Woman pays rent but comes home to padlocked flat. She takes managing company to Small Claims Tribunal.
Ms Pearl Chan, 31, self-employed, standing at the back door to her apartment. She had returned home on 28 July to find it chained and locked. SHE is usually on time with her rent.
Ms Pearl Chan, 31, self-employed, standing at the back door to her apartment. She had returned home on 28 July to find it chained and locked.
So imagine Miss Pearl Chan's shock when she returned to her River Valley apartment to find a repossession notice pasted on the door. It gave her one day to move out.
The company in charge of the building later locked up the apartment with her things still inside.
Miss Chan, 31, had signed a year-long lease last December, at $1,800 a month for the four-bedroom walk-up apartment.
Rents there can now be more than twice that amount.
Miss Chan, who is self-employed, took the company to the Small Claims Tribunal. She attended three mediation sessions and a final hearing on 20Aug.
The tribunal asked the company to give her back half of her two-month deposit, with the other half to be retained as her rent for July.
She was also allowed to move her furniture out.
The company, which has its office in the same building, refused to comment, despite several attempts by The New Paper to get in touch with the person in charge. (See report on facing page.)
What happened still upsets Miss Chan.
'There was nothing I could do. Despite paying my rent on time, I still ended up homeless overnight,' she said.
She said the company pasted the notice on 11 Jul, informing her that repossession would take place on 12 Jul, with no reason given. It referred to an earlier letter, dated 30 May, which she said she did not get.
She approached the company the next day and was told that her late payment of rent was the reason.
Ms Chan admitted she had once been late in February, and only for three days.
She offered to pay the rent by Giro, or give postdated checks for the remaining lease period. She was told to fax the company a written proposal, which she did immediately.
The reply was equally quick. She said she got a fax the same afternoon, rejecting her proposal. By evening, another paper was pasted on her door, informing her that it was the final notice of repossession of her unit on 13 Jul.
MOVED OUT
Ms Chan said: 'I was afraid they might lock up the place with me inside, or when I had stepped out, leaving essentials like my laptop behind.'
So she took such items and moved in with a friend temporarily. Some friends who had been staying with her also moved out.
She said she had already issued a cheque for the month's rent. On 23 Jul, she asked the bank not to pay it.
The next day, she filed the claim with the tribunal.
On 28 Jul, she went to the apartment, hoping to get the rest of her things out, but found that the lock on the front door had been changed, and the backdoor chained up and padlocked.
She claimed that $15,000 worth of her furniture and her work files were locked inside.
Though she eventually got it all back, she said she spent $500 to hire a lawyer, before approaching the tribunal.
Mr Chandran Pillay, honorary secretary of the Institute of Estate Agents, said: 'A landlord cannot evict a tenant who has observed the terms and conditions of the tenancy agreement.'
Mr Pillay said a similar apartment in that area can now fetch a monthly rent of $4,000 to $4,500.
According to Mr Pillay, even if a tenant owes rent, the landlord has no right to lock up the property.
Instead, the landlord must file for a writ of distress in court, and only a court-appointed bailiff can help to re-enter and regain possession of the property on behalf of the landlord.
He also noted that landlords usually give a grace period of seven days, following which the landlord may charge interest for late payment.
No comments:
Post a Comment