Leaving Singapore, breaking tenancy agreement Need Help

[revhappy]

I think that that is unfair. Esp given this statement:
And that is entirely reasonable, which is unlike some LL's in this country.

My advice is to go ahead and get a replacement tenant and inform the landlord that you have the replacement and will sign a sub-lease (ie the deposit and rentals are paid to you) unless he refunds your deposit. If he decides to take you to court, you will then be able to show that the LL has not lost any money as a result of the transaction and therefore his damages are 0. You can decide to use the LL's agent, or another agent for this purpose (ps as I mentioned you will still be subject to the new commission).

Although it is reasonable, you need a reasonable LL for it. If the LL is willing to fight it out the legal way, the OP has no chance. I find your suggestion to the OP to find a tenant, without the LL's approval, shocking

The LL does not respond to his queries. How does he suppose to get the approval?

The reason the LL doesnt respond to his queries is because he doesnt want any kind of "out of court" amicable settlement. Isn't that obvious?

[x9200]

The LL does not respond to his queries. How does he suppose to get the approval?

The reason the LL doesnt respond to his queries is because he doesnt want any kind of "out of court" amicable settlement. Isn't that obvious?

No, it's not. Now that I answered your question, could you get one step back and answer mine?

[JR8]

The LL does not respond to his queries. How does he suppose to get the approval?

The reason the LL doesnt respond to his queries is because he doesnt want any kind of "out of court" amicable settlement. Isn't that obvious?

No, it's not. Now that I answered your question, could you get one step back and answer mine?

The landlord has the tenant on the hook for 14 months, and is not obliged to speak, consider or agree to any short term replacement through to the end of the that term.

It might not make business sense to the onlooker, given the circumstances, but that's the facts.

[revhappy]

The LL does not respond to his queries. How does he suppose to get the approval?

The reason the LL doesnt respond to his queries is because he doesnt want any kind of "out of court" amicable settlement. Isn't that obvious?

No, it's not. Now that I answered your question, could you get one step back and answer mine?

If the LL does not respond to him, he cannot get approval. Simple. If he cannot get approval he cannot do anything other than pay up or fight it out in the court

[x9200]

If the LL does not respond to him, he cannot get approval. Simple. If he cannot get approval he cannot do anything other than pay up or fight it out in the court

The tenant does not need the LL's approval to seek for a replacement. In respect to the LL, there are no legal nor ethical objections preventing the tenant from doing it especially in the situation of the OP. Feel free to prove me wrong. He should only make the new tenant aware of the situation, namely that the LL may finally disagree to sign a new TA.
Secondly, if the LL is not a complete idiot he realizes that having uncooperative tenant all he can get is his deposit. He may go to SCT (if he is aware of such thing) but he may not get any money as the tenant is going to leave SG. Knowing the average mindset of the local LLs I would say that a likely reason behind his behavior could be that he is looking for a replacement already by himself hoping to get it before the OP moves out and of course keeping the OP's deposit.

[carteki]

If the LL does not respond to him, he cannot get approval. Simple. If he cannot get approval he cannot do anything other than pay up or fight it out in the court

The tenant does not need the LL's approval to seek for a replacement. In respect to the LL, there are no legal nor ethical objections preventing the tenant from doing it especially in the situation of the OP. Feel free to prove me wrong. He should only make the new tenant aware of the situation, namely that the LL may finally disagree to sign a new TA.
Secondly, if the LL is not a complete idiot he realizes that having uncooperative tenant all he can get is his deposit. He may go to SCT (if he is aware of such thing) but he may not get any money as the tenant is going to leave SG. Knowing the average mindset of the local LLs I would say that a likely reason behind his behavior could be that he is looking for a replacement already by himself hoping to get it before the OP moves out and of course keeping the OP's deposit.

Do you really think that the SCT is going to side with the LL if the tenant can PROVE that he has made reasonable steps to ensure that the LL is not out of pocket? (even in Singapore I think this idea is far fetched)

[x9200]

If the LL does not respond to him, he cannot get approval. Simple. If he cannot get approval he cannot do anything other than pay up or fight it out in the court

The tenant does not need the LL's approval to seek for a replacement. In respect to the LL, there are no legal nor ethical objections preventing the tenant from doing it especially in the situation of the OP. Feel free to prove me wrong. He should only make the new tenant aware of the situation, namely that the LL may finally disagree to sign a new TA.
Secondly, if the LL is not a complete idiot he realizes that having uncooperative tenant all he can get is his deposit. He may go to SCT (if he is aware of such thing) but he may not get any money as the tenant is going to leave SG. Knowing the average mindset of the local LLs I would say that a likely reason behind his behavior could be that he is looking for a replacement already by himself hoping to get it before the OP moves out and of course keeping the OP's deposit.

Do you really think that the SCT is going to side with the LL if the tenant can PROVE that he has made reasonable steps to ensure that the LL is not out of pocket? (even in Singapore I think this idea is far fetched)

Uncooperative tenants do not make reasonable steps.

[carteki]

Uncooperative tenants do not make reasonable steps.

Are we reading the same topic here?

