Rental Dispute Over Hidden Noise Issues

[mmmmiia]

The maxim caveat emptor applies, meaning “buyer beware”. The landlord has probably not done anything wrong in the eyes of the law. The law requires you to do your due diligence and sign the contract at your own risk. If you had noise concerns then you should’ve included a statement in the lease stating that the landlord represents that there are no known noise issues at the unit, particularly as you knew of your medical condition. Alas, you did not. I presume that you didn’t even tell the landlord of your medical condition before signing the lease.

That said i do sympathise. But in this scenario, you will probably lose your case. You will need to pay the rent, full stop. Only thing left to decide is if you can live there or not.

Thank you for your advice. However, the fact that the condo developer provided noise-reduction blinds due to structural issues is material information that should have been disclosed prior to the contract. Concealing this information constitutes grounds for nullifying the agreement (this is also recognized under Singapore law). Furthermore, rejecting replacement tenants purely to secure a higher rent violates the duty to mitigate losses.

I agree that I should have included more explicit terms regarding noise in consideration of my health condition. However, I feel that tenants in Singapore tend to give up too easily.

I have completed the filing with the SCT, and the landlord has since sent me a message expressing a willingness to negotiate.

If they truly believed they were in the right, I think they would have proceeded with the SCT without hesitation.

[PNGMK]

Yeah I don't think Aussie is speaking from a point of expertise.

[abbby]

@mmmmiia Do update us on the outcome, it would be interesting to know.

[NYY1]

I find this situation and the early termination case interesting. Personally, I don't agree with the claims about violating the "peaceful enjoyment" clause or not disclosing information.

At the same time, I understand how damages are being computed (tenants are trying to make the landlord whole upon vacating) and why mediated outcomes/judgments would look to this amount. I think most landlords just want to be made whole, so once they start talking to someone that has good representation or won't be pushed around (i.e. pay the full rental due), they just agree to settle.

However, does this mean a landlord can kick out a tenant at any time and just pay to move their stuff plus any increases in rent the tenant will incur?

That's essentially what the tenants are doing; despite signing contracts, they are not really bound to them and are only paying the difference in economics.

[AussieSG]

The maxim caveat emptor applies, meaning “buyer beware”. The landlord has probably not done anything wrong in the eyes of the law. The law requires you to do your due diligence and sign the contract at your own risk. If you had noise concerns then you should’ve included a statement in the lease stating that the landlord represents that there are no known noise issues at the unit, particularly as you knew of your medical condition. Alas, you did not. I presume that you didn’t even tell the landlord of your medical condition before signing the lease.

That said i do sympathise. But in this scenario, you will probably lose your case. You will need to pay the rent, full stop. Only thing left to decide is if you can live there or not.

Thank you for your advice. However, the fact that the condo developer provided noise-reduction blinds due to structural issues is material information that should have been disclosed prior to the contract. Concealing this information constitutes grounds for nullifying the agreement (this is also recognized under Singapore law). Furthermore, rejecting replacement tenants purely to secure a higher rent violates the duty to mitigate losses.

I agree that I should have included more explicit terms regarding noise in consideration of my health condition. However, I feel that tenants in Singapore tend to give up too easily.

I have completed the filing with the SCT, and the landlord has since sent me a message expressing a willingness to negotiate.

If they truly believed they were in the right, I think they would have proceeded with the SCT without hesitation.

There is no nullification of a lease due to non-disclosure of a material fact or information. Otherwise, landlords would submit their entire surveys and documents relating to the purchase to cover themselves against tenants. If, however, you asked about noise issues and landlord denied there were any, then yes you could potentially nullify on the grounds of misrepresentation. However, landlords protect themselves by including an "Entire Agreement" clause that basically neutralizes everything said and done pre-lease.

If the lease states that the rent has been reserved and is payable as a debt then you cannot argue mitigation because mitigation applies only to damages, not to debt. The two are wholly different concepts.