Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[stopvt7]

1) Issue 9 change the location of sea shore from being located at high tide (Issue8) to be located MSL

2) It also change the measurement from 100 meters to 200 meters from the construction control line at the sea shore.

3) Also it increase the territory (area in blue) under the regulation by extending 100 meters into the sea the boarder line of the construction restriction area.

[stopvt7]

Summary of Building Control Regulation:

Reg .No. Year Province Distance Measure from High of building

Issue 8 2519 Chonburi (Pattaya) 100 Control construction line 14 meters

Issue 9 2521 Chonburi (Pattaya) 200 Control construction line 14 meters

Issue 15 2529 Phuket (Patong beach) 200 Border of Building Control line 12 meters

Issue 22 2532 Surattani (Sa-mui) 200 Coast line 12 meters

Issue 30 2534 Phetchaburi (cha-um) 200 Coast line 12 meters

Issue 31 2534 Chanthaburi 200 Coast line 12 meters

Issue 36 2535 Prachuap khiri khun (hua-hin) 200 Coast line 12 meters

Regulation 2543 Trang 200 Coast line 12 meters

Regulation 2543 Trang 500 Coast line 16 meters

Regulation 2544 Phang-nga 225 Coast line 12 meters

Regulation 2546 Traad 200 Coast line 12 meters

Regulation 2547 Krabi 200 Coast line 12 meters

Regulation 2549 Ranong 200 Coast line 12 meters

Regulation 2549 Satoon (Accepted Lee pea island) 200 Coast line 12 meters

Regulation 2549 Satoon (Accepted Lee pea island) 500 Coast line 16 meters

Note:Coast line means the same as sea shore

Edited January 14, 2008 by stopvt7

[lookat]

New posting on http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Administrative Court Hearing on January 15, 2008

This could be the last hearing before the final decision from the Rayong Administrative Court. The hearing is to discuses the surveyor's report by Bangkok Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning.

The question concerning the court is the questionable claims by Pattaya City Hall, VT7 and Bangkok Department of Civil Engineering and City Planning claims you measure 100 meters into the sea from the construction control line and measure 100 meter onto the land from the construction control lin.

Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521) that sets Construction standards. This regulation has an explanation below which tell you how the apply the regulation called:

"No 3 to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map to the Royal Decree Promulgating the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 in the regions of Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Khua and Tambol Nhong Prue of Amphur Bang Lamung of Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 at the sea shore in which the following constructions shall not be built:

Building of 14 meters higher than road level.

What are the facts in Ministerial Regulation Issue 9 (B. E. 2521)

1) to fix the 200 meters measured

2) from the construction control line

3) at the sea shore

4) following constructions shall not be built (Building of 14 meters higher than road level)

5) according to the annexed map.

From the construction control line at the sea shore is shown to be at MSL on the Issue9 which all parties agree you stare to measure.

What are the Difference between Issue 8 and Issue 9:

Issue 8 "to fix the 100 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

Issue 9 "to fix the 200 meters measured from the construction control line according to the annexed map at the sea shore that building of the following types are not permitted for construction"

We think the facts are clear for the judge to make his final decision.

It looks like today is a big day.

Edited January 14, 2008 by lookat

[plasticpig]

Big anti climax day.

[OneMikeInBangkok]

A sad day

The court has ruled

No where in the world as far as I know measures 100 meteres out to sea and 200 meters back again

There will be much discussion - as for now well the steel is going up and I am going to look for a new location away from this building and this piss poor Thai attitude.

View Talay may win in the short term but there reputation - if they ever had one is well and truly f***ed

Any one ANYONE investing in property in Jomtien/Pattaya is a fool - there are no rights there are no laws that are worth the paper they can be pissed on unless your name is big business or your name is View Talay

And investors in VT7 don't spend too much on the celebrations - it is not over yet

[Tammi]

A sad day

The court has ruled

No where in the world as far as I know measures 100 meteres out to sea and 200 meters back again

There will be much discussion - as for now well the steel is going up and I am going to look for a new location away from this building and this piss poor Thai attitude.

View Talay may win in the short term but there reputation - if they ever had one is well and truly f***ed

Any one ANYONE investing in property in Jomtien/Pattaya is a fool - there are no rights there are no laws that are worth the paper they can be pissed on unless your name is big business or your name is View Talay

And investors in VT7 don't spend too much on the celebrations - it is not over yet

Can this be true? If it is it is a big blow to Thailand and its courts and laws.

How ridiculous - 100 out and 200 back!!!

[OhdLover]

A sad day

The court has ruled

No where in the world as far as I know measures 100 meteres out to sea and 200 meters back again

There will be much discussion - as for now well the steel is going up and I am going to look for a new location away from this building and this piss poor Thai attitude.

View Talay may win in the short term but there reputation - if they ever had one is well and truly f***ed

Any one ANYONE investing in property in Jomtien/Pattaya is a fool - there are no rights there are no laws that are worth the paper they can be pissed on unless your name is big business or your name is View Talay

And investors in VT7 don't spend too much on the celebrations - it is not over yet

[JaiDeeFarang]

A sad day

The court has ruled

No where in the world as far as I know measures 100 meteres out to sea and 200 meters back again

There will be much discussion - as for now well the steel is going up and I am going to look for a new location away from this building and this piss poor Thai attitude.

View Talay may win in the short term but there reputation - if they ever had one is well and truly f***ed

Any one ANYONE investing in property in Jomtien/Pattaya is a fool - there are no rights there are no laws that are worth the paper they can be pissed on unless your name is big business or your name is View Talay

And investors in VT7 don't spend too much on the celebrations - it is not over yet

What did I say all along? No one believed me, no one gave me credibilty for what I knew. A well known saying in Thailand "Som Nam Na"! No just watch and wait for the reprisals from View Talay, don't think you can get away with what you've put them through! Ohd Lover, lets party!!!

[Ungabunga]

Jaidee Farang - but surely Thailand is a country of laws??

.... and what does this mean for others such as Regatta? Hmmm

Edited January 16, 2008 by Ungabunga

[lookat]

Jaidee Farang - but surely Thailand is a country of laws??

.... and what does this mean for others such as Regatta? Hmmm

The Judge must of joint in at the tea party?

It has not ben confirm he was car shopping today?

[wpcoe]

A sad day

The court has ruled

Really? What was the ruling? Anybody care to post it, please?

No where in the world as far as I know measures 100 meteres out to sea and 200 meters back again

That makes it sound like the building must be a net difference of 100 meters back ... back from what? Is the VT7 actually 100 meters from the shoreline, high-tide line, mid-tide line, and/or low-tide line?

There will be much discussion - as for now well the steel is going up and ...

VT7 already resumed construction on the 16th? That's very fast (efficient?).

View Talay may win in the short term but there reputation - if they ever had one is well and truly f***ed

OTOH, some folks mike think the VT folks have a solid reputation of being able to build buildings they promise?

And investors in VT7 don't spend too much on the celebrations - it is not over yet

So there is an appeal process? Any idea how long that might drag out?

[TheWalkingMan]

Jaidee Farang - but surely Thailand is a country of laws??

Laws? What laws? The law is the law of the baht, and the more baht you got, the more laws you can skirt around.

But I still find it amazing that they were able to run a dog and pony show saying 100 out and 200 back was what the regulation stated. Why bother going out? Just go back 100 and call it a night. Whelp, any person with a condo on a lowish floor, with a view of a patch of land and then the beach, needs to re-evaluate the chances of a building being built. One thing for everyone to remember, views are NOT guaranteed no matter what the sales person tells you.

A bit off topic: I looked at a low rise condo on Soi Bukaow a couple of weeks ago. It had a view of other roof tops and directly behind the building were several 2 story rental residences owned by the condo building owner. I asked the sales lady if the owner planned on kicking the renters out and building another condo building. She replied that he would not do that..... Yeah, right

The baht is the game and no one is bigger than the game.

TheWalkingMan

[beginner]

The court has ruled

Really? What was the ruling? Anybody care to post it, please?

What ruling? Where is it?

[marekm1]

I would like to know what stopvt7 think about it

Is it a gloating or a confidence. Thailand is a country of law so I was protected from people like you.

Maybe you cannot come to US as you said you would sue the American Government if they have the same court as in Thailand. Maybe you cannot stay in Thailand as well. I don’t cry for you. You made it personal and it hurts me. Now suffer.

I went for a walk along Pattaya Beach and there was about 50 buildings, which was against your law.

You think you can change that. No way. We have to be protected from people like that .

And ye I like these ones

[marekm1]

I would like to know what stopvt7 think about it

Is it a gloating or a confidence. Thailand is a country of law so I was protected from people like you.

Maybe you cannot come to US as you said you would sue the American Government if they have the same court as in Thailand. Maybe you cannot stay in Thailand as well. I don't cry for you. You made it personal and it hurts me. Now suffer.

I went for a walk along Pattaya Beach and there was about 50 buildings, which was against your law.

You think you can change that. No way. We have to be protected from people like that .

And ye I like these ones

Ignore the last line. Have to learn how to send some funnies.

[OhdLover]

I would like to know what stopvt7 think about it

Is it a gloating or a confidence. Thailand is a country of law so I was protected from people like you.

Maybe you cannot come to US as you said you would sue the American Government if they have the same court as in Thailand. Maybe you cannot stay in Thailand as well. I don't cry for you. You made it personal and it hurts me. Now suffer.

I went for a walk along Pattaya Beach and there was about 50 buildings, which was against your law.

You think you can change that. No way. We have to be protected from people like that .

And ye I like these ones

What's your favorite brand, Marek? Heineken? Or some special Belgium beer?

I'll make sure my fridge is filled with it while we glance over the sea from our high floor balcony in 2010.

Though I don't want to make it personal towards especially stopvt and OneBigMouthInBangkok

(they will be perfectly capable of thinking about what we COULD write here, and it's not very chique),

I agree that the personal approach this topic went into sometimes (as if we were responsible for

the workers to wear caps and avoid children at the site, otherwise we were responsible for

everything that could happen there etc. etc.), adds some extra good feelings to this victory.

This topic is now 38 pages long, I think at about page 7 I (and some others) stated that

without any doubt VT would win this case. I also told stopvt I wouldn't be happy to be in

his position, thinking of what could happen if he lost the case.

Now, what will VT do with this outcome?

Continue construction of course, but will they claim the losses from the previous months on the stopvt-group?

I guess there will be a reasonable amount of money they can come up with, if they do some proper calculations.

Although I was pretty sure al along that VT7 would win, I have been worried about my money for a long time.

So I have no problem if the suffering flips to the other side for a while.

I wish stopvt all the best in coping with this outcome, apart from making it too personal I think it

was a brave (but not very wise) attempt to protect his seaview.

I would have chosen to lose my seaview, because I don't think I would be able,

as a farang, to tell the Thai how they should behave.

He chose to try it, and now lost both his seaview and perhaps a lot of other things.

Anyone who wants to celebrate is invited to my house warming party, let's say in august 2010 or so !!

[Tammi]

I would have chosen to lose my seaview, because I don't think I would be able,

as a farang, to tell the Thai how they should behave.

He chose to try it, and now lost both his seaview and perhaps a lot of other things.

Farangs don't tell Thais how to behave - Thai Laws do.

[marekm1]

I would have chosen to lose my seaview, because I don't think I would be able,

as a farang, to tell the Thai how they should behave.

He chose to try it, and now lost both his seaview and perhaps a lot of other things.

Farangs don't tell Thais how to behave - Thai Laws do.

So right, and it already did.

Just accept that.

[JaiDeeFarang]

I would have chosen to lose my seaview, because I don't think I would be able,

as a farang, to tell the Thai how they should behave.

He chose to try it, and now lost both his seaview and perhaps a lot of other things.

Farangs don't tell Thais how to behave - Thai Laws do.

So right, and it already did.

Just accept that.

Thailand is a country of laws, certainly. It just depends on how those in power interpret those laws. Surely the lawyer representing "The Cause" has known this law all along, but instead decided to milk a bunch of witless farangs for every last baht he could, so more fool the JCC! I absolutely hope that View Talay screw these demonstrators for every last baht and that immigration revokes all future visas, good ridance! This is Thailand not L.A, New York, London or Paris - When in Rome do as the Romans do.

Do these people have any sense? T.I.T and you cannot go round telling people how to run their country, as I've said before we are all privilaged guests here. Anyone calling a government official corrupt in a Western society, when found to be correct would face serious criminal and civil charges. So my advice would be to apologise whole heartedly on your knees, whilst you can still call this country we love "Home".

One other thing, how can there be an appeal? Is there any new evidence that has come to light over the last few weeks? NO. Unless there is new evidence, forget it. How can the Condotel even think about taking the regatta to the administrative court? There simply is no case.

Before I go, can someone contact the Sawang Booriboon body snatchers and tell them to put a large cargo net in front of the JCC, it may catch a few people jumping from their condos when the sh1t really hits the fan.

[JaiDeeFarang]

Just incase readers miss what this thread actually started on and what was alledged by Richard Haines even though Mayor Niran said the building permit was correctly issued and he wasn't concerned about farangs suing city hall. This is some costly sunset you'll never see again Richard!

Condo owners sue for sea view

PATTAYA: -- A group of Jomtien apartment owners has asked the Administrative Court in Rayong to halt the construction of a new residential building that will block their sea views.

Ten foreign Jomtien Complex Condotel apartment owners are fighting to preserve their uninterrupted beach views following Pattaya City Council building permission for a new apartment building directly in front of them.

The complaint asserts Pattaya City wrongly granted construction permission to View Talay Jomtien Condominium.

It adds the permission did not meet 1978 planning regulations and alleges it will deprive them of their present unobstructed views of Jomtien Beach.

Jomtien Complex Condotel resident of two years Richard Haines, 62, retired, is one of the plaintiffs. The United States expatriate claims the development of View Talay 7 is in breach of planning law.

The building is on the beachfront and will obstruct views, he argued. "I purchased my condo in October 2005 when I decided to make Thailand my retirement home.

"But the new View Talay 7 building will block me from ever seeing another sunset from my condo," he said.

Haines alleged View Talay 7 was illegal because it was 14 metres in height and within 200 metres of the sea. Buildings of this height are prohibited within 200 metres of the shore by planning law, he said.

Pattaya Mayor Niran Wattana-sartsathorn said the city correctly issued building permission.

"I'm not worried that some foreigners are suing the city in the Administrative Court because we are just an agent to mediate this problem.

"If the foreigners succeed it will be a precedent for others and maybe developers will think before getting into problems like this," Niran added.

The court will hold a preliminary hearing tomorrow.

--The nation 2007-03-27

[bobbin]

I absolutely hope that View Talay screw these demonstrators for every last baht and that immigration revokes all future visas, good ridance!

So my advice would be to apologise whole heartedly on your knees, whilst you can still call this country we love "Home".

Before I go, can someone contact the Sawang Booriboon body snatchers and tell them to put a large cargo net in front of the JCC, it may catch a few people jumping from their condos when the sh1t really hits the fan.

You fly a false flag.

You are by no stretch of the imagination "jai dee"!!

The German language has a word for it.

Schadenfreud..apologies to our German friends for the spelling. It means to take delight in others misery.

Those JCC owners had already paid in full for their properties and were enjoying the unrestricted views until View Talay managed to pull a fast one. Aided and abetted by the original developer of JCC no less!

You and the other purchasers of VT7 have only only made partial payments to date so the financial stakes of the opposing owners were/are not equal.

You should hang your head in shame.

Magnanamous in victory is the correct approach, Jai Damm.

[JaiDeeFarang]

The likes of "OneBigMouthMikeInBangkok" and "stopVT7" also took delight in self gloating, with comments such as "We've Won!". They played the guilt trip about young children on site, how they have everyone's interest at heart. Yet if you look at the very first posting on this thread it simply states that it will ruin 'their' seaviews and sunsets, no one elses, just theirs. They couldn't care less about anyone else, just themselves. Did they even consider the investors in VT7? NO!

Actually don't tell the body snatchers to put a net there to catch the jumpers, better for everyone concerned.

I will not hang my head in shame, I shall hold it high and take delight in seeing what happens next. You make me Jai Ron!

[Basil B]

I am very disappointed.

Looking at the posts regarding the problems at VT you have to realize that these developments are being sold by so called real estate agents who are just one jump up from timeshare bandits.

For those who buy these developments off plan just see an artists impression and have no concept of what their investment will look like in ten years, yet they have only to look at VT1 & 2 to see.

And when VT7 is completed what is to stop another developer coming along and ripping up the beach in front and building a marina?

BB

[ZZZ]

All they need to do is is to measure 200m out from the MSL and 100m back and they could fit a new VT8 sideways along the beach in front of VT7

Anything could happen the way they apply the laws here

[Ungabunga]

Looking at the posts regarding the problems at VT you have to realize that these developments are being sold by so called real estate agents who are just one jump up from timeshare bandits.

BB

BB - Please note that View Talay Condominium sell their own stock directly, they/their developments are not represented by real estate agents.

[Gary A]

Sometimes people forget where they are at. This is not Kansas Toto. Once the ball is rolling and that much money is invested, not much can stop it. By hook or crook, the project will be completed.

I posted on the first page of this thread that whoever pays the piper calls the tune. The piper was paid long ago by VT.

I hope for the naive group who started this action, that VT does not try to extract revenge.

[baruto]

since i´m a lawyer, it would be thrilling to read the judgement, particularly the part where the judge finds that the measurement 100 meters to the sea and then 200 meters to the shore is right. as I understand this judgement is not final. maybe there will be no appeal if the claimants get frightened or hesitant. they should not be.

BTW I have no financial interest in this matter, just professional.

[Tammi]

Hi,

You are spot on with the Administrative Court. They are fresh air to Thai system with quick justice for the aggrieved who receive unfair authoritarian oppression from the government or semi-government departments. The Court is the European ombudsman of Thailand even better than the US (see the film on Erin Bockovich with time-consuming justice).

The first surprise in Thailand was the Electricity Generating Authority of Thailand in attempting to privatise its entity and now had to put on hold for ages. The major benefit from the existence of the administrative court is that now the authority has to be more careful and giving more respect to laws, rules and regulations. I am so happy for small men.

[Tammi]

While the decision of the Court to grant a temporary injunction is clearly a sensible one (if building was allowed to continue pending a full hearing, if it was subsequently stopped significant time and money would have been wasted, plus the applicants may have suffered irreparable structural damage), it is eminently possible that the building will still go ahead.

Although I am not familiar with Thai law on injunctions, in general terms interim injunctive relief is usually granted on a similar basis regardless of jurisdiction. The kind of factors that will have been taken into account are whether the applicants have shown a prima facie case and clearly they have.

However, upon such an application, the Court is not really concerned with any defences the Respondent may have, unless they are very obvious, that being something reserved for the full hearing. A Court would generally be far more concerned with whether the Respondent can be properly compensated in damages in the event that the injunction was improperly granted. In fact, the Applicants may have had to give an undertaking in damages to get the injunction, that would be quite common in jurisdictions with which I am more familiar.

In this case, it would seem to be quite straightforward to compensate the Respondent in damages for delay and thus, so long as the Applicants have a decent argument, the correct way to go would be to grant the injunction. It is a long way short of saying the Applicants are sure to win at final judgement.

Hi the bounder,

The Administrative Court has agreed that the Applicants were the affected parties of the coming View Talay high-rise buildings and based on the Applicant's one-sided presentation, in the Court's judgement, there is a prima facie evidence of the erroneous permit granted by the City Hall to View Talay. Therefore under our Thailand jurisdiction or even in most jurisdiction, any damages for the delay that may have caused View Talay (not the Respondent who is the City Hall) can hardly be blamed on the Applicants who rely on their legal rights to defend their property. It is the Court that requires time for due process of the law to listent to the other side's argument. Taking a legal case against officialdom is the citizens' rights and justifiable as proved by the issuance of the injunction. In this case, the Applicants were not ordered to pay any deposits to enable the Court to grant the injunction which is unheard of in Thailand.

So in short, those Jomtien co-owners can continue with their celebration during these festive days, the victory may be temporary but certainly a sweet one. If View Talay dares to continue with the construction despite the court's order, then their management and workers definitely would be put in front of the Court for jail sentences. They have to wait until the final deliberation of the Supreme Administrative Court. It will be a long-drawn wait for View Talay. If they want to seek for damages for the delay, then the party they should aim at is the City Hall who has issued a permit which is disputable. This is a great case for Thailand to show that not only justice shall be done but it shall also be seen to be done.

As to the future outcome, it is depending very much on the presentation as to the distance of the View Talay building to the sea by both legal counsels. However, the issued injunction is a good sign that the Applicants' case against the City Hall for the wrongful act is credible and now up to the City Hall to reveal under what basis they issued the building permit. So, again in short, the Jomtien co-owners can still be cautionary optimistic and should co-ordinate with their counsel closely in building up their case. It is quite a comfort to realise that the Respondent (the City Hall) has no financial benefits in winning or losing the case and if the Court favours the Applicants, they can always blame on the interpretation and/or misunderstanding.

With that background, I do not think the future for the co-owners is bleak at all and I would still cry out a big hurray for the co-owners!!! It is the View Talay and their customers that are not in an enviable position.

[JaiDeeFarang]

While the decision of the Court to grant a temporary injunction is clearly a sensible one (if building was allowed to continue pending a full hearing, if it was subsequently stopped significant time and money would have been wasted, plus the applicants may have suffered irreparable structural damage), it is eminently possible that the building will still go ahead.

Although I am not familiar with Thai law on injunctions, in general terms interim injunctive relief is usually granted on a similar basis regardless of jurisdiction. The kind of factors that will have been taken into account are whether the applicants have shown a prima facie case and clearly they have.

However, upon such an application, the Court is not really concerned with any defences the Respondent may have, unless they are very obvious, that being something reserved for the full hearing. A Court would generally be far more concerned with whether the Respondent can be properly compensated in damages in the event that the injunction was improperly granted. In fact, the Applicants may have had to give an undertaking in damages to get the injunction, that would be quite common in jurisdictions with which I am more familiar.

In this case, it would seem to be quite straightforward to compensate the Respondent in damages for delay and thus, so long as the Applicants have a decent argument, the correct way to go would be to grant the injunction. It is a long way short of saying the Applicants are sure to win at final judgement.

Hi the bounder,

The Administrative Court has agreed that the Applicants were the affected parties of the coming View Talay high-rise buildings and based on the Applicant's one-sided presentation, in the Court's judgement, there is a prima facie evidence of the erroneous permit granted by the City Hall to View Talay. Therefore under our Thailand jurisdiction or even in most jurisdiction, any damages for the delay that may have caused View Talay (not the Respondent who is the City Hall) can hardly be blamed on the Applicants who rely on their legal rights to defend their property. It is the Court that requires time for due process of the law to listent to the other side's argument. Taking a legal case against officialdom is the citizens' rights and justifiable as proved by the issuance of the injunction. In this case, the Applicants were not ordered to pay any deposits to enable the Court to grant the injunction which is unheard of in Thailand.

So in short, those Jomtien co-owners can continue with their celebration during these festive days, the victory may be temporary but certainly a sweet one. If View Talay dares to continue with the construction despite the court's order, then their management and workers definitely would be put in front of the Court for jail sentences. They have to wait until the final deliberation of the Supreme Administrative Court. It will be a long-drawn wait for View Talay. If they want to seek for damages for the delay, then the party they should aim at is the City Hall who has issued a permit which is disputable. This is a great case for Thailand to show that not only justice shall be done but it shall also be seen to be done.

As to the future outcome, it is depending very much on the presentation as to the distance of the View Talay building to the sea by both legal counsels. However, the issued injunction is a good sign that the Applicants' case against the City Hall for the wrongful act is credible and now up to the City Hall to reveal under what basis they issued the building permit. So, again in short, the Jomtien co-owners can still be cautionary optimistic and should co-ordinate with their counsel closely in building up their case. It is quite a comfort to realise that the Respondent (the City Hall) has no financial benefits in winning or losing the case and if the Court favours the Applicants, they can always blame on the interpretation and/or misunderstanding.

With that background, I do not think the future for the co-owners is bleak at all and I would still cry out a big hurray for the co-owners!!! It is the View Talay and their customers that are not in an enviable position.

Please define 'Citizens', I would asume Thai nationals but I could be wrong. What percentage of Thai nationals are there on the juristic committee? Tammi, are you completely stark raving mad? I really cannot see any point in your posting at all. Why are View Talay and their customers in an uneviable position? You are pissing in the wind, and forgetting who and where you are.