New Rights For Renters In Thailand To ‘Shock’ Landlords

[webfact]

New Rights For Renters In Thailand To ‘Shock’ Landlords

By Asaree Thaitrakulpanich, Staff Reporter

 

Photo: Alvin Aden Ardenrich Pan / Pixabay

 

BANGKOK — New protections for tenants will soon come into effect that include limits on what landlords can charge and a way out of long-term leases.

 

Practices such as demanding multiple months of rent in advance and locking tenants out will become illegal May 1 under new safeguards in the Consumer Protection Act passed last month to more tightly regulate landlords and boost the rights of renters.

 

Full story:  http://www.khaosodenglish.com/news/business/2018/03/08/new-rights-renters-thailand-shock-landlords/

 

-- © Copyright Khaosod English 2018-03-08

[Dave67]

Good luck with that

[z42]

But again with a plastic enforcement arm (RTP) and an ever more apparent MO of using violence or threats of violence to solve problems, one can't help but be cynical really can they

[seajae]

about time they moved into this century, now to see if it is enforced as many property owners wont like losing their advantage, will also be interesting to see who actually enforces it and if it stops landlords refusing to give back the deposits as well as repair any faults/damages, hmmm

[scorecard]

3 minutes ago, seajae said:

about time they moved into this century, now to see if it is enforced as many property owners wont like losing their advantage, will also be interesting to see who actually enforces it and if it stops landlords refusing to give back the deposits as well as repair any faults/damages, hmmm

 

Another report on this matter, a few days back, mentioned it only applies to landlords who rent out 5 or more properties.

 

 

[ezzra]

As a landlord, i get to meet all sorts of people, from the nice and happy to the nasty and 

dirty, so as a landlord one have to protect his properties and his income from the latter,

the condo and rental laws can do with a make over for sure, but as long as the rights of

the properties owner are also being protected....

 

[Get Real]

12 minutes ago, ezzra said:

As a landlord, i get to meet all sorts of people, from the nice and happy to the nasty and 

dirty, so as a landlord one have to protect his properties and his income from the latter,

the condo and rental laws can do with a make over for sure, but as long as the rights of

the properties owner are also being protected....

 

Where is the landlords rights in Thailand not protected? They have been doing exactly as they want for decades, and now they are just starting to see the end of abusing their tenants.

[4MyEgo]

12 minutes ago, ezzra said:

As a landlord, i get to meet all sorts of people, from the nice and happy to the nasty and 

dirty, so as a landlord one have to protect his properties and his income from the latter,

the condo and rental laws can do with a make over for sure, but as long as the rights of

the properties owner are also being protected....

 

In Australia, in particular New South Wales the Residential Tenancies Act changes constantly and the weight since its introduction decades ago has always been towards the tenant.

 

I remember when I went to the Residential Tenancy Tribunal to evict a tenant for breaching the terms and condition of the lease, i.e. for non payment of rent which was 5 weeks in arrears and for breaching the lease by having a dog in the unit, not just a small dog, but a huge Alsatian.

 

The presiding Magistrate asked the tenant if she knew that she had to get permission from the Landlord before any pets could live on the premises, the tenant said she was only minding the dog for a friend who went to hospital for a day, oh ok then the dog is gone then said the magistrate, well now you know not to bring any pets to the property in the future without the land lords permission, now how about the rent, why are you behind in your rent, ah, I lost my job, but I have all this money now and can pay, hmm, can you pay that to the tribunal today, yes, yes, ok then problem solved.

 

I advise the tribunal member that the dog was not there for one day, but on all 3 occasions I went to the unit barking every time I knocked on the door, with the tenant nodding her head side to side as if to say no no no.

 

The tribunal member said, look we have solved the problem here and now, with my reply being well what if I go around there tomorrow and the dog is there again, the reply came swift, well then you can reapply for another hearing for breach of lease, but you better have your evidence, like some photos with a date stamp, I laughed and said, thanks judge, I will just have to take this one into my own hand, with his reply being that would be ill advised, with my reply being well it will be more entertaining that coming to this circus, with me then walking off.

 

Two day later, I rang the electricity department and told them that I was the tenant and was moving out today, so they could cut the power, I also rang the telephone company and did the same, I went around to the unit when she wasn't home and took out all of the fuses and switched the electricity off at the main for that unit as my cousin was a sparky and loaned me his key which was a standard issue for electricity employees and opened all such doors for metre readings. I also switched off the water main deep inside the kitchen cupboard.

