4 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

I'm so glad I own my home. lol 

 

You don't. A Thai owns the land underneath it. Your home has to be removed if they demand it. I would not call that owning a home.

1 minute ago, Lacessit said:

You don't. A Thai owns the land underneath it. Your home has to be removed if they demand it. I would not call that owning a home.

Always some people ready to POUNCE  !   on another note, sure was hot today ....

6 minutes ago, rumak said:

Always some people ready to POUNCE  !   on another note, sure was hot today ....

I assume you are familiar with the term "shooting the messenger".

as for not knowing if the landlord has to obey the law for 5 units,

a quick glance at electric cost will confirm, since no landlord in thailand

will pass on such an opportunity to scam some money

3 hours ago, tropo said:

 ... but paying the real estate's commission is just part of the business and shouldn't be considered as the tenant's responsibility. They always have the option of finding their own tenants. What's the alternative to paying the real estate's commission? In many cases it could be a vacant unit, costing the landlord even more in lost potential income. Apart from that, if the landlord finds a good agent, it's money well spent because the agent does quite a bit of work for their commission.

Landlord pays 1  months commission, tenant moves out 2  months later  then new

tenant moves in and does the same.............cant you see how a landlord would end up with virtually nothing if  this is repeated? 

With the new  laws theres  nothing to stop this happening again and again

34 minutes ago, Lacessit said:

You don't. A Thai owns the land underneath it. Your home has to be removed if they demand it. I would not call that owning a home.

Unless, of course, he's a Thai citizen - did you consider that possibility? 

1 hour ago, smedly said:

sorry to burst your bubble but so what, the point being tenants pay rent, I have never seen a rental contract and neither would I get involved in one if I was renting, deposits are meant to cover damage which one month should easily cover, as for padding the utility bills - that crap has gone on long enough.

 

It is a buyers/renters market, that is the reality, how many vacant properties are there, market forces win out with supply outstripping demand for years by quite a margin, time to smell the cheese.

 

There are many bag holders out there that thought the Thai property market was the same as the west...………………..it isn't

Seems you also have "no idea" .

1  month certainly wont cover damage at all, last bizarre tenant my Wife  had personal experience of cut the aircon pipes the washing machine hose, scratched all the kitchen cupboards, broke almost everything he could as he decided to terminate early and wanted his deposit back despite him signing a contract with early termination clause in it, the price of the room was 14000 a  month, to repair everything ran way way over the 2  months deposit.............but I guess you know more as  my Wife  probably only deals with several hundred rentals a year.

I never mentioned electric  bills as virtually all condos charge the standard govt  rates, serviced appts charge whatever they like, as for not having a contract, never EVER seen that for a "condo"

As for bag holders.........thats their problem more fool them.

4 hours ago, norrska said:

Sorry no choice.  You will have to obey the law or face the consequences.  Got a good laugh out of your tough talk though!

Umm.  No, you don't have to obey the law if you are handling less than 5 properties.  

1 hour ago, Lacessit said:

You don't. A Thai owns the land underneath it. Your home has to be removed if they demand it. I would not call that owning a home.

A condo can be a "home".  My home is a condo.

Please, if anyone has any stories of a foreigner tenant using any such consumer protection to get an outcome to their benefit against a Thai landlord, I'd love to hear the details.  Or in any branch of society.  I'm not saying it's impossible,  but not likely. 

42 minutes ago, newnative said:

Umm.  No, you don't have to obey the law if you are handling less than 5 properties.  

Obey the law at all times.  There are no conditions to suit you personally.  Nice try!

2 hours ago, Lacessit said:

You don't. A Thai owns the land underneath it. Your home has to be removed if they demand it. I would not call that owning a home.

In Australia if they make a new Freeway and "your" home is in the way, guess what happens. 

Anyway, didn't some famous guy once say that all ownership is theft.

 

1 hour ago, kannot said:

Seems you also have "no idea" .

1  month certainly wont cover damage at all, last bizarre tenant my Wife  had personal experience of cut the aircon pipes the washing machine hose, scratched all the kitchen cupboards, broke almost everything he could as he decided to terminate early and wanted his deposit back despite him signing a contract with early termination clause in it, the price of the room was 14000 a  month, to repair everything ran way way over the 2  months deposit.

but, with the new law, the tenant would have gotten his refund,

so therefore wouldnt have "cut the aircon pipes the washing machine hose, scratched all the kitchen cupboards, broke almost everything he could"

to make it even

53 minutes ago, norrska said:

Obey the law at all times.  There are no conditions to suit you personally.  Nice try!

The new law specifically applies to 5 properties or more.  So, for example, if you own one condo that you rent out, the new law doesn't apply to you.  Nice try!

8 hours ago, Just1Voice said:

I'm so glad I own my home. lol 

 

 

Don't buy in Thailand keep repeating the idiots...

 

 

Edited May 16, 20188 yr by grkt

So how will rental agents draft their rental agreements now?

 

lets say i have just one condo and a rental agent finds me a tenant and drafts us the rent agreement i doubt that the rental agent is going to put in agreement a 2 months deposit..

Doesnt matter that  i got only one unit they need to follow that strange new law..

4 hours ago, kannot said:

Landlord pays 1  months commission, tenant moves out 2  months later  then new

tenant moves in and does the same.............cant you see how a landlord would end up with virtually nothing if  this is repeated? 

With the new  laws theres  nothing to stop this happening again and again

It's a bit dramatic... landlords and real estate agents should have contractual arrangements to cover such situations where tenants leave early.

3 hours ago, poanoi said:

4 hours ago, kannot said:

Seems you also have "no idea" .

1  month certainly wont cover damage at all, last bizarre tenant my Wife  had personal experience of cut the aircon pipes the washing machine hose, scratched all the kitchen cupboards, broke almost everything he could as he decided to terminate early and wanted his deposit back despite him signing a contract with early termination clause in it, the price of the room was 14000 a  month, to repair everything ran way way over the 2  months deposit.

but, with the new law, the tenant would have gotten his refund,

so therefore wouldnt have "cut the aircon pipes the washing machine hose, scratched all the kitchen cupboards, broke almost everything he could"

to make it even

Of course, there's always a risk that the landlord will end up with some nutcase as a tenant. They don't look at references here, so the risk is a bit higher than in most civilized countries that have more advanced procedures. How high is the risk though? 

12 hours ago, jerry921 said:

This seems like nonsense to me. What is the risk of renting under the terms of the new law? That the tenant will move out? How is that worse than just not leasing the apartment in the first place?

 

The new law may make furnished rentals harder to find, as it may cause lessors to convert from furnished to unfurnished because they can't get enough security deposit to cover damage to furnishings, but thinking they'll leave the unit sit vacant is over-the-top over-reaction.

This was part of the reason we decided not to re-rent out our property.  We live outside the country and are only in Thailand a few months per year.  With the new rules its not worth renting anymore. 

8 hours ago, tropo said:

 ... but paying the real estate's commission is just part of the business and shouldn't be considered as the tenant's responsibility. They always have the option of finding their own tenants. What's the alternative to paying the real estate's commission? In many cases it could be a vacant unit, costing the landlord even more in lost potential income. Apart from that, if the landlord finds a good agent, it's money well spent because the agent does quite a bit of work for their commission.

you're missing the point.  if you can only collect one month rent and that goes to the agent you have in effect no deposit.  If the tenant moves out after a two months and does not pay the second you have lost money.  

22 minutes ago, yourauntbob said:

you're missing the point.  if you can only collect one month rent and that goes to the agent you have in effect no deposit.  If the tenant moves out after a two months and does not pay the second you have lost money.  

i think its an effort to control the incessant deposit theft by the landlords,

perhaps there can be better ways to control them ?

2 hours ago, tropo said:

It's a bit dramatic... landlords and real estate agents should have contractual arrangements to cover such situations where tenants leave early.

what  will in effect happen is agents  will only work for owners who have 4  rooms  or  less as its simply  not worth the hassle of chasing a customer now unless there is  full commission.

Another factor is these  days that commission is rarely given all to the agent, quite often the security guard, maid and office  are  all in on the deal so it can be split often 2-3- or even  4  ways.

 When the other poster said "surely there should be some sort of contract between owner and agent"  well its impossible to do  "  good  luck" trying to get money back from security guards or the maids when theyve had their cut, not only that but even tenants are getting in on it if they find a friend wants to move into a  room  they are vacating.

5 hours ago, poanoi said:

but, with the new law, the tenant would have gotten his refund,

so therefore wouldnt have "cut the aircon pipes the washing machine hose, scratched all the kitchen cupboards, broke almost everything he could"

to make it even

Do you actually  have any real life experience of multiple tenants? as in hundreds? There are many who are very dirty, in fact Id  say more than 70%,  most are not careful at all and basically dont give a S**t  about the rooms in any way.

You might be a good  tenant but from my Wifes experience many simply are  not.

The new  rules are crap, owners and agents   will lose  money and it  will not work, owners with more than 5  rooms may end  up selling if there is really no way to bypass them and they get enforced which I  doubt.

Serviced apartments are what they will have turned private condo rentals into which is ridiculous, either that or prices  will soar to cover any potential  losses and i cant see  that happening either. 

Some owners that are complying ( and its really not  many) now say 1  month deposit  and one month to cover furniture damage to claw it  back and will doubtless if the tenant leaves charge for the tiniest of damage at inflated prices if anything making complaints even higher.

Generally speaking  condo units only charge the normal electricity rate its the serviced appts  that hike up prices.

The tenant " may" have gotten their deposit back of 1  month but I doubt many Thai landlords  will go down this route as its now way to easy to terminate any contract.

3 hours ago, Destiny1990 said:

So how will rental agents draft their rental agreements now?

 

lets say i have just one condo and a rental agent finds me a tenant and drafts us the rent agreement i doubt that the rental agent is going to put in agreement a 2 months deposit..

Doesnt matter that  i got only one unit they need to follow that strange new law..

the law doesnt apply to YOU, you only have ONE room rental agreements  will reflect  that in your circumstances

Edited May 16, 20188 yr by kannot

1 hour ago, poanoi said:

i think its an effort to control the incessant deposit theft by the landlords,

perhaps there can be better ways to control them ?

Third party holds the deposit, the problem here though is rampant dishonesty involving any cash.

8 hours ago, kannot said:

Landlord pays 1  months commission, tenant moves out 2  months later  then new

tenant moves in and does the same.............cant you see how a landlord would end up with virtually nothing if  this is repeated? 

With the new  laws theres  nothing to stop this happening again and again

Then the landlord should make the contract with the real estate agent so that he only has to pay if the tenant stays for a minimum time. Or for example 16% per month over 6 months if the tenant does not leave. Obviously finding a tenant who really wants to stay long term means more work for the agent, but this could be compensated by an increased commission.

15 hours ago, kannot said:

Most owners  find tenants thru an agent, the agent gets one months  rent as commission, if the tenant leaves after 2  months the owner has  lost out big  time.

So the owner would simply have to convert to a pro rata commission payment system where they pay 1/12 of the commission payable each month.  Clumsy, but not unworkable.

15 minutes ago, mstevens said:

So the owner would simply have to convert to a pro rata commission payment system where they pay 1/12 of the commission payable each month.  Clumsy, but not unworkable.

Great comment,  And also increase the rent to include a refundable bonus on departure to the tenant of the room if it is left in a good state. You know,....mstevens, I think you and I must have been real estate gurus in our previous lives. 

Have a tremendous and rad day everyone. 

10 hours ago, newnative said:

The new law specifically applies to 5 properties or more.  So, for example, if you own one condo that you rent out, the new law doesn't apply to you.  Nice try!

You can try your luck and make all the delusional assumptions you want.  Next thing you will be telling everyone that you have a special exemption from tax as well. 

Edited May 17, 20188 yr by norrska

5 hours ago, kannot said:

the law doesnt apply to YOU, you only have ONE room rental agreements  will reflect  that in your circumstances

No true because my rental agent said that she can nolonger draft agreements with 2 month deposits regardless how many units the landlord says that he has..

Maybe that rental agent doesn’t understand it? I told her about 5 unit rule but she says doesnt matter??