vigilante justice threat by farang resort owner

[Aeiou7]

I "de facto" own two condos in a farang owned resort on an island where condo ownership is apparently not possible, legally speaking I am a minority shareholder of an offshore company that seems to be a shareholder of a Thai company that owns the property (a bit weird, I know, but this is not the issue now). The resort functions mostly as a hotel, some other condos were sold the same way to other farangs who only pass their holidays here, I am the only condo owner who lives here permanently in one of my condos and I am sometimes renting out my second condo, with the contractual approval of the resort owner.

 

Now the resort owner and I have a disagreement about an invoice for exceptional outside maintenance work on the building (a new terrace cover). According to our contract I have to pay such invoices, but I don't agree with the delivered quality (paint stains on the terrace floor) and with a random 21.5 % management overhead surcharge, therefore I didn't pay the whole invoice yet. In my understanding the resort owner could sue me for not paying, but he has other ideas. He wants to "force me" (his words) to pay the disputed invoice: to forbid me to rent out my second condo any longer, and if I still do, he threatened  to "remove" my guests and to cut electricity/water of my second condo. I have received this threats by e-mail and replied that I would call the police if there was trouble. I have no guests in the second condo now and assume that he would be able to try to ban myself from my home and to cut electricity/water for myself as well.

 

As far as I know the resort owner is not allowed to cut electricity/water - or is he, because legally I am neither a renter, nor a legal condo owner?

How about banning my guests and/or myself from the resort through vigilante justice?

 

Could the police do something if I called them after someone got banned from the resort and/or after electricity/water got cut, or would I have to sue the resort owner for his actions?

Would it be possible to sue the resort owner for the received threats only, without any vigilante justice done by him yet?

 

Of course I know that I could ask a lawyer all these question, but I give it a try here first... Thanks a lot!

 

btw, I always correctly pay electricity and water consumption to the resort owner, with a quite high surcharge to the market price even.

[Delight]

You agree that you are legally obliged to pay the bill(i.e your contribution)

 

The issue is the quality of the job.

I would send him an  email (or registered letter) stating that  you are happy to  pay the bill in full-just as soon as the job is finished- to a standard that befits to rest of the resort.

Put the ball in his court.

 

Note : It is illegal to have the water cut -off in a room  where a  person(s) is  residing

[oracle]

1 hour ago, Delight said:

You agree that you are legally obliged to pay the bill(i.e your contribution)

 

The issue is the quality of the job.

I would send him an  email (or registered letter) stating that  you are happy to  pay the bill in full-just as soon as the job is finished- to a standard that befits to rest of the resort.

Put the ball in his court.

 

Note : It is illegal to have the water cut -off in a room  where a  person(s) is  residing

 

You answer if it is like a condominium. I think for him it depends on the contracts he signed when he paid for the units in the building, but he cannot (never) be a 'de facto' owner of any part of a building in Thailand  unless it is registered as a condominium. He owns shares in a foreign company, but that does not say anything, he is a minority shareholder in a foreign holding (hong kong or BVI) company and this company owns a minority shareholding in a Thai company (that owns what) and the majority of the shareholding in this Thai company is held by developer?  You should look in detail how this is structured. As he says, he is not a renter as what you normally see in these structures, so his position seems really weak.

 

 

[KittenKong]

I "de facto" own two condos in a farang owned resort on an island where condo ownership is apparently not possible, legally speaking I am a minority shareholder of an offshore company that seems to be a shareholder of a Thai company that owns the property (a bit weird, I know, but this is not the issue now).

Actually it is entirely the issue.

You do NOT own a condo. You own a part share in an apartment building or resort. You have no title to your individual units, either in your own name or in company name.

You have no support at all from the Condo Act because your building is not a condo. You are entirely at the mercy of whoever has the controlling interest in the company that owns the property.

As such you are basically screwed.

It's a source of constant amazement to me that anyone would put a bean into such a dubious legal structure anywhere in the world, let alone here. I can only suppose that the money involved came from illegitimate sources anyway and could not be spent or invested in the normal way.

[Khun Jean]

Let me guess ....... Samui?

 

Just pay the bill, shoddy work is considered good to outstanding in Thailand so a dispute will never end in your favor.

 

 

[Delight]

2 hours ago, KittenKong said:

Actually it is entirely the issue.

You do NOT own a condo. You own a part share in an apartment building or resort. You have no title to your individual units, either in your own name or in company name.
 

Suspect that it not not the issue.

True -he does not have any property listed in his name-however he will have a legally binding contract that will give him rights i.e. the right to use 2 apartments for his own purposes.

Possibly he can sell this right.

As well as rights he will also have responsibiities.

The scope of those responsibilities is the issue.`

 

The OP has not specified the amount of Baht in question

 

Perhaps he should.

[cheeryble]

This is not about Condo law, but if you have written agreements Contract Law and maybe Company Law comes in.

Question is how good are the contracts and do you want to go to law and waste time and worry on that.

 

BTW it may be reasonable to charge 21% surcharge for overseeing renovations.

 

The lesser evil may be to pay, doesn't sound like big money. 

Same time try to clear things up for future work.

 

demonstrates the importance of getting the detail right BEFORE the problems arise.

Good Luck.

[KittenKong]

Suspect that it not not the issue.

True -he does not have any property listed in his name-however he will have a legally binding contract that will give him rights i.e. the right to use 2 apartments for his own purposes.

We dont know that. I suspect that the OP doesnt either.

And I think the fact that this building is not a condo is entirely the issue. If it was a condo then he could own his unit and it would be his decision how to carry out repairs to it, and it would be a majority decision of all co-owners how to run the building as a whole, and the Condo Act would be there to ensure a semblance of legality, and this topic would not exist. As it is not a condo he has no such rights, though he may or may not have some sort of private contract regarding his use of the unit.
But even if he does have such a contract, everyone knows that getting contractual obligations honoured in Thailand can be a very long and expensive nightmare. I would not want to be in his position.

[Delight]

2 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

We dont know that. I suspect that the OP doesnt either.

And I think the fact that this building is not a condo is entirely the issue. If it was a condo then he could own his unit and it would be his decision how to carry out repairs to it, and it would be a majority decision of all co-owners how to run the building as a whole, and the Condo Act would be there to ensure a semblance of legality, and this topic would not exist. As it is not a condo he has no such rights, though he may or may not have some sort of private contract regarding his use of the unit.
But even if he does have such a contract, everyone knows that getting contractual obligations honoured in Thailand can be a very long and expensive nightmare. I would not want to be in his position.

You are suggesting  that the OP gave money to some one in exchange for zero.

You need to think again.

My knowledge -little as it is -suggests that Thai judges are very kind where a corporation has wronged an individual.

All this is beside the point

 

Do you have any advice for the OP which may help him-as distinct from your usual datribe of  'I would not have done this' ?

[KittenKong]

You are suggesting that the OP gave money to some one in exchange for zero.

You need to think again.
My knowledge -little as it is -suggests that Thai judges are very kind where a corporation has wronged an individual.

As far as I can see he is not an individual in this case. He is a part owner of a company. And his quarrel seems to be with the company that he part-owns. So it is not really a question of the little man and the big corporate giant, is it?

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

No Channote equals you own/control nothing. You are at the mercy of whoever controls the company I would suggest you pay up or just cut losses and walk away.

[KittenKong]

Do you have any advice for the OP which may help him-as distinct from your usual datribe of 'I would not have done this' ?

He could contact the office of consumer protection, but they probably wont be interested as he is not a consumer in this case. The Land Office wont be interested because the building is not a condo, as I explained. So his only real option is probably to file a law suit, which is unlikely to be cheap and may not result in anything. It may even result in the other party sending a goon squad round at night, as suggested in the title of the topic. It's all happened before here, many times.

As for being helpful, I explained to the OP what he does and doesnt own, and I explained why he is unlikely to find much support anywhere. This seems very helpful to me, and indeed other people may also benefit from that knowledge. If you dont think it is helpful, too bad.

I have some more free advice for anyone considering buying property on any Thai island: dont do it.

[Delight]

2 hours ago, KittenKong said:

So it is not really a question of the little man and the big corporate giant, is it?
 

That's not the way that the OP sees it

Hence the term Vigilante in the OP

[BEVUP]

I look at it this way

He has an overseas company which decided to buy shares (or equivalent to )

So for his contribution into that company he gained 2 units (let's say equivalent to the share issue )

So this Thai company is obviously owned / managed by some one

I would say a contract has been done for the owners of such units that they shall decide on living/renting them & maintenance shall be divided by the number of units

So he is maybe only paying 21% of the cost for what the 2 units would have to pay 

That would be for the company/owner who manages such property 

[Aeiou7]

Thanks everyone who took the time to write their advice and opinion.

 

Some more answer to points that have been raised:

 

Yes, I know that I was stupid to sign such a "purchase" contract. An ex-neighbour who sued the owner was told by her lawyer that the contract was worth nothing. Finally she agreed to a settlement deal to get a part of her investment back, without a verdict by a court.

No, my money didn't come from illegitimate sources.

What I meant with "de facto own" is that everything internally in the resort works as if I was a real owner, but legally speaking I am well aware that I am not.

My "property" (not mine, I know...) are two one-bedroom studio apartments, I wrote "condos" because I thought that this expression was more common, but legally it seems not to be the same.

By "vigilante justice" I didn't necessarily mean violence but just taking measures like cutting electricity or banning people without a court order.

The bill in the actual case is not very high, but the next one might be. Legally the resort owner should sue me if I don't pay it, but he won't and prefers to use his own methods (cutting water/electricity, banning people from the resort).

I own 4 % of the shares of the offshore company (indeed in the BVI), the resort owner owns more than 50 % of them.

 

I find it interesting to read all kinds of insights about the whole situation, but what I am mainly interested to know are answers to these questions:

 

---

As far as I know the resort owner is not allowed to cut electricity/water - or is he, because legally I am neither a renter, nor a legal condo owner?

How about banning my guests and/or myself from the resort through vigilante justice?

 

Could the police do something if I called them after someone got banned from the resort and/or after electricity/water got cut, or would I have to sue the resort owner for his actions?

Would it be possible to sue the resort owner for the received threats only, without any vigilante justice done by him yet?

---

 

What do you think?

 

Someone wrote "It is illegal to have the water cut -off in a room  where a  person(s) is  residing"

- is it the same with electricity? I remember having read somewhere a while ago about a Thai court decision that an electric fan must be possible to use.

 

What about the power of the police in such a case? I know, I know, it's Thai police, but let's assume a knowledgeable and honest policeman is involved (they do really exist in Thailand as well).

 

Thanks a lot again!

 

[cheeryble]

 

The question is.....have the developer's actions been reasonable? Maybe. Maybe not. We don't know him or the OP or the details so we simply don't know who is in the right.

 

You only mention two complaints. Paint on floor and charge for work oversight.

Last first ........what is a reasonable charge if he organises he work? 20+% seems perfectly OK to me. Not to you?

AS for the paint let's see a photo of the work, the price, and any faults?

Then maybe we can give reasonable advice.

[oracle]

49 minutes ago, Aeiou7 said:

I find it interesting to read all kinds of insights about the whole situation, but what I am mainly interested to know are answers to these questions:

 

---

As far as I know the resort owner is not allowed to cut electricity/water - or is he, because legally I am neither a renter, nor a legal condo owner?

How about banning my guests and/or myself from the resort through vigilante justice?

 

Could the police do something if I called them after someone got banned from the resort and/or after electricity/water got cut, or would I have to sue the resort owner for his actions?

Would it be possible to sue the resort owner for the received threats only, without any vigilante justice done by him yet?

---

If you cannot supply any other information to the police than that you are shareholder in a BVI company that owns shares in a Thai company that owns the resort the police cannot do anything. The police will say the cannot do anything and say it is a private matter between you and the developer and you should go to court.

If your only rights to the units are the shareholding in the BVI company there is little you can do preventing the developer (owner of the building) from cutting you off. 

 

Normally you always have in addition a lease registered with the land department giving you rights to the units, a house book could even be issued for each unit what also could help. What you describe you see on island like Koh Tao or Koh Chang.
 

