Condo rental to tourists

[Gilliams]

10 minutes ago, Wake Up said:

My condo does not allow short term rentals less than 30 days per condominium bylaws.  It is strictly enforced and I rent here because of the enforcement. No long term tenants want Air BNB tourists. 

It is your right to rent wherever you want. But this is not relevant for this topic or Sara's question.

[KittenKong]

“Thai law has drawn it at 30 days”

Can you show me that law? and in what context this law is written down?

It's the Hotel Act.

Edited March 23, 2018 by KittenKong

[KittenKong]

It is your right to rent wherever you want. But this is not relevant for this topic ......

Seems relevant to me.

[merijn]

16 hours ago, BigT73 said:

You would also need to report a tm30 for all your renters. If you have less then 10 rooms you cant do it online.   My partner worked in a hotel, they were reporting way before tm30 was a prerequisite, hence why you need to show your passport.

There is no room limit for registering renters online.

You only have to setup up a online account with immigration.

 

Renting out your apartment less then 30 days is for so far i know illegal unless the building is registered as a condo-tel or hotel and has the appropriate license.

 

[AJBangkok]

14 hours ago, Gilliams said:

I do not see why a rent of 3 weeks is more harmful than a rent of 1 month or longer.

 

You are 100% correct.

 

A rental whether for 1 day, 1month or 1 year,  just substitutes the users, it does not add additional users. Therefore, even a short-term tenant agreement itself does not at all compromise the (co-)ownership rights of the neighbors or other condo unit residents.

 

Here is is an extract of some advise on this subject.

 

Under Section 1360 CCC, each co-owner is entitled to use the property in so far as such use is not incompatible with the rights of the other co-owners. As long as the co-owners in the common areas are not blocked from using the facilities, even an excessive use by some parties is fully in compliance with the law. If a restrained condo owner feels that his over-active neighbors negatively affect the quality of his life, he experiences a daily life risk and should not whine for that reason.

 

The use rights by the owners do not differ from the use rights of a tenant. And: The use rights of short-term tenants do not differ from the legal position of long-term lessees. There is no valid legal argument to restrict the rights of a tenant, whether the rent is agreed on a short-term basis or for more than a month. Even the fact that the tenant uses the common area more than the owner would (but could), does not change this analysis. The statement that short-term rentals to tourists interfere with the rights of the co-owners is therefore under current laws incorrect. Only an ill-advised majority of condominium unit owners would base their complaint or lawsuit on such light-weighted argument.

 

The Condominium Act would prevent short-term rentals if it had any clause that prohibits this. But that is not the case. The law is silent on this. And as far as a law does not forbid this cardinal right of any owner, it is allowed.

 

 

[Peterw42]

10 minutes ago, AJBangkok said:

 

You are 100% correct.

 

A rental whether for 1 day, 1month or 1 year,  just substitutes the users, it does not add additional users. Therefore, even a short-term tenant agreement itself does not at all compromise the (co-)ownership rights of the neighbors or other condo unit residents.

 

Here is is an extract of some advise on this subject.

 

Under Section 1360 CCC, each co-owner is entitled to use the property in so far as such use is not incompatible with the rights of the other co-owners. As long as the co-owners in the common areas are not blocked from using the facilities, even an excessive use by some parties is fully in compliance with the law. If a restrained condo owner feels that his over-active neighbors negatively affect the quality of his life, he experiences a daily life risk and should not whine for that reason.

 

The use rights by the owners do not differ from the use rights of a tenant. And: The use rights of short-term tenants do not differ from the legal position of long-term lessees. There is no valid legal argument to restrict the rights of a tenant, whether the rent is agreed on a short-term basis or for more than a month. Even the fact that the tenant uses the common area more than the owner would (but could), does not change this analysis. The statement that short-term rentals to tourists interfere with the rights of the co-owners is therefore under current laws incorrect. Only an ill-advised majority of condominium unit owners would base their complaint or lawsuit on such light-weighted argument.

 

The Condominium Act would prevent short-term rentals if it had any clause that prohibits this. But that is not the case. The law is silent on this. And as far as a law does not forbid this cardinal right of any owner, it is allowed.

 

 

A tenant is someone who signs a lease agreement. 

 

Payment of rent is under Thai law an essential element of a lease agreement (section 537). Possession of a real property under a lease agreement in Thailand without payment of rent would not be enforceable as hire of property under the Civil and Commercial Code.

 

You can quote the Civil and Commercial Code until the cows come home, Unless you are occupying/possessing a property under leasehold its not relevant.

 

Comparing an illegal short term rental with a leasehold possession/occupancy is not relevant.

 

Rent lease of immovable property laws

The legal agreement whereby rent is paid in order to use another man's real estate property (residential or commercial property) in Thailand is governed by the lease agreement between the parties and the Civil and Commercial Code. The laws governing hire of property in Thailand is applied in the same manner if the hirer is a Thai or foreign national. The primary source of laws governing hire of property is the Civil and Commercial Code. The general principles of lease (as a contract) is governed by Title VI Juristic Acts and Book II Obligations and more specifically the Chapter Hire of Property.

 

 

[KittenKong]

You are 100% correct.

A rental whether for 1 day, 1month or 1 year, just substitutes the users, it does not add additional users. Therefore, even a short-term tenant agreement itself does not at all compromise the (co-)ownership rights of the neighbors or other condo unit residents.

The problem is not the number of users which clearly does not vary. The problem is that many new users results in a lot of extra commotion and wear and tear on infrastructure.
It is entirely feasible to complain about a long-term noisy or smelly tenant and to reach some satisfactory conclusion. It is very unfeasible to do the same if the tenant changes every few days or weeks. You simply dont have time to educate them about how to behave before they are gone.
And like it or not, short term tenants have absolutely no respect for, or interest in, the well-being of either the building or other residents. This alone makes them highly undesirable and is more than enough reason to ban them as far as I'm concerned.

Only very incompetent management would allow short-term rentals, and only a very greedy and inconsiderate co-owner would allow his unit to be rented out short term. I have no time for either.

[Peterw42]

Possession/occupancy of a property falls under broad categories, freehold (you own it), leasehold (you rent it), or temporary occupation/possession under a business that is licensed to do so, a Hotel.

 

Leasehold is covered by the Civil and Commercial Code

 

The Hotel act covers short term rentals that are not "leasehold".

 

You are either occupying a property leasehold or , if not, you are in a hotel.

 

People love to quote all the definitions, protections and interpretations of "leasehold" as somehow having connection to illegal short term rentals. Or the definitions, protections and interpretations of the hotel act as justifying unlicensed short term rentals.

 

Leasehold or a business thats licensed to do short term rental, (a temporary contractual arrangement for other than leasehold)

thats it, there is no 3rd option or interpretations to suit illegal hotel operations, and people regularly get charged with operating as an illegal hotel.

Edited March 24, 2018 by Peterw42

[Wake Up]

4 hours ago, AJBangkok said:

 

You are 100% correct.

 

A rental whether for 1 day, 1month or 1 year,  just substitutes the users, it does not add additional users. Therefore, even a short-term tenant agreement itself does not at all compromise the (co-)ownership rights of the neighbors or other condo unit residents.

 

Here is is an extract of some advise on this subject.

 

Under Section 1360 CCC, each co-owner is entitled to use the property in so far as such use is not incompatible with the rights of the other co-owners. As long as the co-owners in the common areas are not blocked from using the facilities, even an excessive use by some parties is fully in compliance with the law. If a restrained condo owner feels that his over-active neighbors negatively affect the quality of his life, he experiences a daily life risk and should not whine for that reason.

 

The use rights by the owners do not differ from the use rights of a tenant. And: The use rights of short-term tenants do not differ from the legal position of long-term lessees. There is no valid legal argument to restrict the rights of a tenant, whether the rent is agreed on a short-term basis or for more than a month. Even the fact that the tenant uses the common area more than the owner would (but could), does not change this analysis. The statement that short-term rentals to tourists interfere with the rights of the co-owners is therefore under current laws incorrect. Only an ill-advised majority of condominium unit owners would base their complaint or lawsuit on such light-weighted argument.

 

The Condominium Act would prevent short-term rentals if it had any clause that prohibits this. But that is not the case. The law is silent on this. And as far as a law does not forbid this cardinal right of any owner, it is allowed.

 

 

You are 100 percent wrong 

[newnative]

8 hours ago, AJBangkok said:

 

You are 100% correct.

 

A rental whether for 1 day, 1month or 1 year,  just substitutes the users, it does not add additional users. Therefore, even a short-term tenant agreement itself does not at all compromise the (co-)ownership rights of the neighbors or other condo unit residents.

 

Here is is an extract of some advise on this subject.

 

Under Section 1360 CCC, each co-owner is entitled to use the property in so far as such use is not incompatible with the rights of the other co-owners. As long as the co-owners in the common areas are not blocked from using the facilities, even an excessive use by some parties is fully in compliance with the law. If a restrained condo owner feels that his over-active neighbors negatively affect the quality of his life, he experiences a daily life risk and should not whine for that reason.

 

The use rights by the owners do not differ from the use rights of a tenant. And: The use rights of short-term tenants do not differ from the legal position of long-term lessees. There is no valid legal argument to restrict the rights of a tenant, whether the rent is agreed on a short-term basis or for more than a month. Even the fact that the tenant uses the common area more than the owner would (but could), does not change this analysis. The statement that short-term rentals to tourists interfere with the rights of the co-owners is therefore under current laws incorrect. Only an ill-advised majority of condominium unit owners would base their complaint or lawsuit on such light-weighted argument.

 

The Condominium Act would prevent short-term rentals if it had any clause that prohibits this. But that is not the case. The law is silent on this. And as far as a law does not forbid this cardinal right of any owner, it is allowed.

 

 

Surely you are not saying that there is no difference between 365 tenants moving in and out every day per condo unit on one day rentals vs. 1 tenant moving in and out once for a 1 year lease.  Or 12 tenants moving in and out 12 times for 1 month leases.  

[newnative]

21 hours ago, Gilliams said:

“Thai law has drawn it at 30 days”

Can you show me that law? and in what context this law is written down?

Thanks in advance

     It's the Thai Hotel Act, 2008.   Several people keep posting that there is nothing in the Thai Condominium Act that prohibits short-term condo rentals.  This is true. The prohibition is handled in the Hotel Act.  The law should still be followed no matter where it happens to be legally filed. 

 

The Hotel Act (2008) requires any place that provides accommodation for less than a period of one month in exchange for payment is defined as a “Hotel”, regulated by the Hotel Act, and requires a hotel license.

 

     As above, the Hotel Act (2008) says that if you are renting out a property for less than 30 days, you must register as a hotel.  A condominium owner cannot register their condo unit as a hotel because, in most cases, it has already been legally registered as a condominium at the Land Office.  

     There is one exception, written for small guesthouses and the like, that allows them to operate without a hotel license if they have less than 5 rooms and accommodate less than 20 guests.   Some people see this and think that a condo would fall under this exception but most condo projects have more than 5 rooms and accommodate more than 20 residents.   

     A small guesthouse of less than 5 rooms and less than 20 guests is allowed to operate under less stringent rules than those required of a registered hotel.  Not really talking about condo projects.   And, notice the language--the use of the word 'guests'.  Condominium residents, whether they are owners or renters, are never referred to as 'guests'.  They are residents.  The term 'guest' is applied to those staying briefly at hotels, motels, and guesthouses.  

[lkn]

On 3/22/2018 at 5:45 PM, AJBangkok said:

The civil and commercial code undermines the condominium act but to what extent either would be enforceable I have no idea

Section 3 of the Thai Condo Act says that it supersedes any other law or regulation that is inconsistent with the provisions of the Act, which also means that condominiums cannot agree on bylaws that goes against the Thai Condo Act.

[Gilliams]

Conclusion?

Many conflicts in the Thai Law about this topic. Clarity of the Thai government is desirable.

My opinion: * Do not rent out on short time basic in a condominium if the house rules of this condominium clearly stipulate that daily rental not is allowed!

