The Curious Case of a Spalling Concrete Conundrum
Picture this: a shiny Volkswagen Golf, parked in the basement of Tekka Centre, suddenly finds itself in a concrete‑smashed love story. On April 22, the car’s roof—well, the ceiling of the garage—decided to fling some flake‑crust at the vehicle. The victim: a proud owner named Omar, a Stomp contributor who’s trying to turn this concrete mess into a real story.
What’s Spalling? (No, it’s Not an Animal)
“Spalling” isn’t a new dance craze; it’s a piece of civil‑engineering jargon. The Ministry of National Development explains it as the flaking off of concrete from a ceiling, a result of the iron inside the concrete turning into rust over time. Picture a badly aged sandwich—water and acidity seep in, the iron bars rust, and the concrete starts cracking and bulging. In the end, the floor slab looks more like a crumpled paper than a solid support.
The Town Council’s Cold‑Blooded Determination
When Omar turned to the Tanjong Pagar Town Council (TPTC) for a see‑you‑later form of compensation, the council’s insurers sent in their loss adjusters. They concluded the concrete spalling was just the natural “wear & tear” of a building. Oops! So, no compensation, no apology, no ballooned empathy. It’s the same verdict that would probably apply if a neighbor’s cat had knocked over a vase: the blame lies with what naturally happens over decades.
Omar’s Battle Cry
- “I’ve fought months with the council,” he says. Nor did they turn the sound of his tears into a chorus.
- “I didn’t want an insurance claim,” explaining that a 30% no‑claim discount might rebuke him with a premium hike.
- He felt the injustice was akin to a contractor’s personal negligence. “Why should I face the music if no one walked there that day?” the man’s question slams the point: wasn’t the concrete the culprit?
- Omar piled up the Car’s damage estimate—nearly SGD 8,000—and held that money, refusing to breath the headache of the repair.
Some Innocent Friends in the Crowd
Friends whispered, “Put it on social media” and chased the idea with hashtags. Yet Omar’s work kept him tethered. He wants justice, not a viral story.
Why the Council Says “It’s Just Wear & Tear”
The spalling phenomenon is a common issue with many structures worldwide. The council thinks a standard paint‑over and regular maintenance could have tamed the concrete. If you mark a wall on your basement with fresh paint, you’ll likely prevent the concrete from courting cracks, rusk‑that’s that rasp thing over the years.
Key Takeaways (in a casual round)
- Concrete isn’t a villain..yet! The council trusts engineering, not weathering.
- Claims on the insurance policy are a fealty to the system. Though he fears the 30% penalty.
- Omar’s quest for “justice” does not end in a policy payout. He wants accountability.
- Even if a tenant had walked over that day, the council would hold the same judgement. It’s a structural effect, not a human act.
At last, we’re left with a lot of questions: does the council recognise the stiffness among residents? Are they ready for paint‑over upgrades? Will the council admit that the concrete’s poetic performance grew out of a neglected maintenance schedule? Unfortunately, this story ends with an unanswered ticking of the hallway lights.
stay tuned, folks
Who’s Really to Blame? The Great Car‑Parking Mystery
Picture this: a slick sedan is cruising down the street when whoosh—you’ve got a dent that looks like a hailstorm hit it. The culprit? A parking lot that should have been in tip‑top shape. Now the real question is who’s bearing the blame.
Enter the Inspectorate
Mr. Omar, the handy hero of the story, first reached out in May. He told the town council that the parking lot needed fixing. The council, donning their “official” hats, handed the case over to the insurers.
- The insurers checked the evidence and concluded that the town council didn’t have any legal responsibility.
- Omar tried to wiggle the instructions again, hoping the insurers might be more flexible, but they still held fast to the same verdict.
- Now Omar’s preparing to bring the dispute to the FIDReC – the Financial Industry Disputes Resolution Centre. He wants to make sure the public liability insurer is on notice.
What the Consultants Mumbled Back
In a letter dated June 15 from FormTeam Consultancy, the word “wear and tear” got way too much airtime. They argued that:
- It’s natural for a car park to suffer from “general wear” over time, and the municipality isn’t required to patch every single scratch.
- The company has done its best to fix issues as soon as they’re noticed.
- The consultant’s own girlfriend (okay, just kidding) data says they’re not liable. So they’re politely refusing any responsibility.
Key Takeaway
While the consultant’s scribble sounds like legal jargon, the moral is clear: the parking lot’s manager (TPTC) claims its duty was fulfilled, and it’s not legally liable for this particular incident. The hinge of the argument lies in “wear and tear” and whether the lot can be expected to be object‑proof.
What’s the Next Move?
Omar’s next stop is a mediation session at FIDReC, hoping to boot the public liability insurer—kept in their clean‑up kit. The consultants have handed over a list of names, and the case is in the hands of lawyers who love a good dime‑for‑a‑dime showdown.
So, while the road to justice might be long, the story’s lesson is that you can’t always blame the parking lot—especially when it’s “just normal wear and tear.” Who knew?
