Illegal Condo committee.......consequences?

[Grusa]

The property where I live is unusual. It consists of three blocks of apartments, separated into two juristic companies, some single houses and group houses which are not part of the juristic structure. All properties share use of common facilities: pool, gardens, parking, access, security, electicity, water, garbage disposal, etc. A common charge is levied on all for common services - so far so good.

 

The co-owners of the condominium apartments have voting rights, the owners of single- and group-houses have none, although they do have right of audience by virtue of paying common charges.

 

The two juristic condos have a shared committee and a single chairman. According to the Condominium Act, committee members can serve 2 two-year terms, but no more: unless there is no-one to replace them.

 

The present committee has served at least 4 years, as has the chairman. They have connived to ensure that AGMs are inquorate, so they can remain in power. Residents this year managed to achieve enough proxy votes to force a change in membership -- but the juristic management said the law does not apply to us, and the existing committee was re-elected, except that the one eligible member was replaced by one of their cronies. The whole process was blatantly illegal.

 

Has anyone else had such a situation, and found a solution which does not lead to a bloodbath, actual or metaphorical?

[KittenKong]

1 hour ago, Grusa said:

The two juristic condos have a shared committee and a single chairman.

I dont think that is legal. Each juristic entity should have its own accounts and its own AGM and its own committee. Of course there is nothing stopping someone from being on both committees if he is eligible.

 

1 hour ago, Grusa said:

The present committee has served at least 4 years, as has the chairman. They have connived to ensure that AGMs are inquorate, so they can remain in power.

That is illegal. In case of an initial AGM not having a quorum, an EGM must be held at which there is no quorum for nearly all issues. So a new committee can be voted in at a second EGM even if only a handful of co-owners attend.

 

The whole point of this part of the Condo Act is to prevent dodgy committees hanging on indefinitely.

 

I'm surprised (or maybe not) that your local Land Office accepted the results of such a meeting. Have you asked them about it?

 

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by KittenKong

[Crossy]

4 hours ago, KittenKong said:

I'm surprised (or maybe not) that your local Land Office accepted the results of such a meeting. Have you asked them about it?

 

Yeah, I reckon a visit to the land office should be next on the agenda.

 

Don't go yourself (Farang Factor) but there seem to be enough disgruntled Thais in the frame for one to be up for it.

[Grusa]

Done today, by thai owner + lawyer. Nothing they (land office) can do, they say, must go to court. So, that is what will happen.

[fvw53]

Please keep us updated.  We had to face a great mess of 10 years malpractice by previous Committees and Manager Juristic Person....and we cleaned it up.

TV member Kittenkong who replied above #2 provided us excellent advice based on his experience.

[TG911]

On 8/4/2019 at 10:55 AM, Grusa said:

The co-owners of the condominium apartments have voting rights, the owners of single- and group-houses have none, although they do have right of audience by virtue of paying common charges.

 

On 8/5/2019 at 10:14 PM, Grusa said:

Done today, by thai owner + lawyer. Nothing they (land office) can do, they say, must go to court. So, that is what will happen.

Major pain in the bum this topic. Don't know about the condo's having 2 separate juristic persons. I guess there is more power to it and to do something with at least the Condo Act in place.

 

For the few single and group-houses, it's hopeless. The Land Department will do nothing, it's too late.

 

It works like that ... when the developer starts to build a moo ban and before house number 9 arrives (can't remember the exact number, it was something like that, a fixed number), he has to go to the Land Department, puts the plan for the complete moo ban in front of them and registers the village under a Juristic Person. This costs money, so historically, it has not been done as frequently as it should have.

 

When this has not been done at the time, you will never ever get this from the Land Department afterwards. 

 

Been through this nightmare, including Land Department, Lawyers etc. never again.

 

There are tons of 'unregistered villages' without any Juristic Person in this country. Keep your fingers away from them.

 

If you ever happen to buy (or even only rent) property in Thailand, first check the legal status of the Juristic Persons.

 

Otherwise, better get a single house outside of a secured village, build a wall around it and live happy by yourself.

 

 

Edited August 7, 2019 by TG911

[dotpoom]

On 8/4/2019 at 12:31 PM, KittenKong said:

I dont think that is legal. Each juristic entity should have its own accounts and its own AGM and its own committee. Of course there is nothing stopping someone from being on both committees if he is eligible.

 

That is illegal. In case of an initial AGM not having a quorum, an EGM must be held at which there is no quorum for nearly all issues. So a new committee can be voted in at a second EGM even if only a handful of co-owners attend.

 

The whole point of this part of the Condo Act is to prevent dodgy committees hanging on indefinitely.

 

I'm surprised (or maybe not) that your local Land Office accepted the results of such a meeting. Have you asked them about it?

 

 

He appears to be well aware that it is illegal...

"The whole process was blatantly illegal".

  Possibly asking at the Land Office may be s start to the solution he is seeking for the situation.

[Grusa]

On 8/4/2019 at 12:31 PM, KittenKong said:

I dont think that is legal. Each juristic entity should have its own accounts and its own AGM and its own committee. Of course there is nothing stopping someone from being on both committees if he is eligible.

 

That is illegal. In case of an initial AGM not having a quorum, an EGM must be held at which there is no quorum for nearly all issues. So a new committee can be voted in at a second EGM even if only a handful of co-owners attend.

 

The whole point of this part of the Condo Act is to prevent dodgy committees hanging on indefinitely.

 

I'm surprised (or maybe not) that your local Land Office accepted the results of such a meeting. Have you asked them about it?

 

 

We, the concerned owners/co-owners, know about that. The JP has 15 days to convene a new AGM at which quora go oit of the equation. But, they did not do that. They convened an EGM instead, postponed it, and went throughnthe motions of correctly notifying etc., then blatantly ignored everything and re-elected allmtheir own timed-out cronies.

 

 

The land office said, in effect, nothing we can do, take it to court. So that is where it is going. Watch this space.

[KittenKong]

12 hours ago, Grusa said:

The JP has 15 days to convene a new AGM at which quora go oit of the equation. But, they did not do that. They convened an EGM instead, postponed it, and went throughnthe motions of correctly notifying etc., then blatantly ignored everything and re-elected allmtheir own timed-out cronies.

The second meeting is indeed an EGM, as I pointed out. So in that respect they acted correctly. That meeting should not be postponed and the results should not be ignored. But when you say that they ignored everything, do you mean that the results of voting were falsified in some way, or that the results were simply not taken into account? There is a difference.

 

The Land Office should have details of all the votes cast for the various agenda items at that EGM. It's true that they cant actually do anything about the results as long as they appear to be correct.

 

If you have a committee that is falsifying the results of votes then your only option may be to get 20% of co-owners to call for a new EGM which you should manage yourselves, possibly with the help of a lawyer and cameras. The Land Office may even be prepared to attend, if you ask them. Record all the results carefully and file them with the Land Office yourselves if the JPM will not do so.

 

What does your JPM think about it all?

[Grusa]

 

2 hours ago, KittenKong said:

The second meeting is indeed an EGM, as I pointed out. So in that respect they acted correctly. That meeting should not be postponed and the results should not be ignored. But when you say that they ignored everything, do you mean that the results of voting were falsified in some way, or that the results were simply not taken into account? There is a difference.

 

The Land Office should have details of all the votes cast for the various agenda items at that EGM. It's true that they cant actually do anything about the results as long as they appear to be correct.

 

If you have a committee that is falsifying the results of votes then your only option may be to get 20% of co-owners to call for a new EGM which you should manage yourselves, possibly with the help of a lawyer and cameras. The Land Office may even be prepared to attend, if you ask them. Record all the results carefully and file them with the Land Office yourselves if the JPM will not do so.

 

What does your JPM think about it all?

 To take your last point first, Our lawyer stood up and pointed out Section 37 which clearly states all the rules, AND the meeting notes had the rules printed for all to see. Two other farang and one Thai also protested at the breach of the law. The JPM said to the meeting, quite clearly, that the law does not apply to our committees. So he is complicit.

 

As to  vote rigging, it was a battle of proxies, they had gathered more than our side, so voting was not going to change anything.

 

We are aware of the 20% egm rule, the problem is finding 20% of two condos. One is almost 100% absentee landlords, Bangkok based, who use it as an occasional weekend pad..... all pals of the chairman, the other has a few resident farang owners, two concerned Thai owners, the rest are mostly used for short term lets and ab&b (illegaly) and some long term rentals.

 

The main problem is communication. The JPM will not provide a list of owners names and addresses or emails, even though we know he has them. I have set up a residents email group, but populating it is difficult.

 

The JPM is, by the way, a management company. I am amazed that they would jeopardise their reputation in this way. The chairman owns own of the biggest jewelery companies in Thailand. The hiso bitch stood up and said in her address to the meeting, roughly translated "It was all fine in the old days, we never bothered with rules, quorums, and things, it was just a nice place to go at the weekend. Now the ***** farangs have come and cause nothing  but trouble".

 

We have credible documentary evidence that at least one and probably both of the previous two AGMs were inquorate and false returns were made, and the Chairman has served at least six years.

 

We also have evidence that the building manager signed of on neighbouring planning documents, on behalf of absentee owners, without their knowledge or permission. They were somewhat surprised to find a condo block and a hotel outside their back windows! Wee don't know how big was the brown envelope.

[KittenKong]

13 hours ago, Grusa said:

The JPM said to the meeting, quite clearly, that the law does not apply to our committees. So he is complicit.

Did he explain why he thinks the law doesn't apply? Or was it just a smokescreen?

 

13 hours ago, Grusa said:

As to  vote rigging, it was a battle of proxies, they had gathered more than our side, so voting was not going to change anything.

Did they respect the various rules relating to proxies? (No committee member can hold any, nor the JPM, nor management, nor staff, and only three can be held by any one person.) If not that is cause to have the meeting annulled.

 

13 hours ago, Grusa said:

We are aware of the 20% egm rule, the problem is finding 20% of two condos. One is almost 100% absentee landlords, Bangkok based, who use it as an occasional weekend pad..... all pals of the chairman, the other has a few resident farang owners, two concerned Thai owners, the rest are mostly used for short term lets and ab&b (illegaly) and some long term rentals.

The 20% dont have to attend the meeting: they just have to sign the request for an EGM to be held. But if your JPM is complicit then he may choose to ignore the request.

You will definitely need legal assistance to make any such meeting happen correctly.

 

13 hours ago, Grusa said:

The JPM is, by the way, a management company. I am amazed that they would jeopardise their reputation in this way.

I'm not. I have seen management companies and JPMs commit fraud and other crimes with no compunction at all. I've also seen rental agencies falsify important documents. Few people realise just how massively dishonest Thai condos often are.

And they probably rely on the fact that little if anything will actually ever become public knowledge. "Under the carpet" is the usual procedure here.

 

13 hours ago, Grusa said:

We have credible documentary evidence that at least one and probably both of the previous two AGMs were inquorate and false returns were made, and the Chairman has served at least six years.

I would present that evidence to the Land Office and ask that they annul those meetings. It may not work, but who knows?

 

In the end you will still probably have to start legal proceedings. You may find that once you do start them the current committee and JPM will have a rapid change of heart. I've seen that several times. These Thai frauds bluster a lot but it's all just hot air.

[Grusa]

14 hours ago, KittenKong said:

Did he explain why he thinks the law doesn't apply? Or was it just a smokescreen?

 

Did they respect the various rules relating to proxies? (No committee member can hold any, nor the JPM, nor management, nor staff, and only three can be held by any one person.) If not that is cause to have the meeting annulled.

 

The 20% dont have to attend the meeting: they just have to sign the request for an EGM to be held. But if your JPM is complicit then he may choose to ignore the request.

You will definitely need legal assistance to make any such meeting happen correctly.

 

I'm not. I have seen management companies and JPMs commit fraud and other crimes with no compunction at all. I've also seen rental agencies falsify important documents. Few people realise just how massively dishonest Thai condos often are.

And they probably rely on the fact that little if anything will actually ever become public knowledge. "Under the carpet" is the usual procedure here.

 

I would present that evidence to the Land Office and ask that they annul those meetings. It may not work, but who knows?

 

In the end you will still probably have to start legal proceedings. You may find that once you do start them the current committee and JPM will have a rapid change of heart. I've seen that several times. These Thai frauds bluster a lot but it's all just hot air.

The answer was smokescreen and bluster. "If the punters voted for them, it's ok because they really wanted them" or words to that effect.

 

Proxy rules: so far as I can tell, yes observed on this occasion, but there are allocations of voting rights based on area, so complicated, especially as two condos!

 

20%.: Yes I know, and if jpm fails to do it we can organise ourselves, with Land office observer if need be.

 

JPM etc. Fraud:- I've been around long enough to know that - from the outside looking in.

 

Annulment of previous meetings:- What practical difference will that make? What is done is done, we are where we are now. Will the Land Office actually do anything?

 

Legal proceedings:- I have just been informed it will cost 30,000baht to bring the case. As I am not personally involved, it is Thai on Thai organising it, it is unclear to me who is suing who for what! Is it:-

The owners as a group vs:-the JPM; the Chairman personally; committee members individually; the committee(s) as a whole,

Or

Owners individually vs:-any or all of the above,

And do the individual house owners have any stake in the case given they have no voting rights? If they contribute to costs does that make any difference? And, can costs be recovered. Presumably the Condos will finance the defence, so it's really owners vs themselves!

 

Bluster:- This lot will fight, they are determined to stay in power. I can only assume they want to rip off the sinking fund, etc.

 

Thanks for the advice, much appreciated.

 

 

[KittenKong]

4 hours ago, Grusa said:

Will the Land Office actually do anything?

In my experience, not really.

 

What would a court case be about? Probably just getting the previous EGM annulled. That would require the JPM to hold another very promptly. The 30,000B you were quoted sounds reasonable, though with Thai lawyers you rarely know what they will actually do for the money or what extras might be entailed. As I mentioned, I have found that the opposition tends to collapse once proceedings are started so that may be what the lawyer is counting on.

 

In the end it will be up to your co-owners to hold a properly run EGM with proper control at which the votes will be correctly counted and reported. I know from personal experience that it isn't easy. At that meeting you can legally remove/replace the committee and the JPM. So organise yourselves, do it, and move on.

 

Good luck.

[mahjongguy]

" The co-owners of the condominium apartments have voting rights, the owners of single- and group-houses have none, although they do have right of audience by virtue of paying common charges. "

In case you feel the need to win over every possible vote, you might investigate this: when a development project is registered with the Land Office, each newly created chanote is assigned one vote. Your development has several private homes and townhouses. It may be the case that the private homes each have an original chanote and that the townhouses were split off from one original chanote. Or, some variation of that.

 

For example, our mooban was originally provisioned as one chanote for each of the 68 homes, one chanote for the streets, one chanote for the common areas of the condo, one chanote for the shared recreational area, and one chanote for a row of shophouses that was later split into 10 properties. Now each of those shophouses has 1/10 of a vote. 

Edited August 9, 2019 by mahjongguy

[JimboJ]

I have similar problems with my condo, although not so complicated.  If you look back through Thaivisa forums they crop up regularly, when an owner gets angry enough to bother writing about it.  Basically, no one enforces the condo laws, so there is every motivation for gangs of thieves to take over the management committees.

It is interesting to know that legal action would cost 30,000, with no guarantee of success.

Another possibility is just to make everything public on a forum, complete with names.  Care should be taken not to make accusations which cannot be proved, because there are always threats that any criticisms will be treated as defamation and the police will be called.  It should be enough just to state the facts and let readers draw their own conclusions.  Naming individuals might make them think twice about continuing to break the law.  It will also get the condo a bad name, which might motivate owners to take effective action.  Perhaps, if it becomes a matter of common knowledge that condo owners do not have the protection of the law, even Land Officees might be persuaded to take action.  But that is probably too much to hope for.

One problem about posts about condo mismanagement is that they are difficult to find and easily forgotten.  I know that this thread is in the Real Estate etc. forum, which is under the Thailand Real Estate forum.  But it would help to have a sub section specifically to report illegal behavior by committees, with a separate forum for each condo, which would have to be identified by name and location.  Condo owners could then be referred to it, as the only way of finding out what is going on in their own condos, since crooked committees will be the last to tell them.  From what I can see, only the admins. can set up a new section under the Real Estate Forum. 

Thaivisa might be worried about being charged with defamation if names are named.  Could this problem be solved if contributors give their real names?  If not, would it be feasible to start a new site, perhaps based outside Thailand?

[Grusa]

8 hours ago, JimboJ said:

Care should be taken not to make accusations which cannot be proved, because there are always threats that any criticisms will be treated as defamation and the police will be called. 

Under Thai law, truth is no defense against an accusation of defamation.

History shows "he who pays most, wins".