Singapore Expats Forum

Tenancy agreements/leases and your rights as a tenant

Discuss about life in Singapore. Ask about cost of living, housing, travel, etiquette & lifestyle. Share experience & advice with Singaporeans & expat staying in Singapore.

Sponsored by:
Image
AE Logistics - Movers & Storage

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Postby JR8 » Mon, 31 Oct 2011 12:55 pm

You are asking this regarding staying in a Serviced Apartment? And they give you a tenancy agreement? :???:

In any case a Serviced Apartment like a hotel, I predict they won't accept any amendment to any contract for services...

Nomadic Guy
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon, 31 Oct 2011

Postby Nomadic Guy » Mon, 31 Oct 2011 10:44 pm

x9200 wrote:The landlord has the right to sue you anyway because this is everybody's right and cannot be restricted by any agreement. You can sue her/him too.
If you are in breach of some contract clauses leading to the contract termination and it ends up ugly and in the court where the landlord wins he still can sue you in a separate trial to recover the costs regardless TA says something about it or not. It only makes it more straightforward if included to the TA.


I'm definitely not looking to block anyone's right to sue. It just seems that the way the clause is written (below) would lend itself to frivolous lawsuits since the landlord isn't coming out of pocket. I haven't moved to Singapore yet and am not familiar with the court system, but would I be protected enough if I got sued for something silly and still had to pay for legal costs? Especially if that 'immoral' language stays in there. The way the contract's currently written, I could conceivably be sued for something like eating meat or drinking alcohol and would have to bear the cost of the proceedings.

The Tenant agrees to pay all legal expenses
incurred in connection with any claim or legal proceedings which may be brought by the Landlord against the Tenant.

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Postby JR8 » Mon, 31 Oct 2011 11:01 pm

Nomadic Guy wrote:
x9200 wrote:The landlord has the right to sue you anyway because this is everybody's right and cannot be restricted by any agreement. You can sue her/him too.
If you are in breach of some contract clauses leading to the contract termination and it ends up ugly and in the court where the landlord wins he still can sue you in a separate trial to recover the costs regardless TA says something about it or not. It only makes it more straightforward if included to the TA.


I'm definitely not looking to block anyone's right to sue. It just seems that the way the clause is written (below) would lend itself to frivolous lawsuits since the landlord isn't coming out of pocket. I haven't moved to Singapore yet and am not familiar with the court system, but would I be protected enough if I got sued for something silly and still had to pay for legal costs? Especially if that 'immoral' language stays in there. The way the contract's currently written, I could conceivably be sued for something like eating meat or drinking alcohol and would have to bear the cost of the proceedings.




You're being ridiculously worrisome and pedantic.

The 'Immoral behavior' clause in tenancy agreements in Singapore derives from Landlord and Tenant law in England and Wales. It is a completely standard clause.

It is so not worth thinking about.... I am not inclined to write anything further ... zzzz!

Nomadic Guy
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Mon, 31 Oct 2011

Postby Nomadic Guy » Tue, 01 Nov 2011 5:51 am

JR8 wrote:
Nomadic Guy wrote:
x9200 wrote:The landlord has the right to sue you anyway because this is everybody's right and cannot be restricted by any agreement. You can sue her/him too.
If you are in breach of some contract clauses leading to the contract termination and it ends up ugly and in the court where the landlord wins he still can sue you in a separate trial to recover the costs regardless TA says something about it or not. It only makes it more straightforward if included to the TA.


I'm definitely not looking to block anyone's right to sue. It just seems that the way the clause is written (below) would lend itself to frivolous lawsuits since the landlord isn't coming out of pocket. I haven't moved to Singapore yet and am not familiar with the court system, but would I be protected enough if I got sued for something silly and still had to pay for legal costs? Especially if that 'immoral' language stays in there. The way the contract's currently written, I could conceivably be sued for something like eating meat or drinking alcohol and would have to bear the cost of the proceedings.




You're being ridiculously worrisome and pedantic.

The 'Immoral behavior' clause in tenancy agreements in Singapore derives from Landlord and Tenant law in England and Wales. It is a completely standard clause.

