1. Loud noise started in Jun'07 for a number of days before the owner decided to watch the neighbour. A similar incident happened in Dec'98 when the occupier was evicted after the owner complained.
2. The owner has a view of the lift lobby at his floor, and could take note of people living at the upper floor since there was no lift there. The neighbour's flat is directly above his own with a staircase alongside their flats. He kept watch for eight days spread over a month.
3. The neighbour's family consisted of a man, his wife, a child and a maid. On the second day of his watch, he saw the maid, child and, probably, a mother and a sister of the couple. The mother and sister were there for a few days. The owner saw that the mother was self-conscious coming down the staircase and at the lift lobby in a few instances. She knew the owner was watching from his doorway. And the sister answered the door when the owner went upstair as noise became unbearable.
4. The noise continued with the maid present in the flat. Initially the wife, who was pregnant, would come in the morning when she knew the owner was watching and that day was quiet. The man was seen only on the first day, the evening before the last day, and the last day of the his watch. It would seemed the couple was not living in the flat during the month he was watching.
5. The maid was there to bring the child to a kindergarden nearby giving an appearance of a family, but continuing with the noise from her works. The matron, whom the owner saw earlier before the watch, could had been her trainer. When the maid was no longer seen with the family some times after the owner sent his first letter to HDB Branch Office, he concluded the maid was not registered to work in the flat. She was a substitute for the loud noise when it first started. If the maid was registered at another address and she was with the family, then the family live at this other address.
6. The neighbour's flat could have been put up for sale in '06 a year earlier before the noise started. The descriptions including the floor area in the real estates agent's flyer would so indicated.
7. To add to the list the neighbour may not be living in the flat, there was a quiet period of four years before the noise restarted. A man had came to live in the flat across the neighbour for a short period; and a lady had given the owner his full name after he explained he was watching the people living at the upper floor because of the noise, and may had offended her when he looked at her. It may be the neighbour was given a warning because the noise stopped.
8. The owner felt certain there was a force-entry into the neighbour's flat, because the neighbour approached him a few days later. He said as a compromise the owner let him know where the noise was coming from so he could make adjustment. The owner had spoken to him before, but he denied there was any noise from his flat and asked the owner to seek legal advice. It was his concession to the owner knowing he was covered.
9. From observations over a long period of time the neighbour is part of a larger operation. Noise started with the first owner, next the occupier, then the present owner after the eviction of the occupier. The owner was not awared of the tranfer of ownership until Head,HDB Branch Officer(HBO) informed him during a meeting. He had seen the couple, and thought they were the owners after the eviction of the occupier who lived there for many years. He had not seen the first owner but his mother did. When he realised there a tranfer, he related it to the eviction and the evening the contractor informed the present owner HDB officer had pointed out an unauthorised alteration in the flat. So when the Officer-in-Charge(OIC) visited him a few days later after the meeting, he asked him the date of the transfer which was just after the eviction.
10. The evening the contractor said HDB had pointed out an unauthorised alteration would be the date of compulsory handover inspection before the tranfer of ownership. It seemed the inspection was carried out with the contractor without the first owner being present, and when the present owner came later in the evening the contractor informed him. To note: there was a relationship between the first owner and the present owner before the tranfer, and an arrangement was made as there could be no record of an eviction that was the cause of the transfer in the first place. An officer wrote to the owner there was no eviction after he posted on the internet recently. It is logical to assume the event at Item.7 followed when they were given a warning a number of years after the tranfer.
11. After the noise restarted various persons were seen and types of noise heard. There were two men in neat dark blue uniform, a matron, another couple, a few other persons and food delivery services. There were different noise patterns. They concealed their activities by muffling the noise, varying the works and keeping up appearance.
12. Once the owner wrote to a MP a list of pointers the neighbour was carrying out works in the flat, they made noise to let the owner know they knew of the letter. Noise was used to intimidate after the owner met the second MP. Noise may be reduced for a short period after certain events but it was back to the usual.
13. The types of noise are heavy tamp and ramble heard before and after the eviction. Other noises are knock, drag, rustle and whine. Draining of water up to an hour is sometimes heard. The heavy tamp and ramble are from machine-tools. The noisy drainpipe at the service lobby is due to a narrowed pipe from deposits accumulated over the years.
14. The items they work-on could be small and easily concealed, and works may be continuous through the day and night by a change of person. There are noises at night, but generally the nights are kept quiet.
15. There was reduced noise after the MP said he was going to meet HBO the next day, and was reduced again when the owner was about to publish a report in a blog. The noises are now muffled thug, continual knock,ramble and drain in the day and some noise at night. At times the noise would worsen.
16. The owner is clear about his situation. People had assisted him. There are questions to be asked, and his observations could be corroborated since the neighbour is not an unknown.
Note: Comments are allow at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller
