1. Although the owner called HDB Branch Office then HDB Hub, he was only able to contact the Officer-in-Charge(OIC). OIC said the office did not received the owner's second letter so he handed over a copy at the office, and asked for an acknowledgement. The signed acknowledgement showed two lines missing from the original. Could it be a mistake made during the photocopying? The copy was reduced in size with margin all round, and there was more than sufficient space for a chop. The two lines referred to the OIC's visit -- rambling noise for three to four hours just after his visit and two weeks quiet period before his visit. He called back to check with the owner on the situation after the noise. A copy of the acknowledgement and the orginal was sent to a third MP the owner saw when noise worsen many months later.
2. Head,HDB Branch Office(HBO) allowed a meeting with the owner the same day with the OIC in the room. He told the owner there was tranfer of ownership, and the owner could not establish a link between the first owner and the present owner. In the owner's first letter to HBO he had referred to an eviction of an occupier, and similar noises were heard before the eviction. He left the meeting without the matter being resolved.
3. A few days later OIC and a fellow officer visited him. OIC said he had been about his flat for about 15 minutes and there was no noise, his fellow officer was his witness. During their conversation the owner asked him for the name of owner at the upper floor and the date of transfer of ownership mentioned at the meeting with him in the room. OIC would not gave the name of the present owner but gave the date of tranfer from his fact sheet. It confirmed for the owner not only was the first owner and present owner seen before and after the eviction, but the transfer was immediately after the eviction.
4. The owner listed his observations, including a force-entry, in two letters to the first MP was followed by a reply from HBO. He wrote about "noisy manual work was conducted by unknown flat owner" and "sublet the flat to unknown owner", which the owner wondered when he said it. That there was no evidence the neighbour was using the flat as a workshop. If noise persisted the owner may obtained a court injunction, called the Police, or seek assistance from Residents Committee or Community Mediation Centre. When the owner went to see the second MP he sent the OIC and the RC Chairman to meet him before he gave a similar reply a month later.
5. Someone was to sent the letter from HBO to the owner again but with an attachment. The attachment referred to his house visit with the RC Chairman where no noise was detected, and he asked the RC Chairman to give the owner a talk on good neighbourliness. The RC Chairman and a member, who was arranged to meet him separately, then visited the owner. The OIC and a fellow officer had earlier wanted to enter the owner's flat to check for noise but the owner refused to let them. The RC Chairman and OIC could each be a witness to an unreasonable man if it had gone awry for the owner.
6. HBO wrote no noise was detected during his house visit with RC Chairman but the owner heard incessant knocking at his study room in the morning. It was the same morning the RC Chairman and the member visited him. He mentioned the noise during their discussion, and said if they come without the upper floor neighbour knowing they may hear some noise.
7. The house visit was in the flat used to monitor the neighbour, and there was a noise recording device inside. The owner had seen people moving into the flat after his complaint at his first Meet-the-People Session, and HBO wrote "there is no noise nuisance being detected" during the house visit would seemed to indicate there was a recording device.
8.. Some times after a message on perceived injustice was flashed on TV, the owner began seeking out the address so he could write to them. He called and wrote to Mediacorp, talked to his friend about it, but he could not get the address. He checked the discussion groups, and found HBO had a posting at CNA Forums on car parking. It seemed out-of-place, and may not be usual to have a separate posting on the same page as the forums. Both the broadcast and the forums are with Mediacorp.
9. The owner had many times mentioned to the MPs to go direct to HDB when writing on his behalf. There were five such letters each with a reply from HMO and a copy to a MP. One letter from Town Council informed the owner HDB was already looking into the matter and he would hear from them soon, and there was a note to HBO that a copy of the letter from Mr. Teo Chee Hean was enclosed for his information. Clearly Town Council got to HDB but HBO replied. No one came to see the owner.
10. After the owner's last meeting with a MP, who said he would meet HBO the next day, noise was reduced. The owner presumed the MP had a message for HBO.
Note: Comments are allow at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller. Comments were not allowed here because I am one person and not up to the task.
