Jomtien Condo Owners Sue For Sea View

[lookat]

Any one know how many buildings greater than 14m high within 200m of the High tide mark City Hall has given permition to build? Quite a few I would think?

I would like to split them into 2 catergories.

Those greater than 5 years old which can remain by law if thats correct.

Those less than 5 years old which have the potential to be pulled down.

The stop and pick up sales info on many of the following condo under construction or just finished

“Ocean Portofino” 40 meters

“The Sail” 100 meters

“La Royale Beach” 150 meters

“Musselana” 7 meters (that right 7 meters)

“The Regatta” on Dongtan Beach 75 meters

View Talay Condominium Project 7 ? 100 meters from mean sea level

View Talay Condominium Project 8 100 meters

View Talay Condominium Project 6

View Talay Condominium Project 3 80 meters

View Talay Condominium Project 5 100 meter

“Northpoint” 100 meters

“Ananya” 100 meters

Some big names hear and you see how many VT condos!

[icecubes]

Any one know how many buildings greater than 14m high within 200m of the High tide mark City Hall has given permition to build? Quite a few I would think?

I would like to split them into 2 catergories.

Those greater than 5 years old which can remain by law if thats correct.

Those less than 5 years old which have the potential to be pulled down.

The stop and pick up sales info on many of the following condo under construction or just finished

“Ocean Portofino” 40 meters

“The Sail” 100 meters

“La Royale Beach” 150 meters

“Musselana” 7 meters (that right 7 meters)

“The Regatta” on Dongtan Beach 75 meters

View Talay Condominium Project 7 ? 100 meters from mean sea level

View Talay Condominium Project 8 100 meters

View Talay Condominium Project 6

View Talay Condominium Project 3 80 meters

View Talay Condominium Project 5 100 meter

“Northpoint” 100 meters

“Ananya” 100 meters

Some big names hear and you see how many VT condos!

[icecubes]

Any one know how many buildings greater than 14m high within 200m of the High tide mark City Hall has given permition to build? Quite a few I would think?

I would like to split them into 2 catergories.

Those greater than 5 years old which can remain by law if thats correct.

Those less than 5 years old which have the potential to be pulled down.

The stop and pick up sales info on many of the following condo under construction or just finished

“Ocean Portofino” 40 meters

“The Sail” 100 meters

“La Royale Beach” 150 meters

“Musselana” 7 meters (that right 7 meters)

“The Regatta” on Dongtan Beach 75 meters

View Talay Condominium Project 7 ? 100 meters from mean sea level

View Talay Condominium Project 8 100 meters

View Talay Condominium Project 6

View Talay Condominium Project 3 80 meters

View Talay Condominium Project 5 100 meter

“Northpoint” 100 meters

“Ananya” 100 meters

Some big names hear and you see how many VT condos!

[stopvt7]

Does any one know anything about Grand Jomthien Condos taking legal action against View Talay 7 in civil court? I heard they sue because VT7 was blocking their view and wind but lost? Is this true? Did they appeal the case to a higher Court?

[Tammi]

Does any one know anything about Grand Jomthien Condos taking legal action against View Talay 7 in civil court? I heard they sue because VT7 was blocking their view and wind but lost? Is this true? Did they appeal the case to a higher Court?

Is there a Grand Jomthien Condo? If so, where is it?

There is Grand Condotel which is next to VT5. Then there is Jomthien Condotel, buildings A & B.

If you are meaning Grand Condotel, I did hear that when VT started building VT5 that Grand Condotel did have some contact with City Hall about VT5 being too far forward - that is nearer the sea. But, as far as I know, nothing ever came of the protests from Grand Condotel's Juristic Person Manager/General Manager who, I suppose, would have been directed by the Management Committee to protest to City Hall and investigate the legal position and protect the co-owners' legal rights.

I would say that VT5 having been built with no injuctions as far as I know that Grand Condotel never took any court action.

[stopvt7]

Does any one know anything about Grand Jomthien Condos taking legal action against View Talay 7 in civil court? I heard they sue because VT7 was blocking their view and wind but lost? Is this true? Did they appeal the case to a higher Court?

Is there a Grand Jomthien Condo? If so, where is it?

There is Grand Condotel which is next to VT5. Then there is Jomthien Condotel, buildings A & B.

If you are meaning Grand Condotel, I did hear that when VT started building VT5 that Grand Condotel did have some contact with City Hall about VT5 being too far forward - that is nearer the sea. But, as far as I know, nothing ever came of the protests from Grand Condotel's Juristic Person Manager/General Manager who, I suppose, would have been directed by the Management Committee to protest to City Hall and investigate the legal position and protect the co-owners' legal rights.

I would say that VT5 having been built with no injuctions as far as I know that Grand Condotel never took any court action.

I was wondering because I have had many people in JCC building “A” ask if Grand Condotel were going to take any administrative court action against VT5 to restore their scene view. I’m in building “B” by the road and as I said before VT5 is not my fight. But some building “A” (near VT5) co-owners mite has interest to help finically. VT5 must have cost some of the Grand Condotel big lost in their condo values?

I keep getting ask question and told things that concern Grand Condotel. And I know nothing about them or their intention?

Thanks for the insight. I’m sure VT7 was build without an injunction!

Also, I hear that Jomthien Condotel, buildings A & B is having a meeting on Sunday to discuss stopping “The Regatta” condo because they got a questionable building permit for an 8 story building.

[Tammi]

Does any one know anything about Grand Jomthien Condos taking legal action against View Talay 7 in civil court? I heard they sue because VT7 was blocking their view and wind but lost? Is this true? Did they appeal the case to a higher Court?

Is there a Grand Jomthien Condo? If so, where is it?

There is Grand Condotel which is next to VT5. Then there is Jomthien Condotel, buildings A & B.

If you are meaning Grand Condotel, I did hear that when VT started building VT5 that Grand Condotel did have some contact with City Hall about VT5 being too far forward - that is nearer the sea. But, as far as I know, nothing ever came of the protests from Grand Condotel's Juristic Person Manager/General Manager who, I suppose, would have been directed by the Management Committee to protest to City Hall and investigate the legal position and protect the co-owners' legal rights.

I would say that VT5 having been built with no injuctions as far as I know that Grand Condotel never took any court action.

I was wondering because I have had many people in JCC building “A” ask if Grand Condotel were going to take any administrative court action against VT5 to restore their scene view. I’m in building “B” by the road and as I said before VT5 is not my fight. But some building “A” (near VT5) co-owners mite has interest to help finically. VT5 must have cost some of the Grand Condotel big lost in their condo values?

I keep getting ask question and told things that concern Grand Condotel. And I know nothing about them or their intention?

Thanks for the insight. I’m sure VT7 was build without an injunction!

Also, I hear that Jomthien Condotel, buildings A & B is having a meeting on Sunday to discuss stopping “The Regatta” condo because they got a questionable building permit for an 8 story building.

Your friends could try walking into Grand Condotel and asking for a Committee Member and find out what they intend to do. I looked at units at south end of building - prices dropped when VT5 was being built - and you are right about views being lost. But it's not just that view was lost, it's also that VT5 is so ugly and so close.

[stopvt7]

Pattaya Today

http://www.pattayatoday.net/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=2277

Court freezes Jomtien condo project

Plaintiffs take on the big boys The Rayong administrative court last month issued an injunction against View Talay 7, a condominium project in Jomtien, to halt temporarily construction of its 27 storey building on the beach.

The case was filed by 10 owners of units in the Jomtien Complex Condotel against Pattaya city hall and the View Talay developer. They complained that city officials illegally issued a construction permit for the company to build the high rise in an area where the height limit was 14 meters.

The plaintiffs based their case on the 1978 ministerial regulation that forbids buildings from exceeding 14 meters in height if situated 200 meters or less from the sea. They also claimed the new building would obstruct their sea view and redirect the wind flow, negatively affecting sanitary and living conditions. The current building work, it’s claimed, has also created dust and cracks to the Jomtien Condotel. The administrative court granted an injunction to halt construction, saying that the plaintiffs and city hall disagreed on the starting point from which to measure the building’s height. The disagreement is essentially about whether the mean water level or the low tide-mark is used as the base measurement point for the building site. Richard Haines, one of the plaintiffs, said the court’s decision could set a standard for developers in Thailand as a whole. He explained that the owner of Jomtien Complex Condotel, which is about 220 meters from the sea, had planned to build a low rise hotel on the disputed plot but had later sold the land, then finally developed by View Talay. The residents of Jomtien Complex Condotel are believed to be the first in the area to challenge the awarding of a major building permit by city hall authorities. Although the final outcome won’t be known for months, even years if there is an appeal, they are to be congratulated on their courage in standing up for what they clearly see are their rights. The cynics, wrongly, had earlier said they didn’t have a chance.

[lookat]

Pattaya Today

http://www.pattayatoday.net/index.php?action=show&type=news&id=2277

Court freezes Jomtien condo project

Plaintiffs take on the big boys The Rayong administrative court last month issued an injunction against View Talay 7, a condominium project in Jomtien, to halt temporarily construction of its 27 storey building on the beach.

The case was filed by 10 owners of units in the Jomtien Complex Condotel against Pattaya city hall and the View Talay developer. They complained that city officials illegally issued a construction permit for the company to build the high rise in an area where the height limit was 14 meters.

The plaintiffs based their case on the 1978 ministerial regulation that forbids buildings from exceeding 14 meters in height if situated 200 meters or less from the sea. They also claimed the new building would obstruct their sea view and redirect the wind flow, negatively affecting sanitary and living conditions. The current building work, it's claimed, has also created dust and cracks to the Jomtien Condotel. The administrative court granted an injunction to halt construction, saying that the plaintiffs and city hall disagreed on the starting point from which to measure the building's height. The disagreement is essentially about whether the mean water level or the low tide-mark is used as the base measurement point for the building site. Richard Haines, one of the plaintiffs, said the court's decision could set a standard for developers in Thailand as a whole. He explained that the owner of Jomtien Complex Condotel, which is about 220 meters from the sea, had planned to build a low rise hotel on the disputed plot but had later sold the land, then finally developed by View Talay. The residents of Jomtien Complex Condotel are believed to be the first in the area to challenge the awarding of a major building permit by city hall authorities. Although the final outcome won't be known for months, even years if there is an appeal, they are to be congratulated on their courage in standing up for what they clearly see are their rights. The cynics, wrongly, had earlier said they didn't have a chance.

Stopvt7 could you tell us why Juristic Person Manager, General Manager or you condo committee did not that the action in court?

[Irene]

[

Stopvt7 could you tell us why Juristic Person Manager, General Manager or you condo committee did not that the action in court?

Stopvt7, A well written summary of Pataya Today. Now I am even clearer than before. Thanks.

lookat, I think the scope of work of the Juristic Person Manager, General Manager or the condo committee is to maintain and upkeep the buildings and therefore may be challenged as to their rights if they are the parties taking the City Hall to the Administrative Court. If it is the condo owner, there is less chance of success in challenging their rights. They are definitely aggrieved parties.

[Tammi]

Stopvt7, A well written summary of Pataya Today. Now I am even clearer than before. Thanks.

lookat, I think the scope of work of the Juristic Person Manager, General Manager or the condo committee is to maintain and upkeep the buildings and therefore may be challenged as to their rights if they are the parties taking the City Hall to the Administrative Court. If it is the condo owner, there is less chance of success in challenging their rights. They are definitely aggrieved parties.

Irene, Section 39 of the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 states “The Condominium Juristic Person may exercise the rights of the co-owners with regard to the common property in contention with outside persons, or in retrieving property for the benefit of all the co-owners.”

I belief that this statement makes it the responsibility of the Juristic Person to actively pursue through the courts of law anything that will seriously affect the asset value of the condominium – the land value, the common property value, and the value of the individual co-owner units.

The Regulations of the Juristic Person of the condo I am in states “The condominium’s juristic person has the objective to protect, defend, or claim any rights or properties which is to the common benefit of all the co-owners.”

Another Clause states “The manager of the condominium’s juristic person shall follow the objectives in Clause 5, or the resolutions of the general meeting of the co-owners, or the decisions of the condominium’s management committee.”

Another Clause states “The manager of the condominium’s juristic person is the representative of the condominium juristic person.”

Another Clause states “The manager of the condominium’s juristic person has the power to sue, defend, claim or conduct legal proceedings, including all other processes concerning the affairs of the Condominium Juristic Person, or compromise, or bring any cases to court as considered necessary”

If the clauses in The Regulations of the Juristic Person of Jomthien Complex Condominium are substantially the same as those quoted above, the co-owners of Jomthien Complex are even more aggrieved due to being unsupported (if that is the case) by their Juristic Person Manager and their Management Committee.

[stopvt7]

The JCC (2005) committee had stopped VT7by pointing out to city hall that Thailand Environment Protection Agency (EIA) had to give promising before city hall could issue a building permit. EIA would not give approval for a building permit without JCC committee approval of building planes.

But a few of the JCC (2006) committee took action which gave permission to build VT7? This was done without a vote or approval by the whole committee. It was the chairman, vise chairman and Juristic Person Manager who went to Bangkok and signed paper which gave JCC co-owners rights to approve building planes away? The question is why would they let the construction start? I let your imagination answer that? But their action allowed Pattaya City Hall to issue a questionable building permit. not!!

They could not give approval the breaking the law of Thailand. After complaints we were encouraged by a sectary of the king’s palace to take legal action. The Administrative Court law allows 10 co-owners to take legal action if their committee doesn’t act in their best interest.

After most of the 2006 JCC committee resigned, being upset the action of the three member’s action. Then the remaining committee posts a notice for interim co-owners to become committee member so that they would have a quorum for meetings. This it self was a questionable act because only a general meeting can vote committee members for their condominium. At that time I joined with others and started to read letters in our files and JCC committee minutes. When I read the letter Pattaya mayor wrote to the 2005 committee. I called this letter “smoke and mirrors” and it was easy to understand that this was a questionable building permit for VT7. From then on it took a lot of hard work and a little luck to find the laws and Asia LawWorks. The rest is history.

But I tell you if your committee is not doing everything possible to protect your property rights and condo value its possible or likely they could be working for outside interest. Maybe they working for large condo developer’s interest or their invested in the construction of a new condo for personal gain? Maybe acting was for some other reason? It’s my understanding VT5 did not get IEA approval before they got that questionable building permit from the city.

I think most of are 2006 JCC committee was honest! But a few did these questionable acts including change condo management for control. Who acted to stop us but failed. Only a few took action to get around EIA requirement and allow the construction of VT7. They said it was and mistake and they “did not understand what the Thai papers said” before they signed them for JCC lawyer. Even though two of the three persons were Thai and could read and write Thai. The lawyer then had one meeting and approved VT7 condo planes for a 27 story building. This started the construction of VT7.

Then the 10 co-owners joined together. With other financial support and working together and a court injunction they stopped VT7 questionable construction.

Now we have a new JCC 2007 Committee and Juristic Person Manager. Who are very very supportive of our group! And refund our group money we colleted for to start the legal action. They are now acting in the best interest of all JCC co-owners by protecting our condo values and legal rights.

[Tammi]

The JCC (2005) committee had stopped VT7by pointing out to city hall that Thailand Environment Protection Agency (EIA) had to give promising before city hall could issue a building permit. EIA would not give approval for a building permit without JCC committee approval of building planes.

But a few of the JCC (2006) committee took action which gave permission to build VT7? This was done without a vote or approval by the whole committee. It was the chairman, vise chairman and Juristic Person Manager who went to Bangkok and signed paper which gave JCC co-owners rights to approve building planes away? The question is why would they let the construction start? I let your imagination answer that? But their action allowed Pattaya City Hall to issue a questionable building permit. not!!

They could not give approval the breaking the law of Thailand. After complaints we were encouraged by a sectary of the king’s palace to take legal action. The Administrative Court law allows 10 co-owners to take legal action if their committee doesn’t act in their best interest.

After most of the 2006 JCC committee resigned, being upset the action of the three member’s action. Then the remaining committee posts a notice for interim co-owners to become committee member so that they would have a quorum for meetings. This it self was a questionable act because only a general meeting can vote committee members for their condominium. At that time I joined with others and started to read letters in our files and JCC committee minutes. When I read the letter Pattaya mayor wrote to the 2005 committee. I called this letter “smoke and mirrors” and it was easy to understand that this was a questionable building permit for VT7. From then on it took a lot of hard work and a little luck to find the laws and Asia LawWorks. The rest is history.

But I tell you if your committee is not doing everything possible to protect your property rights and condo value its possible or likely they could be working for outside interest. Maybe they working for large condo developer’s interest or their invested in the construction of a new condo for personal gain? Maybe acting was for some other reason? It’s my understanding VT5 did not get IEA approval before they got that questionable building permit from the city.

I think most of are 2006 JCC committee was honest! But a few did these questionable acts including change condo management for control. Who acted to stop us but failed. Only a few took action to get around EIA requirement and allow the construction of VT7. They said it was and mistake and they “did not understand what the Thai papers said” before they signed them for JCC lawyer. Even though two of the three persons were Thai and could read and write Thai. The lawyer then had one meeting and approved VT7 condo planes for a 27 story building. This started the construction of VT7.

Then the 10 co-owners joined together. With other financial support and working together and a court injunction they stopped VT7 questionable construction.

Now we have a new JCC 2007 Committee and Juristic Person Manager. Who are very very supportive of our group! And refund our group money we colleted for to start the legal action. They are now acting in the best interest of all JCC co-owners by protecting our condo values and legal rights.

Dear StopVT7, I very much appreciate your posts on this very important matter. But I would be pleased if you can clarify some points:

Did the EIA have to get approval from JCC Committee (2005) before the EIA could approve VT7 building plans?

Must there be a group of at least 10 co-owners before the Administrative Court will agree to hear a case?

Did you become a Committee Member in 2006? I am interested to know because some condominium management committees will not allow the other co-owners to read files. Only Committee Members, or the Manager, or an office staff such as book keeper or clerk are allowed to read files. Co-owners are not allowed to see files or know where their money is.

[stopvt7]

Must there be a group of at least 10 co-owners before the Administrative Court will agree to hear a case?

Yes, this I was told by Asia LawWorks. I organized by opening an e-mail address at yahoo. [email protected] and then printed a ½ page flyer and stuff the condo mail boxes. I set meetings and explain what I knew and interest people started agreeing to join and give money. It was a lot of work and you must not let other discourage you.

Did you become a Committee Member in 2006? I am interested to know because some condominium management committees will not allow the other co-owners to read files. Only Committee Members, or the Manager, or an office staff such as book keeper or clerk are allowed to read files. Co-owners are not allowed to see files or know where their money is.

Yes temporary I was an interim committee member. Also at our General meeting I offer a resolution that all committee meeting are now open for all co-owners attend and are aloud to speak or ask question for 2 minutes at a committee meeting. The committee did not like it but it was passed. I attend offend and at most only 3 co-owners have attend any one time.

As an intern committee member for 6 weeks I went into the files with and other Thai and we dug out many letters I leaned about from other members. Boy was my eyes opened!

I grow up in a construction family and have a very good understanding of who city hall makes money. I knew their was likely a law being violated. It was research different stories until I read the mayors letter. That told me their was a problem and they did a questionable act in issuing VT7 building permit. I read that letter 6 or 7 times and keep shaking my head. How stupid does the mayor’s office think farang are? This letter was just full of BS!

Are condo office posts month financial statements and they are posted for everyone to view. You can force management to post financial statements by GM resolution at you next annual meeting.

[gharknes]

i will predict the outcome of this...........................big money will win

I hope i'm wrong but I cannot see it

way tooooooo many pockets involved

the longer it continues the more certain people will bag lots of dosh, those cretain people are thai from every angle of this case, lawyers, government authorities, who ever, it's a feed fest...............your "view" and value is gone in my opinion

good luck...........

[stopvt7]

Section 39 of the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 states “The Condominium Juristic Person may exercise the rights of the co-owners with regard to the common property in contention with outside persons, or in retrieving property for the benefit of all the co-owners.”

This would include property rights and protection of condo value from illegal action by questionable condo builders VT5 or 7. Why do these companies think because they have money they can take your legal rights away?

“The manager of the condominium’s juristic person has the power to sue, defend, claim or conduct legal proceedings, including all other processes concerning the affairs of the Condominium Juristic Person, or compromise, or bring any cases to court as considered necessary”

If your condo has a committee they manage the condominium’s juristic person and they can hire and order condominium’s juristic person (the hand that signs) to sign the fee contract and all necessary court papers to start a legal action. So don’t let your committee off the hook from take legal action for your property rights and the protection of your condo value. If they don’t act, ask who are they working for?

We interview 4 law firms and had quotation from 2.5 to 3.5 million baht and Asia LawWorks Ltd who only works for and hourly rate only. This is very western way of billing for legal services and their bill was very detailed. We used Asia LawWorks to research the laws and filed our case. It cost less then 240,000 bahts to get the injunction. Divide that by all your condo in your building and then figure value loss when one of these questionable condo built violates your legal rights.

I was amazed who fast Thailand Administrative Court acted and how prepared the judge was at the hearing for the injunction .The judge swore in the layers to tell the truth then he started the hard hitting questioning.

If and member of your management committee tells you that the condo could be counter sue and that this could cost your condo if they lost. You know they are working for some other people’s interest.

[Irene]

Stopvt7, A well written summary of Pataya Today. Now I am even clearer than before. Thanks.

lookat, I think the scope of work of the Juristic Person Manager, General Manager or the condo committee is to maintain and upkeep the buildings and therefore may be challenged as to their rights if they are the parties taking the City Hall to the Administrative Court. If it is the condo owner, there is less chance of success in challenging their rights. They are definitely aggrieved parties.

Irene, Section 39 of the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 states "The Condominium Juristic Person may exercise the rights of the co-owners with regard to the common property in contention with outside persons, or in retrieving property for the benefit of all the co-owners."

tammi, the juristic person is only responsible for the common property to defend and claim against outside parties for causing losses to the COMMON PROPERTY and not PERSONAL PROPERTY belonging to the co-owners.

I belief that this statement makes it the responsibility of the Juristic Person to actively pursue through the courts of law anything that will seriously affect the asset value of the condominium – the land value, the common property value, and the value of the individual co-owner units.

tammi, against only the value of the common property including the land value.

The Regulations of the Juristic Person of the condo I am in states "The condominium's juristic person has the objective to protect, defend, or claim any rights or properties which is to the common benefit of all the co-owners."

tammi, the juristic person has only the responsibility on the rights and properties affecting the COMMON benefit of all the co-owners....therefore, no right on the benefits as due to the PERSONAL property as owned by each co-owner.

Another Clause states "The manager of the condominium's juristic person shall follow the objectives in Clause 5, or the resolutions of the general meeting of the co-owners, or the decisions of the condominium's management committee."

Another Clause states "The manager of the condominium's juristic person is the representative of the condominium juristic person."

Another Clause states "The manager of the condominium's juristic person has the power to sue, defend, claim or conduct legal proceedings, including all other processes concerning the affairs of the Condominium Juristic Person, or compromise, or bring any cases to court as considered necessary"

tammi, the affairs of the juristic person are limited only to the COMMON property and not that of personal property in which even the manager of the juristic person cannot encroach on their rights of ownerships.

If the clauses in The Regulations of the Juristic Person of Jomthien Complex Condominium are substantially the same as those quoted above, the co-owners of Jomthien Complex are even more aggrieved due to being unsupported (if that is the case) by their Juristic Person Manager and their Management Committee.

SUMMARY

tammi, in short, if the juristic person has taken up the case instead of the co-owners, then the case would be somewhat weak and the chance of being thrown out of court is greater than when some co-owners taking up the case. It would even be better, if the juristic person and some co-owners jointly taking up the case. One for protecting the value of common property. Another is to protect his own personal property of each condominium units. However, without the participation of the juristic person in taking up the case, the co-owner is an undisputed aggrieved party, both in term of his personal property and his right to the common property.

[highchol]

Stopvt7, A well written summary of Pataya Today. Now I am even clearer than before. Thanks.

lookat, I think the scope of work of the Juristic Person Manager, General Manager or the condo committee is to maintain and upkeep the buildings and therefore may be challenged as to their rights if they are the parties taking the City Hall to the Administrative Court. If it is the condo owner, there is less chance of success in challenging their rights. They are definitely aggrieved parties.

Irene, Section 39 of the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 states "The Condominium Juristic Person may exercise the rights of the co-owners with regard to the common property in contention with outside persons, or in retrieving property for the benefit of all the co-owners."

tammi, the juristic person is only responsible for the common property to defend and claim against outside parties for causing losses to the COMMON PROPERTY and not PERSONAL PROPERTY belonging to the co-owners.

I belief that this statement makes it the responsibility of the Juristic Person to actively pursue through the courts of law anything that will seriously affect the asset value of the condominium – the land value, the common property value, and the value of the individual co-owner units.

tammi, against only the value of the common property including the land value.

The Regulations of the Juristic Person of the condo I am in states "The condominium's juristic person has the objective to protect, defend, or claim any rights or properties which is to the common benefit of all the co-owners."

tammi, the juristic person has only the responsibility on the rights and properties affecting the COMMON benefit of all the co-owners....therefore, no right on the benefits as due to the PERSONAL property as owned by each co-owner.

Another Clause states "The manager of the condominium's juristic person shall follow the objectives in Clause 5, or the resolutions of the general meeting of the co-owners, or the decisions of the condominium's management committee."

Another Clause states "The manager of the condominium's juristic person is the representative of the condominium juristic person."

Another Clause states "The manager of the condominium's juristic person has the power to sue, defend, claim or conduct legal proceedings, including all other processes concerning the affairs of the Condominium Juristic Person, or compromise, or bring any cases to court as considered necessary"

tammi, the affairs of the juristic person are limited only to the COMMON property and not that of personal property in which even the manager of the juristic person cannot encroach on their rights of ownerships.

If the clauses in The Regulations of the Juristic Person of Jomthien Complex Condominium are substantially the same as those quoted above, the co-owners of Jomthien Complex are even more aggrieved due to being unsupported (if that is the case) by their Juristic Person Manager and their Management Committee.

SUMMARY

tammi, in short, if the juristic person has taken up the case instead of the co-owners, then the case would be somewhat weak and the chance of being thrown out of court is greater than when some co-owners taking up the case. It would even be better, if the juristic person and some co-owners jointly taking up the case. One for protecting the value of common property. Another is to protect his own personal property of each condominium units. However, without the participation of the juristic person in taking up the case, the co-owner is an undisputed aggrieved party, both in term of his personal property and his right to the common property.

come on irene...

Im green with envy ...no kidding how on earth do you post in colour?

ive only discovered italics and so far.

[Irene]

stopvt7,

I was amazed who fast Thailand Administrative Court acted and how prepared the judge was at the hearing for the injunction .The judge swore in the layers to tell the truth then he started the hard hitting questioning.

stopvt7, there is nothing to be amazed about.....since you asked for an emergency hearing to suspend the construction in front of your building......the court has either to reject or accept your request......however, from now on, you will notice the slowness just like in the States or Erin Bokovich case......there is nothing unusual ......it is mainly due to the workload of the administrative court....

If and member of your management committee tells you that the condo could be counter sue and that this could cost your condo if they lost. You know they are working for some other people's interest.

stopvt7......you are spot on.....i also notice a few in this forum tried to use the scarecrow tactic in getting people to cool down because it might affect their commission income from the property market in pattaya....

[Tammi]

Stopvt7, A well written summary of Pataya Today. Now I am even clearer than before. Thanks.

lookat, I think the scope of work of the Juristic Person Manager, General Manager or the condo committee is to maintain and upkeep the buildings and therefore may be challenged as to their rights if they are the parties taking the City Hall to the Administrative Court. If it is the condo owner, there is less chance of success in challenging their rights. They are definitely aggrieved parties.

Irene, Section 39 of the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 states "The Condominium Juristic Person may exercise the rights of the co-owners with regard to the common property in contention with outside persons, or in retrieving property for the benefit of all the co-owners."

tammi, the juristic person is only responsible for the common property to defend and claim against outside parties for causing losses to the COMMON PROPERTY and not PERSONAL PROPERTY belonging to the co-owners.

I belief that this statement makes it the responsibility of the Juristic Person to actively pursue through the courts of law anything that will seriously affect the asset value of the condominium – the land value, the common property value, and the value of the individual co-owner units.

tammi, against only the value of the common property including the land value.

The Regulations of the Juristic Person of the condo I am in states "The condominium's juristic person has the objective to protect, defend, or claim any rights or properties which is to the common benefit of all the co-owners."

tammi, the juristic person has only the responsibility on the rights and properties affecting the COMMON benefit of all the co-owners....therefore, no right on the benefits as due to the PERSONAL property as owned by each co-owner.

Another Clause states "The manager of the condominium's juristic person shall follow the objectives in Clause 5, or the resolutions of the general meeting of the co-owners, or the decisions of the condominium's management committee."

Another Clause states "The manager of the condominium's juristic person is the representative of the condominium juristic person."

Another Clause states "The manager of the condominium's juristic person has the power to sue, defend, claim or conduct legal proceedings, including all other processes concerning the affairs of the Condominium Juristic Person, or compromise, or bring any cases to court as considered necessary"

tammi, the affairs of the juristic person are limited only to the COMMON property and not that of personal property in which even the manager of the juristic person cannot encroach on their rights of ownerships.

If the clauses in The Regulations of the Juristic Person of Jomthien Complex Condominium are substantially the same as those quoted above, the co-owners of Jomthien Complex are even more aggrieved due to being unsupported (if that is the case) by their Juristic Person Manager and their Management Committee.

SUMMARY

tammi, in short, if the juristic person has taken up the case instead of the co-owners, then the case would be somewhat weak and the chance of being thrown out of court is greater than when some co-owners taking up the case. It would even be better, if the juristic person and some co-owners jointly taking up the case. One for protecting the value of common property. Another is to protect his own personal property of each condominium units. However, without the participation of the juristic person in taking up the case, the co-owner is an undisputed aggrieved party, both in term of his personal property and his right to the common property.

Irene,

I am sure you will agree that common property includes the outside of the walls as well is the rest of the "envelope" that encloses the condominium units (personal property).

The Management Committee is comprised of co-owners who want to be elected to the Committee and, by Law, must supervise the management of the Condominium Juristic Person and its manager.

The Management Committee and the Juristic Person Manager have the responsibility to look after the rights of the co-owners with regard to the common property. If a 27 storey building is built in front of Jomthien Complex the value of the common property will decrease and, of course, the value of the condominium units (personal property) will decrease. It is not possible for the "envelope" to decrease in value and the personal property not to decrease, and vice versa. It is certainly to the common benefit of all the co-owners that there is no decrease in value of common property which will lead to decrease in value of personal property.

As I wrote already, "The condominium's juristic person has the objective to protect, defend, or claim any rights or properties which is to the common benefit of all the co-owners."

I believe that Committee Members should be constantly on the look out for any situation that may affect the value of the common property and the Committee should instruct the Manager to thoroughly investigate all such situations and report back to the Committee which should have, by now, informed all the co-owners. The Committee then must take all appropriate actions to safeguard the co-owners' interests and keep the co-owners well informed. If it is necessary to have 10 co-owners file a complaint then the Committee and Manager should organise that.

You have probably realised by now that it is my opinion that too many condominiums are badly managed by Committees. It is only when the condo is falling to pieces that the co-owners wake up and start demanding changes such as monthly bookkeeping reporting to the co-owners, reduction in staff, decent security, cleanliness, maintenance, that all co-owners are equal in use of common property, that all co-owners should be issued with the Regulations of the Juristic Person, that Committee Meetings are open to any co-owner, that resolutions can be passed after discussion of all the co-owners and not just by the Committee at a closed Committee Meeting, that adopted resolutions are not discarded by the Committee without reference to the co-owners, that the Committee organise proper periodic inspections of the buildings and grounds, that spot checks be done on OUR money in petty cash, that committee members are available (taking it in turn if necessary) to the co-owners to hear co-owners complaints and suggestions, that bookkeeping records are avaiable to any co-owner who wants to check. And so on.

I had a look at your Metro Condominium building. It needs a lot of work but you've made a good start in now having the Metro Condominium Owners' Committee.

[icecubes]

i will predict the outcome of this...........................big money will win

I hope i'm wrong but I cannot see it

way tooooooo many pockets involved

the longer it continues the more certain people will bag lots of dosh, those cretain people are thai from every angle of this case, lawyers, government authorities, who ever, it's a feed fest...............your "view" and value is gone in my opinion

good luck...........

[OhdLover]

Although I sympathise with the people of JC, I hope VT will win in the end.

Just 1 major reason for this: I bought 3 units in VT7 and got about $40000 invested so far.

As soon as I heard about the building permit, I thought buying in VT7 was safe, and that's also what my broker said.

My main problem at this moment is whether to stop the monthly payments for the time being or to continue

paying as the contract says you have to.

Continue paying means the risk of a big loss (or a payback with a delay that can last for years) and stop paying could mean contract violation which could have other outcomes.

Anybody some good advice on this?

Thanks.

[Irene]

Irene,

I am sure you will agree that common property includes the outside of the walls as well is the rest of the "envelope" that encloses the condominium units (personal property).

Tammi, if you look into the condominium act, you will see that the property is divided into two sections, one is the common area which is jointly owned by all co-owners and managed by the juristic body and another area that is privately owned by each co-owner with his own title deed. In the title deed, besides covering the area and unit involved, it is also specifically stated with the proportion of the voting rights for that title deed in controlling and managing the common area through an agent called a juristic body of the condominium. The body has no right to the personal property which is sacrosanctly owned by the beneficiary as mentioned in each title deed. The Act emphasises on the common property as covering the assets such as lifts, garden, fitness room etc. and common space that belong to all owners but have to be managed by one body. Any trespass on these assets are the responsibility of the body to protect and claim against the wrongdoers. But, it is not certain that the body can go beyond the wall to claim that your view has been blocked. So if only the body is the party filing the complaint with the court, the chance of the case being thrown out is great since it is possible to maintain that the body is not an affected party and its duty is only on the working of the common assets. However, if only one co-owner files the case against the vt7, that one and only co-owner definitely has the ground to file because he is definitely an affected party in terms of common and personal property. Naturally, the more is better. It would even be better if the co-owners plus the body file the case as a united front, giving the sense of concensus of all the condo owners.

The Management Committee is comprised of co-owners who want to be elected to the Committee and, by Law, must supervise the management of the Condominium Juristic Person and its manager.

The Management Committee and the Juristic Person Manager have the responsibility to look after the rights of the co-owners with regard to the common property. If a 27 storey building is built in front of Jomthien Complex the value of the common property will decrease and, of course, the value of the condominium units (personal property) will decrease. It is not possible for the "envelope" to decrease in value and the personal property not to decrease, and vice versa. It is certainly to the common benefit of all the co-owners that there is no decrease in value of common property which will lead to decrease in value of personal property.

Tammi....Yes, that is right, to look after the use of common property, e.g. passage ways, lifts, garden, coffee shops, fitness centre, tools and equipment, offices. It is arguable whether blocking of the view could affect the usage of the common property. What I am trying to imprint on our fellow co-owners is not to rely exclusively on the juristic body to take up the case. In all circumstances, co-owners should be involved in suing the culprit. Ideally, it could be spearheaded by the juristic body plus other co-owners, the more the better. The cost could be agreed at an extraordinary meeting to be shared by all owners. If you cannot get the body to be involved, co-owners could still pursue the case without ill-effects.

As I wrote already, "The condominium's juristic person has the objective to protect, defend, or claim any rights or properties which is to the common benefit of all the co-owners."

Tammi, to protect, defend or claim on anything affecting the rights of which property? Definitely, the body can do so on the common property but can it cover personal property that is not under the charge of the juristic body?

I believe that Committee Members should be constantly on the look out for any situation that may affect the value of the common property and the Committee should instruct the Manager to thoroughly investigate all such situations and report back to the Committee which should have, by now, informed all the co-owners. The Committee then must take all appropriate actions to safeguard the co-owners' interests and keep the co-owners well informed. If it is necessary to have 10 co-owners file a complaint then the Committee and Manager should organise that.

Tammi, you are absolutely right that the Committee Members and its appointed Manager should have taken up the grievances and always on the look out for the likely damages to the condo as a whole, if they are worth their salt. However, technically, the case should involve co-owners to sue and not the juristic body alone. One condo in Bangkok that we own was under threat of having a building in front of ours and also likely to block our entrance. The Committee took the matters seriously and after legal consultation threaten to take the matter to court. The developer had to backtrack their first intention and because of Thailand financial crisis, the whole project was put in abeyance until it has now become time-barred since we have been using the free passage more than the prescription period. That Committee was full of leading members of the community and became quite successful in managing the common area. It has now reaching the stage of changing the lifts after a period of twenty five years. Rental with four bedrooms can now fetch 50,000-70,000 per month. We are lucky to be associated with this community.

You have probably realised by now that it is my opinion that too many condominiums are badly managed by Committees. It is only when the condo is falling to pieces that the co-owners wake up and start demanding changes such as monthly bookkeeping reporting to the co-owners, reduction in staff, decent security, cleanliness, maintenance, that all co-owners are equal in use of common property, that all co-owners should be issued with the Regulations of the Juristic Person, that Committee Meetings are open to any co-owner, that resolutions can be passed after discussion of all the co-owners and not just by the Committee at a closed Committee Meeting, that adopted resolutions are not discarded by the Committee without reference to the co-owners, that the Committee organise proper periodic inspections of the buildings and grounds, that spot checks be done on OUR money in petty cash, that committee members are available (taking it in turn if necessary) to the co-owners to hear co-owners complaints and suggestions, that bookkeeping records are avaiable to any co-owner who wants to check. And so on.

Tammi, you are again absolutely right but unfortunately, passiveness is the norm in most condo and there is not much recourse on bad management except to sell your bad luck. So before one buys, one should take this point as the main criteria in deciding to buy or not to buy. In Bangkok, there are three office condos, one is very well managed with a few big-lot investors who have been taking their membership in the Committee seriously with the Manager from one reputable estate company affiliated with the worldwide company (naturally involving professional westerners) , the other twos are really amateur and laughable. The best managed one can command rental of 550 to 600 per square metre while the two next-door, their rental is between 300 to 400 and yet all are in the best location near to MRT, supermarket, public park and facing eight-lane avenue.

I had a look at your Metro Condominium building. It needs a lot of work but you've made a good start in now having the Metro Condominium Owners' Committee.

Metro's structure is good but it has been neglected too long since 1997. The condo was completed during the financial crisis. We bought the units in 1998 and had no regret. It was so quiet and so eerie then but the air and the view were the best you can wish for. This new group of co-owners led by keith bamfield really has given us some hope in getting our money worth from the present manager. I am optimistic of the style they have taken and again our family is really lucky to have them as co-owners. The place has great potential if you like quietness and free-flow of sea-breeze. We cannot participate much because we are mostly in Bangkok but they do keep us informed and have given us hope.

[stopvt7]

”My main problem at this moment is whether to stop the monthly payments for the time being or to continue

paying as the contract says you have to.

Continue paying means the risk of a big loss (or a payback with a delay that can last for years) and stop paying could mean contract violation which could have other outcomes.

Anybody some good advice on this?

Thanks.”

Yes. I been told from other investors that they when to the VT7 main office and make agreement not to make any more payments until they restart construction.

You have less then 1 in a 1000 chance VT7 will start back up.

Special after VT7 lawyer agree at the court injunction hearing that 14 meter was the correct height by Thai law. He asked for the judge to determine the 200 meter measurement. And I have seen other Thai law which set high tide is where the measurement from the sea starts.

This is why VT7 will not start back up.

Now the real question who going to eat the loss of all the money invested in a bust project? You or VT7?

VT7 keep working for about 30 days after the suit was filed. When he knew that one should not gamble with the Administrative Court. But at that time he was actively tiring to sell the project to other developers.

Sorry! But we did not buy a questionable building permit!

[Irene]

Although I sympathise with the people of JC, I hope VT will win in the end.

Just 1 major reason for this: I bought 3 units in VT7 and got about $40000 invested so far.

As soon as I heard about the building permit, I thought buying in VT7 was safe, and that's also what my broker said.

My main problem at this moment is whether to stop the monthly payments for the time being or to continue

paying as the contract says you have to.

Continue paying means the risk of a big loss (or a payback with a delay that can last for years) and stop paying could mean contract violation which could have other outcomes.

Anybody some good advice on this?

Thanks.

OhdLover,

Even if your wish is realised that the City Hall won the case and vt7 could go on building your unit, you will have a long wait to know the result. My guess is two years. This would be a Pyrrhic victory.

You have to look into your contract whether this suspension of building could give rise to you to terminate the contract. If not, whether you can avoid payment until the result is known since two years (if I am right) is a long time to wait for no progress on the building. Check with your lawyer whether you have ground to terminate or delay your side of the obligation. If I were you, I would not keep on paying without first asking a lawyer's opinion. I think by now all the lawyers in Pattaya must have known the answer.

[Irene]

SUMMARY

tammi, in short, if the juristic person has taken up the case instead of the co-owners, then the case would be somewhat weak and the chance of being thrown out of court is greater than when some co-owners taking up the case. It would even be better, if the juristic person and some co-owners jointly taking up the case. One for protecting the value of common property. Another is to protect his own personal property of each condominium units. However, without the participation of the juristic person in taking up the case, the co-owner is an undisputed aggrieved party, both in term of his personal property and his right to the common property.

come on irene...

Im green with envy ...no kidding how on earth do you post in colour?

ive only discovered italics and so far.

Sorry, I should have chosen dark blue. Never realise that it could be painful to the eyes. After you click the reply, there is a tab on the reply page showing a bold A and triangle. Click at the triangle, it will show all sorts of colours to be selected. Click whatever colour you like. (With white background, don't should any pale colour). Before you type the message, click at A to use the colour you have chosen. Have fun but be kind to the readers!

[ThaiBob]

Although I sympathise with the people of JC, I hope VT will win in the end.

Just 1 major reason for this: I bought 3 units in VT7 and got about $40000 invested so far.

As soon as I heard about the building permit, I thought buying in VT7 was safe, and that's also what my broker said.

My main problem at this moment is whether to stop the monthly payments for the time being or to continue

paying as the contract says you have to.

Continue paying means the risk of a big loss (or a payback with a delay that can last for years) and stop paying could mean contract violation which could have other outcomes.

Anybody some good advice on this?

Thanks.

OhdLover,

Even if your wish is realised that the City Hall won the case and vt7 could go on building your unit, you will have a long wait to know the result. My guess is two years. This would be a Pyrrhic victory.

You have to look into your contract whether this suspension of building could give rise to you to terminate the contract. If not, whether you can avoid payment until the result is known since two years (if I am right) is a long time to wait for no progress on the building. Check with your lawyer whether you have ground to terminate or delay your side of the obligation. If I were you, I would not keep on paying without first asking a lawyer's opinion. I think by now all the lawyers in Pattaya must have known the answer.

Ohdlover,

Be sure you get the contract in English. I've read a VT5 contract (English) and have friends living in VT5, it addresses all your concerns. If you supend or cancel your payments you risk losing everything you've paid to date. If the project completion date can not be met, you get your money back plus interest. The good thing about this temporary injuction is that it comes early in the construction phase and VT has little invested. VT has projects in construction and more planned and has deep-pockets. The biggest threat to VT would be a complete collapse of the Pattaya condo real-estate market, something they wouldn't want to contribute to by reneging on a contract.

I believe stopVT7 mentioned in an earlier post that this case is on the court docket until November so something should happen before then.

Edited May 5, 2007 by ThaiBob

[lookat]

Now the real question is who going to eat the losses of all vt7 badly invested money in a busted project?

Have you ever seen VT old chairman give back money? I talked with a woman who has a copy of the Thai law and injunction. Who ask for a refund and he refused to refund her money for 2 unite. Does he see the hand writing on the wall?

BANKRUPT VT7!

[ThaiBob]

Now the real question is who going to eat the losses of all vt7 badly invested money in a busted project?

Have you ever seen VT old chairman give back money? I talked with a woman who has a copy of the Thai law and injunction. Who ask for a refund and he refused to refund her money for 2 unite. Does he see the hand writing on the wall?

BANKRUPT VT7!

"Now the real question is who going to eat the losses of all vt7 badly invested money in a busted project? "

Very presumptuous. If the project does not go forward VT still owns a valuable piece of land. They have only driven piles and worked on the site for a month or two. Hardly a lot of money for a big company. They've probably got all those pre-construction contract payments socked away in the bank earning interest.

"Have you ever seen VT old chairman give back money?"

Yes! When VT4 prject was canceled or suspended everyone got their refund.

"I talked with a woman who has a copy of the Thai law and injunction. Who ask for a refund and he refused to refund her money for 2 unite. Does he see the hand writing on the wall?"

Why should he give a refund at this time....she's the one was is defaulting on a contract.

[stopvt7]

Does he see the hand writing on the wall? BANKRUPT VT7!

That is a good question.

VT project 4 had not spent any money and I was told he off purchaser to invest in other project or a refund. That is not costly for him.

I was advised VT7 had spent about 60,000,000 Bt this includes the all the work done and a building permit. A very expenses piece of paper! The land was bought for 200,000,000 Bt. Is was announced at JCC after it was sold to VT. But after the final court order which will uphold the kings law of 200 meters from high tide a building can not be built over 14 meter high. The land value will fall by at less 80 percent. Land for 14 meters building has very little value compared for land for a 27 story 900 unit condo. He would be lucky to get 40,000,000 Bt.

Now how much loss do you think he will be willing to pay out of his pocket? Or will he file bankruptcy? Then the court could sell what ever and refund what they can. Good luck!

Also the old man at VT has the VT7 land guaranteeing a construction loan from another company his family controls. They can foreclose on their loans and recover the land for some of their loss. But to think he will lose more money and pay buyer out of his pocket? Your must not have a good since of realty? Or understand the construction business?

VT7 worked went on 7 days a week for over 3 mouths!