thaiwanderer

1995 had a massive flood too, but what constructive was done after that?

Some might draw a line between that and the 1997 crisis.

Thank God I moved out of LOS after 12 years there.

In Europe and USA Thai's buy land own land and businesses 100%, they can do whatever a local can do without paying anything more for that. They can even ship money out of the country without any hassle. After a few years as a law abiding tax paying immigrant they can get a new nationality.

Why do the Westerners (Falangs) do that? Well they see any immigrant who work and pay there taxes as a valuable member of the society who help build up the wealth of that particular country.

Surely we have an amount of Thai's who come and commit crime, contribute nothing and the like. However these few elements speak for themselves and do not represent the rest of them, hence the laws and attitude is positive until you as a person proves this wrong, then you are penalized and not your race or creed. Thailand signed a document where this is supposed to be the law of the land in Thailand too, however they do not adhere to the document they signed, it basically is not worth the paper it's written on, it was just another lie to the rest of the world to look good on paper without meaning or doing as it states.

The Thai racist laws is a sign of fear, incompetence and not understanding economy. That said however the Thai economy and country seems to float along whatever stupid stuff there government comes up with. Float along is the word as there is a huge amount of poverty, and it is still an underdeveloped country. Had the leaders managed the country better had the entire Thai population done much better, to hide incompetence by spreading fear of foreigners, confiscate land and deport investors does nothing good for the nation and it's people. Some rich people buy up the land dead cheap underhand from the confiscating department. Some few get greased palms and a rich man get a steal. Then they aim for next cycle of idiot foreigners who buy, invest, build up and throw them out. It has worked before and they believe they can continue this forever. As long as foreigners put there money into the nation they will continue. The development suffer, the population suffer and the foreigners suffer. Who cares some white uniform got greased and a rich person got richer.

Thailand in my humble opinion has too many ignorant selfish people, and a very bad attitude for right and wrong. It is a great place to go for a short holiday when ignorance is a funny story when you return home, but I would never live there again until they change the laws and attitude. The day you actually can live in peace without fear for the government there I can see a massive leap for the nation and it's people, until then they will float along as a banana republic.

Fully agreed.....gd post :jap:

Not at all. It confuses Bard's desires with Thailand's needs.

They only need to knock on your door for it to be a problem for you, a nationwide crackdown / policy change is never required. All it needs is a jealous / interested near neighbour or a curious official - who needn't 'upset the apple cart' by looking at your legal structure. 'Everyone does it' is no defence and nor is the original 'mistake' of an official since no liability attaches to that.

If the procedure you describe in the last paragraph above was so 'correct' why the transfer after registration? It clears one very small hurdle (and only by putting the transaction in a certain order) but offers little or no protection to even a cursory review.

To the extent that you have beneficial use and control, you are in breach. Various precautions can be taken but they do not legitimise or make the structure immune.

Risk is a very personal matter but let's not confuse appetite for it with any sort of protection.

A perfect example of:

Don't confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up

If you bother to re-read it or have read it correctly the first time you'll see that it's not.

Your very limited experience and your mind is already made up - that's fine as its your money.

But let's not extrapolate that to any degree of certainty - accept it for what it is and you'll never get burnt no matter what happens.

For what it is worth.......

I own a lot in a development in the name of a Thai company, set up by a lawyer, and am in the process of building a house

The developer is building another house behind mine and has erected a wall between the two properties. To insure that this wall is not encroaching on my property I went to the Satahip Land Office to request a survey of the property line

They kindly offered to type up the minutes of a meeting that I as the Director of the company held, with myself, at which time "we" agreed to request a survey from the Land Office

The only inconvenience that I had was having to drive all the way back to Pattaya to get my company seal for these minutes

I paid 300 THB for the "minutes" and 2,900 THB for the survey. At no time did anyone mention any problems with the company owning the land and the house, and IMHO, they facilitated the transaction

So if this proverbial knock at the door occurs there are sure going to be an awful lot of people having to explain just how this system is illegal

What everyone forgets to mention is that a Farang owning a company is completely legal in this country, their ownership of the company is just diluted by having other Thais as shareholders

The correct procedure is that a Thai (the lawyer) forms a company and that company legally purchases the land. The lawyer then sells the company (and it's assets (the land)) to the foreigner, who then changes the Directorship and shareholders and then registers the land in the company name, after paying all the appropriate taxes and fees. The land issue is secondary, the main issue is that the foreign ownership of a limited company in Thailand is legal since it's formation and maintenance is regulated by the Department of Business Development, Ministry of Commerce, under the appropriate sections of The Civil and Commercial Code

They only need to knock on your door for it to be a problem for you, a nationwide crackdown / policy change is never required. All it needs is a jealous / interested near neighbour or a curious official - who needn't 'upset the apple cart' by looking at your legal structure. 'Everyone does it' is no defence and nor is the original 'mistake' of an official since no liability attaches to that.

If the procedure you describe in the last paragraph above was so 'correct' why the transfer after registration? It clears one very small hurdle (and only by putting the transaction in a certain order) but offers little or no protection to even a cursory review.

To the extent that you have beneficial use and control, you are in breach. Various precautions can be taken but they do not legitimise or make the structure immune.

Risk is a very personal matter but let's not confuse appetite for it with any sort of protection.

Half a year ago, I was naive enough to be seriously considering and looking for land on a waterway in Chachoengsao.

Boy, was I in Ga Ga Land and not thinking.

But this article ... "Duh, do you think so?"

Of course this contrived and intentional direction of the water has had a strong impact on PERCEIVED land values.

Do you think it was an accident?

INSIDER information is priceless.

Advance knowledge of the PMs insidious water management plan was certainly shared with cronies and other gang members MONTHS in advance.

Do you really think they just sat there and ignored the monsoon rains in the North?

NO WAY!

Taksin & gang members saw a business opportunity and took it.

Do NOT be misled by the staged appearance and situation of apparent:

• confusion
• contradiction
• misinformation
• disinformation
• vacillation
• incompetence
• crying

Everything went according to plan and everything continues to go according to plan.

Scams are always based on making YOU think you are smarter than the person running the scam.

Drastic changes make big opportunities to exploit price differentials.

Manipulation makes money.

It's an ancient tactic of the big money boys.

And the only reason there is a rift between guys cut from the same cloth -- SONDHI and TAKSIN -- is because Sondhi did NOT get the insider info about a FOREX scam and Thai Baht manipulation that Taksin ran a number of years ago.

So artificial manipulation of apparently "uncontrollable" forces has long been a tool in the shed of these rich and heartless people.

Manipulation and exploitation of land prices and the mass purchase of large areas of land is CERTAINLY part of the plan.

DO NOT SELL!

Demand effective flood management systems and policies.

Take water management 100% out of the hands of politicians.

Put water management 100% in the hands of water management experts and we can get another good century of use out of our flooded areas.

DO NOT LET THE RICH BUY UP ALL THE REAL ESTATE CHEAP.

Think. Vote, Fight back. Resist. Demand change.

DON'T SELL.

I know that's hard when a class war has been waged against you but we must try.

United we stand and are strong.

Divided ... well we are screwed.

Do I sense some bitterness?

While you aren't entirely off target regarding politics, the greater part of the water (mis-)management precipitating the floods cannot be blamed on the current administration.

What change do you hope for with TV members' voting rights or lack thereof?

The business will be a legal partnership. But as I mentioned in my previous post, even if my wife was the sole signatory on the land lease, and even if only her name appears on the building permit, and even if I do <deleted> all to help with this business etc etc, I am still legally entitled to 50% of the business/assets on divorce, (and vice-versa if I were the signatory and she did <deleted> all). That is Thai law pertaining to the assets of married couples where those assets have been acquired after the marriage.

Simon

No worries, I wasn't casting aspertions - just thinking aloud on the possible tax implications, rather than who might be entitled to what should you ever divorce.

@ThaiWanderer, according to Thai law, for married couples what is hers is mine, (and vice-versa) - for every asset acquired after marriage. So this new hotel is a joint business which would have to be split 50/50 on divorce, (and both of us individually assessed for tax etc). My interest in having my name on the land rental and building plans, (and anywhere else that I can put it), is simply to ensure that should the marriage break up, (and I sincerely hope it does not) - then I have more proof of joint ownership of the business than on the previous occasion.

I had to pay the blood-sucking OrBorTor another 1,000 baht just to print the building plans again with my wife's name on them (He actually suggested that I printed my wife's name on lots of little bits of paper and glue them over my name on each page of the plan - I suggested that his printer was better than mine...)

Simon

Is the business going to be a registered partnership, co ltd or other? Is the building going to be transferred to that relevant legal personality or held in her / your / your both personal names?

The company structure will be set up 100% legally in accordance with current Thai law. If that at some stage is open to attack by the authorities, then at least I will not be alone with the problem! Once the BP is sorted (which will take 2 to 4 months, I am told), the Thai tendency towards grandfathering should make it reasonably secure, although I realise that things change and there are no guarantees. My concern really is whether I will ever be able to sell it again, and nobody can tell me the answer but it seems that there is a real problem. It took me 9 months to find this place and weeks of negotiations to reach agreement, but it seems that it would be better to spend another 9 months looking for a house that has no problems than buy a nicer place that may have an in-built time bomb. Difficult, and a personal decision, I know.

With the utmost respect the lines about current thai law / grandfathering etc are typical lawyer speak. To the extent the structure allows you beneficial use and control of the land it is in breach of the prohibition on foreign ownership. What is currently tolerated may well change but you don't need a countrywide crackdown to fall foul - only you and yours need to be looked at to have a problem. This has been discussed many times in this section of the forum and there is no consensus since its a very personal thing involving attitude to risk and people's own money - at least you accept there are no guarantees!

I haven't seen the property / price etc but am surprised one of the others you've looked at over 9 months that don't have the same problem aren't now far more attractive.

Good luck whichever way you go.

All this heartburn over the legality of a 22 year old building permit. Is the company who is going to own the house 100% legitimate; i.e., no nominees?

There is a difference between saying there is no problem (now, for her) and being aware of the potential problems he may be taking on before making a decision.

IIRC OP is happy with the legal structure, though of course that may be an area which should raise more concern - but its not as if that hasn't had a few threads here.

Full due dilligence by your lawyer on the plot and building/s. Already done.

Owner to get the 'corrected' building permit before sale and your lawyer to get formal confirmation they are standing by it. Already done.

Negotiate a healthy discount. Already had a 20% discount, but now thinking of asking for some 'extras'.

Accept the legal faults aren't and cannot be entirely remedied, a knock on the door may come at any time in the future and even if it doesn't on your re-sale you may struggle for a buyer / healthy price. This is the bit that prompted me to make the OP. If I am having doubts under the current system, then in 10 years time, when the rules may have changed or been tightened up, then future buyers will probably have even greater reservations.

All to do with your comfort levels, the amount of money involved to you etc

No one here can give cast iron guarantees- and won't be making up to you any shortfall in the future if it turns out they are wrong.

Sure I'm aware of far worse legal problems but its a balance not just between this house / land and another but this versus another without such problems.

The discount should equate to how much you value the risk.

Is the BP now corrected? What exactly does it say?

OP - I'm not saying you shouldn't buy, rather be aware of what you're buying and if wish to proceed protect youself as much possiible.

Any suggestions how?

Full due dilligence by your lawyer on the plot and building/s.

Owner to get the 'corrected' building permit before sale and your lawyer to get formal confirmation they are standing by it.

Negotiate a healthy discount.

Accept the legal faults aren't and cannot be entirely remedied, a knock on the door may come at any time in the future and even if it doesn't on your re-sale you may struggle for a buyer / healthy price.

Small issue against the main issue but presumably tax liability on transfer from wife to you / the business?

If it gets resolved to your satisfaction and you go ahead with the purchase then I would suggest if you are looking to sell in the future you provide the purchaser the original Building Permit along with the new BP and an explanation of the reasons why there are 2 documents to prevent any possibility of a claim of fraud.

Fair point.

I've spoken to another lawyer who tells me that this sort of problem with the BP is quite common in Pattaya. He said that he deals on average with around 4 cases a year, and he has never had a problem getting a new BP issued. Apparently City Hall has no problem with this, it's routine here. He said that there is no under-the-table payment to officials necessary.

Then if you have all the documentation as I suggest it should be no problem for the lawyer of any future purchaser to assure him that everything is in order.

Edit: it's only fraud if you deliberately misrepresent the facts, if you declare the true age of the property you would be OK.

2 lawyers doesn't equal all lawyers / clients now or in the future.

Officials' conduct now isn't necessarily right and legal and their attitudes may change before a re-sale.

A new building permit is not a declaration of compliance its essentially a false document which they may not stand by in the future.

Fraud should obviously be avoided but being honest about the faults doesn't remove faults.

OP - I'm not saying you shouldn't buy, rather be aware of what you're buying and if wish to proceed protect youself as much possiible.

One other thing I forgot to mention, and I'm not sure if it has a bearing, is that according to the paperwork the house was built with a mortgage from a bank here. Isn't it a bit strange that a bank would lend money to build an illegal structure? Or was that common practice pre-1997?

Has no bearing on thee potential problems you might face.

There was zoning / restrictions then. Later development of the regulations may also apply retrospectively (especially for illegal builds such as this).

Are you suggesting that at some point in time a "long-established village" was not zoned for residential construction. A building permit was issued for a house and a think everybody can agree that a house was built. Building permit details aside, a house is a house and there is nothing said by the OP to suggest otherwise.

Long established now or 22 years ago? Its not clear.

Who says the entire village falls within the same zone / restrictions?

I'm not suggesting its not a house (if it wasn't that might be another problem!) but residential zoning need not allow any house.

Even with a building permit that matches the actual house, compliance with zoning should not be assumed.

Whose to say the structure was not built 22 years ago according to the original building permit. To try and get a new building permit dated 2011, or even postdated 22years, and reflecting the current design could, in my opinion, lead to fraud. The house is 22 years old, end of story.

The house is 22 years old and, according to the structure that is described on the building permit, it was built illegally. Presumably that was an honest mistake, as I am told that Pattaya 22 years ago was a much less organised town with far less bureaucracy, so people didn't worry too much about all the details. I don't know if that's true or not?

Everything's relative!

Getting a building permit and then not building in accordance with it may have been an oversight / a bit tardy .......or the actual build might never have been able to get approved.

As I said earlier compliance with zoning shouldn't be assumed.

What zoning in Pattaya 22 years ago. Any current zoning laws would not have been applied retroactively.

There was zoning / restrictions then. Later development of the regulations may also apply retrospectively (especially for illegal builds such as this).

Whose to say the structure was not built 22 years ago according to the original building permit. To try and get a new building permit dated 2011, or even postdated 22years, and reflecting the current design could, in my opinion, lead to fraud. The house is 22 years old, end of story.

The house is 22 years old and, according to the structure that is described on the building permit, it was built illegally. Presumably that was an honest mistake, as I am told that Pattaya 22 years ago was a much less organised town with far less bureaucracy, so people didn't worry too much about all the details. I don't know if that's true or not?

Everything's relative!

Getting a building permit and then not building in accordance with it may have been an oversight / a bit tardy .......or the actual build might never have been able to get approved.

As I said earlier compliance with zoning shouldn't be assumed.

AFAIK the building permit cannot be legitimately issued retrospectively.

It is a permission to build, not a declaration that although the existent building didn't have permission 22 years ago now the official finds that it is legal and sanctions its continuing existence.

That's not to say in reality a building permit cannot necessarily be obtained now (with essentially false details) but no liability attaches to the mistake of an official (here, in issuing it) and future officials may have different attitudes to current incumbents.

Sure, if it can be obtained then its better than not (and should be done before the purchase) but IMHO it provides no real protection should a problem arise.

There may never be a problem and a future purchaser on re-sale may be unconcerned but a new permit for an old building doesn't cleanse it.

Physically the property may be ideal but its legal status cannot be ignored when comparing it to other properties with no such problems - evaluating the scale of that disadvantage is obviously a matter for the OP - if still wishing to proceed I'd be looking at negotiating a healthy discount.

Also I would not rely on the existence and appearance of neighbouring properties as proof of compliance with zoning.

OT - how is the property holding up after 22 years?

If the house is 22 years old i am quite surprised there is a building permit at all. I think you are making an unnecessary mouintain out of a molehill, InterestedObserver is spot on....

There is a building permit as per the OP, its just that its wrong.

Even with an older building - current zoning might affect it.

Anyone here successfully got a correct BP retrospectively?

Technically its an illegal build and demolition could be ordered without guarantee of the ability to rebuild anything.

If the BP issue isn't sorted by her before sale you are buying the potential problem.

If its so easy she can (and for your purposes, should) get it done before sale.

She's apparently not had any issues in 22 years but you aren't her and its up to you to assess the risk.

Yes, that's the way my lawyer explained it. The owner has to get the matter sorted out before I pay her anything. If Pattaya City Hall decides to demolish it when she shows them that it has been built illegally, then that is not my problem. I'm just wondering if the end-result of all this, although apparently legal, will potentially have any other problems?

Not sure what you mean by potentially having any other problems - does it need anymore?

If you buy without it being sorted and the problem arises you may have to pay for the demolition, may not be able to rebuild anything and will have land worth very little compared to what you've paid.

The other potential problem might depend on whether you will be holding the land via an illegal structure?

Technically its an illegal build and demolition could be ordered without guarantee of the ability to rebuild anything.

If the BP issue isn't sorted by her before sale you are buying the potential problem.

If its so easy she can (and for your purposes, should) get it done before sale.

She's apparently not had any issues in 22 years but you aren't her and its up to you to assess the risk.

@Monty - I hear what you say, but these documents have nothing to do with a business (right now).

The land lease contract is signed in my name, not a business, and my name is on the chanote.

The project plans are signed in my name only, and are plans for some guestrooms, my own bedroom and a kitchen. Right now, there is no business. The business only comes into being when it opens as a business, and when that happens, there will be a legal partnership (with my wife) and I will have a WP as manager etc.

Perhaps its because its clearly not an entirely private residential matter?

Moving forward - once BP, built, partnership set up and guesthouse running will the land and or lease be transferred to the partnership?

If a piece of land is landlocked then it must be given 'right of way'--this is the way it works. It will be up to the land office to decide whether it's thru your land or the swampy dirt road, but access he will have. Village headmen, lawyers and walls are not going to help with this. But you can decide what part of your land is given up for his access ie: it doesn't have to be in a straight line.

Also please enlighten everyone---what is 1 yarn (perhaps ngarn?).

It is my understanding that this 1 yarn [sic] land locked plot already has a Chanote, although supposedly lost, that does not include access. The time to demand access has long passed. I assume that all the surrounding land has been officially surveyed, partitioned and Chanotes issued.The land locked owner needs to negotiate a servitude with somebody.

The time never passes if its landlocked.

After Chanotes how been issued the land is no longer "partially transferred", per Section 1350 .

I disagree. It always remains partitioned or partially transferred - only a further partition / partial transfer would alter that.

If a piece of land is landlocked then it must be given 'right of way'--this is the way it works. It will be up to the land office to decide whether it's thru your land or the swampy dirt road, but access he will have. Village headmen, lawyers and walls are not going to help with this. But you can decide what part of your land is given up for his access ie: it doesn't have to be in a straight line.

Also please enlighten everyone---what is 1 yarn (perhaps ngarn?).

It is my understanding that this 1 yarn [sic] land locked plot already has a Chanote, although supposedly lost, that does not include access. The time to demand access has long passed. I assume that all the surrounding land has been officially surveyed, partitioned and Chanotes issued.The land locked owner needs to negotiate a servitude with somebody.

The time never passes if its landlocked.

There were two other chanotes, unrelated to that landlocked 1yarn between the lane way and that 1 yarn. That 1 yarn has never had access. The closest bit of that lane way is ever to the 1 yarn was about 130m, in a straight line. On the two Chanotes that we own, it has never had rights of access, nor thought the land that one of our chanotes had access through.

The 1 yar is less than 20m from what we believe to be a legal gov Soi, but that owner has also denied access.

Much of our land, and particularly near this 1yarn was swamp, we have spent millions of baht of over 3500 truck loads of rock and dirt fill and attain full legal access. Now this jerk says great, I will use that for my house.

Lots of fun and games, I will keep you posted so more people can learn. At least the local "headman" is supporting us. He took great offence when the jerk told him he had never got more than one replacement chanote and several have been found now.

Headman also want us to buy it, so that the proceeds can be dived up between the people who have been ripped off, he is trying to at least do the right thing by everyone concerned.

having trouble visualising it - how does he currently access?