High-handedness of URA and HDB

March 8, 2008 by admin
Filed under: Voices of the People

This is a story about a friend of mine, Jaslyn, who has had first hand experience of the high-handedness of the URA and HDB.

Jaslyn has a business registered under her name, and a van is registered under that business. One day, one of the drivers incurred a parking fine and failed to report it. To make things worse, the letters of reminder sent by URA to the office were misplaced.

Jaslyn only found out about the matter when a letter was sent to her home stating that a warrant of arrest had been issued. She was to present herself at the Warrant Enforcement Unit of URA. The fine had now ballooned from $30 to $400.

After executing the warrant, Jaslyn filed an appealed with the URA upon being told in writing that she was able to do so. She appealed to reduce the fine on the grounds that she only knew about the matter when the warrant of arrest was issued. Jaslyn was a housewife and not stationed at the office premises. Her driver had neglected to inform her about the matter, allowing it to escalate.

However, the URA appeals offer summarily rejected her appeal, stating that registered letters of reminder had been sent, and were deemed received whether or not anyone had signed for it. The appeals officer also stated that an appeal could be successful only if there was a change in registered address of the business. Further, the appeals process does not take into account Jaslyn’s clean record of paying all her previous fines on time.

Jaslyn was understandably annoyed by the reasons given as she had wasted much precious time appealing her case, and was under the impression that she would stand a fair chance. She was unaware of the strict and narrow scope of appeal as explained by the URA appeals officer because the previous correspondence from URA had never stated it. Had she known about it, she would not have bothered appealing to begin with.

However, when Jaslyn raised this issue again with the URA in writing, the URA responded by saying that it considers all relevant facts and information before deciding whether or not to grant an appeal.

This set Jaslyn thinking. The URA appeals officer had clearly stated to Jaslyn that there was only one grounds of appeal the URA would entertain: a change of address with proof. The appeals officer did not say that other facts could be considered, seemingly in contradiction to the follow-up reply by URA. Had the appeals officer handled her case incompetently?

Subsequently, Jaslyn received notice that HDB had not allowed her to renew her season parket ticket for her personal vehicle which was not registered with the company and for which there was no outstanding fines. When Jaslyn pressed them for an explanation, HDB explained via email that this was done on request by URA, which was their equal within the same Ministry of National Development. HDB said that unless the outstanding fine on Jaslyn’s other vehicle was cleared, they would not allow a season parket ticket to be purchased for her personal vehicle.

This was absolutely intolerable to Jaslyn as she felt that she had a valid reason for having unknowingly allowed the fine to escalate into a court warrant, the URA wasted her time by telling her to appeal and then summarily rejecting it, and the HDB now barred her from purchasing a season parket ticket for her personal vehicle which had nothing to do with the vehicle under fine.

Jaslyn then forwarded a comprehensive letter to the news media explaining her situation, in order to alert others to the high-handedness of URA and HDB.

The press called Jaslyn up for an interview to gather information for a possible story.

However, a day after Jaslyn spoke to the press, HDB suddenly made an about-turn, and told Jaslyn that permission had been granted for her to purchase the season parket ticket for her personal vehicle, thus apparently settling the issue. Perhaps after the press approached URA and HDB for confirmation of her story, they made this decision in the hopes that the press would not publish this apparent episode of high-handedness.

On Friday, when the press called Jaslyn to inform her that they would be releasing her story next Monday, Jaslyn told them about the latest developments. Upon reflection, the press was not so sure the story could be released anymore.

It is very likely that URA and HDB gave in to Jaslyn in order to placate her and force the press not to disclose what really happened. However that does not change the fact that they behaved in a high-handed fashion. They only relented when they realized that this episode might be broadcast to the public, putting a dent in their reputation.

In this case, the only way Jaslyn could find a way out of her quagmire was to tell the world what really happened. When the rubber hit the road, the tires gave way.

After all, they say that hell has no fury like a woman scorned. Today we see a living example.

Tags: