What happens if?

[darrendsd]

I have a rental contract on a house - the owner/landlord (Thai) lives next door - they have 2 houses together

 

I know for a fact they have money issues and have asked me on more than one occasion to lend them money or a advance on the rent so they can pay the mortgage

 

At first I didn't mind but they have more than one occasion  recently spoke to me very badly regarding other matters - I am more than willing to help people if they need it but won't be spoken to like I am dirt by the very people I have helped

 

So my question is - the next time they ask for a loan or advance on the rent I will be refusing - I have a signed contract for the house - if the bank were to repposses (sp) the house where do I stand? Can the bank evict me?

 

Also I have a standard contract - the sort you buy in a shop - prefilled and you just enter the rental dates - address - rent price etc - if in the future they refuse to fix any issues with the house such as a broken water pump for example is this grounds for me to refuse to pay the rent until it is fixed?

 

For those who say just move out yes I will be but not for another year

 

Any advice is welcome - thanks

 

 

[blackcab]

Your lease is subordinate to the bank's mortgage. Chances are, the owner needed the bank's permission to lease the property in the first place, which they are unlikely to have received.

 

That being said it takes quite a while for the bank to take the matter through the Court system, so in reality you should be fine for another year (as long as your landlords have been making some payments to the bank).

 

Clearly, you are unlikely to receive your deposit back, so plan ahead for this and work out your strategy.

[darrendsd]

8 hours ago, blackcab said:

Your lease is subordinate to the bank's mortgage. Chances are, the owner needed the bank's permission to lease the property in the first place, which they are unlikely to have received.

 

That being said it takes quite a while for the bank to take the matter through the Court system, so in reality you should be fine for another year (as long as your landlords have been making some payments to the bank).

 

Clearly, you are unlikely to receive your deposit back, so plan ahead for this and work out your strategy.

Thanks

 

For reasons I can't discuss I can't move out for another year - this has nothing to do with the landlord or the problems they have by the way

 

Yes I know i am unlikely to get my deposit back but i will be trying my hardest - is not getting the deposit back a civil or police matter in Thailand?

[BritManToo]

9 hours ago, darrendsd said:

So my question is - the next time they ask for a loan or advance on the rent I will be refusing - I have a signed contract for the house - if the bank were to repposses (sp) the house where do I stand? Can the bank evict me?

Don't pay in advance is the number one rule & never pay more than 1 month as deposit.

If a bank wants to repossess you can often deal with the bank direct and pay your rent them (no good if you paid the landlord in advance, that money has gone).

[Halfaboy]

Would it be an idea to set up a loan agreement with the chanotte as security. So, you loan him money with is repaid by not paying the monthly rent.

[KittenKong]

10 hours ago, darrendsd said:

At first I didn't mind but they have more than one occasion  recently spoke to me very badly regarding other matters - I am more than willing to help people if they need it but won't be spoken to like I am dirt by the very people I have helped

 

So my question is - the next time they ask for a loan or advance on the rent I will be refusing -

As with many people here (and not just Thais), you are only of interest to them when you are giving. They dont even have the wit to be nice to people who may give again.

 

In your situation I would be asking myself if I would really want to live for a year next door to my landlord to whom I have refused a loan and who is basically not a nice person anyway. I think the answer would be "no".

[darrendsd]

28 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

As with many people here (and not just Thais), you are only of interest to them when you are giving. They dont even have the wit to be nice to people who may give again.

 

In your situation I would be asking myself if I would really want to live for a year next door to my landlord to whom I have refused a loan and who is basically not a nice person anyway. I think the answer would be "no".

Thanks I have already advised that I can't move out for a year - this is for reasons other than the problems with the landlord

 

As with many people here (and not just Thais), you are only of interest to them when you are giving. They dont even have the wit to be nice to people who may give again.

 

Totally correct - I am not a nasty person but I really hope he loses the 2 houses just for the way he has spoken to me - nice as pie when he wants money though

 

I've not refused them anything yet - the rent is not due up again for another 2 months however they will be asking for a advance (3 or 6 months) and I will be refusing and just paying the rent on a monthly basis as the contract states 

 

At this point I expect them to start having issues paying the mortgage hence my questions

[dotpoom]

14 hours ago, darrendsd said:

For those who say just move out yes I will be but not for another year

 

That settles that then?

[darrendsd]

38 minutes ago, dotpoom said:

That settles that then?

Settles what?

[blackcab]

8 hours ago, darrendsd said:

Yes I know i am unlikely to get my deposit back but i will be trying my hardest - is not getting the deposit back a civil or police matter in Thailand?

 

You can't get blood out of a stone.

 

Easiest thing to do is not pay the last months rent and ask your landlord to keep the deposit.

 

Remind him nicely that you have given him rent in advance in the past, and show him that you have paid all outstanding bills for water, electric, etc

[blackcab]

8 hours ago, Halfaboy said:

Would it be an idea to set up a loan agreement with the chanotte as security. So, you loan him money with is repaid by not paying the monthly rent.

 

The bank has first charge on the property. This means the property cannot be used as collateral for a second charge without the holder of the first charge (the bank) agreeing.

 

It's highly unlikely the bank as mortgagor would agree to this, as they want complete control over the liquidation of the asset if the mortgagee does not perform.

[crazykopite]

Had a friend who had the same problem tried everything he could to persuade the bank to let him live there if he continued to pay them the rent  they gave him 3 months grace before making him leave the house was empty for nearly a year after he left .

[darrendsd]

1 hour ago, crazykopite said:

Had a friend who had the same problem tried everything he could to persuade the bank to let him live there if he continued to pay them the rent  they gave him 3 months grace before making him leave the house was empty for nearly a year after he left .

Thanks for the advice

 

Did he pay the bank the rent for those 3 months?

[davidst01]

is your lease registered at the land office with tax paid by yourself. If so you have a lot of rights...

[darrendsd]

58 minutes ago, davidst01 said:

is your lease registered at the land office with tax paid by yourself. If so you have a lot of rights...

Not registered and I very much doubt that the landlord has registered me as living there also and I doubly doubt that he pays tax

[blackcab]

1 hour ago, davidst01 said:

is your lease registered at the land office with tax paid by yourself. If so you have a lot of rights...

 

Only leases over 3 years in duration are required to be registered. This is why you see lots of 3 year commercial leases offered.

 

The lease should have been reported to the Revenue Office though and stamp duty paid. Without stamp duty, the lease is unenforceable in Court. That doesn't really bother most people with a 6 or 12 month residential lease though as Court action is not something most people would take.

[darrendsd]

7 hours ago, blackcab said:

 

Only leases over 3 years in duration are required to be registered. This is why you see lots of 3 year commercial leases offered.

 

The lease should have been reported to the Revenue Office though and stamp duty paid. Without stamp duty, the lease is unenforceable in Court. That doesn't really bother most people with a 6 or 12 month residential lease though as Court action is not something most people would take.

I have lived at this house for 6 years - 2 x 3 year contracts - the last contract ends at the end of next month

 

I will then be signing a one year contract after which point I will be moving - yes i'm sure people will say move now but I am unable to due to personal reasons

 

Without stamp duty, the lease is unenforceable in Court.

 

What does this mean? The landlord or myself have no rights?

[blackcab]

52 minutes ago, darrendsd said:

What does this mean? The landlord or myself have no rights?

 

The first thing to understand is that the payment of stamp duty for a land or building lease is the responsibility of the lessor. The lessee can pay the stamp duty if they choose to however.

 

If the stamp duty is not paid then a lease that is required to be executed in the presence of an official cannot be executed until the outstanding duty had been paid. This means a Court cannot act until the outstanding stamp duty has been paid.

 

Importantly, you don't lose your rights. Nobody removes your ability to refer the lessor to Court for beach of contract. It's more that you have to resolve the outstanding debt to the government before a judge will hear your case.

 

As a lessee bringing the matter to Court you can argue that this is unfair, but that's the way it is. The government wants its money.

 

To put this in perspective, for a 1 year lease agreement with a rent of 10,000 baht per month, the total stamp duty payable is 120 baht. Tax stamps are freely available; all you need to do is stick them to the lease and cancel them by drawing a line through them. You only need to do that for one of the copies of the lease. The second copy needs a 5 baht tax stamp as a duplicate instrument.

 

I would say the majority of residential landlords are genuinely uninformed about the need to pay stamp duty. It's not a matter of evasion; they just don't know.

 

The final consideration must be, however, the cost of litigation and the length of time it takes to conclude litigation in Thailand.

 

It is almost always the case that the total cost of litigation over a residential lease is going to far outweigh the judgement awarded by the Court. Most people choose to write off smaller sums because of this, and the likelihood that even after judgement the chances of successfully executing the judgement can often be slim.

[essox essox]

On 6/5/2019 at 7:37 AM, darrendsd said:

Thanks

 

For reasons I can't discuss I can't move out for another year - this has nothing to do with the landlord or the problems they have by the way

 

Yes I know i am unlikely to get my deposit back but i will be trying my hardest - is not getting the deposit back a civil or police matter in Thailand?

go see a decent english speaking lawyer......

[darrendsd]

54 minutes ago, essox essox said:

go see a decent english speaking lawyer......

Thanks but as I explained we are not at that point yet anyway

 

I do expect them to have issues paying the mortgage once I start to make monthly payments (as agreed on the rental contract) however I am at the point now where I have decided to stop helping them out regarding rent advancements - something I have been doing for the last 6 years

 

As long as the bank cannot immediatley (sp) order me to leave if they do reposses the house from the owner then I am ok with that

 

@blackcab

 

Very knowledgeable advice - thanks -  as far as i'm concerned it's up to them to pay any duty etc -  they have never talked to me about this or asked me to sign anything regarding duty - I doubt this would ever go to court anyway - they can't kick me out as I have never given them a reason to do so (rent paid on time - house taken care of etc) my main concern is them losing the house and the bank asking me to leave but if they give 3 months notice as another poster said i'm ok with that

 

If it comes to that I know a very helpful English speaking Lawyer anyway but it would probably be cheaper to negotiate with the bank myself as that gives me time to find another house

[krabi local]

Similar thing has happened to my Sister in law.

They have been renting and paying bills for 2 years.  Landlord is now in financial difficulties and stopped paying the mortgage even though SiL was still paying rent.

About 6-8 months ago a letter from the bank told them they must move out and the bank were inflexible on this as the mortgage had not been paid for the preceding 6 months.

So they have just stopped paying the rent and are putting the rental money to one side for when they are actually evicted.

So basically the bank have not been paid anything for over a year, told them to move 6-8 months ago but have not progressed it any further and they are living rent free at the banks expense.

[Billy Bloggs]

18 hours ago, crazykopite said:

Had a friend who had the same problem tried everything he could to persuade the bank to let him live there if he continued to pay them the rent  they gave him 3 months grace before making him leave the house was empty for nearly a year after he left .

Yes its crazy while looking for the place Im renting now ,their were and still are vacant houses in our area, owned by the banks and left open too by the way.

[darrendsd]

1 hour ago, krabi local said:

Similar thing has happened to my Sister in law.

They have been renting and paying bills for 2 years.  Landlord is now in financial difficulties and stopped paying the mortgage even though SiL was still paying rent.

About 6-8 months ago a letter from the bank told them they must move out and the bank were inflexible on this as the mortgage had not been paid for the preceding 6 months.

So they have just stopped paying the rent and are putting the rental money to one side for when they are actually evicted.

So basically the bank have not been paid anything for over a year, told them to move 6-8 months ago but have not progressed it any further and they are living rent free at the banks expense.

Have actually heard of this happening before - would be delighted to be in the same situation

 

Do they still have a contract with the ex owner or has this now expired?

 

I suppose for the bank to forcibly evict someone in this situation they have to go through the courts if the tenant has a contract but not so sure if the tenant doesn't? I guess then the Tenant would be a squatter?