Tenancy agreements/leases and your rights as a tenant

Post by **x9200** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 10:28 am

Even if the LL is a resident I don't think he can install cctv without the other residents consent.

JR8 · Post by **JR8** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:00 am

x9200 wrote:Even if the LL is a resident I don't think he can install cctv without the other residents consent.

Hmmm, yes, I wonder... I can see that that might be a grey area. I think (gut feel) you're probably right if the tenants are already in occupation. But I suspect if the camera is there from beforehand maybe he could make a case that's it's a nanny-cam, or for home-security... and maybe is not obliged to remove it.

sjiyndg · Post by **sjiyndg** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:09 am

Thanks for the responses.

The landlord is a Singaporean male in is mid-late 40s

The girls have of course thought about moving out but they are only 2 months into a 1 year contract and as most tenants in Singapore know, they have very rights without it becoming very costly.

The camera was installed AFTER they had signed contracts and moved in. it was then taken out and then reinstalled ... without any notification

thanks for the advice though on outrage of modesty, this does seem to be one to look up.

a quick wiki check came up with:

Word or gesture intended to insult the modesty of a woman – Whoever, intending to insult the modesty of any woman, utters any word, makes any sound or gesture, or exhibits any object, intending that such word or sound shall be heard, or that such gesture or object shall be seen by such woman, or intrudes upon the privacy of such woman, shall be punished with imprisonment of up to one year, or with a fine, or with both.[117]

I guess the bold bit is the key

JR8 · Post by **JR8** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:54 am

Well done, that looks like the answer. Perhaps now, armed with that knowledge, you could go to the police and seek their advice as to how best to proceed (don't file a report or anything at this stage).

Unfortunately there appear to be no free walk-in legal advice centres in this country, so first stop is the police. I remember the first time I went to a police back home seeking advice. It was the first time inside a police station, and I was nervous about going there. But there is nothing to worry about, they really don't bite, in fact they're friendly and happy to try and help.

Post by **x9200** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 11:58 am

JR8 wrote:
x9200 wrote:Even if the LL is a resident I don't think he can install cctv without the other residents consent.
Hmmm, yes, I wonder... I can see that that might be a grey area. I think (gut feel) you're probably right if the tenants are already in occupation. But I suspect if the camera is there from beforehand maybe he could make a case that's it's a nanny-cam, or for home-security... and maybe is not obliged to remove it.

If the camera was already there and he could prove they saw it before or at the time they moved in and not made any requests to remove it (if were not informed about it earlier) then I think he is reasonably safe. Fortunately this is not the case.

Post by **x9200** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:04 pm

sjiyndg wrote:The girls have of course thought about moving out but they are only 2 months into a 1 year contract and as most tenants in Singapore know, they have very rights without it becoming very costly.

If they can survive this period and had the camera removed - that's fine and probably the least troublesome solution but this would not guaranty the return of the deposit anyway. Small Claim Tribunal is straightforward, cheap ($10-20), reasonably fast and there are no lawyers (as of the parties) involved. Don't be afraid of using it. If it comes to the worst, probably the thread of going there will be enough for the LL to return the deposit.

Post by **sundaymorningstaple** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:29 pm

I reckon the threat of "Outraging" will probably produce faster and more equitable results, like a rapid repayment of deposit and such than going through the SCT. Also, use their own phones to gather evidence when the owner is spying on them, using one to bait while the other records the movement of the camera out of the view of the camera. They could even bait him if he's that perverted.

Post by **x9200** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 12:52 pm

Yes, but if he complies with the camera and only after they move out they use it against him to get back the deposit this IMHO would be blackmailing. It could be seen as criminal.

Post by **sundaymorningstaple** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 3:12 pm

Why would you wait until you moved out? As soon as I have visual proof, I'd let the owner know at the same time I'm giving notice of leaving and demanding my deposit. Once deposit is in hand, well, if the girls are that stupid as to try something further, then they would have to pay the consequences. But as long as it's being done as proof of an "Outraging" charge, I rather think they would be in the clear. Frankly, though, I think it would be good for the pervert to know that there is a Damocles sword hanging over his head. Just in case he's tempted to try it on the next tenant.

Post by **x9200** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 3:20 pm

I would move out but it looks like they prefer to stay - only two months before the lease is concluded.

JR8 · Post by **JR8** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 3:55 pm

I am reminded of a film that features a bank raid. The robbers take a Polaroid picture of the bank vault door from the precise location of the security camera. Using pieces of wire (alt: satay sticks) and with tape they attach the photo a few inches in front of the camera. That way the security guards notice nothing.

Alternatively rather than a photo of the room, you could use a porno picture. Give him what we wants.

Better still

(getting creative now) make a vid of the girls plus a male friend pretending to have an orgy. Use some method to project it onto a small 'projector screen' affixed (as above) to the front of the camera. Play on a loop from 10pm-4am each day.

Post by **sundaymorningstaple** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 4:20 pm

x9200 wrote:I would move out but it looks like they prefer to stay - only two months before the lease is concluded.

They are only two months INTO a 12 month lease.

sjiyndg wrote: The girls have of course thought about moving out but they are only 2 months into a 1 year contract and as most tenants in Singapore know, they have very rights without it becoming very costly.

Post by **x9200** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 4:23 pm

Oh, then I don't get it. They should move out and do what you suggested.

Post by **PNGMK** » Sat, 26 Oct 2013 6:57 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:I reckon the threat of "Outraging" will probably produce faster and more equitable results, like a rapid repayment of deposit and such than going through the SCT. Also, use their own phones to gather evidence when the owner is spying on them, using one to bait while the other records the movement of the camera out of the view of the camera. They could even bait him if he's that perverted.

+1 Outrage of modesty is a serious charge here.

the lynx · Post by **the lynx** » Mon, 28 Oct 2013 9:00 am

JR8 wrote:I am reminded of a film that features a bank raid. The robbers take a Polaroid picture of the bank vault door from the precise location of the security camera. Using pieces of wire (alt: satay sticks) and with tape they attach the photo a few inches in front of the camera. That way the security guards notice nothing.

Alternatively rather than a photo of the room, you could use a porno picture. Give him what we wants.

Better still (getting creative now) make a vid of the girls plus a male friend pretending to have an orgy. Use some method to project it onto a small 'projector screen' affixed (as above) to the front of the camera. Play on a loop from 10pm-4am each day.

I like this advice. Not sure if it has legal implications though.

SINGAPORE EXPATS FORUM
Singapore Expat Forum and Message Board for Expats in Singapore & Expatriates Relocating to Singapore

Tenancy agreements/leases and your rights as a tenant

Who is online