Call to HDB
A Pervasive Case
Summary
An owner complained about noise from an upper floor neighbour. He thinks the noise is a continuation of the same line of works starting from the first owner. The first owner had transferred the flat to the present owner shortly after an eviction of an occupier.
A meeting with and written replies by Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) were unsatisfactory. However, the owner appreciated the assistance given at the Meet-the-People Sessions.
He hopes to present his case to HDB.
Content
1.Introduction
2.Overview
3.Findings
4.Conclusions
5.Recommendations
Introduction
The owner had a posting " 'Strange' business going around at HDB flat " on 11 May'09 at http://civicadvocator.net/category/forem. A call was made from the site for someone to write a report. Later two volunteers from civic advocator went to interview the owner and collect a set of correspondence. These were letters sent to HDB and MPs, replies from the authorities and some others.
This report is prepared by the owner in third person.
Overview
2.1 The owner first noticed occasional bouncing sound and noises from the ceiling, but he did not mind too much. At the time, he saw a young couple who is now the present owner. A girl, possibly relation of the first owner, who the owner saw recently on Lunar New Year '08. Another couple who lived in the flat for many years before they were evicted.
2.2 The mother of the owner saw the first owner on three occasions, two times before the eviction when he spoke to her and one time after when he did not. The owner had noted down the date her mother said she saw the first owner with two young daughters after the eviction.
2.3 The owner wrote a few letters to HDB Branch Office from Dec'98 to Mar'99 when noise was at its peak. There was low level knocking during the day, a few heavy tamps and some loud knocks. Some of the noises were at night. The owner was relieved of his ordeal when his letter to HBO at the time let to an eviction. The estates officer had replied there was no excessive noise to two previous letters the owner wrote. After the eviction the techical officer visited the owner to inform and also to enquire. He wanted to know what the owner did that let to the eviction. The owner wrote to the Feedback Unit, HDB, to thank the officers involved.
2.4 One evening following the event, the owner was returning to his flat when he recognised the present owner who was with a contractor. The contractor was saying HDB had pointed out an unauthorised alteration in the flat before the present owner could stop him. The owner knew he referred to an area near the balcony where he had heard loud hacking noise before. The contractor carried out some repair works at the balcony, and cement chips were left alongside the wall. There was no major renovation to indicate a transfer of ownership. Later he deduced a compulsory inspection of the flat, required before handover, had taken place; the date of eviction and the date the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) said was the transfer of ownership were close.
2.5 There was still noises that the owner felt compelled he should at least know who the neighbours were at the upper floor. Afterall, they had to use the lifts at his floor. It was one evening when a young lady turned around and scolded him for staring. He apologised and explained the neighbour was causing noise, and he wanted to know all the neighbours living at the upper floor. She then gave the full name of the person who lived upstair across the neighbour. The owner had greeted this person once. He lived there for a short period, and noise from the neighbour stopped for four years before restarting again in Jun'07.
2.6 There was loud noises for a number of days. Having gone through it once before, the owner decided to keep full watch this time. He had a view of the lift lobby, and left the door of his flat opened from 6 am to 9 pm, two days a week for a month. He saw from their actions they wanted to give an appearance of a family. Constant observation gave them away. The couple did not lived in the flat. The maid causing the noise was a substitude for what went on before. Two uniform men and a matron seen before the watch indicated there was commercial interest. It becomes clearer when the owner discovered the flat could be put up for sale in '06 from a real estates agent's flyer. The maid may not had been registered to work in the flat. And works are continuous through the day and night by a change of person, though noises are heard mostly in the day.
2.7 The owner had approached them twice. A woman, who could be a sister of the wife, said the noise was caused by the maid moving furniture. Later the present owner denied there was any noise from his flat, and asked the owner to seek legal advice.
2.8 The owner wrote the first letter to HBO after the watch. Noise had stopped for two weeks when the OIC and another man visited him. The OIC had checked his fact sheet when the owner said both he and the neighbour had lived there since building completion. Next they went upstair to talk to the neighbour. The owner suspected there was an arrangement with the neighbour because rambling noise was heard for three to four hours two days later. The OIC followed with a telephone call to the owner to check. The OIC was to telephone and visit the owner many times over a period of nearly two years on his own accord.
2.9 The owner brought a copy of his second letter to HDB Branch Office as he was informed they did not received it. He asked for an acknowlegdement, and insisted on an appointment with HBO. A meeting was allowed the same day with the OIC present in the room. The owner did not made his complaint against the OIC since he was present. HBO told him there was a transfer of ownership, and the owner could not established a link between the first owner and the present owner. His letters to HBO had indicated there was an eviction and similar noises were heard. In the signed acknowlegdement, two lines were missing from a page that referred to the noise just after the OIC's visit and no noise between the period of the first letter and the OIC's visit.
2.10 In the second letter the owner wrote, he saw a poster placed on the noticeboard at the same time the noise from the neighbour stopped for a few weeks. The poster showed a maid working at a coffeeshop saying she cannot work there, and can only do housework at the address stated on her work permit card. The owner noted if the maid was not registered to work at the flat then the couple did not lived there.
2.11 The owner then went to his first Meet-the-People Session. No MP was in at the time, and he left a letter with the member who interviewed him. HBO replied to the letter that a MP had asked HDB to look into the matter. After which, the owner saw people shifting into the flat upstair across the neighbour. On the morning of 18 Mar'08 at 10.00 am rambling noise stopped suddenly, followed by two sharp knocks and a tamp, and was quiet the rest of the day. The owner thinks it was a force-entry.
2.12 The owner wrote two letters to a MP. He made a list of all that was known to date including the force-entry. He did not included the break-in into his flat because he only suspected
it. The second letter was on noise directed at the owner to let him know they knew about the first letter. The MP said they would asked the neighbour to lower the noise, and sent the two letters as attachment to HDB. HBO replied there was no evidence the neighbour was using the flat as a workshop. If noise persisted the owner may obtained a court injunction, seek assistance from Mediation Center or Residents Committee, or called the Police. His reply was in Sep'08.
2.13 The owner next went to see another MP because he wanted the matter brought to HDB, a higher authority than the Branch Office. This was a critical period, noise was heightened, and HBO sent the OIC and RC Chairman to meet the owner before his reply a month later. The owner refused to let the OIC and a fellow officer enter his flat to check for noise, and invited the Chairman and one of his member in for a discussion. The owner had said there was noise before they came in, and if they come without the neighbour knowing they may hear some noise. Later someone sent the letter from HBO to the owner again, but attached to the letter was a blind copy addressed to the RC Chairman.
2.14 The blind copy provided information the owner had already suspected, and reinforced what he had observed about the force-entry and break-in. HBO wrote, during the joint visit with the Chairman to the house no noise was detected, and asked him to give a talk to the owner about good neighbourliness. The house referred to the flat, which was used once before to monitor the neighbour that let to four years of quiet, (Item 2.5).
2.15 Not long before the blind copy was received on Nov'08 a TV message was broadcasted one night. The voice-over stated one could write on ground of perceived injustice. The owner called and wrote to Mediacorp to obtain the address, which he had not taken note of when the message was flashed, but they did not help.
Findings
3.1 A number of events indicated there was a force-entry on 18 Mar'08:
1. The owner heard the rambling sound stopped, followed by two sharp knocks and a tamp at 10.00 am. There was quiet the rest of the day. Usually noise is many hours in the morning and afternoon.
2. In the evening of same day he met an old friend. It was not a coincident. A year later, just after the owner sent an email to PM, his old friend called over the telephone to say he was coming to meet him.
3. Two of his neighbours had smiled knowingly at the owner after the event.
4. The neighbour approached him a few days later to compromise. He would only gave his nickname.
5. The owner's sister called to say HDB could repair the leak in his bedroom. The leak was in Jun'00 and the owner had solved it.
3.2 A confluence of events occurring before a possible break-in at the owner's flat on 21 Jun'08:
1. The owner left the door of his flat opened to signal to the neighbour. To let them know he knew a different person was working in the flat from the different noise pattern heard. The neighbour's wife responded by coming down the stairs loudly. The owner began writing to an MP at his study room that has line-of-sight from the flat used to monitor the neighbour.
2. The owner went out on two consecutive days in the morning and came back in the afternoon. He went to top-up his CPF on the second consecutive day, which was a Saturday. The evening when he returned home he found the lock of the door jammed. It was not his routine to go out in the morning but his routine to go out in the evening.
3. The neighbour across the owner usually go out with his family and come back at night on a Saturday. When he came back he noticed the owner had left his bag of grocery outside his door, and he came out to enquire when the owner called a locksmith and the police.
4. It was the owner routine to go out in the evening for three hours, but the Saturday he took a shorter route and came back in about an hour.
3.3 Why would they broke into the owner's flat? The owner thinks they thought he had connection, and wanted to know more about him. For examples, someone checked out the maid referred to in his letter, took action so noise stopped for a while, and placed a poster on the noticebroad. Someone probably sent him the TV message on perceived injustice as it was well-timed. And someone sent him the blind copy that indicated a flat was used to monitor the neighbour. Also, the continuous nature of the neighbour's works indicated a larger operation and more involvement.
3.4 HBO wrote five similar letters to the owner asking him to obtain a court injunction and other suggestions. These were in replied to letters MPs wrote to HDB and Town Council. In particular the letter written by Mr.Teo Chee Hean to Town Council, and reply from Town Council to the owner and a note to HBO. The reply was the owner would hear from HDB soon, and the note stated a copy of the letter from Mr.Teo Chee Hean was attached for his information. No one came to see the owner and HBO replied to the letter. It would seemed there were no higher authorities to refer the matter other than HBO.
3.5 In the blind copy HBO wrote to RC Chairman a sentence stated "During our house visit, there is no noise nuisance being detected." Let assumed the place of the house visit could be outside the owner's flat, outside or inside the neighbour's flat, or inside the flat across the the neighbour. What would be the likelihood of each when the sentence ended with "there is no noise nuisance being detected."? The last possibility could mean there was a noise recording device in the flat.
3.6 Although HBO wrote no noise was detected during the house visit, the owner heard incessant knocking at his study room in the morning. It was the same morning the RC Chairman and a member, who was arranged to meet him, called on the owner. There followed two days of quiet before noise started again.
3.7 Earlier before the owner received the blind copy, he noted in his first letter to a MP there were many start-and-stop attempts after the force-entry. He thinks there was a device that detect or record noise in the flat, and the people in the flat had communicated with the neighbour to reduce noise to a tolerable level.
3.8 The owner was suspicious from the OIC who telephoned and visited him many times, his meeting with HBO at the Branch Office, and when HBO sent the OIC and the RC Chairman to meet him after his meeting with a second MP. Uniform men, matron, maid, change of person and use of food delivery service at the neighbour's flat indicated they do not have legitimate purpose. They would made noise to let the owner know they knew about letters sent to the MPs. When asked, they would lower the noise for a day or two, but works continued amidst the complaints and have not stop.
3.9 So far as the owner could tells the items they work-on are small, and could be easily concealed in a bag. The heavy tamp and rambling noise are from machine-tools. Other noises heard are knock, drag, rustle and whine. Draining is heard from water used. The noisy drainpipe at the service lobby is caused by a narrowed pipe due to deposits accumulated over the years.
3.10 The works could be continuous through the day and night. Light knocking early in the morning to final drain late at night. Most of the noise are in the morning and afternoon for many hours. A change of person was also seen.
3.11 After the last meeting with a MP, who said he would meet HBO the next day, noise was reduced. The owner still hears muffled tamp, heavy sound, knocking and draining consistent with works being carried out.
3.12 HBO had a posting on car parking at CNA Forums, which the owner found odd from the page layout. Was it intended for him not to enter into discussion at the forums showed on the page? The owner had enquired about the TV message at Mediacorp and talked to his friend about it, but it was without success either.
Conclusions
4.1 There were two lines missing from the signed acknowlegdement. The two lines referred to noise just after the OIC's visit, and no noise for two weeks before the OIC's visit. The owner had enquired about the handwritten letter, which they did not received, and had handed over a handwritten copy at the HDB Branch Office. If he had not photocopied another he would not have the evidence.
4.2 The blind copy written by HBO to RC Chairman indicated a flat was used to monitor the neighbour. The owner saw people shifting into the flat, and heard a force-entry into the neighbour's flat. There were other signs of a force-entry.
4.3 The owner had assumed the maid was not registered to work in the flat. He could be right as the maid was no longer seen except for one day on Lunar New Year '08. (The maid working in the flat was a substitude for the noise that went on before.) Since the maid was with them, it showed the neigbour did not lived in the flat. It tied in with the fact their flat could had been put up for sale one year earlier, and the preceding four years was quiet.
4.4 The neighbour is carrying on a trade from the types of noise, duration and change of person noted. The owner complained about the same group of people in Dec'98 and from Jun'07 currently. He and his mother had recognised persons before and after the eviction in Mar'99, and rambling and heavy tamping were similar types of noise made.
4.5 Observations made by the owner should be checked for accuracy. Examples could be noisy drainpipe at the service lobby, neighbours who may know about the force-entry, the TV message, and his comments on personnel and the neighbour in his letters . Earlier examples could be whether there was eviction, date of eviction and transfer of ownership, and was there a warning given to the present owner before the current complaint.
4.6 The owner requested a number of times for the MPs to write to HDB, a higher authority than the Branch Office. Town Council made a special effort because the owner was asked whether someone came to see him, but HBO replied to this and other letters sent to HDB. During the owner's last meeting at the Meet-the-People Session the MP said he would meet HBO the next day, and noise was reduced. The owner presumed the MP had a message for HBO.
4.7 If there was a device used to detect or record noise in the flat, it would had been a deterrence. The blind copy could indicate there was a recording device, and the owner was puzzled at first when he heard five start-and-stop attempts.
4.8 The owner have some supports from MPs, people from the Meet-the-People Session and others. Some of the people he knows, some he does not.
4.9 The reader will have to decide whether there was a force-entry and a break-in given the circumstances.
Recommendations
An article in the Business Times on 22 May'09 may be related to Item 3.4, and the posting at http://civicadvocator.net/category/forem on 11 May'09. "Deputy Prime Minister Teo Chee Hean said that the government is on the lookout for 'bold and visionary' leaders and people who can adapt to changing environments." and "the government would strive to boost the quality of public service leaders by giving them different and challenging job assignments."
The neighbour is part of a larger operation, and profit is the motive; the works they carried out could be easily concealed, and noise affected the household below them. If HDB do not take action no one could.