It is so not worth thinking about.... I am not inclined to write anything further ... zzzz!


Wow... rude enough?

The original post in this thread recommends striking the immoral language out of the agreement, so you can ease off the tone a bit.

I've also been around more than enough business contracts to be "ridiculously worrisome". Many things that appear to be trifling come back to bite you, and given the reputation of Singapore landlords, it doesn't seem unreasonable to be "pedantic" (awkward use of the word here, but I'll give it to you).

I'm surprised at the abrasive tone, but thanks and have a great day!

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Postby JR8 » Tue, 01 Nov 2011 6:33 am

Ok, put another way.

No Serviced Apartments are going to amend their standard terms of contract just for you. It is no different from checking into a hotel and expecting them to do the same.

Happier now? :)

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9165
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Postby x9200 » Tue, 01 Nov 2011 8:15 am

@Nomadic Guy objectively you are right to some extent but all your pessimistic scenarios are not going to happen. This is for a number of reasons mostly cultural but also legal. Nobody is going to sue you for some minor misconducts because it costs time some non-recoverable money and gives no money in return. Besides almost certainly you will be the only person who is aware about some possible impacts of different clauses in your TA. Your landlord will have no clue as everything around is based on some standardized templates and nobody reads and understands them. If this is a company renting out the premises they will not dare to change anything without referring to a lawyer who will take money for consultation but can be also equally clueless (as per my experience) so they will try to avoid it. In other words the JR8 point is valid - likely you will have to accept it or find another place (where you likely face very similar problem). I have first hand experience with renting an office from a company and managed only to alter some clauses with a lot of rubbish much serious than what you quoted still left in the agreement. Any attempt of your to change anything will bring you the response: this is a standard clause. Yes that's it no further exchange of thoughts on possible legal impacts. You will have much more freedom to negotiate renting from a person.

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Postby JR8 » Tue, 01 Nov 2011 6:55 pm

I'm having to proof read a draft tenancy agreement for one of my places due to let on Thursday, and here it is, the old familiar immorality clause. I was wondering how I'd react if a potential tenant asked me to remove it. Beyond laughing re: all the red flags they've just publicly hoisted I really don't know, but I certainly wouldn't agree...!

p.s. An example of immoral but legal would be housing a brothel. If you have ever lived next to one you'll know what a severe PITA it is. The below clause gives the landlord leverage to get tenants out under such circumstances.


---------------------------------------------------
The Tenant agrees:
...
(iii) not to use, permit, or suffer the Premises to be used for any illegal or immoral purpose including the unauthorised taking or possession of controlled drugs;

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34270
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Tue, 01 Nov 2011 8:30 pm

If I had a tenant who tried to remove that, or even hinted about it, it would be the end of my discussion with that prospect as he's telling me in so many words, that he's not the type of tenant I'd want. Full Stop. Regardless of his reasoning.

JL1234
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 1
Joined: Tue, 01 Nov 2011

TA Clause: Option to Renew

Postby JL1234 » Tue, 01 Nov 2011 9:57 pm

After reading all the messages above, I was wondering, how about this clause in the Tenancy Agreement:

(OPTION TO RENEW)
That the Landlord shall on the written request of the Tenant made not less than TWO [2] calendar months before the expiration of the tenancy hereby created and if there shall not at the time of such request be any existing breach or non-observance of any of the agreements and stipulations on the part of the Tenant grant to the Tenant a tenancy of the said premises for a further term of ONE [1] year from the expiration of the tenancy hereby created at the prevailing market rent and upon the same terms and conditions to be mutually agreed.

>>> If the landlord would like to take back the unit after the expiry of the TA, is he/she allowed to do so? However, tenant would like to renew the contract. How's this goes about?

>> At prevailing market rent, how does this determined?

CJO
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 10
Joined: Sat, 03 Sep 2011
Location: Charlotte, NC, USA

Postby CJO » Tue, 01 Nov 2011 10:43 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:If I had a tenant who tried to remove that, or even hinted about it, it would be the end of my discussion with that prospect as he's telling me in so many words, that he's not the type of tenant I'd want. Full Stop. Regardless of his reasoning.


