S'pore woman seeks S$30,000 compensation for 95-day hotel stay & other damages, due to leak from unit above her house

A woman stayed in a four-star boutique hotel for over three months after water began leaking from the unit directly above hers, leading her to seek compensation of over S$30,000 from her upstairs neighbour.

She was ultimately awarded around S$17,400.

The applicant, Yee Siew Wah, and the respondent, Lu Deqing, both reside at Textile Centre, with Lu's unit situated directly above Yee's.

Water leakage

According to Yee, as seen in a Strata Titles Boards (STB) judgement paper on Jan. 21, her unit began experiencing water leakage from Lu's unit since July 2024.

By December the same year, the situation had worsened to a point where Yee was unable to stay in her room.

From January to June 2025, Yee stayed at the Sultan Heritage Hotel, located opposite Textile Centre, for a total of 95 days, with the remaining periods spent travelling.

On Sep. 23, 2025, both parties signed an agreement following a mediation session, under which Yee was to engage an expert to do the necessary investigations and inspection.

However, Lu refused to grant access to the expert, leaving the dispute unresolved.

Yee's claims

Yee filed a total of nine claims, seeking compensation for hotel accommodation, damaged and replacement furniture, expert fees, as well as damages for emotional distress.

Of the nine claims, only the expert fees of S$4,200 were approved in full.

Four claims were partially approved, and the remaining four were rejected outright.

Hotel accommodation

STB found that Yee had not adequately explained why she could not stay in other parts of her unit, nor why she chose a four-star hotel rather than a more cost-effective alternative such as renting a room in an apartment.

A check on the Sultan Heritage Hotel's official website showed that the hotel's standard single room rates range from S$150 to S$250 per night.

Ultimately, the board ruled that the accommodation costs should be split equally between both parties, with each bearing S$6,759.70.

Furniture claims

The parties had previously reached an agreement for Lu to pay S$3,000 towards her bedframe and mattress, but Yee sought an additional S$2,000 for the remainder of her S$5,000 claim, as well as compensation for new furniture items.

The board rejected several of these claims.

Firstly, STB found it "inexplicable" that Yee had purchased a non-water-repellent ottoman in November 2024 — when the leakage was already severe — without taking protective measures.

Similarly, the board noted that Yee had purchased a temporary sofa bed, when the S$3,000 compensation already received could have been used to replace her mattress instead.

Regarding her Osim U-Throne massage chair, which Yee claimed was damaged by the water leakage, the board acknowledged that the damage was not her fault, but noted that a reasonable owner would have moved or covered the item to minimise damage.

As no evidence was provided on why the damage to the chair could not have been avoided and whether the chair could have been repaired, the board awarded a nominal sum of S$300.

The board also accepted Yee's claim that her light had fallen and broken as a result of the water leakage from Lu's unit.

However, factoring in wear and tear, it awarded S$200 to cover the cost of having an electrician replace it.

On the matter of floor cleaning, Yee claimed her tiles were being damaged by the newspapers she had been using to absorb moisture.

Though the board found no visible tile damage from the photographs provided, it agreed that a sum of S$200 for a one-time cleaning of the unit following completion of repair works would be fair.

Yee also claimed S$300 for moving and disposing of damaged items, citing an inability to do so herself.

With regard to this, the board found that it was unclear which items were being referred to. It also noted that the old mattress had already been disposed of prior to the claim, and no proof of disposal costs was provided.

As for the chairs, it was equally unclear whether they were bulky or damaged enough to require professional disposal services.

Emotional distress

Yee's claims for anxiety and loss of enjoyment of her home were also dismissed.

STB noted there was no medical evidence to support her testimony, and that her decision to travel during part of the period undermined her claim — the board found no basis to conclude she had not enjoyed her holidays or her hotel stay.

Ruling

While Yee's claims were significantly reduced, the STB affirmed that the water leak from Lu's unit was an established fact.

The board emphasised that had Lu complied with the mediation agreement and permitted expert access from the outset, the dispute could have been resolved far sooner.

As a result of her non-cooperation, Lu was ordered to bear the full expert fees and to engage a contractor at her own expense to carry out repair works and water ponding tests.

Lu is therefore required to pay Yee S$17,459.70 in total.

Top photo from Lianhe Zaobao