 

The next day I sent a really big mate of mine around who knocked on the door and said he was from the electricity department, she opened, he had a baseball bat leaning on the wall behind him, all he said was, I am not from the electricity department and pointed to the baseball bat and said you have 24 hours to get out, call the cops and see what happens, he then left as she closed the door real quickly, he later told me she will be gone, trust me, I said did you hear any noises of a dog barking, he said, yep.

 

Went around 2 days later, the place was empty, you can imagine the state it was in, fortunately I had landlord insurance which covered the replacement of the carpets, but not the underside as I had to pay for that, it needed a really good clean and a fresh coat of paint, it was vacant for 2 weeks while every thing was done, do you think the tribunal would cover that, yeh right.

 

I am all for tenants having rights against bad landlords, but as long as there is a balance.

[Prince77]

It will be interesting to see whether this can be materialized or not. I pay 7 B / unit electricity in my apartment whereas the actual cost is about 4 B / unit. In average I had about 7.000.- B monthly cost only on electricity which should be cut by about 40%.

[ezzra]

1 hour ago, Get Real said:

Where is the landlords rights in Thailand not protected? They have been doing exactly as they want for decades, and now they are just starting to see the end of abusing their tenants.

You and 4MYego fella are generalising, i know that in this world, there isn't much sympathy for landlords

that are perceived as shylocks like and greedy, yes, some are, but when you have a property worth several

million of baht and more in the hands of someone who gave you 2 months deposit and you have no idea

what are they doing in there, and one day, they're gone, of stop paying rent, leaving you with water,

phone, electricity bills and a wrecked apartment, wand tens of thousand of damage,

all i'm saying that both side have to be equally protected...

[Get Real]

13 minutes ago, ezzra said:

You and 4MYego fella are generalising, i know that in this world, there isn't much sympathy for landlords

that are perceived as shylocks like and greedy, yes, some are, but when you have a property worth several

million of baht and more in the hands of someone who gave you 2 months deposit and you have no idea

what are they doing in there, and one day, they're gone, of stop paying rent, leaving you with water,

phone, electricity bills and a wrecked apartment, wand tens of thousand of damage,

all i'm saying that both side have to be equally protected...

I understand what you are saying, but you are deadly wrong telling me that I am generalising. What 4MYego are doing, I can´t be held responsible for, and have no idea about either.
When that is set and done, let´s go down to pure facts, that you always seem to hide from or take a long walk around.

First, of course you do not want to have a running tenant that do not pay the rent. Neither would you like to have a vandalised condo, house or appartment. That is not something that has to do with putting up a big deposit or anything regarding the safety and protection. That is a change of human nature and the knowledge of behaviour that this part of the world unfortunately are in big need of.

As a landlord you have always been protected by the law, when it comes to rent not payed due to running or breaking a contract. You always had protection in the law regarding a vandalised appartment, house or condo so that a part is bound to reimburse you. However, you will never know if the person have any money or a possibility to do that. Here I can agree with you that there is a new order needed. That is deleloping of a new database for making economic background checks in Thailand for companies, landlords and authorities.

The protection that we talk about here is not anything of that, though. We are talking about new laws that prohibit landlords from charging to much for rent, asking for several month deposits that they almost never give back. Also  rules and regulations for how long time they are allowed to sign a contract on, and in that way lock the rights to expand or move for a tenant.
 

That in clear words mean there are no laws regarding this behaviour today, and it will now be implemented to protect the tenants in a much better way. Landlords are already protected by law against unpaid rent and vandalisation. After that everything has to be enforced all from the tenants and landlords, to the police and the court system .That is something I do think that we both agree about with todays moral and workmanship is going to be all from a total disaster to purely impossible. 

[yellowboat]

"The new regulations also prevent property owners from adding extra charges for things like water, electricity and Wi-Fi. Instead, they must charge only what is actually on the bill."

 

I can finally find something to be happy about.  Nothing worse than a landlord tacking extra money to your electric or water bill.  Had one landlord who had the cheapest ADSL package he could find then charged B500 a month for the 40 units.  The service was gawd awful.  Many a slimy landlord is going to hate this, unless it will go unenforced. 

[topt]

4 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Another report on this matter, a few days back, mentioned it only applies to landlords who rent out 5 or more properties.

 

 

Yes apparently has been added to the original article.

4 hours ago, Prince77 said:

It will be interesting to see whether this can be materialized or not. I pay 7 B / unit electricity in my apartment whereas the actual cost is about 4 B / unit. In average I had about 7.000.- B monthly cost only on electricity which should be cut by about 40%.

Does your landlord have 5 or more for rent?

 

The other issue not mentioned is this only for new contracts - IE existing contracts carry on as usual?

It will be very interesting to see if complaints start after May 1st ..................

[Oziex1]

5 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

Another report on this matter, a few days back, mentioned it only applies to landlords who rent out 5 or more properties.

 

 

Oh so there the ones who can afford to pay the cops to make sure it's business as usual, no penalties for me if I exploit my tennants

[Rama]

They can pass many many laws but until you can get a small contract enforced easily in the courts, Thailand will continue to be the land of smiles...

Edited March 8, 2018 by Rama

[whatwasithinking]

4 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

In Australia, in particular New South Wales the Residential Tenancies Act changes constantly and the weight since its introduction decades ago has always been towards the tenant.

 

I remember when I went to the Residential Tenancy Tribunal to evict a tenant for breaching the terms and condition of the lease, i.e. for non payment of rent which was 5 weeks in arrears and for breaching the lease by having a dog in the unit, not just a small dog, but a huge Alsatian.

 

The presiding Magistrate asked the tenant if she knew that she had to get permission from the Landlord before any pets could live on the premises, the tenant said she was only minding the dog for a friend who went to hospital for a day, oh ok then the dog is gone then said the magistrate, well now you know not to bring any pets to the property in the future without the land lords permission, now how about the rent, why are you behind in your rent, ah, I lost my job, but I have all this money now and can pay, hmm, can you pay that to the tribunal today, yes, yes, ok then problem solved.

 

I advise the tribunal member that the dog was not there for one day, but on all 3 occasions I went to the unit barking every time I knocked on the door, with the tenant nodding her head side to side as if to say no no no.

 

The tribunal member said, look we have solved the problem here and now, with my reply being well what if I go around there tomorrow and the dog is there again, the reply came swift, well then you can reapply for another hearing for breach of lease, but you better have your evidence, like some photos with a date stamp, I laughed and said, thanks judge, I will just have to take this one into my own hand, with his reply being that would be ill advised, with my reply being well it will be more entertaining that coming to this circus, with me then walking off.

 

Two day later, I rang the electricity department and told them that I was the tenant and was moving out today, so they could cut the power, I also rang the telephone company and did the same, I went around to the unit when she wasn't home and took out all of the fuses and switched the electricity off at the main for that unit as my cousin was a sparky and loaned me his key which was a standard issue for electricity employees and opened all such doors for metre readings. I also switched off the water main deep inside the kitchen cupboard.

 

The next day I sent a really big mate of mine around who knocked on the door and said he was from the electricity department, she opened, he had a baseball bat leaning on the wall behind him, all he said was, I am not from the electricity department and pointed to the baseball bat and said you have 24 hours to get out, call the cops and see what happens, he then left as she closed the door real quickly, he later told me she will be gone, trust me, I said did you hear any noises of a dog barking, he said, yep.

 

Went around 2 days later, the place was empty, you can imagine the state it was in, fortunately I had landlord insurance which covered the replacement of the carpets, but not the underside as I had to pay for that, it needed a really good clean and a fresh coat of paint, it was vacant for 2 weeks while every thing was done, do you think the tribunal would cover that, yeh right.

 

I am all for tenants having rights against bad landlords, but as long as there is a balance.

Yes unfortunately there are bad landlords & bad tenants .Australian laws give way more rights to tenants . My agent took my tenant to the tribunal after numerous letters about late rent .That cost me 80 dollars, the tenants paid up & were allowed to sty & i was out of pocket 80 dollars  If i want to give a tenant notice i need to give them 90 days whereas they only need to give 30 days .

I am all for rights both sides but there are always tenants who will take advantage . Take for instance the new rule . A tenant asks how much discount if i rent your property for a year knowing he only needs to pay a 1 month deposit & only needs to give 1 months notice . He/she may knowingly only plan to stay for 2 months . In the mean time you paid the agent 1 months rent for their commission of a 1 year stay plus a reduced rate to the tenant for staying a year only to have them notify a month later they changed their mind & give notice to move out at end of 2 months

[PremiumLane]

3 hours ago, ezzra said:

i know that in this world, there isn't much sympathy for landlords

that are perceived as shylocks like and greedy,

You got that right

[peperobi]

A deposit 1, 2 or three months rent is in many countries as usual and right, the landlords need as well some security!

