Minor repairs

[tatuanui]

Hi.

My TA states "To replace electric bulbs, tubes and other expendable items and minor repairs at its own expense up to Dollars One Hundred (S$100.00) per item. Such expenditure in excess of Dollars One Hundred (S$100.00) shall be borne by the Landlord, provided that any damage...(negligence etc)"

I took that to mean that any repairs under $100 we'd pay for but anything costing over $100 the landlord would pay for.

The landlord is interpreting this as that we pay the first $100 for each item that's repaired.

Considering that the clause is talking about minor repairs then the spirit of the clause would indicate that any repair costing over $100 is not "minor" and therefore the landlord should pay for it.

Does anyone have any thoughts or experience about this?

[Casey07]

You should call your property Agent. The person whom draft the TA. Ask him/her to explain to both yourself & landlord.

Hope this helps

[tatuanui]

You should call your property Agent. The person whom draft the TA. Ask him/her to explain to both yourself & landlord.

Hope this helps

Thanks. I emailed the agent and she implied that I have to pay the 1st $100 also. I still don't think that's the case (as it's no longer a minor repair) and the agent is about as useful as an ashtray on a motorbike.

I'm hoping someone else here can advise from experience.

[JayCee]

Never assume anything in Singapore so far as money is concerned.

My previous tenancy agreement had a clause stating "to avoid any doubts, expenditure for repairs over X amount will be fully borne by the landlord" so when something was over X amount I got the landlord to pay it all, his agent even tried to get me to pay half at first but when I highlighted the clause to him he went quiet. My new TA does not have this clause and I am aware that I have to pay the first X amount now regardless of what the overall total is.

The wording of your contract "Such expenditure in excess of Dollars One Hundred (S$100.00) shall be borne by the Landlord" doesn't specifically state that he will pay it all and only refers to the expenditure over $100, so he is within his rights to say that the first $100 is not expenditure in excess of $100 therefore he doesn't have to pay.

Basically the whole thing is too open to interpretation and it sounds like the agent didn't do their job properly in explaining the points of the contract that you were signing (and you didn't ask the right questions at the time). I think you'll just have to suck it up and pay.

[Strong Eagle]

The language appears pretty clear to me. You pay the First $100. Pretty common. I had our LL exclude plumbing, electrical, roof, structural, and such.

[x9200]

Hi.

My TA states "To replace electric bulbs, tubes and other expendable items and minor repairs at its own expense up to Dollars One Hundred (S$100.00) per item. Such expenditure in excess of Dollars One Hundred (S$100.00) shall be borne by the Landlord, provided that any damage...(negligence etc)"

I took that to mean that any repairs under $100 we'd pay for but anything costing over $100 the landlord would pay for.

The landlord is interpreting this as that we pay the first $100 for each item that's repaired.

Considering that the clause is talking about minor repairs then the spirit of the clause would indicate that any repair costing over $100 is not "minor" and therefore the landlord should pay for it.

Does anyone have any thoughts or experience about this?

The clause has some redundancy but it does not change the fact that your LL is right.

[bluenose]

I think it depends on your agent....we had a strong agent first time round and she got the LL to pay anything that was over 150 dollars....anything below that we paid. So if the job was 151 dollars LL paid the lot!

Then we got another wishy washy agent, not so strong, sitting on the fence and people pleasing the LL....so we got stung and had to pay the first 150 dollars for all jobs......hence the agent has since been fired!

[x9200]

It ultimately depends on TA, what is written inside. From practical POV it depends on the TA template a particular agent uses as majority of the tenants including the expats do not bother or have no ability to comprehend what is written there not to mention to negotiate the content.

[tatuanui]

My lawyer agreed with me and wrote a letter to that effect. It is not analogous to an insurance excess. LL didn't like a lawyer's letter but relented and blamed the agent for "cheating them".

[Saint]

My lawyer agreed with me and wrote a letter to that effect. It is not analogous to an insurance excess. LL didn't like a lawyer's letter but relented and blamed the agent for "cheating them".

You can now wave goodbye to your deposit when you move out

[ecureilx]

You can now wave goodbye to your deposit when you move out

Operation success, Patient DEAD

[tatuanui]

You can now wave goodbye to your deposit when you move out

I'd like to see them try returning anything but the legally required amount.

[Saint]

You can now wave goodbye to your deposit when you move out

I'd like to see them try returning anything but the legally required amount.

And that's where theory falls over, there isn't any law that governs what is the required amount has to be returned. By pissing off the LL by sending him a solicitor's letter over such a trival matter means when you move out he will go over the place with a fine tooth pick and deduct costs for literally everything from your deposit.

[ecureilx]

And that's where theory falls over, there isn't any law that governs what is the required amount has to be returned. By pissing off the LL by sending him a solicitor's letter over such a trival matter means when you move out he will go over the place with a fine tooth pick and deduct costs for literally everything from your deposit.

Yep, got that right .. and legally the landlord can say that ..

Me saw a friend who's landlord whacked half the deposit under the pretext of steam / chemical cleaning of the toilet + Kitchen and when disputed - the landlord proceeded to produce pictures of spanking new kitchen + Toilet to compare with the status the tenant left it .. when the tenant said he will pay for the cleaning - the landlords' answer was as expected "NO, I ENGAGE MY CONTRACTOR TO DO A GOOD JOB - NOT YOUR THAILAND WORKER" And a weekend of scrubbing etc. etc. still had moved no mountain - the landlord discovered dirt between the gaps in the tiles and declared that only a chemical wash will clean it .. and proceeded to declare the aircon as not maintained as per agreement etc. etc. ..

Want more horror stories on landlords holding back part of the deposit ?? I can pen a few ..

[x9200]

Well, I do not think this line of LL cleaning defence would stand a chance in SCT but the problem with mean LLs is that you will waste your time, peace of mind and some money even if eventually you get all your deposit back.