Tammi

The Permission to Construct Clause 4 (1) given to VT states "The permission grantee has to perform accordingly to the standard, method and conditions mentioned in ministerial regulations or local regulations issued according to the substance in section 8 (11) or section 9 or section 10 of the Building Control Act B.E. 2522.

The paintiffs have been quoting Ministerial Regulations dated B.E. 2521

???????????

...............

If I purchased a VT7 condo I ask for my money back because they not going to finish this building. At less seek the advice of a good lawyer how knows and specializes in administrative law.

and as a starting point , be sure you have the English version of the contract which explains the refund policy.

As a note, when the VT4 project was shelved all contract holders received refunds with interest. Mr. and Mrs. VT are reportedly to be the richest Thais in Pattaya and the VT company certainly has deep pockets and influential friends. With more projects on the drawing boards they certainly don't want to damage their reputation.

Do you know why it was shelved? What was the location?

YES, I was asked if I wanted to include VT5 in our case and have it torn down. I chose not to go their! It was explained for five years one could bring a case to tear down VT5 in Admin Court.

Richard

VT must be waiting for the other shoe to drop - a filing in Admin Court for the removal of buildings more than 14 metres high and within the 200 meters fom the shoreline.

The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.

Richard

You are wrong, my friend is a buyer and has put in quite a considerable amount of baht into the condo he is buying in VT7. He has every right to be upset, he bought that place for his retirement NOT TO MAKE MONEY!

I have no interest in either properties but as a property investor there is one thing that is never ever guaranteed and that is the block of land in front of you. If you want absolute sea views then buy absolute sea front land, same everywhere in the world.

Your friend is right to be upset with VT, and only VT.

In this case the block of land is, by Law, guaranteed to be built on only to a height of 14 meters.

If you take note of the photo I posted before VT5 is in the background, complete and finished. Why did no one say anything about that and the several other buildings that may be questionable? There are a lot of other buildings closer to the water than VT5 too.

It's only about the views that will be lost that the Jomtien Complex Condotel have really filed this complaint isn't it? Otherwise they would have been a bit more proactive about other buildings being built both at present and in the past.

I have been around these parts now for quite a few years now an I will be around for quite a few more. If gambling was legal in Thailand I would put my money on VT7 and City Hall for a win. This is Thailand, anything can and will happen and usually the big boys win.

I am told by a good contact that Grand Condotel did have contact with both City Hall and VT but were told that City Hall have the power to reassess every five years how close to the seashore hi-rises can be built. Obviously, Grand Condo got bad advice from its lawyer - if, indeed it was sensible enough to get a lawyer.

Why should Jomthien Complex worry about a building that is quite a distance from it?

The big boys don't always win. As has been said earlier on this topic, the Administrative Court, has been and will continue to be a court where the little man can take his grievances against the 'big boys', be heard, and obtain justice.

It will be a bad day for Thailand if VT is allowed to build one centimeter more than 14 metres on land not 200 meters from the seashore.

The only people upset are the ones who now are not able to make money with VT7! Or think zone law should always be broken. That Thai people or farangs should not have equal rights under Thai law.

Richard

You are wrong, my friend is a buyer and has put in quite a considerable amount of baht into the condo he is buying in VT7. He has every right to be upset, he bought that place for his retirement NOT TO MAKE MONEY!

I have no interest in either properties but as a property investor there is one thing that is never ever guaranteed and that is the block of land in front of you. If you want absolute sea views then buy absolute sea front land, same everywhere in the world.

Your friend is right to be upset with VT, and only VT.

In this case the block of land is, by Law, guaranteed to be built on only to a height of 14 meters.

Hi every one me and my family(3 adult and 3 kids) planning to stay at pattaya for a month time would any one recommend me a privet furnished villa with swimming pool with reasonable price. Minimum 2 bed rooms required

Best regards

What's a reasonable price?

Sometimes you need a kick up the jacksy to make you see the truth !

I have lived in Patts for four years and was beginning to get in the mind set that moving would be a good idea.

Your post made me realise something .

I have never personally had any problems here apart from some kids snatching a gold chain some time back and I have never seen fights , aggression to fallangs or had problems living here .Any apprehension I have is born from reading the work of reporters which for such a large place , show little interest in reporting anything other than 'shock, Horror' type of copy !

Three times a year I go and stay with my elderly mother in Manchester ( UK ) and the sense of danger is much more apparent there . I happen to have to hand a local newspaper ,the Salford Reporter, and it is filled with reports of violent crimes against the person and thefts ! Literally , page after page and little else of substance.

The media here does promote a sense of unease amongst residents of what is , on the whole , a very nice place to live with the infrastructure most people who retire here want.

To be completely forthright , If Chiang Mei was on sea then I would probably choose to live there .I do like the surrounding countryside there better than here . Unfortunately it is not so Pattaya is my second choice in this way .

I do admire the posters who have really integrated into Thai rural society and 'gone native' as it were !

It's just not for me .

I like the infrastructure of shops , hospitals , entertainment venues and cheep transport Patts has to offer and I really do thank the original poster for opening my eyes to a few truths !

There's a lot about Pattaya and Jomthien that I don't like and would like to see sent to the boonies. Now that the new city around the airport is not gong to happen perhaps the developers should think about building a new Sin City, walled and gated, with good transport services.

But, I have to agree with you, I personally have never had any problems (touch wood) outside of the condo I live in. Never a wrong look or word from a Thai in all the years I have been here.

I agree that our local press is dreadful. Yesterday, I bought the Pattaya Mail and Pattaya Today. What a waste of 50 baht - could've had a nice cold beer with the pretty girls. Not one word in either paper about Jomthien Complex's case in the Admin Court and View Talay being told to stop work on VT7 until the court decides if VT7 is illegal or not.

The admin court can tear down a building which has been illegal built up to 5 years after its completion.

View Talay 5 (finish in 2006), 3(finish in 2005) and “Beach” in Pattaya which is under construction are also in violation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act.

Will these buildings be torn down?

Is Realty Company warning buyer about the risk when showing View Talay 5 and 3?

Do realtors have a liability in selling this condo which violating the law?

I have been advices “YES” by and involved lawyer to all three of these question!

Now who want to show and sell the View Talay condos?

Where did you get this information from about admin court can take down illegal buildings up to 5 years after completion?

Refer to Post #77.

Thank you. Yes, Richard wrote as follows:

"I was asked if I wanted to include VT5 in our case and have it torn down. I chose not to go their! It was explained for five years one could bring a case to tear down VT5 in Admin Court.

Richard."

Will have to find the appropriate Law.

The admin court can tear down a building which has been illegal built up to 5 years after its completion.

View Talay 5 (finish in 2006), 3(finish in 2005) and “Beach” in Pattaya which is under construction are also in violation of Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act.

Will these buildings be torn down?

Is Realty Company warning buyer about the risk when showing View Talay 5 and 3?

Do realtors have a liability in selling this condo which violating the law?

I have been advices “YES” by and involved lawyer to all three of these question!

Now who want to show and sell the View Talay condos?

Where did you get this information from about admin court can take down illegal buildings up to 5 years after completion?

I understand your point Tammi, however the law about measurements from the sea does not seem to be consistent around Thailand. For example in Hua Hin, I have seen many condo's that are barely 50m from the edge of the beach, presumably these were not all built before this law came into effect. Therefore whats too stop, Pattaya City pleading the case that with this confusion, the law needs to be adjusted to be consistent, thereby creating a get-out which will eventually allow for the VT7 place to be built. It may not eventually be the same as the design already approved, but I suspect it will get built eventually. As I say, I suspect the stakes are too high and the lobbying at central government level will be too great for anything other than a building being put up - the thought of Pattaya City being sued by the developers would be something I doubt anybody will relish. Sure, central government may say "well it serves them right for taking money" however as we all know, a lot of dicsussions happen to avoid anyone losing face (and not to mention the city having to potentially paying out hundreds of milllion baht in compensation to the developer). As I say, I suspect that IF the court finds the planning approval was wrongly issued, we can expect a change in the law once this has all been forgotten, which then permits a revised building line. In the meantime, VT may decide to lease the land on a short term agreement to the city for the building of a drug rehab centre, dog home, etc etc (Basically anything which will cause as much pain to the winners as they can).

There is no confusion. Here, we have a Law that states we have to measure 200 meters from the seashore. Could be that Hua Hin measures 50 meters from the seashore. Could be that Hua Hin is breaking the law. Sure, parliament can enact a new law, in the meantime City Hall and the developers are stuck with the law that is in force now. And with possible tsunamis and global warming the legislators would be very careful not to pass a law that could endanger more property and lives.

A dog home? A rehab center? VT?

We can all be very happy that you are a "pretend judge" who doesn't know his a** from a hole in the ground, which, BTW, I hope VT has to make good when they vacate the site.

Nasty! Why should VT vacate the site? It is THEIR property, they paid a lot of money for it.

Quite frankly, IF the VT is allowed to continue, it will send a strong message that property owners are safe in Thailand. IF VT is NOT allowed to continue to be built, it will send a message that a bunch of whinny people in the rear existing towers, who weren't smart enough to buy the property in front of them, got their way, their whinning worked, and the strong message will be that property is NOT safe in Thailand.

Remember folks, this isn't about views... they are not protected anywhere in the world. It's about having the right to develop your property, according to what the law says. I hope VT gets built, to whatever is within the law... the MAXIMUM possible building height, within the law.

"The law" is what is not known yet, but surely, they will be allowed to build SOMETHING.

Yes,

If VT is not allowed to be built it will send the message that Thailand's laws have to be respected.

I agree that OP should not have said anything about a seaview.

Maybe VT will build some little mini cereal boxes.

So what is to say that even if this judge agrees and stops VT7 being built, that the city planners do not just adopt a new law and permit high rise being built up to say a 100m line, thus tidying up a confusing law? Maybe the building will get delayed for 3/4 years and possibly the land area becomes a rubbish dump in the meantime, but I still believe that the stakes are too high for this building NOT to get built.

I hope for the Guys in the condo behind that it does work for them, but I would not hold out that much hope myself when this amount of money and face is at stake.

City planners have to follow laws passed by central government. That's the whole point of Jomthien Complex's case now before the Administrative Court - City Hall did not follow central government law.

And while I'm on the subject of laws - the Condominium Act and the Regulations of a Condo's Juristic Person were also put in place to protect condo owners from unscrupulous and/or ignorant Committee Members/Juristic Person Manager/General Manager. How many of you condo owners have read those 2 documents, know your rights and are prepared to fight for them?

Would be interested to know how many of Jomthien Complex's plaintiffs are Committee Members, Juristic Person Manager, General Manager.

I'm going to pretend to be a reasonable judge, and make a pretend ruling.

Both sides are partially right, both sides are partially wrong. When a plot of land is in such clear dispute, no building permit should be issued until the matter has been fully litigated. City Hall erred in issuing this permit too fast. I'm going to randomly pick a number, out of my a**, that allows the VT plot owners to build their building up to 10 stories high. City Hall will pay all court costs to the two towers in the back, but not for the VT, who presumably with their company size, should have known the area was/would be disputed. No compensation to any residents getting their views blocked.

Lesson learned: If you want your view protected, buy the property in front of you. Condo and home owners should always presume that all neighbors will build out their adjacent properties to the MAXIMUM permitted by law.

The VT people were within reason to start construction, when they had their building permit in hand, but they should have known the property was in serious question. Their punishment: reduction in the number of floors.

And let me add: the WORST argument one could use is a whinning, "I'm going to lose my view". A view is not god-given, nor guaranteed anywhere, by anyone. As a pretend judge, if I heard ANYONE claim they brought suit because they were losing their view, I would see that they lost the case based on that point alone. I wouldn't listen to it, it is 100% irrelevant, and as a pretend Judge, you would lose ALL of your credibility with me for attempting to bring a lost view up, as a reason to stop some construction.

I repeat: if you want your view guaranteed, buy the property in front of you. Or get together with your neighbors, and buy the property in front of you.

And whoever earlier said something about trying to sue the original developer who made all kinds of false promises, you're wasteing your time. It won't get you anywhere. Try to make a deal, try to settle with VT, or you may lose out completely.

We can all be very happy that you are a "pretend judge" who doesn't know his a** from a hole in the ground, which, BTW, I hope VT has to make good when they vacate the site.

It maybe a moot point and I admit to not being up to speed on all this situation, but what is the anticipated outcome of this if the court finds in favour of the 10 people who brought the action? For example, if the court finds in their favour, what is too stop the following scenario happening:-

1. City Hall say, ok we accept what the judge say and whist we do not agree with him, we have to accept it.

2. View Talay submit new plans, with a Tiered building that suddenly goes up to 30 stories on the 200m line.

3. Pattaya City Hall approve it.

End of problem for everyone except the people who brought the action as they have still lost the seaview.

I am asuming in all this that the land plot in question is circa 200m deep, which when allowing for the road and beach area will allow them to build at least something hi-rise.

I think that a few posts back Richard said that Jomthien Complex is 220 metres back from seashore. VT will be hard pressed to build any hi-rise on 20 meters. Anyway the 20 meters is probably taken up with access road and garden belonging to Jomthien Complex.

Richard?

[

Well this is getting interesting. As you pointed out the ministerial regulation uses the word "sea shore". Do you have specific references (regulation numbers, case numbers, etc.) to the "other" Thai law that uses high-tide as the measuring point? How did the City of Pattaya measure for VT3, VT5, and other new projects? If you can nail the City on the high-tide mark you definitely have a winning case. But why the far away court date in November? Seems like that date gives the City some breathing room. You've caught them off guard and should act quickly before they can re-group. Even if they lose I suppose there will be lengthy and costly appeals.

How indeed?

I heard that Grand Condotel co-owners were told that City Hall has the right to decide every 5 years how much nearer the seashore hi-rises can be built. Is the VT cereal box next to Grand Condo 200 meters from the seashore? Think I'll go put on my walking shoes, hike over to Dongtan Beach, and pace it out. I would buy into GC if it weren't for VT being so close and ugly too. If it's less than 200 meters they'll have to take it down!

We file our court case the 12 of March and had a court hearing 28 of March and receive the protection of temporarily court injunction on 9 of April. Which stop the construction of View Talay Project 7. That is fasts! I heard dozen of times from farang what I was wasting my time organizing ten co-owners and raising funds for a court case. This court decision shows that Administrative Court applies the law without looks at ones nationality. Thailand is a country of laws and Administrative Court in Rayon applied the law fairy. The regulation is that any building over 14 meters tall (about 3 stories) is prohibited within 200 meters of the “sea shore”. There is other Thai law which states that “sea shore” is measured from “the high tide line. [/size]

Richard

Well this is getting interesting. As you pointed out the ministerial regulation uses the word "sea shore". Do you have specific references (regulation numbers, case numbers, etc.) to the "other" Thai law that uses high-tide as the measuring point? How did the City of Pattaya measure for VT3, VT5, and other new projects? If you can nail the City on the high-tide mark you definitely have a winning case. But why the far away court date in November? Seems like that date gives the City some breathing room. You've caught them off guard and should act quickly before they can re-group. Even if they lose I suppose there will be lengthy and costly appeals.

The legal definition (Oxford dictionary) of seashore is the area between high and low watermarks.

Webster says it is area between ordinary high and low watermarks.

In the UK seashore is Crown Land (except in a few cases dating back hundreds of years). In the USA depends on the State. Is the seashore Crown Land in Thailand? If it is there will be no 'lengthy and costly appeals'.

If Richard is right - and we have no reason to doubt him - City Hall and VT have to measure from the high watermark.

Jomthien Complex will definitely win!

It is not supposed to be a "water fight". It is supposed to be the Thais sprinkling a little water on the hands of their elders as a sign of respect. The Thai youths extended it to fun by splashing each other with water on a very hot day.

Not everyone enjoys it. Not the person going out for dinner in the evening and getting a bucket full of water thrown at him/her; not the motorcyclist having a water hose turned on him, losing control and breaking his head on the road; not the families cremating loved ones after accidents; not the hospitals; not the police; not the resident farangs who flee the country or stay indoors for the duration.

IMHO Songkran changed to water fights because farangs got in on the act with their crazy behaviour.

IMHO the authorities should ban farangs under 60 years of age from the streets of Pattaya (where I am) for the duration of Songkran.

Make you mind up matey, who started it then, thais or farangs?

Thai children and teens had harmless fun 'splashing' each other - a far call from turning a hose on a motor cyclist, something I have seen only farangs do here in Pattaya.

It doesn't really matter who 'started' it. What matters is when it is going to be stopped. Eventually the carnage will be unacceptable and then the authorities will stop the sale of liquor during Songkran and everybodybody found drunk driving, using high power water guns, using hoses, throwing ice, will be put in the monkey house and/or heavily fined. And the farangs deported.

200 meters from low tide is clearly ridiculous; 200 meters from mean tide not quite as ridiculous; 200 meters from high tide and allowing for surges is clearly the most sensible as this measurement will protect and save lives and property.

Been here for 15 Songkrans....nothing more fun than a good water fight on a hot day.....everyone enjoy !!

It is not supposed to be a "water fight". It is supposed to be the Thais sprinkling a little water on the hands of their elders as a sign of respect. The Thai youths extended it to fun by splashing each other with water on a very hot day.

Not everyone enjoys it. Not the person going out for dinner in the evening and getting a bucket full of water thrown at him/her; not the motorcyclist having a water hose turned on him, losing control and breaking his head on the road; not the families cremating loved ones after accidents; not the hospitals; not the police; not the resident farangs who flee the country or stay indoors for the duration.

IMHO Songkran changed to water fights because farangs got in on the act with their crazy behaviour.

IMHO the authorities should ban farangs under 60 years of age from the streets of Pattaya (where I am) for the duration of Songkran.

Today about 4:00 I received a phone call from Markus Klemm. He told me that Asia LawWorks had received a fax from Administrative Court in Rayon.

Congratulation we receive a decision and won an injunction for VT7 to STOP WORKING on their 27 story condo. This is not the final but we on are way to receive one which will limit construction to 14 meters or about a 3 stories tall building.

It's was a great day for all of Thailand, the Thai People and the farangs. Thailand is a strong nation with laws which give far treatment to all. Now I'm smiling with a great big beaming grin. Thinking of all the farang which said we did not have much change to win a court decision. What a great day to give thanks!

Am so very happy for Jomthien Complex. You are right, Thailand is a good country with laws to protect us all. Problem is that too many people won't fight for their rights. Now let's get the tape measures out and find out what else is illegal.

Recently I was speaking with someone who said that since the Administrative Court was set up justice can be got.

I know there are loads of Garden Centres around Pattaya. I'm looking for a recommendation of one, with someone who speaks enough English to match my Thai, so I can arrange a gardener to come once a month to tidy the place up.

Soi Nern Plab Wan or Wat Boon Samphant area.

Any ideas?

G

This info was on ThaiVisa Forum some time ago. I kept it thinking I might need it but didn't.

P.Y.N. Garden. Telephone 08 9938 5534. On Soi Siam Country Club near the train crossing.

About 1000 – 1200 baht each visit for 2 or 3 workers.

Oh dear tryimg to impose Western planning standards in Thailand again. Well certainly planning controls need to be improved but it will not happen overnight and I suspect most certainly not in this case. It is still "buyer beware". A little naive to buy a condo 200 mtrs from the sea and expect no building to block their view in the future.

Anyway how did they measure 200 mtrs from the sea ?, low tide or high tide ? or just an elastic tape ?

I’m Richard Haines who organized the co-owners at Jomthien Complex Condotel to take legal action against VT7 to stop construction.

The 200 meters from high tide law is that you can not build over 14 meters high. For more info of this group of 10 go to http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

This regulation was issued for city planning to follow. No one ever tried to enforce this law in Thailand . Administrative Court is a new court formed in 1999 to fight corruption in government. See below and got to http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/ and read the case which was filed. They have a good legal team to represent them. See the Ministerial Regulation below.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)

Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479

By the virtue of the Section 15 of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, te Ministry of Interior issued the following Ministerial Regulations:

1. No. 1 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 to be amended by the followings statement:

“No. 1. This Ministerial Regulation applies within the boundary line of the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2520”

2. No. 3 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 to be amended by the following statement:

“No 3. Setting of 200 meters measured from the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 at the seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

Building of 14 meters higher than road level.

The Ministerial Regulation is hereby given on the date of twenty-third of November B.E. 2521 (1978).

General Lek Naewmalee

Minister of Interior

(Mr. Somchai Leelaprapaporn)

Civil Engineer Grade 7

Note: The reason issuing this Ministerial Regulation due to the updating of the construction control areas in Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol

Nhong Prue, by extending the construction restriction areas as appeared in the map annexed to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 controlling over the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521. It is, therefore, appropriate to amend the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 governing restriction of the construction of some kinds of building within the controlling areas under the aforesaid Royal Decree.

Copy taken from the Government Gazette No. 95 Section 157 dated 31 December 2521 (1978)

Does this mean that VT will have to take down the building behind Avalon Hotel on Dongtan Beach? And that developer can not build 8 storeys on site at Jomthien Condotel?

OH YES

Yeah my first trip to Thailand and Pattaya was Songkran last year. Heading back to Thailand next week but don't know if I should hit Pattaya before or after Songkran. My fellow farang there were pretty aggressive and nasty with the waterworks.

The farangs are a pain in the butt at Songkran. Police should round up those endangering life and limb and put them in the monkey house to cool off!

This Friday the 6th I brought in a german blues singer/ guitarist and his band.

Marc Reece and his band will be live from 11pm in the Blues Factory followed by my new rock band which has a new guitarist called Nung previously from The Rock Pub in BKK and he is joined by Lam Morrisons original band.

Hope to see you there.

marc reece

Hey, got all excited and said to teerak "Let's go". Then read a bit further and see you start at 11 pm! Much too late for a couple of oldies. What do you have on earlier. 11pm is when we toddle off to bed! Or is Blues Factory just for younguns?

Next week when we go to Pattaya we will be bringing our dog and need a place to keep him for a few days. On a earlier post someone had mentioned Phayu Kennel which I think they said is located not far outside Pattaya. Is anyone familiar with this kennel and hopefully have a phone number?

I don't know the Phayu kennel but have used a dog hotel outside of Pattaya that I thought was great. Tel 038-241686 or 086-1407896.

Owner of hotel will pick up and deliver back your dog.