Landlord criticized after tenant leaves room clean and tidy and faces 17,000 baht "fine"

 

Picture: Daily News

 

Thai social media comment was rife after a tenant posted her story online claiming she was ripped off by an unscrupulous landlord. 

 

Piyaparn Ojumnian, 27, has gone to the Office of the Consumer Protection Board for help. 

 

She said that with her husband they rented a condo in the Suthisan area of Bangkok after inquiring if pets were allowed to be kept there.

 

Picture: Daily News

 

She said the rent was paid in full for over a year until they decided to move. 

 

They left the room clean and tidy and gave notice but were slapped with 17,240 baht in charges. 

 

The owner said they needed to pay for lights, curtains, paint, cushions, sink, bed and a whopping 9,000 baht for the floor. There was also a cleaning charge. 

 

The owner said they were keeping the 15,000 baht bond and the renters would have to pay extra for what was owing. 

 

Source: Daily News

 

-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2018-09-25

There are landlords like this all over the world who just want to rip off their tenants for no other reason than to take more money and these people should be named and shamed with full photos of them showing their faces .

6 minutes ago, webfact said:

Piyaparn Ojumnian, 27, has gone to the Office of the Consumer Protection Board for help.

where is the 'so what?' here ? what does that office do and what possible outcomes and penalties are involved ?

 you cannot name and shame in Thailand, only if you want to end up in court on a defamation charge, yes i know its frustrating how the obvious guilty party can sue you. i have a lady move into a studio opposite the residential condos, opened up a laundry the first day, against condo rules,  and nothing is being done about it, grr, do what they like here, 

9K  THB for the floor, its tiled for Christs sake.

creative accounting,as a landlord you have to 

expect some wear and tear,part of the business,

some tenants do leave a hell of a mess and do

deserve to lose their deposits ,i would be very

happy if all our tenants left the place as clean

as that.

regards worgeordie

I can guess what ethnic group this landlord belongs to....

31 minutes ago, Vacuum said:

I can guess what ethnic group this landlord belongs to....

Well do state what ethnic group he belongs too .

I want to tell a story about my own personal experiences with people from that ethnic group and then we can all agree about how terrible they are 

Edited September 25, 20187 yr by sanemax
addition

12 minutes ago, sanemax said:

Well do state what ethnic abuse he belongs too .

That would be against forum rules.

1 minute ago, Vacuum said:

That would be against forum rules.

Everyones waiting to post a *I had a Thai/Chinese/Indian/Pakistani/British/Muslim Landlord once and he blah blah blah *

Landlords will continue to do this until they impose stiff penalties (10x damages) for unreasonably withholding security deposits.  As it stands, there is absolutely zero incentive for a landlord to return a deposit as the tenant's only remedy is to file a lawsuit, which only provides for return of the deposit and court costs as damages.

59 minutes ago, zaphod reborn said:

Landlords will continue to do this until they impose stiff penalties (10x damages) for unreasonably withholding security deposits.  As it stands, there is absolutely zero incentive for a landlord to return a deposit as the tenant's only remedy is to file a lawsuit, which only provides for return of the deposit and court costs as damages.

 

In at least one state in Australia, the landlord is not allowed to hold $1- of the deposit money, it must be passed (by law) immediately to a government agency which holds rental deposits, plus the landlord must also, at date of starting tenancy provide a number of photographs of the property. The tenant gets a fully detailed receipt and copies of the photos quickly from the government agency and is expected to speak up quickly is there are any errors and omissions in the recept / start of tenancy documents. 

 

When tenant wishes to leave the government agency inspects the property and landlord and tenant is present, then the gov't. agency quickly returns the deposit direct to the tenant.

 

Why did this process happen - simple answer, major regular rip-offs by landlords. 

 

 

Edited September 25, 20187 yr by scorecard

19 minutes ago, scorecard said:

 

In at least one state in Australia, the landlord is not allowed to hold $1- of the deposit money, it must be passed (by law) immediately to a government agency which holds rental deposits, plus the landlord must also, at date of starting tenancy provide a number of photographs of the property. The tenant gets a fully detailed receipt and copies of the photos quickly from the government agency and is expected to speak up quickly is there are any errors and omissions in the recept / start of tenancy documents. 

 

When tenant wishes to leave the government agency inspects the property and landlord and tenant is present, then the gov't. agency quickly returns the deposit direct to the tenant.

 

Why did this process happen - simple answer, major regular rip-offs by landlords. 

 

 

because that would stop the landlords from keeping the deposits by using lies/innuendo. too much money involved for them to do use common sense

 

2 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

Landlords will continue to do this until they impose stiff penalties (10x damages) for unreasonably withholding security deposits.  As it stands, there is absolutely zero incentive for a landlord to return a deposit as the tenant's only remedy is to file a lawsuit, which only provides for return of the deposit and court costs as damages.

I thought they just passed a law 6 months ago?

It's simple here, the landlords are the rich mostly, & the rich rule this country for themselves so nothing will ever be done....

6 hours ago, YetAnother said:

where is the 'so what?' here ? what does that office do and what possible outcomes and penalties are involved ?

 

The Office of Consumer Protection is concerned with protecting consumers, and they can start legal proceedings if they find that consumer law has been breached, I expect you can find a similar authority in your own country.

Penalties?  They are trying to recover their deposit, the penalty to the landlord would be having to give it back.

Edited September 25, 20187 yr by Kieran00001

3 hours ago, zaphod reborn said:

Landlords will continue to do this until they impose stiff penalties (10x damages) for unreasonably withholding security deposits.  As it stands, there is absolutely zero incentive for a landlord to return a deposit as the tenant's only remedy is to file a lawsuit, which only provides for return of the deposit and court costs as damages.

 

Are you trying to say that if I feel my tennent should pay to replace something that they have damaged, but they don't want to, and then we go to court and they win, then not only should I lose the deposit money but I should also be fined?  I think you will find that that goes against basic civil rights, you can't intimidate people out of making a claim by imposing fines on them should they lose.

I got ripped for 20000THB.  My Lady works as a maid, the place was scrubbed clean.

Since I heard of the new law coming into effect since May that forbids having a deposit of two months rental as well as a higher rate of electricity and water I was curious what will change with my landlord. Okay, water and electricity rate changed to the low rates but they introduced a maintenance fee of 150 Baht per month and didn't pay back the one month deposit.
Since then I always stay behind one month of paying the rent as I'm afraid they'll rip me off.
Until now didn't get any notice from the landlord yet...

Heaps of landlord bashing?
The tenants had pet/s and the landlord had to replace lights, curtains, paint, cushions, sink, bed and floor damage.
Lets ignore the tenant’s damages. Can’t let the truth ruin a good landlord-bashing story, can we.

3 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

In at least one state in Australia, the landlord is not allowed to hold $1- of the deposit money, it must be passed (by law) immediately to a government agency which holds rental deposits, plus the landlord must also, at date of starting tenancy provide a number of photographs of the property. The tenant gets a fully detailed receipt and copies of the photos quickly from the government agency and is expected to speak up quickly is there are any errors and omissions in the recept / start of tenancy documents. 

 

When tenant wishes to leave the government agency inspects the property and landlord and tenant is present, then the gov't. agency quickly returns the deposit direct to the tenant.

 

Why did this process happen - simple answer, major regular rip-offs by landlords. 

 

 

That is basically the same in the UK. Only difference is that the deposit is held by a legal letting agent/solicitor.

I rented a small room in Seoul years ago from a nice old grandma and grandpa. When moving in, there was a crack at the base of the toilet that had been fixed. I didn't care about it. I liked the room and the view was awesome when snowing.

They were so nice and sweet to me until I moved out almost 4 years later. The grandpa came to my room, looked around, went directly into the bathroom and started screaming at me about the crack that had been fixed. Then he took the contract from me and threw it in my face. Literally 10 minutes later, a plumber shows up at the door and comes in with a new toilet, which I had to pay for. It was cool because they forgot that I moved in without paying the first months rent, which was supposed to be paid upon moving out.

7 hours ago, YetAnother said:

where is the 'so what?' here ? what does that office do and what possible outcomes and penalties are involved ?

I have known two positive results from the Consumer Protection Office, one for a Thai and one for a foreigner. I am just at the very beginning of my case with the Consumer Protection Office, my claim is substantial, so will be interesting to see the result in a few months.

Seems they assess each case (internal Lawyers) and if a case is deemed to be real, they directly require the Landlord to attend meetings there (at Chaeng Watana) and they are not allowed to send staff, they must attend themselves. The case is discussed and the Office Lawyer decision is final.

In both the cases I am aware of, both were paid in full. 

1 hour ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

Are you trying to say that if I feel my tennent should pay to replace something that they have damaged, but they don't want to, and then we go to court and they win, then not only should I lose the deposit money but I should also be fined?  I think you will find that that goes against basic civil rights, you can't intimidate people out of making a claim by imposing fines on them should they lose.

Ummm . . . I know you are a layperson, but did you not read the word "unreasonable"?  If you, as a landlord, have a basis to withhold a deposit, and the withholding is reasonable for the replacement/repair cost, then there's no penalty.  Most landlords refuse to refund any part of the deposit, because there is an inadequate remedy at law in Thailand, as they only recently enacted a tenant-landlord code (amendment to the Consumer Protection Act), but it failed to add any kind of penalty for unreasonably withholding a tenant's deposit.

2 hours ago, Redline said:

I thought they just passed a law 6 months ago?

With respect to security deposits, if the landlord has 5 or more rental contracts in his name, he can only charge 1 month's rent as a security deposit, and it established a deadline for return of the deposit.  It did nothing to enact penalties for unreasonably withholding return of the deposit, or unreasonably deducting repair/replacement costs from the deposit.  Another Thailand legislative fail!

3 hours ago, Redline said:

I thought they just passed a law 6 months ago?

 

Whether something is illegal or not has absolutely no relevance in Thailand.

1 hour ago, zaphod reborn said:

Ummm . . . I know you are a layperson, but did you not read the word "unreasonable"?  If you, as a landlord, have a basis to withhold a deposit, and the withholding is reasonable for the replacement/repair cost, then there's no penalty.  Most landlords refuse to refund any part of the deposit, because there is an inadequate remedy at law in Thailand, as they only recently enacted a tenant-landlord code (amendment to the Consumer Protection Act), but it failed to add any kind of penalty for unreasonably withholding a tenant's deposit.

 

I am a layperson, you are right, have you been ordained?

 

I built a beautiful 6' x 18 foot book case in the basement of our rental home. $150 deposit charged for having to "dismantle bookcase" as it would not fit up the stairway.

I replied, enjoy Mrs School teacher, and teach your pupils how to cheat the military.

4 hours ago, Redline said:

I thought they just passed a law 6 months ago?

They did but from various comments the new laws seem to lack any teeth, and any valuable response.

4 hours ago, Kieran00001 said:

 

The Office of Consumer Protection is concerned with protecting consumers, and they can start legal proceedings if they find that consumer law has been breached, I expect you can find a similar authority in your own country.

Penalties?  They are trying to recover their deposit, the penalty to the landlord would be having to give it back.

So no penalty to the landlord; keep them all and reap all the deposits from renters who moved out of state, or can't afford an attorney, or are ignorant of the law, or are terrified of bureaucracy, or fear a bad referral as revenge. I moved from Ohio to California and the landlord kept the deposit. We even had friends in to help scrub and shine everything. I used my first vacation to return and win my claim. But there was no legal way to force repayment. I could only give him a bad rating at the consumer agency.

7 hours ago, scorecard said:

 

In at least one state in Australia, the landlord is not allowed to hold $1- of the deposit money, it must be passed (by law) immediately to a government agency which holds rental deposits, plus the landlord must also, at date of starting tenancy provide a number of photographs of the property. The tenant gets a fully detailed receipt and copies of the photos quickly from the government agency and is expected to speak up quickly is there are any errors and omissions in the recept / start of tenancy documents. 

 

When tenant wishes to leave the government agency inspects the property and landlord and tenant is present, then the gov't. agency quickly returns the deposit direct to the tenant.

 

Why did this process happen - simple answer, major regular rip-offs by landlords. 

 

 

Sounds like Western Australia, my State and I have had a wonderful tenant for five years.