Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[Binkie]

I am puzzled as to why Grand Condotel allowed View Talay 5 to be built as VT5 doesn't look to be 200 meters from the seashore. GC units, especially on the south side, lost value. I have heard that GC has a very well connected Chairman of the Management Committee. One would think that Grand Condotel would've been raising hel_l.

Grand Condotel co-owners got bad advice from their management company and they believed city hall statements!

I was told Grand Condotel Management Company called city hall and was told the VT5 building was legal and no further action was taken. I also was told, their was not a required environment impact study done or submitted to city hall. It would have been so else to of stopped VT5.

But now legal action could be taken but the out come is uncertain? How know what the Administrative Court would do? But in legal theory it could be torn down?

This is where I start to get confused and start to feel that it may well end up being a case of people fighting against bureaucracy in a vain atempt to prevent the inevitable. It seems to me that although on the face of things JCC 2005 seem to have a valid case there will be little or no favourable result for them. Sorry chaps but with all that has been done before, only a few of which are mentioned here. I can name a number of buildings that will fall foul of this legislation if it is taken retrospectively, Ban Hadd Uthong and Sugar Beach to name but two. I am not trying to stir things up I am merely giving an unbiased observation. I hope for the sake of owners in JCC that I am wrong however I really think that the status quo will be maintained, sorry chaps.

[stopvt7]

Binkie:

“This is where I start to get confused and start to feel that it may well end up being a case of people fighting against bureaucracy in a vain attempt to prevent the inevitable”

Nothing to be confused about! Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is very clear. Developers are not allowed to build any building over 14 meters high until they are 200 back for high tide. The law is too black and white for Administrative Court to fine in any other favor but JCC. But, they will not allow VT7 to build up to 14 meters high if they want? For the issuance of the temporary injunction Administrative Court ask the Supreme Court for advice and approve the injunction. It a 29 year old Ministerial Regulation which was never been asked to be enforce!

Nothing happens without some one asking and paying a lawyer to file a legal case. I’m been told that Administrative Court can tare down buildings for 5 years if built illegally? No one is betting that Grand Complex condo will take any action. Or what would happen?

[stopvt7]

Binkie:

"This is where I start to get confused and start to feel that it may well end up being a case of people fighting against bureaucracy in a vain attempt to prevent the inevitable"

Nothing to be confused about! Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is very clear. Developers are not allowed to build any building over 14 meters high until they are 200 back for high tide. The law is too black and white for Administrative Court to fine in any other favor but JCC. But, they will not allow VT7 to build up to 14 meters high if they want? For the issuance of the temporary injunction Administrative Court ask the Supreme Court for advice and approve the injunction. It a 29 year old Ministerial Regulation which was never been asked to be enforce!

Nothing happens without some one asking and paying a lawyer to file a legal case. I'm been told that Administrative Court can tare down buildings for 5 years if built illegally? No one is betting that Grand Complex condo will take any action. Or what would happen?

Correction: But, they will allow VT7 to build up to 14 meters high if they want?

[OhdLover]

Although I sympathise with the people of JC, I hope VT will win in the end.

Just 1 major reason for this: I bought 3 units in VT7 and got about $40000 invested so far.

As soon as I heard about the building permit, I thought buying in VT7 was safe, and that's also what my broker said.

My main problem at this moment is whether to stop the monthly payments for the time being or to continue

paying as the contract says you have to.

Continue paying means the risk of a big loss (or a payback with a delay that can last for years) and stop paying could mean contract violation which could have other outcomes.

Anybody some good advice on this?

Thanks.

OhdLover,

Even if your wish is realised that the City Hall won the case and vt7 could go on building your unit, you will have a long wait to know the result. My guess is two years. This would be a Pyrrhic victory.

You have to look into your contract whether this suspension of building could give rise to you to terminate the contract. If not, whether you can avoid payment until the result is known since two years (if I am right) is a long time to wait for no progress on the building. Check with your lawyer whether you have ground to terminate or delay your side of the obligation. If I were you, I would not keep on paying without first asking a lawyer's opinion. I think by now all the lawyers in Pattaya must have known the answer.

Ohdlover,

Be sure you get the contract in English. I've read a VT5 contract (English) and have friends living in VT5, it addresses all your concerns. If you supend or cancel your payments you risk losing everything you've paid to date. If the project completion date can not be met, you get your money back plus interest. The good thing about this temporary injuction is that it comes early in the construction phase and VT has little invested. VT has projects in construction and more planned and has deep-pockets. The biggest threat to VT would be a complete collapse of the Pattaya condo real-estate market, something they wouldn't want to contribute to by reneging on a contract.

I believe stopVT7 mentioned in an earlier post that this case is on the court docket until November so something should happen before then.

My Thai lawyer read the contract and confirmed what you wrote above. If we stop paying, we risk losing all.

If the project is cancelled, money will be returned or you may transfer your money to another project.

So I will continue untill everything is clear.

Thanks to all for your answers!

[loopaimod]

New to this forum but here goes. Read this thread and noticed a mention of Regatta Condo. A friend (no really) of mine bought a unit from this development company in Regent Pratumnak condominium. Turns out his unit is much smaller than was advertised and promised in the contract. The developer is reluctant to return his overpaid monies. The amount of money I'm not sure about but he says it is more than 500,000 Baht difference. They even charge the maintenance fees based on advertised size not actual size? Just thought I'd bring this up as a buyers beware report. He has also spoken to a couple of other purchasers and they are still getting invoiced for the full amount for their final payments on transfer. Is this illegal? Surely purchasers must be told before transfer and final payments of the true size and surely this must be reflected in the final payment price?

[Irene]

New to this forum but here goes. Read this thread and noticed a mention of Regatta Condo. A friend (no really) of mine bought a unit from this development company in Regent Pratumnak condominium. Turns out his unit is much smaller than was advertised and promised in the contract. The developer is reluctant to return his overpaid monies. The amount of money I'm not sure about but he says it is more than 500,000 Baht difference. They even charge the maintenance fees based on advertised size not actual size? Just thought I'd bring this up as a buyers beware report. He has also spoken to a couple of other purchasers and they are still getting invoiced for the full amount for their final payments on transfer. Is this illegal? Surely purchasers must be told before transfer and final payments of the true size and surely this must be reflected in the final payment price?

That does not make sense. My experience tells me that whatever the agreed purchase of the square metres of the condo, the final title deed of the unit shall be the final basis of payments. In most sale agreement, there would be a clause stating that the final square metres as stated in the deed shall be adjusted on the final payment.

[loopaimod]

New to this forum but here goes. Read this thread and noticed a mention of Regatta Condo. A friend (no really) of mine bought a unit from this development company in Regent Pratumnak condominium. Turns out his unit is much smaller than was advertised and promised in the contract. The developer is reluctant to return his overpaid monies. The amount of money I'm not sure about but he says it is more than 500,000 Baht difference. They even charge the maintenance fees based on advertised size not actual size? Just thought I'd bring this up as a buyers beware report. He has also spoken to a couple of other purchasers and they are still getting invoiced for the full amount for their final payments on transfer. Is this illegal? Surely purchasers must be told before transfer and final payments of the true size and surely this must be reflected in the final payment price?

That does not make sense. My experience tells me that whatever the agreed purchase of the square metres of the condo, the final title deed of the unit shall be the final basis of payments. In most sale agreement, there would be a clause stating that the final square metres as stated in the deed shall be adjusted on the final payment.

Checked with my friend and there is a clause stating unit will be sold at a certain price per sq.m. Seems the developer has had the deeds for a few months and never told any of the purchasers?? Even sent out final payment sheets on the listed size instead of actual size. Only once they received the deeds did they find out the size difference! Now they have a fight to get funds back.

[Tammi]

New to this forum but here goes. Read this thread and noticed a mention of Regatta Condo. A friend (no really) of mine bought a unit from this development company in Regent Pratumnak condominium. Turns out his unit is much smaller than was advertised and promised in the contract. The developer is reluctant to return his overpaid monies. The amount of money I'm not sure about but he says it is more than 500,000 Baht difference. They even charge the maintenance fees based on advertised size not actual size? Just thought I'd bring this up as a buyers beware report. He has also spoken to a couple of other purchasers and they are still getting invoiced for the full amount for their final payments on transfer. Is this illegal? Surely purchasers must be told before transfer and final payments of the true size and surely this must be reflected in the final payment price?

That does not make sense. My experience tells me that whatever the agreed purchase of the square metres of the condo, the final title deed of the unit shall be the final basis of payments. In most sale agreement, there would be a clause stating that the final square metres as stated in the deed shall be adjusted on the final payment.

Checked with my friend and there is a clause stating unit will be sold at a certain price per sq.m. Seems the developer has had the deeds for a few months and never told any of the purchasers?? Even sent out final payment sheets on the listed size instead of actual size. Only once they received the deeds did they find out the size difference! Now they have a fight to get funds back.

This is very interesting. Please keep us informed how your friend and other co-owners will go about getting money back. There are thousands of condo units in Pattaya and probably thousands of farang owners. We need to know about all things to do with condos - buying contracts, Law, Regulations, Management, co-owners rights. PLease keep in touch.

[icecubes]

New to this forum but here goes. Read this thread and noticed a mention of Regatta Condo. A friend (no really) of mine bought a unit from this development company in Regent Pratumnak condominium. Turns out his unit is much smaller than was advertised and promised in the contract. The developer is reluctant to return his overpaid monies. The amount of money I'm not sure about but he says it is more than 500,000 Baht difference. They even charge the maintenance fees based on advertised size not actual size? Just thought I'd bring this up as a buyers beware report. He has also spoken to a couple of other purchasers and they are still getting invoiced for the full amount for their final payments on transfer. Is this illegal? Surely purchasers must be told before transfer and final payments of the true size and surely this must be reflected in the final payment price?

That does not make sense. My experience tells me that whatever the agreed purchase of the square metres of the condo, the final title deed of the unit shall be the final basis of payments. In most sale agreement, there would be a clause stating that the final square metres as stated in the deed shall be adjusted on the final payment.

Checked with my friend and there is a clause stating unit will be sold at a certain price per sq.m. Seems the developer has had the deeds for a few months and never told any of the purchasers?? Even sent out final payment sheets on the listed size instead of actual size. Only once they received the deeds did they find out the size difference! Now they have a fight to get funds back.

This is very interesting. Please keep us informed how your friend and other co-owners will go about getting money back. There are thousands of condo units in Pattaya and probably thousands of farang owners. We need to know about all things to do with condos - buying contracts, Law, Regulations, Management, co-owners rights. PLease keep in touch.

Mod’s, as I said before, time to move this thread to the right place.

If its all that important and far reaching, then its for all in Thailand

Not just Pattaya.

Please no more.

[icecubes]

Am I the only one, please squeak up all you mice on the side lines.

[loopaimod]

Am I the only one, please squeak up all you mice on the side lines.

Sorry didn't meen to annoy you. Was it my post. Wow... My first time using this medium and got someone angry. Main reason for post was to inform Jomtien Condotel owners not to trust this developer. Think if they can do this to existing clients they can also do dodgy stuff with getting building permissions. Dig deep JC owners and I'm sure something will come up. Will not post in this segment again. Thanks, Bye....

[icecubes]

Not at you , but if the hat fits ware it

[ThaiBob]

Am I the only one, please squeak up all you mice on the side lines.

I think this thread is in the right place. It's all about the continuing saga of the JCC owners battle for their sea view here in Pattaya. Yes this case could have far reaching consequences but it is of greater local interest. Let's not let the thread drift from the original topic.

[Irene]

New to this forum but here goes. Read this thread and noticed a mention of Regatta Condo. A friend (no really) of mine bought a unit from this development company in Regent Pratumnak condominium. Turns out his unit is much smaller than was advertised and promised in the contract. The developer is reluctant to return his overpaid monies. The amount of money I'm not sure about but he says it is more than 500,000 Baht difference. They even charge the maintenance fees based on advertised size not actual size? Just thought I'd bring this up as a buyers beware report. He has also spoken to a couple of other purchasers and they are still getting invoiced for the full amount for their final payments on transfer. Is this illegal? Surely purchasers must be told before transfer and final payments of the true size and surely this must be reflected in the final payment price?

That does not make sense. My experience tells me that whatever the agreed purchase of the square metres of the condo, the final title deed of the unit shall be the final basis of payments. In most sale agreement, there would be a clause stating that the final square metres as stated in the deed shall be adjusted on the final payment.

Checked with my friend and there is a clause stating unit will be sold at a certain price per sq.m. Seems the developer has had the deeds for a few months and never told any of the purchasers?? Even sent out final payment sheets on the listed size instead of actual size. Only once they received the deeds did they find out the size difference! Now they have a fight to get funds back.

This is very interesting. Please keep us informed how your friend and other co-owners will go about getting money back. There are thousands of condo units in Pattaya and probably thousands of farang owners. We need to know about all things to do with condos - buying contracts, Law, Regulations, Management, co-owners rights. PLease keep in touch.

I am puzzled by the situation. How can one pay the final payment without having sighted the title deed first? At that point of time, you will know of the amount to be adjusted to the agreed price per square metre.

Assuming that one is careless in paying first and seeing the title deed later, the aggrieved party can still ask his lawyer to demand the refund of the excess. The developer should oblige if it is a well-known developer who still wants to stay in the business. Going to court on such a crummy trick is not good for his business. If the devloper ignores, then take him to court and try to get as much publicity. It is a retrievable situation.

[CHdiver]

Could we please stay inside the topic? This talk about m2 prices in another building has nothing to do with this thread. Thanks

[Tammi]

Could we please stay inside the topic? This talk about m2 prices in another building has nothing to do with this thread. Thanks

Many topics wander off topic and when they do they often fizzle out as folks stop reading and contributing. This topic could fizzle out until there is something to say about JCC v VT7 or until another condo takes another developer to the Admin Court. In the meantime I see no reason why condo owners with grievances/questions/advice should not piggyback on this topic - keeps it on the front page which is to the benefit of many condo owners and would-be condo owners.

[icecubes]

Am I the only one, please squeak up all you mice on the side lines.

I think this thread is in the right place. It's all about the continuing saga of the JCC owners battle for their sea view here in Pattaya. Yes this case could have far reaching consequences but it is of greater local interest. Let's not let the thread drift from the original topic.

[Humphrey Bear]

Yensabai Condo had seaviews when I went to live there. Marine was built between us and the sea - no sea view. No compensation. Live elsewhere now. But I was only renting, so no prob.

Off the strict line of this topic - but what would happen to condo owners if a structural defect was found in a high-rise condominium block and it had to be torn down? Any insurance, other than that taken out by individual owners? And if that is local, would it be honoured in full? And would the owner be able to re-export the money, if he couldn't find a new place he liked?

[icecubes]

Think you be well Fcuked

Edited May 17, 2007 by icecubes

[Tammi]

Yensabai Condo had seaviews when I went to live there. Marine was built between us and the sea - no sea view. No compensation. Live elsewhere now. But I was only renting, so no prob.

Off the strict line of this topic - but what would happen to condo owners if a structural defect was found in a high-rise condominium block and it had to be torn down? Any insurance, other than that taken out by individual owners? And if that is local, would it be honoured in full? And would the owner be able to re-export the money, if he couldn't find a new place he liked?

I believe the title of this topic is erroneous and that the Admin Court is considering the case because the Law says VT cannot erect anything over 14 meters within 200 metres distance from the seashore (probably the high tide mark). Nobody could complain about ruined view if VT built beyond the 200 meters.

As far as I know, the only insurance my condo has is fire insurance for something like 600,000,000.

I guess that if a hi-rise has to come down because of a structural fault then the land could be sold and the money shared by the co-owners as per the shares that each co-owner holds in the Common Property which is "the land on which the condominium is erected, parts of the condominium which are not the apartments, and land or other property availing for use or commom benefit of co-owners". (From "Your Thai Condo Rights" including The Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979)

I think that it would be possible to re-export the money if you complied with the necessary paperwork when you brought the money into Thailand.

[brooklynbridge]

What's the storey on the proposed 8 storey building in front of Jomtien Condotel & Village. I have heard from the developer and agents that the building is legal and has a valid building permit and that the building will start in the next few month. I am an interested buyer and want more information. I have been told that all laws have been adhered to and that all is within the law of Thailand. I have on the other hand seen banners on JC&V stating that co-owners should rally against this building. That one would experience different problems too as it would rely on JC&V for its access.

Any comments positive or negative are welcomed.

I would not touch "The Regatta" and their questionable building permit with a ten foot pole. I know that they have a very active committee which understands the law and have talked with lawyers!!!!

There are rumours that the Regatta developer is having problems with his other projects. I heard his customers paid for 104 meter condos but only got 90 meter condos.

[stopvt7]

What's the storey on the proposed 8 storey building in front of Jomtien Condotel & Village. I have heard from the developer and agents that the building is legal and has a valid building permit and that the building will start in the next few month. I am an interested buyer and want more information. I have been told that all laws have been adhered to and that all is within the law of Thailand. I have on the other hand seen banners on JC&V stating that co-owners should rally against this building. That one would experience different problems too as it would rely on JC&V for its access.

Any comments positive or negative are welcomed.

I would not touch "The Regatta" and their questionable building permit with a ten foot pole. I know that they have a very active committee which understands the law and have talked with lawyers!!!!

There are rumours that the Regatta developer is having problems with his other projects. I heard his customers paid for 104 meter condos but only got 90 meter condos.

The 8 storey building in front of Jomtien Condotel & Village will never be build! Because it to close to the Beach. If you want to tie up your money without getting a condo, go ahead and invest it “The Regatta” Remember Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 no building over 14 meters within 200 meters of high tide line. Thailand is a country of law and the Administrative Court in Rayon will enforce and this is going to changing the skyline along our beach in Jomtien.

[stopvt7]

It was said “Does he see the hand writing on the wall? BANKRUPT VT7!”

VT7 is part “View Talay Jomthien Condominium (1999) Co. Ltd.,” and is one company which is doing many different condos. So their pockets are deep and they should be able to refund all the VT7 buyers. Since VT7 will not be build!

I thought VT would have set up different companies for each project?

Have you check out VT7 web site lately? They can post construction permit and environment certificates form city hall but they still are violating Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 no building over 14 meters within 200 meters of high tide line. So their will not be a building over 14 meters high.

That about 3 stories tall!

Check out: http://www.viewtalaycondo.com/

http://www.viewtalaycondo.com/enviroment_certificate_eng.htm

http://www.viewtalaycondo.com/constraction...ificate_eng.htm

Also, I understand VT has asked (by a motion) the Administrative Court in Rayon the reconsider their issuance of the injuction which stopped construction. This motion is asking for them to start construction again. Because the VT7 buyers are becoming upset by the stopping of the construction and they can not wait until November for a final order. SO! They should be allowed to break the law?

Thailand is a country of laws.

Don't think VT7 buyers are above the law...

[Binkie]

It was said “Does he see the hand writing on the wall? BANKRUPT VT7!”

VT7 is part “View Talay Jomthien Condominium (1999) Co. Ltd.,” and is one company which is doing many different condos. So their pockets are deep and they should be able to refund all the VT7 buyers. Since VT7 will not be build!

I thought VT would have set up different companies for each project?

Have you check out VT7 web site lately? They can post construction permit and environment certificates form city hall but they still are violating Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 no building over 14 meters within 200 meters of high tide line. So their will not be a building over 14 meters high.

That about 3 stories tall!

Check out: http://www.viewtalaycondo.com/

http://www.viewtalaycondo.com/enviroment_certificate_eng.htm

http://www.viewtalaycondo.com/constraction...ificate_eng.htm

Also, I understand VT has asked (by a motion) the Administrative Court in Rayon the reconsider their issuance of the injuction which stopped construction. This motion is asking for them to start construction again. Because the VT7 buyers are becoming upset by the stopping of the construction and they can not wait until November for a final order. SO! They should be allowed to break the law?

Thailand is a country of laws.

Don't think VT7 buyers are above the law...

What if you are wrong and both the VT7 & and Regatta projects get the go ahead from the Administrative court in Rayong.

Things are never as black and white as you seem to think they are.

Do not misunderstand me I am merely playing Devils advocate.

I think that before you start rubbing peoples noses in the dirt you should await the outcome. Remember "OJ" Simpson was found not guilty.

Strange things happen.

Edited May 19, 2007 by Binkie

[Artisan]

What if you are wrong and both the VT7 & and Regatta projects get the go ahead from the Administrative court in Rayong.

Things are never as black and white as you seem to think they are.......especially in Thailand

Do not misunderstand me, I am merely playing Devils advocate.

I think that before you start rubbing peoples noses in the dirt you should await the outcome. Remember "OJ" Simpson was found not guilty.

Strange things happen.

Personally, I really hope that VT7 will not be built according to the original plan and that all similar projects will be abandoned or, at least, reconsidered. However, I have to agree with Binkie. It's by no means 'done and dusted' yet and I wish that the representatives of JCC, and others, would cease their gloating.....because they could be in for a nasty shock. However, I do wish JCC ultimate success in their campaign.

[icecubes]

[Tammi]

Check out: http://www.viewtalaycondo.com/

Have you noticed that VT5 and Grand Condotel have been removed from the picture? This is, at best, misleading advertising.

[brooklynbridge]

It's too bad all Views Talay can't be removed as easily as it can be done with Photoshop.

[stopvt7]

"OJ" Simpson was found not guilty for a good reason! They never proved their case against him “without doubt” and when the cope admitted lying, the missing blood and the glove didn’t fit what did you expect from the blacks on the jury to do? So, sometimes you need to take your predigests out of you thinking.

Thailand is a country of laws! We proved are case about the questionable building permit and Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) Issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 is the governing law. The only question is where the high tide is and makes measurements. While we wait of this the Admin Court is investigating the “C” word.

Remember, I was in the court room when the judge held the hearing! I have more faith in Thai justice then my home state in America having justice or the neighboring state. I would like judges in America swear the Lawyers in to tell the truth before a court hearing starts as the Thai Admin Court. Then America jails could be full of Lawyers! What a great thought!

What craze thing is VT7 going back to court and ask the Judges to change their minds because his customers are upset because their no construction. I think VT president is living in the past.

I’m not rubbing people’s nose into anything or gloating. I’m sorry that you fell what way! I guess I was felling a little cocky because I had receive some INFO which I can’t share! Sorry!

I just like some farangs to wake up and understand that many stories we heard about the court are not true special for the Administrative Court. Thailand is a country of laws. And if VT7 can not find any law to support their case don’t waste other time and let the court go on with their investigation work and making the required measurement. I my self do not like this investigation part but, we have nothing to do with it. It’s an Admin Court function. Then we will get the final order!

[stopvt7]

Check out: http://www.viewtalaycondo.com/

Have you noticed that VT5 and Grand Condotel have been removed from the picture? This is, at best, misleading advertising.

Yes! It looks nicer without VT5 condo sticking out in front of everyone else condo.

VT5 is all about greed! Until VT a greedy builder came to Dongtan Beach. Which took away the sea view of condo owner who builders followed the Thai Law.

VT can say in their message to buyer that the “construction lawful”. But, they find out that Thailand law will say otherwise!