[xylophone]

33 minutes ago, Gilliams said:

Conclusion?

Many conflicts in the Thai Law about this topic. Clarity of the Thai government is desirable.

My opinion: * Do not rent out on short time basic in a condominium if the house rules of this condominium clearly stipulate that daily rental not is allowed!

IMO the posts by New Native (#41) and PeterW42 (#38) as well as Wake Up explain the situation very well and it seems pretty water-tight to me.

[AJBangkok]

23 hours ago, newnative said:

Surely you are not saying that there is no difference between 365 tenants moving in and out every day per condo unit on one day rentals vs. 1 tenant moving in and out once for a 1 year lease.  Or 12 tenants moving in and out 12 times for 1 month leases.  

Sure there may be a difference but but maybe there isn’t really and even if it’s excessive it’s still in compliance with the law. As a condo owner there is nothing stopping you personally from packing a suitcase or several if you want and riding up and down the elevator 100 times or more a day. You wouldn’t do it but you could if you wanted and if you did you wouldn’t be breaking any rules.

 

As far as the difference goes using the example you cited, a person moving in and out every day would probably use the elevator the same number of times as a person living in the condo except they would carry a suitcase or bag on 2 elevator rides. A resident of the condo may ride the elevator 6 times for  example go down to gym and back, going to work and back and maybe going out for a meal and back .  Whereas a tourist may only ride the elevator 4 times. Arriving and leaving and going out and back from doing tourist activities.

 

The rights of a tenant are the same as the rights of a co owner when it comes to usage of the common areas. Some owners or tenants may use it more or less but they are not infringing on your rights to use it. A tenant may make it inconvenient for you but that’s an everyday life risk and it would hold true if the tenant was stay for one day one month or one year.  

[AJBangkok]

On 3/24/2018 at 5:37 PM, newnative said:

     It's the Thai Hotel Act, 2008.   Several people keep posting that there is nothing in the Thai Condominium Act that prohibits short-term condo rentals.  This is true. The prohibition is handled in the Hotel Act.  The law should still be followed no matter where it happens to be legally filed. 

 

The Hotel Act (2008) requires any place that provides accommodation for less than a period of one month in exchange for payment is defined as a “Hotel”, regulated by the Hotel Act, and requires a hotel license.

 

     As above, the Hotel Act (2008) says that if you are renting out a property for less than 30 days, you must register as a hotel.  A condominium owner cannot register their condo unit as a hotel because, in most cases, it has already been legally registered as a condominium at the Land Office.  

     There is one exception, written for small guesthouses and the like, that allows them to operate without a hotel license if they have less than 5 rooms and accommodate less than 20 guests.   Some people see this and think that a condo would fall under this exception but most condo projects have more than 5 rooms and accommodate more than 20 residents.   

     A small guesthouse of less than 5 rooms and less than 20 guests is allowed to operate under less stringent rules than those required of a registered hotel.  Not really talking about condo projects.   And, notice the language--the use of the word 'guests'.  Condominium residents, whether they are owners or renters, are never referred to as 'guests'.  They are residents.  The term 'guest' is applied to those staying briefly at hotels, motels, and guesthouses.  

You are taking a lot of liberties with the “law”

 

Below is a quote of the actual exemption in the hotel act 

 

“The definition of hotel will exclude any residential premises open to the public for rental with no more than 4 rooms on all floors in aggregate whether in a single building or in several buildings, and with a total service capacity of 20 guests, operating as a small business which provides an additional source of income for the owners.”

 

Notice it says nothing about small guest houses as you claim. It actually says “any residential premises “. Last time I checked a condominium unit was a residential premises. Notice it says “ which provides and additional source of income for the owners” . It’s referring to the owners of the residential premises NOT an entire condominium building.

 

As a matter of fact doesn’t Airbnb facilitate people staying in residential premises  , which provides an additional source of income for the owners. I’m just saying the actual law says nothing about small guest houses as newnative says but it also says nothing about Airbnb 

 

Also @ new native  your use of the word guest versus resident does not make any sense. When somebody stays somewhere they are “resident” or residing there. To boot the law ( see above ) actually mentiones “residential premises”  So what would you call someone who stays in a “residential  premises “  a guest or a resident and what does it do for your guest/resident argument when the law actually exempts residential premises. 

