Minor repairs

Discuss about life in Singapore. Ask about cost of living, housing, travel, etiquette & lifestyle. Share experience & advice with Singaporeans & expat staying in Singapore.
Post Reply
User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16516
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:43 pm
Location: K. Puki Manis

Post by JR8 » Tue, 22 Feb 2011 5:37 pm

ecureilx wrote:
Saint wrote: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 ..
At the end of the day it all comes down to what is written in the lease. I agree with the OP that the spirit of the agreement would seem to be that works over $100 are not minor works. I mean if an internal wall collapses and costs $1500 to replace on what basis (excl negligence) should a tenant be contributing to it?

re: Cleaning. Oh don't get me going on this, as a landlord I can relay some choice anecdotes. Suffice it to say that it is not that uncommon for tenants to think they can do a 'move-out clean' on their own and save some money. But what happens is that some bits are ok, and several bits are still a mess. Now, a landlord or cleaning company are not going to then come in and specify 1) clean the bathroom grout in the shower 2) clean limescale on the back of the toilet pans etc., you have to get the cleaners in to do a 'full professional clean' [at the tenants expense] as that is how works are specified/quoted, which is what they should have done in the first place. I even had a tenant on the equivalent of c.S$350k.p/a try that one on only a year or two back.

My advice would be to get the landlord, or landlords agent to recommend the cleaning company to be used. (Never attempt it yourself, as you will never approach the levels of work that professional cleaners will). Then you should not only get a genuinely good job done, but the landlord/agent will have minimal leverage to get shirty come check-out day since they recommended them in the first place.

p.s. To the OP. Yes it is possible you have made your landlord lose-face and he is going to get pay-back with your deposit. When you come to move out, I'd suggest it be made clear that you are not leaving Singapore (even if you are), as if he thinks you're leaving in say a week or two it could be harder than if he thinks you will still be in-country and able to take action against him.

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9811
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 5:18 pm

dragging up an old thread

Post by ecureilx » Fri, 16 Sep 2011 3:44 pm

I am running a online war with my agent, who insists as per the contract, that goes "repairs upto 150 is borne by tenant, exceeding which, it will be covered by Landlord" means the first 150 is ALWAYS PAID BY TENANT ..

I am still trying to find the contract as my main tenant is overseas

As per my current agent, it means, the 150 is ALWAYS paid by us, so even if the bill is 200, we still pay 150

Now, I been here for a dozen year and more, but this is the first time I met such a wierdo who insist on translating the wording as such ..

All my other places, if the repair comes to, say 200, landlord pays the full 200, not we always pay the first portion

The subject matter is aircon faulty, and the agent said that we need to chemical clean, and, when I asked how much it will cost to clean, instantly said "150" ..

I asked what else could be wrong, and he said, maybe the tubing need to be changed, and when I asked it the tube needs to be replaced and how much it will cost, instantly the answer was "150" :D :D

yah, I know I will need a new place if I start fireworks

Doesn't help that, as per the new CEA ruling, our agent is very vary to talk face to face, and insists on writing emails, wording the contents as if written by somebody else.

Heck, when I called him he said "your english, very hard no .. " :D :D

yah, he did explain the TA to our main tenant sentence by sentence, but since I never had such a vile agent, I never bothered to scrutinise it closely

Any idea how CEA is going to look at such 'twisting' of words ?

User avatar
nakatago
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 8348
Joined: Tue, 01 Sep 2009 11:23 pm
Location: Sister Margaret’s School for Wayward Children

Re: dragging up an old thread

Post by nakatago » Fri, 16 Sep 2011 4:11 pm

ecureilx wrote:I am running a online war with my agent, who insists as per the contract, that goes "repairs upto 150 is borne by tenant, exceeding which, it will be covered by Landlord" means the first 150 is ALWAYS PAID BY TENANT ..

I am still trying to find the contract as my main tenant is overseas

As per my current agent, it means, the 150 is ALWAYS paid by us, so even if the bill is 200, we still pay 150

Now, I been here for a dozen year and more, but this is the first time I met such a wierdo who insist on translating the wording as such ..

All my other places, if the repair comes to, say 200, landlord pays the full 200, not we always pay the first portion

The subject matter is aircon faulty, and the agent said that we need to chemical clean, and, when I asked how much it will cost to clean, instantly said "150" ..

I asked what else could be wrong, and he said, maybe the tubing need to be changed, and when I asked it the tube needs to be replaced and how much it will cost, instantly the answer was "150" :D :D

yah, I know I will need a new place if I start fireworks

Doesn't help that, as per the new CEA ruling, our agent is very vary to talk face to face, and insists on writing emails, wording the contents as if written by somebody else.

Heck, when I called him he said "your english, very hard no .. " :D :D

yah, he did explain the TA to our main tenant sentence by sentence, but since I never had such a vile agent, I never bothered to scrutinise it closely

Any idea how CEA is going to look at such 'twisting' of words ?

FUUUUUUUU..... :x


That's what represents a lot of what anybody--foreigner or local--hates about poor excuses for Singaporeans.
"A quokka is what would happen if there was an anime about kangaroos."

User avatar
JR8
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 16516
Joined: Wed, 24 Mar 2010 12:43 pm
Location: K. Puki Manis

Re: dragging up an old thread

Post by JR8 » Fri, 16 Sep 2011 4:46 pm

ecureilx wrote:I am running a online war with my agent, who insists as per the contract, that goes "repairs upto 150 is borne by tenant, exceeding which, it will be covered by Landlord" means the first 150 is ALWAYS PAID BY TENANT ..

I am still trying to find the contract as my main tenant is overseas

As per my current agent, it means, the 150 is ALWAYS paid by us, so even if the bill is 200, we still pay 150

Now, I been here for a dozen year and more, but this is the first time I met such a wierdo who insist on translating the wording as such ..

All my other places, if the repair comes to, say 200, landlord pays the full 200, not we always pay the first portion

The subject matter is aircon faulty, and the agent said that we need to chemical clean, and, when I asked how much it will cost to clean, instantly said "150" ..

I asked what else could be wrong, and he said, maybe the tubing need to be changed, and when I asked it the tube needs to be replaced and how much it will cost, instantly the answer was "150" :D :D

yah, I know I will need a new place if I start fireworks

Doesn't help that, as per the new CEA ruling, our agent is very vary to talk face to face, and insists on writing emails, wording the contents as if written by somebody else.

Heck, when I called him he said "your english, very hard no .. " :D :D

yah, he did explain the TA to our main tenant sentence by sentence, but since I never had such a vile agent, I never bothered to scrutinise it closely

Any idea how CEA is going to look at such 'twisting' of words ?
The wording in the tenancy agreement is important. However in their absence I think you have to consider what a court would consider 'just and reasonable'.

The two items you mention at $150, I would suggest are part of one job/repair, and not two. After all they are two items of works required to solve a single problem.

I am not that experienced on this clause (it is not used under UK law) but my impression was that it was to discourage tenants from getting the landlords contractors out for any tiny issue (changing lightbulbs, oiling a window hinge), and so setting a hurdle such that only material issues are for the landlord's account and time/attention.

I do not think you should be liable for the situation you describe, as long as you complied with any air-con servicing obligations in your lease. The landlord contracted to provide the unit with functioning air-con, and it isn't. That is his problem and not yours. That would be the 'just and reasonable' view I believe

Getting the wording in the lease does matter though. Since the agent is relying on a clause in the lease and holding it against you, it is perfectly reasonable to ask him to send you a copy of the lease. Otherwise why should you believe what he claims? Just a thought!



Edit: to correct legal definition.
Last edited by JR8 on Fri, 16 Sep 2011 5:55 pm, edited 1 time in total.

x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9862
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 4:06 pm
Location: Singapore

Post by x9200 » Fri, 16 Sep 2011 5:37 pm

@ecureilx, both approaches are in use. In our previous TAs we had the clauses favoring your preference of understanding, in our current one it is that the LL pays the excess only but this with an exception of the aircon :) On the other hand when I look at the wording in my TA clause it is full of redundant statements - it look like the word excess was added without rewriting the rest so probably the approach favoring the LLs become more and more popular over time :)

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9811
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 5:18 pm

Thanks ..

Post by ecureilx » Sat, 17 Sep 2011 2:18 pm

Thanks for the uplifting views ..

Seems I am screwed anyway .. or rather, my housemates are screwed .. ;)

JR8, as I said, since the agent, who is a half mental case from what I see, is our agent, and the landlord's agent is pulling the strings, and our agent (the two agent crap) is clueless ..

Anyway, let me read up the contract .. and see what the specific words are to either challenge or .. let the idiot loose his license with CEA :)

User avatar
ecureilx
Immortal
Immortal
Posts: 9811
Joined: Fri, 20 Aug 2010 5:18 pm

Re: dragging up an old thread

Post by ecureilx » Sat, 17 Sep 2011 2:22 pm

nakatago wrote: FUUUUUUUU..... :x


That's what represents a lot of what anybody--foreigner or local--hates about poor excuses for Singaporeans.
You know what's funny ? Go to Sim Lim and challenge some shop guys, and when they got cornered, the next thing that comes out is "very difficult doing business with you lah .. "

Or ... "I don't want to deal with you .."

Like the time I challenged a guy in Sim Lim 1st floor, who wanted 150 $ for a 10 $ UV filter, and when I pointed out that it should not be so expensive .. his answer, instead of admitting that he tried to con me, it was "you go buy other shop, I don't want to sell you anymore .. you foreigner think you know everything .. " I was tempted to ask if I am still a Singapore Virgin, after being here for 10 years plus .. :D :D

Welcome to Singapore .. the tough survive ..

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Staying, Living in Singapore”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests