1. An owner made his complaints to HDB Branch Office, several MPs and finally wrote an open letter to HDB. Over a period of over two years from Jun'07 the noise from the upper floor neighour has not stop.
2. Ten years ago a similar situation resulted in an eviction. There was a change of ownership just after the eviction, and the owner observed both the first owner and the present owner were seen before and after the eviction.
3. The owner is awares the neighbour knows from experience they could get away with the noise they caused.
4. The problem was how to prove the present owner is carrying on a trade of some kinds. Noise that is heard over many hours each day is not considered evidence unless there is credible witness. Video and noise recording might do. They are aware of the facts for they will ask the owner to get legal advice or go through mediation. Both involve lawyers and they require evidence to work with.
5. Item they work-on could be small and easily concealed, noise created may not be too obvious and works could be varied. And they take care to put up an appearance of a family. It affected the owner because noise could be loud, and works are continuous through the day with change of person.
6. Once the owner began to writing to MPs, they use noise to let the owner know they knew and to intimidate. Noise was lowered after a MP said he would meet Head,Pasir Ris HDB Branch Office(HBO) the next day in Feb'09, and when the owner wanted to publish his report in a blog in Jun'09. It was in many such instances that the owner thinks his problem is not being addressed.
7. To give some examples of help the owner had received, someone re-sent a letter from HBO to the owner but with an attachment. The attachment indicated a flat was used to monitor the neigbour, and a noise recording device in the flat. HBO wrote "During our house visit, there is no noise nuisance being detected." during his house visit with the RC Chairman. On "no noise nuisance being detected", the owner heard incessant knocking before the RC Chairman and one of his member were invited into owner's flat the same morning after the house visit. In the attachment HBO asked the RC Chairman to explained to the owner about being a good neighbour in length.
8. Someone checked out the maid referred to in the first letter the owner sent to HBO. Noise stopped for a few weeks at the same time a poster showing a maid was placed in the noticeboard. The maid in the poster is saying she cannot work at the coffeeshop, and can only do housework at the adddress stated on her work permit card. After that the maid was no longer seen with the neighbour. The owner assumed the maid was not registered to work in the flat, she was there as a cover for the noises just before the owner began to keep watch.
9.There was a quiet period of a four years before the current complaint. The owner thinks the present owner had been warned before. He remembered a lady who gave him the full name of the person,who came to live for a short period in the same flat used to monitor neighbour, following which the noise had stopped.
10. The owner hopes HDB could corroborate these findings and others in a report at his first posting. MPs and Town Council wrote to HDB on his behalf but HBO replied to these letters. He wrote an open letter as last recourse.
