Complaints over Quality of Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) Flats

Mr Baey Yam Keng asked the Minister for National Development in light of the recent issues with various projects under the Design, Build and Sell Scheme, what is the role of HDB in (i) ensuring that the developer commits to its obligations; (ii) mediating any impasse between the developer and buyers; and (iii) helping aggrieved buyers.

Mr Zaqy Mohamad asked the Minister for National Development (a) whether there has been an increase in complaints on quality of work in new BTO and DBSS developments in the past 12 months; (b) what is the average proportion of new residents that have complained of defects for such new developments; (c) what are the primary causes of such defects and what quality control measures does HDB have in place to check and ensure the high quality of public housing prior to the keys being handed over to the residents; and (d) what measures are in place to ensure that building contractors are responsive and have sufficient capacity to address the complaints effectively and quickly.

Madam, most of our new flats are sold under the Build-To-Order (BTO) programme where HDB directly influences design, construction and pricing. BTO flats are sold directly by HDB to flat buyers and HDB is fully responsible for the timely delivery and quality of the flats sold.

Despite a significant ramp up in our BTO programme over the last four years, the quality of BTO flats has not been compromised. On average, about a third of all new residents approach the Building Service Centre (BSC) for assistance after collecting their keys. Some of these requests for assistance – about a quarter of them – relate to issues, such as low water

Page: 37

pressure due to the implementation of water saving measures, as well as paint stains that need to be cleaned up in their units. Other requests, about 75%, relate to defects that residents come across. The vast majority of the reported defects are surface imperfections, such as hairline cracks on walls, scratches on timber floor or uneven tile joints.

The number of defects reported has not changed significantly over the years. Such imperfections are mostly within acceptable industry norms and are also common in private developments. They can and should be rectified quickly by the contractors and do not affect the structural integrity or safety of the building.

There is an objective industry standard to measure the quality of building projects. It is assessed independently by the Building and Construction Authority (BCA) and is known as Construction Quality Assessment System (CONQUAS) score. Over the years, the quality of BTO flats has improved from a score of 79 in 2003 to 89 in 2014. It continues to rise and is comparable to that in private developments.

HDB takes the quality of its homes seriously, not just because it is a major long-term investment of Singaporeans but, more importantly, because these are people's homes and, therefore, people's expectations are rising. HDB has a system of checks in place to ensure that its flats are free of major defects. However, due to the high dependency on workmanship of individual workers, we can expect that there will be some defects. Sometimes, this could be due to differences in the understanding of what constitutes a defect. For example, some owners have given feedback on colour inconsistencies for floor with timber finishes. As timber is a natural product, it is not possible to achieve a completely homogenous look.

There is a Defects Liability Period (DLP) to allow for any defects to be rectified. HDB also requires its contractors to deploy staff at the on-site Building Service Centre (BSC) to respond to residents' requests promptly and to rectify all defects within a stipulated time-frame.

But we do have zero tolerance for defects which may compromise structural or safety standards, or which deviate significantly from what has been promised to buyers.

Besides the BTO programme, there is the Design, Build and Sell Scheme (DBSS) to give flat buyers more choice by allowing private developers to build and sell flats directly to the buyers. HDB sets the buyer's eligibility requirements and provides broad planning parameters such as the mix of flat types, flat sizes and the range of social and community facilities to be provided. Within this framework, the private developer of the DBSS project is responsible for the design, pricing and construction quality of the flat. Prospective buyers, in turn, decide if the price set by the developer is acceptable for the design and furnishings

Page: 38

provided.

To protect homebuyers, the DBSS developer has to fully comply, like any other developer, with the requirements of the relevant authorities, such as the Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) and BCA in the design and construction of the project, and the Controller of Housing in the marketing and sale of the units.

Furthermore, under the Sale and Purchase (S&P) Agreement between the DBSS developer and home buyers, the developer is contractually obliged to build the unit in a good and workman-like manner. The S&P also requires the developer to rectify any defects within the defects liability period.

