New laws provide greater protection for people who rent property in Thailand

[SunsetT]

5 hours ago, blackcab said:

I work as a senior manager in a property company that is 100 per cent owned by Thai people.

 

We have Thai staff with MBA's and lawyers who read Thai law in its original, untranslated form.

 

The company I work for owns and leases out many, many properties. I am one of the very few people that has a work permit with a job description that allows me to Buy, Sell, Sell with the Right of Redemption, Arrange a Rental Period or Lease for a Landlord or a Tenant, for any Land, House, Condominium or any other Construction whatsoever, and also for any other kind of asset fixed to the land including rivers, ponds, trees, minerals (and much more as the list of included items is quite long).

 

It It literally my job to understand this law and ensure the company I work for is in compliance.

Good to know. Thanks for the info.

[inThailand]

3 hours ago, stud858 said:

I'm very interested in this topic. My condo had unsold units from a bankrupt developer.  I thought they become property of the courts.do you want to chat via PM?

Who ever owns the condos is liable to the condo JP to pay fees or any utilities or services provideed by the condo JP to them. So if the bank  owns condos they must pay fees before they can sell/transfer to the new owner. 

The condo act states that fees not paid for greater than six months can have their services cut and the condo can be auctioned off.

[Felt 35]

[jackdd]

I wrote it in the other thread running about this topic already, and here again because i think it's relevant

The translation of the law by Tilleke & Gibbins is not done properly, at least two things are not really correct, could also be more, i didn't check everything:

 

1. Regarding the 30 days to move out: The law states that you need to have a reason to move out, the translation just skips this part. Of course they don't say what kind of reasons are considered valid, but it could be that it's only something like "because my employer wants me to work in another city" and not "because i want to live somewhere else".

If you don't supply and probably proof a good reason the owner will just keep your deposit and say it was not a valid reason. Then you can take him to court, and have to hope the court also thinks that your reason is valid, or you pay much more than your deposit. Would you take the risk?

 

2. Rates for electricity and water: The law states that it's valid to charge the tenant a fee for supplying water / electricity, they even give the example regarding the costs for the water pump, again the translation doesn't mention this (they talk about fees, but are not clear about this). So the owner of the apartment could now just go ahead and make a contract with his brother about the maintenance of the electrical systems for let's say 3THB per unit, and now he can charge the same 7THB that he charged before.

 

[stud858]

3 hours ago, inThailand said:

Who ever owns the condos is liable to the condo JP to pay fees or any utilities or services provideed by the condo JP to them. So if the bank  owns condos they must pay fees before they can sell/transfer to the new owner. 

The condo act states that fees not paid for greater than six months can have their services cut and the condo can be auctioned off.

Yes. True. But the courts must supply the paperwork. Land office won't  allow it just on juristic financial records of non payment. I'm thinking of visiting the courts in pattaya for an excursion. See what info i can sniff out. Better dress up. I'm off to buy a suit. Anyone know of a tailor in town?

[stud858]

http://www.ptyc.coj.go.th/

The pattaya provincial court website.

Just in case you want to sue your landlord or tennant for breach of contract.  I've been told real lawyers can be hired or at least seen there.

[blackcab]

3 hours ago, inThailand said:

So if the bank  owns condos they must pay fees before they can sell/transfer to the new owner. 

 

Banks have been known to sell at auction, and unwary buyers have bought condos with outstanding common fees.

 

The buyer has had to clear the fees before the sale was completed, and I can assure you they were not expecting that.

[srchino]

Sounded great right up until the end. I guess lawyers will have a windfall setting up a multitude of separate companies each containing 4 rental properties.

[inThailand]

Just now, blackcab said:

 

Banks have been known to sell at auction, and unwary buyers have bought condos with outstanding common fees.

 

The buyer has had to clear the fees before the sale was completed, and I can assure you they were not expecting that.

Yes and No. Yes possible if the condo was owned by a company and the sale was a company. If owned by a Thai or Falang the Land Dept requires a debt free letter before doing the transfer. 

Yes, the condo JP doesn't care who incurred the fees just that they must be paid.

[blackcab]

20 minutes ago, inThailand said:

Yes and No. Yes possible if the condo was owned by a company and the sale was a company. If owned by a Thai or Falang the Land Dept requires a debt free letter before doing the transfer. 

Yes, the condo JP doesn't care who incurred the fees just that they must be paid.

 

The condos are sold at auction. The problems start when the purchaser realises they need a debt free letter and find out the size of the arrears.

 

Condos at auction are sold "as is". It's up to the buyer to understand about the common fees and do their own investigations.

[Mac98]

13 hours ago, blackcab said:

 

But the landlord is the person who offers the contract. The landlord doesn't have to offer a 6 month or 12 month contract - anything in excess of 30 days is perfectly legal to offer. After the law takes effect, there is actually no point in offering a long contract as you cannot enforce anything other than the tenant giving you a 30 day notice period, and any long contract means you cannot pass on legitimate raises in utility fees.

 

We are seriously thinking about offering a 2 month contract, with automatic extensions of 1 month if either us or the tenant does not give notice. That way if the electricity FT charge shoots up due to unforeseen circumstances we won't get hit with a charge we can't pass on.

 

We have a lot of tenants. They are almost 100 per cent Thai citizens who work in places such as 7-Eleven, factories and local hospitals - hence our monthly rates are low and the tenant's security deposit is low.

That should work.

[inThailand]

7 hours ago, blackcab said:

 

The condos are sold at auction. The problems start when the purchaser realises they need a debt free letter and find out the size of the arrears.

 

Condos at auction are sold "as is". It's up to the buyer to understand about the common fees and do their own investigations.

Yes like any sizable purchase, doing due diligence is a prudent move.

In any case the condo JP should carry out their job and legal responsibility to collect unpaid fees. Back home they would slap a lien on the title so it can't be sold until fees are paid up. Is that possible here?

[Sydebolle]

On 2/27/2018 at 8:29 PM, YoungBrit said:

 

Most contracts now will say something along the lines of "deposit will not be used as rent" so you would in effect be in breach of contract and the owner has the right to keep the deposit once the time stated in the contract has passed, usually, 14 days after rent is due.

Yes but you just have to make sure that at the end of the rental period you've used up the deposit. It is not what the contract says but my experience will ALL Thai landlords was, that they kept the deposit for whatever incorrect reasons (couldn't find a subsequent tenant etc. etc.). 
Once you've used your deposit against due rental you then wait for the last utility bills, pay for whatever is due and you have a clean sailing. Nobody goes to court over two months deposit as the walk of legal avenues is tedious - to be kind. 

[mogandave]

Yes but you just have to make sure that at the end of the rental period you've used up the deposit. It is not what the contract says but my experience will ALL Thai landlords was, that they kept the deposit for whatever incorrect reasons (couldn't find a subsequent tenant etc. etc.). 
Once you've used your deposit against due rental you then wait for the last utility bills, pay for whatever is due and you have a clean sailing. Nobody goes to court over two months deposit as the walk of legal avenues is tedious - to be kind. 

Isn’t that cheating?

[YoungBrit]

1 hour ago, Sydebolle said:

Yes but you just have to make sure that at the end of the rental period you've used up the deposit. It is not what the contract says but my experience will ALL Thai landlords was, that they kept the deposit for whatever incorrect reasons (couldn't find a subsequent tenant etc. etc.). 
Once you've used your deposit against due rental you then wait for the last utility bills, pay for whatever is due and you have a clean sailing. Nobody goes to court over two months deposit as the walk of legal avenues is tedious - to be kind. 

Never had any money taken from deposits unless it was a cost stated in the contract ie the cleaning and air con which I knew upfront or when I accidentally broke a chair and they charged the price for a new one. Always Thai owners (4 of them) through a rental agent.

 

 

[stanleycoin]

Well it is a step in the right direction.

Lets hope it works out. 

[CLW]

Does this mean they can't charge more than the PEA rate for electricity once the law comes into effect?
I pay almost double now.

[TheMatrix63]

I'm looking for the information regarding the new law written in Thai language(for the wife). Do anyone have a link?

[alianware]

The word  "protecting" is good. But your new law starts with the stupid discrimination sentence  " Landlords who lease or sublease FIVE OR MORE properties ..."  Why five or more?? . Why do you start to make a unweighted law ??.

Make a new law for all or none at all.  Don't use your stupid traffic signs principal which "turn left on the red light" .  Be red or be green !, Stop or go !. ...

[mogandave]

The word  "protecting" is good. But your new law starts with the stupid discrimination sentence  " Landlords who lease or sublease FIVE OR MORE properties ..."  Why five or more?? . Why do you start to make a unweighted law ??.
Make a new law for all or none at all.  Don't use your stupid traffic signs principal which "turn left on the red light" .  Be red or be green !, Stop or go !. ...

Perhaps it is to protect smaller landlords.

The same way that a small mom & pop company is often not required to satisfy the same regulations as large companies.

[Dinobot]

So you make a bunch of companies with 5 rental properties each, NBD

[OldSiamHand]

2 hours ago, Dinobot said:

So you make a bunch of companies with 5 rental properties each, NBD

then each of your companies would be subject to the new law.  might as well form just one company holding dozens of rental properties.

[mogandave]

then each of your companies would be subject to the new law.  might as well form just one company holding dozens of rental properties.

He thinks the government did not realize people would try to do that.

[Rhys]

Laws...yet what of the enforcement.. that is the  rub...

[utalkin2me]

Once again I’ll compare a situation here with that in the USA. I see renting here as aces compared to renting in the USA, where you’re actually compelled to be a puppet of the banking system to even have the privelege of a place to live. Not to mention you have to pay for your own goddam credit checks when you apply... something that the landlord wants, but you have to pay for? Explain that one. System isn’t perfect here and never will be, but far better than the corporate America controlled system we’ve got. 

[Johncraig1]

If there is anyone here with any solid information, can you answer this... From the 1st May am I in my rights to ask for part of my deposit back?. As i gave 2 months when i moved in.

[ponjom]

"Additionally, a tenant now has the right to terminate their contract at any time, providing they give 30 days written notice to the landlord."
     So what's the point of having a contract at all for more than 30 days?

I agree with your comment. Does the security of tenure only come from the landlord ? So what's the benefit to the landlord for writing a 1 year versus a 30 day contract when the tenant can vacate upon giving 30 days notice. Might as well set up as a room for rent 30 day rolling contract. Screwy !

Sent from my U FEEL using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[nausea]

Well, I won't hold my breath, but it's going to be interesting to see what's on the May invoice. Oh, the electric bill on the March invoice went up significantly, bit of a coincidence that.

[poskat]

my landlord credited the 2nd month security deposit on my april invoice, so I only had to pay for the month's water/electric

[newnative]

1 hour ago, Johncraig1 said:

If there is anyone here with any solid information, can you answer this... From the 1st May am I in my rights to ask for part of my deposit back?. As i gave 2 months when i moved in.

Depends.  If your landlord rents less than 5 properties, the new law doesn't apply to him.  If he does fall under the new law, I believe he is allowed to ask for 1 months rent and 1 months security deposit.