Safe and protected
HAVING shelter or a roof over one's head is a basic human need, which most working adults earning a reasonably comfortable income try to secure by buying a house or housing unit. However, taking a home loan can cause a person to be in the insecure position of being in debt for almost the whole of his working life. For home buyers, provided that it results in the possession of a home, it is a burden many are willing to bear.
However, as a number of buyers have discovered, securing a home loan and servicing the debt responsibly does not necessarily end with a happily ever after. Where the loan is taken for a new development, construction can be delayed or abandoned, and developers can abscond with the buyer's deposit and partial payments, leaving the buyer with the nightmare of still having to pay off the loan (on a pro-rated basis), sans the payoff of having a home. In the case of Lim Geok Kim, not only was the development not completed in time, but Lim was forced to continue paying for the loan because the financier had overpaid the developer beyond the progressive payment schedule. Happily, the appellate court ruled in Lim's favour, saying the financier was liable to the borrower because it had failed to terminate the sale and purchase agreement the moment the developer defaulted.
Judgments like this are very important because they protect the buyer from becoming doubly victimised. As of the end of June last year, there were 423 housing projects that were either delayed, ailing or abandoned. According to the Association for Abandoned Building Owners (Victims) there are more than 100,000 families left in the lurch because of problem developers. So, while this judgment deals with the financier, something more concrete must be done about ensuring that developers complete their projects. The housing authority must keep a closer eye out on whether developers are keeping to schedule -- and be quick to freeze the Housing Development Account if it looks like the project is failing. It would also be timely for the government to reconsider making the build-then-sell method compulsory, so that only developers who are able to complete their projects will be rewarded with a sale. But buyers have a role to play, too: before putting their eggs in the developer's basket, they should do a check with the Housing and Local Government Ministry to ascertain the history and reliability of the developer, so that the eggs don't end up with the fox.
Judgments like this are very important because they protect the buyer from becoming doubly victimised. As of the end of June last year, there were 423 housing projects that were either delayed, ailing or abandoned. According to the Association for Abandoned Building Owners (Victims) there are more than 100,000 families left in the lurch because of problem developers. So, while this judgment deals with the financier, something more concrete must be done about ensuring that developers complete their projects. The housing authority must keep a closer eye out on whether developers are keeping to schedule -- and be quick to freeze the Housing Development Account if it looks like the project is failing. It would also be timely for the government to reconsider making the build-then-sell method compulsory, so that only developers who are able to complete their projects will be rewarded with a sale. But buyers have a role to play, too: before putting their eggs in the developer's basket, they should do a check with the Housing and Local Government Ministry to ascertain the history and reliability of the developer, so that the eggs don't end up with the fox.
0 comments:
Post a Comment