[CanuckThai]

I can't imagine the grief that some landlords must go through here.  I went through it in Canada as a landlord, where the law leans towards tenants, but still enforceable, clear laws.  Rent collected left me about $400 a month out of pocket after condo fees, property tax, mortgage.  Had a tenant go 2 months without paying, sent a notice, no response.  Sent a bailiff (costs $), no response, filed court order (costs $).  4 months no rent, court gives 30 days to bring rent up to date.  Not up to date after 30 days, file in court for eviction (cost $).  Tenant claims hardship and given 12 moths to pay overdue amount, and keep up to date with current rent due.  Tenant fails to keep current an make monthly past due amounts per month.   File with courts for eviction (costs $).  Tenant is granted 12 months to pay overdue amount and evicted....  

[garyk]

I always go for renting here in Thailand, so nice.

Most here will let me rent for a min. of 1-6 months. I never cheat them and if they are a bad landlord I just move. 

Rentals are a dime a dozen here. They throw these places up so fast you can literally live in a new apartment every year.

Great for me.

[4MyEgo]

1 hour ago, whatwasithinking said:

Yes unfortunately there are bad landlords & bad tenants .Australian laws give way more rights to tenants . My agent took my tenant to the tribunal after numerous letters about late rent .That cost me 80 dollars, the tenants paid up & were allowed to sty & i was out of pocket 80 dollars  If i want to give a tenant notice i need to give them 90 days whereas they only need to give 30 days .

I am all for rights both sides but there are always tenants who will take advantage . Take for instance the new rule . A tenant asks how much discount if i rent your property for a year knowing he only needs to pay a 1 month deposit & only needs to give 1 months notice . He/she may knowingly only plan to stay for 2 months . In the mean time you paid the agent 1 months rent for their commission of a 1 year stay plus a reduced rate to the tenant for staying a year only to have them notify a month later they changed their mind & give notice to move out at end of 2 months

Yep that sucks, it used to be that the tenant had to pay all rent until the landlord found a replacement tenant at the same rent, and the landlord had to advertise the property, i.e. the landlord had a responsibility to mitigate the tenants lose, seems things have changed once again.

 

I also remember a time a mate of mine needed someone to go to the tribunal with him as he had an issue with his tenant who vacated and gave him no notice, apart from a text message saying the toilet is blocked and he had to move out.

 

As I worked next door to the tribunal at the time, I said I will assist him, the tribunal member asked the tenant if he gave any notice to the landlord, he said he texted him advising him that the toilet was blocked and the property was uninhabitable, the magistrate yes of course it would be, but did you give the landlord an opportunity to fix the blockage, that is when I thought, you little beauty, my mate will get the bond to cover the period is was vacant, and then the tenant threw in a curly one reply, ah no sir, but I did ring the plumber on the front page of the lease and left him a message but he didn't reply.

 

I said to myself bullshit, as did y mate, with the magistrate saying, oh ok then, Mr Landlord did your plumber advise you of this, no because he didn't receive such a call, otherwise he would have called me as he is a mate, with the magistrate asking the tenant if he had any evidence to prove he called the plumber with the number on the front page of the lease which he had in his presence, I was saying to myself, this guy has just cornered himself, and was looking dumb as shuffling through his papers and then out of know where he pulled out a telephone bill and said yes, I have the plumbers number on the back of this bill with the time of the call and the length of the call, the magistrate asked for it, then match it with the number on the lease and advised the landlord that the duration of the call was for 7 seconds, long enough to leave the plumber a message, e.g. please call Mike at 27 Foster Road, Glebe on 0410 983 275 urgent, toilet blocked, with the magistrate saying he just timed himself under his breath and that under section 61 sub clause 2 he rules in the favour of the tenant as the property became uninhabitable at no fault of the landlord, noting the bond to be released to the tenant.

 

My mate rang his mate the plumber and told him what transpired, with his mate the plumber saying to him, if he had received the call, he would have responded, even calling him back, his plumber mate said he could have called him for 7 seconds and not talk, that would be enough for him to prove he called him.

 

Some time passed and you wouldn't believe it, my mate is friends with this real estate agent in the same area, and he found out later that the tenant purchased a property off of him, and as the property he purchased was vacant, he asked if he could move in under licence until settlement which was agreed upon, but it had to be upon exchange of contracts which happened the same day he phoned the plumber.

 

Talk about cunning oy !

[farcanell]

9 hours ago, 4MyEgo said:

In Australia, in particular New South Wales the Residential Tenancies Act changes constantly and the weight since its introduction decades ago has always been towards the tenant.

 

I remember when I went to the Residential Tenancy Tribunal to evict a tenant for breaching the terms and condition of the lease, i.e. for non payment of rent which was 5 weeks in arrears and for breaching the lease by having a dog in the unit, not just a small dog, but a huge Alsatian.

 

The presiding Magistrate asked the tenant if she knew that she had to get permission from the Landlord before any pets could live on the premises, the tenant said she was only minding the dog for a friend who went to hospital for a day, oh ok then the dog is gone then said the magistrate, well now you know not to bring any pets to the property in the future without the land lords permission, now how about the rent, why are you behind in your rent, ah, I lost my job, but I have all this money now and can pay, hmm, can you pay that to the tribunal today, yes, yes, ok then problem solved.

 

I advise the tribunal member that the dog was not there for one day, but on all 3 occasions I went to the unit barking every time I knocked on the door, with the tenant nodding her head side to side as if to say no no no.

 

The tribunal member said, look we have solved the problem here and now, with my reply being well what if I go around there tomorrow and the dog is there again, the reply came swift, well then you can reapply for another hearing for breach of lease, but you better have your evidence, like some photos with a date stamp, I laughed and said, thanks judge, I will just have to take this one into my own hand, with his reply being that would be ill advised, with my reply being well it will be more entertaining that coming to this circus, with me then walking off.

 

Two day later, I rang the electricity department and told them that I was the tenant and was moving out today, so they could cut the power, I also rang the telephone company and did the same, I went around to the unit when she wasn't home and took out all of the fuses and switched the electricity off at the main for that unit as my cousin was a sparky and loaned me his key which was a standard issue for electricity employees and opened all such doors for metre readings. I also switched off the water main deep inside the kitchen cupboard.

 

The next day I sent a really big mate of mine around who knocked on the door and said he was from the electricity department, she opened, he had a baseball bat leaning on the wall behind him, all he said was, I am not from the electricity department and pointed to the baseball bat and said you have 24 hours to get out, call the cops and see what happens, he then left as she closed the door real quickly, he later told me she will be gone, trust me, I said did you hear any noises of a dog barking, he said, yep.

 

Went around 2 days later, the place was empty, you can imagine the state it was in, fortunately I had landlord insurance which covered the replacement of the carpets, but not the underside as I had to pay for that, it needed a really good clean and a fresh coat of paint, it was vacant for 2 weeks while every thing was done, do you think the tribunal would cover that, yeh right.

 

I am all for tenants having rights against bad landlords, but as long as there is a balance.

I’m with you 100%

 

i had a tenant who was much much worse.... but my lawyer and the bailiff finally got rid of her.

 

more unlucky was the next renter.... he was looking for someone to rent a room from him, but in the end, she got a restraining order against the owner, who then couldn’t live in his own home. He tried talking tough to get her gone... didn’t work... thanks judge, well done

 

balance is required, undoubtedly, but not any knee jerk reactions, that’s the pitfall.

[4MyEgo]

10 minutes ago, farcanell said:

I’m with you 100%

 

i had a tenant who was much much worse.... but my lawyer and the bailiff finally got rid of her.

 

more unlucky was the next renter.... he was looking for someone to rent a room from him, but in the end, she got a restraining order against the owner, who then couldn’t live in his own home. He tried talking tough to get her gone... didn’t work... thanks judge, well done

 

balance is required, undoubtedly, but not any knee jerk reactions, that’s the pitfall.

Yep, I hear you......

 

I also recall a landlord who allowed a conman tenant to do repairs to his house by the tenant which was off-set against his rent, well what a mess that turned out to be, with the owner having to pay the tenant a hefty some in the end as he was evicting the tenant.

 

Always keep an arms length approach, and when the sheeet hits the fan, call in some of the heavy guys, no trace, alibi in case it goes pair shape, but the laws do suck at times. 

[shy coconut]

8 hours ago, whatwasithinking said:

Yes unfortunately there are bad landlords & bad tenants .Australian laws give way more rights to tenants . My agent took my tenant to the tribunal after numerous letters about late rent .That cost me 80 dollars, the tenants paid up & were allowed to sty & i was out of pocket 80 dollars  If i want to give a tenant notice i need to give them 90 days whereas they only need to give 30 days .

I am all for rights both sides but there are always tenants who will take advantage . Take for instance the new rule . A tenant asks how much discount if i rent your property for a year knowing he only needs to pay a 1 month deposit & only needs to give 1 months notice . He/she may knowingly only plan to stay for 2 months . In the mean time you paid the agent 1 months rent for their commission of a 1 year stay plus a reduced rate to the tenant for staying a year only to have them notify a month later they changed their mind & give notice to move out at end of 2 months

Surely the agent would be responsible for the 10 months rent having found you the tennant, is that

not why people use agents?