Landlord refusing security deposit

[missfong02]

Hi Chetan84 - thanks for your feedback.

It is disappointing to hear about the behaviour of the registrar. Seems to be a complete failure of arbitration IMOH, but at least you got something back. I guess as mentioned previously, the system is still in its infancy, so only time will tell if the entire system will improve...

(Though you would think a crack in the wall is due to poor foundation rather than a due to the tenant's activities. But it would seem many LL's here don't apply logic and are neither rationale or reasonable. They seem to be so consumed by greed that to them, it's all about $$$$$$$ and how they can rip people off.)

[ecureilx]

Hmmm, interesting feedback. It is surprising that you are not briefed on what to expect come your day at the SCT. Court is stressful enough without completely clear guidance re: requirements and procedure.

p.s. it's good though that you reached a settlement which you are ok with; well done for that.

My experience in SCT for a debt case for my previous employer was different

The debtor and me (on behalf of my then employer) went to the Room and the judge just had a little chit chat and told the client of ours if they can't pay up the amount due, he will send the case to courts. Which would entail the lawyers fee etc. Client promptly agreed to pay back within 30 days. And the judge informed the client the repercussions of not following the court orders.

In and out within 30 minutes.

[chetan84]

@ecureilx: You're right. My case shouldn't be a judgement on the SCT itself. I would imagine it's still dependent on the individuals. In my case, unfortunately, I felt the registrar was quite dismissive (as if it wasn't worth his time) without even going into the details. I also received wrong advice from the counter while filing the claim (regarding personal service of notice), but perhaps I shouldn't have taken that as gospel, considering it came from junior staff. I was hoping for more in terms of mediation, or a 'judgement' so to speak, which never really happened.
Good to hear that your case was quickly and favourably dealt with. I have heard of other cases where the registrar was quite helpful as well.

@missfong02: It was actually a crack on the kitchen counter - well, I'm assuming, since I never actually saw it myself..was only sent a picture.

@JR8: The SCT website has some FAQ's and they provided a handout about what to expect at the hearing. But it's quite high-level, and doesn't really give clear guidance. That would've been especially helpful right after I had filed my application - I probably wouldn't have wasted time going for the first hearing thinking I had fulfilled the personal service requirements.

[martincymru]

chetan84: "wrong advice from the counter ...."
Endemic problem in Sg. Level 2 people, paid level 2 salary but told to perform level 3 work.

Service standards here are poor.

[Smashing123]

Hi
What happens if one appeal against the decision in SCT. What are pros and cons we may face.

How the earlier decision will play part in this

Thanks

[ecureilx]

Hi
What happens if one appeal against the decision in SCT. What are pros and cons we may face.

How the earlier decision will play part in this

Thanks

Appeals go to court I believe

Higher fees, lawyers ..

[JR8]

Hi
What happens if one appeal against the decision in SCT. What are pros and cons we may face.
How the earlier decision will play part in this. Thanks

I don't recall (right now) the specifics of your case; but in general terms IME you can appeal only if you feel... roughly... that the 'lower court' was verging on negligent in reaching their decision. I.e the bar to getting an appeal is set pretty high. If someone simply wants to give their case a second airing, or second try, it is likely to simply be thrown out. You need to focus on why you believe the process re: your case was flawed. An example might be where there is a requirement for an exchange of evidence between the parties prior to the hearing, that the timetable concerning that was not adhered to, AND the lower court did not take that into account.

But my feeling is an appeal is something you need to consider very seriously. By appealing you're suggesting the lower court got it wrong, and you have to have a bullet-proof reason to suggest that. Plus, at this point you're probably no longer DIYing it, have engaged a lawyer, and things start getting expensive.

If you appeal they will look solely at how the lower courts decision was arrived at, and whether that decision was fair and just. I.e. they will not consider any new evidence, or the latter presented in a new light. It is much more a determination on the process, rather than solely the facts of the matter.

[Smashing123]

Hi ,

Thanks for the input. Just want to know wat will happen after this if its other side appeals.