[wendychan]

https://www.straitstimes.com/singapore/c...-balconies

[wendychan]

there is a thread in HWZ and if you read it. can see that many FOOkers replying dont know anything about condo rules etc. and still wanna talk big

big display of male ego STUPIDITY

https://forums.hardwarezone.com.sg/threa...s.6982741/

[wendychan]

The owner of a condominium unit off Stevens Road who took the management corporation of the development to court so that he could install motorised blinds on his balconies has lost his fight.

In late 2022, Mr Soo Hoo Khoon Peng sought approval from the management corporation of Stevens Loft to install blinds on two balconies of his double-storey penthouse, one on the fourth floor of the building and the other on the fifth.

The mechanism for the blinds, which had horizontal and vertical tracks, would have been installed on the ceilings, pillars and surfaces of the walls of the balconies.

Among other things, he said he was concerned for the safety of his children.

The management corporation first refused his request “in view of the uniformity of the building appearance”.

After his lawyers issued a letter of demand, the management corporation’s lawyers added that mounting any structure on common property walls would amount to exclusive use of common property, which requires approval by way of 90 per cent of the votes at a residents’ meeting.

There is one other unit in the development with a motorised blind installed, which the management corporation says it is taking enforcement action against.

Roller blinds are permitted for shade, and an awning is permitted to be installed on the ground floor for safety purposes.

On March 3, 2023, Mr Soo Hoo filed a court application to challenge the management corporation’s decision.

Mr Soo Hoo, who was represented by Mr Joseph Tay of Shook Lin & Bok, argued that he was entitled to install the blinds to keep insects out and as safety equipment to prevent harm to his children, without requiring the approval of the management corporation.

He argued that the installation of the blinds did not amount to exclusive use or enjoyment of common property.

The management corporation, represented by Mr Daniel Chen of Lee & Lee, contended that the blinds amounted to exclusive use or enjoyment of common property, for which a 90 per cent resolution was required.

It presented evidence from a professional engineer that the walls, beams and columns to which the blinds would be attached were load-bearing.

The Building Maintenance and Strata Management Act lists “load-bearing wall, column or beam” as examples of common property and structural elements.

The management corporation argued that the blinds did not amount to safety equipment and the installation was not in keeping with its guidelines or the appearance of the building.


In August, district judge Sim Mei Ling dismissed Mr Soo Hoo’s attempt to order the management corporation to consent to his request for the blinds.

She accepted the management corporation’s argument that the blinds would be attached to structural elements that fell within the definition of common property.

The district judge concluded that the installation of the proposed blinds constituted “exclusive use and enjoyment” of common property.

She added that even if she were wrong on the issue of exclusive use and enjoyment, the blinds affected the appearance of the building, which justified the management corporation’s refusal to approve the installation.

She said the management corporation had stipulated the use of mosquito netting to keep insects out, and the blinds would not be in keeping with these guidelines.

She was also not persuaded that the blinds amounted to a safety device, noting that the marketing materials did not claim such a function.

Mr Soo Hoo tried to appeal but on Dec 19, the High Court denied him permission to appeal against the lower court’s decision.

In a written judgment, Judicial Commissioner Christopher Tan upheld the district judge’s finding that the blinds would not be in keeping with the appearance of the rest of the building.

The judicial commissioner said the intended appeal was thus unlikely to succeed, even if the district judge appeared to have made an error of law by concluding that there was “exclusive use and enjoyment” of common property.

However, he said this was not an error that merited an appeal, given that the district judge had gone on to consider whether the installation of the blinds was in keeping with the building’s appearance.

[wendychan]

am wondering if this Soo Hoo Khoon Peng
is the the same who bought
the wine advocate?



https://www.decanter.com/wine-news/rober...ant-22978/

[WhatDoYouThink!]

The main concern is the facade. Actually for zip track it shd be ok since it's not too ugly, and many condos allow it. In this case he probably not in good terms with the management team

[wendychan]

The main concern is the facade. Actually for zip track it shd be ok since it's not too ugly, and many condos allow it. In this case he probably not in good terms with the management team

think you should read before making similar statembts to HWZ

[wendychan]

read the court judgment here :
https://www.elitigation.sg/gdviewer/gd/2...HC_355/pdf

[WhatDoYouThink!]

think you should read before making similar statembts to HWZ

Instead of wasting time on that rj forum and rj ppl talking rj things, why dun you summarise them here

[Zlatagor]

Rules around common property can really limit what you can do with your space. I totally get why Mr Soo Hoo was concerned about his kids’ safety and wanted a more permanent solution like outdoor track blinds rather than just roller blinds. I've seen them installed on a friend's balcony, and they made a huge difference, especially in keeping out bugs and rain without blocking the view. But these building guidelines can be so strict. My friend’s place allowed them, but only after months of back-and-forth with the management committee.