Condo Maint Fee and Extra Charges

[Siam Bruce]

Condo Maint Fee and Extra Charges.

 

My situation is in Pattaya but the same should apply all over Thailand but T.I.T.

 

Can anybody tell me what % of the Total co-owners of any condo building are required to change the Condo Maintenance Fee?

I believe this is NOT the same as a % of Co-owners who either by Proxy or actually bothered to turn up to the second meeting.

I quote the second meeting as it seems Many (not all) Condos don’t get a quorum at the first A.G.M.

 

In my Condo we have a Maint Fee which amongst other things covered the Security, Elevators and Pool Maint. These three items are now listed as a separate yearly charge; over and above the original Maint fee which amounts to 25% of the Maint fee.

The Condo Management says this resolution was passed at the second meeting and approved by the committee.

They say under the Condo Act on 2008 latest Rev they can charge for these services.

 

Any advice on this matter would be greatly appreciated.

 

We believe that with good management of resources the current fee would cover the condo expenses; however control of this condo by a duly elected but dubious committee leaves us in this current situation. Pay up and Shut Up.

[smutcakes]

38 minutes ago, Siam Bruce said:

Can anybody tell me what % of the Total co-owners of any condo building are required to change the Condo Maintenance Fee?

I believe this is NOT the same as a % of Co-owners who either by Proxy or actually bothered to turn up to the second meeting.

I quote the second meeting as it seems Many (not all) Condos don’t get a quorum at the first A.G.M.

 

In my Condo we have a Maint Fee which amongst other things covered the Security, Elevators and Pool Maint. These three items are now listed as a separate yearly charge; over and above the original Maint fee which amounts to 25% of the Maint fee.

The Condo Management says this resolution was passed at the second meeting and approved by the committee.

They say under the Condo Act on 2008 latest Rev they can charge for these services.

 

Change maintenance (common fee) is not less than one half of the total Co-owners voting ratio. (This is in the first AGM, this is reduced to not less than 1/3rd in the 2nd meeting if quorum in first meeting not achieved to consider the agenda.

As you allude it is not less than one half of total co-owners votes (in person or by proxies), not of those in the meeting.

 

Regarding you part about taking certain things out of the common charge, it is a grey area in the law, and often in condos when there is no possible way to increase charges due to inability to get 1/3rd votes then Committees often have no other option of being a bit creative. If it was approved in the 2nd meeting, where is the issue? If you have a problem you have 30 days to file a complaint at the lands department, that is the only way you can do anything.

 

[Pattaya46]

Hi

The percent required to modify charges is 50% of total co-owners, yes, not 50% of co-owners (or represented) at the 1st AGM. So it's not something easy to do...

 

... but, the requirement is only only 50% of owners (present or represented) at the 2nd AGM if ever the first AGM has been cancelled. A lot easier to do.

 

FYI, it's what happened in Center Condo last year; we didn't get the 25% quorum at the first AGM, The maintenance fee has been increased (from 10 to 19 B/sqm/month) at the second AGM with approval of +50% of present  (but only 20% of total owners)

[KittenKong]

FYI, it's what happened in Center Condo last year; we didn't get the 25% quorum at the first AGM, The maintenance fee has been increased (from 10 to 19 B/sqm/month) at the second AGM with approval of +50% of present (but only 20% of total owners)

That does not seem to be legal. Only a supplementary fee would be legal given the number of attendees that you describe: you did not have enough present to permanently modify the basic charge.

Most older buildings impose a supplementary fee in this way.

[smutcakes]

21 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

Hi

The percent required to modify charges is 50% of total co-owners, yes, not 50% of co-owners (or represented) at the 1st AGM. So it's not something easy to do...

 

... but, the requirement is only only 50% of owners (present or represented) at the 2nd AGM if ever the first AGM has been cancelled. A lot easier to do.

 

FYI, it's what happened in Center Condo last year; we didn't get the 25% quorum at the first AGM, The maintenance fee has been increased (from 10 to 19 B/sqm/month) at the second AGM with approval of +50% of present  (but only 20% of total owners)

In the 2nd AGM it is not less than 1/3rd of total Co-owners, not just those present, it is very clearly and explicitly mentioned in the act. If what you say is accurate it was not legal to do that, although to late to complain now.

[Pattaya46]

1 hour ago, Pattaya46 said:

FYI, it's what happened in Center Condo last year; we didn't get the 25% quorum at the first AGM, The maintenance fee has been increased (from 10 to 19 B/sqm/month) at the second AGM with approval of +50% of present  (but only 20% of total owners)

 

Too late to modify my post above, and as previous posters said, a part is incorrect. Sorry 

 

I found last year AGM result on a Center Condo PDF:

AGM UPDATE

The quorum was 36 % and all the agendas passed by 95%

Owners voted to increase the common fee to 19 baht from 1 January 2018.

The last special assessment from May to December 2017 will be 6 baht

 

The "+50%" I wrote was in fact 95% !

And 95% of 36% representation makes 34.2% of total owners, more that 1/3. 

 

The Condominium Act in Section 48 says: "In the case where the joint owners attending a meeting does not constitute the number set forth under paragraph one, a new meeting shall be summoned within fifteen days from the date of summoning the preceded meeting and that a resolution relating to the matter provided under paragraph one in this new meeting must receive the votes of not less than one third of the joint owners’ total votes."

 

Looks like at 34.2% against 33.3% we were lucky to manage to make this increase.

[anfh]

As stated, it requires 51% of the ratio to change the MF. This is based on square meterage of the entire block.  This is regardless of how many owners are at the AGM.

 

A second meeting can be arranged within 14 days of the original meeting if a vote is not decided at the first meeting. The ratio at the second meeting is indeed 31%.

 

The MF charge is the ONLY resolution/change that requires this voting system.All other resolutions/ changes can be voted for by a show of hands of the owners that actually attend the meeting.

 

Therefore, as per the OP, the other changes in how your MF is split etc can be voted by the owners attending the meeting.

[Langsuan Man]

18 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

we were lucky to manage to make this increase

Correct, especially since every year we had to pass a "one time " special assessment since the maintenance fee had not been increased in a long,  long time.   At least 12 years that I am aware of 

[decca60]

anfh statement is 100% correct. More than 50% of total co owners at the first meeting and more than 30%of total co owners at the second meeting. We just did it 15 days ago in my condo.

[KittenKong]

The MF charge is the ONLY resolution/change that requires this voting system.All other resolutions/ changes can be voted for by a show of hands of the owners that actually attend the meeting.

Actually there are seven cases described in the act that require a particular percentage of votes of all co-owners, and increasing the fees (which is in fact changing the bylaws) is just one of them:

1. A purchase of real estate or acceptance as a gift of real estate with the encumbered charge being the common property,
2. A disposition of common property being the real estate,
3. A permission to a joint owner to build, decorate, make a change in, alteration on or addition to his own unit at his own expenses which adversely affect the common property or the external features of the condominium,
4. An alteration on or a change in the Bylaws relating to the use or management of the common property,
5. An alteration on or a change in the ratio of the common expenses in the Bylaws defined under Section 32 (8),
6. A construction deemed to be a change in, addition to or modification on the common property,
7. An arrangement for the exploitation from the common property.

And there are two more cases that require a smaller percentage vote (25%) of all co-owners:

1. Appointment or removal of the Manager,
2. Stipulation on the business which the Manager has the power to assign the other person to carry out on his behalf.

And there is also the case of dissolution of the condominium which requires 100% approval.

A show of hands is never legal as a hand may not represent a particular proportion of the voting ratio. For example, my "hand" is 50+% larger than the average in my building, yet in a show of hands it would only count as one vote. And of course some co-owners may own more than one unit, or may be holding proxies. Also an accurate record of all votes should be kept, and without voting slips this is not possible.

Edited March 28, 2018 by KittenKong

[KittenKong]

If what you say is accurate it was not legal to do that, although to late to complain now.

I'm not aware that it is ever too late to complain about an illegal procedure in a GM, though the longer ago it was the less likely it is for anything to happen about it. Certainly within a couple of years any complaint should be heard and acted on, if valid, and especially if the same management and/or committee are still involved.

[Delight]

 The easiest way to increase the income from co -owners is to use the 'Special Assessment' arrangement

 

The amount has only to be agreed at a general meeting . A simple majority will do.

I am advised that the land office will accept this arrangement for a max.3 years

 

Then it has to be agreed again

 

In my building we have had 2

 

THe first to cover the cost of employing a  management company

 

The second to generate a sinking gund

Not a single co -owner complained.

It is possible that this is what has happened in your building.

Do you attend general meetings-or even read the agenda?

[Langsuan Man]

11 hours ago, Delight said:

The easiest way to increase the income from co -owners is to use the 'Special Assessment' arrangement

Also correct but plays havoc with any kind of long term budgeting and more importantly borrowing 

 

Any lender for capital projects will want to be sure that there is a guarantee of proper funding and "special assessments" don't provide that assurance 

[Pattaya46]

19 hours ago, Langsuan Man said:

Correct, especially since every year we had to pass a "one time " special assessment since the maintenance fee had not been increased in a long,  long time.   At least 12 years that I am aware of 

 

If you are talking about "my" Center Condo in Pattaya, I think that the 10 baht/sqm/month was in the initial contract and had never been increased/updated since the condo was built, in 1990... 28 years !

 

If some are you wonder why the change to 19 baht, it's because it's the value corresponding to last year budget, and even if many people asked to move directly to 20 baht, the committee feared that the psychological effect of doubling the fee would make more owners vote against it. (Maybe true)

[KittenKong]

Also correct but plays havoc with any kind of long term budgeting and more importantly borrowing

Borrowing? A condo building should never need to borrow, and what bank in its right mind would offer unsecured loans in Thailand anyway?

[Langsuan Man]

20 hours ago, KittenKong said:

Borrowing? A condo building should never need to borrow, and what bank in its right mind would offer unsecured loans in Thailand anyway?

Condos are hardly "unsecured" 

[Henryford]

12 minutes ago, Langsuan Man said:

Condos are hardly "unsecured" 

But condos belong to the co-owners not the Management Committee. I can't imagine any co-owners offering their condo as security for any loan (unless maybe the roof was about to fall off).

[KittenKong]

But condos belong to the co-owners not the Management Committee. I can't imagine any co-owners offering their condo as security for any loan (unless maybe the roof was about to fall off).

Precisely.

I've never heard of a condo building taking out a loan anyway, as that is what the sinking fund is for. And if the sinking fund is not enough to cover some massive project like the roof falling off then you can just impose a supplementary fee at a GM prior to spending the money. It's easy enough to do.

The idea of management or a committee taking out loans on behalf of co-owners is simply horrifying.

[smutcakes]

On 3/28/2018 at 5:04 PM, KittenKong said:

I'm not aware that it is ever too late to complain about an illegal procedure in a GM, though the longer ago it was the less likely it is for anything to happen about it. Certainly within a couple of years any complaint should be heard and acted on, if valid, and especially if the same management and/or committee are still involved.

If you have a problem with a General Meeting you need to submit your complaint within 30 days which is the same requirement for registering any resolutions at the lands department which require registering. The Lands Department then calls the JPM to clarify and submit all meeting documentation for consideration. 

There used to be a message board which the LD clarified this types of issues, it was mostly in Thai. In reality it is a sensible rule. This is for complaints about procedure, voting rights etc used in the meeting, not for other issues.

 

 

 

 

[KittenKong]

If you have a problem with a General Meeting you need to submit your complaint within 30 days which is the same requirement for registering any resolutions at the lands department which require registering. The Lands Department then calls the JPM to clarify and submit all meeting documentation for consideration.

Sounds good, but what do you do in a building where the JPM doesnt file the results of the GM at all, let alone within 30 days? And believe me, it happens.

[smutcakes]

18 hours ago, KittenKong said:

Sounds good, but what do you do in a building where the JPM doesnt file the results of the GM at all, let alone within 30 days? And believe me, it happens.

Well you would file a complaint that the JPM has failed to register the results at the LD. It is only some issues which need to be registered anyway eg. New Committee, new JPM.

 

There are obviously some Condos which are stretcher cases, but generally speaking in even semi compliantly run condos these would be the steps you would take.

[lkn]

12 hours ago, smutcakes said:

There are obviously some Condos which are stretcher cases, but generally speaking in even semi compliantly run condos these would be the steps you would take.

It seems baffling to me that a JPM would fail at this.

 

The law is very clear about needing to hold a meeting no less than 120 days after end of the financial year, that audited financial report must be approved on this meeting, and that the agenda and meeting minutes must be registered at the Land Office no less than 30 days after this meeting, plus any potential amendments to the bylaws, new committee members, or JPM.

 

If the condominium corporate fails at these things, they’re making themselves a potential target of a lawsuit that shouldn’t be too hard to win, given that they are in clear violation of the law. Alternatively one could go after a vote of no confidence for the committee, so that these people cannot serve again.

[KittenKong]

The law is very clear about needing to hold a meeting no less than 120 days after end of the financial year, that audited financial report must be approved on this meeting, and that the agenda and meeting minutes must be registered at the Land Office no less than 30 days after this meeting, plus any potential amendments to the bylaws, new committee members, or JPM.

The law may be clear but in some Land Offices if it isnt done no one seems to be very concerned about it, and if there are complaints a brown envelope from the JPM will sort the matter out. You dont seem to realise the extent of laziness and corruption in some places are here.

[lkn]

11 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

The law may be clear but in some Land Offices if it isnt done no one seems to be very concerned about it

The Land Office is unlikely to see themselves as responsible for proactively cracking down on violations, the co-owners would have to take action.

 

47 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

You dont seem to realise the extent of laziness and corruption in some places are here.

I think I do realize, but if you are motivated, getting your building run properly should not be an insurmountable problem. I speak as someone who was unhappy with how my building was being run and got rid of both the JPM, chairman, and got the finances redone retroactively (to have them follow proper accounting procedures).

 

The Thai Condo Act is a consumer protection act for condo buyers to avoid various forms of corruption and abuse of power.

 

More or less by definition, corruption does not favor the majority, so if your building is corrupt, you should be able to get majority of the co-owners on your side, after which it’s easy to make changes.

 

As I only own one condo in Thailand, my experience is of course limited to a single case, but many of the complaints about mismanaged condos on this forum are from people who haven’t read the Thai Condo Act, often haven’t joined the committee (to try and change things) and sometimes these posters can’t even articulate exactly what the problem is, just that they feel things are bad.

 

Therefor I will stick to my belief that the system is in place to get changes made, so if your condo is run improperly, the main obstacle is really just apathy from the co-owners.

[KittenKong]

Therefor I will stick to my belief that the system is in place to get changes made, so if your condo is run improperly, the main obstacle is really just apathy from the co-owners.

This is true.