 

The quote of the exemption in the hotel law is a single sentence. It says what it says and people can waffle on and give any personal interpretation of it they want but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is what the law says not what people want to think it means. Half of the stuff newnative is waffling on about isn’t in the law it’s just his interpretation and it’s in direct contradiction to what the law asctually says.

 

As I said the exemption clause is just a single sentence. It shouldn’t be that hard to understand if you accept  the the words they use just simply mean what they mean.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[newnative]

1 hour ago, AJBangkok said:

Sure there may be a difference but but maybe there isn’t really and even if it’s excessive it’s still in compliance with the law. As a condo owner there is nothing stopping you personally from packing a suitcase or several if you want and riding up and down the elevator 100 times or more a day. You wouldn’t do it but you could if you wanted and if you did you wouldn’t be breaking any rules.

 

As far as the difference goes using the example you cited, a person moving in and out every day would probably use the elevator the same number of times as a person living in the condo except they would carry a suitcase or bag on 2 elevator rides. A resident of the condo may ride the elevator 6 times for  example go down to gym and back, going to work and back and maybe going out for a meal and back .  Whereas a tourist may only ride the elevator 4 times. Arriving and leaving and going out and back from doing tourist activities.

 

The rights of a tenant are the same as the rights of a co owner when it comes to usage of the common areas. Some owners or tenants may use it more or less but they are not infringing on your rights to use it. A tenant may make it inconvenient for you but that’s an everyday life risk and it would hold true if the tenant was stay for one day one month or one year.  

      Yes, legal condo tenants with a legal condo lease have the same rights to use the condo facilities as condo owner-occupants.  But, a tourist renting a condo for less than a month has an illegal condo lease and has no tenant rights.

     You're totally missing the point regarding the number of strangers moving in out every few days and the amount of disruption they cause during their brief, illegal, short-term rentals.  And, it's not just an elevator always full of strangers with suitcases banging about.  It's their tourist-on-vacation-behavior, their I-don't-have-to-know-or-obey-the-condo-rules-behavior that should be in a hotel environment.  The law prohibiting rentals of less than a month is there for a reason.  Condos are residences for residents.  Hotels, motels, guesthouses, etc.,  are for the brief stays of guests.  

[newnative]

4 minutes ago, AJBangkok said:

You are taking a lot of liberties with the “law”

 

Below is a quote of the actual exemption in the hotel act 

 

“The definition of hotel will exclude any residential premises open to the public for rental with no more than 4 rooms on all floors in aggregate whether in a single building or in several buildings, and with a total service capacity of 20 guests, operating as a small business which provides an additional source of income for the owners.”

 

Notice it says nothing about small guest houses as you claim. It actually says “any residential premises “. Last time I checked a condominium unit was a residential premises. Notice it says “ which provides and additional source of income for the owners” . It’s referring to the owners of the residential premises NOT an entire condominium building.

 

As a matter of fact doesn’t Airbnb facilitate people staying in residential premises  , which provides an additional source of income for the owners. I’m just saying the actual law says nothing about small guest houses as newnative says but it also says nothing about Airbnb 

 

Also @ new native  your use of the word guest versus resident does not make any sense. When somebody stays somewhere they are “resident” or residing there. To boot the law ( see above ) actually mentiones “residential premises”  So what would you call someone who stays in a “residential  premises “  a guest or a resident and what does it do for your guest/resident argument when the law actually exempts residential premises. 

 

The quote of the exemption in the hotel law is a single sentence. It says what it says and people can waffle on and give any personal interpretation of it they want but at the end of the day the only thing that matters is what the law says not what people want to think it means. Half of the stuff newnative is waffling on about isn’t in the law it’s just his interpretation and it’s in direct contradiction to what the law asctually says.

 

As I said the exemption clause is just a single sentence. It shouldn’t be that hard to understand if you accept  the the words they use just simply mean what they mean.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

      Yes, as I said before, there are some such as yourself that would like to interpret the Hotel Law exemption clause to allow short-term condo rentals of less than a month but I think that is clearly not the case when you read the exemption sentence.  In regard to my using the word 'guests' and 'guesthouses', the explanation I read regarding the exemption used those words; indeed, the sentence of the law you highlighted also uses 'guests'. 

     Also from your highlighted exemption sentence:  Condominium projects would not fall under the 'open to the public for rental' clause.  They are private residences, often with a guarded gate to keep the 'public' out. The 'public' can't just walk in ask for a room, as you could with an inn or guesthouse.  Again, as I said before, most condominium projects have more than 4 rooms and house more than 20 residents.  And, finally, a condo project is not operating as a 'small business'.  

    

[KittenKong]

As far as the difference goes using the example you cited, a person moving in and out every day would probably use the elevator the same number of times as a person living in the condo except they would carry a suitcase or bag on 2 elevator rides. A resident of the condo may ride the elevator 6 times for example go down to gym and back, going to work and back and maybe going out for a meal and back . Whereas a tourist may only ride the elevator 4 times. Arriving and leaving and going out and back from doing tourist activities.

You seem to be missing the point. The problem with short-term tenants is they know nothing about living in a condo. They bang and crash around at all hours, moving furniture and heavy cases around for no apparent reason. They leave rubbish and other things in the corridors. They leave doors and windows open to slam in the breeze.They use the pool a lot but dont use the shower beforehand. They waste a lot of the staff's time asking stupid questions and treating the place like a hotel, thinking that the security guard is there to call them a taxi. They dont know about any of the building rules and regulations. And above all they simply dont care.
On top of that they do use the elevator far more often than most residents that I know. In and out like yo-yos many of them.

The rights of a tenant are the same as the rights of a co owner when it comes to usage of the common areas.

Only co-owners have rights in a condo building. No one else. Tenants are just the general public in this respect, and the general public has no right to enter a condo building, or to use any of its facilities. They may be tolerated but that's all. Personally I dont think that they should even be tolerated.

[Gilliams]

9 hours ago, xylophone said:

IMO the posts by New Native (#41) and PeterW42 (#38) as well as Wake Up explain the situation very well and it seems pretty water-tight to me.

IMO the posts by AJBangkok explain the situation very well and it seems pretty water-tight to me too.

New Native, PeterW42 and Wake Up.. are they lawyers?

[newnative]

5 hours ago, Gilliams said:

IMO the posts by AJBangkok explain the situation very well and it seems pretty water-tight to me too.

New Native, PeterW42 and Wake Up.. are they lawyers?

    I'm not  a lawyer but I checked with a Thai lawyer who gave me the same explanation of the exemption clause.  Many large condo projects have posted signs stating that short-term condo rentals are illegal; I doubt they would have done this if this wasn't the case.  But, let's take another look at the clause, courtesy of AJBangkok:

 

“The definition of hotel will exclude any residential premises open to the public for rental with no more than 4 rooms on all floors in aggregate whether in a single building or in several buildings, and with a total service capacity of 20 guests, operating as a small business which provides an additional source of income for the owners.”

 

    I'll rehash the points  I made before for the hard of hearing:

 

1. 'Open to the public for rental.'  Condo projects are private residences NOT open to the public.  Many have guarded gates to keep the 'public' out. You can't stroll in off the street and ask to rent a room.

2.  4 rooms, 20 guests.  Most condo projects have many more rooms than 4 and house many more than 20 residents. 

3.  '...operating as a small business'.   Condo projects are not operating as a small business.  Most are legally registered as condominiums, not businesses at all, at the Land Office.

 

    As explained to me by the Thai lawyer, this exemption was written to spare small businesses from all the regulations that registered hotels have to follow.  Walk down most streets and you will see numerous small businesses open to the public with, perhaps, a restaurant or shop on the ground floor and a few guesthouse rooms to rent on the upper floors.  The exemption applies to them and the like, not condo rooms in private residential projects.  But, no matter how clearly you lay it out, there will be some who will choose to  seize on a word or phrase and decide they're good to go. 

[Peterw42]

48 minutes ago, newnative said:

1. 'Open to the public for rental.'  Condo projects are private residences NOT open to the public.  Many have guarded gates to keep the 'public' out. You can't stroll in off the street and ask to rent a room.

As you say, the key words being "Open to the public" , its a private residential building accessible via freehold or leasehold only. In my Condo block the only way you get a carpark, foyer, lift access card, is by producing your chanote (freehold) or your lease (leasehold). They dont let you in with an Airbnb receipt.

 

A lot of the legal opinion "to suit" is just that, what people want it to be, rather than the 100s of websites, news articles or direct quotes from officials, that all say its illegal.

 

I know for a fact that my aftershave is tiger repellent, the whole time I have worn it I have not been attacked by a tiger, and there are no documented cases of anyone being attacked wearing my brand of aftershave. Forget about the general consensus or scientific fact that I am maybe wrong, I have not been attacked by a tiger yet.

 

 

Edited March 26, 2018 by Peterw42

[xylophone]

8 hours ago, Gilliams said:

IMO the posts by AJBangkok explain the situation very well and it seems pretty water-tight to me too.

New Native, PeterW42 and Wake Up.. are they lawyers?

Posts #51 and #52 explain it better!

 

And if you read AJBangkok's post #46 carefully you will see that it actually agrees with those posts although he is trying to prove otherwise!

[Gilliams]

3 hours ago, xylophone said:

Posts #51 and #52 explain it better!

 

And if you read AJBangkok's post #46 carefully you will see that it actually agrees with those posts although he is trying to prove otherwise!

 

3 hours ago, xylophone said:

Posts #51 and #52 explain it better!

 

And if you read AJBangkok's post #46 carefully you will see that it actually agrees with those posts although he is trying to prove otherwise!

@xylophone. It does not matter for me, I have nothing to rent out. Many answers are perfectly alongside the topic and more on 'I want', 'I hope', 'I think' based. One has heard it of his lawyer, the other is a lawyer and yet they tell the opposite !? No one will be wiser of it.

[xylophone]

13 minutes ago, Gilliams said:

 

@xylophone. It does not matter for me, I have nothing to rent out. Many answers are perfectly alongside the topic and more on 'I want', 'I hope', 'I think' based. One has heard it of his lawyer, the other is a lawyer and yet they tell the opposite !? No one will be wiser of it.

I have nothing to rent out either Gilliams, however I am always keen to know what one can and can't legally do here, esp with regards to property (as friends often discuss this).

 

Much was recently published regarding a crackdown on condo/short term rentals and can be found on the net and the following is from a firm of lawyers specialising in this (there is more so have copied the bits relevant to this discussion).................

 

This from:-  DUENSING KIPPEN………an international law firm specializing in business transaction and dispute resolution matters, with offices in Bangkok and Phuket, Thailand and affiliated offices in 45 other countries. Visit them at: duensingkippen.com

 

Quote………Recently local authorities have promised to “crack-down” on illegal hotels. If you are a homeowner in Thailand you may think this is not a concern of yours. However, if you are renting your house or condo out – or if you are using a company to own it and are staying it yourself – this does indeed concern you. Local authorities are empowered under two laws to regulate and tax you in such cases: 1) the Hotel Act; and 2) the House and Land Tax Act.

 

Hotel Act

 The Hotel Act (2008) requires any place that provides accommodation for less than a period of one month in exchange for payment is defined as a “Hotel”, regulated by the Hotel Act, and requires a hotel license.

 

There is a limited exception to this if:

 

1) the said place has less than five rooms; and

 

2) cannot accommodate over twenty guests at a time; and

 

3) the income being earned for such is merely “additional income”,

 

a license is not required. However, even in that case the owner must report to such accommodation activity to the relevant local authorities.

 

Anyone who operates Hotel without a license is liable for:

 

a) a fine of up to THB 20,000; plus

 

a fine of up to THB 10,000 per day of such illicit operation; and

 

c) imprisonment for up to one year (in the case of a company the person subject to such imprisonment would be director).

 

House and Land Tax Act

 If you or your company own a condominium unit or villa here in Thailand that was used, even if only for one day, by someone other than its legal owner (with or without you having received rental income), then you or your company have incurred liability under the House and Land Tax Act (1932) (“HLT“). The HLT tax is imposed on the owner of such structures, if they receive or should have received, rental income. And the HTL tax is one of the few taxes that localities, rather than the national revenue authorities, are empowered to collect.

 

[BigT73]

On 24/03/2018 at 6:16 AM, merijn said:

There is no room limit for registering renters online.

You only have to setup up a online account with immigration.

 

Renting out your apartment less then 30 days is for so far i know illegal unless the building is registered as a condo-tel or hotel and has the appropriate license.

 

Are you sure?  I enquired about this at Jomtien imigration about 1 year ago and that was their reply.  I was trying to avoid going down there.

[Maestro]

On 25/03/2018 at 1:54 PM, AJBangkok said:

Below is a quote of the actual exemption in the hotel act 

 

“The definition of hotel will exclude any residential premises open to the public for rental with no more than 4 rooms on all floors in aggregate whether in a single building or in several buildings, and with a total service capacity of 20 guests, operating as a small business which provides an additional source of income for the owners.”

 

For the record, the text quoted above is not from the unofficial English translation of the Hotel Act published by the Council of State, but from the English commentary about the Ministerial Regulation clarifying the type and criteria of hotel business B.E. 2551 (2008) given by the law firm Mayer Brown JSM. I can find no English translation of this Ministerial Regulation, only the original Thai text published in the Government Gazette, but have no reason to doubt the validity of the aforementioned English commentary.

Edited March 26, 2018 by Maestro
updated link to Hotel Act

[Maestro]

Back to the basic question: can a condominium unit legally be rented out for a period shorter than one month?

 

Unless there is another relevant Ministerial Regulation, this is what we have to work with:

 

Quote

 

Hotel Act, Section 4

“hotel” means an accommodation established for business purposes
of providing temporary accommodation service for travelers or any other person in
exchange for compensation, but not includes:

...

(2) an accommodation established for the purpose of providing
accommodation service for monthly paid service charge or upward only;

(3) any other accommodation prescribed in the Ministerial Regulation;

 

Ministerial Regulation of 2008

issued under the authority of section, definition (3) of the Hotel Act

(modified Google translation)

Non-Hotel and Type of Hotels

Clause 1. An accommodation where the number of rooms in the same building or several buildings is not more than four rooms accommodating not more than twenty guests which was established to provide temporary accommodation for travelers or any other person for compensation and with notification made to the Hotel Registrar is not a hotel under (3) of the definition of  "hotel" in Article 4 of the Hotel Act.

3

 

In chronological order:

1. In 2004, the Hotel Act exempted places renting out rooms for one month or more from the definition of "hotel", regardless of the number of rooms in the building.
2. In 2008, a Ministerial Regulation exempted places with not more than 4 rooms accommodating not more than 20 guests from the definition of "hotel", without specifying a minimum rental period.

This leaves the question whether one to four apartments (condominium units) owned by a person qualify as "an accommodation which was established to provide temporary accommodation for travelers or any other person for compensation", which the law firm Mayer Brown JSM paraphrased as residential premise open to the public for rental. A judge will have to decide if ever a case comes to court.

[xylophone]

11 hours ago, Maestro said:

This leaves the question whether one to four apartments (condominium units) owned by a person qualify as "an accommodation which was established to provide temporary accommodation for travelers or any other person for compensation", which the law firm Mayer Brown JSM paraphrased as residential premise open to the public for rental. A judge will have to decide if ever a case comes to court.

Not sure that's what is meant by the Min Reg of 2008??

 

You refer to "one to four apartments owned by a person"............whereas IMO the regulation refers to a building containing not more than four rooms.

[Cashy]

Got this info from legal adviser: Condos bought by Non-Thai-nationals under the ( Thai) condominium act, are not eligible for any rentals, can be only used for private purposes of the buyer/owner. Thai nationals allowed to rent out condominuims / houses , the minimum rental period must be 1 month.