<TABLE cellSpacing=0 cellPadding=0 width="100%" border=0><TBODY><TR>Landlord disagrees with 'no-colour' rule 10 min
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the letter, 'Discourage such discriminatory acts' by Ms Lydia Ng (July 5) and the report last Wednesday, 'Property fee guidelines must go, says watchdog'.
I would like to make two comments. First, landlords as advertisers should have a right to exercise 'positive discrimination' and state their preferences explicitly.
Preferences, whether articulated or otherwise, are borne out of experience. As a battle-scarred landlord, I can vouch for the fact that most of such experiences are unpleasant. Is Ms Ng a landlord? I hope she will spare a thought for landlords, who are often a long-suffering lot driven to desperation by the antics of tenants.
I have hosted Asian tenants from India, Vietnam, China and Malaysia. Without going into specifics, tenants of certain nationalities generally keep my house in order. However, most leave it in disarray, make illegal alterations, habitually make late payments, and freely bring in friends to stay and party.
To top it off, one fine day, my tenants decided to pack up and leave for good without telling me. I was left high and dry and had to spend two days clearing the rubbish left behind. 'Once bitten, twice shy' becomes an understatement here.
Worse, many do not settle their cellphone and utility bills. Frequent reminders from these companies often clog my letterbox. Perhaps SP Services and the telcos would comment on the default rate among foreigners.
Second, through all my 'suffering', the role of the property agent remains minimal and distant. Hence, the crux of the matter is not so much agents' fees but the standard of service provided.
Existing rules governing the role and fiduciary duties of agents are not exhaustive or well thought out. Lest one thinks Singaporean tenants are my preference, my last tenant was an unscrupulous Singaporean who immediately sublet my house to foreigners.
Throughout it all, the agent did not lift a finger to help. I thought she would take it upon herself to set the tenant right. Instead, she lamented to me that she did not know the tenant was 'like that', and advised me to let sleeping dogs lie. When I finally terminated the lease, the agent was hardly contactable and did not offer to help retrieve my keys from the tenant.
Hence, my view is that the property scene in Singaporean is torrid, what with agents who want to hit the jackpot and run, and tenants out to give landlords sleepless nights.
Amos Wu
</TR><!-- headline one : end --><!-- show image if available --></TBODY></TABLE>
<!-- START OF : div id="storytext"--><!-- more than 4 paragraphs -->I REFER to the letter, 'Discourage such discriminatory acts' by Ms Lydia Ng (July 5) and the report last Wednesday, 'Property fee guidelines must go, says watchdog'.
I would like to make two comments. First, landlords as advertisers should have a right to exercise 'positive discrimination' and state their preferences explicitly.
Preferences, whether articulated or otherwise, are borne out of experience. As a battle-scarred landlord, I can vouch for the fact that most of such experiences are unpleasant. Is Ms Ng a landlord? I hope she will spare a thought for landlords, who are often a long-suffering lot driven to desperation by the antics of tenants.
I have hosted Asian tenants from India, Vietnam, China and Malaysia. Without going into specifics, tenants of certain nationalities generally keep my house in order. However, most leave it in disarray, make illegal alterations, habitually make late payments, and freely bring in friends to stay and party.
To top it off, one fine day, my tenants decided to pack up and leave for good without telling me. I was left high and dry and had to spend two days clearing the rubbish left behind. 'Once bitten, twice shy' becomes an understatement here.
Worse, many do not settle their cellphone and utility bills. Frequent reminders from these companies often clog my letterbox. Perhaps SP Services and the telcos would comment on the default rate among foreigners.
Second, through all my 'suffering', the role of the property agent remains minimal and distant. Hence, the crux of the matter is not so much agents' fees but the standard of service provided.
Existing rules governing the role and fiduciary duties of agents are not exhaustive or well thought out. Lest one thinks Singaporean tenants are my preference, my last tenant was an unscrupulous Singaporean who immediately sublet my house to foreigners.
Throughout it all, the agent did not lift a finger to help. I thought she would take it upon herself to set the tenant right. Instead, she lamented to me that she did not know the tenant was 'like that', and advised me to let sleeping dogs lie. When I finally terminated the lease, the agent was hardly contactable and did not offer to help retrieve my keys from the tenant.
Hence, my view is that the property scene in Singaporean is torrid, what with agents who want to hit the jackpot and run, and tenants out to give landlords sleepless nights.
Amos Wu
