How This Tenant Lost $1,695 From His Deposit — And How You Can Avoid The Same Costly Mistake

Thousands of rental agreements are signed each year, and every so often disputes concerning the security deposit between landlords and their tenants land both parties in court. A recently concluded dispute which featured a missing signed inventory list led to a landlord withholding $2,765 from a $8,000 deposit.

The story behind this case, which worked its way through the Small Claims Tribunals, began when a tenant handed back the keys to his rented unit in August 2025. But the landlord only returned $5,235 from the security deposit and kept the rest.

In his judgement on June 5 this year, Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey, wrote that while it may appear like a straightforward case over a security deposit, the difficulty stems from both parties’ incomplete understanding of what the tenancy gave and withheld.

“Here, specifically, the parties did not really understand that a lease is not a loose permission to occupy another person’s home among the owner’s belongings. It confers… the right to possess the premises exclusively,” says Tribunal Magistrate Jared Kang Chern Wey.

This is an interesting case for landlords to take note of, and it’s a cautionary tale for any tenant who has signed a lease without a properly documented handover. Although the sum may be small, the judgment is worth a read and sets out the framework through which these disputes are assessed.

What the dispute was actually about

This all started when the tenant signed a two-year residential lease in July 2023, with a tenancy that started in August 2023 at a monthly rent of $4,000. This comprised $2,700 for the premises, $1,000 for furniture, and $300 for maintenance.

Although the tenancy agreement signed in July referred to furniture, fixtures and fittings “as specified in the schedule annexed” – but no schedule was ever annexed and there was no signed inventory list. That one missing document shaped almost everything that followed.

When the lease ended, the landlords took the position that anything they had left in the unit at the beginning of the lease formed part of the agreement.

They named a queen-size bed and a King Koil mattress they said were missing, cleaning costs, miscellaneous items, and a long list of repairs running from a stained sofa to a broken faucet. All of them, they said, were the tenants to maintain and return.

Of course, the tenant saw it differently. Without an inventory list naming those items, he did not see why it was his responsibility to care for things the landlord had left behind. Both sides had photographs and videos from inspections, but neither had a signed inventory list.

As a result, the tenant filed a claim for the withheld sum of $2,765, and subsequently amended his claim to seek an additional $5,855 from issues arising from the tenancy.

The tenant claimed an additional $100 for handing over the property late at the start of the tenancy, another $4,800 for loss of usable space as a result of the items left behind by the landlord, as well as $125 for delayed window and curtain cleaning which the tenant says the landlords were supposed to carry out before the tenancy commenced.

Furthermore, an additional $600 for the storage of beds and mattresses the tenant says the landlords left behind, and $230 more which represented the cost of disposing of items which the tenant says the landlords left behind.

The four principles the tribunal laid down

In his judgment, the tribunal magistrate outlined four key points, which tenants should take note of.

1. The landlord carries the burden.

A security deposit is refundable unless something is owed. The starting position is that the money comes back. If the landlord wants to keep any of it, the landlord is the one who has to prove why. A tenant who is told a sum is being withheld does not need to disprove the deductions. The landlord is the one who has to make a case.

2. Any damage has to be raised at the final joint inspection.

Clause 2(ll) of the tenancy agreement reads: 

For the avoidance of doubt, the Tenant shall deliver the said Premises to the Landlord after a joint inspection by both parties and/or their respective agents, and thereafter, save for such damage and/or defects ascertained at the said joint inspection, the Tenant shall not be liable to the Landlord nor shall the Landlord have any claim against the Tenant in respect of any other damage to the said Premises.

A clause of this kind is commonly seen in residential leases, limiting the landlord’s recovery to issues identified at the joint inspection. Photographs, videos, messages, contemporaneous notes, or testimony all count. But what does not count is a defect raised after the keys have been returned. The proof itself can be informal, but the complaint has to be raised at the inspection.

3. General complaints are not a legal claim.

“The unit was dirty.” “It was not properly maintained.” Those framings, the tribunal noted, do not establish a breach. A proper claim points to a specific clause, explains what the clause required, sets out what the tenant is supposed to have failed to do, and shows the loss. This may sound like a legal checklist but the effect for tenants is simple: the more general the landlord’s complaint, the weaker the legal case behind it.

4. The landlord’s personal items are not automatically the tenant’s problem.

The tribunal magistrate pointed out that both parties had made the same kind of mistake. The landlords treated the unit as still partly their home, leaving belongings behind without explicitly stating that they were part of the lease. Meanwhile, the tenant treated the absence of an inventory as permission to do as he wished with those belongings.

But the legal instruction is that the moment a unit becomes leased premises “everything else must be stated with care”. This means that items the landlord wants the tenant to keep, use, and return have to be on the inventory. Meanwhile, items the landlord is merely storing should be removed, or the storage arrangement should be written down. Anything left in the grey area is how these disputes can start.

How that contributed to the outcome of this case

These four points produced a mixed result at the end of this dispute that saw the tenant only partially succeeding in their claim against their former landlord.

Of the $2,765 which the landlords had withheld, the court upheld that they were entitled to retain $1,695 from the security deposit. Since they retained $2,765, they had to refund the difference of $1,070 to the tenant.

A deduction of $700 for the bed and mattress was allowed since the tribunal magistrate found them part of the furnished lease despite the missing inventory list. Costs for cleaning amounting to $505 were also allowed because the issues had been identified at the joint inspection.

On the other hand, only $360 from the initial amount of $1,490 for repairs went through, since each item was tied to specific damages. The reason the $1,490 repairs claim shrank to $360 was simple. On most of the items, the landlords could not point to a specific clause, specific damage, and evidence captured at the inspection itself.

Other claims for repairs were rejected since the landlords could not separate tenant-caused damage from ordinary wear and tear, or from what was already there before the tenancy began. Meanwhile, the tenant’s added claim of $5,855 was also dismissed.

What tenants should take away from this case

There are three practical lessons that are worth taking note, and none of them require legal training to digest.

If the tenancy agreement refers to an inventory schedule, make sure that schedule is actually drawn up, listed out, and signed before keys change hands. Take photographs of the furniture and fittings together, dated, and attach them. Based on what we’ve learnt from this case, it’s clear that an inventory list shifts the conversation from what is assumed to what is agreed.

Next, if the landlord wants to leave personal items in the unit, whether a bed in storage, kitchen equipment, or anything not supplied as part of the lease, that arrangement also needs to be in writing. If they are not, the tenant owes the landlord no duty over them, and the landlord cannot argue otherwise at the end of the lease.

When it comes to the final inspection, tenants should make a record of every issue the landlord raises, using photographs, video, and written messages confirming what was flagged. If a case like this goes to court again, the court doesn’t require a formally signed list at handover, but it requires that the issues have been raised during the inspection.

A landlord who emails a fresh list of damage two weeks after the keys are returned is, based on this hearing, too late.

The Small Claims Tribunals can rule on individual disputes but it cannot rewrite tenancy practice. Most tenancy agreements in Singapore still refer to an inventory schedule that, in practice, is never actually drawn up. Both parties tend to rely instead on photographs and videos taken at the start and end of the tenancy.

The judgment makes clear that photographs and videos prove to be useful at the inspection stage by documenting the condition of items that are part of the lease. But they do not stand in for an inventory schedule itself. A photograph of a bed cannot tell a tribunal whether the bed was rented to the tenant or merely left behind by the landlord, and that is the gap that made most of this case. As long as the gap remains, the same disputes will recur.