More pics at source: Sea change in penthouse pool views: Buyers see red, News, News, AsiaOne Business News
Expectations:
Reality:
Drawn by a sales brochure depicting a rooftop infinity pool with a view of the sea, two home owners splashed out about $2 million each for penthouse units at a condominium in the east.
But when they got the keys to their apartments at The Aristo in November 2013, they were shocked to find that the actual pool built was nothing like what they had seen in the brochure.
One of the owners - an investment banker from Australia who asked to be known only as Garry - said the pool was a unique selling point for him.
"You don't have too many rooftops in Singapore with your own swimming pool that is kind of even semi-affordable. And if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't even have considered this," said Garry, who paid $2.19 million for his unit.
"It turned out to be nothing. The pool is not an infinity pool. It's ugly. There are horrible double-sided windows around it and it is impossible to actually clean the windows if it gets dirty because it is impossible to access between the two panels of glass."
The glass panels also block the sea view, said Mr Shawque Said, 44, the other penthouse owner.
The duo are accusing developer AG Capital of misselling The Aristo - an 18-storey condominium with 56 residential units located in Amber Road - and have sought compensation.
Mr Shawque and nine other residents have also demanded that the developer make alterations to the planter built outside their bedrooms, which they say is inaccessible.
Mr Shawque, a publishing firm director who paid $1.95 million for his penthouse in April 2010, said he had informed AG Capital of the problem areas in his apartment as early as December 2013, two months after the development was given its temporary occupation permit (TOP).
A check with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) found that the Controller of Housing has received a series of complaints against AG Capital, which has developed only The Aristo to date.
It is an associate company of Goodland Group, which has other projects such as The Bentley Residences@Kovan.
The URA spokesman said the complaints stated that AG Capital did not provide a number of common facilities and building features depicted in the sales brochure. Other grouses included bay windows depicted in layout plans that were replaced by blank walls.
The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) said it had also received feedback from four residents relating to issues such as the workmanship of the swimming pool and placement of the barbecue pits.
The URA said the Controller of Housing had sought to mediate by advising the developer to work out possible solutions to issues raised by the complainants, and is reviewing if further action should be taken.
In response to queries from The Straits Times, an AG Capital spokesman said he was unable to comment on Mr Shawque and Garry's claims that they were misled into buying their respective properties, as they did not purchase their units directly from AG Capital. "Our consultants have confirmed that the approved building plan does not make any reference to an infinity pool as claimed by the owners," he said.
A BCA spokesman said The Aristo's plans were amended after it approved the first set of plans.
The BCA then approved the amended plans. Prior to the grant of a TOP, a Qualified Person and the Builder had declared that the building followed the approved plans, she said.
Besides taking issue with the pool's design, Mr Shawque also noted that the approved building plan had indicated an overflow drainage system next to the edge of the pool. But the drainage was built to have the water flow inwards instead, he said.
"Now, whenever it rains, the water flows inwards and floods my entire porch," he said.
The Aristo spokesman said that according to the project consultants, the overflow drainage refers to the discharge of water from the pool and, to his knowledge, the penthouse pools have "an appropriate overflow drainage system".
He also denied claims that the planters were inaccessible, saying that owners may provide a listing of defects over a period of time.
"Given this, defect rectification also takes time for completion. AG has been attending to defects that have been brought to its attention," he said.
The URA said complainants may pursue their claims against the developer under the terms of the sale and purchase agreement.
The buyer may be entitled to various forms of compensation if changes are made to the specifications or approved plans, its spokesman said.
But as the agreement is a private contract, any disputes should be resolved between the developer and home buyers.
Property transaction disputes with the property developer do not fall under the Consumers' Association of Singapore.
But Mr Shawque feels there should be a governing body to protect the interests of home buyers. His last resort would be to take the matter to the courts, he said.
"How many buyers can afford a lawsuit against a developer?" he said. "It will not be a level playing field, but a classic case of David versus Goliath."
Expectations:
Reality:
Drawn by a sales brochure depicting a rooftop infinity pool with a view of the sea, two home owners splashed out about $2 million each for penthouse units at a condominium in the east.
But when they got the keys to their apartments at The Aristo in November 2013, they were shocked to find that the actual pool built was nothing like what they had seen in the brochure.
One of the owners - an investment banker from Australia who asked to be known only as Garry - said the pool was a unique selling point for him.
"You don't have too many rooftops in Singapore with your own swimming pool that is kind of even semi-affordable. And if it wasn't for that, I wouldn't even have considered this," said Garry, who paid $2.19 million for his unit.
"It turned out to be nothing. The pool is not an infinity pool. It's ugly. There are horrible double-sided windows around it and it is impossible to actually clean the windows if it gets dirty because it is impossible to access between the two panels of glass."
The glass panels also block the sea view, said Mr Shawque Said, 44, the other penthouse owner.
The duo are accusing developer AG Capital of misselling The Aristo - an 18-storey condominium with 56 residential units located in Amber Road - and have sought compensation.
Mr Shawque and nine other residents have also demanded that the developer make alterations to the planter built outside their bedrooms, which they say is inaccessible.
Mr Shawque, a publishing firm director who paid $1.95 million for his penthouse in April 2010, said he had informed AG Capital of the problem areas in his apartment as early as December 2013, two months after the development was given its temporary occupation permit (TOP).
A check with the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) found that the Controller of Housing has received a series of complaints against AG Capital, which has developed only The Aristo to date.
It is an associate company of Goodland Group, which has other projects such as The Bentley Residences@Kovan.
The URA spokesman said the complaints stated that AG Capital did not provide a number of common facilities and building features depicted in the sales brochure. Other grouses included bay windows depicted in layout plans that were replaced by blank walls.
The Building and Construction Authority (BCA) said it had also received feedback from four residents relating to issues such as the workmanship of the swimming pool and placement of the barbecue pits.
The URA said the Controller of Housing had sought to mediate by advising the developer to work out possible solutions to issues raised by the complainants, and is reviewing if further action should be taken.
In response to queries from The Straits Times, an AG Capital spokesman said he was unable to comment on Mr Shawque and Garry's claims that they were misled into buying their respective properties, as they did not purchase their units directly from AG Capital. "Our consultants have confirmed that the approved building plan does not make any reference to an infinity pool as claimed by the owners," he said.
A BCA spokesman said The Aristo's plans were amended after it approved the first set of plans.
The BCA then approved the amended plans. Prior to the grant of a TOP, a Qualified Person and the Builder had declared that the building followed the approved plans, she said.
Besides taking issue with the pool's design, Mr Shawque also noted that the approved building plan had indicated an overflow drainage system next to the edge of the pool. But the drainage was built to have the water flow inwards instead, he said.
"Now, whenever it rains, the water flows inwards and floods my entire porch," he said.
The Aristo spokesman said that according to the project consultants, the overflow drainage refers to the discharge of water from the pool and, to his knowledge, the penthouse pools have "an appropriate overflow drainage system".
He also denied claims that the planters were inaccessible, saying that owners may provide a listing of defects over a period of time.
"Given this, defect rectification also takes time for completion. AG has been attending to defects that have been brought to its attention," he said.
The URA said complainants may pursue their claims against the developer under the terms of the sale and purchase agreement.
The buyer may be entitled to various forms of compensation if changes are made to the specifications or approved plans, its spokesman said.
But as the agreement is a private contract, any disputes should be resolved between the developer and home buyers.
Property transaction disputes with the property developer do not fall under the Consumers' Association of Singapore.
But Mr Shawque feels there should be a governing body to protect the interests of home buyers. His last resort would be to take the matter to the courts, he said.
"How many buyers can afford a lawsuit against a developer?" he said. "It will not be a level playing field, but a classic case of David versus Goliath."
