Landlord withdrawing from tenancy

[PNGMK]

I have no keys as I flew to Tokyo the same day everything was completed. I was due to be picking them up/moving in today.

I do not have a copy in my hands, as the agent who dealt with it said they need to take it back to the landlord for signing and would return on completion. Is this a big problem? Have I made a huge mistake letting her leave without having a signed copy for myself?

Its a family run company (not sure if im allowed to say the company name in here?) who own several properties. I have receipts/invoices for the amount paid to the company and lease start/termination dates is included on these.

If you have a receipt I guess your money is safe.

[ecureilx]

If you have a receipt I guess your money is safe.

My 2 cents would be, get another apartment, but sue them and teach this kind of agents/LLs a lesson ..

X9200: in a recent case the judge ruled that when the seller took the cheque and cashed it, it was considered commitment. Agreement signed by both parties or not.

The Landlord defended the same action saying he hadn't signed, so hadn't made up his mind .. etc. etc.. no go.

He LL had to pay legal fees, and the difference in price the seller had negotiated to the buyer and the actual price the property was sold - yes, the buyer walked about with about 200,000 $ which was the profit the seller made, by 'changing his mind' and selling to another higher bidder

[x9200]

I would not compare selling to renting. Also I would be hesitant to compare cashing the cheque vs. money transfer. Both factors have VERY different weight and implications.
Just think about this, you met we me, we were talking about signing a contract and later I transfered you some money and this should make you adhere to something that you not necessary agree? Cheque is a different thing. It requires active response. Also the nature of both contracts are very different and B-S agreement typically less emphasis on technical differences (main point: you transfer the ownership). IMHO of course.

Personally I would not take the risk going into legal dispute on rental with no signed contract.

[AngMoG]

I would not compare selling to renting. Also I would be hesitant to compare cashing the cheque vs. money transfer. Both factors have VERY different weight and implications.
Just think about this, you met we me, we were talking about signing a contract and later I transfered you some money and this should make you adhere to something that you not necessary agree? Cheque is a different thing. It requires active response. Also the nature of both contracts are very different and B-S agreement typically less emphasis on technical differences (main point: you transfer the ownership). IMHO of course.

Personally I would not take the risk going into legal dispute on rental with no signed contract.

I have to agree with x9200 here to some extent... the lack of signed contract puts you into a much weaker position. Though I'd like to point out that bank transfer also requires the agent/landlord to share the information, hence signifying their intent to receive that money.

In either way, it may be a de facto contract, by virtue of verbal agreement, and of transferring the money. There also was a contract signed, though the agent can destroy that and leave you with no proof.

All facts considered - including that you have no access to the apartment - you should first try to get your money back as quickly as possible. Then, based also on whether you actually suffered any quantifiable damage (e.g., by being forced to pay higher rent elsewhere), you can decide whether you want to press charges on damages. Note that in Singapore, even if you win, you may be stuck with a part of your lawyer's fees especially in a case that is not so clear cut legally. So if your damage is less than 3000-4000 SGD, it may not be worth engaging a lawyer. Not sure if the small claims court accepts rental disputes.

But in any case, as mentioned previously, if an agent was involved, you should complain about him to the CRE. That will at least teach that person a lesson. I am still not clear from your posts whether an agnet was involved at all.

[ecureilx]

But in any case, as mentioned previously, if an agent was involved, you should complain about him to the CRE. That will at least teach that person a lesson. I am still not clear from your posts whether an agnet was involved at all.

CEA - Council for Estate Agencies Not CRA !!!

[AngMoG]

But in any case, as mentioned previously, if an agent was involved, you should complain about him to the CRE. That will at least teach that person a lesson. I am still not clear from your posts whether an agnet was involved at all.

CEA - Council for Estate Agencies Not CRA !!!

Yeah that one. Sorry having trouble remembering the correct abbreviation for that one

[taxico]

Last week I viewed a condo, decided I liked it so put down a deposit, paid the first month and signed the tenancy agreement. This was for a 3 month lease...

i don't think you can legally rent a place for less than 6 months... (or am i just tired and have my facts wrong?)

[beppi]

I don't think you have your facts wrong, although it gets disputed again and again on this forum: Either in HDBs or on all residential property (I am not sure which, but think it is the latter) rental contracts must be minimum 6 months. This also pertains to sublet rooms and was introduced to prevent informal "hotel" businesses.
In addition, any tenant must have a residency visa of at least 6 months duration (for renting any residential property for any length of time).

[sundaymorningstaple]

Hopefully the following will finalize the ambiguity of the lease minimum with regards to both Private housing AND HDB housing.......

6 MONTHS MINIMUM

For private housing:
http://www.ura.gov.sg/dc/dcu/subletting.html

Approved residential properties are for long term stays. How do I know if a residential property is put to an inappropriate use?

Residential properties like apartments, flats, condominium units and landed houses are approved for residential purpose in accordance with the residential zone in the Master Plan. These residential properties or their individual rooms within the premises should not be rented out on a daily, weekly or monthly basis. Such short-term occupancy, with transient occupiers, creates disturbances and inconveniences to other bona fide residents in the development. Premises that are approved for residential use are for longer term stays of 6 months or more.

The leasing of residential properties (whole unit) or subletting of rooms for residential purpose should be for long term stays of 6 months or more by the same occupiers and the following requirements should be observed:

For HDB Units:
http://www.hdb.gov.sg/fi10/fi10323p.nsf ... enDocument

Subtenants must not be tourists.

Period of Subletting
Flat owners are not allowed to sublet the flat on a short term basis. The period of subletting to each subtenant per application must not be less than 6 months.

[AngMoG]

So basically, for HDB it is a legal requirement to be no less than 6 months. For other residential property, it is more like a guideline (emphasis mine):

The leasing of residential properties (whole unit) or subletting of rooms for residential purpose should be for long term stays of 6 months or more by the same occupiers

[sundaymorningstaple]

Is there a difference if the authorities find out? I think not. It wouldn't be the first time an irate neighbour who doesn't like the smell of your curry or who is just a racist and called the authorities to complain about transient tenants. Happens all the time. Especially considering how xenophobic the local population is getting. Wanna be on Stomp?