DBSS projects are developed by different private developers, who may offer varying fixtures and finishes for their project. The feedback on the quality of finishes differs from project to project. Nonetheless, residents who face issues with the quality of the flats should report them to BSC managed by the developer during the DLP. If the developer fails to address them, the buyers will have legal recourse against the developer as provided for under the S&P Agreement. Although HDB is not a party to this agreement, HDB plays an active role in ensuring a fair and satisfactory outcome. When DBSS flat buyers raise concerns or feedback about DBSS units, HDB will approach and ask the developer to take the appropriate action under the circumstances.

Madam, I would like to thank the Minister of State for his reply. I have three supplementary questions. With the sizeable complaints of recent DBSS projects arising from an apparent mismatch of expectations, poor workmanship and accountability, can I ask the Minister of State on the roles which should be played in overseeing the DBSS scheme from design and construction to handing over of keys? What more can be done to ensure greater accountability of developers?

With prices between private and HDB units, and the price gap between BTO and DBSS flats narrowing, what is the Ministry's direction on such premium HDB flats moving forward?

Finally, on the corridor width of 1.2 metres, will this width pose safety and rescue concerns, especially for those in wheelchairs or with mobility assisted devices?

Madam, the Member asked three questions: first, on the role of HDB in DBSS. As I said earlier, HDB sets the broad parameters, such as eligibility, provides grants, decides on size and community services, and then with that, allows the private developer to build, finance, construct and sell. Nonetheless, as I said earlier, HDB will refer complaints to the developer and will work with the developer to ensure that residents' concerns are

Page: 39

addressed. HDB upstream does actively engage DBSS developers by sharing HDB's experiences and lessons learned from previous DBSS projects and provides feedback in the areas of safety, security, durability and ease of maintenance. For example, during the early upstream stage in design, HDB will arrange for a meeting with the developer to share with them and their consultants HDB's experience on the above issues, like safety, durability, security and ease of maintenance and civil and structural design considerations, including lessons learned from DBSS' projects upstream and further measures.

As for DBSS as a scheme, MND has suspended DBSS scheme in 2011, as Members would know, and there is no plan to launch new DBSS projects in the immediate future. As the scheme is already suspended, we need not rush into deciding whether to abolish the scheme or not. We should take time to consider and review this as market conditions could be different and there may well be reasons to bring back the DBSS scheme in some form.

The Member also asked about the width of some corridors in recent DBSS projects that had been completed. That developer has chosen to restrict the width of the corridor to the safety limits as required by BCA and SCDF. Residents are concerned about this. It means that they may not be able to put anything outside the corridor. Everything has to be in the home or stored downstairs, for instance, bicycles. HDB is working with the advisers concerned and approaching the developer, along with the residents, to see how these concerns can be addressed.

Mdm Speaker, I have four supplementary questions for the Minister of State. First, I am not sure if the Minister of State had answered my question about the rate of complaints on the DBSS scheme for the flats that were completed over the last two years. I want to know also whether the complaints have been rising and, given the wide public backlash over many of the DBSS flats that came up recently, would the Minister of State say how DBSS has fulfilled its intent. And, I quote, the intent is "to meet the housing aspirations of higher income flat buyers for better design and finishes". So, do all these complaints signify that the DBSS has actually failed in its intent?

Second, I want to know what is the comparison of the number of complaints for BTO versus DBSS flats, in terms of, say, per 100 or 1,000 flats that are completed.

Third supplementary question is this: the 2007 and 2013 BCA Accessibility Code has guidelines for doors, especially manoeuvring spaces at doors. For the term "doors", I am not sure if it also includes gates, because one of the complaints, for example, at Pasir Ris ONE is that the gates at the opposite ends can almost touch one another when they are all opened.

Page: 40

So, can the Minister of State confirm whether the gates are considered as doors and whether they meet the BCA Code? Finally, the residents that I have communicated with in this DBSS, have complained that when they took up the design issues with the developers, they were told, and I quote, "Everything approved by HDB". I would like to understand what HDB does or does not approve. So, what are the areas that are approved by HDB?

Madam, let me try to deal with the questions, in turn. As for the rate, the data that the Member has asked, I do not have these figures. In any event, when we talk about the rate of defect and DBSS units, between DBSS projects, they differ significantly, because they are not standardised models. They differ in terms of their attributes; finish and the fittings that are available. So, that is not a meaningful comparison.

The second question – and this is more critical – is about whether, as the Member says, the scheme has failed in its intent. I am not quite sure what the Member means by "failed". Does it mean that it is not taken up by residents? Does it mean that all residents reject what they see after they moved into their units? It is important to also recognise in that respect that there have been 13 DBSS projects since 2005, and many, many residents have moved into these units and purchased them. They have seen it, they liked it, they moved in, and certainly like all developments, both HDB, BTO, private, as well as office and commercial, there will be defects, there will be concerns. This is not to trivialise the defects and the concerns that first-time home buyers in particular feel when they see scratches or paint marks on their units, or more serious defects. But I think we should not, as Minister Lim talked about in the context of another Parliamentary Question (PQ) on MOM, use these current few points that have been in the public eye, to condemn the entire scheme as a failure. Many people have, indeed, lived and made homes with their families in these projects.

As for whether my view is that a gate is a door as specified under the 2007 and 2013 BCA accessibility guidelines, also a technicality of the nature of this query, please allow me to go back and have a check; perhaps the Member can communicate his concerns with me. But if it is in relation to the Pasir Ris ONE project, the Deputy Prime Minister and the Member for Parliament of the constituency has visited the site. Residents have taken this issue up with him, the developer and HDB. Let us allow these negotiations to take place.

As for the claim that he heard that the DBSS developer had given approval for something or other, I think it is a bit too ambiguous as to what this is about. I think if there is some specificity about what he says has been approved by HDB, allow us to check with the background that he can provide us. As I said earlier, HDB provides a broad parameter on

Page: 41

eligibility and so on, and within that, the private developer has a broad flexibility to design, build, finance and to sell.

Mdm Speaker, I thank the Minister of State for answering the Parliamentary Question that I submitted. I have one point to add. While the number of defects may probably be the same as the Minister of State had highlighted earlier, in some countries, as my residents highlighted to me, their practice is the monies to be paid to the developers or one main contractor are held back until all defects are cleared.

At the same time, for the homeowners, they also do joint inspections with the developer. So, in that sense, there is some incentive for the developer or the main contractor to close off the defects as soon as possible. This is what I noticed for two BTOs in my estate – one was three years ago and one is now. The number of defects, as compared to your studies, is probably the same, but I think the reactions to the latest one are much more severe, largely because I think the developers tend to push back some of these defect complaints or they delay the repairs and so forth, and this frustrates many homeowners.

The second question is, when you have cases where developers or contractors delay repairs or they are not able to work on them on time, would HDB consider extending the DLP or postponing the start of the payment scheme for homeowners? Basically, they start paying their mortgages later, and once repairs are completed, they can move in. When they see delays, they are frustrated, as it affects the time they get to move in, because these repairs are not done on time.

In the context of delays and concerns that residents get affected when repairs and rectifications are delayed, under the Sales and Purchase Agreement for BTOs, and I believe it is also the case for DBSS, these have to be reported and resolved within the one-year defect liability period. But, specifically, I believe under the S&P Agreement,

Page: 42

there is a requirement for the developer to address the issue and rectify within a month, and if he needs more time for whatever reason, like gathering of materials, doing more checks, then that needs to be agreed with or informed to the buyer. If the developer or the contractor, in that case, does not resolve this within one month, then the buyer can give adequate notice to the contractor or developer to rectify, and then make a claim or reimbursement.

So, in a way, we should not have delays in rectification. Sometimes, it is because the rectification is not up to the expectation of the resident, or there may be problems along the way that need to be resolved; so, there may be some time that is needed. But, by and large, our understanding is that most rectifications, particularly hairline cracks, stains, scratches, ought to be resolved and should be resolved by the contractors expeditiously, so as not to cause inconvenience to residents.

Thank you, Madam. I would like to ask the Minister of State questions in three areas. First, he talked about the briefing sessions that HDB holds for DBSS developers about experience from past DBSS projects. May I ask, is there advisory given based on years of public housing experience that HDB has in terms of good design, so that the DBSS developers can refer to at the planning stage? Does HDB endorse, or is HDB even informed or briefed on the design before the project launch by the developer? So, this is question one.

The second question is about the statistics about the reported defects. The Minister of State has shared about BTO projects. Are there similar statistics about the defects received by the DBSS BSCs over these 13 projects? And is that a trend that reflects flat quality or is it just a matter of changing buyer expectations? Is there a CONQUAS score for DBSS projects as well, on top of what the Minister of State shared for BTO projects?

My last question is about HDB's role. If buyers have questions whether the DBSS developers have met the standards set by the various authorities, can HDB help to check and advise the buyers accordingly, or do we expect the buyers to pursue the matter at their own time, own effort and own cost?

Madam, the first question, I think the answer should be yes as to whether or not HDB shares its experience, built on many years of public housing with these DBSS developers. It will share its experience not in relation to past DBSS' projects, but also its experience on maintenance and the like.

Page: 43

The second question is on CONQUAS scores, whether that is also for DBSS, happily the answer is yes. I do not have the scores available.

The third as to whether it is comparable, as I had said earlier, it is very difficult in the first place to compare one DBSS project with another, because one project may have different configuration, different size. It may have different finishings, and certainly, different range, type and number of fittings. So, it will be very hard for there to be comparisons. And, more importantly, the comparison with BTO is hard to draw. As I had said earlier, for BTO projects, in the last four years, about a third of the new residents moving in have approached the BSCs so we have the data for the average number of people approaching to raise concerns. And some of it, 25%, relate to questions like "There are stain marks, can you clear it up? Water pressure is low, why is it so?" So, the answer will be, it is a water-saving measure that has to be implemented. Seventy-five percent relate to defects that are perceived by these residents, because they move in, and when they look and see these scratches or these paint marks that are on the wall, the surface imperfections, and they then raised it to the BSCs.

These kinds of surface imperfections and defects constitute the vast majority of the feedback given by the residents. And this can and should be resolved quickly by the contractors. I hope that addresses the questions raised.

Mr Liang Eng Hwa (Holland-Bukit Timah): I agree with the Minister of State that we do have cases of surface imperfections. But increasingly, I am getting cases of real defects where there are wall cracks that come with water seepages, doors unable to be closed properly or unable to fit nicely, or tiles which are easily stained but not easily cleaned. So, these cause a lot of frustration to residents and they have to take leave to resolve, and these have caused damages to the fixtures and so on.

So, I would like to ask the Minister of State, why is it the case that there are so many of such defects: wall cracks, seepages and tiles staining? Is it an issue of supervision during construction or the sourcing of suppliers? And also, the Minister of State mentioned that about one-third, or 30% of the residents now to go BSCs but in some cases, in some of the blocks that I encountered, it is more than that. And whether the BSCs have the resources to cope with those cases and to turn around fast enough, and whether HDB comes in to push this along so that some of these defects can be rectified soonest?

If it is a BTO project, then HDB takes responsibility for the quality and of the construction. So, please, perhaps the Member can provide me the details as to which specific blocks or precincts, and then we can follow up. As to what is the issue with the development, whether it is tiles, whether it is doors, or whether it is the tap, toilet or whatever, and we will then follow up on that concern.

As to whether the BSCs have the capacity to deal with these concerns, HDB requires sufficient staff to man the BSC. If a BSC is found to be inadequate in terms of staffing, then it is something that the Branch Office has to provide feedback for and then we will then make sure that the staffing is adequate.

We want to make sure that the teething concerns of residents as they move into their new homes, particularly first-time home buyers, are addressed and addressed suitably. There may be some frustration as to why when things take a little longer, but it is a matter of resourcing. We will fix this.

Madam, in response to Member Liang Eng Hwa's question, the Minister of State said that in the case of BTO, HDB takes responsibility in terms of complaints of defects.

I am asking for DBSS. In the case of DBSS, does the HDB take the same responsibility like BTO projects to make sure that the defects are rectified? In his response to Mr Yee Jenn Jong's question, he said let us not trivialise the defects and complaints. Is he saying that the complaints by residents on the defects are trivial and not important?

He also spoke about imperfection of works and the defects. Can he clarify what is imperfection and what is considered a defect? Hairline crack vis-a-vis a hole somewhere? I think that will make it clear so that residents can understand what is imperfection and what is a real defect.

Madam, I understand that there is a CONQUAS score for DBSS flats. Would the Minister of State make public the CONQUAS score for DBSS flats and also for the cluster or development so that residents would know what is the CONQUAS score for DBSS and for the specific DBSS developments.

It seems that the HDB takes the approach that for DBSS flats, it is between the resident and the developer. And thereby, the resident deals with developer, whether to take legal recourse. If the developer fails to follow up with the defect complaint or take certain action

Page: 45

to rectify it, then, claim against the developer. But, Madam, it is not that simple. It concerns legal matters. It concerns legal costs. We would like to know specifically what role is HDB playing in terms of residents' complaints of defects.

And, lastly, I understand that within the defect liability period, residents can make claims. But in actual fact, there are problems that residents cannot solve themselves. So, could HDB consider asking the developer of DBSS projects to extend the liability period for another year so that residents can be have more time to get the developer to rectify the problems?

And also, there are certain problems. Some residents claim that because —

I think Mr Low have five or six questions. First, I will deal with question two, as to whether I said I trivialised residents' concerns. I think the Member might want to review the transcript. I made it very clear that we should not trivialise residents' concerns, far from trivialising their concerns. Perhaps, there is a misunderstanding there. I hope to make it very clear that it is, indeed, not the case.

As to what the responsibility of HDB is in respect of DBSS vis-a-vis BTO, I have said it in my first reply and subsequent responses to various Members. For BTO projects, HDB is the developer. In DBSS, the developer is a private developer. HDB sets the broad parameters within which the private developer is given the flexibility and because of that, it takes responsibility for its private development works as a DBSS project. The Sale and Purchase Agreement is black and white. It is with the resident and the developer. But having said that, that is not to say that HDB entirely takes no responsibility whatsoever, does not do anything at all. That is clearly not the experience.

For example, when Minister of State Sim Ann had some issues with the Trivelis – and certainly, I am sure Mr Low had followed that with keen interest – HDB, although it is not party to the agreement, followed up with the developer, approached it, worked behind the scenes, worked closely with the advisor to make sure that as between the developer running the DBSS project and the residents, there is some resolution in sight. For example, in Trivelis, it is public knowledge that the developer has made an offer to residents. This is a matter of negotiation that is on-going.

Page: 46

As to whether the CONQUAS scores for all the DBSS projects can be disclosed, I have to check; I think they may be already public for each of the 13 DBSS projects. Let me check and follow up with the hon Member.

As to whether the DLP needs to be extended, I think we do not talk about it in a vacuum or about general concerns about whether residents are able to resolve the issues expeditiously. As I said earlier to this House, the issues need to be surfaced and resolved within the one-year DLP. The developer has certain timelines that it must meet or the contractors have certain timelines that they must meet. If for some reason, any particular development is of particular concern, a particular reason for delay and if there is any basis at all for asking for the DLP to be extended, then let us look at it specifically and not in abstract.