Homepage
PR Newswire
22-03-2014, 11:39 PM
(07-11-2013, 10:32 PM)sgbillion Wrote: Hi there,
I've seen the facebook page which gives a good read, very interesting.
https://www.facebook.com/pages/Suit-307-...7084677424
In it, it compares the floor plan between The Rainforest and Blossom Residences, both penthouse unit, developer is CDL. The Rainforest was launch immediately after Blossom. The contrast shows the inconsistency in the floor plan, whereby BR concealed the void while RF clearly shows the void over living/dining.
If say the void was not revealed during OTP but only S&P, then i think the couple has a case. If i remember correctly the URA rules to have all the information available to buyer before exercise OTP effective April 2012, then it could be due to one of many such cases, which URA is in the position to ensure buyers get all these info before they sign on the dotted line, buyers are then protected and know what they are paying for ....
More interestingly if you compare and you'll be surprised by the difference:
Type B2PH1
Can obtain from http://www.cdl.com.sg/blossomresidences/
Go to Interiors > Floor Plans > B2PH1
From the floor plan, there’s no “VOID” space mentioned and you hardly know if there’s any void.
http://www.cdl.com.sg/therainforest/floo...types.html
Go to B2PH. The floor plan clearly specified (including open balcony and high ceiling / void at living & dining). It also shows a picture with a cross in a box denoting “void over living/dining”.
Can CDL explain why there's such inconsistency ?
Hi there ... just got info that the hearing will start again sometimes in early April... I have read the news from major newspaper in Singapore and also even Malaysia, Hong Kong ,Shanghai and even Korea has known something about this case ... the facebook gave quite details about this case .. I'm watching the outcome and for sure it will be on headlines in the news again.... the couple's courage has impressed
the world ...