Irene

The Mortgage holder will have possession of the Chanote or other land title, so isn't it impossible to register any sort of lease on the land title, if teh lease is not registered it means absolutely nothing.

You are right. A 30-year lease would definitely require the consent of the bank who has the original chanote. But if it is a 3-year lease with a renewal option of another 3 years, no registration is required and the owner can rent out without the banker's consent. Most leases of immovable property are under this 3-year basis to avoid the registration fees of 1% of the total rental value.

[

My questions are;

1. Would the current encumbrance on the property (by the bank) prevent the transfer of title for the house (not the land, only the dwelling on the land)?

Yes, why should the bank modify the conditions to suit you. It is not run of the mill situation and therefore most likely the bank would reject your request.

2. Would the current encumbrance prevent the registration of a 30 year lease at the land office?

Yes, the answer is the same as (1).

3. In the event that the lease was put in place but the bank chose to take possession, would the lease still guarantee my leasehold possession of the property?

If the lease is put in place (a big big if), your right of possession is guaranteed if the lease is properly registered. That is another reason why the bank would not go along with it. Anything out of the ordinary is certain to be rejected unless the deal is a big one or the borrower is an influential person.

4. If the owner of the property is ultimately unable to resolve their financial dramas and some form of bankruptcy procedure is initiated (does such a thing exist here?) would the lease stand? (Similar situation to No 3)

Similar answer to (3). First the bank has to foreclose the property to realise its debt. If the proceed is not sufficient to meet the debt and related interest, then they would go after the debtor personally. If the debtor has no asset then there would a bankruptcy procedure against the debtor.

5. What else have I not considered?

Your alternative is to pay rental in advance under a new lease for a period of 3 years to help out at the interim the owner to meet the obligations of meeting the bank's loans and guarantee your possession for that period. (The whole procedure should be drafted and reviewed by your lawyer to ensure that there is no loophole). The payments should be seen by you as having been paid to the bank in order to avoid any foreclosure proceeding while you are an occupier. The lease could be spelt out as renewable for another 3 year period at your option at a specific rental amount. At least, you can be assured of 6 year occupation of the house you like.

Thanks all.

How easy is it for a farang to get a loan in Thailand?

I need to get some finance for a business project. I am from the UK, my company holds two properties freehold (owned, not financed) to the value of 4 million baht and am seeking 500,000 baht finance. My partner in business is on retired visa(65 years old) with pension, and i am 33 with a job in the uk securing 60,000 baht approx a month(permanent part time position) and am on a 1 year renewable work visa(which i haven't had to use as just living in Thailand, not working here). Our company has not been trading in thailand, as income is from uk employment......have never used my work visa....

I want to start a business here but don't have immediate capitol - need approx 600,000baht.....

My questions are these:

can a farang or thai/farang company that hasn't been trading(but has property value) get a secured loan/mortgage on existing property as security? If so does anyone know the in's and out's of what is needed and banks that will help?

Any info or experiences in this area would be greatly appreciated and/or recommendations....i.e HELP!!! :-)

Thank you all for all and any advice!

First, talk to your banker stating that your company is prepared to mortgage your land of 4 million baht for a loan of 600,000 baht. Normally, Thai banks grant loan of between 50% to 70% of the security value.

If you do not have a banker in Thailand, start one now, then a few weeks later go and gauge his reaction.

With that security, all you need is the personal touch and/or your past records with the bank.

Has anyone heard of a "Condominium Owners' Association" in Bangkok?

Tammi,

Per Bangkok Post Supplemtn on Property, there is a Thai Condominium Association: 02-260-3592-9, which may not be what you are looking for.

I think The Consumer Protection Board: 02-282-4579, www.ocpb.go.th is another source in finding out the rights of buyers of a condo unit against a property developer. It is part of the Prime Minister Office and supposed to help all consumers in claiming against vendors. They have become quite good in pursuing claims. Vendors sometimes just give up instead of fighting in court. But because of the work load, one has to be patient. Advices like vt7 situation could be sought from them in solving the dilemma.

The Consumer Protection Board: 02-282-4579, www.ocpb.go.th

The Thai Real Estate Association: 02-229-3188-90, www.thairealestate.org

The Housing Business Association: 02-440-1274-6, www.housingbiz.org

The Thai Condominium Association: 02-260-3592-9

is tilting toward the developers and juristic bodies of condominium.

I was watching the news with my wife about some Thai guy was sentenced to death for rape/murder (or something similarly unpleasant)

And my wife said "And he also has to pay XXXXX baht to the victims family", I asked how he was supposed to do that seeing as he would be in jail, and then dead?

She said "Well his family [parents] will have to pay".

Is this true that if your (adult) son/daughter does something bad, then you as the parent would have to pay fines that the son/daughter could not pay?

I was a bit puzzled, and asked if the reverse was true; that children would have to cover the debts of deceased parents, and my wife also said that she thought so.

Is this true or is my wife just really misinformed?

No, not true. Only limited to the estate of the deceased that the debts have to be settled against but not to the assets of the survivors.

SUMMARY

tammi, in short, if the juristic person has taken up the case instead of the co-owners, then the case would be somewhat weak and the chance of being thrown out of court is greater than when some co-owners taking up the case. It would even be better, if the juristic person and some co-owners jointly taking up the case. One for protecting the value of common property. Another is to protect his own personal property of each condominium units. However, without the participation of the juristic person in taking up the case, the co-owner is an undisputed aggrieved party, both in term of his personal property and his right to the common property.

come on irene...

Im green with envy ...no kidding how on earth do you post in colour?

ive only discovered italics and so far.

Sorry, I should have chosen dark blue. Never realise that it could be painful to the eyes. After you click the reply, there is a tab on the reply page showing a bold A and triangle. Click at the triangle, it will show all sorts of colours to be selected. Click whatever colour you like. (With white background, don't should any pale colour). Before you type the message, click at A to use the colour you have chosen. Have fun but be kind to the readers!

Although I sympathise with the people of JC, I hope VT will win in the end.

Just 1 major reason for this: I bought 3 units in VT7 and got about $40000 invested so far.

As soon as I heard about the building permit, I thought buying in VT7 was safe, and that's also what my broker said.

My main problem at this moment is whether to stop the monthly payments for the time being or to continue

paying as the contract says you have to.

Continue paying means the risk of a big loss (or a payback with a delay that can last for years) and stop paying could mean contract violation which could have other outcomes.

Anybody some good advice on this?

Thanks.

OhdLover,

Even if your wish is realised that the City Hall won the case and vt7 could go on building your unit, you will have a long wait to know the result. My guess is two years. This would be a Pyrrhic victory.

You have to look into your contract whether this suspension of building could give rise to you to terminate the contract. If not, whether you can avoid payment until the result is known since two years (if I am right) is a long time to wait for no progress on the building. Check with your lawyer whether you have ground to terminate or delay your side of the obligation. If I were you, I would not keep on paying without first asking a lawyer's opinion. I think by now all the lawyers in Pattaya must have known the answer.

Irene,

I am sure you will agree that common property includes the outside of the walls as well is the rest of the "envelope" that encloses the condominium units (personal property).

Tammi, if you look into the condominium act, you will see that the property is divided into two sections, one is the common area which is jointly owned by all co-owners and managed by the juristic body and another area that is privately owned by each co-owner with his own title deed. In the title deed, besides covering the area and unit involved, it is also specifically stated with the proportion of the voting rights for that title deed in controlling and managing the common area through an agent called a juristic body of the condominium. The body has no right to the personal property which is sacrosanctly owned by the beneficiary as mentioned in each title deed. The Act emphasises on the common property as covering the assets such as lifts, garden, fitness room etc. and common space that belong to all owners but have to be managed by one body. Any trespass on these assets are the responsibility of the body to protect and claim against the wrongdoers. But, it is not certain that the body can go beyond the wall to claim that your view has been blocked. So if only the body is the party filing the complaint with the court, the chance of the case being thrown out is great since it is possible to maintain that the body is not an affected party and its duty is only on the working of the common assets. However, if only one co-owner files the case against the vt7, that one and only co-owner definitely has the ground to file because he is definitely an affected party in terms of common and personal property. Naturally, the more is better. It would even be better if the co-owners plus the body file the case as a united front, giving the sense of concensus of all the condo owners.

The Management Committee is comprised of co-owners who want to be elected to the Committee and, by Law, must supervise the management of the Condominium Juristic Person and its manager.

