Renting A House And The Law..

[jingjingna]

Hi all,

I am six months into a house rental contract. I have agreed on a two year rental but constant invasion of my privacy by the owner of the house is causing me a headache to say the least.

I need to know what the laws are regarding my rights as a tenant. Does the law state that the owner can drop in unannounced whenever he/she feels like it, with very liitle or at times no notice at all?

Any upto date advice would be most welcomed!

Cheers

[billzant]

Dear Jinjingna,

How are you?

Have you signed the official Thai rental agreement? This refers to that. I don't know what official means but I have had two rental agreements and both landlords produced the same Thai rental agreement.

I had a problem with my landlord so I sat down with my Thai teacher and we translated the rental agreement. By our translation - not legal, item 4 paragraph 2 reads:-

The tenant agrees that the landlady or her representative can inspect the house at any time during the occupancy after properly informing the tenant of her wish to do so.

I understand that appropriate bodies respect this rental agreement, and if signed you might be able to enlist the help of the police.

Hope you are keeping well,

All the Best,

Bill Z

[astral]

Change the door locks..........

Keep the old ones so you can re-install when you leave.

You should be able to enjoy the property without unwarranted intrusion.

[jingjingna]

According to the contract that they have given me which is actually in English, it states that I am to permit the Lesoor or his appointed representative to enter the premisesand effect eventual repairs with adequate pre notice.

It does not state anywhere in the contract that the Lessor can turn up whenever they feel like it without notice which is what I am objecting to.

I would not mind if they came here to inspect the premises periodically, but so far I have six visits in the space of five months.

Twice they have brought potential buyers to have a nosey under the pretense that they are just looking at the 'plan' of the house.

Around 9.30pm one night another unannounced appearance and this time they had brought a monk along with them and said the house was haunted! They advised us they would return around 11.30am the next day ...eventually showed up around 9.00pm...I could go on and on but I really don't want to bore you guys with their outlandish behaviour...makes entertaining reading though!

[billzant]

Dear Jingjingna,

How are you?

My problem arose over a tenancy agreement written in English. It was negotiated with the French money and signed by the Thai partner. It was completely worthless, and conditions within it were completely ignored by the Frenchman and then his partner resulting in serious inconvenience and some expense to me. It was confirmed by reputable lawyers that the tenancy agreement was worthless as it was in English.

According to the English tenancy agreement I had a further year to stay. They decided to sell, put up the For Sale notice , and I was told that I could stay in the house 3 months after the sale of the house. The lawyer confirmed this was legal.

My point is that an English agreement appears to have no legal meaning, and I therefore don't know what your position would be. What is written about visiting and inspection is equivalent to the Thai version.

They are not abiding by the contract they have written, and they are not abiding by the conditions of the generally-accepted Thai contract.

There is no doubt that you should be able to enjoy your own privacy but you have unfortunately got dishonourable owners/lessors who don't respect that privacy.

I would suggest you seek advice from people with more knowledge of the powers that be in your area - police etc. but it seems to me that you will have nothing but problems with these lessors who are taking your money and not offering the service for it. If you have not invested a great deal of money then perhaps doing what I did and getting away from these types of user is your best solution.

Hope you are keeping well,

All the Best,

Bill Z

[quiksilva]

Im sorry but a lease agreement can be in any language so long as both parties agree that this contract will be valid under the laws of the kingdom of Thailand (or words to that effect).

There is no legislatiion that says that tenants have the right to peaceful enjoyment of the premises as you might in the UK so whatever is written in the contract is of paramount importance.

The softly, softly approach tends to work best in Thailand.

It sounds obvious but have you tried meeting to talk to the landlord to explain your concerns? Perhaps just try to agree on a definition of what reasonable prior access is and confirm it all as an addendum to the lease.

Give it a couple of conversations, but if that fails, write a letter to them and refer to the appropriate clause in the contract and try again. Best if this is done in Thai, not for legal purposes just so that they really understand where you are coming from.

In the meantime keep a detailed record of when she requests an inspection (if at all) and when she does it. Build up a picture of her behaviour, just to cover your ass, should you ever decide to walk at a later date.

Edited January 17, 2007 by quiksilva

[ProThaiExpat]

No lease agreement provision is going to really protect your interests in a Thai court with a Thai landlord.

Quiet Enjoyment is the concept your referring to and as previously posted, unheard of in Thai law as far as I know.

Even in the west, reasonableness is a tough issue to litigate. I like th eadvice previously given that you change your locks and then advise the landlord in writing that the premises are available for inspection on a given day of the week every couple of weeks and at no other times. If the date you choose is incovenient, in the same letter allow the landlord to pick the day and time every two weeks.

With the locks changed and you not operating applicances loudly, who is to say you are at home.

If in fact the landlord shows up un-announced, it is unacceptable behaviour and your letter should further state that 24 hour prior notice of "emergency" access is required but in no case admission will not be granted without a telephone call in advance of showing up at your door.

I built my home after renting a condo with a difficult landlord, there seem to be more of them in Thailand as there are not tenant rights as such. By the way, my landlord was Dutch.

I have been known to send friends to the corner public telephone to call and ask for an invitation when they show up un-announced at my door. Anything that works. Litigation is not the route for you to consider. With a cellphone, your landlord can't argue her right to a key in case she needs access in your absence.

Good luck, I don't envy your thorny problem. There are a lot of renter menbers of TV, hopefully they will respond with ideas that will help.

[jingjingna]

Thanks for your responses!

Billzant, I am somewhat surprised that your contract was not upheld just because it was written in English. I believe that a contract between a Thai and Falang is valid in either language.

Anyway, the latest scenario is that the owner is now willing to relieve me of the two year deal and I will definately take them up on their offer by giving them the required two months written notice.

I previously rented a house for two years and had no bother whatsoever and the owner lived in the next Soi. Often I would have to chase her to pay her the rent!

Anyway, I hope this is the end of this nonsense.

[billzant]

Im sorry but a lease agreement can be in any language so long as both parties agree that this contract will be valid under the laws of the kingdom of Thailand (or words to that effect). Quiksilva

Billzant, I am somewhat surprised that your contract was not upheld just because it was written in English. I believe that a contract between a Thai and Falang is valid in either language. jingjingna

When my situation occurred I cut and run in order to minimise losses. I was discussing another issue with lawyers not too far from this forum, and was advised, not formally, that my rights were that I could stay in the house 3 months from the date of sale. The lawyer appeared to concur that the rental agreement had to be in Thai.

Either way I suspect it would have cost me far more than I was willing to pay to test the case, and further the landlord did not have the money to pay me except what was tied up in the house. And I wasn't willing to go that far.

However I would like to know legally whether the contract written in English was valid.

No lease agreement provision is going to really protect your interests in a Thai court with a Thai landlord. ProThaiExpat

The previous landlord and my current one both seemed to accept the legality of the Thai document. Is this legality just a socially-accepted thing or is there some basis in Thai law or the courts? Thus appearing to contradict ProThaiExpat.

All very confusing.

Hope you are keeping well,

All the Best,

Bill Z

[ProThaiExpat]

Billzant: In a perfect world, all clearly drawn contracts, properly entered into, should be enforceable in court. However, it is not a perfect world.

Even in a western country with a respected judiciary and well settled landlord/tenant law and precedent, one party or the other most often feels they were deprived of justice for whatever reason, usually the court just didn't agree with them.

In countries like Australia, with strong tenant right laws, the odds of a tenant prevailing against a landlord are much higher than in Thailand, where there aren't such laws and so I would opine that as a tenant with the problem in Australia, you would probably prevail.

Most importantly, one must look to the remedy sought. What impact would a complaint for breach of a rental contract based on the facts recited here, tenants version, have on a court that can see mere inconvenience as the damages. After a lengthy court hearing with much testimony, translated from English, the evidentiary record would be of the "he said, she said" variety. Assuming that the translation is accurate, and the tenant was lucky that everything went his way and the judge was impartial and not biased against rich foreigners, the judge would most likely say the landlord was wrong, that no damages were shown, and the landlord advised to not continue the practice complained of.

A lawyer only interested in his fee might take such a case to court, but a lawyer who has his clients interest at heart would advise, as I have, that it is more likely than not that a satisfactory result and at some expense would not be achieved.

Most leases I have seen in Thailand are woefully inadequate in specicifity of language, such that they can be interpreted any which way. Since the amount in question is rarely very large and the chances of the lease being litigated is very small, whatever is written in these leases may seem adequate.

Commercial leases involving property of great value and rentals of high amounts often number in excess of 100 pages and multiple paragraphs are used to specify, as exactly as possible, the rights of the parties. The quoted lease provisions in question are woefully inadequate and thus allows a jurist to interpret them as he wishes, to the benefit of the party he likes better.

Absent specific laws covering the "right to quiet enjoyment" and "landlords rights of access" or case law "on all fours" with the factual scenario we have here, it is a crap shoot what a court might rule, even in a tenant favorable legal enviroment such as Australia.

One often hears that "a contract is worth the paper it is printed on" and that is because if the parties do not agree to what the lease provisons mean or are not willing to abide by the clear meaning of the words, there is no practical remedy, as the amounts involved are rarely sufficient to propel litigation and then the appeal, from whence case authority eminates.

As a general rule, don't accept any lease that is termed "a standard lease" as such a thing doesn't exist except in the mind of the party advancing its provisons. Take any legal document your are asked to sign and rewrite it until it makes iclear to you what the meaning is. Landlords want you to sign "landlord leases", ones clearly designed to favor landlords and tenants should want "tenant leases" which are exactly the opposite. Negotiations are usually involved to ameliorate one or the other.

Tenants asked to sign a "landlord lease" need to determine what are "deal breaking issues" and hopefyully eliminate them from the lease before signing, particulary if you really want to lease the premises. An example of a landlord biased provison is to the effect that the tenant must vacate the premises during the term of the lease upon some notice if the landlord sells the property. Since it is settled law that the landlord cannot sell or give away a right he does not have, how can a lanlord legally sell property to which he has no right of possession, he having given away that right to the tenant until the end of the term of the lease. And yet a friend was recently asked to sign such a lease here in Chiang Mai. Signing such a lease provison flies in the face of settle law but many judges would rule against the tenant on the basis that the tenant knowingly agreed to this onerous provision.