Latest news with #967
New Straits Times
6 days ago
- New Straits Times
Singapore seizes 1.2 tonnes of smuggled Malaysian produce
KUALA LUMPUR: The Singapore Food Agency seized some 1.2 tonnes of fresh and processed produce illegally imported from Malaysia. SFA said the produce was seized in an operation carried out in collaboration with the Immigration and Checkpoints Authority. It said, on May 28 and 29, SFA and ICA conducted a joint operation on delivery trucks which typically transport produce intended for direct distribution to retailers and customers. "During the operation, ICA officers at Tuas Checkpoint noticed discrepancies in the consignment transported by two trucks and referred them to SFA for further checks. "SFA found undeclared and under-declared produce such as spring onion, potato, bayam and cut cabbage imported by two importers in the trucks. All illegally imported produce were seized," SFA said in a statement. It said SFA was investigating the incident further and will not hesitate to take enforcement action. "In Singapore, food imports must meet SFA's requirements. Illegally imported produce and food products are of unknown sources and pose a food safety risk. "Food can only be imported by licensed importers, and every consignment must be declared and accompanied with a valid import permit. "Offenders who illegally import fresh fruits and vegetables shall be liable on conviction to a maximum fine of S$10,000 (RM32,967) and/or imprisonment for a term not exceeding three years," said the statement. SFA said safeguarding Singapore's borders remains a top priority for ICA and the latter will continue to conduct security checks to detect and deter illegal importation attempts to keep Singapore safe. "SFA will continue to safeguard food safety through our integrated food safety system, which includes strict import regulations and enforcement, and work closely with border control agencies to deter illegal importation across our borders," the statement said.
Daily Maverick
08-05-2025
- Daily Maverick
Stellenbosch renter exploits legal system: A cautionary tale for landlords in South Africa
The Western Cape Division of the High Court and the Stellenbosch Regional Court have ordered a wayward Stellenbosch tenant to pay overdue rent to the value of almost R1-million to two landlords. Although his possessions were to be auctioned to pay off the debt, the landlords have yet to see the money owed to them. South Africa's rental housing landscape is at a crossroads. The country's legal framework — anchored by the Rental Housing Act — was crafted to shield vulnerable tenants from exploitation and arbitrary eviction, a constitutional imperative in a society still grappling with deep inequalities. Yet, as property owners in Stellenbosch and beyond are discovering, the pendulum may have swung too far, exposing landlords to a new set of risks. The rent-avoidance kingpin The case of Kevin Brown has become a cautionary tale in Stellenbosch following several rulings in the Stellenbosch Regional Court and the Western Cape Division of the High Court. Brown has reportedly exploited legal loopholes, moving from house to house, making only minimal rental payments and staying months and, in at least one case, several years without much consequence. A tenant from hell Pieter Wessels, one of four trustees of the PD Wessels Trust, which owns a Stellenbosch property, told Daily Maverick of the harrowing experience which saw his family home commandeered by Brown, far beyond the parameters of the agreed short-term lease. Brown initially responded to a Property24 listing for a six-week rental (19 July 2024 to 31 August 2024). Brown was unable to pay the full rent (R50,000 a month) up front and was only able to move in on 20 July once he had made payment. Since he only occupied the property for 13 days in July, his rent for that month was prorated to R20,967. Brown moved in with his four children after the rent was paid — albeit by a third party, which Wessels later clocked as an 'early red flag'. Brown later sought to extend the lease until November. Wessels agreed — but only if Brown paid R150,000 up front by August 2024 to cover September, October, and November. He didn't pay, so the lease ended on 31 August. Despite this, Brown continued to occupy the property without permission. Wessels stated that Brown used the Prevention of Illegal Eviction from an Unlawful Occupation of Land Act (PIE Act) to delay eviction proceedings, a tactic Wessels claims Brown has employed with other landlords. 'Kevin managed to stay in our property for seven-and-a-half months, paying for only two months,' Wessels said, detailing a financial haemorrhage compounded by cancelled bookings and court costs. The court found Brown had been unlawfully occupying the property, and ordered that he be evicted with effect from 28 February 2025. In the interim period between November and 28 February, the landlords (Wessels and other trustees) were ordered to return the Wi-Fi router and other items that they had removed from the property. The items, which had been included as part of the rental lease, had been confiscated by Wessels in frustration after Brown defaulted on rent payments. Brown was ordered to immediately pay R50,000 in rent once this was done. Brown was also ordered to cover 50% of the applicants' legal costs, rising to 100% if he breached the order. According to South African law, landlords cannot simply change locks or forcibly remove tenants; any eviction must go through a formal process, with proper notice and, if necessary, tribunal or court intervention. This process, while vital for protecting the truly vulnerable, can be weaponised by bad-faith actors, leaving landlords with mounting losses and little immediate recourse. However, this case was far from isolated. 'I wasn't the first one to get caught by Kevin,' Wessels emphasised, a claim corroborated by Daily Maverick's investigation. 'Man about town' façade Contact with Brown's previous landlord reveals a recurring pattern of occupation and legal evasion. Linda Schaefer, the owner of another Stellenbosch property Brown occupied shortly before moving to Wessels' property, described a four-year ordeal marked by similar tactics. Schaefer rented her property to Brown from 2020 to 2024 for R40,000 a month, during which he paid on time just nine times in 44 months. 'Most payments were late — a week, a month, even six weeks,' she told Daily Maverick. She took legal action against him three times, which eventually culminated in a 2024 eviction. She described Brown's modus operandi: leveraging delays in court processes while maintaining a façade of affluence. 'If you see him walking down the street in Stellenbosch Central… very well dressed in expensive label brand clothing, and he's the man about town,' Schaefer said. She said that when she confronted him, Brown dismissed her concerns, saying: 'What's your problem? You live in a house worth millions and drive a fancy car; why are you crying that I don't pay rent?' However, the financial fallout extended well beyond unpaid rent. As months of late or missed payments accumulated, another crisis quietly mounted: municipal service bills. Despite lease agreements making Brown responsible for utilities, the municipality couldn't transfer the account into the tenant's name because the property belonged to Schaefer. This meant that when Brown failed to pay for water, electricity, and rates, the arrears accrued in Shaefer's name. 'My good credit record was on the line, so I had to go see the municipality's legal department,' she told Daily Maverick. Desperate to force Brown's hand, she eventually stopped paying municipal bills altogether. Her hope was that by blocking the property's electricity meter — preventing Brown from buying prepaid power — he would be compelled to settle the outstanding amounts. Yet, even these extreme measures failed to yield results. Disappointed in the system, Schaefer complained that 'the law is not on the side of property owners'. According to Schaefer, Brown was recommended by the Anna Basson rental agency in Stellenbosch, and she expressed disappointment with the company for failing to conduct a proper background check. Deon Carstens, the managing director at Anna Basson Properties, said they conducted a Tenant Profile Network (TPN) credit check, and Brown's father had signed a suretyship (a guarantee where one party takes on the debt or obligations of another if they default) for the 2020 to 2021 lease. 'Self-employment carries risk, but we mitigated this with a guarantor (Brown's father),' said Carstens. Brown's employment details are unconfirmed — court documents list him as a business owner/landscaper. The suretyship covered defaults during the lease term, though Carstens acknowledged Brown's father only stepped in 'on one or two occasions'. Management of the lease was later transferred to Schaefer at her request. Carstens added that he was unaware of Brown's history pre-lease, but noted 'social media posts' about the case. Brown's rebuttal In response to Daily Maverick queries, Brown said he was offered a rental for the PD Wessels' trust property until 30 November, with emails confirming the arrangement. Brown attributes the conflict, besides the non-payment of rent, to Wessels' removal of items listed in the Property24 advert — including furniture, Wi-Fi routers, and pool equipment — which he says breached a court order requiring their return before Brown paid the outstanding rent. 'His lawyers' fees are self-inflicted,' Brown said, adding that he reported Wessels' attorneys to the Legal Practice Council for 'improper conduct'. 'The bottom line is (Wessels) was just being greedy as he refused to simply let me pay a monthly rental… his implication that I was trying to take advantage of the Prevention of Illegal Eviction (PIE) Act is completely unfounded,' Brown said. System manipulation While Brown maintains his innocence, his version directly conflicts with multiple accounts from landlords and personal associates. Sarah Schneider, Brown's ex-wife of 16 years, told Daily Maverick she witnessed Brown repeatedly fail to pay rent, as well as their children's school fees. She described patterns of abusive behaviour that, according to her, were consistent with the disputes Brown had with landlords, including unpaid financial obligations, disregard for court orders and withholding her belongings after taking them without permission. Landlords' frustration mounts Brown exemplifies the concerns raised by Wessels and Schaefer about the imbalance between tenant and landlord rights. Property owners argue that the current system, while well intentioned, is out of step with on-the-ground realities. They face: Lengthy delays in regaining possession of their properties. Legal costs that often outweigh the arrears owed. Difficulty screening tenants due to privacy protections and limited access to reliable rental histories. What this means for you For landlords, the case is a stark reminder that tenant screening should be less 'trust fall' and more 'CSI: credit check'. Verify financial stability as if your property depends on it (because it does), and draft lease agreements tighter than a Stellenbosch wine cork. Otherwise, South Africa's tenant protections might just turn your guest suite into a semi-permanent Airbnb — minus the five-star reviews. For tenants, the message is clear: the law is your safety net, not a trampoline. Bouncing on its goodwill risks turning your landlord into a reluctant long-term roommate. Play fair, pay promptly, and remember: the best tenant-landlord relationships end with keys returned, rather than court orders. Guidance for landlords and tenants Against this backdrop, the Western Cape Department of Infrastructure's responses to questions posed to the Rental Housing Tribunal offer critical guidance for landlords and tenants navigating South Africa's fraught rental market: Prevention: Landlords are urged to use rental screening agencies such as the TPN to verify a tenant's rental history, payment behaviour, and references before signing a lease. Comprehensive screening helps identify red flags — such as fraudulent references or payment defaults — and acts as a frontline defence against scams. PIE Act: The tribunal combats systemic misuse of the Rental Housing Act through proactive enforcement of court rulings, targeted education campaigns, and a streamlined complaints system. 