1. The upper floor neighbour is making use of his flat to carry out works as seen and heard by the owner.
2. An earlier complaint let to an eviction of an occupier, which was followed by a tranfer of the flat from the first owner to the present owner. In fact, the owner saw the present owner with a contractor who attended what could be the compulsory handover inspection required before the transfer of the flat. The contractor said HDB officer had pointed out of an unauthorised alternation before the present owner could stop him. The date of transfer just after the date of eviction was disclosed by the Officer-in-Charge(OIC). The owner recognised the present owner he had seen many years earlier before the occupier. In all it indicated the first owner, the present owner and the occupier knew each other and carried out the same type of works in the flat from the noise heard.
3. There was an observation the present owner was given a warning before the current complaint in Jun'07. A man had came to lived in the flat across the neighbour for a short time and noise stopped for four years. When the owner made his second complaint, he saw personnel moving into the same flat across the neighbour but it did not have the same effect. The period from the first to the second complaint spanned more than seven years. The second and current complaint is now into the third year.
4. After personnel move into the flat, the owner is quite certain there was a force-entry into the neighbour's flat and a break-in into his flat although no one would say it had happened.
5. There were people who had assisted the owner. The blind copy he received, just after his meeting with a third MP, was significant to him in a number of ways. First, it showed Head,HDB Branch Office(HBO) asked the RC Chairman to explain good neighbourliness to the owner, and a week earlier the owner had refused the Officer-in-Charge and a fellow officer who wanted to check for noise in his flat. It would not had boded well for the owner. Second, it confirmed to the owner a flat was used to monitor the neighbour and the neighbour had a previous record with HDB. Third, it indicated a noise recording device in the flat, which could be an effective method in proving noise coming from the neighbour's flat. And fourth, it adds to the certainty there was a force-entry and a break-in because there would had been a place to conduct an operation from.
6. The message broardcasted on TV was timely. It was some times between the first letter from HBO to the owner asking him to obtain a court injunction and other suggestions in Sep'08 and the blind copy received in Nov'08. It stated one could write on ground of perceived injustice to the an address flashed on the screen. A check could be made. If there was only one broadcast and it was on the night the owner was watching, it would increase the probability the message was intended for him.
7. The owner did not took note of the address but he called and wrote to Mediacorp. The woman who received the call did not gave him the address even after she checked with her superior, and there was no reply to his email. On the same topic, HBO had a posting on a car parking placed on the same page as CNA Forums that the owner thinks was intended for him not to publicise his problem there. His first mentioned of discussion groups/forums to a friend was on 26Mar'09, and he spoke about the posting to the volunteers from Civic Advocator who visited him on 18May'09, the dates may be the determinants when HBO posted and withdrew the posting.
8. During the one month the owner was watching the neighbour, the maid was an evidence the neighbour was starting up works again. Mentioned in the first letter to HBO it had aroused suspicion for someone to check on the maid. Noise started in Jun'07 and the letter was sent in Aug'07. The maid was not seen afterwards except for one day during the Lunar New Year in '08. She was probably not registered to work in the flat, and was there as a cover for the noise that was being made.
9. A number of events showed that the neighbour may not live in the flat. Noise in the early morning to late at night indicates works could be continuous with one or two persons taking turn. Noise may be undisguised or reduced when they wanted to. Some noises are from machine-tools. The force-entry into their flat at 10.00am when rambling noise stopped suddenly would had found evidences of tools and materials. Other instances indicated the forced-entry took place. The owner surmises they were let off.
10. The matter is also known to CC members at the Meet-the-People Session. Each time a CC member would draft the owner's request before meeting with a MP. From some of their questions he sensed they were awared of the situation. He had seen two CC members at his block at the time the neighbour's flat was being monitored, and there were indications of involvement.
11. The MPs did their best to assist. Together, they wrote to HDB, Town Council, Police and went to meet HBO.
12. The owner thinks there is a larger issue. HBO answered all letters sent to HDB when he had requested many times for the MPs to write to a higher authority.
Note: Comments are allow at http://civicadvocator.net/a-hdb-flat-dweller
