Leong Sze Hian/

Over the last few weeks, we have encountered more than 10 cases of Singaporeans with HDB housing problems and homelessness.

There was a Singaporean divorcee in her mid 40s, who works as a security guard for $1,300 a month, who downgraded to homelessness.  When we asked her where is she staying now?  She said “Most of the time in the security guards office”.

Then there was the case of a 44 year old single Singaporean lady staying in a homeless shelter who had lodged 18 appeals to the HDB in her attempts to apply for a subsidized rental flat after selling the four-room flat in Sembawang that she co-owned with her brother. (“HDB: 18 appeals and still homeless“).

So why is it so hard to downgrade your HDB flat?

More downgraders than upgraders?

Thanks to the National Development Minister’s blog entry “Who buy resale flats”, we finally have statistics on the people who purchase resale flats.

According to the statistics, 8 per cent were private property downgraders,  and 37 per cent of the 34 per cent second-timers bought 3-room or smaller flats. Not counting the number of those downgrading to BTOs, and the fact that second-timers preferred smaller flats, it may indicate that the trend may be more people downgrading than upgrading.

I believe most people downgrade because they are cash-strapped, can’t afford to pay their mortgage, or need to monetise their HDB flat, etc.

Their typical downgrading problems are:-

  • not enough cash to pay for the Cash-over-valuation (COV), which is once again rising to a record high  (“COV for HDB resale flats rises again“)
  • no bank willing to lend them a housing loan because of a poor credit record, current or discharged bankrupt, having income of less than $2,000,  the loan amount  being less than $100,000, or having been sued for non-payment of debt previously.
  • the HDB refused to give a housing loan because those who have ever owned a private property or Executive Condo (EC) are barred, household income insufficient to support the mortgage and number of persons in the household (this hits particularly larger families), irregular income record, borrower unable to come up with half of the cash proceeds from the last HDB flat sale (regardless of how long ago), the entire CPF and accrued interest from the last flat sale which may have already been withdrawn for other purposes such as education, unable to pay the Resale Levy of up to $50,000, etc.

With recent media reports that even about 200 licensed moneylenders have joined the credit bureau, may mean that even more Singaporeans may have difficulties getting a housing loan, because previously only bank debts were recorded in the Consumer Credit Bureau, and not moneylenders’ debts.

In this connection, in the Parliamentary debate on allowing banks to start offering HDB housing loans from 1 January 2003, the then-National Development Minister assured the members of the House that the HDB would help Singaporeans who may face difficulty in getting a housing loan.

However, in the past ten years that I have been providing free financial counseling for the needy, I hardly see any HDB housing loan problem cases where the loans were made prior to 1 January 2003!

All HDB housing loans prior to the 2003 ruling were either HDB Concessionary Loans for up to two times, or HDB Market Rate Loans for third-timers, without all the complicated rules that we now have for HDB bank loans.

Have CPF, but no  COV?

To illustrate the difficulty of downgrading, with a live example, let’s do an update on the article “HDB: $431,000 CPF – But homeless soon?”.

Mr and Mrs. Lim received a telephone call on 27 June from the HDB informing them that their appeal for a $30,000 HDB housing loan has been rejected, and that a letter of rejection would be sent to them.

The HDB also advised them to go to Credit Counseling Singapore (CCS) to work out a monthly installment plan for Mrs Lim’s debts.

In my view, the HDB may be quite out of touch with the realities on the ground.  Mrs Lim’s estimated $80,000 debts cannot be negotiated by CCS with all the bank creditors concerned, because their net monthly income is not enough to support even the longest installment plan generally allowed by the banks.

I estimate a five year installment plan on her $80,000 debts to be about $1,700 a month.

Also, as Mrs Lim is already in default on some of her debts, an installment plan or even reverting to paying the normal minimum amount every month may no longer be acceptable to the banks, because it is already in the hands of the debt collector or lawyers.

After struggling for the past seven years, due to Mr Lim’s business failure during the 2003 SARS crisis, they are at their wits end, and have already sold their EC, in a final act of desperation with the approval of the Official Assignee.

Why do we call it a final act of desperation?  Because if the wife is sued by any of her creditors for bankruptcy, the only avenue and hope of selling their EC to downgrade to a resale flat, may no longer be possible.

Based on the information and documents given to us, our best estimate of their current debt situation is as follows:-

  • CPF available for the resale flat purchase – $420,000 ($11,000 cannot be used as this was from their CPF Special Account allowed for the mortgage repayment on a special ‘hardship’ appeal basis).
  • Compulsory discharge of Mr Lim’s $117,000 bankruptcy creditors’ debts from the EC sale cash proceeds, of about $213,000.
  • Mrs Lim’s debts (excluding employer’s loan, loans from relatives, friends, etc) – $80,000
  • Net EC cash proceeds left after the above –  $16,000.

Therefore, without the $30,000 HDB loan that they have been appealing for, it may almost be impossible for them to buy a resale flat and pay the COV (Note: COVs are hitting a record high again now).

The seller of the resale flat (in Jurong West which the Lims have been told is the cheapest area) for which they have already signed the option to purchase, is sympathetic to their plight, and has agreed orally to given them until the end of this month, to exercise the option.

As they have to vacate their EC at the end of July, what will happen to them, if they cannot get the $30,000 HDB loan?

Change ‘mindset’ towards marriage?

To conclude I would like to refer to an article published on Channel Newsasia where the Acting Minister for Community Development, Youth and Sports called for Singaporeans to change their ‘mindset’ in their attitude towards marriage.(“S’poreans need to change mindset towards marriage: Chan Chun Sing”, Channel NewsAsia, Jun 25)

However, if we take the Lim family as a case in point, all their financial problems may go away if they do not have three children.

So, is it any wonder why Singapore’s marriage rate fell to a record low last year, while the number of divorces has increased, and the procreation rate is at a historical low?


Alex Lew, Lee Mei Wei, Ko Siew Huey and Leong Sze Hian provide free financial counseling every Thursday from 8 – 10 pm., at Block 108, Potong Pasir Ave 1

Subscribe
Notify of
0 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
You May Also Like

被没收滑板车累积逾千仓储费? 陆交局:宽限期后未领取才计日收费

电动滑板车不符规格被没收,还要支付近两千元的仓储费?对于日前网络疯传的信函,陆路交通管理局作出澄清,表示只要在“宽限期”前,用户前来索回滑板车,就不会征收仓储费。 早前,网络疯传一则信函,收信人不合格的超重(27.7公斤)电动滑板车,在7月30日被陆交局执法人员没收。根据规定,包括电动滑板车等代步工具重量不可超过20公斤。 信中提到事主须在本月15日早上10时前往陆交局调查部门报到,协助调查违规使用过重滑板车一案。但是,信中也提到,事主还需缴付150元的拖车费,以及从车辆被扣当天算起,每日21元4角的仓储费。 事主的滑板车在两个月前被没收,若要从被没收当天算起至本月15日足足77天,仓储费可以高达1千647元8角! 而假设事主无法出席周一的调查会面,当局可在不另行通知下,销毁被没收的电动滑板车,同时,还会对事主拖欠的仓储费和拖车费,采取法律行动。 信函先是在本地道路资讯脸书Raod.sg上载,随即引来民众为事主抱不平,认为滑板车被没收的惩罚已够严重,对陆交局还要向事主征收仓储费感到难以置信,也认为这形同双重惩处,有欠公平。 不过,陆交局留意到网络流传的讯息,也很快在本月16日在官方脸书专页澄清,在当局完成调查后,对于那些符合资格的用户将获得“宽限期”来领回被没收的代步工具。过了宽限期还未领取,才会被征收仓储费。 不过,当局并未说明宽限期多久。至于对被没收代步工具征收高昂拖车费,除了补贴执法时的开支,也希望起到惩戒作用,警惕民众莫触法。 根据《道路交通法》第276章657项,针对摩多、脚踏车、电动脚踏车或个人代步工具等的没收费用为150元,仓储费为21元4角钱。 在今年5月1日,《活跃通勤法案》(Active Mobility Act)开始生效。新条例规定,电动脚踏车(PAB)和个人代步工具的重量不可超过20公斤、70公分宽和摩多驱动时需限速25时速。…

遏制樟宜监狱文章传播 通讯新闻部下达访问禁令

新加坡通讯及新闻部指示互联网服务供应商禁止新加坡用户访问马国捍卫自由律师团(LHL),阅览一篇有关樟宜监狱以残酷和不合法方式处决囚犯的文章。 当局是针对在捍卫自由律师团未能在周三(1月22日)发出更正指示,而采取有关行动。 内政部日前针对有关文章,援引《防假消息法》(POFMA),要求马国捍卫自由律师团(LHL)、《网络公民》、雅虎新闻及新闻工作者韩俐颖,发出更正指示。 但是,捍卫自由律师团已经宣布拒绝遵守指令。 新加坡通讯及新闻部昨日(23日)发出文告指出,基于该律师团不遵守有关的更正指示,当局已经指示资讯通信媒体发展局(Infocomm Media Development Authority)发出访问阻止命令,即要求互联网访问服务供应商禁止我国用户访问相关虚假信息的在线位置。 “发出给捍卫自由律师团的更正指示,是要求当局将事实和虚假报导并列,让新加坡的用户可以阅览两个版本,并做出自己的结论,但是该律师团选择拒绝遵守。” “访问禁令将确保在没有事实证明的情况下,虚假信息不会再我国国内传播。” 当局指出,若律师团之后依据命令发出更正通知,有关的禁令将会取消。 有关禁令是针对捍卫自由律师团于本月16日的新闻稿中,称樟宜监狱以残酷和不合法方式处决囚犯,且若绞绳断裂,则朝囚犯的脖子后方使劲踢断。还指他们的声明是来自前任和现任监狱官员的证据。随后,雅虎新闻、新闻工作者韩俐颖、本社也有报导或分享上述马国律师组织的文告。…

PAP gave go-ahead for Tin Peiling’s appointment at Grab without knowing her job scope as Director of Public Affairs and Policy

SINGAPORE — Singapore’s ruling party, the People’s Action Party (PAP), did not…

NEA should look into why dishwashing charges for hawkers cost so much

by Lim Jialiang On Dishwashing – One of the most perplexing costs…