>>Can I ask so far has anyone every go to SCT to lodge a claim against landlord? What was the outcome?
There have been quite a few who prepared to go, but I don't recall any reverting here, after the event. But in any case someone else's outcome has little or no bearing on any case you might bring.
>> I just finish a tenancy and the LL wants to charge us for some problem that was already there when i moved in.
Were these noted on your inventory when you moved in?
>> 1) The tap was somehow spoilt as the water pressure was very small. We didn't thought much of it as is normal to have different water pressure at different places. Now he claims we spoilt it and wants to charge us for it which cost $200.
What kind of tap is it that cost $200? Taps can be repaired. A new washer costs $1. How has he determined that you have caused the problem to the tap such that the water pressure is allegedly reduced - rather that it being due to normal usage, i.e. 'Fair Wear and Tear'.
>> 2) The window latch was also old and worn out(this
condo is a 15 years old condo) One of the latch came out and they are claiming us for the repair.
I feel that all this is under Wear and Tear. Definitely not due to negligence of tenant.
I know the kind of handles, and they are a complete PITA. They are made from painted cast aluminium alloy, and they are very brittle. In 2-odd years at our last place I broke 4-5 of them. They are simple to replace, and cost about $3 each. But again it would be Wear + Tear.
>>The LL is expecting the house to be returned in exact same condition as when he handover to us and not considering his apartment is already old and worn out.
I agree with your thinking. Sadly it seems quite a common ruse in SG for landlords to make deductions due to *fair wear and tear*, to fund bringing a place back to 'as new' condition for the subsequent relet. It is opportunist and unjust.
Is there a W+T clause in your tenancy agreement? Even if there isn't it still applies. If there is a country crying out for the statutory regulation and holding of deposits Singapore would be my candidate; as your situation seems to come up every other week (have you read through all of this and similar topics?).
Do note court is intended as a last resort. The threat of resorting to it is meant to encourage settlement before it gets that far. And a judge/panel Chairman will definitely favour your case more if it is evident that you have tried to resolve matters amicably/informally before wheeling into court.
Good luck. Read this and other similar topics. Revert with any outstanding or modified questions. And if you do ever get as far as the SCT, maybe you'll be '''THE ONE''' to let us know how you got on!