[revhappy]

If the LL does not respond to him, he cannot get approval. Simple. If he cannot get approval he cannot do anything other than pay up or fight it out in the court

The tenant does not need the LL's approval to seek for a replacement. In respect to the LL, there are no legal nor ethical objections preventing the tenant from doing it especially in the situation of the OP. Feel free to prove me wrong. He should only make the new tenant aware of the situation, namely that the LL may finally disagree to sign a new TA.
Secondly, if the LL is not a complete idiot he realizes that having uncooperative tenant all he can get is his deposit. He may go to SCT (if he is aware of such thing) but he may not get any money as the tenant is going to leave SG. Knowing the average mindset of the local LLs I would say that a likely reason behind his behavior could be that he is looking for a replacement already by himself hoping to get it before the OP moves out and of course keeping the OP's deposit.

Do you really think that the SCT is going to side with the LL if the tenant can PROVE that he has made reasonable steps to ensure that the LL is not out of pocket? (even in Singapore I think this idea is far fetched)

As far as my understanding goes, if it is mentioned in "Black and White" in the contract and no room for misinterpretation(which I would imagine the case would be given that agents are involved and the contracts here heavily favors the LL) then the OP has no chance.

Carteki, I am really surprised you haven't got this inspite of being here for so long.

You guys are unnecesarily giving false hopes to the OP.

[x9200]

@carteki, yes same thread, but I think you clearly missed something from my post you quoted. It was about weighting the chances from the LL's perspective and explaining why he may not be responding to the OP. The word "uncooperative" was there.
If the tenant will manage to find the replacement and the LL refuses to accept it (if reasonable) he stands IMHO no chances in SCT. I wrote about it earlier.

[x9200]

Carteki, I am really surprised you haven't got this inspite of being here for so long.

You guys are unnecesarily giving false hopes to the OP.

Yep, also myself not got it being here even longer. I understand you have here some in-court experience, care to share?
Your view of the law and contracts is very... hmmm... mechanistic. The law is not based on the boolean logic at all.

[revhappy]

Carteki, I am really surprised you haven't got this inspite of being here for so long.

You guys are unnecesarily giving false hopes to the OP.

Yep, also myself not got it being here even longer. I understand you have here some in-court experience, care to share?
Your view of the law and contracts is very... hmmm... mechanistic. The law is not based on the boolean logic at all.

No I dont have any in court experience. Laws and contracts are always mechanistic everywhere. Only question is how strong the judiciory is in that country to enforce it.

If they were not mechanistic why do you even need a contract in the 1st place, if everything can be resolved based on rationalism and compassion. The tenant may cry he has no place to go and no money so may even request to live there for free for the rest of the tenure

[sundaymorningstaple]

If they were not mechanistic why do you even need a contract in the 1st place, if everything can be resolved based on rationalism and compassion. The tenant may cry he has no place to go and no money so may even request to live there for free for the rest of the tenure

In the UK & Aus they can. I believe they have what's called Squatter's Rights? ksl would know more about this than I would though (pip-pip! not being a Brit & all that, wot!)

[x9200]

Carteki, I am really surprised you haven't got this inspite of being here for so long.

You guys are unnecesarily giving false hopes to the OP.

Yep, also myself not got it being here even longer. I understand you have here some in-court experience, care to share?
Your view of the law and contracts is very... hmmm... mechanistic. The law is not based on the boolean logic at all.

No I dont have any in court experience. Laws and contracts are always mechanistic everywhere. Only question is how strong the judiciory is in that country to enforce it.

If they were not mechanistic why do you even need a contract in the 1st place, if everything can be resolved based on rationalism and compassion. The tenant may cry he has no place to go and no money so may even request to live there for free for the rest of the tenure

Just opposite, they are never mechanistic. They are social justice based as for the underlying principles. If by contract you mean a written contract for the lease then I believe you don't need it even in Singapore. Verbal is legally sufficient. It is typically written because it helps to document and prove the rights of the parties. And if verbal then you don't need to pay the stamp duty in such case. Don't believe me? Read this:

http://www.iras.gov.sg/irasHome/page.aspx?id=1808

As a matter of fact only a very very few areas have a legal requirement for a contract to be in a written form, i.e. transfer of the ownership of the property.

[JR8]

If they were not mechanistic why do you even need a contract in the 1st place, if everything can be resolved based on rationalism and compassion. The tenant may cry he has no place to go and no money so may even request to live there for free for the rest of the tenure

In the UK & Aus they can. I believe they have what's called Squatter's Rights? ksl would know more about this than I would though (pip-pip! not being a Brit & all that, wot!)

Squatters rights are roughly, the right to occupy vacant property, without force having been used. Of course most cases involve them forcing open or smashing a window and leaving it ajar, and then returning an hour later and 'conveniently' finding access and entering. The police can't prove anything, so hey presto.

It used to something of a noble thing, you know, students and hippies, who would usually actually improve run down neighborhoods.

Now it seems to be various anti-globalist euro-trash scum who typically destroy the interior of the building that they are in and are a blight on the neighbourhood.

It has also now gone a step further. There has been a recent spate of Romanians squatting properties when their legal occupiers (owners or renters) are simply off on holiday!

p.s. To eject a non-paying tenant in the UK, you need a court order. It typically takes between 6-8 months from start to finish. Touch wood I've never had one.

Edited a couple of weeks later: Just in case anyone is searching on the topic of UK squatters rights. Yes I know, but I have the article from today's paper open in front of me, so what the hell.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -rent.html

Lifestyle squatters: Vast majority of home invaders 'driven by politics or just trying to avoid rent'