|
Chan Siu Kan owned a property
in Ma On Shan and she let it in August 2002. After giving her a cheque
for the deposit, the tenant moved in.
Later the cheque was proved invalid. And at the same time, Miss Chan found
that her tenant had changed the door lock and the phone number of her
apartment.
In November, Miss Chan broke the new door lock and tried to break into
her house. Her tenant called the police and Miss Chan was charged of criminal
vandalism.
Based on the information from the Lands Tribunal, the number of tenancy
disputes increased from 3,506 in 1997 to 5,207 in 2001. It is estimated
that another 10,000 cases involving “professional tenants”,
people who refuse to pay rent and move out of the premises, are not reported
every year.
Micheal Shea Hing Wan, the chairperson of the Hong Kong Millihouse Owners’
Club, complained that there is not enough legal protection for property
owners against unscrupulous renters.
“It is unfair that the cases of professional tenants are treated
in the same way as ordinary tenancy disputes. Their behavior is intentional”
he said.
“The acts of hiding from the landlords and escaping from paying
the rent are only counted as civil offences unless the tenants have vandalized
the flat or stolen something.”
In another case, a tenant stole all electrical appliances and furniture
in the rented unit. After the owner reported this to the police, he put
all the things back. Under the persuasion of the police, the owner dropped
the charges.
“It is hard to penalize default renters,” said Mr. Shea. “And
it takes a long time, basically six to nine months, for owners to evict
default renters by legal means.”
Professional tenants may use various excuses, such as being unemployed
and having stacks of unpaid credit card bills, to postpone the moving-out
deadline ordered by the court.
“Even if property owners win the lawsuits, they still have to collect
the rent by themselves. In fact, less than 5 percent of them can get the
rent back,” said Mr. Shea.
There is also a risk that tenants who lose the lawsuits will damage the
flat as revenge. For example, they take away cupboard drawers or flood
the house with water, rubbish and feces.
However, those actions are not criminal offences.
Nevertheless, Mr. Shea admitted that some property owners are careless.
“Most of them rely heavily on estate agencies and are unaware of
the current laws
about tenancy.
“Some owners give keys to their tenants before completing all proper
procedures
to reach a tenancy agreement.”
According to Mr. Shea, premise owners lose about $500 million each
year in Hong Kong to default renters. The government, in turn, loses
tax revenue of approximately $75 million.
“I can’t understand why the government still doesn’t
fix the problem,” he said.
Audrey Eu, who is involved in drafting new legislation on the matter,
agreed that a review of current laws is needed.
Currently, the Landlord and Tenant Ordinance, which was enacted in 1947,
focuses more on the control of rents and the protection of tenants.
“But now, many property owners are suffering negative equity and
are in debt,” said she. “More protection should be provided
for them.”
In fact, the government published a gazette concerning the revision of
the ordinance in early 2001.
It simplified the reclamation procedures and introduced more protective
measures to flat owners.
“For example,” Miss Eu said, “property owners now have
the right to reclaim their permises, even in oral agreements, under the
condition that their tenants repeatedly refuse to pay for the rent, change
the structure of the flat without permission, or use the flat for illegal
activities.”
Yet, many owners are still dissatisfied with the arrangement.
Mr. Shea said, “The Housing Bureau legitimates the owners to sue
tenants if they have delayed the payment for 15 days.
“But actually, the Lands Tribunal has already provided a similar
guideline. What the government did was put this proposition on paper only.
“There’s no practical improvement.
“We welcome the newly reviewed ordinance, which shortens the time
for the reclamation process,” Mr. Shea continued.
“But the simultaneous increase in the penalty of harassment and
unlawful eviction of tenants makes it difficult for lenders to collect
rent.”
The maximum penalty for harassment and unlawful eviction has now been
increased to a fine of $500,000 and 1 year imprisonment.
Mr. Shea considered this unreasonably high.
“A fine, set according to the amount that the owner would supposedly
receive, is more acceptable.”
It was suggested that estate agents should provide flat owners with renters’
background information.
However, this idea was turned down by Grace Chow, the chief executive
officer of the Estates Agents Authority, since “it would bring excessive
workload and pressure to estate agencies.”
In order to reduce the number of victims, the Hong Kong Millihouse Owners’
Club started
collecting names and identidy card numbers of “professional tenants”
in 1999 and put the list online in 2001.
So far the list contains more than 50 names, but this act was suspected
of breaching the Privacy Ordinance.
“The online version only reveals part of the default renters’
ID card numbers,” Mr. Shea said.
“In addition, we never disclose the full list to the public. All
we do is to check whether the names of our members’ potential renters
are on the list and provide information about his or her history of defaulting
when requested.”
Concerning this question, the Office of the Privacy Commissioner replied
that it doesn’t violate any ordinance. It is the same as winners’
identity card numbers being shown on television game shows.
“Besides,” Mr. Shea added, “the ones on the list are
ruled to have failed to pay the rent by the judge, not one-sidedly by
us.
“Once they repay all the owed rents, their names will be removed.”
|