When I read the news, I pay special attention to instances of people making things more difficult for themselves or getting into deeper trouble because they did not consult a lawyer about such a situation.

On 27 February 2025, the Star newspaper contained a report titled “Rogue tenant demanding RM 250,000 exit fee, claims owner,” which fit what I was looking for to a tee. A graphic designer owned a double-storey shophouse in Ipoh. She rented it to a tenant who ran an eatery out of the place from 2013 to 2020. However, when the tenancy lapsed in 2020, the tenant, who lived there with “her husband, a foreigner” refused to extend the tenancy or move out.

Ms Leong, the landlord, lodged “at least eight police reports against the tenant between march last year and January this year and has even been accompanied by the police to cut the locks several times but the problem persists.”

“I was even told to cough up RM 250,000 for the renovations they did to the premises if I want my shop back,” she complained at a press conference held by the Perak MCA public service and complaints bureau chief, Charles Yuen. Apparently, earlier this year, the recalcitrant couple even had the audacity to sublet the property. “When we tried to enter the premises, the couple stopped us.“

The police, surprisingly, were the most sensible of the lot. They confirmed that Ms Leong’s lodging police reports and changing the locks was legally ineffective to remove the recalcitrant couple. The Acting Ipoh OCPD (Officer Commanding Police Division), Supt Mohamad Sajdan Abdul Shukor, said, “For the dispute, it is a civil matter to be taken up by the owner against her tenant.” The cop was spot on.

A tenancy dispute between landlord and tenant is not a criminal matter, requiring police intervention. It is a civil matter to be dealt with by way of a court order. A tenancy is a contract for letting a place between the owner and the tenant. It is regulated by contract law, not criminal law.

The legal process for removing a recalcitrant tenant is straightforward. The landlord needs to file a legal case in the Magistrates or Sessions Court (depending on the amount claimed). She should claim the outstanding rental and vacant possession of the property (this means compelling the tenant to vacate the premises).

Once judgment is obtained and served on the tenant, the landlord can enforce it if he fails to comply with it. She would do so by filing a Writ of Possession, directing the court bailiff to remove the tenant from the premises physically.

That is how it is supposed to be done. You do not go around lodging police reports and bothering the police about this. They cannot evict the recalcitrant tenants because their refusal to give up the premises is not a criminal offence.

So why didn’t Ms Leong see a lawyer about her problem? Charles Yuen explained, “I understand that Leong has the option to try and secure a court order to evict the couple but this takes time and money.“

Ms Leong declined to pursue legal action because ‘this takes time and money’. This is common but deeply flawed reasoning often disguised as financial hesitation. By avoiding court proceedings, Ms Leong has inadvertently spent more time and resources than necessary. I will demonstrate why her concerns lack substantial merit.

Firstly, it takes time. Ms Leong has been trying to evict her tenants since 2020. It is now 2025. It has been close to five years, but Ms Leong would rather lodge police reports—because it is free—and make the police do a job they have no business doing. If she had filed a claim in court, she would have obtained judgment within a maximum of two years, if not less, and enforced it after that. The whole process to remove them would take less than three years. And with respect, using the police for such matters is an abuse of government resources.

Secondly, it takes money. Everything has a cost lah. Come on. Ms Leong fails to appreciate that she loses more if she did not hire a lawyer compared to if she did. Let’s assume the rent is RM 1,000 per month. Going the way she has, she has lost potentially 60 months worth of rent. On that assumption, that’s RM 60,000. I don’t think it will cost her a fraction of that in Ipoh to file a claim to get judgment and for a Writ of Possession. Even if was maximum of RM 10,000, she would spend less than she lost.

Thirdly, Ms Leong does not mention just how much effort, anxiety and expense she gains in avoiding legal fees. She has had to go to and fro the police station to lodge a police report, wait around when they cut the locks. Spend money to replace the locks. There’s also all the tension, stress and anxiety of having to do things yourself instead of getting a professional. The worse of it is that after all that effort, none of it is ineffective and it emboldens the tenants to demand money to leave.

While Ms. Leong’s decision to avoid legal counsel proved costly. I recognize that some property owners face barriers to accessing legal services. Some may feel intimidated by the formal legal system, worry about navigating complex procedures, or being taken for a ride. Others might have had negative experiences with professional services in the past, leading to hesitation. I get it. But you don’t avoid urgent medical treatment simply because you previously experienced an incompetent doctor, you just find a better doctor.

Legal literacy—understanding when and how legal intervention is necessary—is not universal, and the perceived high cost of quality legal services can be daunting, especially for small property owners without corporate resources. However, these understandable concerns should be weighed against the substantial costs of prolonged disputes, which do not end up resolved. Many lawyers offer initial consultations at reasonable rates, and legal aid resources exist specifically for civil matters. Rather than avoiding legal help entirely, property owners would benefit from exploring these accessible options at the earliest signs of a dispute.

The truth of the matter is Ms Leong has made her life more difficult by not doing what she should have done in the first place – see a lawyer and get proper legal advice. If she is worried about the consultation fees the lawyer will charge, call the office and ask about it first. There will be a lawyer who will be willing to meet your price point. Although depending how low it goes, I advise caution – cheaper just means affordable, not good or competent. Just because you pay the price you want, does not mean you get what you think you paid for. She has paid for her cheapness far more in non-monetary terms.

Ms Leong’s instance also shows how the administration of justice system is abused when people avoid getting proper legal advice. The police ended up having to change locks and do work which they had no business doing. Their efforts could have been spent on law enforcement instead of tenancy eviction. That is why I say calling the police in on this is an abuse of the administration of justice and a waste of public funds.

It also demonstrates that they should put a lawyer in charge of these political aid bureaus instead of businessmen. This is to ensure its representatives avoid saying things like Charles Yuen did when he said, ‘I hope that there can be some special provisions to handle extraordinary cases like this.‘ His statement shows a deep and urgent need for him to get proper legal advice.

Firstly, tenancy claims are generally simple and straightforward claims. The Sesssions court has been bestowed unlimited jurisdiction to hear tenancy disputes no matter how high the claim. Ordinarily, a claim that exceeds RM 1 million will be heard in the High Court. Not for tenancy matters. RM 250,000 and until hundreds of millions are heard in the Sessions Court.

Secondly, Ms Leong’s case is not extraordinary. It is the usual run-of-the-mill tenancy claim. It is only extraordinary due to the unfortunate combination of legal unfamiliarity, misguided tenacity and a profound reluctance to invest in proper resolution. The claim itself is quite standard. Any lawyer with relevant experience could have readily advised Charles Yuen on this matter.

Ms Leong’s case of recalcitrant tenants is a common case. Her attitude is also regrettably common – refusing to consult a lawyer because they don’t want to pay a legal fee. Any competent lawyer would advise her on how to effectively deal with the situation . But instead, she chose to ‘save’ her time and money and found that it cost her sanity. This incident exemplifies those who don’t recognize that avoiding legal fees often results in greater costs elsewhere in the future.

Hopefully, in time, she will appreciate that declining to make a financial investment in proper legal counsel frequently leads to paying a much higher price in other, less obvious ways.