Leaving Singapore, breaking tenancy agreement Need Help

Discuss about where to live, renting a property, tenancy issues, property trend and property investment in Singapore.
Post Reply
revhappy
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:16 pm

Post by revhappy » Wed, 21 Sep 2011 7:18 pm

x9200 wrote:
revhappy wrote:
carteki wrote: 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?

Singapore Property Search

 

x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 4:06 pm
Location: Singapore

Post by x9200 » Wed, 21 Sep 2011 7:33 pm

revhappy wrote:
x9200 wrote: 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?

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

Post by JR8 » Wed, 21 Sep 2011 7:48 pm

x9200 wrote:
revhappy wrote:
x9200 wrote: 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.
Last edited by JR8 on Wed, 21 Sep 2011 7:49 pm, edited 1 time in total.

revhappy
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:16 pm

Post by revhappy » Wed, 21 Sep 2011 7:48 pm

x9200 wrote:
revhappy wrote:
x9200 wrote: 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
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 4:06 pm
Location: Singapore

Post by x9200 » Thu, 22 Sep 2011 8:12 am

revhappy wrote: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.

User avatar
carteki
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1237
Joined: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:03 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Post by carteki » Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:16 am

x9200 wrote:
revhappy wrote: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
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 4:06 pm
Location: Singapore

Post by x9200 » Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:39 am

carteki wrote:
x9200 wrote:
revhappy wrote: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.

User avatar
carteki
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1237
Joined: Mon, 28 Apr 2008 11:03 pm
Location: Singapore
Contact:

Post by carteki » Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:44 am

x9200 wrote:Uncooperative tenants do not make reasonable steps.
Are we reading the same topic here?

revhappy
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:16 pm

Post by revhappy » Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:50 am

carteki wrote:
x9200 wrote:
revhappy wrote: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. :roll:

You guys are unnecesarily giving false hopes to the OP.

x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 4:06 pm
Location: Singapore

Post by x9200 » Fri, 23 Sep 2011 11:52 am

@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
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 4:06 pm
Location: Singapore

Post by x9200 » Fri, 23 Sep 2011 12:08 pm

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

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
Editor
Editor
Posts: 1067
Joined: Wed, 10 Jun 2009 9:16 pm

Post by revhappy » Fri, 23 Sep 2011 1:49 pm

x9200 wrote:
revhappy wrote: Carteki, I am really surprised you haven't got this inspite of being here for so long. :roll:

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 :lol:

User avatar
sundaymorningstaple
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 39564
Joined: Thu, 11 Nov 2004 1:26 pm
Answers: 10
Location: Retired on the Little Red Dot

Post by sundaymorningstaple » Fri, 23 Sep 2011 2:50 pm

revhappy wrote: 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 :lol:
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!)
SOME PEOPLE TRY TO TURN BACK THEIR ODOMETERS. NOT ME. I WANT PEOPLE TO KNOW WHY I LOOK THIS WAY. I'VE TRAVELED A LONG WAY, AND SOME OF THE ROADS WEREN'T PAVED. ~ Will Rogers

x9200
Moderator
Moderator
Posts: 9872
Joined: Mon, 07 Sep 2009 4:06 pm
Location: Singapore

Post by x9200 » Fri, 23 Sep 2011 3:32 pm

revhappy wrote:
x9200 wrote:
revhappy wrote: Carteki, I am really surprised you haven't got this inspite of being here for so long. :roll:

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 :lol:
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.

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

Post by JR8 » Fri, 23 Sep 2011 3:57 pm

sundaymorningstaple wrote:
revhappy wrote: 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 :lol:
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'
Last edited by JR8 on Tue, 04 Oct 2011 7:48 am, edited 1 time in total.

Post Reply
  • Similar Topics
    Replies
    Views
    Last post

Return to “Property Talk, Housing & Rental”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests