MR ROBIN CHUA: 'Although, unlike young couples, I am unaffected by the spike in flat prices, Saturday's report, 'Cash premiums for HDB flats hit a high', with its slew of price-spiking catchphrases - 'buyers desperate', 'high demand' and 'tight supply' - begs this question: After 40 years of public housing, how did it come to this? The Housing Board should stop insisting that enough flats are being built. The over-subscription by many times at each launch of public flats clearly shows that there are not enough new flats, thus pushing buyers towards the resale market, which in turn pushes prices and cash-over-valuation (COV) up; it's a vicious price circle. The irony is that on the one hand, young couples are urged to marry and have children early to help increase the procreation rate; and on the other hand, they are indirectly told to wait five years to get a flat and start a family.'
Jan 27, 2010
Tenants cannot sublet HDB flats to others
I REFER to Ms Mary Tan's letter last Tuesday, 'Subletting - Relaxation of rules works against genuine residents'. HDB flats are primarily meant for owner-occupation.
Each household can own only one HDB flat at any one time. However, we recognise that some flat owners may need to sublet their rooms or flat to meet their financial needs.
Therefore, flat owners can sublet their flats if they meet the HDB's policy requirements. Flat owners who wish to sublet their whole flat must obtain approval from HDB and fulfil the minimum occupation period. HDB's approval is not needed to sublet room(s) within a flat.
From Feb 1, owners who sublet rooms must register the subletting with the HDB within seven days of doing so. They must also notify the HDB when they renew or terminate their subletting contracts and when there are changes to their tenants' particulars.
The new requirement supports the Ministry of Home Affairs' efforts to eradicate loan-sharking activities, and to better protect HDB residents.
Flat owners who sublet rooms or their whole flat must comply with our terms and conditions, and ensure that their tenants do not disturb or inconvenience other residents unnecessarily.
Tenants cannot further sublet the flat to others. The HDB takes a very serious view of unauthorised subletting of flats and will act accordingly.
Foo-Ho Yoke Ming (Mrs)
Deputy Director (Branch Operations)
Housing & Development Board
Jan 28, 2010
Separate ethnic quota for PRs
Move to prevent them from forming enclaves in public housing estates
By Kor Kian Beng
THE Housing Board is considering introducing a separate ethnic quota for permanent residents to prevent them from forming enclaves in public housing estates.
Its spokesman disclosed yesterday that the HDB was considering tweaking the Ethnic Integration Policy (EIP) but did not elaborate on the details.
PRs and Singaporeans are now subject to the same quota under the EIP, which aims to maintain a healthy racial mix in housing estates by stipulating maximum proportions for the key ethnic groups.
The HDB's statement followed comments made by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew during a dialogue at an event marking the HDB's 50th anniversary.
Asked by the moderator, Professor Tommy Koh, if the EIP would be expanded to include new Singaporeans, Mr Lee said the Government was doing so.
Said Mr Lee: 'We're not allowing new Singaporeans, whether from China, India or Malaysia or whatever, to congregate in the same tower blocks, which they are already beginning to do. They buy second-hand flats and they congregate.
'So we say 'no, no'. We have a record of how many new citizens living where, and we keep their numbers dispersed.
'It (EIP) is a very valuable instrument of communal harmony.'
The HDB spokesman clarified later that it was still considering the proposed change for PRs, whose numbers have risen in recent years.
The swell has triggered concerns of PRs forming enclaves in housing estates.
Last November, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said, in response to a query in Parliament, that the Government was monitoring the situation and would consider measures to prevent the congregation of PRs and foreigners in the housing estates.
Mr Mah also said PRs are already subject to the EIP, which was introduced in 1989. Latest official statistics show there are 533,200 PRs.
They own around 5 per cent of the nearly 900,000 HDB flats islandwide. PRs can buy only resale flats.
Under the EIP, proportions for the main ethnic groups - Chinese, Malays and Indian/Others - in each block and each precinct of around 10 to 12 blocks are subject to quotas. Sale of an HDB flat to a buyer from an ethnic group that has reached the block or the precinct limit is not allowed.
Over the years, disgruntled buyers and sellers have called for the HDB to tweak the quota or to abolish it completely.
Mr Lee said yesterday the situation was no different in the EIP's early years, when residents preferred neighbours of their own ethnic group.
The audience got a clear sense of how seriously he viewed the EIP, in his reply to Prof Koh's question if he considered the scheme a 'successful experiment'.
Said Mr Lee: 'No, it was not an experiment... It was force majeure. We inflicted it on the people, we knew it would work, we knew it would be uncomfortable.
'I got the Malay MPs and the ministers together, explained it and I said this was the only way. If we didn't do this, we would remain separate communities and never integrate.'
Jan 28, 2010
Don't cast protest vote over rising flat prices: MM
By Sue-Ann Chia, Senior Political Correspondent
THE current contentious issue on the affordability of public housing was given another airing by Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew who cautioned Singaporeans not to cast a protest vote against the ruling party over this.
As Singaporeans lament rising flat prices, he said they ought to understand that the Government sells them at a subsidised price, below market rate, so that they can own an asset that will appreciate in value over the years.
It adds to their wealth and this is an asset-enhancing policy Mr Lee believes citizens should not find fault with.
If they do, they must be 'daft', he said, at a dialogue during a housing conference as part of a series of events to mark the Housing and Development Board's 50th anniversary.
And if National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan is unable to defend this policy, 'he deserves to lose' at the next general election, he quipped, to laughter from the participants, including a chuckling Mr Mah.
But if Mr Mah loses to the opposition, he warned that Singaporeans better sell their flats fast as they would no longer be of any value.
Mr Lee's blunt remarks were in response to a question by dialogue moderator Tommy Koh, who pulled out a Straits Times report which said at least three opposition parties are keen to contest Tampines GRC, which Mr Mah helms, as they want to raise the affordability of public housing as an election issue to gain votes.
'It will always be an issue,' noted Mr Lee. 'They always want it cheaper and better.'
The Government, he said, has to price the flats at a level which is fair, not only to current buyers but past and future buyers, as it will affect property prices.
He went on to explain why the Government had put in place a five-year limit before people can sell their new flat, saying it was to prevent speculation in the property market.
'Because the moment you buy a flat, you can sell it to make a profit,' he said.
'We are giving you something more valuable than you're paying for. So we say you cannot sell it for five years.'
This philosophy of giving citizens an asset that will grow in value and give them a stake in the country was a recurring message in the 60-minute dialogue.
Asked why the Government placed such emphasis on housing the population in the early days after Singapore gained self-rule in 1959, Mr Lee, who was the Republic's first prime minister, said:
'We decided from the very beginning, everybody must have a home, every family will have something to defend. And that home, we developed over the years into the most valuable asset.'
It was also about giving people a clean place to live, as living conditions then were squalid and overcrowded.
To a question from Hong Kong's Secretary for Transport and Housing, Ms Eva Cheng, on letting the private sector play a bigger role, he said they cannot take over the housing responsibility.
'We give them land, they build, and they sell it below market price? Cannot be done,' he said.
'We give our buyer an asset which is below market price the moment he buys it. So there is no profit, it's a loss, but there's a strategy behind that loss.
'That loss is to give the man an asset which he will value, which will grow in price as the country develops, as his surroundings become better.'
He added: 'This is a social responsibility which we have undertaken and that's the reason why we are re-elected.'
Referring to the three opposition parties that are targeting Mr Mah, he said: 'If Mr Mah is not re-elected and these three wise men take over, then I say you better sell and get out quickly.'
OPPOSITION EYEING TAMPINES GRC?
'If Mr Mah is unable to defend himself, he deserves to lose. No country in the world has given its citizens an asset as valuable as what we've given every family here. And if you say that policy is at fault, you must be daft.'
MM Lee when asked about a Straits Times report that cited keen opposition interest in contesting Tampines GRC, which National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan helms, so that they can raise the affordability of public housing as an election issue
Jan 28, 2010
HDB looks forward on its 50th birthday
By Jessica Cheam
EVEN as Singapore's public housing agency looks back to celebrate its achievements over the past 50 years, it will face increasing challenges that mean evolving to meet changing needs.
The Housing and Development Board (HDB), which marks its 50th birthday on Feb 1, must meet these challenges while maintaining its three-pronged approach of environmental, economic and social sustainability, National Development Minister Mah Bow Tan said yesterday.
He was addressing more than 500 delegates from around the world at the opening ceremony of a three-day international housing conference hosted by the HDB and held at Suntec City.
'In this globalised world, we face many common challenges: climate change, migration, demographic shifts, shrinking resources, among others,' he told the conference. 'These changes impact all cities alike, large or small, developed or developing, sooner or later.'
The conference was a great opportunity for policymakers, architects and urban planners to exchange ideas.
The growing challenges that HDB will face include an ageing population, which may require further innovations in housing policies or building design, he said. Others included integrating the growing number of new Singapore citizens and the effects of rising affluence.
'As the public housing authority, HDB's key task is to find innovative ways to accommodate our people, taking these challenges into account,' he said.
Speakers at the three-day conference, which discussed themes such as environmental sustainability, include housing ministers from Spain, Finland and Australia, and senior government officials from the United States and Hong Kong.
Hong Kong's Secretary for Transport and Housing Eva Cheng said Hong Kong faced similar challenges as Singapore over land size and a growing population, and had ensured public housing for lower-income earners. She will be speaking at the conference today.
Addressing the audience, HDB chief executive Tay Kim Poh also acknowledged yesterday that HDB has 'achieved much that we are proud of', but it is also mindful of the 'challenges to housing that are shaped by the changing needs and expectations of our people'.
an 28, 2010
'No' to more rental housing
By Rachel Chang
BUILDING more flats for rent could ease the burden on younger Singaporeans starting out in life - just as it could help others invest their resources in developing their businesses.
The idea of increasing the Housing Board's pool of rental flats to help those Singaporeans concerned about affordable housing, was put to Minister Mentor Lee Kuan Yew at a conference yesterday.
But he was quick to disagree, arguing that it was tantamount to putting the HDB in a position of subsidising rents indefinitely. It would also create a 'dependency group' - those constantly dependent on the Government and on subsidies.
The right policy is to, instead, subsidise the price of the flat for the buyer, who then has an asset that will appreciate in value as the economy grows.
'I'll improve the surroundings, I'll improve the lifts, the conditions, I'll give you more space. But it is yours and you look after it. And we do not have rundown public housing like other countries which are rental (units),' he said.
The idea was put forward by Professor Deng Yongheng, director of the National University of Singapore's Institute of Real Estate Studies. He said that having more rental flats would help low-income earners, and also allow others to put their money into meeting 'entrepreneurship and other demands'.
Mr Lee said that for those needing resources for their businesses, there was 'nothing to stop you from taking your house, your flat, you go to the bank and say... I've got so much more to pay, this is my income, I need this capital to start a business'.
The HDB clarified later to the media, however, that an HDB flat cannot be used as collateral for a bank loan.
In his response at the dialogue, Mr Lee also said that young Singaporeans wanting to invest in business and not be burdened with financing a flat, could rent from the private sector:
'If you believe you can be a great entrepreneur, then rent a flat from somebody. All the HDB flats are now rentable.'
Mr Lee also disagreed with another idea, raised by Ambassador-at-large Tommy Koh, that the HDB could build retirement communities like those found in Australia and the United States.
Mr Lee said he had read an article by a US doctor, who had assets but who stopped his practice and went into such a home.
'This retirement home was like a hotel and there were other doctors with whom he could discuss things at an intellectual level... He is in that profession, so he has saved enough to pay for the facilities as if it were a hotel,' Mr Lee said.
'You want American standards of living, be an American doctor. Singapore cannot give you that. We haven't got that kind of economy, nor that kind of land. Not even the developer can afford to go and retire in that kind of situation.'
Jan 28, 2010
65% satisfied with property agents: Poll
By Dickson Li
TWO out of three people are satisfied with the service they get from real estate agents but there is still room for improvement, according to a survey conducted by Ngee Ann Polytechnic.
Of the 1,041 people questioned in the poll - 564 of whom had prior experience of property transactions - 64.6 per cent said they were either satisfied or very satisfied with the service they got from their agents.
Another 27.7 per cent felt neutral about the service provided, while the remainder were either very dissatisfied or dissatisfied.
Even among those who were satisfied, 71.1 per cent reported negative experiences of their property agents.
Chief among their complaints was failing to negotiate a 'good' price for the property. The second most common gripe was being given the 'wrong advice'.
Of the survey's respondents, 63.8 per cent felt that a property agent should have at least two years of relevant work experience before being accredited by a professional body.
The polytechnic's real estate lecturer Nicholas Mak, who is the survey's research coordinator, said: 'Two years is an indicator of the standard a real estate professional accreditation body should require from its members.'
An overwhelming majority - 96.6 per cent - of respondents called on the Government to implement changes to the industry.
The most popular proposed action was for the implementation of a property agent certification scheme. Although such a scheme might involve higher costs, 49.1 per cent of respondents did not mind paying a higher commission if they got experienced property agents.
Dr Tan Tee Khoon, chief executive of the Singapore Accredited Estate Agencies, acknowledged that despite a variety of measures taken towards self-regulation, 'there is still much to be desired of this industry'.
Publication of the Ngee Ann Polytechnic survey, which was conducted in the middle of last year, comes before the expected publication of the Ministry of National Development's proposed regulatory framework for the real estate industry.
Feb 3, 2010
No family, single and unable to buy public flat
MY PARENTS divorced when I was an infant and I do not have siblings. I am single.
Five years ago, I wrote to the HDB to ask if I could buy a flat at age 30. The Housing Board took my request into consideration and exercised some flexibility by allowing me to purchase a HDB resale three-room flat. However, I did not qualify for the HDB housing loan and housing grant.
I did not proceed with the purchase at that time because of the unattractive conditions. Now, I am 36 years old and want to buy a flat under the singles scheme. But I do not qualify for the housing loan and housing grant because my income exceeds $3,000.
HDB rejected my loan appeal because of my salary, ignoring my family circumstances. Yet, five years ago, it took the same circumstances into consideration in allowing me to buy a flat.
HDB staff advised me to get a bank loan, but I cannot fork out the huge amount of cash upfront. The bank will loan me an amount equivalent to only two times my monthly salary.
I feel that the HDB should increase the income ceiling. Five to 10 years ago, a three- or four-room HDB resale flat was priced from $150,000 to $250,000, but now the price has increased to $280,000 to $350,000. In addition, there is the $20,000 to $40,000 cash upfront.
Singles like me appear to be the hardest hit. Couples still have the alternative to buy new flats. Where can singles like me go to for help?
Feb 8, 2010
No floor indicators: Bid 'to save costs'
THE Housing Board's initial plan to leave out floor-indicator panels for its Lift Upgrading Programme (LUP) was neither 'deliberate' nor 'witting'.
Rather, it was a cost-saving measure by the HDB which ended up taking away 'one of the features that people wanted', said Minister in the Prime Minister's Office Lim Hwee Hua.
She made the remarks on the sidelines of a block party in Serangoon Avenue 2 yesterday where she also announced that seven blocks in the precinct were selected for the LUP.
Said Mrs Lim, who is also Second Minister for Finance and Transport:
'I think lift upgrading is a massive countrywide programme, so it is a question of you taking feedback and you improve it as you go along... So I think it's learning as we go along.'
The Straits Times reported last week that the HDB had reversed its decision to leave out electronic floor-indicator display panels in the LUP.
The lift landings were fitted only with displays that showed arrows pointing upwards or downwards that would light up just before a lift arrived.
Residents in Bedok North had earlier complained that they were not happy with their upgraded lifts because of the missing floor indicators. Without floor indicators, they would not know if the lift had broken down, they said.
With the reversal, about 200 blocks islandwide which had undergone upgrading will be retrofitted.
Feb 8, 2010
Costly choices
'The fact that prices have doubled in four years is alarming. What justifies such drastic hikes?'
MR MERVYN SONG: 'In 2006, a five-room flat in Queenstown fetched about $350,000 to $400,000. Today, it costs between $620,000 and $680,000, depending on the cash-over-valuation (COV) premium. The fact that prices have doubled in four years is alarming. Valuation of a three-room flat in Clementi in September last year was about $280,000. Today, it has ballooned to $330,000, a whopping increase of almost 20 per cent. Factor in COV, and the cost of a three-room flat is probably in the range of $380,000 to $400,000. If the rate of increase does not abate, we will see doubling of HDB prices again in five to seven years. Even for direct buyers, this will mean much higher rates if HDB prices its new flats at a 20 per cent discount from market rate. What justifies such drastic hikes?'
Feb 8, 2010
PUBLIC HOUSING
Room for pragmatism
THE public reaction to rising prices of HDB flats appears to be largely prompted by young, middle class couples in the sandwich class, usually snagged by the $8,000 income ceiling.
They expect their first home to be first-rate, are unwilling to live in the new, outer suburbs, dislike lower floors and expect to get their flat immediately.
I hold a different view. Buyers who qualify to buy directly from the HDB should not take issue with the waiting period for build-to-order (BTO) flats. These flats are subsidised and not bought in the open market.
Buyers should also be open to buying flats in the outer suburbs.
It is not unusual for the price of inner-city housing to escalate as a city prospers. New buyers will just have to live farther away.
Successful buyers also reject flats on the lower floors during balloting for the sale of the balance flats. If they choose to do so, it is only fair that they queue up for the BTO scheme which means a longer waiting period.
Either that, or buy resale, which is dearer. Rather than complain about the high cash premiums, perhaps young couples should realise they must start saving from their first day of work if they wish to have their dream flat.
The Government should not be held accountable if a buyer wishes to have a more desirable flat but does not have enough Central Provident Fund savings.
It is also unreasonable to impose more restrictions on permanent residents (PRs) who buy resale flats. PRs already face more restrictions than citizens in buying public flats.
Allowing PRs to buy flats, and sell them after a regulated period in the open market, will give them a stake here and help Singapore grow.
The Government should come down hard on people who buy flats to rent them out illegally. Despite the rules, many flats are still wholly rented out via the loophole of a locked master bedroom. Perhaps the best way to stop this practice is to reward whistle-blowers.
Finally, as 86 per cent of the population are HDB flat owners, it is actually not a bad idea for the prices of HDB flats to appreciate.
Feb 8, 2010
More caught running illegal dorms
Private homes illegally converted to house foreign workers
By Melissa Sim & Mou Zongxiao
MORE people were taken to task last year for illegally converting their private homes into dormitories, hostels and boarding houses as accommodation for foreign workers and students.
The Urban Redevelopment Authority (URA) investigated about 700 private residential properties and is still forcing boarders to vacate the premises of 140 owners. Overcrowding is common, making safety an issue.
The other 560 owners have since stopped taking in lodgers illegally.
In 2008, the URA investigated just 400 cases.
In particular, there was an 18 per cent increase in the number of unauthorised worker dormitories over the previous year, though figures were not available.
The illegal dormitories are being exposed as more people write in to the URA with their complaints, and tip-offs are provided by the public and other government agencies.
The URA said that private apartments and landed homes are meant for residential use and should not be converted into workers' dormitories, which need permission to operate.
Under the Planning Act, illegal conversion of premises can result in a maximum fine of $200,000 and a year in jail. If the offence continues after conviction, a fine of $10,000 a day may be imposed.
Despite URA efforts, checks by The Straits Times showed that illegal workers' dormitories are still prevalent, especially in Little India and Tiong Bahru.
Along Marne Road off Petain Road, The Straits Times found at least two terrace houses housing more than 10 workers each.
In Tiong Bahru, there were at least three such apartments. In other units, there were workers from China and Malaysia who refused entry to The Straits Times. But shoes outside the main door and the drying laundry were signs of the multiple occupants inside.
At three units, occupants said there were eight people living inside. One said the boss had obtained the flat for them.
One landlord, who wanted to be known only as Ms Huang, said she had rented her three-room unit in Kai Fook Mansion in Tiong Bahru Road to eight Malaysians at $1,700 a month.
She said she had nine tenants at first but was told by the URA in December that she could have only eight. Ms Huang said she had not made modifications to her flat.
Private homes as ad hoc accommodation have sprung up over the last few years because of a shortage of dormitories and boarding houses.
A single worker renting a room in one of these converted homes pays about $200 compared with $160 to $180 each month for a workers' dorm in Jurong.
In the middle of last year, the URA found that 140 units in Grangeford condominium in Leonie Hill had been subdivided into 600 units. The developer was taken to action to recover the units.
The Ministry of Manpower warned employers of foreign workers that they are responsible for the well-being of their workers, including providing acceptable accommodation while they are employed.
Employers who fail to provide acceptable accommodation for their foreign workers are in breach of the work permit conditions and may be fined up to $5,000 and jailed up to six months. Such employers could also be barred from hiring foreign workers in future.
Tiong Bahru residents interviewed said they were fine with foreign workers in their midst, but were concerned about the overcrowding in the walk-up apartments, which are about 800 sq ft to 1,000 sq ft and usually have two or three bedrooms.
Interior designer Jo Turner, 31, claimed that her ceiling sprang a leak because there were 10 workers sharing a toilet in the flat above hers.
Ms Turner, like advertising executive Eugene Yip, 38, was mostly worried about the workers cooking over an open flame. About a month and a half ago, unit 1P in Yong Siak Street, housing Chinese national workers, caught fire.
The Singapore Civil Defence Force said the fire was accidental and from an electrical source. This could have been caused by a short circuit or overloading of power outlets.
Feb 7, 2010
Rental disputes on the rise
More tenants have been filing claims against landlords over contract issues
By Teh Joo Lin
Mr Ashirafur, 37, and his wife Hushne ana Bagum, 30, in a room at a friend's flat. They were forced to leave their rental flat in Yishun last week. -- PHOTO: CAROLINE CHIA
Vacate the flat at once, project supervisor Ashirafur Rahaman Khan said he was told by a group of six people just before midnight.
It happened more than a week ago, the 37-year-old said. He was with his wife in their rented flat's corridor in Yishun Street 81.
His wife, eight months pregnant and who had recently flown in from Bangladesh, was exercising in the corridor.
The group of six men and women who confronted the couple included the landlord and his son.
'One of the men said I didn't pay my rent, so I had to move out. But I had already paid for the month and even gave some advance payment,' said the permanent resident, who rented the flat for $1,400 a month with a fellow tenant who was not present during the encounter.
Part of the group then entered the flat, saying they were removing the furniture.
Seeing his wife agitated, Mr Ashirafur then agreed to leave. 'I said, 'Don't touch the furniture. We'll move it ourselves',' he said.
So in the wee hours of the morning, the flat's occupants scrambled to find lodging with friends, Mr Ashirafur said.
When contacted, the landlord's son, who did not give his name, said it was his father who had decided on the course of action.
But he said: 'Let's say you rented a house. If anyone else comes (to stay), the owner should be informed.'
Mr Ashirafur told The Sunday Times his wife and his sister had flown in from Bangladesh. His sister had come along to take care of her.
He said his next move is to go to the Small Claims Tribunal, taking along his tenancy agreement, which states that one month's notice is required for a mutually agreed termination of tenancy.
In recent years, more tenants - and to a lesser extent, landlords - have approached the tribunal for help to settle rental disputes.
This increase took place after it extended its jurisdiction in February 2006 to include disagreements on contracts for homes rented out for two years or less.
The tribunal was set up in 1985 to resolve small claims between consumers and suppliers.
Last year, 1,349 rental disagreement claims were lodged, more than three times the 401 claims filed in 2006. In 2008, 1,137 claims were lodged.
The majority of such claims - 84 per cent of last year's cases, for example - are filed by tenants, statistics from the Subordinate Courts showed.
Prior to 2006, such aggrieved parties settled disputes such as unpaid rents or leaky ceilings between themselves or through the courts - a time-consuming and usually expensive process.
The Small Claims Tribunal handles cases involving sums of up to $10,000, though this limit can be raised to $20,000 if the parties agree.
Once a claim is lodged, the tribunal arranges a consultation before a registrar who will mediate the claim. The case goes to a hearing if there is no settlement during the meeting.
The time taken to resolve a claim depends on the nature and circumstances of each case, said the Subordinate Courts' spokesman.
From the date of filing to the first consultation, the waiting period is usually between 10 and 14 days. From the final consultation to the hearing, the waiting period is usually within 10 working days.
When contacted, a Housing Board spokesman said it advises flat owners and tenants to settle their differences amicably when disputes come to its attention.
'HDB will usually advise the complainant to lodge a claim with the Small Claims Tribunal. If mediation is not an option, the complainant may choose to take a private suit against the other party,' she said.
The spokesman added that common disputes included issues over payment of rental, forfeiture of deposits and the termination of tenancies without sufficient notice.
Various types of rental disputes have hit the news in the past several years. At times, tenants returned to their flats only to find the locks changed.
Landlords have also suffered. When the economy dipped last year, tenants reportedly skipped town without paying the rent. They left the keys in the flats' letterboxes.
'Nowadays, such cases are common. Why? Because the tenant can't afford to pay, or the landlord has some reasons to get back his place and finds an excuse,' said Mr Andrew Tan, a senior division director from real estate agency Dennis Wee Group.
Rental agents who spoke to The Sunday Times said tenants and landlords should exercise due diligence and abide by proper tenancy procedures - to protect themselves if a dispute arises.
For example, tenants should ensure that their landlords are the actual owners of the flats and have approval to rent the units out. Landlords, on their part, should check their tenants' particulars.
Proper tenancy agreements should be drawn up, setting out detailed terms and conditions. Stamp duty has to be paid too.
'If everything is done in the right manner, the tenant should have no fear at all,' said Mr Richard Sim, an agent with real estate agency ERA.
Mr Tan also advised tenants to pay the monthly rental using bank transfers, so 'there's a record'.
'It's not advisable to pay cash. Even if you had written a receipt, the owner can say he didn't sign it,' he said.
Above all, said ERA agent Paul Ravie, tenants and landlords must honour the tenancy agreement.
'This is an important document, but many people don't really take it as a serious, binding contract,' he said, adding that agents must take care to explain the terms to both parties ahead of the signing.
Feb 7, 2010 How to make a small claim
Before lodging a claim, the claimant should ensure he has the correct name and address of the person he intends to make the claim against. He may also wish to ensure that the party he is claiming against is not a bankrupt.
Where possible, mediation should be attempted before going to the tribunal. Both the claimant and the other party might try to resolve the matter themselves, or approach agencies such as the Community Mediation Centre.
All claims must be lodged within one year. To lodge a claim, apart from submitting copies of the claim form, the claimant must submit a copy of the tenancy agreement and any other supporting written documents.
It costs a tenant $10 to lodge a claim of up to $5,000, and $20 if the claim is more than $5,000 and up to $10,000. For a landlord, the amounts are $50 and $100 respectively.
Channels
TECH GUIDES
