Who to sue as defenant in SMT - Landlord AND his agent?

[byseeksconseil]

Hi,

I had to prematurely move out of my apartment because of unresolved noise issues. During the negotiation process, I offered to find a replacement tenant for the landlord. However, he rejected my offer through his property agent. [added: Despite that, I tried bringing potential tenants to them, at least twice. In both cases, they were Indian nationals. Landlord then stated, - in writing too, that they would not consider Indian tenants]. Also, a lot of dealings with the landlord either with respect to the noise issue, or move-out, were done through his agent, as is usually the case here.

He has kept my deposit.

I am suing for the refund of my deposit based mainly on the fact that he failed to mitigate his loss (by refusing my offer to find a replacement tenant).

It was all in SMS texts. So proof is not an issue.

I am sure that I need to sue the Landlord, but should I also include his agent as the defendant since the landlord's position was communicated to me via the agent?

In other words, in the court, can I present the SMS text sent from the agent as evidence for the landlord's position/claim, etc?

(Note: never mind if I have legal merit for the case, I am only seeking advice for the issue being raised in this thread)

Thanks!

[zzm9980]

In other words, in the court, can I present the SMS text sent from the agent as evidence for the landlord's position/claim, etc

Yes, you can.


I will not give you my opinion on anything else though since you don't want it (and probably wouldn't like it).

[nutnut]

Good luck! Let us know how it goes, bear in mind, you may not like the result!

[JR8]

In other words, in the court, can I present the SMS text sent from the agent as evidence for the landlord's position/claim, etc

Yes, you can.

I will not give you my opinion on anything else though since you don't want it (and probably wouldn't like it).

^+1

[the lynx]

Yes you can. But based on the contract and the circumstances, whether you will win or not, is an entirely different matter.

[x9200]

If the agent has no written agreement with the LL and all the communication between them was done through the phone calls then your "no issue proof" is worth the LL's morality.

[Wd40]

Do bear in mind though that its not just your deposit that is at stake here. According to the agreement, the landlord can claim the rent for all the future months of the remaining tenancy.

So do bear in mind the worst case scenario, you might have to pay a lot lot more to the landlord and not just losing your deposit.

[byseeksconseil]

Well I guess people can't resist the temptation to comment on the case itself.

Since that is the case:

I consulted a lawyer through the free legal clinic service. He also reminded me of that potential risk (which I was also fully aware of all the time).

But after learning the specifics of the case, he said that the court would be more sympathetic to me and would "look dimly at" the Landlord's stance - he not only rejected my offer to help (thereby failing to mitigate his own damage) but also rejected prospective tenants based on their ethnicity.

Do bear in mind though that its not just your deposit that is at stake here. According to the agreement, the landlord can claim the rent for all the future months of the remaining tenancy.

So do bear in mind the worst case scenario, you might have to pay a lot lot more to the landlord and not just losing your deposit.

[JR8]

Well I guess people can't resist the temptation to comment on the case itself.

If you just wanted to ask if SMS's can be introduced as evidence in court, why did you not simply ask that, rather than recounting your recent 'life story'?

Your apparent attitude sucks IMHO.

[zzm9980]

I consulted a lawyer through the free legal clinic service. He also reminded me of that potential risk (which I was also fully aware of all the time).

But after learning the specifics of the case, he said that the court would be more sympathetic to me and would "look dimly at" the Landlord's stance - he not only rejected my offer to help (thereby failing to mitigate his own damage) but also rejected prospective tenants based on their ethnicity.

Of course he told you you had a case. How else will he upsell you on something that will actually cost you money?

You really think anything is FREE in Singapore? freak, even the napkins cost money when you eat out!

[Wd40]

I consulted a lawyer through the free legal clinic service. He also reminded me of that potential risk (which I was also fully aware of all the time).

But after learning the specifics of the case, he said that the court would be more sympathetic to me and would "look dimly at" the Landlord's stance - he not only rejected my offer to help (thereby failing to mitigate his own damage) but also rejected prospective tenants based on their ethnicity.

Of course he told you you had a case. How else will he upsell you on something that will actually cost you money?

You really think anything is FREE in Singapore? freak, even the napkins cost money when you eat out!

+1. If I were the op and since the advice is free anyways, I would posture as a landlord in that same situation and ask whether I have a case to claim all the remaining months rents

[lalaland2013]

You do realize that Singaporean law is pro-landlord right? As a foreigner tenant you have very little rights, unless they are written within your TA. The landlord can do almost anything to any tenant especially a foreigner whether written or not in the TA and get away with it. Singapore does not endorse a "morally right" situation. You can try to settle at the SCT, but the outcome is rarely favorable for the tenant. Even if in your situation where the landlord refused to return the deposit, the judge will scold the tenant for not respecting the landlord's property.

If you don't believe you can always ask an honest lawyer or even a police officer, and they will tell you, the Singaporean law is biased in favor of the landlord in almost all cases.

[JR8]

This is a typical whine from an uninformed tenant.

Help me help me! I demand to be protected from my own ignorance!

[bossy_uss]

This is a typical whine from an uninformed tenant.

Help me help me! I demand to be protected from my own ignorance!

The last time I checked, which was today, Singapore law is pro-landlord. There's no such thing as the tenancy act which protects tenants. What's wrong with what he is saying?

[offshoreoildude]

This is a typical whine from an uninformed tenant.

Help me help me! I demand to be protected from my own ignorance!

The last time I checked, which was today, Singapore law is pro-landlord. There's no such thing as the tenancy act which protects tenants. What's wrong with what he is saying?

As said on this forum many times; the basis of property rental in Singapore is contract law, and as such - caveat emptor.