Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ripley]

Calling all legal brains .....

Is there any way at all to find out when the SAC will rule on this case? Is there a "docket" or any other version of court schedule to be accessed by the public? Or does a judgement just suddenly appear in VT7's or stopvt7's mailbox? If there is an independent, unbiassed source of info, it would certainly be useful. For one thing, I'm uncomfortable w/ the way document dates presented on various sites mis-match & change.

Who knows? Anyone?

[jpm76]

Calling all legal brains .....

Is there any way at all to find out when the SAC will rule on this case? Is there a "docket" or any other version of court schedule to be accessed by the public? Or does a judgement just suddenly appear in VT7's or stopvt7's mailbox? If there is an independent, unbiassed source of info, it would certainly be useful. For one thing, I'm uncomfortable w/ the way document dates presented on various sites mis-match & change.

Who knows? Anyone?

I wish we knew. I checked StopVT7's blogspot to see if any further info had been added, but the last post there was all about his "right to free speech" which many have seen as a propaganda rant. All seems quite on the front there as he has not added any useful recent info that could give us insight into dates etc. It may be just a quiet wait now whilst the VT7 project continues to stretch higher. If I hear anything I will let you know Ripley, but I am not expecting too many updates hereon in. I think that this is all but over. Most of the info presented by StopVT7 was not reliable - no doubt if he hears anything positive for his case though, we can catch it on his website (and all the twists out of context etc to be there also). His right to appeal stands though so let's wait to see if something comes of that.

[Gary A]

This thread will die of its own weight. As this thing drags out over the coming months and most likely years, people will lose interest. The unfortunate people pursuing the law suit will become tired of feeding their lawyers and fade away.

VT 7 will be finished, occupied and all will eventually be forgotten. Most should be willing to admit the VT 7 is wrong but truth and justice is elusive here in the land of smiles.

[ripley]

Oh, I dunno. Maybe it will morph into "condo owners sue ___________________" (fill in the name/s)!

[prospero]

SOON

[ThaiBob]

StopVT7 reports on his blog that the SC will have a reading on October 17 in Rayong.

[ripley]

Prospero: "SOON"

Care to elucidate?

[ripley]

"View Talay 7 may already be in violation of the new Condo Act. If you go to the website, you will see that they have conveniently AIRBRUSHED View Talay 5 and Grand Condotel out of the picture of VT7. Unless the developer intends to demolish those buildings, he is guilty of false advertising."

Browsing thru this thread is interesting. Everything from intelligent discourse, debate and bright ideas to dogfights and actionable slander. Found the quote above which made me wonder:

Can the new condo law be retroactively enforced when it concerns consumer fraud? I believe there are already laws against consumer fraud which are difficult to enforce. Perhaps the new law would add strength to them?

[Guderian]

StopVT7 reports on his blog that the SC will have a reading on October 17 in Rayong.

What is a "reading"? Is it their judgement on the appeal? If so, and they found in favour of JCC, why wouldn't they simply have immediately issued an order to suspend work on VT7? Why is a Bangkok-based court having this "reading" in Rayong?

Sorry, confused mak mak. Can anyone shed any light?

[ThaiBob]

StopVT7 reports on his blog that the SC will have a reading on October 17 in Rayong.

What is a "reading"? Is it their judgement on the appeal? If so, and they found in favour of JCC, why wouldn't they simply have immediately issued an order to suspend work on VT7? Why is a Bangkok-based court having this "reading" in Rayong?

Sorry, confused mak mak. Can anyone shed any light?

The ruling or decision on the Appeal has been made by the SC but it will be "read" at the Rayong Administrative Court building. Recall this is the way it was done in April 2007 when the SC ruled VT could resume construction but only to 14meters until the Court ruled otherwise. Why is it done this way? I just is accept it.

[Guderian]

So does anyone know what happened in Rayong this morning?

[kwonitoy]

The October 17 Supreme Court of Administrative Decision

The Supreme Court chose not to change Rayong Court order which lifted the injunction. Because Rayong Court used a expert witness in making their decision the court chose not to interfere.

We wait for the translation which we will post on this blog.

Posted on VT7 website.

[ThaiBob]

The October 17 Supreme Court of Administrative Decision

The Supreme Court chose not to change Rayong Court order which lifted the injunction. Because Rayong Court used a expert witness in making their decision the court chose not to interfere.

We wait for the translation which we will post on this blog.

Posted on VT7 website.

Thanks for posting this! One minor correction it is the stopVT7 website.

[Guderian]

So that sounds like the end of it. VT7 wins.

Whatever the final judgement may eventually be, if the SAC sees no need to stop VT7 construction now, it seems to me to be highly unlikely that it will order its demolition in the future.

Look on the bright side, stopvt7, at least you won't end up with a nasty, derelict, unfinished concrete skeleton outside your window.

[kwonitoy]

My mistake,

[ripley]

"Look on the bright side, stopvt7, at least you won't end up with a nasty, derelict, unfinished concrete skeleton outside your window"

Still stuck w/ a hulk of concrete for many years to come - if previous projects are anything to judge by, a poorly maintained hulk with rusting railings. Two hunks actually, if you count what they'll undoubtedly build next door. Forget all those dreamy predictions of fun parks, malls & bungalows. If you believe that, you don't know VT.

I'm truly sorry so many people have lost so much with this court decision.

Silver lining? Well, it won't be covered w/ filthy green plastic forever. And maybe - just maybe - some folk will learn that when you start a "fight for justice" using injustice as your own tool, once in a while "what goes around comes around".

[Guderian]

Still stuck w/ a hulk of concrete for many years to come - if previous projects are anything to judge by, a poorly maintained hulk with rusting railings. Two hunks actually, if you count what they'll undoubtedly build next door. Forget all those dreamy predictions of fun parks, malls & bungalows. If you believe that, you don't know VT.

I think the amusement park rumour started a while back when a company called Freij parked a pile of containers at the Thappraya end of the plot of land. Freij are a mobile amusement park/entertainment group, but as the containers disappeared a few months ago, they were evidently just being stored there for a funfair elsewhere. See: Freij entertainment

As far as I am aware, the plot of land between VT7/JCC and VT5 C & D is intended for VT5 A & B. Why they built blocks C & D first, I have no idea. Probably feng shui !

I don't know if this was made clear to the people buying units on the Jomtien side of VT5 C & D. They will have more than 2 years of construction noise to look forward to, and will have neighbours opposite looking directly into their rooms from very little distance away. I also wonder if it has been mentioned to people buying units on the Pattaya side of VT7?

So the owners in JCC won't be the only ones to lose their view as a result of VT construction, many VT customers will also suffer a similar fate. (Is that another silver lining?)

[prospero]

Still stuck w/ a hulk of concrete for many years to come - if previous projects are anything to judge by, a poorly maintained hulk with rusting railings. Two hunks actually, if you count what they'll undoubtedly build next door. Forget all those dreamy predictions of fun parks, malls & bungalows. If you believe that, you don't know VT.

I think the amusement park rumour started a while back when a company called Freij parked a pile of containers at the Thappraya end of the plot of land. Freij are a mobile amusement park/entertainment group, but as the containers disappeared a few months ago, they were evidently just being stored there for a funfair elsewhere. See: Freij entertainment

As far as I am aware, the plot of land between VT7/JCC and VT5 C & D is intended for VT5 A & B. Why they built blocks C & D first, I have no idea. Probably feng shui !

I don't know if this was made clear to the people buying units on the Jomtien side of VT5 C & D. They will have more than 2 years of construction noise to look forward to, and will have neighbours opposite looking directly into their rooms from very little distance away. I also wonder if it has been mentioned to people buying units on the Pattaya side of VT7?

So the owners in JCC won't be the only ones to lose their view as a result of VT construction, many VT customers will also suffer a similar fate. (Is that another silver lining?)

Ah yes. And now that it seems the Administrative Court will rule in VT7's favor, there is nothing to stop the company from lining up the front of View Talay 5A with the front of VT 7, thus blocking all the views on the north side of that building. So residents of 5C and 5D, and half the owners of VT7, will have the views they came to Pattaya to enjoy -- old white men in singlets on balconies.

[Wiresok]

I've just been catching up with the Rayong reading on the stopvt7 blog there.From the limited details posted there I cannot make any sense of the Supreme Administrative Court position not wanting to interfere with the currently standing Rayong decision.What happened in Bangkok, did the SAC just read the transcripts from the earlier Rayong hearing, or did they hold a full hearing themselves in Bangkok with proper representation and cross-examination, and also taking account of the environmental aspects.Hopefully more clarity will emerge from the translation when it comes but for me it doesn't appear the clear cut decision people expected.

Anyway if it is back to Rayong for their final decision, I am sure that proceduraly both sides will be able to appeal it back to the SAC.

As I see it Rayong now have to decide if they really want to be responsible for an explosion of concrete skyscrapers down the Thai coastline.

Another interesting point:If the final outcome here is 100m from MSL, will this apply throught Thailand or just Pattaya?

Regards the land between JCC and vt5c/d I think that view talay will need to think long and hard about what do with it.If they do want to go for 5a/b how many sales would they get, especially as many units in vt5c/d and vt7 remain unsold.

[ThaiBob]

Wiresok,

The SC reviewed all the transcripts and evidence from the lower Court and the arguments from both sides on the Appeal itself. The Appeal (from the stopVT7 blog) asked the SC rule that:

1. "the construction control area must be measured from the MSL, onto the land for 200 meters, then it will fulfill the intentions of the regulations of Issue 9 and it will be operative , and truly useful for public."

OR

2. "order to revoke the order of lifting injunction" (i.e., supsend construction)

OR

3. grant "protection procedure to minimize injurious consequences before judgment of the Administrative Court of Rayong province"

The SC apparently denied all three but the details are unknown at this time.

This ruling ruling would only be applied to those areas of Pattaya shown on the Issue 9 annexed map.

The last time I spoke with VT they denied owning the land parcel you describe. They said that VT3 and VT5 got planning approval and permits together and consequently named the A and B buildings for VT3 and the C and D buildings for VT5. I personally feel that VT is linked someway to this property. Some realtors say high-end homes will be built there and others say the land is for sale. The rumored amusement park is false. I suppose someone could go to the Land Office and get the answers.

[Guderian]

Thaibob,

I was told last year that the piece of land in question is not owned by VT, but by the daughter of the boss of VT. No idea if that's true or not, but it would certainly allow VT to honestly deny ownership, and also to be certain that they could buy the land whenever they wanted to.

Has anybody else heard this?

[ripley]

Pretty obvious that this case is over. SAC had all the facts, documents and arguments with ample time to consider. They chose to throw it, unchanged, back to Rayong. It's a well known fact that Rayong, for reasons best known to themselves, has displayed an unwillingness to rule on it presumably until VT7 is completed and inhabited. (This is the part I really cannot understand. Although maybe the SAC's tacit approval of the expert witness will encourage them to put an end to everyone's misery.)

Wishing there was some way to put the brakes on VT's activities. One long shot is another suit, this time brought by an association of parties wronged by VT. False advertising (air-brushed representations); nuisance factors up and down Jomtien; unfair impact on the property values of their neighbours...etc. VT's arrogance has certainly got up the noses of many and, far from adopting a humbler and more conciliatory profile, they are going full guns ahead.

Oh yeah - I believe a check w/ land office will confirm that the beachfront parcel betwx. 7 & 5 is (or until recently was) owned by the daughter.

Edited October 19, 2008 by ripley

[Wiresok]

Seems to me that the SAC was asked to confirm that the law was 200m from MSL.

Following what looks like a full hearing(we will need to see what went on) , they chose not to give this confirmation because of the expert witness, and send it back to Rayong.

This baffles me, because although they have declined to confirm the law at 200m from MSL, did they categorically state it was 100m from MSL?.

If they did why send it back to Rayong,why not just say...this is the law....finish,after all they are the higher court.

I get a sense of both Rayong and the SAC not wanting to do the deed, and wanting each other to do it.They must both realise the enormity of this decision and its future impact and are wrestling with the moral and ethical aspects involved.

[ThaiBob]

"If they did why send it back to Rayong,why not just say...this is the law....finish,after all they are the higher court."

Let's not put the cart before the horse. The SC hears appeals from the lower Court. It ruled on that Appeal only. It is now the job of the lower Court to make a final ruling. If the litigants lose in Rayong they can then Appeal to the SC. That's the way the system is supposed to work. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions without reading the details of the SC decision.

I suggest you organize your VT5 owners quickly and give VT the boot as your juristic person. That's the way the new Condo Act is supposed to work. It may be possible to stop a high-rise building on the adjacent property. A project must go through the Environmental Review process. Recall Ocean 1 had a 2 year ER battle. The old JCC juristic person (pre-stopVT7) also signed off on the VT7 ER which permitted VT7 to be built. If VT remains as your (VT5's) juristic person they have conflict of interest if they build on the adjacent property.

[prospero]

"If they did why send it back to Rayong,why not just say...this is the law....finish,after all they are the higher court."

Let's not put the cart before the horse. The SC hears appeals from the lower Court. It ruled on that Appeal only. It is now the job of the lower Court to make a final ruling. If the litigants lose in Rayong they can then Appeal to the SC. That's the way the system is supposed to work. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions without reading the details of the SC decision.

I suggest you organize your VT5 owners quickly and give VT the boot as your juristic person. That's the way the new Condo Act is supposed to work. It may be possible to stop a high-rise building on the adjacent property. A project must go through the Environmental Review process. Recall Ocean 1 had a 2 year ER battle. The old JCC juristic person (pre-stopVT7) also signed off on the VT7 ER which permitted VT7 to be built. If VT remains as your (VT5's) juristic person they have conflict of interest if they build on the adjacent property.

So, Thai Bob, please explain.

How is it that the construction of View Talay 7 is a positive contribution to the Dong Tarn Beach environment, while the possible construction of View Talay 5A and 5B should be opposed on environmental grounds?

Could it be that 5 A/B might block your view?

Isn't that exactly why Stop VT7 launched his crusade?

Didn't the View Talay office tell you they don't own the parcel of land between VT7 and VT 5C and D?

Don't you believe them?

Didn't you and others call Stop VT7 foolish for believing his condo developer's assertion that his view would last forever?

Didn't you and others excoriate him for launching his suit against the View Talay company?

Aren't you now encouraging others to launch a similar legal action?

Don't you think it's perfectly legal for View Talay 5A to be situatated 100 meters from the MSL so that it comes up to the same front line as View Talay 7, even though it would block the viewd of half the units in VT7?

Isn't that what the arrows on your map say?

<snip>

Edited October 20, 2008 by Crow Boy
removal of flame

[ThaiBob]

"If they did why send it back to Rayong,why not just say...this is the law....finish,after all they are the higher court."

Let's not put the cart before the horse. The SC hears appeals from the lower Court. It ruled on that Appeal only. It is now the job of the lower Court to make a final ruling. If the litigants lose in Rayong they can then Appeal to the SC. That's the way the system is supposed to work. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions without reading the details of the SC decision.

I suggest you organize your VT5 owners quickly and give VT the boot as your juristic person. That's the way the new Condo Act is supposed to work. It may be possible to stop a high-rise building on the adjacent property. A project must go through the Environmental Review process. Recall Ocean 1 had a 2 year ER battle. The old JCC juristic person (pre-stopVT7) also signed off on the VT7 ER which permitted VT7 to be built. If VT remains as your (VT5's) juristic person they have conflict of interest if they build on the adjacent property.

So, Thai Bob, please explain.

How is it that the construction of View Talay 7 is a positive contribution to the Dong Tarn Beach environment, while the possible construction of View Talay 5A and 5B should be opposed on environmental grounds?

Could it be that 5 A/B might block your view?

Isn't that exactly why Stop VT7 launched his crusade?

Didn't the View Talay office tell you they don't own the parcel of land between VT7 and VT 5C and D?

Don't you believe them?

Didn't you and others call Stop VT7 foolish for believing his condo developer's assertion that his view would last forever?

Didn't you and others excoriate him for launching his suit against the View Talay company?

Aren't you now encouraging others to launch a similar legal action?

Don't you think it's perfectly legal for View Talay 5A to be situatated 100 meters from the MSL so that it comes up to the same front line as View Talay 7, even though it would block the viewd of half the units in VT7?

Isn't that what the arrows on your map say?

<snip>

I am not opposing VT5A or VT5B on environmental grounds. IF there is a VT5A and 5B then they must follow the law just like VT7 did. I am suggesting VT5C/5D owners take control over their buildings from VT management just like V1 and VT2 have done and for many good reasons. Go to the website and you can read the entire history of their battle with VT. Basically, VT is not the best management company, they did not use the sinking fund properly and it is now depleted requiring the new management to impose a special assessment. IF the VT5C/D owners have their own management company then their best interests will be served and not VT's. IF the VT5C/D owners wish to fight or negotiate with VT on the adjacent land (assuming they will be builders) the option will be theirs and not VT's. My comments were for Wiresok since we know stands on this issue.

"Could it be that 5 A/B might block your view?" Views are not guaranteed; VT5C/D will not block my view.

"Isn't that exactly why Stop VT7 launched his crusade?" Yes (and not to save the environment I might add)

"Don't you believe them?" Technically Yes, but I do believe there is some arrangement similar to VT8 where a family member may hold the land title.

"Didn't the View Talay office tell you they don't own the parcel of land between VT7 and VT 5C and D?" Yes.

"Didn't you and others call Stop VT7 foolish for believing his condo developer's assertion that his view would last forever?" Yes.

"Didn't you and others excoriate him for launching his suit against the View Talay company?" StopVt7 had every right to launch his lawsuit and I admire his tenacity. Many posters including myself had problems with his logic, posting style and negative campaign, "to be polite".

"Aren't you now encouraging others to launch a similar legal action?" No. I am saying VT5 owners should organize quickly for many reasons. Same with VT3 and in the future VT7.

" Don't you think it's perfectly legal for View Talay 5A to be situated 100 meters from the MSL so that it comes up to the same front line as View Talay 7, even though it would block the viewd of half the units in VT7?" Yes, pending the final Court ruling of course.

" Isn't that what the arrows on your map say?" My map? If you mean the Issue 9 annexed map then the answer is Yes.

Edited October 21, 2008 by Buckwheat
URL removed. Please see forum rules

[ripley]

" It may be possible to stop a high-rise building on the adjacent property. A project must go through the Environmental Review process. Recall Ocean 1 had a 2 year ER battle."

"I am not opposing VT5A or VT5B on environmental grounds."

ThaiBob - You did contradict yourself. However, I think that buyers would probably have a good case against further highrises based on VT misrepresentation. The environmental factor seems blown to shards.

Your advice regarding the importance of any VT bldg. organizing their committee, etc. with all possible speed is wisdom. I wouldn't hold my breath, tho! People just don't seem to recognize the need for such a thing until they're standing knee deep in it.

[Wiresok]

"If they did why send it back to Rayong,why not just say...this is the law....finish,after all they are the higher court."

Let's not put the cart before the horse. The SC hears appeals from the lower Court. It ruled on that Appeal only. It is now the job of the lower Court to make a final ruling. If the litigants lose in Rayong they can then Appeal to the SC. That's the way the system is supposed to work. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions without reading the details of the SC decision.

I suggest you organize your VT5 owners quickly and give VT the boot as your juristic person. That's the way the new Condo Act is supposed to work. It may be possible to stop a high-rise building on the adjacent property. A project must go through the Environmental Review process. Recall Ocean 1 had a 2 year ER battle. The old JCC juristic person (pre-stopVT7) also signed off on the VT7 ER which permitted VT7 to be built. If VT remains as your (VT5's) juristic person they have conflict of interest if they build on the adjacent property.

Yes, its going to be interesting to see what went on in the SAC hearing, what they thought was so special about Pattaya that differed it from all the other areas at 200m from MSL.

I'm particularly interested to see what the stopvt environmental lawyer now suggests.

Lets see how quickly Rayong respond.

I still think the environmental argument has legs because it is a high profile international issue.

You are now coming across as a hypocritical NIMBY, now you realise you will have to look over your shoulder.

If 5A and 5B do come it will tell me a lot about vt agenda and JCC.

I heard the daughter was running the vt8 marina condo.

[Wiresok]

" It may be possible to stop a high-rise building on the adjacent property. A project must go through the Environmental Review process. Recall Ocean 1 had a 2 year ER battle."

"I am not opposing VT5A or VT5B on environmental grounds."

ThaiBob - You did contradict yourself. However, I think that buyers would probably have a good case against further highrises based on VT misrepresentation. The environmental factor seems blown to shards.

Your advice regarding the importance of any VT bldg. organizing their committee, etc. with all possible speed is wisdom. I wouldn't hold my breath, tho! People just don't seem to recognize the need for such a thing until they're standing knee deep in it.

I dont think many people would want to buy into a vt 5A/5B , it could be a commercial disaster for vt to progress it.

Especially after the damage vt7 has done to their reputation, and the prospect of avalon hotel growing to 27 floors..

Also Pattaya City Hall have to stand up and be counted as that small area wont stand another 2000 condo,s.

I'm not convinced the environmental argument is gone, its a big issue, I want to see the reaction of the stopvt lawyer.

Any more details emerged about what happened in the SAC?.

[Wiresok]

"If they did why send it back to Rayong,why not just say...this is the law....finish,after all they are the higher court."

Let's not put the cart before the horse. The SC hears appeals from the lower Court. It ruled on that Appeal only. It is now the job of the lower Court to make a final ruling. If the litigants lose in Rayong they can then Appeal to the SC. That's the way the system is supposed to work. I wouldn't jump to any conclusions without reading the details of the SC decision.

I suggest you organize your VT5 owners quickly and give VT the boot as your juristic person. That's the way the new Condo Act is supposed to work. It may be possible to stop a high-rise building on the adjacent property. A project must go through the Environmental Review process. Recall Ocean 1 had a 2 year ER battle. The old JCC juristic person (pre-stopVT7) also signed off on the VT7 ER which permitted VT7 to be built. If VT remains as your (VT5's) juristic person they have conflict of interest if they build on the adjacent property.

So, Thai Bob, please explain.

How is it that the construction of View Talay 7 is a positive contribution to the Dong Tarn Beach environment, while the possible construction of View Talay 5A and 5B should be opposed on environmental grounds?

Could it be that 5 A/B might block your view?

Isn't that exactly why Stop VT7 launched his crusade?

Didn't the View Talay office tell you they don't own the parcel of land between VT7 and VT 5C and D?

Don't you believe them?

Didn't you and others call Stop VT7 foolish for believing his condo developer's assertion that his view would last forever?

Didn't you and others excoriate him for launching his suit against the View Talay company?

Aren't you now encouraging others to launch a similar legal action?

Don't you think it's perfectly legal for View Talay 5A to be situatated 100 meters from the MSL so that it comes up to the same front line as View Talay 7, even though it would block the viewd of half the units in VT7?

Isn't that what the arrows on your map say?

Just one correction there prospero, vt5A could be built about 5 metres closer to the sea than vt7.

<snip>