All About Home Addresses

[calamari0312]

lee_yl:

jetsetter:

[quote=\"lee_yl\"]
For a Singaporean to sign a tenancy agreement (fixed lease), any early termination would result in penalties subject to landlord's discretion. If the landlord play prank, he can ask for the tenant to pay the balance months. If the landlord is good, he will allow you to find replacement tenant to cover the remaining lease.

Wait, can we combine leases or not? Say my friend's lease is ending this Oct (they hv signed a Balmoral lease for 1 yr only).

if yes, must they renew their existing contract with the same landlord or can they find another condo in Balmoral or elsewhere (say the current landlord purposely increases the rental) to accumulate up to 30 mths from 2 Jul ?

According to the new ruling, will need to renew lease with the same address. So answer is no lah, up rental also must continue to stay in this Balmoral condo.

Your friend can always appeal to MOE for review?

What i hope to see is that MOE can refine their ruling to allow parents to relocate to another rental unit but still within the distance category they got into the school with.[/quote]Absolutely agree! At least should let tenants have flexibility to renew within 1km of school still. There could be a host of reasons y people can't stay in the current rental unit, besides what Moe states as \"compelling grounds\". E.g. they have to move back to grandparents due to sickness, unit infested with termites, haunted, etc etc etc!! Sounds ridiculous but Moe will have a busy time reviewing various reasons.

[Orb]

calamari0312:

Absolutely agree! At least should let tenants have flexibility to renew within 1km of school still. There could be a host of reasons y people can't stay in the current rental unit, besides what Moe states as \"compelling grounds\". E.g. they have to move back to grandparents due to sickness, unit infested with termites, haunted, etc etc etc!! Sounds ridiculous but Moe will have a busy time reviewing various reasons.

I think we should be looking at it objectively. In the first place, why are parents renting? This new policy is to weed out the genuine ones who need to rent from those who just want to rent.

Policies cant satisfy everyone. There will certainly be some unhappy people who feels the policy is unfair... I guess we'll just need to wait and see what happens next.

[lee_yl]

Funz:

:?


Isn't this what people have been saying MOE should do. Set a rule that there should be a minimum occupancy period that they have to adhere to if they get into the school base on distance priority? Now MOE gave us this rule and we are arguing about what? :scratchhead:

Yes, generally parents welcome this new ruling as it imposes a minimal occupational period for rental properties.

1). The main arguments we see now are firstly, is the minimal occupational period of 30 months period appropriate or is it too long (too long as many things could happen within 2.5yrs which is not within anyone's control).

2). Secondly, what are the possible unintended consequences of this new ruling.

3). And lastly, without an effective enforcement and checks mechanism in place, after the initial shock, it may soon revert to status quo.

[lee_yl]

Orb:

calamari0312:

Absolutely agree! At least should let tenants have flexibility to renew within 1km of school still. There could be a host of reasons y people can't stay in the current rental unit, besides what Moe states as \"compelling grounds\". E.g. they have to move back to grandparents due to sickness, unit infested with termites, haunted, etc etc etc!! Sounds ridiculous but Moe will have a busy time reviewing various reasons.

I think we should be looking at it objectively. In the first place, why are parents renting? This new policy is to weed out the genuine ones who need to rent from those who just want to rent.

I agree that this policy at the very least closes one obvious loophole.

Policies cant satisfy everyone. There will certainly be some unhappy people who feels the policy is unfair... I guess we'll just need to wait and see what happens next.

All policies can't have 100% satisfaction, but minimally, MOE should not introduce administrative inconvenience to genuine rental cases. 30 months is unconventional, a lease of 24 months would make more sense? (as the usual tenancy agreements are 2yrs or 1yr with option to renew for another year)




PS: Can any Good Samaritan help answer this question of why 30months? What could be the possible reasons for choosing 30month? Or was the figure plucked from the sky by a MOE scholar?

[BlueBells]

Hmmm .. 30 months is an odd number.


But, if you take 30 months from the registration date of 2 July, then 30 months would lock in the address to end of P2; less disruptive to the school year if parents decide to move? :?

[mashy]

BlueBells:

Hmmm .. 30 months is an odd number.


But, if you take 30 months from the registration date of 2 July, then 30 months would lock in the address to end of P2; less disruptive to the school year if parents decide to move? :?

Agree. End of primary 1 is too short. So P2 is just nice and hence 30 months. It's a big allowance already. Was supposed to be the whole of 6 years. So those who have been staying there, just staying till p2 is really not that difficult.

[lee_yl]

BlueBells:

Hmmm .. 30 months is an odd number.


But, if you take 30 months from the registration date of 2 July, then 30 months would lock in the address to end of P2; less disruptive to the school year if parents decide to move? :?

Oh I see. Very thoughtful of MOE.

The only grouse is for those who only managed to get a 2-year lease at the onset. To extend the lease for the remaining 6 months, the tenant will be in a vulnerable position subject to \"slaughter\" by the landlord.

[Funz]

lee_yl:

Funz:

:?


Isn't this what people have been saying MOE should do. Set a rule that there should be a minimum occupancy period that they have to adhere to if they get into the school base on distance priority? Now MOE gave us this rule and we are arguing about what? :scratchhead:

Yes, generally parents welcome this new ruling as it imposes a minimal occupational period for rental properties.

1). The main arguments we see now are firstly, is the minimal occupational period of 30 months period appropriate or is it too long (too long as many things could happen within 2.5yrs which is not within anyone's control).

2). Secondly, what are the possible unintended consequences of this new ruling.

3). And lastly, without an effective enforcement and checks mechanism in place, after the initial shock, it may soon revert to status quo.

Depends on which problem the MOE wants to address by coming up with this rule. I believe it is to deter those people renting solely for the purpose of P1 registration.

30mths from July 2015 is not too long as that means the child will be living at that address for P1 and P2 only 2 years of the 6yrs of primary schooling.

I also believe that genuine renters will prefer to continue renting the same unit if there is no big issue with it. Landlords will also prefer to continue renting to a decent tenant, yes there may be and increase in rent or for all we know even a drop looking at how the property market is moving. There will be some who may think they can take advantage of the situation but most will be more pragmatic. Why would they incur agent commission and try to find new tenants and even go for periods without rental income when there is a ready one and all that needs to be done is come to an agreement.

I believe the genuine cases will be handled on a case by case basis as the number of people getting in via distance priority using a rental address is not large. And of that group, those not being able to obtain continued lease of that address is also very few.

[pirate]

lee_yl:

2). Secondly, what are the possible unintended consequences of this new ruling.

Let's be clear about one thing here. The contingencies that have been mentioned on this forum are obvious and cannot be said to be unforeseen. If the policy makers cannot even foresee such simple contingencies, then they have less forward planning capability than a P2 kid playing chess and should all be fired.

So, let's not worry too much about being held to ransom by landlords because cannot move to another unit in the same condo. The policy makers at MOE are not that stupid. Give them some credit.

Unless said other unit is in a different block in the same condo and happens to fall just outside the distance priority that the first unit enjoys. There are these around, you know.

[pirate]

lee_yl:

Oh I see. Very thoughtful of MOE.


The only grouse is for those who only managed to get a 2-year lease at the onset. To extend the lease for the remaining 6 months, the tenant will be in a vulnerable position subject to \"slaughter\" by the landlord.

Genuine renters would usually extend for at least another 12 months.

Many landlords do not like 6 months extension.