stopvt7 Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 So after all the debate and court cases a decision is still not made. The reason why is very simple. Issue 9 does not state that a building cannot be constructed within 200m of mean sea level and it does not show this on the map attached to the decree. If it did VT7 or all the other projects would never have started. I will put my cards on the table and bet that VT7 and all the other projects will go ahead as planned. So, I wonder, why does the Law bother stating anything about MSL and 200 meters? Tammi please show me on a map or document where it states 200m from Mean Sea Level. It doesnt. Thats the whole point. I will share the conclusion of a letter we received from Administrative Court Rayong. The Judge at Admin Court forwards the letter they received from Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning in Bangkok. The English transolation. “The distance of 100 m as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 and the distance of 200 m. as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 are not the same alignment. In that the alignment of the coat line in accordance with the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (b. E. 2519) had not specified the measurement be taken at MSL. But in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) it specified the measurement of the alignment of the coast line be taken only at MSL.” Please be advised accordingly. Yours sincerely Chief Engineer Acting on Behalf of the Director General Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ground Engineer Posted August 10, 2007 Share Posted August 10, 2007 So after all the debate and court cases a decision is still not made. The reason why is very simple. Issue 9 does not state that a building cannot be constructed within 200m of mean sea level and it does not show this on the map attached to the decree. If it did VT7 or all the other projects would never have started. I will put my cards on the table and bet that VT7 and all the other projects will go ahead as planned. So, I wonder, why does the Law bother stating anything about MSL and 200 meters? Tammi please show me on a map or document where it states 200m from Mean Sea Level. It doesnt. Thats the whole point. I will share the conclusion of a letter we received from Administrative Court Rayong. The Judge at Admin Court forwards the letter they received from Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning in Bangkok. The English transolation. “The distance of 100 m as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (B.E. 2519) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 and the distance of 200 m. as per point 3 of the Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B.E. 2521) issued pursuant to the Building Control Act B. E. 2479 are not the same alignment. In that the alignment of the coat line in accordance with the Ministerial Regulation Issue 8 (b. E. 2519) had not specified the measurement be taken at MSL. But in accordance with the Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) it specified the measurement of the alignment of the coast line be taken only at MSL.” Please be advised accordingly. Yours sincerely Chief Engineer Acting on Behalf of the Director General Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning If this is the correct English translation then there is no arguement and the case would have been settled in Rayong Admin court on Wednesday. Whats Thai for Mean Sea Level because I have a Thai and English translated copy of Issue 9 and cant see any reference to it at all. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sibeymai Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 The plot thickens......time for someone to stir the pot......any takers ? Our friend from Regatta appears to be quiet of late. I wonder if that's quiet confidence or quiet dread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MarkBowling Posted August 11, 2007 Share Posted August 11, 2007 The plot thickens......time for someone to stir the pot......any takers ?Our friend from Regatta appears to be quiet of late. I wonder if that's quiet confidence or quiet dread. There's no need for me to comment, Ground Engineer is doing very well and relaying the facts correctly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
lookat Posted August 15, 2007 Share Posted August 15, 2007 I hear Wednesday court hearing ordering a map to be made to establish the msl line. Vt7 and city hall claims that vt7 property corners are located at 100 m from msl in issue 8 and 205 m as msl in issue 9. Where are vt7 they getting their wed? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 16, 2007 Share Posted August 16, 2007 The plot thickens......time for someone to stir the pot......any takers ?Our friend from Regatta appears to be quiet of late. I wonder if that's quiet confidence or quiet dread. There's no need for me to comment, Ground Engineer is doing very well and relaying the facts correctly. As there is a lull in the VT7 debate I would like to ask Mark why Indochine still owe monet to purchases of Regent Pratunmak condos. Also why were we ripped off at the outset. Anybody thinking of purchasing anything from this Company should think again Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubes2 Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 The plot thickens......time for someone to stir the pot......any takers ?Our friend from Regatta appears to be quiet of late. I wonder if that's quiet confidence or quiet dread. There's no need for me to comment, Ground Engineer is doing very well and relaying the facts correctly. As there is a lull in the VT7 debate I would like to ask Mark why Indochine still owe monet to purchases of Regent Pratunmak condos. Also why were we ripped off at the outset. Anybody thinking of purchasing anything from this Company should think again Got a question for you mate What company do you work for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brooklynbridge Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 (edited) The plot thickens......time for someone to stir the pot......any takers ?Our friend from Regatta appears to be quiet of late. I wonder if that's quiet confidence or quiet dread. There's no need for me to comment, Ground Engineer is doing very well and relaying the facts correctly. As there is a lull in the VT7 debate I would like to ask Mark why Indochine still owe monet to purchases of Regent Pratunmak condos. Also why were we ripped off at the outset. Anybody thinking of purchasing anything from this Company should think again Got a question for you mate What company do you work for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! You should never answer a question with another question, mate. Edited August 17, 2007 by brooklynbridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 The plot thickens......time for someone to stir the pot......any takers ?Our friend from Regatta appears to be quiet of late. I wonder if that's quiet confidence or quiet dread. There's no need for me to comment, Ground Engineer is doing very well and relaying the facts correctly. As there is a lull in the VT7 debate I would like to ask Mark why Indochine still owe monet to purchases of Regent Pratunmak condos. Also why were we ripped off at the outset. Anybody thinking of purchasing anything from this Company should think again Got a question for you mate What company do you work for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do not work Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
chris2155 Posted August 17, 2007 Share Posted August 17, 2007 so when are they suppose to come back with decision, ref the MSL etc, as no date has been set for the result from the engineers??? or have i missed something??? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bmanly Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 At the request of a friend who is buying in VT7 I went down to the site yesterday to see if anything was going on. I was surprised, in the 10 minutes I stood there I saw at least 3 concrete trucks come in and I could see at least 20 odd workers attending to the concrete being poured. There was also a other machinery in use and I observed a worker climbing up the crane to the control box. It is evident to me work is definitely being carried out on VT7. I thought there was stop work order in place until the November court case. What is going on? How come work has resumed anyone know? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tammi Posted August 19, 2007 Share Posted August 19, 2007 At the request of a friend who is buying in VT7 I went down to the site yesterday to see if anything was going on. I was surprised, in the 10 minutes I stood there I saw at least 3 concrete trucks come in and I could see at least 20 odd workers attending to the concrete being poured. There was also a other machinery in use and I observed a worker climbing up the crane to the control box. It is evident to me work is definitely being carried out on VT7.I thought there was stop work order in place until the November court case. What is going on? How come work has resumed anyone know? It is my understanding that the Supreme Admin Court overthrew decision by Rayong Admin Court that no work could be done until it is sorted out how far from the seashore (looks as though they have decided mean sea level) buildings over 14 meters have to be. VT can work up to 14meters as I understand it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Taijitu Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 At the request of a friend who is buying in VT7 I went down to the site yesterday to see if anything was going on. I was surprised, in the 10 minutes I stood there I saw at least 3 concrete trucks come in and I could see at least 20 odd workers attending to the concrete being poured. There was also a other machinery in use and I observed a worker climbing up the crane to the control box. It is evident to me work is definitely being carried out on VT7.I thought there was stop work order in place until the November court case. What is going on? How come work has resumed anyone know? It is my understanding that the Supreme Admin Court overthrew decision by Rayong Admin Court that no work could be done until it is sorted out how far from the seashore (looks as though they have decided mean sea level) buildings over 14 meters have to be. VT can work up to 14meters as I understand it. That's very interesting indeed. Now here's a thought. From both a civil engineering and an economic point of view, the lower structures of a building with a maximum height of 14 metres would not need to be so substantial as those necessary to support a building of 27 floors. From what I can see, the lower structures look as though they have a 27 floor building in mind!!!! I'm positive that, because of the delay in construction and other side issues, the View Talay Company won't be risking losing more money unnecessarily by taking a huge chance at this point......otherwise it's going to be the most robust bulding in Thailand. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubes2 Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 Its not over yet, by a mile. Anyone want to have a beer on Floor 27 in a few years time. We can look over and wave at Stopvt7 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhdLover Posted August 20, 2007 Share Posted August 20, 2007 (edited) Its not over yet, by a mile.Anyone want to have a beer on Floor 27 in a few years time. We can look over and wave at Stopvt7 I will be at the 11th floor, waiting for your invitation Edited August 20, 2007 by OhdLover Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMS Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 The plot thickens......time for someone to stir the pot......any takers ?Our friend from Regatta appears to be quiet of late. I wonder if that's quiet confidence or quiet dread. There's no need for me to comment, Ground Engineer is doing very well and relaying the facts correctly. As there is a lull in the VT7 debate I would like to ask Mark why Indochine still owe monet to purchases of Regent Pratunmak condos. Also why were we ripped off at the outset. Anybody thinking of purchasing anything from this Company should think again Got a question for you mate What company do you work for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do not work No answer Mark.Signs of guilt I think Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpm76 Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 WE WON! The August 1, 2007 answer to VT7 appeal at the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court was that VT7 can not build over 14 meters high building.The court upheld Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 has specified that they must be over 200 meters from MSL before they may build over 14 meters. VT7 started their 27 story building at 100 from the MSL line so their 100 meters to close to the shore line. Now, on to the final hearing on August 8, 2007 at Administrative Court in Rayong, Thailand is a country of laws! I have just come into this knowledge. What does it now mean that the August 8 2007 administration made no judgement? In the case where VT7 is forced to not continue, what will happen to all the investors in the project (like myself) who had no idea of this? Our contracts say that we have the right to compensation plus interest if the project is not delivered, but I am guessing that VT7 will be conveniently out of money if this happens. I am know that you are protesting against this (and I can understand why), but do yo know where I can bring myself up to date, as it seems that VT7 management will not give any answers other than keep paying your monthly payments or else. Do you know of any VT7 owners who are ready to commence litigation against VT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiBob Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 WE WON! The August 1, 2007 answer to VT7 appeal at the Bangkok Supreme Administrative Court was that VT7 can not build over 14 meters high building.The court upheld Ministerial Regulations Issue 9 has specified that they must be over 200 meters from MSL before they may build over 14 meters. VT7 started their 27 story building at 100 from the MSL line so their 100 meters to close to the shore line. Now, on to the final hearing on August 8, 2007 at Administrative Court in Rayong, Thailand is a country of laws! I have just come into this knowledge. What does it now mean that the August 8 2007 administration made no judgement? In the case where VT7 is forced to not continue, what will happen to all the investors in the project (like myself) who had no idea of this? Our contracts say that we have the right to compensation plus interest if the project is not delivered, but I am guessing that VT7 will be conveniently out of money if this happens. I am know that you are protesting against this (and I can understand why), but do yo know where I can bring myself up to date, as it seems that VT7 management will not give any answers other than keep paying your monthly payments or else. Do you know of any VT7 owners who are ready to commence litigation against VT? Your comments and legitimate concerns are premature. You have a contract and VT has not broken it yet. On August 8 the Court did not rule against the City of Pattaya and VT but ordered another survey and map be made. Construction is in progress and everyone is still waiting for the final court ruling. Watch this site for the latest news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stopvt7 Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Its not over yet, by a mile.Anyone want to have a beer on Floor 27 in a few years time. We can look over and wave at Stopvt7 I will be at the 11th floor, waiting for your invitation I like these little guy! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhdLover Posted August 23, 2007 Share Posted August 23, 2007 Its not over yet, by a mile.Anyone want to have a beer on Floor 27 in a few years time. We can look over and wave at Stopvt7 I will be at the 11th floor, waiting for your invitation I like these little guy! You will be invited as well As you know I have nothing against you, we just don't have common interests in this case Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sxgun Posted August 25, 2007 Share Posted August 25, 2007 I was driving by the construction site the other day and saw concrete trucks rolling in. What's up with that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billaaa777 Posted August 26, 2007 Share Posted August 26, 2007 I heard from a real estate agent that they were now going to build 17 floors and not 27. Does anybody know if this is true? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubes2 Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 Starting to sound like the real deal. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ThaiBob Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 (edited) I heard from a real estate agent that they were now going to build 17 floors and not 27. Does anybody know if this is true? What would be the logic of that? It's the higher floors where all the profit is at. 17 floors would be no more legal that 27. Edited August 27, 2007 by ThaiBob Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Basil B Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 What I can not understand is why VT has not offered compensation to the JC owners? They could offer those whos property value is affected compensation or even a part exchange deal for property in VT7 with a sea view. BB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cubes2 Posted August 27, 2007 Share Posted August 27, 2007 because deep down VT know they will win in the end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sharecropper Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 The plot thickens......time for someone to stir the pot......any takers ?Our friend from Regatta appears to be quiet of late. I wonder if that's quiet confidence or quiet dread. There's no need for me to comment, Ground Engineer is doing very well and relaying the facts correctly. As there is a lull in the VT7 debate I would like to ask Mark why Indochine still owe monet to purchases of Regent Pratunmak condos. Also why were we ripped off at the outset. Anybody thinking of purchasing anything from this Company should think again Got a question for you mate What company do you work for !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I do not work No answer Mark.Signs of guilt I think Can I ask Newbie to clarify something. Of course nobody should ever believe anything anyone ever says on these forums, as many celebrated Pattaya sh*tstirrers with not much better to do waste time winding people up on them, but can Newbie - for the sake of his own credibility - clarify the difference between his two comments: 1. Made on 15 May - that "a friend of mine (no really)" had bought in Regent and 2. Made on 23 August - that "we" had been ripped off Which is it - you or your mate, "mate"? I think we should be told. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gary A Posted August 28, 2007 Share Posted August 28, 2007 If I were to place a wager, I'd bet that View Talay will continue with the complex as designed. There's simply too much money at stake to abandon the plans. If they would happen to be forced to stop construction, they would certainly have grounds to recover money spent already from whoever approved the plans to start with. Planning boards do NOT make mistakes even if they are VERY obviously wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OneMikeInBangkok Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 If I were to place a wager, I'd bet that View Talay will continue with the complex as designed. There's simply too much money at stake to abandon the plans. If they would happen to be forced to stop construction, they would certainly have grounds to recover money spent already from whoever approved the plans to start with. Planning boards do NOT make mistakes even if they are VERY obviously wrong. How on Earth can View Talay sue City Hall for losses resulting from an illegally issued building permit? It's like a small time drug dealer taking to court a big time time drug dealer because the herion he was sold was cut with talcum powder - it don't happen Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
OhdLover Posted August 29, 2007 Share Posted August 29, 2007 If I were to place a wager, I'd bet that View Talay will continue with the complex as designed. There's simply too much money at stake to abandon the plans. If they would happen to be forced to stop construction, they would certainly have grounds to recover money spent already from whoever approved the plans to start with. Planning boards do NOT make mistakes even if they are VERY obviously wrong. How on Earth can View Talay sue City Hall for losses resulting from an illegally issued building permit? It's like a small time drug dealer taking to court a big time time drug dealer because the herion he was sold was cut with talcum powder - it don't happen Needless discussion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts