Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[Tammi]

...............

If I purchased a VT7 condo I ask for my money back because they not going to finish this building. At less seek the advice of a good lawyer how knows and specializes in administrative law.

and as a starting point , be sure you have the English version of the contract which explains the refund policy.

As a note, when the VT4 project was shelved all contract holders received refunds with interest. Mr. and Mrs. VT are reportedly to be the richest Thais in Pattaya and the VT company certainly has deep pockets and influential friends. With more projects on the drawing boards they certainly don't want to damage their reputation.

Do you know why it was shelved? What was the location?

[ThaiBob]

...............

If I purchased a VT7 condo I ask for my money back because they not going to finish this building. At less seek the advice of a good lawyer how knows and specializes in administrative law.

and as a starting point , be sure you have the English version of the contract which explains the refund policy.

As a note, when the VT4 project was shelved all contract holders received refunds with interest. Mr. and Mrs. VT are reportedly to be the richest Thais in Pattaya and the VT company certainly has deep pockets and influential friends. With more projects on the drawing boards they certainly don't want to damage their reputation.

Do you know why it was shelved? What was the location?

Sorry, I don't know the particulars. I did forget to mention the VT4 buyers had a choice of refund or a position in future VT projects. (Hey, maybe they're now holding VT7 contracts!!!)

[lookat]

If (when) the law suit is filed against vt to tear down vt5 and vt3. I been told the Administrative Court will follow the law and tear down these buildings. This act will bankrupt vt. Then realtor would be brought into the case to fund the liability. Claiming you didn’t know the law is not a defense against liability. If you purchase for investment a vt condo and sold it then its tore down you are also liable. So then vt buys a building permit and violates Thai law they also implements many others, even the investor how bought and resold these condos. Remember the admin court was setup in 1999 to stop and correct the acts of corruption by government. So when you partnered with government in an act of corruption you also liable. Buyers beware!

[Tammi]

The Permission to Construct Clause 4 (1) given to VT states "The permission grantee has to perform accordingly to the standard, method and conditions mentioned in ministerial regulations or local regulations issued according to the substance in section 8 (11) or section 9 or section 10 of the Building Control Act B.E. 2522.

The paintiffs have been quoting Ministerial Regulations dated B.E. 2521

???????????

[ThaiBob]

If (when) the law suit is filed against vt to tear down vt5 and vt3. I been told the Administrative Court will follow the law and tear down these buildings. This act will bankrupt vt. Then realtor would be brought into the case to fund the liability. Claiming you didn’t know the law is not a defense against liability. If you purchase for investment a vt condo and sold it then its tore down you are also liable. So then vt buys a building permit and violates Thai law they also implements many others, even the investor how bought and resold these condos. Remember the admin court was setup in 1999 to stop and correct the acts of corruption by government. So when you partnered with government in an act of corruption you also liable. Buyers beware!

Oh My God!! Does this mean they will tear down the La Royale (34 stories) in south JomTien or the North Point (46 stories) in North Pattaya or VT6 on Pattaya Beach road too?

[Tammi]

If (when) the law suit is filed against vt to tear down vt5 and vt3. I been told the Administrative Court will follow the law and tear down these buildings. This act will bankrupt vt. Then realtor would be brought into the case to fund the liability. Claiming you didn’t know the law is not a defense against liability. If you purchase for investment a vt condo and sold it then its tore down you are also liable. So then vt buys a building permit and violates Thai law they also implements many others, even the investor how bought and resold these condos. Remember the admin court was setup in 1999 to stop and correct the acts of corruption by government. So when you partnered with government in an act of corruption you also liable. Buyers beware!

Oh My God!! Does this mean they will tear down the La Royale (34 stories) in south JomTien or the North Point (46 stories) in North Pattaya or VT6 on Pattaya Beach road too?

I've been to La Royale and the hi-rise is set well back from the seashore and, anyway, I don't think there is anybody else around there at the moment to complain. The others I don't know about.

[Tammi]

If (when) the law suit is filed against vt to tear down vt5 and vt3. I been told the Administrative Court will follow the law and tear down these buildings. This act will bankrupt vt. Then realtor would be brought into the case to fund the liability. Claiming you didn’t know the law is not a defense against liability. If you purchase for investment a vt condo and sold it then its tore down you are also liable. So then vt buys a building permit and violates Thai law they also implements many others, even the investor how bought and resold these condos. Remember the admin court was setup in 1999 to stop and correct the acts of corruption by government. So when you partnered with government in an act of corruption you also liable. Buyers beware!

Oh My God!! Does this mean they will tear down the La Royale (34 stories) in south JomTien or the North Point (46 stories) in North Pattaya or VT6 on Pattaya Beach road too?

I've been to La Royale and the hi-rise is set well back from the seashore and, anyway, I don't think there is anybody else around there at the moment to complain. The others I don't know about.

Forgot to say - the main reason I did not buy into La Royale was because VT (or somebody else) could build a hi-rise much further forward and right up to the edge of the lot building lot as happened with VT5 next to Grand Condotel.

[ThaiBob]

If (when) the law suit is filed against vt to tear down vt5 and vt3. I been told the Administrative Court will follow the law and tear down these buildings. This act will bankrupt vt. Then realtor would be brought into the case to fund the liability. Claiming you didn’t know the law is not a defense against liability. If you purchase for investment a vt condo and sold it then its tore down you are also liable. So then vt buys a building permit and violates Thai law they also implements many others, even the investor how bought and resold these condos. Remember the admin court was setup in 1999 to stop and correct the acts of corruption by government. So when you partnered with government in an act of corruption you also liable. Buyers beware!

Oh My God!! Does this mean they will tear down the La Royale (34 stories) in south JomTien or the North Point (46 stories) in North Pattaya or VT6 on Pattaya Beach road too?

I've been to La Royale and the hi-rise is set well back from the seashore and, anyway, I don't think there is anybody else around there at the moment to complain. The others I don't know about.

Forgot to say - the main reason I did not buy into La Royale was because VT (or somebody else) could build a hi-rise much further forward and right up to the edge of the lot building lot as happened with VT5 next to Grand Condotel.

You are obviously a person who knows to look before you step.

By the way the southern views at VT5 will also be diminished by VT7. Additionally, that long plot of land adjacent to VT5 (south) has all the makings of VT13. Of course, VT denies owning that plot but they probably have some arrangement or an option to buy. Imagine one VT project view spoiled by another VT project.

[Tammi]

If (when) the law suit is filed against vt to tear down vt5 and vt3. I been told the Administrative Court will follow the law and tear down these buildings. This act will bankrupt vt. Then realtor would be brought into the case to fund the liability. Claiming you didn’t know the law is not a defense against liability. If you purchase for investment a vt condo and sold it then its tore down you are also liable. So then vt buys a building permit and violates Thai law they also implements many others, even the investor how bought and resold these condos. Remember the admin court was setup in 1999 to stop and correct the acts of corruption by government. So when you partnered with government in an act of corruption you also liable. Buyers beware!

Oh My God!! Does this mean they will tear down the La Royale (34 stories) in south JomTien or the North Point (46 stories) in North Pattaya or VT6 on Pattaya Beach road too?

I've been to La Royale and the hi-rise is set well back from the seashore and, anyway, I don't think there is anybody else around there at the moment to complain. The others I don't know about.

Forgot to say - the main reason I did not buy into La Royale was because VT (or somebody else) could build a hi-rise much further forward and right up to the edge of the lot building lot as happened with VT5 next to Grand Condotel.

You are obviously a person who knows to look before you step.

By the way the southern views at VT5 will also be diminished by VT7. Additionally, that long plot of land adjacent to VT5 (south) has all the makings of VT13. Of course, VT denies owning that plot but they probably have some arrangement or an option to buy. Imagine one VT project view spoiled by another VT project.

Years ago, I was told that the person who owned the whole piece of land on which VT5 now stands and the adjacent plot would not sell in pieces, he wanted to sell as one.

VT probably still has to sell many units in VT5 so, of course, will not start construction on the adjacent plot (if it does belong to VT) until such time as it has made a profit on VT5.

The whole thing wouldn't be so bad if VT would stop building these dreadful cereal boxes which have the potential to become 'slummy'. Even now residents at Grand Condotel are doing all they can to block out VT5 because VT residents have put kitchens on balconies and hang washing over the rails. GC residents says not great to watch near naked farangs frying eggs or in the bedroom.

[lookat]

Grand Condotel could easily have vt5 torn down and regain their sea view. This could set a present for other to go after other vt projects. Their many in Pattaya who hate them and tired of vt “dreadful cereal boxes”. This would start their slide into bankruptcy! It couldn’t happen to a bigger a__hole in Pattaya! I enjoy watch the wrecking ball take in down.

[nucag]

dont u guys feel good , i have it on very good authority there are plenty of thai families starving whose breadwinner was working on view talay 7 , just to placate a few fat cat americans , what next.

[Tammi]

dont u guys feel good , i have it on very good authority there are plenty of thai families starving whose breadwinner was working on view talay 7 , just to placate a few fat cat americans , what next.

Yours is a totally ridiculous statement. Please go away.

[nucag]

dont u guys feel good , i have it on very good authority there are plenty of thai families starving whose breadwinner was working on view talay 7 , just to placate a few fat cat americans , what next.

Yours is a totally ridiculous statement. Please go away.

i wont go away , and dont think u americans have the power to bomb people u dont like either , but u think starving people in pattaya is ok

[Jimmyd]

i wont go away , and dont think u americans have the power to bomb people u dont like either , but u think starving people in pattaya is ok

She's right. You have some huge logical flaws in your statement. For instance, by your logic, thai people are starving because they aren't allowed to sell heroin. In addition, just because these workers aren't allowed to work on an illegal construction project doesn't mean that they will starve to death--there are legal jobs available. Finally, it's Thai law that's preventing them from working, not anything to do with Americans.

[nucag]

i wont go away , and dont think u americans have the power to bomb people u dont like either , but u think starving people in pattaya is ok

She's right. You have some huge logical flaws in your statement. For instance, by your logic, thai people are starving because they aren't allowed to sell heroin. In addition, just because these workers aren't allowed to work on an illegal construction project doesn't mean that they will starve to death--there are legal jobs available. Finally, it's Thai law that's preventing them from working, not anything to do with Americans.

ok i concede that argument , but americans get up my nose as they try and push people around ,as a regular visitor to jomtien i thought a nice y shaped view talay on that corner would of been fanatstic , as it would of hiddden that ugly old mildewy buiilding behind it and probaly would of jazzed up jomtien plaza , the only downside is i dont know if you could fit anymore people in deckchairs on dongtan beach

[ThaiBob]

dont u guys feel good , i have it on very good authority there are plenty of thai families starving whose breadwinner was working on view talay 7 , just to placate a few fat cat americans , what next.

Yours is a totally ridiculous statement. Please go away.

i wont go away , and dont think u americans have the power to bomb people u dont like either , but u think starving people in pattaya is ok

Of course nucag's post is ridiculuous but ridiculous perhaps through our foreign eyes. We've all heard the stories (mostly untrue) that the farang is at fault in an accident simply because of his physcal presence in Thailand. Notice how the articles about VT7 even in the English language newspapers written by Thai reporters always use slanted phrases like the "10 farang" or "10 foreign complaintants". There is definitely anti-foreigner sentiment sweeping Thailand and the VT7 story plays well for those that fuel the fire. The VT7 saga is becoming a clash of two cultures, Thai Vs Foreigner/farang.

[borracho]

I'd say the complainants beef is with Jomtien complex condotel for selling that property to VT in the first place.

I was looking around VT5 a few weeks ago and felt bad for the poor sods in the Jomtien complex.

I'm glad I didn't buy there.

The ViewTalay company is extremely well connected. Don't expect a few disgruntled foreigners to stop construction for long. You can just about bank on that!

The VT7 looks like a nice project.

[Tammi]

I'd say the complainants beef is with Jomtien complex condotel for selling that property to VT in the first place.

I was looking around VT5 a few weeks ago and felt bad for the poor sods in the Jomtien complex.

I'm glad I didn't buy there.

The ViewTalay company is extremely well connected. Don't expect a few disgruntled foreigners to stop construction for long. You can just about bank on that!

The VT7 looks like a nice project.

Nothing wrong with selling the property - Jomthien Complex didn't expect 27 stories in front of them. At this time VT7 seems to be illegal. Thai law protects Thais and farangs alike.

Am sure there are many disgruntled Thais is Jomthien Complex.

VT5 is a stone's throw from Grand Condotel and those are the 'poor sods' you should feel sorry for.

Now that Songkran is past hope to hear from the complainants about what is happening. Is there something in the Building Control Act B.E. 2522 that makes VT7 legal?

[ThaiBob]

From the Pattaya Mail:

City official investigated as court stops condo project

Narisa Nitikarn

A court order has placed a stop on the construction of the View Talay 7 condominium project and a Pattaya City official is being investigated following a complaint registered by the residents of Jomtien Complex.

The complaint was filed by 10 homeowners in Jomtien Complex, located on Thappraya Road, on November 29 last year. Addressed to the Administrative Court of Rayong, the complaint cited a Pattaya City officer and View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co Ltd, and alleged inappropriate behavior on behalf of officers. The court directed View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co to provisionally halt construction until a further decision is reached. The order was issued on April 9.

The 10 plaintiffs say the Pattaya City officer issued construction license No 162/2550 dated November 28, 2006 to View Talay Jomtien Condominium (1999) Co to build a tall structure consisting of 912 units on 27 floors. The building would be approximately 81 meters high, and its location contravenes coastal building regulations under the Building and Construction Act BE 2479 (Clause 3). This ministerial regulation has been valid since November 23, 1978.

Residents say that the new structure would block their views if the building were to go ahead. They add that the foundation work that has begun on the new project has caused a crack in their own building.

http://www.pattayamail.com/current/news.shtml#hd1

If the City official is guilty I would think the City's case if hopeless. If the City offical is found innocent then JC complaintants have opened the door for being sued (probably defamation). I understand these cases are easily won since one doesn't have to show monetary damages.

[Artisan]

From the Pattaya Mail:

Residents say that the new structure would block their views if the building were to go ahead. They add that the foundation work that has begun on the new project has caused a crack in their own building.

Cracks appeared within the Jomtien Complex Condotel (the Twin Towers) about 7 or 8 years ago. The swimming pool cracked and the garden developed a long crack that you could put your hand in!! The movement of cars around the parking areas was blamed for this. As well as a small area for car parking on the ground foor, there are further car parking areas on floors 2 and 3. The swimming pool is on floor 4and, together with the garden, overhangs the main entrance.

[stopvt7]

Good Story! In the Pattaya People Weekly

Battle of the Condos - Court Injunction on View Talay 7Residents of the Jomtien Complex

Condotel on going fight to stop View Talay 7 development from going ahead in front of their building (thus restricting their view of the sea) filed for a court case on 12th March and received a hearing on the 28th March.

The outcome was in their favour and they received a temporary court injunction on 9th April issued by the Administrative Court in Rayong, thus stopping construction of the 27 storey View Talay project.

The residents claimed that the new construction, apart from dust contamination, was causing cracks to appear in their Complex. They based their case on a ministerial regulation whereby any building over 14 meters tall (about 3 storeys) is prohibited from within 200 meters of the “sea shore” (at high tide).

Hence, the Administrative Court upheld this legal regulation in planning law and temporarily stopped the building of the View Talay 7 site.

This decision will possibly have an effect on the future skyline and sea front of Pattaya and Jomtien.

“This ruling is good for all of Thailand, Thai people and farangs equally” stated Mr. Haines, a happy resident of Jomtien Complex Condotel.

The history of this battle of the condos goes back to November 2006 when it was brought to the public attention as a large number of Jomtien Complex Condotel residents started a protest march in Jomtien area to show their disapproval of the construction of the high rise View Talay condominium Number 7 with 27 floors to be built directly in front of their own condominiums which will permanently block their magnificent panoramic view of the sea and Jomtien Bay.

The project developer (of Jomtien Complex Condotel) Jomtien Complex Co. Ltd., presented the buildings to the public for sale in 1992 as a condominium plus low rise hotel, complete with water sports facilities, swimming pool and club house. It was guaranteed to the buyers that there would be only a low rise hotel built on the 13 Rai of empty land in front of their condominiums. A scale model was on display and three different brochures were issued, all of them with photographs and text promising sea views to all units. Although all units were sold on this assurance from the developer, the low rise hotel and its facilities were never built. Instead, without informing its purchasers, the developer sold the property in front of the condos to a subsidiary (Prakun Co., Ltd) who then sold it on to View Talay Co. Then in November 2005, it was confirmed that View Talay, and within their rights, would construct a 27 storey Y shaped high rise block of 936 condominiums directly in front of the Jomtien Complex Condotel.

The concerns of the residents was not only that the developer’s promises were not kept, but that this planned high rise building on the small 13 rai plot literally meters away, will totally block the sea and sky views.

Jomtien Complex Condotel residents regret that they bought their apartments which they purchased in a good faith to enjoy peacefully the sea view location, as soon they will see only concrete in the future. Further, the residents realizing that the value of their property will drop also fear that the new construction vibrations etc., will damage their structure and how this will affect their building insurance coverage.

When the team made their silent protest march to Pattaya City Hall they were invited to talk with Mayor Niran Wattanasartsatorn where they discovered that construction permission had already been approved from the Environmental Impact Authority (EIA) of Chonburi and Bangkok. Mayor Niran suggested the group to find a good lawyer, which they could get from the Lawyers Council of Thailand, in Bangkok.

The team researched the law, consulting with lawyers and an Environment expert. Pattaya lawyers refused to touch the case at all, claiming fear of challenging this mega-corporation and its friends. Every lawyer they consulted has had different opinions about the rights that the residences in Jomtien Complex Condotel have. One respected Bangkok firm gave the residence some opinions and assured them that they had firm cases against the Jomtien Complex Condotel Developer and View Talay, and were entitled to protection from the consumer affairs act. They later were aware that if they proceeded with the lawsuit, this firm suggested that they could be at great risk of a countersuit, which would ruin them financially. The residence committee found it impossible to get accurate information from lawyers, local and government agencies. They even petitioned His Majesty the King’s legal offices, humbly, and with great respect asking for justice.

It was then that the residents were told that there is a law that was recognized since 1994, which states that only buildings of 14 meters in height are allowed to be built at 200 meters from mean sea level, subsequent buildings to rise in height only at a 45 degree angle.

The residence committee chooses to believe that the View Talay Developers have the rights to build what they want since they own the land but within legal limits.

[stopvt7]

“If the City official is guilty I would think the City's case if hopeless. If the City official is found innocent then JC complainants have opened the door for being sued (probably defamation). I understand these cases are easily won since one doesn't have to show monetary damages.”

Your need to read up on Administrative Court Law! NO one can sue the complainants. The court would not have taken the case it the 10 complainants had not shown that the Pattaya city government breaking a law. The Administrative Court was established in 1999 by the King to investigate questionable government action. And they are not allowed retribution against any complainants. Vt7 or city hall has NO legal recourses!

The court can investigate why they broke the law? I do not think they will be able to prove more then they should never have issued a building permit. Thailand is a country which has laws!

[ZZZ]

a law that was recognized since 1994, which states that only buildings of 14 meters in height are allowed to be built at 200 meters from mean sea level, subsequent buildings to rise in height only at a 45 degree angle.

This 45 degree law would make Jomtien Complex Condo about 20 floors to High!!

With this law Ocean 1 could only be built to about 25m high as it is not much more than 200m from the beach.

[stopvt7]

Thai and farangs working together!

[icecubes]

name='Tammi' date='2007-04-21 08:16:58' post='1262691']Nothing wrong with selling the property - Jomthien Complex didn't expect 27 stories in front of them. At this time VT7 seems to be illegal. Thai law protects Thais and farangs alike.

Edited April 21, 2007 by icecubes

[Tammi]

I'd say the complainants beef is with Jomtien complex condotel for selling that property to VT in the first place.

I was looking around VT5 a few weeks ago and felt bad for the poor sods in the Jomtien complex.

I'm glad I didn't buy there.

The ViewTalay company is extremely well connected. Don't expect a few disgruntled foreigners to stop construction for long. You can just about bank on that!

The VT7 looks like a nice project.

Nothing wrong with selling the property - Jomthien Complex didn't expect 27 stories in front of them. At this time VT7 seems to be illegal. Thai law protects Thais and farangs alike.

Am sure there are many disgruntled Thais is Jomthien Complex.

VT5 is a stone's throw from Grand Condotel and those are the 'poor sods' you should feel sorry for.

Now that Songkran is past hope to hear from the complainants about what is happening. Is there something in the Building Control Act B.E. 2522 that makes VT7 legal?

stopvt7 Posted Today, 2007-04-21 21:16:30

Good Story! In the Pattaya People Weekly

Battle of the Condos - Court Injunction on View Talay 7Residents of the Jomtien Complex

The project developer (of Jomtien Complex Condotel) Jomtien Complex Co. Ltd., presented the buildings to the public for sale in 1992 as a condominium plus low rise hotel, complete with water sports facilities, swimming pool and club house. It was guaranteed to the buyers that there would be only a low rise hotel built on the 13 Rai of empty land in front of their condominiums. A scale model was on display and three different brochures were issued, all of them with photographs and text promising sea views to all units. Although all units were sold on this assurance from the developer, the low rise hotel and its facilities were never built. Instead, without informing its purchasers, the developer sold the property in front of the condos to a subsidiary (Prakun Co., Ltd) who then sold it on to View Talay Co.[/size] Then in November 2005, it was confirmed that View Talay, and within their rights, would construct a 27 storey Y shaped high rise block of 936 condominiums directly in front of the Jomtien Complex Condotel.

Dear Icy,

So what's with your emoticons?

Apparently it wasn't Jomthien Complex who sold the land to VT - it was the developer. Same happened at Jomthien Condotel. Co-owners there were told "yes, you own the land right down to the beach". They didn't and now 20 years after Jomthien Condotel was built a developer has bought a piece of land between Jomthien Condotel and the beach and, it is rumoured, is going to build 8 storeys.

[ThaiBob]

“If the City official is guilty I would think the City's case if hopeless. If the City official is found innocent then JC complainants have opened the door for being sued (probably defamation). I understand these cases are easily won since one doesn't have to show monetary damages.”

Your need to read up on Administrative Court Law! NO one can sue the complainants.

I'm not referring to Administrative Court taking action as that would obviously discourage people from pursuing their legal rights. But a citizen who believes he has been damaged I would think has every right to take court action. In your Pattaya People post above it does state "They later were aware that if they proceeded with the lawsuit, this firm suggested that they could be at great risk of a countersuit, which would ruin them financially."

[ThaiBob]

Thai and farangs working together!

All I see are predominantly farangs and their Thai wives or girlfriends protesting.

[stopvt7]

“I'm not referring to Administrative Court taking action as that would obviously discourage people from pursuing their legal rights. But a citizen who believes he has been damaged I would think has every right to take court action.”

No! What part of NO do you not understand, the “n” or is it the “o”. They are not aloud to take action in any other court against the complainants! The King set up Administrative court that people in Thailand have a place to take action when government and their partners do questionable acts that violates Thai laws. Administrative Court studies the case and the laws before accepting the filing. Then they can probe into why this law was broken? The complainants have no control over this investigative action. And at the April hearing City hall and VT7 admitted the 200 meter law was correct but said it should not be enforce. City hall and VT7 asked for a fast final decision to stop future investigation.

Ministerial Regulation

Issue 9 (B.E. 2521)

Issued under the Building Construction Control Act

B.E. 2479

By the virtue of the Section 15 of the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479, the Ministry of Interior issued the following Ministerial Regulations:

1. No. 1 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 to be amended by the followings statement:

“No. 1. This Ministerial Regulation applies within the boundary line of the map annexed 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. 2520”

2. No. 3 of the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued under the Building Construction Control Act B.E. 2479 to be amended by the following statement:

“No 3. Setting of 200 meters measured from the map annexed 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 seaside in which the following constructions shall not be built:

• Building of 14 meters higher than road level.
  

The Ministerial Regulation is hereby given on the date of twenty-third of November B.E. 2521 (1978).

We used: Asia LawWorks Ltd.

Markus Klemm and Amnat Thiengtham

Phone 38-411-591 or e-mail [email protected]

Thailand has law which courts enforce. If you like to read the court case or injunction ruling go and check the Blog at: http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

[stopvt7]

"The residence committee chooses to believe that the View Talay Developers have the rights to build what they want since they own the land but within legal limits." Pattaya Weekly Well written!