Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[ripley]

S'TRUTH!! VT7 is planting a la Royal Garden after all! The adornment appears to be intended all the way to the top. Here we have an actual nod to the concept of aesthetics! Put this on the "blessings" side of the ledger.

[Guderian]

S'TRUTH!! VT7 is planting a la Royal Garden after all! The adornment appears to be intended all the way to the top. Here we have an actual nod to the concept of aesthetics! Put this on the "blessings" side of the ledger.

They seem to be intent on killing a few residents ASAP. Each floor has 6 flower pots stuck out on a ledge above the entrance, all the way up to floor no. 27. I wonder how long it will be until the plants grow enough that a strong gust of wind takes a few of them off the ledges and onto anyone entering the building below?

[sibeymai]

27 floors and how many condos ? It won't be pot plants that walkers will have to worry about landing on them.

[coldfeet]

CITY HALL RELY TO THE APPEAL HAS BEEN POSTED,

You find it on their stopvt7 blog AT THE “END OF THE ORINGAL APEAL.

WITH A PICTURE THAT SHOWES TH AREA OF THE 6 METER ROAD between buildings talk about bin the appeal.

[/img]

Edited August 6, 2009 by coldfeet

[coldfeet]

VT7 Reply to the Appeal is posted

http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_1x8bR0BbXM4/Snth...-h/DSC_0470.jpg

Edited August 6, 2009 by coldfeet

[wpcoe]

What is that narrow building under construction toward the middle of the photo, adjacent/parallel to the shophouse row?

[johng]

View tallay 8 !!!!!!!!!

[LennyW]

View tallay 8 !!!!!!!!!

No it's not!!!

[Guderian]

What is that narrow building under construction toward the middle of the photo, adjacent/parallel to the shophouse row?

I think it's going to be an L-shaped block of shop houses, running from the beach parallel to the existing shophouses, and then turning 90 degrees to Thappraya Road. They have just laid the foundations for this second leg.

So I guess there will soon be yet another 7-11, dentist, optician, travel agent, internet shop, beauty parlour, Family Mart...

[coldfeet]

A picture showing the whole VT7 completed building was posted on :

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Check the misspelling on the VT7 sign, Classless!

[ThaiBob]

A picture showing the whole VT7 completed building was posted on :

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Check the misspelling on the VT7 sign, Classless!

???

Dear coldfeet, stopvt7, lookat, (and all your other names). You should hardly be the one to criticize other people's spellings. They did spell condominium correctly.

[ripley]

Seemingly no end to the roomers and miss-leading statements of our old friend. But we should not attack the massager!

[marekm1]

I agree with ThaiBob. As usual, whatever you call yourself, you don’t make any since.

But you can always take them to court for that.

[coldfeet]

A picture showing the whole VT7 completed building was posted on :

http://stopvt7.blogspot.com/

Check the misspelling on the VT7 sign, Classless!

???

Dear coldfeet, stopvt7, lookat, (and all your other names). You should hardly be the one to criticize other people's spellings. They did spell condominium correctly.

"Viewtalayjomtien" is not a word? Ha-Ha... it is funny!! It’s also a misuses of English.

[SHYTALK]

Not withstanding anything it says in the issue 9, has the supreme court decided yet where measurements will start from?

[LennyW]

"Viewtalayjomtien" is not a word? Ha-Ha... it is funny!! It's also a misuses of English.

Surely you are taking the piss???

[coldfeet]

Not withstanding anything it says in the issue 9, has the supreme court decided yet where measurements will start from?

Yes, "the seaside"

The SAC statement:

"Nevertheless, where No. 3 (8) under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Ampur Bang Lamung Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2 should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. ................

Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court

Mr. Amnaj Singgovin

Chief Judge of the Supreme Administrative Court

Mr. Vichai Chuenchompoonuj

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court

Mr. Paiboon Siengkong

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court

Mr. Udomsak Nimitmontri

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court”

[austdec]

Not withstanding anything it says in the issue 9, has the supreme court decided yet where measurements will start from?

Yes, "the seaside"

The SAC statement:

"Nevertheless, where No. 3 (8) under the Ministerial Regulation No. 8 (B.E. 2519) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 amended by the Ministerial Regulation No. 9 (B.E. 2521) issued by the virtue of the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 prescribed that the 200 meter line measured from the construction control line shown in the map annexed to the Royal Decree promulgating the Building Control Act B.E. 2479 governing Tambol Bang Lamung, Tambol Nhong Plalai, Tambol Na Klue and Tambol Nhong Prue of Ampur Bang Lamung Chonburi Province B.E. 2521 on the seaside shall be restricted from constructing of any building exceeding 14 meter high from road surface. Therefore, if the Construction Permit No. 162/2007 dated 28 November 2006 granted by the Defendant No. 1 to the Defendant No. 2 should appear to be unlawful against the Ministerial Regulation thereto as being claimed by the ten plaintiffs, the Court of First Instance should have sentenced this point of being unlawful, i.e. ................

Mr. Vorapoj Visarutpich

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court

Mr. Amnaj Singgovin

Chief Judge of the Supreme Administrative Court

Mr. Vichai Chuenchompoonuj

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court

Mr. Paiboon Siengkong

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court

Mr. Udomsak Nimitmontri

Judge of Supreme Administrative Court"

[austdec]

Visited VT 7 last week. Overall quite happy with the way things are progressing. The views (both sides) from the units towards the front of the building are very impressive. Aesthetics in the building have improved slightly on VT6, lifts are a bit more modern, and the landscaping outside is progressing nicely. The swimming pool is pretty much finished and sits approx 30m from the beach.

VT should be able to hand this over by Nov/Dec this year.

[IamAgel]

Visited VT 7 last week. Overall quite happy with the way things are progressing. The views (both sides) from the units towards the front of the building are very impressive. Aesthetics in the building have improved slightly on VT6, lifts are a bit more modern, and the landscaping outside is progressing nicely. The swimming pool is pretty much finished and sits approx 30m from the beach.

VT should be able to hand this over by Nov/Dec this year.

Assuming of course that they don't lose the appeal with the Supreme Court

So could be a handover to the owners/investors or to the demolition crew

[kwonitoy]

Assuming of course that they don't lose the appeal with the Supreme Court

So could be a handover to the owners/investors or to the demolition crew

I realize that there are no fence sitters when it comes to the legalities of VT7, You are either completly for it or think that it is the anti-christ on earth

That said even if the Supreme Court decides against VT7, the building is there to stay. They have a legal permit to build issued by the City (Check building site) so I would assume that City Hall would be responsible for removing the building. You could safely assume another 3-5 years in court for that little episode.

How deep are your pockets Stop VT7?

[Gary A]

It's a great location being so close to the beach. I have no dog in this fight but it is VERY obvious to me that the building has been built too close to the beach and is clearly illegal.

[IamAgel]

Assuming of course that they don't lose the appeal with the Supreme Court

So could be a handover to the owners/investors or to the demolition crew

I realize that there are no fence sitters when it comes to the legalities of VT7, You are either completly for it or think that it is the anti-christ on earth

That said even if the Supreme Court decides against VT7, the building is there to stay. They have a legal permit to build issued by the City (Check building site) so I would assume that City Hall would be responsible for removing the building. You could safely assume another 3-5 years in court for that little episode.

How deep are your pockets Stop VT7?

Are you blind?

Can you read real English?

Now how on Earth could I be StopVT7?

Does my name read StopVT7?

No

I write in real English (with the odd mistakes - I am human) - not StopVT7's garbled English - which is due to his Dyslexia - not his lack of education

Now get your head out of the sand and respond with responsible and accurate comments - please

I am stating the obvious - that this affair is not over yet

It is not only unbelievable that the present investors in VT7 bury their head in the sand - which is sand that is obviously too close to be legal, but also mind boggling is the daily parade of would be buyers who are blind to the fact that this building is still under litigation.

Is it not bad enough that the daily reported scams and dodgy practices in the Pattaya real estate business don't deter investors. My oh my there is another one born every day. Another (soon to be) poor punter so in love with his bargirl (barboy) that he loses all sense of what is real or what is a scam.

To be honest I have given up caring or worrying for these lovelorn loonies

A fool and his money are soon parted - It is just that in Pattaya this process is on fast track

[Guderian]

I was chatting with a JCC owner in a bar a few nights back, and he was completely resigned to the fact that VT7 is there for keeps now, he seemed quite pragmatic about it, no nonsense about demolishing the building. Apparently the JCC owners are now hoping that, if the Supreme Admin Court rules in their favour, then they will have a clear case for claiming financial compensation from VT and/or VT7 owners. Looks like this one might drag on for a few more years yet...

Edited August 22, 2009 by Guderian

[Gary A]

It would appear to me that compensation should come from JCC. I think that property belonged to JCC and they sold out their residents by selling it to VT 7.

[JR Texas]

It's a great location being so close to the beach. I have no dog in this fight but it is VERY obvious to me that the building has been built too close to the beach and is clearly illegal.

I think you will agree that nothing is Thailand is "clearly illegal." It may be illegal in any other country, but TIT. Money talks.......money influences legislation and decision-making. If the people behind it are powerful enough, there is nothing the legal system can or will do about it.

[ripley]

The JCC builders should have been challenged right from the beginning. VT7 is not the only result of their double-dealing. Among other things, they actually sold off property within the JCC building which was mapped as common property! However, I've heard that their firm is reorganised and anyway it's too late to nail them - so that dog won't hunt.

[SHYTALK]

After what you have seen in this case up to now, would you say there is any point in the Administrative Court continuing its being?

Who would want to use it , after this case , in a pursuance of Justice ?

[ripley]

"Apparently the JCC owners are now hoping that, if the Supreme Admin Court rules in their favour, then they will have a clear case for claiming financial compensation from VT and/or VT7 owners."

Which brings up a question: As all court documents list approx. 8 Plaintiffs, if the court ordered compensation wouldn't it be given to those 8? Even tho JCC is footing the bill? And, if deal struck w/ VT7 privately, any guarantee JCC will benefit?

Edited August 24, 2009 by ripley

[Guderian]

"Apparently the JCC owners are now hoping that, if the Supreme Admin Court rules in their favour, then they will have a clear case for claiming financial compensation from VT and/or VT7 owners."

Which brings up a question: As all court documents list approx. 8 Plaintiffs, if the court ordered compensation wouldn't it be given to those 8? Even tho JCC is footing the bill? And, if deal struck w/ VT7 privately, any guarantee JCC will benefit?

Do you know what happened to the proceeds when the VT7 land was sold to View Talay? The guy I was talking to had only been living in JCC for 5 years, so it had all happened before he moved in. Was it JCC itself that sold it, or the holding company that (I presume) built the whole complex as well as the condo? Who benefited from the sale of the land, did the company just walk off with the cash, or was it distributed among the condo owners at the time? Maybe the answer is buried somewhere on this thread, but it's far too long to go digging around.

I'm curious because it seems that if the holding company sold it, then the JCC owners probably got zilch and have in effect been shafted twice (no wonder they feel sore). If it was JCC that sold it, and if the proceeds went to the owners at that time, then something along the lines of 'you reap what you sow' comes to mind. Although I suppose that things are never that simple, and the land was perhaps sold with a condition that nothing over 5 stories should be built, which might have seemed safe enough at the time?