Law on giving notice to tenants

[bbbbbbbbb]

Utter cr*p pp.

You don't have to pay out the entire lease as "true" and "not true" were originally trying to imply and now backtracking, you are right in this.  You do have to compensate for any loss incurred such as empty apartment or reduced lease costs (though must try and let at decent rate).  You would generally agree a reasonable estimate of this upfront rather than waiting for realised cost.

You do not however walk away and just forfeit deposit.  Deposit isn't rent insurance or contract breakage cost it is for damage, the costs of breaking a lease are completely seperate.

I really wish people like you would stop trying to give others legal type advice when you have absolutely no idea what you are talking about.

[not true]

". Monthly rent $5000.  Tenant breaks a 2 year lease after 11 months.  Tenant must pay $5000 x remaining 13 months."

This is not true. At the very most the deposit will get forfeited. Likewise, if the LL wants the the unit back early, he pays a penalty equivalent to the deposit.

If the LL wants the unit back early, then that is his tough SH%T.   

He cannot legally demand a tenant to move out by paying a penalty equivalent to the deposit.  That is ridiculous.  You honestly think that is law?  It's not!  e.g. I move into his unit in January for a 2 year lease.  He comes along in March and tells me he wants his unit and I have to move out by April/May and he will pay me a penalty of 2 months rent?     NO WAY is that the law here.

Anyone that can prove that this is allowed / legal here will get a medal from me.

LL's cannot just dance back into their units whenever they feel like it.

If the tenant agrees to move out, he can NAME his compensation.

[to pp]

Wouldn't be so sure about that.

I agree, other poster is wrong on the deposit thing, not convinced you can name what you like though, it is likely to be costs incurred plus hassle money.  Sane as for tenant breaking, can't just demand the earth.

In some places tenancy is protected but here I doubt it and for compensation to be enfordced a court would need to deem it reasonable.

Also depends on contract but likely it is silent.  In uk most tenants can't be forcibly removed.  If I moved back though I can just give them two months notice (no damages at all) as contract stipulates this but only if I occupy, I can't do it and re-let. Think this isn't unusual for overseas LLs due to their circumstances but for most here that clause wouldn't be there.

[not true]

In some places tenancy is protected but here I doubt it and for compensation to be enfordced a court would need to deem it reasonable.

Also depends on contract but likely it is silent.  In uk most tenants can't be forcibly removed.  If I moved back though I can just give them two months notice (no damages at all) as contract stipulates this but only if I occupy, I can't do it and re-let. Think this isn't unusual for overseas LLs due to their circumstances but for most here that clause wouldn't be there.

When I say a tenant who is being asked to leave can NAME his compensation, it means he can ask for whatever the hell he thinks is fair and reasonable.  That's what I did.   If the LL had not agreed to pay me, then I would not have moved out for that LL, and there is nothing that the LL could have done to get me out.  I wasn't the one breaking the terms of our 2 year lease / legal contractual agreement.   

In our case, there was no need for any court proceeding.  The LL had to decide whether that compensation money was "worth it" to get us to move out.  It worked well for us because the LL was rather desperate and we had them in a corner.  "Pay us, or we won't move!"  It was that simple.

You doubt that tenancy is protected here?   Why would you doubt it?   You think Singapore is loose when it comes to rules and practices and run by renegade cowboys?

I wish people like you who KNOW NOTHING would just go away.  Stop making Expat tenants on this web board doubt their rights.   If you "doubt" something then that doesn't mean anything - the fact is, you don't know.

Had the tenancy agreement gone beyond the agreed 2 years and we were continuing it month-to-month, then yes,  a LL (or the tenant in that case) may be able to give a reasonable 2-3 months notice and expect the tenant to move out.  The tenant in that situation could do the same.  If tenants don't want to risk that from happening, then they should sign a new agreement after the expiry of their first 2 year agreement.

I would advise everybody to protect themselves and write into their leases here in Singapore what kind of compensation they expect to receive should their LL wish to request the breaking of the lease prematurely.   This saves negotiating all the terms later, and also acts as a good deterrent against those annoying LL's with a strong sense of self entitlement.

[to pp]

You are talking crap again.

Yes Singapore law is like cowboy land in certain respects, leaseholder rights being one of them.

You can't ask for what the hell you like. You got lucky, I wish morons like you would stop posting thinking a single instance is proof of your ill conceived view of contract law, you are a moron, just shut up with your consistently bollocks advice.

[not true]

You are talking crap again.

Yes Singapore law is like cowboy land in certain respects, leaseholder rights being one of them.

You can't ask for what the hell you like. You got lucky, I wish morons like you would stop posting thinking a single instance is proof of your ill conceived view of contract law, you are a moron, just shut up with your consistently bollocks advice.

Yep.  I am a moron who is $25,000 richer because I asked for whatever the hell I thought was reasonable and decided that my family would work the SH%TTY situation to our advantage.  The LL didn't see that coming, that's for sure.

As I said, they were desperate and had to pay if they wanted to get us out.  If we as Leaseholders had no rights whatsoever (as you - the propagandarist - would like people to believe), then WHY THE HELL would a rich LL who owns more than 4 condo's here in Singapore pay through the nose to make us leave.  You don't think the LL consulted any lawyer of his own before writing us that cheque??? 

your photo is there when you look up MORON in the dictionary.

If people on here listened to ignorant LL/agents like you, then the rotten cycle of cowboy greedy LL's taking advantage of well intentioned Expat tenants will continue forever.

Why don't you go and copy the leaseholder rights that you claim to know all about or bugger off?

It is high time that Expats in this country get more confident and bold about what they ask for.

[...]

I've tried giving a little advice before on matters such as letters of intent, but on this board, people who are not legally qualified seem to think they know much more than those of us who are.

To gloss over the uninformed opinions floating round here, the contractual position, in simplistic terms, would be:

Where the tenant "breaks the lease" (and I don't like that term, but what I really mean is where the tenant leaves prior to the end of the lease and fails to continue making payment of rent), the tenant will be liable in contractual damages, to put the landlord in the same position as if the 2 year lease had been fully performed.  This may sound like the tenant will have to pay all of the remaining months rent.  However, there is also a strict duty on the landlord in these circumstances to mitigate his loss.  This means that the landlord will have to take positive steps to remarket the apartment.  Ultimately the tenant would be liable  for any difference between the old rent and the new rent for the remaining term of the original lease, plus the costs of remarketing - ie agent fees.  The landlord could set off this amount against the deposit which he holds from the original tenant.

From the other perspective, when granting a lease to a tenant, the landlord cannot simply demand the apartment back as he has granted a property right to the tenant, and the tenant would be quite within his rights to simply refuse to move out until the end of the term of the 2 year tenancy (on the assumption that the tenant is fully performing his obligations under the lease).  If the landlord really wants his apartment back, then he has to NEGOTIATE with his tenant and AGREE appropriate compensation which the tenant is prepared to accept in order to move out early.

Queue uninformed opinions, but that's what I love really as it means I'll always have a well paid job.

All of that being said above, it depends on what ther terms of the tenancy agreement say, so READ THE AGREEMENT CAREFULLY

[reasonable LL]

Yep.  I am a moron who is $25,000 richer because I asked for whatever the hell I thought was reasonable and decided that my family would work the SH%TTY situation to our advantage.  The LL didn't see that coming, that's for sure.

As I said, they were desperate and had to pay if they wanted to get us out.  If we as Leaseholders had no rights whatsoever (as you - the propagandarist - would like people to believe), then WHY THE HELL would a rich LL who owns more than 4 condo's here in Singapore pay through the nose to make us leave.  You don't think the LL consulted any lawyer of his own before writing us that cheque??? 

see, you knew the reasons and bragging to others here that your LL has acted in good taste. but if the LL happens to be those of little education and mean people, they could locked you out of the house, or threw you out, but then if you happens to have some big muscles around, a mean LL is asking for troubles.