x9200 wrote:taxico wrote:while the LL should have informed you as soon as reasonably possible about HIP, the LL is unable to control circumstances out of the LL's control.
Leaving aside this specific case, why not? Even in the case of force majeure (FA) (if not addressed in the TA) it should be IMHO assumed that the LL is responsible for what he promised. That's why clauses related to FA are a standard inclusion to the TAs.
we should not confuse untenantability with liability.
this is my 2c:
an untenatability clause (through, say, an act of god, or even arson) supposes that the dwelling may prove no longer viable/possible for residence. in this case, sure, determine the tenancy and refund the deposit and balance of the rent, sue for damages, etc.
however, a broken window in one rental flat due to a fallen tree during a storm differs to that of a support wall/beam damaged in another rental flat because of the same felled tree in the same storm in the same block.
as a tenant, i cannot expect to move out and break my lease simply because of force majeure - the
property has to be damaged to an extent as set out in the TA (quite a specific and high bar if the TA was one supplied by the realtor) if that's what i'm relying on.
further, since a force majeure clause can include acts of god or anything else outside the control of the LL - HDB statutes/regulations (compulsory HIP/SERS/etc) IF it was included, borrowing the "quiet enjoyment" clause surely cannot pass muster.
the HIP contractors do not work for the LL but HDB. the tenant was also free to DISALLOW the HIP contractor from entering the premises (this is real and it happens). if the LL forces their way in, the tenant may have a "quiet enjoyment" case. i, however, do suspect the inspection was done with the consent of the tenant (perhaps not knowing its rights).
finally, my understanding is that, in cases of contractual force majeure, the contract is merely suspended until the end of the event/termination of contract. in this case, a suspension of 1, 4 or a maximum 10-day period (costs for cleaning and other associated bills to be determined). however, as no work had happened yet, the tenant is on feeble tortious ground.
as a corollary, i similarly cannot expect to move out and break my lease because of spalling concrete identified in 3 areas, because like the broken window example above, it can be safely repaired/rectified within a short span of time (and which, can be argued, is the LL's way of ensuring its tenants' safety).
[in fact, fear of chunks of concrete falling on my head may be a better reason to move (maybe - depends on whether it's widespread and/or visible).]
of course, if the LL had known that there were such defects prior to the start of the tenancy, it's grounds for misrepresentation/contributing fault, but i doubt this can be proven by the OP, who was happy to consider staying there for at least 3 years.
the fact that the LL had known about HIP since 7/15 can be spun both ways. will a reasonable person (ie, singaporean HDB dwelling flat owner) that knows HIP is a 3-7 year-long program expect to keep his flat vacant from time of announcement until HIP has been completed?
quiet enjoyment (re: HIP) - simply put, it is not the right defense.
the LL will be liable if it did not correct defects in its tenanted property. at no time had inconvenience or loss been suffered (beyond the time spent worrying, inspecting and meeting), so there is no liability, and thus fault, on the LL's part.
the tenant may feel that the LL sticking a police report on the property's window may be illegal, but likely it is not. i'm sure it happened AFTER the relations between you two deteriorated (and after you found alternative accommodation), and in light of the matter, understandably so.
if the tenant thinks the LL has done something illegal, i say do not be afraid to let her suffer the consequence.
regardless, as everybody's interpretation of a situation is different, the tenant may find the LL's position unreasonable. i would certainly not have made such a feeble first offer if the OP was my tenant.
nonetheless, through the timeline above, i can certainly see the LL making concessions, and the tenant making none. this is important because justice has to be equitable. i think that the tenant jumped the gun here, and at no time had there been any attempt by the tenant to find a compromise. if there were, perhaps the OP had no shared it with us yet.
OP: i did not put a lengthy reply to antagonize you or take your LL's side. if you cannot provide proof nor slowly and cohesively argue it out here, you may not do better at SCT while the clock is ticking.
it's good that you've identified when your LL was notified about HIP. however there would surely be notices stuck all over your block and estate? if there weren't, do you have proof?
the LL may have chosen the october to december period for HIP. but can you explain how that is relevant to your argument? and what were the options available to her that she could have chosen to avoid this issue in the first place? and do you have proof?
