Welcome Guest ( Log In | Register )

Bump Topic Topic Closed RSS Feed

Outline · [ Standard ] · Linear+

 Working in Singapore v7

views
     
ThanatosSwiftfire
post Jul 25 2011, 10:36 PM

Irregular
*******
Senior Member
2,787 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


QUOTE(seantang @ Jul 25 2011, 09:07 PM)
Notice how no mention of singapore tongue.gif


ThanatosSwiftfire
post Aug 1 2011, 02:45 PM

Irregular
*******
Senior Member
2,787 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


Just checking, some of my friends have landlords in SG that
a) Don't let guests stay over
b) Girls only (no boys allowed)

Are such practices normal? I personally will want to be able to accommodate my friends / gf when they come over, so.. just wondering, other than asking up front and hoping they keep their promises, how do we get the house rules established / fixed so the houseowners dont simply change the terms.
ThanatosSwiftfire
post Aug 1 2011, 03:28 PM

Irregular
*******
Senior Member
2,787 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


QUOTE(crazy25kid @ Aug 1 2011, 02:57 PM)
It is their house, so they have the rights to set the rules.
If you have such a request...PLEASE inform the owner before hand on such requests and decide whether u can live with their decision or not.
This is more towards mutual trust and whether you take their word or not.
They can go against what they said earlier if they think you are doing it a bit too often or something ticked them off.
*
Hmmm, definitely won't be often, but I'm just trying to avoid a situation where the landlord is pushing you around despite paying rent and all.

QUOTE(crapp0 @ Aug 1 2011, 03:07 PM)
Nah, the third wheel just attended the Dr House school of being a d1ck.
You cant since its the prerogative of the landlord. Even if you have an agreement in black & white in regards to house rules. Its not legally binding so you have to take the landlords house rules in verbal form and it depends on the landlords character, if that person is nice then good for you but or more often then not, their a bunch of inflexible mofos.
*
So generally speaking, singaporean landlords are arses? Man.


Added on August 1, 2011, 3:30 pm
QUOTE(seantang @ Aug 1 2011, 03:25 PM)
Most landlords have this rule if they are also living in the house. Especially if their family is also staying there.

IMHO, it's understandable. If I were the landlord, I wouldn't want to have strangers (ie. non-tenants or best case, non-regular visitors) having a free run of my house, using my stuff, contaminating my fridge, washing machine, utensils etc. One week, it's this friend. Next week, it's that friend... for instance. And if something is broken or stolen/lost, who's going to blame whom?

I rented 3 rooms in one year when I was in college. 2 out of 3 were okay with me bringing back a gf and she stays over, but had to make sure she doesn't walk around in the middle of the night in her underwear or something (or nothing) etc. All were okay when to have my parents stay a night or two if they visited. But none would let me bring back friends to hangout, definitely not overnight.
*
Yeah that does put things into perspective. I guess the best way to avoid the whole complication is to get an entire unit to yourself, eh?

This post has been edited by ThanatosSwiftfire: Aug 1 2011, 03:30 PM
ThanatosSwiftfire
post Aug 1 2011, 04:08 PM

Irregular
*******
Senior Member
2,787 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


QUOTE(crazy25kid @ Aug 1 2011, 04:00 PM)
That is too much of a generalization.
Put yourself in their shoes.
Think about wat sean said.
It is very likely that you might be so too.
If I were the landlord, I would at least want some control over who stays in my crib.
*
Hahaha, I've always been exposed to propaganda about singaporeans being annoying, controlling etc and such info which I gathered from my friends merely enhanced that 'perception' of singaporeans being, 'arses'. I guess I didn't quite think of it that way.

THAT SAID, we're paying for a room there should be a certain degree of rights to which we are entitled, and singaporeans are undertaking to rent out (along with it, they should be aware of all the risks that comes attached with it), and yet wanting to retain control, that sounds to me like "wanting to eat the cake, and keep it too".


ThanatosSwiftfire
post Aug 1 2011, 04:34 PM

Irregular
*******
Senior Member
2,787 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


QUOTE(seantang @ Aug 1 2011, 04:26 PM)
Mind you, renting a room doesn't mean that the landlord is 'handing over possession' of one of the rooms in their flat over to the tenant. It's more like the tenant is a boarder, to use the traditional English term. The law still deems the landlord as having full possession of the entire flat, indeed the law does not recognise sub-letting as a transfer of possession at all. The landlord is still accountable for everything that goes on under his roof, from breeding aedes mosquitos to the unlawful possession of contrabrand and the use of the room for prostitution.

IMHO, a room renter is entitled to board in the landlord's house (and have a reasonable amount of privacy), but is not entitled to treat the house (and therefore the room) as his own.

When you rent a unit however, there is a legal handover of possession (usually the keys), and from the point on, the tenant gains legal possession of the premises.
*
Oh wow, I learned something today.
I wasn't aware there was a distinction between the rights of someone who rent an entire unit, and someone who rents a room. (I assumed the standard rights to be the same, regardless of the size and quantum of the property, unless specifically negotiated)
ThanatosSwiftfire
post Aug 1 2011, 04:54 PM

Irregular
*******
Senior Member
2,787 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


QUOTE(seantang @ Aug 1 2011, 04:38 PM)
When you buy a seat on a plane, the captain still has the right to throw you off the flight or restrain you, no? Even if you misbehave in your seat only.

Or what's the difference between taking a taxi and renting a car?
*
You may be correct in a general sense, but specifically in the case of the plane, the captain has the right to throw you out IF you misbehave (probably under some separate act/statute for air flight, or as part of the terms of the ticket),

However, he has no right to restrain you from doing what you want just because he wants to. (which is the point I'm trying to make. it may be a reasonable request, but if the terms did not give the landlord that right, the landlord simply doesn't have that right.)

Anyway I was looking up some cases Landlord Harassment just to see what the rights are, but that said, the cases above apply to the rental of an entire unit.

Personally I'm under the impression that law should be scale-able, and there should not be a distinction between leasing a unit, and leasing a room. The landlord may want to disallow things when leasing a room, but it must be agreed upfront as a form of 'restrictive term'.

(Question : Is there any official HDB template for an agreement for subletting of rooms, I wanna take a look at the rights and terms) (I couldn't find any official ones, but I found plenty of others from blogs, not sure whether they are official)

(btw I sincerely meant I learnt something, it wasn't sarcastic) biggrin.gif
ThanatosSwiftfire
post Aug 1 2011, 05:31 PM

Irregular
*******
Senior Member
2,787 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


QUOTE(seantang @ Aug 1 2011, 05:24 PM)
I reckon it's all about legal possession.

If you have legal possession of the premises, you can give or restrict access to those premises as you so desire.

Following that, my opinion is that you cannot gain possession (in its complete sense) of a room within a flat. IIRC, in cases of duplexes (ie. two separate living spaces within a single condo), the concept of whether possession of one living space within a larger unit is achievable, was based on whether entry/exit to the primary living areas were separated.

Lastly, if it's established that you cannot have legal possession of a room within a unit, then IMHO it's the room renter who should specifically INCLUDE into the room tenancy contract - those types of rights which are similar to those of someone who has legal possession of a unit. It should not be the other way around ie. assumed that those rights are already native to the room renter and only excluded if stated in the room tenancy contract.

So I reckon there's no need for the landlord to restrict rights which a room renter does not have. It's the room renter who has to seek to include additional rights into the tenancy agreement.
*
Hmm, seems a bit draconian doesn't it! Oh well, I guess I'll just have to be prudent and try to negotiate for all the things I want upfront (if the rental prices for an entire unit proves too prohibitive)

Thanks for your help! smile.gif
ThanatosSwiftfire
post Aug 1 2011, 05:44 PM

Irregular
*******
Senior Member
2,787 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


QUOTE(seantang @ Aug 1 2011, 05:41 PM)
Common law originated from Britain, where kings and lords owned all the land and their subjects lived on those lands as their property.
*
Hahaha, I figured Singapore has since moved out of the feudal ages (legally), but I guess not! XD
ThanatosSwiftfire
post Aug 14 2011, 10:43 PM

Irregular
*******
Senior Member
2,787 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


Looks like SG just put another obstacle on my jobhunt. *sigh*
ThanatosSwiftfire
post Aug 16 2011, 10:51 PM

Irregular
*******
Senior Member
2,787 posts

Joined: Jan 2003


Oh the irony, that Singapore needs other economies (being a trading/financial hub) to be open to its goods, services and workers for itself to survive, and yet it is imposing restrictions on its domestic markets because some of its citizens can't quite match up to the rest of the world's determination.



Topic ClosedOptions
 

Change to:
| Lo-Fi Version
0.0410sec    1.50    7 queries    GZIP Disabled
Time is now: 27th November 2025 - 07:45 AM