The Management Committee and the Juristic Person Manager have the responsibility to look after the rights of the co-owners with regard to the common property. If a 27 storey building is built in front of Jomthien Complex the value of the common property will decrease and, of course, the value of the condominium units (personal property) will decrease. It is not possible for the "envelope" to decrease in value and the personal property not to decrease, and vice versa. It is certainly to the common benefit of all the co-owners that there is no decrease in value of common property which will lead to decrease in value of personal property.

Tammi....Yes, that is right, to look after the use of common property, e.g. passage ways, lifts, garden, coffee shops, fitness centre, tools and equipment, offices. It is arguable whether blocking of the view could affect the usage of the common property. What I am trying to imprint on our fellow co-owners is not to rely exclusively on the juristic body to take up the case. In all circumstances, co-owners should be involved in suing the culprit. Ideally, it could be spearheaded by the juristic body plus other co-owners, the more the better. The cost could be agreed at an extraordinary meeting to be shared by all owners. If you cannot get the body to be involved, co-owners could still pursue the case without ill-effects.

As I wrote already, "The condominium's juristic person has the objective to protect, defend, or claim any rights or properties which is to the common benefit of all the co-owners."

Tammi, to protect, defend or claim on anything affecting the rights of which property? Definitely, the body can do so on the common property but can it cover personal property that is not under the charge of the juristic body?

I believe that Committee Members should be constantly on the look out for any situation that may affect the value of the common property and the Committee should instruct the Manager to thoroughly investigate all such situations and report back to the Committee which should have, by now, informed all the co-owners. The Committee then must take all appropriate actions to safeguard the co-owners' interests and keep the co-owners well informed. If it is necessary to have 10 co-owners file a complaint then the Committee and Manager should organise that.

Tammi, you are absolutely right that the Committee Members and its appointed Manager should have taken up the grievances and always on the look out for the likely damages to the condo as a whole, if they are worth their salt. However, technically, the case should involve co-owners to sue and not the juristic body alone. One condo in Bangkok that we own was under threat of having a building in front of ours and also likely to block our entrance. The Committee took the matters seriously and after legal consultation threaten to take the matter to court. The developer had to backtrack their first intention and because of Thailand financial crisis, the whole project was put in abeyance until it has now become time-barred since we have been using the free passage more than the prescription period. That Committee was full of leading members of the community and became quite successful in managing the common area. It has now reaching the stage of changing the lifts after a period of twenty five years. Rental with four bedrooms can now fetch 50,000-70,000 per month. We are lucky to be associated with this community.

You have probably realised by now that it is my opinion that too many condominiums are badly managed by Committees. It is only when the condo is falling to pieces that the co-owners wake up and start demanding changes such as monthly bookkeeping reporting to the co-owners, reduction in staff, decent security, cleanliness, maintenance, that all co-owners are equal in use of common property, that all co-owners should be issued with the Regulations of the Juristic Person, that Committee Meetings are open to any co-owner, that resolutions can be passed after discussion of all the co-owners and not just by the Committee at a closed Committee Meeting, that adopted resolutions are not discarded by the Committee without reference to the co-owners, that the Committee organise proper periodic inspections of the buildings and grounds, that spot checks be done on OUR money in petty cash, that committee members are available (taking it in turn if necessary) to the co-owners to hear co-owners complaints and suggestions, that bookkeeping records are avaiable to any co-owner who wants to check. And so on.

Tammi, you are again absolutely right but unfortunately, passiveness is the norm in most condo and there is not much recourse on bad management except to sell your bad luck. So before one buys, one should take this point as the main criteria in deciding to buy or not to buy. In Bangkok, there are three office condos, one is very well managed with a few big-lot investors who have been taking their membership in the Committee seriously with the Manager from one reputable estate company affiliated with the worldwide company (naturally involving professional westerners) , the other twos are really amateur and laughable. The best managed one can command rental of 550 to 600 per square metre while the two next-door, their rental is between 300 to 400 and yet all are in the best location near to MRT, supermarket, public park and facing eight-lane avenue.

I had a look at your Metro Condominium building. It needs a lot of work but you've made a good start in now having the Metro Condominium Owners' Committee.

Metro's structure is good but it has been neglected too long since 1997. The condo was completed during the financial crisis. We bought the units in 1998 and had no regret. It was so quiet and so eerie then but the air and the view were the best you can wish for. This new group of co-owners led by keith bamfield really has given us some hope in getting our money worth from the present manager. I am optimistic of the style they have taken and again our family is really lucky to have them as co-owners. The place has great potential if you like quietness and free-flow of sea-breeze. We cannot participate much because we are mostly in Bangkok but they do keep us informed and have given us hope.

stopvt7,

I was amazed who fast Thailand Administrative Court acted and how prepared the judge was at the hearing for the injunction .The judge swore in the layers to tell the truth then he started the hard hitting questioning.

stopvt7, there is nothing to be amazed about.....since you asked for an emergency hearing to suspend the construction in front of your building......the court has either to reject or accept your request......however, from now on, you will notice the slowness just like in the States or Erin Bokovich case......there is nothing unusual ......it is mainly due to the workload of the administrative court....

If and member of your management committee tells you that the condo could be counter sue and that this could cost your condo if they lost. You know they are working for some other people's interest.

stopvt7......you are spot on.....i also notice a few in this forum tried to use the scarecrow tactic in getting people to cool down because it might affect their commission income from the property market in pattaya....

Stopvt7, A well written summary of Pataya Today. Now I am even clearer than before. Thanks.

lookat, I think the scope of work of the Juristic Person Manager, General Manager or the condo committee is to maintain and upkeep the buildings and therefore may be challenged as to their rights if they are the parties taking the City Hall to the Administrative Court. If it is the condo owner, there is less chance of success in challenging their rights. They are definitely aggrieved parties.

Irene, Section 39 of the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 states "The Condominium Juristic Person may exercise the rights of the co-owners with regard to the common property in contention with outside persons, or in retrieving property for the benefit of all the co-owners."

tammi, the juristic person is only responsible for the common property to defend and claim against outside parties for causing losses to the COMMON PROPERTY and not PERSONAL PROPERTY belonging to the co-owners.

I belief that this statement makes it the responsibility of the Juristic Person to actively pursue through the courts of law anything that will seriously affect the asset value of the condominium – the land value, the common property value, and the value of the individual co-owner units.

tammi, against only the value of the common property including the land value.

The Regulations of the Juristic Person of the condo I am in states "The condominium's juristic person has the objective to protect, defend, or claim any rights or properties which is to the common benefit of all the co-owners."

tammi, the juristic person has only the responsibility on the rights and properties affecting the COMMON benefit of all the co-owners....therefore, no right on the benefits as due to the PERSONAL property as owned by each co-owner.

Another Clause states "The manager of the condominium's juristic person shall follow the objectives in Clause 5, or the resolutions of the general meeting of the co-owners, or the decisions of the condominium's management committee."

Another Clause states "The manager of the condominium's juristic person is the representative of the condominium juristic person."

Another Clause states "The manager of the condominium's juristic person has the power to sue, defend, claim or conduct legal proceedings, including all other processes concerning the affairs of the Condominium Juristic Person, or compromise, or bring any cases to court as considered necessary"

tammi, the affairs of the juristic person are limited only to the COMMON property and not that of personal property in which even the manager of the juristic person cannot encroach on their rights of ownerships.

If the clauses in The Regulations of the Juristic Person of Jomthien Complex Condominium are substantially the same as those quoted above, the co-owners of Jomthien Complex are even more aggrieved due to being unsupported (if that is the case) by their Juristic Person Manager and their Management Committee.

SUMMARY

tammi, in short, if the juristic person has taken up the case instead of the co-owners, then the case would be somewhat weak and the chance of being thrown out of court is greater than when some co-owners taking up the case. It would even be better, if the juristic person and some co-owners jointly taking up the case. One for protecting the value of common property. Another is to protect his own personal property of each condominium units. However, without the participation of the juristic person in taking up the case, the co-owner is an undisputed aggrieved party, both in term of his personal property and his right to the common property.

[

Stopvt7 could you tell us why Juristic Person Manager, General Manager or you condo committee did not that the action in court?

Stopvt7, A well written summary of Pataya Today. Now I am even clearer than before. Thanks.

lookat, I think the scope of work of the Juristic Person Manager, General Manager or the condo committee is to maintain and upkeep the buildings and therefore may be challenged as to their rights if they are the parties taking the City Hall to the Administrative Court. If it is the condo owner, there is less chance of success in challenging their rights. They are definitely aggrieved parties.

I have a Thai son that I'm supporting by sending money to his mom. right now I do this via Internet banking (very handy).

But I'm getting old and won't be around forever, and want to make some permanent arrangement.

Something like an annuity would be best - regular payments made from a sum deposited with a bank or financial institution.

Anyone ever done this before in Thailand ?

expatman,

Unfortunately, Thailand has no trust law. I also have the same wish but simply cannot locate one institution to do the annuity payment in Thailand. I did ask a few insurance companies and none has this type of annuity policy.

You may have to originate the payments from UK or USA either through an insurance company or a bank to pay annuity to your beneficiary in Thailand. I have yet to firm up the arrangement.

As for whatever accountant needs you may have outside of that - they're not required by law, only by your actual needs for keeping your books "to the books".

Cyberstar,

I'm afraid I can't understand what this part of your response to my post means.

Irene, thanks for this info. Could you comment on what would a reasonable fee be for the bookkeeping of an inactive company, if 8,000 is approximately appropriate to pay an auditor.

Nepal4me,

For audit fee, 8,000 for an inactive company is about right. The range is between 5,000 to 10,000. It can only be signed by a CPA (Thailand).

For bookkeeping, another 8,000 to 10,000 is about right if no other services are involved and the transaction is one and only on purchase of one property.

Does anyone have any knowledge of the best places to have dental implant work done in Bangkok.Price is not a consideration but I'm interested in which institution is thought to do the highest quality work and has the best qualified dentists.I'm assuming it will be one of Bumrungrad,BNH, Samitivej or Bangkok Dental Hospital but I don't really know and could be wrong.Any informed advice gratefully received.

'younghusband',

My daughter had it done at Samitivej and was quite satisfied. But it is a bit pricey.

I have been unsuccessful to get my family members to do some meaningful exercise. Now we have one treadmill and one stationary bicycle which are hardly used by other members. (I used them daily). Despite cajoling, there has not been that much enthusiasm. So I am looking for something that is fun and inducive to work on. Any suggestions would be much appreciated.

If you still find frustration in opening a bank account with a Thai bank, then try first to open an account with the Citibank or HSBC in Bangkok for getting the fund from your home country. Thereafter, you can then open a bank account in Chiengmai with your Thai baht fund drawn from the bank in Bangkok. Good luck!

I purchased some land last year in Phuket in a company name complete with the whole shareholder process. I am now going through the accounting.

The accountant I went to wants to charge me 20,000 baht for his services and I must pay an additional 8,000 baht to an auditor that he is giving my paperwork to.

I have a bit of a hard time understanding why I have to pay twice and why it costs 20,000 baht plus a yearly 8,000 baht fee. So far, his explanation to me was very vague so I'm hoping somebody can shed some light here.

I get the feeling, he looked at me and saw dollars signs due to my being a farang. He has all my paperwork now so I don't think I could even get it back to go to another accountant.

Any help would be appreciated.

Nepal4me,

Because a company's accountant cannot also be an auditor of a company. Hence, there are two persons you have to pay for. The annual audit fees of Baht 8,000 for an inactive company is reasonable. But 20,000 Baht for keeping books of account to cover a few entries of land purchase and filing of the financial statements with the authorities could be a bit steep. I suggest you get the list of the services he has to cover in order to make sure that he will do what is required under the law and also to bind him with works to be done. Do you have any engagement letter from him? Make sure you get the receipts for all the payments to him and the auditor and the receipts from the Ministry of Commerce and tax authorities for having filed the appropriate documents with the authorities.

After the works have been done, you can ask for the documents under the pretext of having to show the cost to a prospective buyer. You can then decide by that time whether you still want him to service you.

Dear Stopvt7, please be careful what you say. We don't want you banned from the forum - your posts are too valuable.

Dear Stopvt7, Tammi is right. Not only that, don't reveal too much of what you and your lawyers have in mind. Normally, when one is in legal dispute, one talks less of the strategy in order not to let the other side be prepared to defend on what is coming.

Just wondering how it would be to hold land in a partnership. I already have an old partnership (me 49%)with a Thai that I trust. Would it be better transferring my land/ house to that partnership name, and out of my limited company. I am very concerned about losing control of my land/house currently held in a company when we have to stop using nominees.

Any thoughts on this?

Transfer of property by a company to an individual would be subject to transfer fee of 2% and specific business tax at 3.3% on the proceeds or the market value as determined by the Land Department.