[KittenKong]

That's not the way that the OP sees it

Hence the term Vigilante in the OP

I dont think many large corporations would resort to that, even in Thailand. This sounds like a one-man-band business feud to me.

[KittenKong]

As far as I know the resort owner is not allowed to cut electricity/water - or is he, because legally I am neither a renter, nor a legal condo owner?

How about banning my guests and/or myself from the resort through vigilante justice?

If you owned a condo, even via a company structure, you would have a measure of protection against this.
If you had a proper signed lease to a condo or apartment, long or short term, registered or not, then you would also have a measure of protection against this.

But as it stands you dont own the property and you apparently dont have a lease to it. So I dont see how you can benefit from any legal protection at all. You are basically just a non-paying guest who can be turned out at any time, even if you do own part of the resort structure via a company.

I imagine that this was all part of the resort developer's master plan, as from what you say he did a good job of ensuring that whatever contracts you have are meaningless.

[MikeyIdea]

Your situation is awfully weak. I'd look at how the resort owner has behaved in the past - if he's otherwise acceptable, then I'd accept that I knowingly put myself in a position where I can be ripped off and there's nothing I can do about it and pay up. There's nothing wrong with a 21.5% management fee, yes, sure I'd want 20% and 15-18% would be a good deal but it's a bit late for that. Paint stains etc are just a normal part of Thailand, that's hardly anything that the owner can do much about for only 21.5% management fee, he'd have to multiply himself and stand and watch each one of the workers to kill that problem. Anyone suggesting not paying the company doing the work for not cleaning up the paint stains should decide to live a happier and longer life in another country, to care about small details like that all the time in Thailand when nothing reasonably can be done to change it will not make for a worry-free and happy life - double price from the beginning for the more professional company leaving few paint stains is always an option but it makes Thailand a really expensive alternative

 

How to end this situation without being in an even weaker situation? I'd suggest the owner to take in another independent constructor (read worker) for a few days to remove the stains, I'll pay my part only of that - how much can that be, a thousand baht, and the 21.5% management fee on top of that, and please Mr. Owner check the work quality more carefully in the future

 

This is Koh Tao, isn't it?

 

Michael 

[Aeiou7]

It's Koh Phangan.

 

Besides just being a shareholder of the BVI company, I do have Thai Blue Books without my name in them that the owner (one farang man with not the best reputation) handed over to me.

[ChiangMaiLightning2143]

I have the blue book to my condo from the Thai lady who sold it to me.

Means nothing. Something one gives to the Amphoe when a Yellow book is issued. A current blue is Not proof of ownership anyway.

[NutsMango]

On 04/04/2018 at 10:02 AM, Khun Jean said:

Let me guess ....... Samui?

You can own condo in Samui - plenty of them there

 

I guess Ko Tao

[uklawyer]

You need to speak to a lawyer who knows what he is doing and he will need to see all the relevant documentation.

 

It seems you handed over a sum of money to someone and in fact took possession of 2 units.  How that would be interpreted under Thai law, I am not sure, but maybe as some form of lease (although leases for terms of more than 3 years must be registered at the Land Office, which may well be an issue) or perhaps a licence to occupy (if such a concept exists in Thai law.  What the documents say will of course be relevant.

 

From what you have said, if I understand correctly, it seems that you own 4% of an offshore company that is a minority owner of the resort.  Provided all laws have been complied with, this could be a legally binding arrangement which would presumably mean that you own something less than 2% of the resort.  Land/land and buildings can legally be owned by a Thai company, and up to 49% of the shares in such a Thai company can be owned by foreign shareholders, so provided all relevant laws have been complied with, this may be a legal arrangement (ignoring for a second any issues with regards to occupying part of the resort).  The question then is, under Thai law, is a part owner entitled legally to occupy part of the property he co-owns without a lease from the company of which he is a part owner?  I would think a lease would be required, but I am not sure.  And what about the documentation you entered into when you "purchased the shares"?  Did they expressly give you the right to occupy the 2 units?  If so, could such a document be construed as a de facto lease (although again the registration may be an issue) or perhaps the Thai equivalent of a licence to occupy.

 

The relevance of the above is whether or not you are occupying the units (even if you rent the second one out, you are still in possession of it) legally, as this may well be relevant when the question of cutting off water and electricity, etc are to be considered.  The rights of an individual occupying a unit legally may be different to one who has no legal right to be there.  From what you have said, it sounds like you have created something of a legal minefield.  A good lawyer should be able to give you an idea of what you position is legally once he has reviewed all the documentation, but it will only be an educated opinion.

 

On a practical level, if you go to the police, unless you get very lucky, they may well tell you that this is a civil matter and you will need to go to see a lawyer.

[Rhys]

In the end the dude will only bring the wrath of lost faced Thai...do you need this hassle..

[BigC]

If in the contract you have to pay maintence fees then they have got you

 

as if people don’t pay their maitnence fees then it effects everyone’s else’s condos 

 

have to be careful in contracts as if there is no set maintence fee you could be charged anything

 

 

[BigC]

If in the contract you have to pay maintence fees then they have got you

 

as if people don’t pay their maitnence fees then it effects everyone’s else’s condos 

 

have to be careful in contracts as if there is no set maintence fee you could be charged anything

 

 

[Sprigger]

Another example of why you shouldn’t buy a box of matches in the Land of Scams

[smotherb]

Oh the joy of owning where you really can own and only renting here where it is only smiles.

[scorecard]

On 4/4/2561 at 11:30 PM, Aeiou7 said:

Thanks everyone who took the time to write their advice and opinion.

 

Some more answer to points that have been raised:

 

Yes, I know that I was stupid to sign such a "purchase" contract. An ex-neighbour who sued the owner was told by her lawyer that the contract was worth nothing. Finally she agreed to a settlement deal to get a part of her investment back, without a verdict by a court.

No, my money didn't come from illegitimate sources.

What I meant with "de facto own" is that everything internally in the resort works as if I was a real owner, but legally speaking I am well aware that I am not.

My "property" (not mine, I know...) are two one-bedroom studio apartments, I wrote "condos" because I thought that this expression was more common, but legally it seems not to be the same.

By "vigilante justice" I didn't necessarily mean violence but just taking measures like cutting electricity or banning people without a court order.

The bill in the actual case is not very high, but the next one might be. Legally the resort owner should sue me if I don't pay it, but he won't and prefers to use his own methods (cutting water/electricity, banning people from the resort).

I own 4 % of the shares of the offshore company (indeed in the BVI), the resort owner owns more than 50 % of them.

 

I find it interesting to read all kinds of insights about the whole situation, but what I am mainly interested to know are answers to these questions:

 

---

As far as I know the resort owner is not allowed to cut electricity/water - or is he, because legally I am neither a renter, nor a legal condo owner?

How about banning my guests and/or myself from the resort through vigilante justice?

 

Could the police do something if I called them after someone got banned from the resort and/or after electricity/water got cut, or would I have to sue the resort owner for his actions?

Would it be possible to sue the resort owner for the received threats only, without any vigilante justice done by him yet?

---

 

What do you think?

 

Someone wrote "It is illegal to have the water cut -off in a room  where a  person(s) is  residing"

- is it the same with electricity? I remember having read somewhere a while ago about a Thai court decision that an electric fan must be possible to use.

 

What about the power of the police in such a case? I know, I know, it's Thai police, but let's assume a knowledgeable and honest policeman is involved (they do really exist in Thailand as well).

 

Thanks a lot again!

 

 

The 'ownership' is multi layered and complex.

 

As your are no doubt aware ownership of condos appears to be straight forward in that a non-Thai person can own a condo (In a building which is classified as a condo and with conditions about total % of  foreign ownership per building etc., and with proof of where the funds have come from etc.).

 

Your situation is much more complex, if this case ever went to court are you sure the judge would see your status and that of the other foreigners involved in various companies and shareholdings as being within the appropriate Thai laws?  And if within the law, would the judge see it the way you explain ownership?

 

Beware of opening a pandoras' box which might smack you hard. 

 

Perhaps you need to analyze this situation as to it's future.