'Unfair practices' — including unlawful evictions, illegal lockouts, and utility disconnections — are strictly defined and enforced to protect both landlords and legitimate tenants. Dispute resolution: Mediation remains central to the tribunal's process, with cases resolved through hearings or virtual sessions after investigations. Where mediation fails, rulings are issued and enforced as court orders, providing a legally binding resolution pathway without prohibitive costs. Balancing rights: The Rental Housing Act 50 of 1999 underpins the tribunal's mandate to balance landlord and tenant rights, ensuring fair access to housing while safeguarding income streams. Services are free, accessible, and designed to resolve most disputes within 90 days — a critical safeguard in a market increasingly strained by fraud and legal exploitation. DM
Yahoo
03-04-2025
- Business
- Yahoo
How to get the most out of your Social Security benefits
(NewsNation) — Social Security could put $3,000 per month in your bank account once you've reached retirement age. But how? The simple answer: Waiting as long as possible to claim your retirement benefits. According to The Motley Fool, you need to make less than $68,500 per year to receive $3,000 per month at 70 years old. To determine your benefit amount, Social Security uses what's called the 'primary insurance amount,' according to The Motley Fool. The agency takes your top 35 earning years and calculates an average — that is adjusted for inflation — of your monthly earnings. Then, that average is put into a formula based on the year you were born. USPS changes begin: How could your mail be affected For example, if you turned 62 in 2022, you would need to have an average of $9,046 per month — or right around $108,500 per year — to get a primary insurance amount of $3,000. The primary insurance amount will decide how much you receive in benefits if you claim them at your full retirement age. This would be 67 years old for anyone born in or after 1960. But you might have to wait a bit longer if you didn't earn enough over your career to hit that $3,000 amount. The key to getting the highest Social Security payments is waiting until full retirement age to retire. The Motley Fool suggests waiting until you are 70 years old. You can start claiming benefits at 62 years old; however, this might not be the best option. If you claim your benefits early, you will have to take a reduction of up to 30% in each of your checks. This means if you were eligible to receive $3,000 per month at full retirement age, you could only end up receiving $2,100. If you were to see $3,000 per month by waiting until you are 70 to claim your benefits, you would only receive $1,700 per month by claiming early. Monthly mortgage payments soar to record high If you visit the Social Security website and create an account, you can get an estimate of what your benefits would be at different ages. Another way to supplement your income while on Social Security is to take advantage of the agency's Supplemental Security Income (SSI) program. SSI provides monthly payments to those who have limited income and few resources, according to Social Security. This program is designed for those who are 65 years old or older as well as anyone who is blind or has a disability. DOGE checks? Elon Musk claims 'progress' has been made, but says it isn't his decision If you want to receive SSI, you have to meet one of the following requirements: Be 65 years old or older Be totally or partially blind Have a condition that stops you from working and is expected to last at least one year (or result in death) As of 2025, the basic monthly payment for SSI benefits is $967 for one person and $1,450 for a couple. However, you might get more if you live in a state where money is added to the federal SSI payment. You could also receive less money if you or your family has other income. If you are eligible, you can apply for SSI on the Social Security website. You could be eligible to complete your application online if: You are between 18 and 65 years old You have never been married You are a U.S. citizen who lives in the country or the Northern Mariana Islands You have never applied for or received SSI benefits You are applying for Social Security Disability Insurance (SSDI) at the same time You can also call Social Security to set up an appointment with your local office. There has been recent concern around Elon Musk's Department of Government Efficiency and potential cuts to Social Security. Critics allege that the system is rife with fraud, which has caused DOGE to look closer at the agency. 'We have illegal immigrants on Social Security, and we're going to find out who they are and take them off … we're not going to stand for that,' Trump said. Trump tariff plan could cost households thousands: Analysis However, some have said that the level of fraud being discussed around Social Security is not happening. 'The DOGE Team is essentially engaged in a fishing expedition at SSA, in search of a fraud epidemic, based on little more than suspicion,' U.S. District Judge Ellen Hollander in Maryland wrote. Trump claimed in February, 'Social Security will not be touched, it will only be strengthened.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
