Court rejects condo MC's bid to clear shoe cabinet from corridor

[Blueray]

3 minutes ago, Icedbs said:

I am quite surprise by the decision from the judge.

Cos some of these by-laws were derived from BCA rules and SCDF rules. If the shoe cabinet is allowed, all hell will break loose and it will be very difficult for MCST to enforce other by laws. 

A lot of new condos have narrow corridors....some main doors are even L shape to each other. If one of the owner put a shoe cabinet outside, surely it will somehow block the entry of the other unit even though it may not block the main walking corridor. I foresee more neighbours will be fighting with each other (and MCST will not care since they may not win) if anyone can just out a shoe cabinet outside especially in new condos.

 

 

The judge's decision should be a firm one, not an ai mai ai mai decision which leaves open future cases to be decided on case-by-case basis to determine whether the fixture is an obstruction and a fire safety issue or not. 

SCDF's 1.2m is a guideline only. What if the shoe cabinet is at the beginning of a long corridor which serves many units and a fire breaks out ? Will it obstruct SCDF getting equipment in or residents' evacuation ? 

So now private condo can also put fish tank etc outside corridor so long as there is still 1.2m ? Wonder what's next ... 

[Kusje]

28 minutes ago, Blueray said:

Judge trying to siam responsibility to make decision ? If not Court Order then what ?

Anyways, this is a bad precedence set, so now everybody can install fixtures on common corridors so long as there is 1.2m ? 

Corridors are for access and also fire safety and should be clear at all times. Wait kena fire then we see the consequences. Enough said. 

Why keep harping on fire safety when this case meets the fire safety regulations? 

Won't the consequence of "kanna fire" be the same if the corridor is only 1.2m wide? Then those 1.2m wide corridors need to knock down the wall?

[Kusje]

2 minutes ago, Blueray said:

The judge's decision should be a firm one, not an ai mai ai mai decision which leaves open future cases to be decided on case-by-case basis to determine whether the fixture is an obstruction and a fire safety issue or not. 

SCDF's 1.2m is a guideline only. What if the shoe cabinet is at the beginning of a long corridor which serves many units and a fire breaks out ? Will it obstruct SCDF getting equipment in or residents' evacuation ? 

So now private condo can also put fish tank etc outside corridor so long as there is still 1.2m ? Wonder what's next ... 

A lot of what ifs.

Like I said, what if the corridor is built to only 1.2m?

[Blueray]

6 minutes ago, Kusje said:

Why keep harping on fire safety when this case meets the fire safety regulations? 

Won't the consequence of "kanna fire" be the same if the corridor is only 1.2m wide? Then those 1.2m wide corridors need to knock down the wall?

yeah, that's the other way of looking at it. oh wells.

[Jamesc]

Great decision by the judge.

Condo corridor if got fire how many people need to go through?

As if got shoe cabinet will restrict "thousands" of people from escaping.

For comparison aeroplane corridor even more narrow and hundreds of people need to get out fast in a fire.

   

[PSP415]

1 hour ago, Blueray said:

Judge trying to siam responsibility to make decision ? If not Court Order then what ?

Anyways, this is a bad precedence set, so now everybody can install fixtures on common corridors so long as there is 1.2m ? 

Corridors are for access and also fire safety and should be clear at all times. Wait kena fire then we see the consequences. Enough said. 

Haiz 

Judge is saying "no way u are getting an order from this court to have that shoe cabinet removed." He is not running away from any responsibility but rather to him, that corridor is to be kept for fire access. And since after taking into account space for that shoe cabinet, there is a good 1.44m while the minimum  fire access requirement is 1.2m

Hence to the judge, the application of the bylaw here not convincing or compelling reason for its removal.

Note also that this unit is the latest or newest unit to have a shoe cabinet placed at its common corridor so the period of its "breach" is shortest. There are pictures as evidences of other such encroachment by a few units besides these. Why no enforcement then for them? The answer was the estate MC wanted to use this judgement (i think they may have thought its a straightforward win) to enforce the bylaws.

Guess interpretation of the bylaws not so surface. Must understand why such a bylaw was there in the first place and i seriously felt the MC could have involved SCDF first to ascertain their fire code. And use their advice to enforce if its in line with bylaws.

Just yada-ing 

Safe ride 

Cheers 

[Blueray]

16 minutes ago, PSP415 said:

Haiz 

Judge is saying "no way u are getting an order from this court to have that shoe cabinet removed." He is not running away from any responsibility but rather to him, that corridor is to be kept for fire access. And since after taking into account space for that shoe cabinet, there is a good 1.44m while the minimum  fire access requirement is 1.2m

Hence to the judge, the application of the bylaw here not convincing or compelling reason for its removal.

Note also that this unit is the latest or newest unit to have a shoe cabinet placed at its common corridor so the period of its "breach" is shortest. There are pictures as evidences of other such encroachment by a few units besides these. Why no enforcement then for them? The answer was the estate MC wanted to use this judgement (i think they may have thought its a straightforward win) to enforce the bylaws.

Guess interpretation of the bylaws not so surface. Must understand why such a bylaw was there in the first place and i seriously felt the MC could have involved SCDF first to ascertain their fire code. And use their advice to enforce if its in line with bylaws.

Just yada-ing 

Safe ride 

Cheers 

yes, I understand your yada-ing. 

[Showster]

Basically, the law is indicating that those who buy earlier have space advantage as compared to those who buy later (corridor width exactly 1.2m).

Those who buy earlier also has parking lot advantage. 

The caveat is this. The resale values and demand of private properties may be affected if shoe cabinets of all sizes, shapes and colours line the corridors. Wanton parking by non resident visitors could also bring down demand for a particular development. 

[Voodooman]

1 hour ago, Blueray said:

The judge's decision should be a firm one, not an ai mai ai mai decision which leaves open future cases to be decided on case-by-case basis to determine whether the fixture is an obstruction and a fire safety issue or not. 

SCDF's 1.2m is a guideline only. What if the shoe cabinet is at the beginning of a long corridor which serves many units and a fire breaks out ? Will it obstruct SCDF getting equipment in or residents' evacuation ? 

So now private condo can also put fish tank etc outside corridor so long as there is still 1.2m ? Wonder what's next ... 

Most MCST will close one eye for shoe cabinet but with this ruling, they will now close both eyes. Not many 1.8m - 2m wide corridors around, so if everyone starts to do that, will it compromise fire safety?  Guess this will encourage neighbours to be nice to each other. i don’t report you and you don’t report me.  Wahahaha.

Edited October 29, 2019 by Voodooman

[Icedbs]

The old condos, one floor only a few units.

Look at the new condo today. One floor can have 8-10 units........not sure if 1.2m still enough wide in case of fire.

 

 

Edited October 29, 2019 by Icedbs

[Ash2017]

basically the judge is pissed off by the management for "bullying the underdog"

 

judge may not have taken the following consideration into importance

 

1. common area - is still a common area and not a private area regardless whether it infringes against the by-laws or SCDF or BCA codes

2. common sense - even if guidelines suggest 1.2m width as safe but in some condos there are more units (meaning more individuals than usual) on a floor sharing the same corridor, any narrowing regardless would placed residents in danger

3. allowing this, judge is opening flood gates not only for condo residential but commercial buildings including shopping centers and HDB corridors too.

4. should appoint Radx as the high court judge, then solved the problem, he will ban the district judge.

 

[Ash2017]

2 hours ago, Tianmo said:

Yah, I am one of those, never attend even once, dont even know who my councils are. 

But I got so fed up, I rented out the unit and moved back to HDB EA, and my children were all so happy...

so rich

this world not fair

[RH1667]

2 hours ago, Tianmo said:

Because they can supply or get who they want to supply to the condo lah. 

My side every time change council, sure got things need to change, and cfm new Managing agent will be appointed and new supplier come in. 

Almost never fail.

First one to go is always Managing agent, then security agency, follow  by cleaning company. Once even pool side tables and chairs also all changed.  ..

Wow sounds like TC MA when party change color 😁

Edited October 29, 2019 by RH1667

[Ash2017]

4 hours ago, Soya said:

Why some of these council ppl so desperate to be 'powerful' ah? No pay one 

 

you ask a funny question leh

 

why no monetary gain people here desperate for likes (can change for NTUC coupons?)

why the most get ban BUT many here like to lick undertaker golden B A L Ls, now so shining, reflect from a small bulb can cause blindness

at least in condo, you can get soft compensation (eg free or lower fees or better workmanship for repairs in your unit also priority in many events in their condo)

[Tianmo]

16 minutes ago, RH1667 said:

Wow sounds like TC MA when party change color 😁

oh my side that one got different. Except for the MA totally changed, the newly contacted security agency and cleaning company will employ back all the old staffs, so we see the same ppl changing uniform only....

TC when change color is all change change change, direction change!!! 

[Nav14]

4 hours ago, Blueray said:

Judge trying to siam responsibility to make decision ? If not Court Order then what ?

Anyways, this is a bad precedence set, so now everybody can install fixtures on common corridors so long as there is 1.2m ? 

Corridors are for access and also fire safety and should be clear at all times. Wait kena fire then we see the consequences. Enough said. 

Yes it is an extremely negative precedent. It defeats the purpose of having any condo by-laws if they can all be so easily challenged if one is willing to spend money on lawyers. 

Apart from being a fire safety issue, placing stuff along common is aesthetically a big turn off especially for a condo. The condo's value is bound to be affected if the whole common corridor is cluttered just like in an HDB block. Might as well stay in an HDB if a condo is going to be equally untidy. The condo residents are shooting themselves in their foot by challenging such by-laws, as it will affect the values of the estate eventually.

[PSP415]

Think if ppl start putting stuff at void decks and so long as no block fire access, should be allowed hor?

Afterall, think i read the lawyer said public and private fire access allowance should not be different iirc.

Common property is the estate's. Nothing to do with fire access only. Otherwise everyone start to "squat" or "chope" common areas for personal stuff, sure got problems one.

The MC is appealing. Better emphasised on COMMON PROPERTY as belonging to the estate, not any individual unit or shoe cabinet. Fire access is important but not encompassing the definition of what is common property or areas. Everyone paid for these areas and maintenance falls upon the estate.

😅😂😂🤪Yada-ing 

Safe ride 

Cheers 

Edited October 29, 2019 by PSP415

[Blueray]

13 minutes ago, Nav14 said:

Yes it is an extremely negative precedent. It defeats the purpose of having any condo by-laws if they can all be so easily challenged if one is willing to spend money on lawyers. 

Apart from being a fire safety issue, placing stuff along common is aesthetically a big turn off especially for a condo. The condo's value is bound to be affected if the whole common corridor is cluttered just like in an HDB block. Might as well stay in an HDB if a condo is going to be equally untidy. The condo residents are shooting themselves in their foot by challenging such by-laws, as it will affect the values of the estate eventually.

yes, valid point about condo upkeep and aesthetics too. not very appealing to potential buyers if the estate is managed laissez-faire and owners are free to convert balconies into rooms, use non-standardised awnings etc.