You may then want to take this line out of the first post:

jpatokal wrote:* Deleting 'immoral' activities from the wording as they can say anything to get you out with that in (illegal is fine but how do you define immoral?);


CJ

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 34270
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004
Location: Still Fishing!
Contact:

Postby sundaymorningstaple » Wed, 02 Nov 2011 12:09 am

Take 'em to court. If they can prove it in the eyes of the law, then you are guilty, if not, you can take 'em to the cleaners for slander/libel. But trying to get it out is waving a red flag to me.

Also, from the top.

Some advice for people signing leases (tenancy agreements) in Singapore, culled from the collective wisdom and experience of forumers. Comments, corrections and suggestions for additions welcome!


Does not say that the following is "must haves" but nice to haves. I was speaking from my own POV. Your's may be different. But I lead a moral life and don't have to worry about it. The LL will have to prove it, as noted above.

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: TA Clause: Option to Renew

Postby JR8 » Wed, 02 Nov 2011 2:11 am

JL1234 wrote:After reading all the messages above, I was wondering, how about this clause in the Tenancy Agreement:

(OPTION TO RENEW)
That the Landlord shall on the written request of the Tenant made not less than TWO [2] calendar months before the expiration of the tenancy hereby created and if there shall not at the time of such request be any existing breach or non-observance of any of the agreements and stipulations on the part of the Tenant grant to the Tenant a tenancy of the said premises for a further term of ONE [1] year from the expiration of the tenancy hereby created at the prevailing market rent and upon the same terms and conditions to be mutually agreed.

>>> If the landlord would like to take back the unit after the expiry of the TA, is he/she allowed to do so? However, tenant would like to renew the contract. How's this goes about?

>> At prevailing market rent, how does this determined?


This 'option' clause to me seems like a complete waste of time, as, as you identify there is no objective definition of 'prevailing market rate'.

If the landlord wants you out - your $x rent/mo is now proposed to me $5x/mo and there is nothing, nil, nada that you can do about it.

User avatar
x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9165
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009
Location: Singapore

Re: TA Clause: Option to Renew

Postby x9200 » Wed, 02 Nov 2011 11:49 am

JL1234 wrote:After reading all the messages above, I was wondering, how about this clause in the Tenancy Agreement:

(OPTION TO RENEW)
That the Landlord shall on the written request of the Tenant made not less than TWO [2] calendar months before the expiration of the tenancy hereby created and if there shall not at the time of such request be any existing breach or non-observance of any of the agreements and stipulations on the part of the Tenant grant to the Tenant a tenancy of the said premises for a further term of ONE [1] year from the expiration of the tenancy hereby created at the prevailing market rent and upon the same terms and conditions to be mutually agreed.

>>> If the landlord would like to take back the unit after the expiry of the TA, is he/she allowed to do so? However, tenant would like to renew the contract. How's this goes about?

If the LL is not agreeable you can not do anything but sue him for damages related to the violation of this clause. So nothing really practical.

>> At prevailing market rent, how does this determined?

I.e. by taking into account the rents of similar units within the same condo but again if the LL not agreeable only the court could rule in your favor.

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16514
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010
Location: K. Puki Manis

Postby JR8 » Wed, 02 Nov 2011 1:28 pm

I think the difficulty with that is that the wheels of justice move so slowly, you'd have had to move out before you could get anything done in court.

lifeofothers
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 3
Joined: Thu, 10 Nov 2011

Postby lifeofothers » Thu, 10 Nov 2011 2:01 pm

Hi.

A newbee here. I have a query relating to agent fees (i have read the very first post here)

We have been living in our unit for 2 years, and have paid agent fees for both these years. However, coming to the 3rd year, the landlord and us mutually agreed on getting into a new contract without the agent, as it is a quite a bit of saving for both parties.

My question is, how do we deal with the agent when he claims his fee (which am sure he will) when we are not obliged to. Does anyone have an experience of a similar situation?

Thanks in advance


  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Staying, Living in Singapore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests