jojothai

The advice above is good, so long as the joints use wire nuts and are protected in junction boxes you'll be fine.

The UK uses ring mains (unheard of in Thailand) which use a bigger breaker (32A) but the same 2.5mm² cable rated at 20A, which is why you must make all wiring from socket to socket and back to the distribution board to maintain the integrity of the ring. Radial wiring as in Thailand uses a 20A breaker on each run so there is no need for a ring.

It sounds like your chap has got a good handle on safe installations

hi crossy

Can you explain what you mean by radial wiring. Is it parallel circuits rather than a ring?

With respect to making the cable run from socket to socket it is not necessary for all sockets. There are rules with respect to the number of spurs you can have from a circuit. A spur is a single set of cable running from the ring main circuit to a socket. Such as when you put a junction box on the circuit at the top of the wall and run only one set of cable down to the socket, or you run an additional socket from an existing socket which is on the ring.

Normally you should not have more than half your sockets as spurs. ie You should loop in and out for more than half of them.

I am not an electrician and cannot explain the technical reasons but that is the normal rule I am aware.

It is with ring mains but i dont know if the same rule applies with this radial wiring., but I dont see why it should be any different.

regards

Jojothai

I understand the points system on Thai licenses is country wide.. Vary rarely do points go onto the license, I think thats when you go to court and not when you pay 'on the spot' payments, hence not often.

Interested to know if it is countywide.

There is one in Bangkok and it is for real. Outside I dont know.

I was booked in a speed trap at toll gate a few years ago.

( Bang Na elevated - they put the speed cameras up in the siding east bound opposite the nation tower.).

My thai license was taken and I had to go to the station afterwards to collect it. There I paid the fine, all well handled and no problems. There were many thai retreiving their licenses also ( I was the only farang at the time) . I was shown the documentation in thai that indicated I had penalty points against my license. Furthermore I asked to see what the system was.

I was shown papers with some english and it was clear that it took only 3 bookings of certain types to lose your license. If I remember correctly it was 4 points for my speeding and at 13 points you lose your license.

I noted at the time that one of the offences with points related to illegal parking and was something that could happen easily. So dont think that getting booked is a minor issue, especially if you have been booked a few times. Might be better to settle up on the spot.

You need to find out if points are registered but how do you know?

Can anybody clarify the law and rules on penalty point system or give a link?

jojothai

If you seriously think it's ok to drive after 3-4 beers, when your speed of response is definitely reduced and your judgement impaired, then I would be the first to applaud any police officer for arresting you, fining you and deporting you.

Simon

Deported and business and family destroyed for the drinking of 3 beers; a new LOW on Thai Visa... would hanging him right up on the next tree not be a much fairer treatment?

Maybe we should have a poll on this.

No not enough - should be sent to the bkk hilton for starters then hung drawn and quartered and fed to the crocs.

Why take such issue when millions of thai (and there are some farangs - but not as many) motorbike drivers drive around very drunk causing the majority of accidents and deaths (including their own).

Can they deport the thais also please??.

Many other things can affect your ability to drive, not least being able to drive - which very often seems to be sorely lacking here. People also drive with impaired vision. Do they get deported for that?

.... No Officer I'm not drunk ... just cant see where I'm going .

There are laws and 3 to 4 beers may well be within acceptable ,limits over the appropriate time period and with eating. But the system of breathalyzing appears to be incompetent and responsible people who keep within the legal limit may well be wrongly arrested / ripped off.

Whilst the ideal of no drink for driving is very good, many people who drink late night could be over the limit if they drive to work the next morning. So what do you do ? Bar all the people who drive to work from drinking at night. Presume that will happen next in Big Brother Land.

Perhaps our principals here will get to the idea first. No doubt the bar owners will all love it.

Ultimately we wont be able to drink alcohol if we have a driving license. Perhaps instead you will have to get a license to be able to drink alcohol. A familiar theme?? . Wow right up our street, great idea stops the minors, pleases the religious fraternity, and just think how much extra revenue it will generate!!

By the way those in Pattaya / Jomtien be aware that checks are made sometimes late at night on the hill thappraya road between Pattaya and Jomtien. Go out on the town by baht bus, There is no need to drive.

jojothai

Sorry - my post was misleading. I was paraphrasing from Mr. Fishbacks COMMENTS on the new law. Still significant as he has put in an extraordinary amount of time and effort to clarify the meaning. The whole thing, his comments and the newest translation, are available on the pattaya expats club site, but here's the quote from Mr. Fishback:

"The new condominium act is a Law, and as such, violations of it are a criminal act, meaning that if a condo owner is unsatisfied with the conduct or operation of the condo and unable to get redress from the Juristic Manager or the condo owner committee, they can go to the police station and file a criminal complaint."

Thanks Ripley.

We will have to consider this as another angle on things we are looking at doing.

Anybody out there tried it yet?

regards

jojothai

Just read thru the most recent translation of new Thai condo law. It's available on the Pattaya Expats Club site. Contributed by J. Fishback, and very readable.

Among other things, it mentions that if a juristic manager, committee,etc. does not comply with the law they may be reported directly to the police. Which addresses my question about pressures that can be brought to bear on the arrogant & dismissive such as the manager in jojothai's bldg.

Hi Ripley

I dont remember seeing that in his version and all our team got it a long time ago.

There are mechanisms/fines provided in the new law for dealing with non-compliance, eg it seems the Land Office will have a person / dept dealing with it.

Can you tell me which part you see it stated.

regards

jojothai

You will not get an official translation.

This matter has been discussed many times since april on other posts and a translation agency has said it could be a few more months. But even then it will not be an official government translation as the thai will stand as the law and the english doesnot translate well in several areas.

Read the translations posted. do a search and you will find them. ( If not I can help later). They have several areas incomplete or open to discussion, but the item you question seems to be fairly clear and consistent in all versions i have seen

Whoever is saying the 49% is gone has made no effort to read any of the several versions of translations going around. Tell them to read section 19 which says the 49%.

From the versions I read, 2542 is repealed since the new act. Some parts of 2542 giving broader rights had already expired. Such journalist should have known that already if he did his homework.

regards

jojothai

Hi and thanks for further comment. Any brainstorming ideas and comments are all useful to the decision process.

I have another query to add to the things discussed before. Who is it appoints the management company doing day to day management on behalf of CJPM, security company, auditor etc. It appears to be the CJPM and committee but I thought the law requires that it be approved by co-owners at a general meeting refer clauses 36 and 49(2) - previously 48(3).

ANY EXPERIENCE / COMMENT welcome please

Going back to previous discussions:

I totally agree that six months is not unreasonable. And I have opinion which says the six months could be from the time period before the meeting, it does not necessarily have to be from the date of the new law. So it is not clear cut and best close out the issue.

We are currently paying solicitors fees, etc from co-owners donations and paid attendance at the last two meetings. It is difficult to get a good group together and hold it, everyone gets disheartened with the situation. Few people have to carry out the workload and it is not easy to have the time.

We have discussed using an escrow account but that gets complicated as quiksilva noted. We have a short time now in which to start the real fight to change management. So we have to get on with it.

Quiksilva is right in his opinion we are not after previous money regarding management / developer potential misuse/misappropriation. We know perfectly well this is going to cost more than it is worth. What point is there spending several years or more trying to get it with no reason to believe we will be successful.

However we have an obligation to get the data relating to previous non-payment by co-owners and will have to pursue that. We cannot write off this matter, the people who have paid are justified to be furious with us if we do that.

The predicament the manager puts us in will almost certainly mean we have to go to court to get the data.

Whilst we want the management changed, we still have to recover the existing funds and recent maintenance payments so it is essential to have a handover from the existing manager. Whilst it appears the manager may not do so, we cannot discount the possibility that it could be made to happen. We don't need unnecessary battles.

Some people would like to just go for the kill but we have to be careful to be seen doing things legally, and in an appropriate manner. We have started to gain thai support, but now understand counter information is being circulated. We have to be careful we don't give ammunition to the opposition.

Quiksilva – you are quite right thanks, and we already facing the truth.

As I said before the point of action is close at hand. We in our group have to carefully think and check through our plans so we can succeed soon.

regards

jojothai

Perhaps I can clarify where I dont understand.

If we sue for money I can understand it, but we dont do that for some time.

The first step is taking management control.

So the first thing we will need to do is get the information we need to run the condo including accounts information and such items as payments / non-payment data.

If we have to go to court to get this then that is where i dont understand insurance.

The manager is required by law to have the information we will need.

If the manager does not give it to us, then

either

the manager simply Will not give it to us

or

the manager does not have it and is breaking the law.

In either case why would any insurance come into the discussion?

We would be going to court to get an order for the manager to give us the information.

If we get the order and the manager then does not comply, they are not complying with the law.

If there are resultant financial damages to sue for then it will be as a result of not complying. This is the manager's non-compliance.

I doubt insurance will cover this under its terms but I suppose it is possible they may have to fight the case first, and then if judgement is against the manager then surely they recover costs from the manager not the condo.

We will not know whether the manager has any insurance and its terms.

So any discussion is hypothetical, and points are noted.

HOWEVER. The points made about such insurance are important to investigate.

If our action group is going to take control then we need to look into the matter.

Is there anybody out there has knowledge of such insurance policies? Or which companies do them?

regards

jojothai

Regarding my previous notes I am told that in thai there is no difference between "May " and "Shall'. So this effectively means the new rule 18/1 stands that you can be barred from voting.

I still don't understand how the law can be retrospective. How can the manager apply it to the six months before the law came into effect?

Getting a lawyer to sue.

Get a lawyer to sue her for what? We do not have any proper information to do so!!!

All we can currently claim is we want the manager dismissed for non-compliance with the condo act.

What are we suing for?

After we take over we may be able surmise information from previous accounts.

But it will be difficult to prove anything when we have none of the paperwork.

And TIT! We are being portrayed as Farangs trying to take over for our own benefit.

Even so, how long do you expect to wait for financial matters to be resolved in court??? 5 - 10 years perhaps.And how much will it cost considering we may not be able to prove anything sufficiently???

In the meantime we have to try to run the condo not knowing how anything is run, who has paid, what liabilities they have, etc ., etc.

We must be mad getting into all of this, but we don't now have any choice.

We have tried everything we can to get things improved without going head on and are now running out of time as the manager's term will come to its renewal soon and the manager gives us no option but to now fight to ensure it ends.

INSURANCE

I don't understand the discussion about insurance.

If we need to fight in court for control of managing the condo then I don't see how liability insurance comes into play. The main problem then is the manager has not been complying with the law. How does insurance cover that?

If we have to fight for financial matters after then, there is no point in us fighting unless we have enough evidence to prove things. The manager has already set things up so nobody can get the information easily. Then we are not going to be suing her but going to court to get the condo records.

Where does the insurance cover against this?

I can understand insurance covering liabilities for managers to co-owners / third parties for things happening out of expectation or unknowingly but don't believe it covers against not complying with the law.

We will probably need to go to court to get the manager to provide the relevant accounts information that should be kept according to thai law. Then where/how does any insurance cover apply. Please can you clarify so I can understand.

regards

jojothai

Comments noted since my last entry.

I was out of town at ameeting of our condo team and will give some comment myself but it will have to be late today.

jojothai

To update

I got the version from BCCT site it is UNOFFICIAL and it shows

18/1 Penalty for non payment of contributions:

Where unit owners do not pay for the costs within the due date, they are liable to pay a penalty not exceeding 12% per year, but this may not be compounded. Unit owners who owe money for more than 6 months must pay an additional amount at a rate not exceeding 20% per year and may not use communal property, or their communal services may be discontinued, and they may not be permitted to vote at the annual general meeting.

The last bit is the important one, our lawyer's interpretation is " shall not be permitted to vote at general meetings". which is much more definitive than "May Not".

So I am clear that the clause is there now but need to clarify "Shall not" or "May Not".

clarify if it is Just AGM or all general meetings.

Clarify if the law is retospective. Does the manager not have to give six months from the new act?

I am querying the matter further outside.

NB ALSO please note TERM OF COMMITTEE. A term is two years and committee members can be 2 terms. ie 4 years subject to standing down at the end only if others will take the place.

An unofficial version shows

The committee will hold office for two years. Where a committee member ceases to hold office before his term has expired, or there are additional committee members appointed whilst the old committee still hold their term of office, the newly appointed member will hold office only for the time that the previous committee member had to serve. When the term of office has expired, if no one was appointed to be a new committee member, the previous committee members whose term of office has expired will continue to perform their duties, until new committee members are appointed to serve. Committee members whose term of office have expired may be re-appointed provided they may not hold office for more than two consecutive terms, except where no-one else can be found to perform such duties. The manager must register details of committee members with the competent official within 30 days from the date of the unit owners' resolution.

regards

Jojothai

All good points thanks and useful for any others reading the thread.

We have gone through the new condo act in detail and it is a great pity that none of the english versions had the full clause 18/1 which caused us the problem at the last meeting.

The 2 years on committee is subject to legal interpretation. When does it apply from?? Surely The old committee stands down and can be voted on again for a year at least. We have been told this is a grey area until the law has been challenged or 2 years passes.

Quiksilva

On the subject of updating payments you read the situation well, we already have advice similar to what you have stated and there are good reasons for it.

Under the old act there was no way we could have got the percentage attendance required to dismiss the manager and we are well aware that with the new act we can now hold the meeting ourselves, but there are a lot of pitfalls in doing so and many issues to figure out before we takeover like that. We also need a lot of previous information from the manager and will not get it. She has it all in her company office outside, not in the condominium premises.

And we have to know the laws very well indeed. It is better for all concerned if she stands aside and we can start to take over in a cordinated manner. With the new condo act her days are numbered.

We are starting to more seriously discuss legal options.

But at present we dont need to do these things as we have a documented committment and fixed date to reconvene our EGM for committee vote.

We have a long lists of faults against the manager increasing,and depending on the legal interpretation of 18/1 we want to add if she has illegally deprived co-owners of the right to vote.

We also need to see if she does post monthly accounts as this is only just a new requirement. Complaining over an initial problem for the first month is not good enough. Next monmth (2 months since the act) we are much more justified in raising the isssue as an unacceptable infringement.

As i said our list of infringements grows steadily and time for more direct action will come soon.

At the present the manager is working hard at making it appear to be farang vs thai and we are the problem so she can generate more thai support. So it essential we redress that issue as best we can before taking over the management.

regards

jojothai

Thanks ripley

Very true.

We have the grassroots movement and taken a long time building it up.

With each new frustration we can get into arguments.

Keeping things together and common goals is critical.

Thankfully we are maintaining our resolve. We are also starting to get the support of thai co-owners and need to improve in this area as best we can.

jojothai

Thanks Quiksilva

We can address the clearing of payments may just take a bit of time. However still need to resolve whether the law includes the statement about not being able to vote at meetings. I will have to follow up the BCCT route.

We called for a meeting before with 25% and the manager did not hold it!

We are aware of the new 20% rule and know we can ultimately dismiss the manager if she will hold the appropriate meeting. However we understand dismissal could entail staff compensation under the labour law so we have alternative strategies.

We already have a lawyer and he is the one advising us that the thai law includes the further statement "and shall not be entitled to vote in general meetings"

Beentheredonethat version does not include it.

jojothai

My query is now discussed under a different topic please see under the following

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Condominium-...08-t194689.html

regards

jojothai

This topic overlaps with other topics raised concerning the new condo act.

I have problems with the content in the new act section 18/1 and would be grateful for any help.

Can you please look at discussion on

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/Condominium-...08-t194689.html

regards

Jojothai

Yes it is included. Nonpayment is never the best recourse for dispute resolution, as you will not be permitted to vote at AGM / EGM's, you can also be prohibited from using common areas and facilities.

The goal of these Juristics should be run to the building at the highest possible standards at the lowest possible expense. If they don't, and you never challenge them, then you are partly to blame.

Thanks for info. Which version of the condo act did you see that has the no-voting statement?

The first response above does not include it and I still don't understand why it is not in ALL of the English translations I have seen.

Is it possible that there are two thai versions of the law? One with it and one without it.

What you say makes sense but sorry that you are not aware of reality.

Many developers run condominiums as they want and for their own benefit.

And it is extremely difficult to do anything about it.

Hence many complaints eventually generate changes in the regulations.

The changes are good but how do you get them implemented if the manager is not interested? The fines are nowhere near enough to bother unscrupulous managers / developers who could well be taking six figure sums each year.

Who is going to decide and charge the fines? The land office reps? H..mm. TIT.

How can you do anything about the committee if you cannot have a vote?

How can you judge the accounts when information needed is not provided?

To put you in the picture at our condo

The manager is the wife of the original developer and the committee has been their selected persons for a very long time. The manager does as she wants with disregard for the co-owners rights and the law.

In the last few years our condo has gone from 30% foreign ownership to the maximum 49% so we have gained enough strength to try to improve things. But this takes a hel_l of a lot of effort.

We know a lot of thai owners have not paid dues. Despite our requests the manager has still not yet provided a list of overdue accounts, since first requesting almost two years ago. AND the request was through the committee (we managed to get one farang on the committee then).

Yet the manager produces her own list to bar people from voting recently. Many farang???? Could it be a case of when and who she wants? We don't know and cant find out. The developer is not included and still has his votes yet we don't know if he is paying anything for his units. She barred a large unit area holder who has a very well documented dispute.

Very good isn't it that the manager can do and sign off anything she wants to, such as clearance of outstanding dues without any accountability.

Excellent that nobody can check!

We had no AGM last year despite repeated requests the manager hold it, and no accounts.

We submitted the 25% request for a EGM early this year and the manager told us it would be held then cancelled it. She did not comply with it.

Because she has persistently and deliberately refused to comply with the law many co-owners don't believe they should pay the money to her until she does comply with legal obligations, has the vote for the new committee and we resolve the issue over who are not paying. Other courses of action all have no effect.

Why should we all pay if many people do not and nothing is done about it?

Also, DO YOU give money to people who donot want to account for it??

She held an agm a few months ago and refused to have a vote for new committee, despite co-owners in the majority demanding it!!

She arranged for another meeting then cancelled it.

Finally after several months of us trying to get a vote for a new committee she recently held the meeting with this on the agenda. But the meeting had to be closed because there were too many disputes over her application of the new law.

Since when is a new law retrospective?? Is that how things work here in Thailand?

Should the six months not be from the date of the new law??

Are there any legal eagles out there who can clarify please.

Also I still have to try and establish without doubt that the non-voting statement is in 18/1.

We have a second meeting to vote again shortly so we would welcome any further comments.

Regards

Jojothai

CLARIFICATION HELP Please

I have posted my query under topic 200487 but that one does not show up under search on condominium act, and does not have many views compared to this topic. so I trust you dont mind me repeating it here.

Refer to the translations of the new condo act posted on thai visa and section 18/1.

Section 18/1. The penalties definitions need clarifying. This topic provides the link to pattaya city expats that confirms 20% appears to be a cap refer

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/redirect.php...le%26sid%3D1185

HOWEVER we at our condo have co-owners also refused vote at an EGM because of non payment of dues over 6 months.

We are told an interpretation of thai 18/1 stating the following

, the penalty fees shall be up to 20%, and the co-owner may be subject to cessation of uses of common services or utilities, and shall not be entitled to vote in general meetings.

ALL the english translations I have seen of the new condo act do not show the last item.

CAN ANYBODY please confirm if this exclusion from voting is included and therefore correct.

Please note that should this be correct, then:

If you have dispute over mis-management of your condo (and even if it is documented). And you donot pay your dues in order to force action, then you had better now reconsider. If over six months the new rule takes away your rights in general meetings and in particular the power to vote for censure or change of management.

Grateful for any help and clarifications, Thanks

jojothai

CLARIFICATION HELP Please

Refer to the posted translations of the new condo act section 18/1.

Section 18/1 penalties definitions need clarifying. 20% appears to be a cap see Topic 194689 to the link

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/redirect.php...le%26sid%3D1185

HOWEVER we at our condo have co-owners also refused vote an an EGM because of non payment of dues over 6 months.

We are told an interpretation of thai 18/1 stating the following

In case the overdue is six months or more, the penalty fees shall be up to 20%, and the co-owner may be subject to cessation of uses of common services or utilities, and shall not be entitled to vote in general meetings.

ALL the english translations I have seen of the new condo act do not show the last item.

CAN ANYBODY please confirm if this exclusion from voting is included and therefore correct.

Please note that should this be correct, then:

If you have dispute over mis-management of your condo (and even if it is documented). And you donot pay your dues in order to force action, then you better now reconsider. If over six months the new rule takes away your rights in general meetings and in particular the power to vote for censure or change of management.

Grateful for any help and clarifications, Thanks

jojothai

Hi Unski

Thanks for your response.

Best to confirm in reality and Singapore looks the most certain so I am very grateful for somebody confirming.

There are reports of people being refused in Penang, and the WP3 letter is on their official list of requirements.

The WP3 letter is also on the London UK list!

You are correct that Singapore do not issue mutiple entry Non B. This has been clearly stated many times in the forum.

As you say, this should not be aproblem as afterward I go through all the normal routines back here in Thailand of getting WP, then new multi entry visa and longer work permit.

Thanks again

Jojo

I am a 52 yo British National, worked in Thailand with a work permit previously. Now found new job and need to start the work document process again. I have read this forum a lot recently and it has provided very valuable advice on Visa runs.

Now it is my turn to ask for help - regarding the WP3 form and letter from the Ministry of Labour.

I hear this is a requirement for a Non-Imm B visa in Penang and checked Hong Kong and Singapore which both do not seem to require it.

I rang Singapore and the message is clear that it is not required. Just the normal sponsor letter, company docs (certified true copies), application , photos, etc.

Has anyone recently been to Singapore to get the Non-Imm B and can confirm this is the case.

I dont want to go and find different.

thanks and regards

jojo