Singaporeans can turn to the Council for Estate Agencies (CEA) for cases involving local agents who have marketed foreign properties.

According to CEA, estate agents and salespeople must adhere to the Estate Agents Act when marketing overseas properties in Singapore. Those who flout the rules could receive a warning letter, pay a fine, or have their licence suspended depending on the severity of the crime.

On average, the agency receives 800 complaints each year. Specifically, there were nine complaints involving foreign property purchases from 2013 until now. These include delayed construction, winding-up of foreign developers and loss of entire deposits after cancelling the transaction. However, CEA did not reveal the outcome of the complaints.

Based on data from the Monetary Authority of Singapore (MAS), the estimated losses stemming from such cases are not small, considering that foreign property transactions surged from S$1.9 billion in 2012 to S$3 billion the following year, before easing to S$1.1 billion in the first half of 2014.

Furthermore, about 600 to 1,000 overseas property units are transacted here each year, compared to around 6,000 units sold in the local housing market, noted Chestertons managing director Donald Han.

Comments Off on Recovering investment money can be arduous

Posted in Overseas Property

Tagged , , , ,

Two salespersons disciplined for bypassing landlord’s salesperson

Posted on 7 May 2015 | Comments Off on Two salespersons disciplined for bypassing landlord’s salesperson

Two salespersons, Goh Seow Guan, Vincent and Chua Say Siong, Eric were disciplined for misleading acts in an attempt to bypass the landlord’s salesperson, bringing disrepute to the estate agency industry.

Goh represented a tenant who was interested in renting a property. He contacted the landlord’s salesperson to arrange for a viewing and agreed to co-broke with him for the potential rental transaction. Later, Goh’s client made an offer which was conveyed to the landlord through her salesperson and the landlord counter-offered. Goh’s client then made another offer to rent the property at $8,500 per month if the landlord was agreeable to pay $1,500 to repair certain defects.

Instead of conveying the offer to the landlord’s salesperson, Goh decided to bypass him and asked his colleague Chua to call the landlord to close the transaction. Chua pretended that he had an interested tenant for the property and conveyed the same offer that Goh’s client had proposed.

Upon reviewing the profile of Chua’s prospective tenant, the landlord became suspicious that this tenant was the same person as Goh’s client. Although Chua denied it when asked, the landlord discovered that the tenant was indeed Goh’s client when she met up with him. The landlord informed her salesperson that he had been bypassed, and the salesperson filed a complaint to Goh’s and Chua’s estate agent.

The estate agent subsequently conducted investigations. When asked, Goh and Chua misrepresented to their director that they had come to know of the prospective tenant independently.

For bypassing the landlord’s salesperson even though having agreed to co-broke and lying to a director of his estate agent, Goh has brought disrepute to the estate agency industry, a breach of the Code of Ethics and Professional Client Care (CEPCC). He was sentenced to a total financial penalty of $3,000 and four months’ suspension, with a two months’ suspension running concurrently.

Chua was convicted of bypassing the landlord’s salesperson, lying to the landlord about the identity of the prospective tenant and lying to a director of his estate agent. He was sentenced to a total financial penalty of $5,000 and four months’ suspension, with another three months’ and two months’ suspension running concurrently.

Comments Off on Two salespersons disciplined for bypassing landlord’s salesperson

Posted in CEA

Tagged , , , , , , ,