Landlords petition Prayut to kill new tenant protections

[milwaukeeboy]

Condo owners who rent out units for income have some advantages over apartment building owners as condo units are billed directly by the electric company.  Also the condo owners rent income in most cases slides under the tax radar. The main cost that the condo owners have to pass onto the renters is the monthly association/common fee.

[Baerboxer]

21 hours ago, sweatalot said:

Not surprised. They want to continue overcharging.

 

Yep. Only here could a group present a petition that says let us charge what we want, rip people off, and do as we please.

 

Thailand is light years behind on consumer protection legislation - among others.

[Khun Jean]

Most of this is for mansions and apartment buildings. Condos not really have this problem as each has their own meter.

We rent out condos and although the electricity is on our name the bill is being paid by the tenant. No surcharge bullshit.

The building has a service cost and it is part of the rent. If the building increases the service cost the rental price will increase with the same amount. Happens maybe once every 10 years. Simplicity is always best. Just ask the rental price that you are happy with and don't bother with extra charges for water and electricity. Happy tenant equals happy landlord.

 

 

[peterrabbit]

If they had stopped the bad Landlords in the past, rather than jumping on the bandwagon, I would have had some sympathy for them. As it is now, the new rules should stay and be strictly enforced!?

[StayinThailand2much]

Confused! My landlord informed us earlier this month that, effective May 1st, he would charge an electricity rate of 5B/unit, rather than the previous 8B. However, on the invoice for this month, that I just received, it's still 8 baht, so is the law in effect now, or not??

Edited May 29, 2018 by StayinThailand2much

[pookiki]

13 minutes ago, StayinThailand2much said:

Confused! My landlord informed us earlier this month that, effective May 1st, he would charge an electricity rate of 5B/unit, rather than the previous 8B. However, on the invoice for this month, that I just received, it's still 8 baht, so is the law in effect now, or not??

Yes, the law is in effect.

[StayinThailand2much]

28 minutes ago, pookiki said:

Yes, the law is in effect.

My landlord said he'd start next month with the new rate (his argument probably being that he charges from the 26th of a month) AND a new cleaning fee, so the effect on our bill will be minimal anyway.

Edited May 29, 2018 by StayinThailand2much

[pookiki]

14 minutes ago, StayinThailand2much said:

My landlord said he'd start next month with the new rate (his argument probably being that he charges from the 26th of a month) AND a new cleaning fee, so the effect on our bill will be minimal anyway.

There are many things landlords are doing that violate the law. New fees should not be added to an existing contract - it should only apply to new tenants.  But what are you going to do?  File a complaint with OCPB?

[moontang]

yeah, my attitude was..well I didn't agree to any service fee...but, that would certainly be negotiable at lease renewal, and I am actually saving under the new plan.  Funny thing, back in February, I found a place that was farang husband and thai wife.  I asked if they would charge me five instead of 7, and I had perfect credit, references, and money.  No dice....And they are still barely half full.  Kind of arrogant, they knew it was coming.  Apparently, many in denial.  The place I moved into wouldn't budge on electric extortion, either, but they did budge 500 per month On rent.  So most view it as a cash cow.  I doubt they will replace all the warped doors, but it feels better knowing that the air blowing through it only cost 5 per unit.

Edited May 29, 2018 by moontang

[Lucky mike]

Greed...nothing else !

[zaphod reborn]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

No that is totally wrong that they can help themselves to a tennants property.

 

However the change that they can't charge extra for electricity is a bit crazy. Because they had an amount of money they could get for their rooms based on rent and electricity. So they could lower the rent but get it back on electricity and many did so keeping the rent low. Now all of a sudden they can't charge for the electricity and lose out. That is totally unfair they should be allowed to raise the rent then. 

 

I don't own property like that but i see it from a business owners point of view a tenant agrees to the terms and then the state changes it.  Had the property owner known this he would never have kept his rent this low. I dislike the making money on electricity but with it came a lower rent. 

 

 

 

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?  In pertinent part, for the non-lawyers out there:

 

Quote

 

Residential lease agreements must not contain:
  * * *
5. Any term allowing the business operator to confiscate the security deposit or advance
rental fee;
* * *
8. Any term allowing the business operator to prevent or obstruct the lessee’s access to
the property to seize or remove the lessee’s belongings if the lessee defaults on rental
fees or other expenses related to the lease of the property;
* * *
11. Any term making the lessee liable for damages incurred due to ordinary wear and tear
from usage of the property’s contents and equipment;
12. Any term making the lessee liable for damage to the property, contents, and
equipment that was not the lessee’s fault and in force majeure situations; and
13. Any term making the lessee liable for defects to the property, contents, and equipment
incurred due to ordinary wear and tear through usage.
Under section 35 quarter of the Consumer Protection Act, a residential lease agreement that
includes any of the prohibited terms above shall be interpreted as not including them.
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).

New landlord-tenant code summary

 

 

[robblok]

2 minutes ago, zaphod reborn said:

 

You don't have a clue what you are talking about, do you?  In pertinent part, for the non-lawyers out there:

 

 

You have no idea what i wrote, i said I agreed that it was totally wrong for the owner to go after the tenants property.  I was only pointing out that IMHO it is wrong to now change that they can't charge extra for electricity because that is what their pricing structure was based upon. 

 

Many properties have a low rent but they made up by the charge on electricity now the owner is losing out had he known this before he probably had asked more base rent to start with. This was a contract both parties agreed to and was perfectly ok before and now the government expect the owner to take the hit. Not fair IMHO. Its like saying to Burger king that they can sell burgers but if someone wants extra cheese it has to be charged at cost price. 

 

I understand there are greedy owners and personally i find it distasteful to make money off electricity but it was a accepted pricing policy that kept rents low. Do you really think the rents will stay low or not ?. Base rents will go up of course to make up for this shortfall (im sure there are rules in place but in the end it will go up)

 

If i were a property owner I would never have used this pricing tactic to start with but that is just me. 

[tropo]

5 hours ago, robblok said:

No that is totally wrong that they can help themselves to a tennants property.

 

However the change that they can't charge extra for electricity is a bit crazy. Because they had an amount of money they could get for their rooms based on rent and electricity. So they could lower the rent but get it back on electricity and many did so keeping the rent low. Now all of a sudden they can't charge for the electricity and lose out. That is totally unfair they should be allowed to raise the rent then. 

 

I don't own property like that but i see it from a business owners point of view a tenant agrees to the terms and then the state changes it.  Had the property owner known this he would never have kept his rent this low. I dislike the making money on electricity but with it came a lower rent. 

 

 

Do you think landlords keep the rents low because they can gain profit from water and electricity?

 

That's not business. Business is about making a profit and getting the most rent that they can within the current market. Landlords need to price their real estate competitively otherwise they will stay vacant. They can't just put it up to compensate for reduced profit on electricity and water.

 

Sure, they can try to increase the rent, but ultimately it depends on what the competition is doing.

 

There is no way to justify adding a surcharge to an electric bill on a per usage basis. It puts heavy consumers at an extreme disadvantage.

Edited May 29, 2018 by tropo

[robblok]

1 minute ago, tropo said:

Do you think landlords keep the rents low because they can gain profit from water and electricity?

 

That's not business. Business is about making a profit and getting the most rent that they can within the current market. Landlords need to price their real estate competitively otherwise they will stay vacant. They can't just put it up to compensate for reduced profit on electricity and water.

 

Sure, they can try to increase the rent, but ultimately it depends on what the competition is doing.

Those properties in BKK at least were lower rent properties where they made the extra money off the electricity. That was their pricing structure. Ultimately a business owner has a certain ROI in his mind and will try to make it one way or an other. This was a legit pricing structure.

 

I think you will see a structural increase (within the law) of those rents where they made money of the electricity (i believe there are limits too how much rent can rise)

 

I am not saying i think its a good way to operate a business, im just saying prices will be raised to make up for the shortfall. 

 

I am just looking at this from a business point of view. 

 

Personally I would never move into a house where i had to pay extra for electricity above the normal rate. 

[tropo]

1 minute ago, robblok said:

Those properties in BKK at least were lower rent properties where they made the extra money off the electricity. That was their pricing structure. Ultimately a business owner has a certain ROI in his mind and will try to make it one way or an other. This was a legit pricing structure.

 

I think you will see a structural increase (within the law) of those rents where they made money of the electricity (i believe there are limits too how much rent can rise)

 

I am not saying i think its a good way to operate a business, im just saying prices will be raised to make up for the shortfall. 

 

I am just looking at this from a business point of view. 

 

Personally I would never move into a house where i had to pay extra for electricity above the normal rate. 

In the current market in Pattaya (I don't know about BKK), rents won't rise to compensate because there's too much on the market. In other markets perhaps the tenants will end up paying more rent.

 

An electric surcharge really takes advantage of foreigners who are likely to use a lot of air conditioning in Thailand. It's a hot country - they were onto a good thing... even the foreign landlords were enjoying it even though they know it's wrong because it unfairly takes advantage of heavy consumers. It does hurt their chances of getting long-term tenants though. A previous landlord dropped his surcharge years ago, although that was after I left.

[kannot]

The  only thing they need to remove is the 1  month deposit and 1  month notice  which are ridiculous, everything else is fine.

[robblok]

1 minute ago, tropo said:

In the current market in Pattaya (I don't know about BKK), rents won't rise to compensate because there's too much on the market. In other markets perhaps the tenants will end up paying more rent.

 

An electric surcharge really takes advantage of foreigners who are likely to use a lot of air conditioning in Thailand. It's a hot country - they were onto a good thing... even the foreign landlords were enjoying it even though they know it's wrong because it unfairly takes advantage of heavy consumers. It does hurt their chances of getting long-term tenants though. A previous landlord dropped his surcharge years ago, although that was after I left.

You and I are from different area's where I have seen it it was aimed at Thais and the rents were lower. Been in buildings like that and I am quite sure the rents will rise in BKK for those kind of units. Bangkok and Pattya are two different places and we are talking about different groups of people who were taken advantage of (if you can call it that way because when you sign you know what your getting yourself into). 

 

Pattaya is far more foreigner orientated, Bangkok has many foreigners but far more Thais. 

 

But i already said i find it a bad way to make money, but i find it worse that the government steps in to change a former legit pricing structure to score brownie points and expects the building owners to make up for it. This is not aimed at helping foreigners at all.

 

 

[robblok]

@tropo

 

For people who have less then 5 units, they can still charge the extra money for electricity. That why i said its not aimed at helping foreigners this is aimed at the huge buildings owned by one owner filled with Thais. For people renting out a house its just business as usual. 

 

That is at least what i read about it. If someone has read something else do correct me.

[tropo]

1 hour ago, robblok said:

 But i already said i find it a bad way to make money, but i find it worse that the government steps in to change a former legit pricing structure to score brownie points and expects the building owners to make up for it. This is not aimed at helping foreigners at all.

 

By "former legit pricing structure" are you referring to the surcharge on electric?

 

 Of course, altering the rent to compensate, if they can manage that, is legit. Adding a surcharge is sneaky profiteering. A lot of foreigners may not have any idea about the cost per unit of electricity when they first arrive. That's because most of us come from countries that don't do that and we expect we pay for what we use. I didn't have a clue at that time and was happy to pay 6.05 baht/kWh... which by all accounts is a moderate surcharge. As a fairly heavy consumer, he made an additional 20k per year from my electric bills. Close to one month's additional rent per year.

[The Deerhunter]

9 hours ago, LukKrueng said:

the utility bills are under the landlords' name and responsibility. If anything goes wrong, a bill not paid or repairs needed, the landlord has to cover the costs. If a landlord installs a private meter to the units, the cost of the meters+upkeep is on the landlord as well. So basically what happens is that a landlord is actually a middleman between the suppliers and final customers. In other countries utilities are usually registered under the tenants' name and the landlord has no responsibility over any misconduct of the tenants in regards to utility providers. 

Um!  I am a landlord and know how it works. I have several properties like that.   If LL does not want the  minor inconvenience of paying and receiving util accounts, then he knows what he must do.

 

[The Deerhunter]

9 hours ago, impulse said:

 

Not even close on the slavery analogy.  A) Slaves didn't sign on for it and B) Slaves can't leave without risk of punishment or death.

 

And, by that same line of reasoning, restaurants should charge 7 baht for a bottled water, and one baht for a bowl of rice because that's what it costs them? 

 

Landlords are in business to make money.  If their policies are honestly detailed on the lease agreement, renters have the option of renting from them, or looking elsewhere.   If they're smart, they look at the total cost, and not just the base rent, or the power and water rate.

 

Personally, I like the idea of a lower base rent rate, and charging people more if they consume more.  The alternative is to raise the rent for everyone (even if it's under the guise of a "service fee").

 

Edit:  I would add that I pay a premium for power at my place.  But I don't feel too bad about it because my co-workers who live nearby and pay the lower utility rate are in the same square footage at 2-4 times my rental rate.  So I'd ask... Who's getting the better deal?

All wrong.  You simply allow for the admin charges in the rent.    Renting and administering the property is his income.  That is what he charges rent to cover; his property to make a profit and his time.   It is his responsibility (even if he bought it that way) that the property is not set up for each person to have their own utility bills. He is the reason they do not!!!  Tough luck for him. He should not be making a further mark up on those things.   Unless he has to chase them and they muck him around over the rent or the utility charges.  That could change it but it would be in the lease document.    I am a landlord and I DO have properties like that!

Edited May 29, 2018 by The Deerhunter

[impulse]

4 minutes ago, The Deerhunter said:

All wrong.  You simply allow for the admin charges in the rent.    Renting and administering the property is his income.  That is what he charges rent to cover; his property to make a profit and his time.   It is his responsibility (even if he bought it that way) that the property is not set up for each person to have their own utility bills. He is the reason they do not!!!  Tough luck for him. He should not be making a further mark up on those things.   Unless he has to chase them and they muck him around over the rent or the utility charges.  That could change it but it would be in the lease document.    I am a landlord and I DO have properties like that!

 

You seem to think that the only acceptable choice is separate metering and direct billing.  That's one way to go.  But certainly not the only way.  Personally, I prefer to pay one lump every month with water, power, and phone included.  It's a service, and I don't expect it for free.

 

It costs our company (not a landlord) between $50 USD and $500 USD to process a typical invoice.  That means matching up the documents, making sure the numbers are correct, composing the invoice and presenting it for payment.  That doesn't include the finance cost of carrying the receivable, or writing off the occasional bad debt.  Those are real costs.  Someone has to pay for them.  Landlords can either add it to the rent, add it to the utilities, or spring for equipment to allow separate metering and direct billing.  You prefer one way, and that's fine for you.  Others prefer a different way.  I'm one of them.

 

 

[ozmeldo]

My landlord lowered electric to b5 and water to b18. Non use water from b100 to 50.

 

Added a public use fee b400 despite each floor a different rental fee escalating bottom to top.

 

 

 

Rent rises every two years

Old style toilet, wasted water

Resty has gone to shit

Laundry service hard on clothes

All the service staff, no one gives a toss.

Building full of frumpy Filipino teachers

 

The only thing that has kept us here is 650m from MRT

[tropo]

30 minutes ago, ozmeldo said:

My landlord lowered electric to b5 and water to b18. Non use water from b100 to 50.

 

Added a public use fee b400 despite each floor a different rental fee escalating bottom to top.

 

 

 

Rent rises every two years

Old style toilet, wasted water

Resty has gone to shit

Laundry service hard on clothes

All the service staff, no one gives a toss.

Building full of frumpy Filipino teachers

 

The only thing that has kept us here is 650m from MRT

A service charge to collect money for electricity and water is fair enough, but it should be in the original contract. 

[Curmudgeon1]

On 5/28/2018 at 2:33 AM, sweatalot said:

Not surprised. They want to continue overcharging.

 Not necessarily. The new rules are ridiculously one sided for the tenant and are an obscenity to common law. Strictly political. 

[Curmudgeon1]

On 5/28/2018 at 3:52 AM, overherebc said:

That involves thinking.

 If you've multiple properties it increases the administration. The answer is bump up the rent sufficiently to cover the cost of the new overhead cost.?

[tropo]

1 hour ago, impulse said:

 

You seem to think that the only acceptable choice is separate metering and direct billing.  That's one way to go.  But certainly not the only way.  Personally, I prefer to pay one lump every month with water, power, and phone included.  It's a service, and I don't expect it for free.

 

It costs our company (not a landlord) between $50 USD and $500 USD to process a typical invoice.  That means matching up the documents, making sure the numbers are correct, composing the invoice and presenting it for payment.  That doesn't include the finance cost of carrying the receivable, or writing off the occasional bad debt.  Those are real costs.  Someone has to pay for them.  Landlords can either add it to the rent, add it to the utilities, or spring for equipment to allow separate metering and direct billing.  You prefer one way, and that's fine for you.  Others prefer a different way.  I'm one of them.

3

Boo hoo! The poor landlords.

 

There's another option. The landlords can take it out of their profits, and take a reduced cut... and call it the price of doing business.

 

You can bet your bottom dollar they already have their rent at maximum levels, so adding it on to the rent will push their rents too high and make them unrentable.

[tropo]

11 minutes ago, Curmudgeon1 said:

 Not necessarily. The new rules are ridiculously one sided for the tenant and are an obscenity to common law. Strictly political. 

Think about this. Who needs more protection? Wealthy landlords (they have to own at least 5 rental units), or the poor renters who can't afford to own their own homes?

 

Having said that, the pendulum is still in the landlord's favour. It will remain there until a government agency is created to hold deposits in escrow.

Edited May 29, 2018 by tropo

[tropo]

7 minutes ago, Curmudgeon1 said:

 If you've multiple properties it increases the administration. The answer is bump up the rent sufficiently to cover the cost of the new overhead cost.?

LOL> if landlords could bump up their rents they already would have. Market competition dictates rentals, not a whim on the part of the landlord in an effort to make more money.

[moontang]

A good accountant will tell you that when calculating rental yields, you should allot 40-50% towards expenses, which include maintenance, administration, vacancies, advertising, insurance.  I would use 40% here.  The other 60% goes towards principal and interest.  So if you have a 2 million paid fornproperty, that rents for 10,000 per month...yes, that is a 6% gross, but in reality it is a 3.6% net.  Thai 10 year government bonds are paying 3%..........so they have unrealistic expectations that can only be met by underhanded activities like stealing deposits, deferring maintenance, and jacking people on utilities.  And in shoot yourself in the foot thai fashion; they end up with a lot less, because their buildings fall into disrepair, they rent to dead beats, and there are some people doing it right.  Now, some of the older owners in great locations can get away with it, and what they have is land that is worth more without the shitty apartment building, and they can just use managers to steal what they can get, with no intention of ever putting money into it.  Provides good laughs and income, but the real money comes with the wrecking ball.

Edited May 29, 2018 by moontang