New rentig laws

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

The rental law changes on the 1st May.

How will this effect people that have leases now?

Should we get half the deposit back next time we renew?

[InMyShadow]

Unless you live in a guest house or condotel it probably wont effect you as the law only effects condo owners that own 5 condos or more.

[torrzent]

3 hours ago, InMyShadow said:

Unless you live in a guest house or condotel it probably wont effect you as the law only effects condo owners that own 5 condos or more.

do you have a proof of that, or a weblink where it is explained?

[Antonymous]

Does anyone know if it will apply to real estate and holiday rental companies that act as agents for private villa rentals?

 

They have many more than 5 properties on their books and issue rental contracts in their (company) not house owners' names.

[Surasak]

Many apartment owners are ignoring all this, because they have had no official notification of these changes. Not everyone reads the governments papers.

[Crossy]

2 hours ago, torrzent said:

do you have a proof of that, or a weblink where it is explained?

Start here:-

 

 

[connda]

A lot of Thai lessors will attempt to break and renegotiate leases with the assumption that foreign lessees will simply roll over and accept it. 
Those not bound by leases will pretty much recuperate their 'lost income' by raising rent. 
Or, lessors will simply ignore the law.
This all should have been expected at the time legislation was passed.

Edited April 28, 2018 by connda

[thairookie]

1 hour ago, Antonymous said:

Does anyone know if it will apply to real estate and holiday rental companies that act as agents for private villa rentals?

 

They have many more than 5 properties on their books and issue rental contracts in their (company) not house owners' names.

5 properties calculated on the basis that the 5 properties have to be located in the same condo project or the whole of Thailand ?

 

 

[soisanuk]

3 hours ago, torrzent said:

do you have a proof of that, or a weblink where it is explained?

 

46 minutes ago, Crossy said:

Start here:-

 

 

 

Extracted from above link:

 

The new laws apply all residential property, including houses, condominium units and apartments.

 

 The new laws only apply to landlords who own five or more properties.

 

Landlords who lease or sublease five or more properties, regardless of whether they are in the same building are now defined as a “residential property leasing business”

 

Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, any residential lease agreement which does not contain the required terms above shall be interpreted to include them as implied Terms.

 

Under section 35 of the Consumer Protection Act, a residential lease agreement that includes any of the prohibited terms above shall be interpreted as not including them.

 

---------

It appears that it applies to all residential property including houses.  Further, that once the law goes into effect on 1 May, all existing leases that have prohibited terms will not be enforceable for those terms and those that omit required terms will be enforceable as if they included them.

 

It would appear that those that required more than one month's rent as security deposit gives the lessee the legal right to obtain a refund (or have it applied to rental payment) as the lease would now be interpreted as to only require one month.   If the landlord (so long as they meet the 5 property requirement)  it appears that if they did not comply, they would be subject to a heavy fine and jail - a good incentive for compliance.  

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by soisanuk

[newnative]

3 hours ago, thairookie said:

5 properties calculated on the basis that the 5 properties have to be located in the same condo project or the whole of Thailand ?

 

 

Whole of Thailand.

[Finisheed]

How does one determine how many properties the owner of their Condo owns/leases for the purpose of this law?

[ronrat]

The money has been spent.

[InMyShadow]

So those that have 4 property can continue to scam?

I think the majority of renters won't get the benefit of reduced electricity. It's not easy to aquire the money for 5 properties even with bank loans.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

Well, it's an open question for all renters.

For my own situation, the electricity bill I pay comes directly from the MEA so that is no problem.

It seems to be another Thai law that has not been thought through. They say how many rooms are let out, but translation should mean how many individual apartments (studios, 1 bed or more) the landlord lets in total in Thailand.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out and I will contribute with my own experience.

Thanks for the posts, all angles welcome.

 

 

Edited April 28, 2018 by George FmplesdaCosteedback

[jerry921]

On 4/27/2018 at 8:54 PM, Antonymous said:

Does anyone know if it will apply to real estate and holiday rental companies that act as agents for private villa rentals?

 

They have many more than 5 properties on their books and issue rental contracts in their (company) not house owners' names.

I'm not a Thai lawyer, or any kind of a lawyer, or even Thai.

But the rule (quoted above) says " The new laws only apply to landlords who own five or more properties. " And I think you're talking about management companies that don't own the properties, just manage them for the owner for a fee or percentage. So I think it wouldn't matter how many properties the rental company was managing, it would go back to each property's owners and whether those owners owned more than 5 properties.

 

So my guess-answer is it would depend, but probably the owner doesn't own 5 properties or he wouldn't be using the management company, so probably it wouldn't apply. My assumption is the management companies run a lot of properties for owners that only own one or two places. I'm keying off the word "own" in the rule, and assuming it's a good translation. If it's not, that would change things.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

Yep, it will not be the Management Company, it concerns the owner of the apartment/s they let.

Something that has not been considered.

The letting agencies should be aware of those clients that have more than 5 properties let or on their books and tell their clients they have changed the deposit requirement.

[tropo]

On 4/28/2018 at 4:15 AM, InMyShadow said:

Unless you live in a guest house or condotel it probably wont effect you as the law only effects condo owners that own 5 condos or more.

I just renewed my lease and the condo owner owns about 40 or more. There was no talk about a deposit reimbursement, which in my case would be 30k. I mentioned it to the real agent who I sign through and they just brushed the issue aside, suggesting it didn't apply to me. Someone is going to have to take this matter to court before anyone takes any notice of the changes. I'm not going to do that.

[tropo]

On 4/28/2018 at 10:26 AM, Surasak said:

Many apartment owners are ignoring all this, because they have had no official notification of these changes. Not everyone reads the governments papers.

I'd say all will ignore it until they're taken to task over it. It will be a matter of the tenants pushing the issue, rather than the landlords offering deposit refunds. There will need to be some test cases to scare landlords into compliance.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

8 minutes ago, tropo said:

I'd say all will ignore it until they're taken to task over it. It will be a matter of the tenants pushing the issue, rather than the landlords offering deposit refunds. There will need to be some test cases to scare landlords into compliance.

Excellent point, I am in the same position.

Trouble is the courts take years to get a case settled here.

Edited April 29, 2018 by George FmplesdaCosteedback

[soisanuk]

4 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Yep, it will not be the Management Company, it concerns the owner of the apartment/s they let.

Something that has not been considered.

The letting agencies should be aware of those clients that have more than 5 properties let or on their books and tell their clients they have changed the deposit requirement.

 

3 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

Excellent point, I am in the same position.

Trouble is the courts take years to get a case settled here.

 

In looking at the summary regarding the new law, it says the law will apply to: 

Quote

The Notification defines a “residential property leasing business” as a business that leases (or subleases) five units of property or more to individual lessees, for residential purposes, in exchange for a fee collected by the business operator, regardless of whether or not the units are in the same building. Property is defined to include any accommodation, house, condominium unit, apartment, or other kind of residential property leased for residential purposes, excluding dormitories and hotels which are regulated under a separate regime.

The above says a business that leases five units or more - not landlord.  It appears then that if a management agent is leasing the property in their name as the lessor rather than the landlord, the law would apply.

 

Also, rather than go to court, why not go to the Consumer Protection Agency to file a complaint - when they contact the owner and point out the laws says the following, the owner/lessor may decide to comply:

Quote

Any business operator who fails to meet the above requirements may be subject to imprisonment not exceeding one year and/or a fine not exceeding THB 100,000 (section 57 of the Consumer Protection Act).

[tropo]

10 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

11 hours ago, tropo said:

I'd say all will ignore it until they're taken to task over it. It will be a matter of the tenants pushing the issue, rather than the landlords offering deposit refunds. There will need to be some test cases to scare landlords into compliance.

Excellent point, I am in the same position.

Trouble is the courts take years to get a case settled here.

I don't wish to be negative about this, but I can't see any tenant taking any landlord to court over 1 month's worth of security deposit. In my case, it's 30k. Am I going to go to court over that? Hardly. Most people are paying less deposit than that, so it's not a viable option to take this matter to court. In my case, the deposit will most likely be returned at the end of my lease as it was for the past 2 rental contracts I signed, so there's nothing much to gain by pushing the issue.

 

My prediction is that this law will soon be buried and forgotten. If they made the law valid for ALL landlords, that would be different... but making it apply to landlords with rental stock of 5 or more is just plain dumb IMO. Also, landlords with stock have money and can afford good lawyers. Good luck fighting them in court LOL.

Edited April 30, 2018 by tropo

[InMyShadow]

I don't wish to be negative about this, but I can't see any tenant taking any landlord to court over 1 month's worth of security deposit. In my case, it's 30k. Am I going to go to court over that? Hardly. Most people are paying less deposit than that, so it's not a viable option to take this matter to court. In my case, the deposit will most likely be returned at the end of my lease as it was for the past 2 rental contracts I signed, so there's nothing much to gain by pushing the issue.
 
My prediction is that this law will soon be buried and forgotten. If they made the law valid for ALL landlords, that would be different... but making it apply to landlords with rental stock of 5 or more is just plain dumb IMO. Also, landlords with stock have money and can afford good lawyers. Good luck fighting them in court LOL.

And the tenant won't know if the owner has one or ten condos. The only way they will get caught is if the tenant reports it.

[George FmplesdaCosteedback]

12 hours ago, tropo said:

I don't wish to be negative about this, but I can't see any tenant taking any landlord to court over 1 month's worth of security deposit. In my case, it's 30k. Am I going to go to court over that? Hardly. Most people are paying less deposit than that, so it's not a viable option to take this matter to court. In my case, the deposit will most likely be returned at the end of my lease as it was for the past 2 rental contracts I signed, so there's nothing much to gain by pushing the issue.

 

My prediction is that this law will soon be buried and forgotten. If they made the law valid for ALL landlords, that would be different... but making it apply to landlords with rental stock of 5 or more is just plain dumb IMO. Also, landlords with stock have money and can afford good lawyers. Good luck fighting them in court LOL.

It is true those already renting will likely have given a two month deposit, and would expect to get it back when they decide to move, so that should not be a major problem.

Unfortunately, as I said, the law is badly drafted/translated so is it the number of properties letting agencies have, or the owners that become liable?

There cannot be a single agency that has less than 5 properties available, so it must be down to the owners.

How can a tenant find out how many properties they let?

 

Edited April 30, 2018 by George FmplesdaCosteedback

[tropo]

11 hours ago, George FmplesdaCosteedback said:

It is true those already renting will likely have given a two month deposit, and would expect to get it back when they decide to move, so that should not be a major problem.

Unfortunately, as I said, the law is badly drafted/translated so is it the number of properties letting agencies have, or the owners that become liable?

There cannot be a single agency that has less than 5 properties available, so it must be down to the owners.

How can a tenant find out how many properties they let?

 

That is true. A tenant signed with a real estate agency is going to have a hard job finding out. They have to give a copy of the owner's ID (in my case a passport) when you sign a contract, so you'd have to investigate. I know the owner has more than 5, but it's not doing me any good.