thaiwanderer

20M is a lot of money to some people and not to others.

20M is a lot of money to pay for a house in Phuket considering the quality of the building

and the unskilled labours used who cannot even put a light switch on the right way.

The only way you can establish the true value of property in Phuket is to take a good look

around yourself, then you see the huge variation in the prices of properties that should

be priced the same taking land value in account.

I do not think there are many mug newbies among the Indians, Chinese and Russians

If you can pass the parcel / hot potato 'value' need not be a great concern regardless of light switches etc..

Perhaps less % mug newbies but you also have to factor in how much of the purchase monies was come by.

'True value' is an unhelpful concept in an alchemist's market.

15 to 20 million baht is a lot of money in anyones books

Yes i agree with you, but when you compare the property i mentioned against another property

i was offered at 15.8M it makes the true value of the 15.8 property 6 to 7M

Asking prices need not necessarily have any basis in reasonable reality just as heavily discounted asking prices may still be unreasonable.

However what is reasonable when there are still mug newbie punters around is a slippery concept.

(and 15 to 20 million isn't alot of money in anyone's books - perceived value may be more narrowly viewed).

I think it's the "outsiders with full pockets and muddled mind" that have kept the market on the boil for many years, however, I see this decreasing significantly over the next few years as the GFC has hit retirees hard and farang finally are realising all is not what it seems in Thailand.

The queue of fuddled minded farangs wanting to drop their loads is as long as ever, but the GFC has reduced the size of their money bags.

In the west, commercial lease increases are usually linked to the CPI and "key money" does not exist.

Rents in the west are not increased based on the landlord's suspicion of what he thinks the tenant is able to pay.

If a tenant fails to factor in key money in assessing the total rental that is entirely their own look out.

A sensible landlord anywhere in the world (invluding 'the west' wherever that is) will charge whatever the market will bear, in amongst other considerations.

Any rental market that has a number of outsiders will full pockets and muddled minds will likely have a sector charging far more than the local market would even consider.

I see other posters talk about the insignificance of the non-Thai market in Phuket - but is that based on property size or cost ratio?

From what I am seeing, Thai landlords do not care about the political unrest, the over inflation of the baht, the lower cost of neighbouring countries, supply and demand etc etc. All they care about is raising the rent to get more money per month, per year or per lease.

And how exactly does that differ from non-Thai landlords?

Separate from general dfeportation issue, presumably he is now guilty of overstay?

Yes, i 100% stand by with what i said, my apartment is unrentable but when they have cut my electric illegally and i'm getting mucked about so despicably in the eyes of the law i'll make it rentable. Again on the advice of my lawyer i pay the original legal lease agreement fee's, not there inflated fee's with no maintenance carried out. In the eyes of the law i pay full fee's, no amendments or contracts have ever been presented or signed to agree the inflated fee's, It's not me saying the disconnection is illegal, it's the phuket police and my lawyer and the phuket provincial courts. I am the lessee, the Director is the lessor. The dispute over the maintenance is a separate issue and if i have paid my electric fully up to date without any clauses in lease agreements or contracts stating reasons to cut electric, then it's deemed 100% illegal. My original query was does anyone know really how to get the electric reconnected without the expense of going to court. A intermediate governing body between the police and the court system.

There is no intermidiary. Pay your lawyer and instruct them to file a case forthwith (since you are so convinced the electricity is an entirely separate issue).

(I queried the 'unrentable' since you seemed to be saying the 'clear cut' electricity issue gave rise to a loss of rent claim but if for non-electric reasons the apartment wasn't rentable anyway that doesn't hold true)

Is it a Condoinium or merely an Apartment?

just a quick update, seemly to can seek lost revenue (if i can prove my apartment is worth 20-30,000 rental income per month), as there electricity disconnection was 100% illegal, my lawyer says easy to get the electric back via the courts, but suggests to inform fellow owners to file there grievances and complaints with the patong then Phuket town police, the Director will be run ragged, and get owners together as a collective, let the director know i'm in no hurry and at any time i can get a court order to have the electric reconnected.

You said it was unrentable remember?

While I sympathise with your predicament I suspect the elecricity being cut off may have been due to your not paying fees?

Seems you've unilaterally decided to do work yourself when not allowed to and hoping to bill them - born out of frustration I'm sure, but in relation to the general problems (electricty aside) you should band together with other owners at the very least.

Is this a lease condo or lease apartment? If the latter how legal is it?

in any case was none of this envisaged and adequately dealt with in the management agreement?

I have more than a few doubts about this story.

Naming and shaming is important for Thais, and thus have strict laws with unlimited financial liability and up to one year inprisonment for namer and shamer. As visitors or foreign residents in this country, we must respect that. Thus it is against Forum rules.

As long as shops/business/persons name and exact location is not mentioned, negative critics can usually be posted and accepted as not in breach of law.

Although opely stating someone is a muderer is apparently fair comment.

Not a discussion on forum rules, merely an observation.

When Police has issued a warrant or made an arrest, it is Thai culture to go public with accuseds name, age, origin and photo. Law allows it as it in publics interest to be aware. When its been published by mainstream media, it can be posted on TV

I won't attempt to derail this thread or criticise moderation but there is a world of difference between stating someone has been accused / warrant issued etc and the member comments that were made on a recent farang on farang alleged murder.

Intuitively strange that such comments were allowed but identifying a business that someone feels aggrevied about over tiny issues is such a no-no.

I will bear this in mind in the future.

I have always been curious about expat life in Sri Lanka.

Arthur C. Clarke and pre-pubescent boys is one facet.

And Thailand no longer attracts that crowd?

Thaiwanderer,

Under Thai law the owner of the land does not necessarily have to be the same as the owner of the structures on the land. The land and buildings could have two separate owners. The title deed (Chanote) is the document that the Land Department uses to record land ownership and register encumbrances such as mortgages, leases, usufructs, and superifices. The building permit or sales agreement is the document the Land Department uses to determine building ownership. If a foreigner registers a house sales agreement or obtains a building permit in his name and subsequently builds a house on land that he has leased or secured land rights too, that foreigner is the legal owner of the house as determined by the Land Department.

Thanks for clarifying.

One issue I've come accross is building permits being given in the name of the builder or lawyer because the client doesn't (yet) have a thai address.

Where the buyer is a foreign company technically they never will have (unless perhaps register office in Thailand)?

I suspect this may either be an invented problem or a real problem that is smoothed over with some monetary grease at times so really only a techincial issue perhaps but has anyone come accross these issues?

4. Yes, you can get a building permit for a house on leased land.

Some good advice here, but note that a building permit only indicates that you have permission to build the approved design in that specific location. It does not confer ownership of any sort real estate interest (eg fee simple / usufruct / leasehold interest).

But the building permit can lead to legal house ownership by the foreigner.

Forgive me for asking but how does a building permit do that?

The crucial element for ownership of the building would I imagine be a construction contract or house sale and purchase agreement.

The building permit (along with the lease or whatever) evidences permission to build that buiding on that plot and hence that the building itself is 'legal' (rather than the issue of who owns the building)?

Naming and shaming is important for Thais, and thus have strict laws with unlimited financial liability and up to one year inprisonment for namer and shamer. As visitors or foreign residents in this country, we must respect that. Thus it is against Forum rules.

As long as shops/business/persons name and exact location is not mentioned, negative critics can usually be posted and accepted as not in breach of law.

Although opely stating someone is a muderer is apparently fair comment.

Not a discussion on forum rules, merely an observation.

I'm struggling to see how Thailand's legal system is developing rather than merely being different from other legal systems (in one sense all legal systems are developing, though civil versions like Thailand's are actually more fully formed and less developing by definition - but anyhow I don't think that was what Scubbabuddha meant by 'developing' anyway).

All these posts are pure speculation regarding these leases.. mine included....i think we all have to wait untill we have a test case to see what the outcome will be...this thread has been very interesting.. and some very good opinions and examples of what to look for and what to do if you are thinking of buying property here...i know i have learned a lot from it... good luck to the OP in his venture in buying here.. in Phuket.. always.. remeber....BUYER BEWARE...

There is no speculation regarding the law as it stands now in that only a maximum of 30 years can be registered & up to 3 years does not require registration. I don't think the test case will help as legal precedent does not always count in Thailand.

i AGREE.. The law is as it stands.....what i should have said is regarding 30+ leases

Not according to Katabeachbum who appears to maintain a valid registration has been made of a residential lease with an expiry date beyond 30 years after registration.

He was basically charged the equivilant of the average national days wage in Thailand, for a 2 minute job.

Many people seem willing to repeatedly pay more than the national minimum wage for the services of Thais for far shorter time than a full days work.

The overcharge came after he didn't ask the price first.

He was basically charged the equivilant of the average national days wage in Thailand, for a 2 minute job.

There was a thread recently about a similar situation.

Everyone, everytime, anywhere and for everything should ask the price first, or you may be confronted with a similar situation.

How much was the OP's time worth in avoiding the longer journey or doing it himself?

He was charged appropriately for not having asked beforehand and even then not having queried it afterwards - instead he starts a thread asking whether he was ripped off.

While I assume his sarcasm in posing the thread title as a question, slightly OT - is it a rip off if you don't feel or know you've been ripped off?

(although paying for what you think is 60 years and getting 30 does make a difference on 'value for money')

Where's the rip off?

The 79thb fix didn't work, OP wanted to avoid driving the distance back there as well and didn't want to fix it himself or ask the prices before hand.

My understanding was that he has a 30 year lease in his name and he is currently residing in his premises. The very day his 30 year lease expires, the next 30 year lease starts, so, there are not two leases "active" at the one time and the second 30 year lease is a completely new lease. From memory, I think he mentioned it maybe in his son's name - not sure. I would assume all the papers are signed already etc etc - all he has to do is present them to the land office at the end of his 30 year lease.

I would ask the question though, at the end of his 30 year lease, what if the documents required for registration change, what if the Thai land owner sells or gifts the land, what if the Thai land owner dies etc. You would be presenting documents with names and signatures from a previous owner. How does that work?

Maybe I have misunderstood your post as well. The only way around that would be to register the second lease at the same time you registered your first lease and I thought that couldn't be done as well, otherwise, everyone would be doing it and it would be standard practice.

if its as you say, then the 2nd 30 years isn't registered (and cannot be yet).

If you doubt my knowledge or intentions and do not wish to take decent legal advice perhaps transfer this thread to the real estate section and see what some of the frequent more sensible posters there make of it.

I am not having a go at you at all. You have either been misinformed or you do not understand exactly what has actually been registered.

There is simply no way you have a (valid) regsitered residential lease term that ends more than 30 years after the date of registration - if you have what appears to be that then the 'registration' itself is worthless and provides absolutely no protection for anything beyond 30 years after the registration date.

Doesn't matter, the 2nd 30 years simply is not registered.

And even if by error or fraud it has been written on the chanote itself there is no liability for or protection arising from the incorrect actions of land office officials.

So how exactly is the 2nd 30 years registered as you claim?

In a lease that is attached to the chanote? = this does not mean the 2nd 30 years is registered.

Written onto the chanote itself? If so what's the precise wording? = no matter what it says the land office official's error doesn't provide any protection whatsoever and the 2nd 30 years isn't registered.

(the original intention may thereby be evidenced but that is not registration which will need to take place 30 years later with the co-operation of the land owner at that time).

it is registered and written on the back of the Chanotes (my copy and the copy filed in Land Office) like any other lease, except it expires year 2612 as I recall, and of course supported by an official tax reciept

end of discussion for me, you dont believe it and I dont care if you do, and you prefere to use words like fraud about land office employees to make your case

Whether the error was intentional or not it is plainly illegal, regardless of chanote and tax receipt which provide zero protection on this issue.

If you don't want to discuss it any further that's fine but (and this is not a personal criticism) you don't have the protection you think you have.

There is no error, there are Chanotes with 2 leaseterms to 2 different individuals at 2 different times registered.

Do you care to explain to TV readers why you consider 2 individuals to lease one property for 30 years each at 2 different times illegal, and why you accuse Phuket Landoffice or some of their higher ranking officers for being fraudent and involved in illlegal activities? Do you consider all Landoffices in Thailand issuing lease beyond 30 years from today to be fraudent too?

Would you care to present your claims directly to a Land office, or only on TV?

I made no such allegation of fraud - it was one possible explanation for the invalid registration - an error has been made intentionally or otherwise (If indeed the excess period has been 'registered' as you suggest - see my previous distinction).

(have you not heard of flying chanotes - were they legitimised by being 'registered'? no).

You hadn't mentioned 2 'separate' leases but unless i misunderstand your posts you are saying one of the leases has an expiry date longer than 30 years in the future from when it was presented at the land office. Whether that's defined as a 30 year lease starting after the expiry of the current lease or a 30 year lease starting in say 10 years from date of presentation - that is simply invalid as a registered interest (unless a commercial property in which case the maximum is 50 years but otherwise the rest remains true for those also).

A residential lease regsitered today simply cannot be more than 30 years. If for whatever reason the land office register it (and tax is paid etc) the excess period is nonetheless invalid.

Doesn't matter, the 2nd 30 years simply is not registered.

And even if by error or fraud it has been written on the chanote itself there is no liability for or protection arising from the incorrect actions of land office officials.

So how exactly is the 2nd 30 years registered as you claim?

In a lease that is attached to the chanote? = this does not mean the 2nd 30 years is registered.

Written onto the chanote itself? If so what's the precise wording? = no matter what it says the land office official's error doesn't provide any protection whatsoever and the 2nd 30 years isn't registered.

(the original intention may thereby be evidenced but that is not registration which will need to take place 30 years later with the co-operation of the land owner at that time).

it is registered and written on the back of the Chanotes (my copy and the copy filed in Land Office) like any other lease, except it expires year 2612 as I recall, and of course supported by an official tax reciept

end of discussion for me, you dont believe it and I dont care if you do, and you prefere to use words like fraud about land office employees to make your case

Whether the error was intentional or not it is plainly illegal, regardless of chanote and tax receipt which provide zero protection on this issue.

If you don't want to discuss it any further that's fine but (and this is not a personal criticism) you don't have the protection you think you have.

Buying a property, agree on a price, and the lease is a formality to enable you and your next to control it for an agreed time, or until you can become freehold owner or until you establish a co ltd, or until someone want to lease it for 30 years

I dont know how many Phuket lawyers register 30 and 30 years, but at least Sam in International Law office has done it. Dowroong, Phuket town office

Absolutely false.

The 2nd 30 years is not at all registered even if the lease within which it is mentioned is registered.

We disagreed on this a year ago, and we disagree today. I still have Chanote with 2x30 years on the back

i have also got a chanote title with 30 year + on mine to..but i dont know the true legality of it...

Doesn't matter, the 2nd 30 years simply is not registered.

And even if by error or fraud it has been written on the chanote itself there is no liability for or protection arising from the incorrect actions of land office officials.

So how exactly is the 2nd 30 years registered as you claim?

In a lease that is attached to the chanote? = this does not mean the 2nd 30 years is registered.

Written onto the chanote itself? If so what's the precise wording? = no matter what it says the land office official's error doesn't provide any protection whatsoever and the 2nd 30 years isn't registered.

(the original intention may thereby be evidenced but that is not registration which will need to take place 30 years later with the co-operation of the land owner at that time).