Does this signed list contain any statement that the list is all inclusive or the LL's requests are only limited to the listed items or that the LL acknowledges that the rest of the apartment is ok?Smashing wrote:Luckily I have photocopy of the signed list of items need to be repaired at the handover.His agent has ticked all the items in inventory list and mentioned the items need to repair and got signed.
I have few photos of the apartment when I moved in but the claims are on more cushion is dirt, mattress is stained, etc etc which I don't have much photos during handover/entering since its all are already in used condition and I didn't thought so...
It is as reasonable as the assumption that the tenant damaged something just because he lived in the place for some time. Apparently such assumption is in place.JR8 wrote:@Smashing 7.35pm post. No, in simple terms, that is not reasonable.
It does not make too much of practical sense. Say, the LL visited the apartment after it was handed over and discovered that the mattress is stained. What he should do in such case? Leave the building immediately and seal it, with 2 impartial witnesses perhaps in place, while awaiting for all the interested party to agree on a new inspection date? C'mon.Smashing wrote:Even he need more time he would have informed and called both parties saying that and check in front of them . Not alone if I'm not wrong.
Well, I disagree with that After the tenant left, the landlord might have rented the unit for a week to 5 students. The inventory check-out is a point-in-time exercise that is attended and agreed by both parties. You cannot amend it retrospectively. The onus is on the landlord and tenant to carry out a thorough inspection at check-in and check-out. If there are damages/dilapidation beyond 'fair wear and tear' these must be noted and agreed.x9200 wrote:It is as reasonable as the assumption that the tenant damaged something just because he lived in the place for some time. Apparently such assumption is in place.JR8 wrote:@Smashing 7.35pm post. No, in simple terms, that is not reasonable.
I expect the LL would not call it an inspection but would just say that he did not notice the problems at the hand-over and only did so at some later time. It would not be an unreasonable approach because typically more time may be needed.
I overlooked the fact that there was an inventory list. If yes, It certainly improves the OP's chances. Is all the stuff the LL wants to "fix" included to the list?JR8 wrote:Well, I disagree with that After the tenant left, the landlord might have rented the unit for a week to 5 students. The inventory check-out is a point-in-time exercise that is attended and agreed by both parties. You cannot amend it retrospectively. The onus is on the landlord and tenant to carry out a thorough inspection at check-in and check-out. If there are damages/dilapidation beyond 'fair wear and tear' these must be noted and agreed.x9200 wrote:It is as reasonable as the assumption that the tenant damaged something just because he lived in the place for some time. Apparently such assumption is in place.JR8 wrote:@Smashing 7.35pm post. No, in simple terms, that is not reasonable.
I expect the LL would not call it an inspection but would just say that he did not notice the problems at the hand-over and only did so at some later time. It would not be an unreasonable approach because typically more time may be needed.
No idea, but I was talking about the inventory list. From my experience it is something done typically in a very lousy manner without any proper attention to the conditions of the items. It is more like 0 or 1 relation of movables inside of the apartment. A ceiling lamp in the BR3, is it there? yes, then tick the box ... etc.JR8 wrote:Tenancy law here is based directly on UK Statutes.
How would you define Fair Wear and Tear, in SG, in 'local terms', if not in the way the above links do?
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests