landlord charged after tenants moved out ???

[x9200]

JR8, please google the term trespassing Singapore / British law and see how it is defined. In the case of trespassing to land they do not talk about ownership but possession. There is again a reason for this.

[Beeroclock]

Seems wanderer has wandered off..... If u still see this , I wouldn't be intimidated by landlords legal threat. If it goes legal it will be via small claims tribunal SCT and there are no lawyers there anyway, both represent yourselves.

Obviously there are different views here but in my opinion you will be alright. In case landlord tries to claim you for the unpaid rent. You just need to go SCT and pay $20 to counterclaim for your deposit back. Then comes the issue of the cleaning/damages which you need to have your paperwork to show the landlord accepted it upon your vacation/handover and your own cleaning receipt etc. Good luck but next time pls don't go and delete your posts and ruin the thread!

[Beeroclock]

Regarding withholding final rent in lieu of deposit. Indeed it is a contract breach and a dangerous game for any tenant to play.

However as we have seen several times the system goes against the tenant:

1. Deposit held by LL instead of independent body
2. Difficult or impossible to enforce SCT order.

Unfortunately some LL's exploit this to unfairly take some or all of the deposit from the tenant.

taking this example if OP had paid the final rent he would be out of pocket now and unlikely to get it back.

As it stands by withholding the rent, he can likely avoid paying for these damages, which if we take him at his word, are not his responsibility.

So whether it's "right" or "wrong" I am personally happier with this outcome and let the LL go to SCT and prove these damages if he is so legally confident as he threatens to be.

[x9200]

Lovely. He just got banned.

Moderator

[sundaymorningstaple]

Yeah, I just pulled up a cached page to reinstate but see you already got to it before I did.

[x9200]

Yep.

[JR8]

IME tenants are rather like long-term hotel guests, new this year - gone next. I realise that in central Europe it can be different and there many people rent for life. That would be considered weird in England.

And @ X9: Sure, you always have valid reason. ... a) why would I want to interfere with tenants without one b) I've a choice of a dozen others anywayz. Right?


<i>I don't know how is it in the UK but assuming it has to adhere to the EU law, ... you could be even arrested. It's a criminal offense.</i>


You assume wrong. But it explains why I'm getting out of landlording right now after 25 years. If tenants rent in the EU goes up 100% whose to blame, not me, great achievement [clapping].

[JR8]

So tiresome when a thread get chopped..


Why to bother, at all ...

[x9200]

@JR8, just google it out as earlier suggested. Being a LL does not make anyone right in everything concerning law, property and legal possession. You miss a lot of basics.

[JR8]

@JR8, just google it out as earlier suggested. Being a LL does not make anyone right in everything concerning law, property and legal possession. You miss a lot of basics.

No of course it doesn't, and I never suggested it. But say a car mechanic of 20 years might be better experienced to choose the best tool for a job on a car engine, than some DIYer in his front yard at home. Said engineer would also love to hear what 'basics he's missing' after being successfully employed in the job for 20+ years

Please note, that I had not seen your earlier updated posts @me until just now.

X9:
you can enter the premisses but you must have a valid reason. It is not by your "I wanna do it just because and you have to let me in"

I suspect you can always find a valid reason if you want one. 'The neighbours reported water leaking through their ceiling into their bathroom', and so on. Of course you can't really do that if there is a tenant in-situ at that time, who is refusing to let you in. Perhaps the same reason that in squatted property, they always leave at least one person in occupation at any time who has a right to refuse entry, (without a court warrant).

Quiet Enjoyment is subjective. And, I can't say I've *ever* heard of a tenant suing on that ground. Whereas I have used it as a Ground to get tenants out, ones who via their lifestyle and behaviour are denying their neighbours this right.

I don't know what this 'EU property law' you refer to is. Can you link something? I'm well up to date with UK (E+W) property law, and have never heard of anything like you suggest. I think one also needs to keep in mind that the SGn law of 'Landlord + Tenant' derives directly from English law. For example when I read a SGn TA, 98% of it is completely familiar. The exception(s) being things like a Diplomatic Clause. Oh and the interpretation of permissible 'Fair Wear and Tear'. Other than that, a TA here is identical to a typical one in say London.

side-note: This might interest you -
https://sg.answers.yahoo.com/question/i ... 354AAWQMKS - 'Why is trespass not illegal in the UK?

[Beeroclock]

Great work Mods to recover those deleted posts !

[Beeroclock]

@X9

Nope. A landlord makes an appointment with reasonable notice and a tenant can’t stop them. A LL can also act ‘in case of emergency’ when they can just walk right in.

I could say... ‘Right, I need to visit in 2 working days time at 10am'. Just because you aren’t there, or don’t like it, matters nought. Unless I’m making a habit of this to the extent of prejudicing your Quiet Enjoyment it’s all completely allowed.

Similarly during your last month, a landlord/agent can have 20 sets of people traipsing around your home per day. They can also do it too if you’re a tenant, and they’re trying to sell. There’s not a lot you can do (ref: back to seeking remedy/relief under QE).

The TA's I have signed here have clauses permitting LL access for viewings, maintenance etc, but this is subject to reasonable timing, prior notification and mutual agreement

[Beeroclock]

And another thing:

The Angelic Tenant with: Oh we did no damage, we left it in better condition than we found it!!!'

Yeah, and then as landlord get a property back and find all the stuff they've tried to hide. The broken ice-box drawer in the fridge. The 1m*1m section of wall where a guest projectile vomited, painted in the wrong shade of 'Brilliant white'.

The melted/singed bit of carpet that was damaged when they were blow-drying their hair, and Stavros and Kevin decided to leap on them and give them a 'highlighting to remember'. Unfortunately 'Oh Stavros, Oh Kevin, what about the landlords carpet!' never seems to come into it'.

The tails of woe, the protests of 'it wasn't me, I didn't dun nuffink, it wasn't me, it's not my fault!' can be quite ... surprisingly creative.

JR8, please note in this specific case, OP has already stated that the final property handover condition was signed off by the landlord, after hours of careful checking. Afterwards the landlord has subsequently tried to amend his position and claim the tenant for cleaning/damages.

[JR8]

The TA's I have signed here have clauses permitting LL access for viewings, maintenance etc, but this is subject to reasonable timing, prior notification and mutual agreement

So how does it work?

- I'd say: 'You reported a problem with the bathroom tap, can I come by tomorrow and look at it?
- Reply: Sure.

Alt.
- Landlord's flat is dumping 10,000 gallons of water a day into the homes below. Tenant is away. Yet we have to wait until they return from their months holiday to legally gain access?

Clearly the latter makes no sense.



p.s. re: your PS. Yes, once a 'check-out report' is done and agreed then that's that. I agree that you can't come back and seek to change it ...

[x9200]

@JR, your experience as a LL is probably not better than my experience as a tenant and a consumer if this comes to the number of legally sensitive encounters. You don't work as a professional legal consultant or something over this line, do you?

Lets get back to where it started:
JR8:The landlord has a right to enter at reasonable times, having given reasonable notice. He does not need permission to enter his own property (although such things might be considered polite).

Could you please direct me to a British / Singapore law that states this right? I am not saying there is no such law and I am absolutely correct but I would just like to see some quality arguments based on something more then somebodies opinion.

An indirect argument from my side: if such law existed you wouldn't need all this clauses in all typical TAs you can find around.

Trespassing:
English law
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trespass_in_English_law
Trespass to land
In English law, trespass to land involves the "unjustifiable interference with land which is in the immediate and exclusive possession of another". It is not necessary to prove that harm was suffered to bring a claim, and is instead actionable per se. [..] Accidental trespass also incurs liability, with an exception for entering land adjoining a road unintentionally (such as in a car accident), [..] Although previously a pure tort, the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994 created some circumstances in which trespass to land can also be a crime.[6]
Land is defined as the surface, subsoil, airspace and anything permanently attached to the land, such as houses.

Singapore law
Miscellaneous Offences (Public Order and Nuisance) Act (CHAPTER 184)
Wilful trespass on property
21. —(1) Any person who without satisfactory excuse wilfully trespasses on any ground belonging to the Government or appropriated to public purposes, or in or on any dwelling-house or premises or any land or ground attached thereto, or on any boat or vessel, not thereby in any of such cases causing any actual damage, or not causing in the opinion of the Magistrate’s Court more than nominal damage, shall be guilty of an offence and shall be liable on conviction to a fine not exceeding $1,000.

I could add to it the Eastern Europe or even Central Euoropean examples. It is all, the same (well, similar) because it is based on the same paradigm: possession is protected over ownership. These are the basics, or a broader image if you like it.