Guest houses must now get a hotel license--any info?

[simoh1490]

56 minutes ago, BestB said:

It’s not my duty nor job to provide you with anything .

 

you have been given information , what you do with it is entirely your choice.

 

Not interested in pleasing or satisfying you.

 

Since your one and only source of information comes from this forum, I really do not see any point or reason to continue answering your self proclaimed  pointless posts.

 

Your opinions posed as facts does not become facts nor the made up numbers or opinions on reasons.

 

soldier on, no one is stopping or forcing you to change 

 

I've lived here full time for the past 16 years, before that I was a frequent visitor since I lived in Hong Kong and China. My wife used to work for The Chedi and later for the Anantara, we have several friends who still work for both hotel chains so I have a little bit of insight into both Thailand and the hotel industry here.

 

I do know from first-hand experience that there is a lot of government intervention at the guest house and small/medium hotel level in Chiang Mai and in other locations, much of it is deserved (I think), some of it is not. But the Hard Rock Cafe was not closed as you said, not even temporarily, that is a fact and it's not appropriate to suggest it was because it sends entirely the wrong message to people who don't know any better.

[cmsally]

Unless I am mistaken, the Hard Rock that the poster mentioned was in fact the Hard Rock Hotel in Pattaya (and not the Hard Rock Cafe in Chiang Mai). The poster mentioned from the outset he was a business owner from Pattaya and not Chiang Mai.

[JAZZDOG]

12 minutes ago, cmsally said:

OK back on topic please ! Does anyone have any reports from what happened at the meeting at Wat Lamchang yesterday?

I have fairly reliable second hand information, which would seem to suggest that those affected are getting nowhere! According to my sources there were no representatives from the relevant government offices (correct me if I am wrong please). It really would seem there is no way out of this, I would hope that I am wrong here. But to me it would seem the small business owners in Chiang Mai are being hung out to dry!

We have pretty much confirmed the "if", now what about the "why". It just seems so arbitrary and selective across the board. Following the money doesn't seem to answer the question. I don't buy into the Big Boys taking out all the other players and the pity kickbacks don't seem to me to be worth widespread loss of political capital with elections over the horizon. 

[BestB]

5 minutes ago, cmsally said:

Unless I am mistaken, the Hard Rock that the poster mentioned was in fact the Hard Rock Hotel in Pattaya (and not the Hard Rock Cafe in Chiang Mai). The poster mentioned from the outset he was a business owner from Pattaya and not Chiang Mai.

You are not mistaken but correct ?. Just some people have difficulties ?

[BestB]

17 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I've lived here full time for the past 16 years, before that I was a frequent visitor since I lived in Hong Kong and China. My wife used to work for The Chedi and later for the Anantara, we have several friends who still work for both hotel chains so I have a little bit of insight into both Thailand and the hotel industry here.

 

I do know from first-hand experience that there is a lot of government intervention at the guest house and small/medium hotel level in Chiang Mai and in other locations, much of it is deserved (I think), some of it is not. But the Hard Rock Cafe was not closed as you said, not even temporarily, that is a fact and it's not appropriate to suggest it was because it sends entirely the wrong message to people who don't know any better.

Thanks for the bio.

 

my ex works for a Chinese real estate , so I am pretty good in Chinese 

 

anyhow , did I not say 5 times was closed and now open?

 

did I not say pattaya at least 10 times ?

 

are you actually aware there are other cities than just yours ? And raids are nation wide?

 

no need to respond , all were rhetorical questions 

[cmsally]

Quite frankly I don't think anyone cares about elections or supposed populist support.

All out of the handbook of how to move the big investors into a city . Bank repossession and bankruptcy of all the smaller places, which will crash the property prices for buy up. Then some kind of tax hike which will mop up the remainder. Along with this will be some kind of tax dispensation for the bigger companies at least until the balance is redressed in their favour.

[simoh1490]

23 minutes ago, cmsally said:

Unless I am mistaken, the Hard Rock that the poster mentioned was in fact the Hard Rock Hotel in Pattaya (and not the Hard Rock Cafe in Chiang Mai). The poster mentioned from the outset he was a business owner from Pattaya and not Chiang Mai.

I didn't suggest it was the Hard Rock in Chiang Mai, I am aware that Pattaya is the subject.

[simoh1490]

12 minutes ago, BestB said:

Thanks for the bio.

 

my ex works for a Chinese real estate , so I am pretty good in Chinese 

 

anyhow , did I not say 5 times was closed and now open?

 

did I not say pattaya at least 10 times ?

 

are you actually aware there are other cities than just yours ? And raids are nation wide?

 

no need to respond , all were rhetorical questions 

Here's the Email address of the Hard Rock Pattaya, George is the GM, [email protected], ask him if it's been closed even temporarily and let us know what he says!

[JAZZDOG]

19 minutes ago, cmsally said:

Quite frankly I don't think anyone cares about elections or supposed populist support.

All out of the handbook of how to move the big investors into a city . Bank repossession and bankruptcy of all the smaller places, which will crash the property prices for buy up. Then some kind of tax hike which will mop up the remainder. Along with this will be some kind of tax dispensation for the bigger companies at least until the balance is redressed in their favour.

Seems like a very wide broom with brutal consequences. Not really a recipe to attract foreign investment, tourist or expats but maybe that's the plan? In Malaysia the Chinese are moving in and seeking control of vast sectors of the economy. Could that be the case here?

[cmsally]

2 minutes ago, JAZZDOG said:

Seems like a very wide broom with brutal consequences. Not really a recipe to attract foreign investment, tourist or expats but maybe that's the plan? In Malaysia the Chinese are moving in and seeking control of vast sectors of the economy. Could that be the case here?

Well if the foreign investment is large enough to call the shots they have the control.

[simoh1490]

1 minute ago, cmsally said:

Well if the foreign investment is large enough to call the shots they have the control.

I know that you are up to speed on this topic Sally so will you please tell us objectively, in your personal opinion, whether or not you think the intent behind this crackdown is not warranted to some degree, given the extent to which unlicensed hotels/guest houses have proliferated in a broadly uncontrolled manner? I am not suggesting the crackdown has been properly managed and whether or not several innocents have been harmed because we both know they have, I'm just looking at just the underlying intent.

[JAZZDOG]

23 minutes ago, simoh1490 said:

I know that you are up to speed on this topic Sally so will you please tell us objectively, in your personal opinion, whether or not you think the intent behind this crackdown is not warranted to some degree, given the extent to which unlicensed hotels/guest houses have proliferated in a broadly uncontrolled manner? I am not suggesting the crackdown has been properly managed and whether or not several innocents have been harmed because we both know they have, I'm just looking at just the underlying intent.

IMHO it would be warranted had the government not deferred enforcement for decades. Many of the hotels indeed have licenses just not one of the select 300 awarded to run a hotel which are impossible to get after the fact. To require ALL hotels, GH, rooms for rent to adhere to the same requirements as a Hilton after allowing them to do business for decades is totally unfair to both the owner/operator and the landowner whose property will be in essence condemned.

There is a big difference between legitimacy and legality. Although these businesses maybe deemed illegal they remain legitimate because the government failed to enforce the law. An example is the helmet law. It can never be warranted for the government to threaten or harass 90% of a sector of the economy with closure with no option to conform or come into compliance. To use contrived illegality to generate temporary cash flow only to go back to the status quo once a new target pops up should also be looked upon as unacceptable.

 

A fair resolution would be to find a pathway where smaller hotels could be given an opportunity to be licensed under an amended law that insured life safety issues and allowed hard working people to continue to provide for their families. A law by different classifications. This doesn't seem to be the intent because the government has stated all these hotels can operate as long as they rent 30 days or more. That makes absolutely no rational sense except to funnel tourist to the very few licensed, very expensive hotels.

 

Establishments that don't have any license, don't pay taxes and employ farang without WP should be shut down until they come into compliance. Making a small GH live by the same rules as a Hilton after allowing it, collecting taxes and various license fees for so long is just plain wrong.

[thaibeachlovers]

17 hours ago, McTavish said:

Nope, you're the one with head and shoulders up ass.  But ... to be nice ... please take time out to examine Thai political history going back say 40 years and talk with people who've lived thru the past 10 years or more here.  I have, and buying selling property, business, vehicles or simply dealing with Immigration/Land Transport etc... its all far better now and almost (note the almost) devoid of corruption like pre-2104.

I've been here for decades, but not for 40 years, though I did visit in the 70s, and I can state that LOS was a far more enjoyable place before Thaksin became PM.

[thaibeachlovers]

I went through a small soi near the Night Market today, and didn't see any closed signs, but I did see a sign where the Daily, Weekly had been taped over, leaving only Monthly.

[thaibeachlovers]

10 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

You're too funny, both you and Bestie, I bet your moms don't know you're not in your rooms, there'll be h*ll to pay when she finds out.

 

"actually loved the country", be concerned about corruption", " happening around me"!

 

What's happening around me is that the farmer is getting ready to plant his next rice crop. All the land on the plains around here is owned by my neighbour, a retired police general, a nice guy with a great family, I bought my house from him and we socialise regularly. Up until he retired about three years ago he was the second most influential cop in the North - today he builds houses and plants rice on thousands of rai that he owns, a former PM has a holiday estate here, a gift, apparently! NOBODY breaks the law around here, not one single person, EVERYONE knows he won't stand for it, there's no theft, no prostitution, no wild parties, no karaoke, no late night noise, I haven't looked but I doubt there are even any untaxed motorbikes! That's what's happening around me! Further afield? Who cares, I'm a visitor here, this is not my country, I'm not allowed to have a say and I don't care to have one hence I worry about the things I can change and I forget about the things that I can't.....you should do the same, that way you might live to see 30!

Am I alone in seeing the irony in that post?

[simoh1490]

2 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Am I alone in seeing the irony in that post?

Corruption vis a vis the General and thousands of rai? Of course, I wrote it for that reason! I wonder how many people don't go into bars, restaurants or hotels in the US that are owned by the mafia, probably the same number of people who don't buy houses from ex-police Generals in Thailand. 

[skippy121]

If a guest house can operate without a license if it has only 4 room , why can't they remain open but only be allowed to rent the first 4 rooms on the lowest floor, so fire escape is not needed.

 

In fact I can see this being used as the face saving backtrack, 

 

4 rooms are allowed as daily rental without license , any remaining rooms need to monthly rent with a "rooms for rent license" .

They will add in some silly rule that a extra door must separate the two different rooms types , so a monthly renter  has  to open a extra locked door to get to the floor that contains the rooms for rent.

 

Problem solved, Government saves face, guest houses with under 12 rooms stay in business. 

 

[cmsally]

18 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

Am I alone in seeing the irony in that post?

I thought it was sarcasm, it's getting right up there with Monty Python !

[JAZZDOG]

2 minutes ago, skippy121 said:

If a guest house can operate without a license if it has only 4 room , why can't they remain open but only be allowed to rent the first 4 rooms on the lowest floor, so fire escape is not needed.

 

In fact I can see this being used as the face saving backtrack, 

 

4 rooms are allowed as daily rental without license , any remaining rooms need to monthly rent with a "rooms for rent license" .

They will add in some silly rule that a extra door must separate the two different rooms types , so a monthly renter  has  to open a extra locked door to get to the floor that contains the rooms for rent.

 

Problem solved, Government saves face, guest houses with under 12 rooms stay in business. 

 

Law changed 2016 effective in august that exclusion no longer applies. Four room guest house governed by same laws as the Hilton

[simoh1490]

7 minutes ago, cmsally said:

I thought it was sarcasm, it's getting right up there with Monty Python !

It's absolutely true, every word, see this is about the different Thailand's we each live in.

[JAZZDOG]

1 minute ago, simoh1490 said:

It's absolutely true, every word, see this is about the different Thailand's we each live in.

If these different Thailands each have different stock markets sounds like you have nothing to worry about.

[cmsally]

Of course it is absolutely true, no doubt about it. Surely there is some irony when it is juxtaposed into a conversation about corruption ! that is why I assumed it was sarcasm.

[BestB]

2 hours ago, simoh1490 said:

Here's the Email address of the Hard Rock Pattaya, George is the GM, [email protected], ask him if it's been closed even temporarily and let us know what he says!

Why? Can you not afford internet minutes?

 

go ahead send him email and ask him, was he raided? And what was the outcome

[heybruce]

50 minutes ago, thaibeachlovers said:

I've been here for decades, but not for 40 years, though I did visit in the 70s, and I can state that LOS was a far more enjoyable place before Thaksin became PM.

The fact that Thaksin affiliated parties always win any elections they enter indicates the majority of Thai people don't agree with you.

 

But I can see how the times of ignorant, barefoot peasants selling "services" for a pittance would appeal to some people.

[Mattd]

8 minutes ago, JAZZDOG said:

Law changed 2016 effective in august that exclusion no longer applies. Four room guest house governed by same laws as the Hilton

I've read this thread with interest and some of the posts by some seemingly guest house owners are totally not factual, in fact they either misunderstand the facts or distort them.

 

1. There has never been the definition 'guest house' in the hotel act - A hotel is classified as somewhere with more than 4 rooms or 20 guests that are let to the public for short term (less than 30 days) and for a payment, this regulation has been in force since at least 2004.

2. There were NO changes made to the Hotel Act in 2016.

3. There was a Ministerial Regulation that came in to force on 19th August 2016, this was in connection with the Building Control Act 1979, as a building that is being used as a hotel has to conform to certain standards, as has been discussed here - This ministerial regulation was actually designed to make it easier for existing buildings to comply with the BCA 1979, as it was realised that it was difficult if not impossible to comply. The regulation gives existing non licensed buildings 2 years to submit plans to alter in order to comply and then a total of 5 years to implement the alterations.

4. 50 rooms or less didn't need a license prior to 2016, rubbish, as per point 1 this has been a requirement since at least 2004, the ministerial regulations from 2016 requirements does now have bands of compliance, i.e. the bigger the hotel, the more compliance, hence the statement that a 4 room hotel has to comply the same as a Hilton or similar really is not correct at all, admittedly there would be similarities in the compliance between 5 rooms and 49 rooms, again though, it would be pro rata to the number of floors and so on.

 

Whilst I do agree that the current crackdown seems unfair and even premature given the ministerial act, the plain fact does remain that these regulations have been in force for quite sometime and anybody that wants to go in to this nature of business should carry out their legal due diligence prior to taking that plunge.

The non compliance just allows the authorities the chance to extort.

 

I'd ask the question about insurances etc. etc. in the event of a tragedy should the business be not properly licensed, that would a risk I certainly would not take, especially here.

[BestB]

9 minutes ago, Mattd said:

I've read this thread with interest and some of the posts by some seemingly guest house owners are totally not factual, in fact they either misunderstand the facts or distort them.

 

1. There has never been the definition 'guest house' in the hotel act - A hotel is classified as somewhere with more than 4 rooms or 20 guests that are let to the public for short term (less than 30 days) and for a payment, this regulation has been in force since at least 2004.

2. There were NO changes made to the Hotel Act in 2016.

3. There was a Ministerial Regulation that came in to force on 19th August 2016, this was in connection with the Building Control Act 1979, as a building that is being used as a hotel has to conform to certain standards, as has been discussed here - This ministerial regulation was actually designed to make it easier for existing buildings to comply with the BCA 1979, as it was realised that it was difficult if not impossible to comply. The regulation gives existing non licensed buildings 2 years to submit plans to alter in order to comply and then a total of 5 years to implement the alterations.

4. 50 rooms or less didn't need a license prior to 2016, rubbish, as per point 1 this has been a requirement since at least 2004, the ministerial regulations from 2016 requirements does now have bands of compliance, i.e. the bigger the hotel, the more compliance, hence the statement that a 4 room hotel has to comply the same as a Hilton or similar really is not correct at all, admittedly there would be similarities in the compliance between 5 rooms and 49 rooms, again though, it would be pro rata to the number of floors and so on.

 

Whilst I do agree that the current crackdown seems unfair and even premature given the ministerial act, the plain fact does remain that these regulations have been in force for quite sometime and anybody that wants to go in to this nature of business should carry out their legal due diligence prior to taking that plunge.

The non compliance just allows the authorities the chance to extort.

 

I'd ask the question about insurances etc. etc. in the event of a tragedy should the business be not properly licensed, that would a risk I certainly would not take, especially here.

So rooms for rent license was designed and issued for whom?

[JAZZDOG]

35 minutes ago, BestB said:

Why? Can you not afford internet minutes?

 

go ahead send him email and ask him, was he raided? And what was the outcome

Pretty sure George is not inclined to let it be known he allowed his owners resort to have a lapse in licensure. 

[BestB]

3 hours ago, JAZZDOG said:

Seems like a very wide broom with brutal consequences. Not really a recipe to attract foreign investment, tourist or expats but maybe that's the plan? In Malaysia the Chinese are moving in and seeking control of vast sectors of the economy. Could that be the case here?

I do not believe there is or was a plan.

 

Order was given to fix what someone thought was broken , without doing any investigations into it or taking any other factors into account , including long term consequences.

 

No different to last years order to ban all riding in the back of a pick up .that backfired badly , so order was held back or postponed to save face.

 

who or what is next is anyone’s guess.

 

someone mentioned building codes? But who issued building  permits? Why go after the public when it was the officials who approved. 

 

Again about the building codes and safety, how is it different for people staying daily or monthly

 

as we already discussed, building code does not apply and license not needed for 30 days rentals, so assuming it’s all about safety then welfare of long term tenants is not important 

[BestB]

4 minutes ago, JAZZDOG said:

Pretty sure George is not inclined to let it be known he allowed his owners resort to have a lapse in licensure. 

Pretty sure poster posting contact details got it off the net and has no clue at all?

[simoh1490]

5 minutes ago, BestB said:

Pretty sure poster posting contact details got it off the net and has no clue at all?

I can PM you his mobile number if you wish?