Tenancy Agreement with Anchor Tenant

[sweetgazebo]

On behalf of a friend, who's in a dilemma:

He's found this place, which he later learnt can not be sub-let.

The anchor tenant has send him a tenancy agreement which looks almost the same as the tenancy agreement that the anchor tenant (who's no longer residing in this unit) has with the landlord. In addition to that, the anchor tenant has asked for a deposit, citing damage coverage arising to the unit, if any.

Because the entire unit is cheap, he's really wanting to take the risk of going ahead with the tenancy agreement with the anchor tenant.

Concerns on his mind are:

1) upon signing this tenancy agreement (TA) with the anchor tenant, is this TA a recognised legal document that he can produced to CEA (for example) in the event something drastic happens like if the anchor tenant terminates the lease before the lease duration is up?

2) upon parting with money (in the form of deposit) to the anchor tenant, if anything should happen and the anchor tenant decides to terminate or the landlord found out that he's not the anchor tenant of the unit and terminates the lease, will he be able to get back his deposit?

(3) still on the deposit, can CEA (or are there any other government bodies) that can help him on his behalf to recover the money back from the anchor tenant (if the anchor tenant should keep the money without any reason whatsoever)?

N.B. there is a clause, he's found out recently, in the anchor tenant's tenancy agreement with the landlord, that the landlord's tenancy agreement with the anchor tenant supersedes any other tenancy agreement the anchor tenant has drawn with, in the event of illegal / not-permitted sub-let, either a prospective sub-let tenant or through an estate agent or caretaker.

Any insight, advise, enlightenment, direction, suggestions appreciated.

Thanks.

[zzm9980]

So essentially it's a sub-let on an original TA that prohibits sub-lets? I'd say his entire TA is null and void, and he has no protections. If it's really that cheap, I'd personally just try to ride it out as long as possible but be ready to leave with minimal notice.

[teck21]

Because the entire unit is cheap, he's really wanting to take the risk of going ahead with the tenancy agreement with the anchor tenant.

N.B. there is a clause, he's found out recently, in the anchor tenant's tenancy agreement with the landlord, that the landlord's tenancy agreement with the anchor tenant supersedes any other tenancy agreement the anchor tenant has drawn with, in the event of illegal / not-permitted sub-let, either a prospective sub-let tenant or through an estate agent or caretaker.

So long as he is aware that he has absolutely no recourse if anything goes wrong. It's stated in black and white.

He has everything to lose signing this tenancy, he doesn't mind it if shit hits the fan, by all means go ahead.

[sweetgazebo]

Thanks all for the replies.

He's now thinking of alternatives. I can understand where he's coming from as the place is really pretty and strategically placed. No wonder he's having a hard time trying to decide and he thinks with the above factors, it's worth the risk.

[zzm9980]

Thanks all for the replies.

He's now thinking of alternatives. I can understand where he's coming from as the place is really pretty and strategically placed. No wonder he's having a hard time trying to decide and he thinks with the above factors, it's worth the risk.

Honestly if I was single, didn't own a lot of "stuff", and it was cheap enough, I'd do it. I'd just make sure I had a well funded "Plan B" for when/if I had to find a place at the drop of a hat.

[beppi]

So the main tenant (whom you call "Anchor Tenant") is cheating his landlord by doing an illegal sub-let.
Your friend knows about the illegality of it and is still considering to enter the agreement?
Well, if he does (which I would not recommend), he'll have no legal recourse at all if he gets thrown out of the unit with no notice or if other undesirables happen. He will also have no (legal) way to get any money back, so it's probably a dumb idea to give a deposit.
I personally would not want to deal with somebody whom I know is willing to cheat.

P.S.: In case you're still wondering, the answer to all your three questions is a clear (and capitalized) "NO"!

[zzm9980]

P.S.: In case you're still wondering, the answer to all your three questions is a clear (and capitalized) "NO"!

I take it you've never rented in Singapore then? (jk)

[beppi]

P.S.: In case you're still wondering, the answer to all your three questions is a clear (and capitalized) "NO"!

I take it you've never rented in Singapore then? (jk)

Me, or the OP?

[zzm9980]

to you, oops I quoted the wrong part.

I meant to quote this part:

I personally would not want to deal with somebody whom I know is willing to cheat.

since I get the impression this described all landlords here, and many other "business people".

[beppi]

I have been renting in Singapore for 12 years (five different places on separate contracts), always had a friendly relationship with the landlords and never a serious problem.
I only deal with them directly (no agents) and listen my gut feeling. That might be why.

[the lynx]

To OP: If your friend is able to pull a fast one himself and to take care of himself, why not? Make sure he's prepared not to come back crying when things go wrong.

That's the reason why I deal with homeowners directly too. I will think twice of entering the agreement to co-rent with fellow tenants/anchor tenant.

[sweetgazebo]

Everyone, thanks for the suggestions and comments.

He, anchor tenant and landlord are now going to meet to discuss the possibility of him taking over the unit.

Will update.