Singapore Expats

Top work! Thanks for sharing the outcome

"4. Sent a copy the judgement to LL's agent and ask her to notify the LL and advise whether they intend to comply. Sent a reminder just before the 30 day deadline, got a few non-sense replies and it was clear that they don't intend to pay.

5. Made appointment with the lawyer and it costs 1000$ to do an Garnish order with 60% potentially can be claimed if the judge rules in my favor. Took about 3 weeks to get confirmation from the bank that there is adequate fund to cover my claim and the fund is now frozen. "

I didnot understand why you had to go to the lawyer after the SCT?

expatak wrote:"4. Sent a copy the judgement to LL's agent and ask her to notify the LL and advise whether they intend to comply. Sent a reminder just before the 30 day deadline, got a few non-sense replies and it was clear that they don't intend to pay.

5. Made appointment with the lawyer and it costs 1000$ to do an Garnish order with 60% potentially can be claimed if the judge rules in my favor. Took about 3 weeks to get confirmation from the bank that there is adequate fund to cover my claim and the fund is now frozen. "

I didnot understand why you had to go to the lawyer after the SCT?

Item #4 is the Judge's order. Item #5 is how the OP can enforce the judge's order if the landlord still ignored him. The garnish order allows him to use the judge's ruling from #4 to forcibly take the LL's wages (or 60% a month until OP is paid)

expatak wrote:"4. Sent a copy the judgement to LL's agent and ask her to notify the LL and advise whether they intend to comply. Sent a reminder just before the 30 day deadline, got a few non-sense replies and it was clear that they don't intend to pay.

5. Made appointment with the lawyer and it costs 1000$ to do an Garnish order with 60% potentially can be claimed if the judge rules in my favor. Took about 3 weeks to get confirmation from the bank that there is adequate fund to cover my claim and the fund is now frozen. "

I didnot understand why you had to go to the lawyer after the SCT?

As ZZM said, the lawyer is needed to enforce the SCT ruling since the landlord chose not to comply.

i feel for you.. and really appreciate you posted the whole thing. We are going through something similar, really awful LL who is trying to avoid us and finally after numerous chases and warnings gave us a cheque back but short of $860 without any prior discussion let alone any agreement. Anyway we are about to go to SCT following your experience.

How can these ppl live with themselves.....

cashmisa wrote:i feel for you.. and really appreciate you posted the whole thing. We are going through something similar, really awful LL who is trying to avoid us and finally after numerous chases and warnings gave us a cheque back but short of $860 without any prior discussion let alone any agreement. Anyway we are about to go to SCT following your experience.

How can these ppl live with themselves.....

Thanks and good luck to you. Those people do that in part because they can get away without any serious consequences. I hope the government, which is very good at micro managing, can step up and institute a tenancy deposit system that is fair and transparent.

ludwig12 wrote:Thanks and good luck to you. Those people do that in part because they can get away without any serious consequences. I hope the government, which is very good at micro managing, can step up and institute a tenancy deposit system that is fair and transparent.

If there is a country that needed one this is it. But just have a look - generally - at the resources available to tenants... advice websites, advice clinics, clear/simple channels of remedy; sadly there's little to nothing.

The gahmen's job is protecting the interests of its citizens.
Tenants are predominantly foreign, landlords are almost always local.
Therefore there is no scope for tenant-friendly regulations - full stop.

beppi wrote:The gahmen's job is protecting the interests of its citizens.
Tenants are predominantly foreign, landlords are almost always local.
Therefore there is no scope for tenant-friendly regulations - full stop.

Oh piss off.

PNGMK wrote:

beppi wrote:The gahmen's job is protecting the interests of its citizens.
Tenants are predominantly foreign, landlords are almost always local.
Therefore there is no scope for tenant-friendly regulations - full stop.

Oh piss off.

I assume you mean that the situation is not favourable from a foreigner's standpoint. Being a non-Singaporean myself, I do agree with you here, but next time please express this in a less offending manner!

Long term "protection" like this will make the citizens lose. For shorter terms, It also encourages bad behavior of the tenants.

x9200 wrote:Long term "protection" like this will make the citizens lose. For shorter terms, It also encourages bad behavior of the tenants.

Can you explain?

Its protection to both parties is it not?

Why does it encourage bad behaviour of the tenants?

I think you have been here too long.

beppi wrote:

PNGMK wrote:

beppi wrote:The gahmen's job is protecting the interests of its citizens.
Tenants are predominantly foreign, landlords are almost always local.
Therefore there is no scope for tenant-friendly regulations - full stop.

Oh piss off.

I assume you mean that the situation is not favourable from a foreigner's standpoint. Being a non-Singaporean myself, I do agree with you here, but next time please express this in a less offending manner!

Your post was offensive to our hosts, hence my response.

x9200 wrote:Long term "protection" like this will make the citizens lose. For shorter terms, It also encourages bad behavior of the tenants.

Curious, that is the sort of attitude I'd expect from a 'set in their ways' local landlord, rather than an FT...

My own experience is as a long-term landlord in the UK (20yrs+).

It went from having a market where the deposit was a matter between the L + T, to one that was a Statutory deposit held via a government agency/approved company.

I was quite happy with the original arrangement, and very rarely had issues with it (it came down to being clear, fair and reasonable). If a tenant was left with an unresolved issue there were channels to help them: Advice centres, websites, some notion of what is right and wrong, and how to get redress if need be, and so on.

Then around 2008/2009 they brought in Statutory deposit holding. The whole thing loomed like a silly bureaucratic nightmare. In the event it hasn't really changed much for me, barring not having the depo funds sitting in my bank account. The refund of the depo is assessed and returned in a similar fashion to how it was in earlier days.

Probably the biggest differences are that the tenant might get some protection from a landlord who thinks he can pocket the depo, though as suggested there was reasonably simple remedy for that anyway. Difference no.2 is that the scheme is of course not free (maybe £100+ per tenancy), and you can guess who ends up paying for it.... not the landlord!

Barnsley wrote:

x9200 wrote:Long term "protection" like this will make the citizens lose. For shorter terms, It also encourages bad behavior of the tenants.

Can you explain?

Very common case: not paying the last 1-2 rents (it's almost always against the TA). Not leaving the place clean and in good order if there are strong indication that the LL will not return the deposit anyway or just breaking the contract for any reason and leaving the country as the general opinion also expressed on this forum is that nothing can be done even if the LL is at fault. Any form of injustice even if sanctioned by the law always promotes behavior to take the justice in ones own hands or just provide convenient excuse to do whatever ones may want to do.

Barnsley wrote: Its protection to both parties is it not?

Formally - yes, but practically not always. It is for both if you still live in this country* but if one is about to leave? From my observations from this forum it looks, cheaper the rent more likely problems may occur so people who don't have that much money are likely to be the victims. Now they have to leave the country and the LL is not going to pay back the deposit. What can they do in such cases?

*) even if one still lives in Singapore, see the Ludwig's case in this very thread, it will cost extra money to get the justice done. It should be possible to recover all fair expenses in full.