The best is to hold tight and see how the Amendments to the Foreign Business Act would evolve. Thereafter you have three years to resolve under the proposed amendments. By then, there would be a lot of bright ideas being tested and accepted.

Does anyone have the Classifieds from yesterday's Bangkok Post? I've already thrown mine out.

On the back page there was an advert for condos for sale at Hua Hin and small type said something about new regulations and that this would be last opportunity to buy.

Also, didn't someone write way back at the beginning of this topic that complainants have 5 years from end of construction to sue to have building torn down if it is built within the 200 metres?

"Also, didn't someone write way back at the beginning of this topic that complainants have 5 years from end of construction to sue to have building torn down if it is built within the 200 meters?"

Yes I was told by Amnat Thiengtham who is the Thai lawyer of Asia LawWorks that a building could be torn down for five years. The would be a Admin Court case for the court in Rayon.

I have yet to hear of a building torned down by order of the Court. There was only one case that the Court ordered so because of the extension of the building was made without permission and dangerous to the passer-bys. That was Banglumpoo Department Store. This could be another new breaking ground.

Does anyone have experience of this?

Is it fairly straight forward?

Is it all done at the land office or will I need a third party?

Do I need to pay anything besides for the land transfer?

Who will own the land while it is trusted?

Who owns the trust?

Is it safe?

Is it legal?

As you can see I am a little green about the whole thing....!

There is no trust law in Thailand. You can either transfer or mortgage.

Does anyone know if the legislation also applies to the opposite side of the Gulf where towering beach-side condominiums and hotels litter the shore between Cha-am and Hua Hin?

Yes, the legislation applies to the whole kingdom of Thailand.

I was told by my accountant, that I cannot have a thai person that is married to a farang as a shareholder? is this correct?, or rather I could but they would be taking part of my 49% shares, which is totally defeating the object.

Any advice please

No, that is incorrect that she cannot be a shareholder. If she is still a Thai citizen, then she is viewed as a Thai and forms part of the 51% shares. But if legally she is no longer a Thai, then she is just like you being part of that 49%.

So, what come to happen next, have we wait to November, before to get know more about this case and shall it be then the last hearing around this case.

I am interested about it bce i have made a contract to buy a unit from vt7 and it looks it never can be ready??

And now i am willing to disclaim that paper, yes they are not willing to get promise to do it!! Anyway yet, but maybe people only come to lost more and more money , if pay by payment shedule and vt7 project do itself bankgroup???

And if i will stop to pay them and wait the final decision, tv7 shall take all inside money which is paid, not easy to decide what to do

Laurus 77,

November is only the first hearing. It will go on for many months. After the Court's decision, there will definitely an appeal by either party to the Supreme Administrative Court. It will be for a while.

You better check with your purchase contract and your lawyer whether the disruption of the construction could be a cause for discontinuing payments and obtaining a refund.

Just to clear things up. The dome top white building in Beach road is not the Metro.

This is called Nusa Playa Hotel & Spa.

They had a land dispute and the building was never really opened - people invested and lost big money on this. It is now owned by a Singaporean Consortium and is service apartments/hotel now.

Metro never had any land problems and the CAT developer has now sold out his majority share holdings and is now a co owner like everyone.

else.

Our co owners group are now the largest single voting group at the Metro

Folks,

Just to support "BlackJack". We bought a few units a year after the 1997 financial crisis because we lost our way and ended up in this Metro Condo. No regret since then. Not perfect and a few bearable annoyances. But with this grouping a few months ago of co-owners (Metro Co-owners Group-(MCOG), I am even more optimistic of this condo. The group has been purposeful and fair but with no nonsense.

Furthermore the structure was well designed with all units facing the sea and with certainty that there will not be obstructive view. The two cornered units of each floor have the view of the sea and the greenery hills. Car park building is so spacious with 60% not occupied. I had my recuperation after an operation and recovered very nicely there. I was surprised that the food delivery services covers Metro Building as well. Food can be delivered from the S&P Restaurant at the Royal Garden Plaza. Mostly, our family never see Pataya but only between Bangkok and Metro Condo with reasonable services nearby. Nang-nual Restaurant as frequented by westerners is 10-minute walk nearby.

I like to think that in a short while, this MCOG will make a big difference to the place. I urge any readers who are the owners there to join this force for the good of the majority. I can see a lot of good things coming. It is fortunate for us to have this Group there. I am not related to this group and merely a member of the Group.