ripley Posted August 25, 2009 Posted August 25, 2009 There was no distribution of funds to the co-owners and no increase registered in the condo funds.
ThaiBob Posted August 31, 2009 Posted August 31, 2009 VT7 nears completion. Here are a few pics of the latest progress for those interested or are not in JomTien now. The pics show the VT7 entry, VT7 at night, pool, shophouse construction and views from an upper floor.
JoePai Posted August 31, 2009 Posted August 31, 2009 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. This is quite correct, JCC have only themselves to blame and if they imagine VT7 will be torn down then they are mistaken. As for all this wasted money being spent on Lawyers etc., that is a great mistake by a few misguided individuals who are causing all the other owners in JCC to throw good money after bad. My feeling is that the owners should get their money back from these few individuals.
Thaifan2 Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 VT7 nears completion. Here are a few pics of the latest progress for those interested or are not in JomTien now. The pics show the VT7 entry, VT7 at night, pool, shophouse construction and views from an upper floor. Looks very good ,and has great views .
austdec Posted September 1, 2009 Posted September 1, 2009 Thanks for the photos ThaiBob - very useful for those VT7 investors who are not in Thailand.
ripley Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Thai Bob's picture of the sea view must be depressing to JCC owners who used to look at that every day. Now foundations are being dug for another highrise nextdoor which means an outrageous expanse of VTs in the area. If they follow the same pattern as w/ VT7, JCC and all other nearby bldgs. will be subjected to ear-shattering, foundation cracking, cheap charlie, illegal pile driving in the near future. Let's see how the VT construction holds up to that stress. Or maybe they'll observe legal restrictions this time to protect their own bldgs.? Naaah. Credit where due: VT7 looks not bad (although not as good as an open beach!). The Y-shape and a few other details give some relief to the prison block style. If it's well-maintained (no rusting balcony rails) it will not be the eyesore we've all come to expect from these money mongers.
ThaiBob Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 .....Now foundations are being dug for another highrise nextdoor which means an outrageous expanse of VTs in the area. ... From the VT sales office; the construction is for a resort similar to the Avalon which will be a low-rise at the front (beach) rising to 7-8 floors in the back. The pile driving construction should be minimal when compared to VT7. However, another VT highrise beside VT5D someday should surprise nobody.
SHYTALK Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 .....Now foundations are being dug for another highrise nextdoor which means an outrageous expanse of VTs in the area. ... From the VT sales office; the construction is for a resort similar to the Avalon which will be a low-rise at the front (beach) rising to 7-8 floors in the back. The pile driving construction should be minimal when compared to VT7. However, another VT highrise beside VT5D someday should surprise nobody. Low rise stuff is a bit against the grain for View Talay. Why are they not going for the usual 30 floor highrise ?, especially as it would box in JCC even more. The design for another VT7 is done, why spend a load of cash designing a resort?
prospero Posted September 4, 2009 Posted September 4, 2009 Thai Bob's picture of the sea view must be depressing to JCC owners who used to look at that every day. Now foundations are being dug for another highrise nextdoor which means an outrageous expanse of VTs in the area. If they follow the same pattern as w/ VT7, JCC and all other nearby bldgs. will be subjected to ear-shattering, foundation cracking, cheap charlie, illegal pile driving in the near future. Let's see how the VT construction holds up to that stress. Or maybe they'll observe legal restrictions this time to protect their own bldgs.? Naaah.Credit where due: VT7 looks not bad (although not as good as an open beach!). The Y-shape and a few other details give some relief to the prison block style. If it's well-maintained (no rusting balcony rails) it will not be the eyesore we've all come to expect from these money mongers. Actually, the beauty of the new "Y" shape has inspired the View Talay architects. Views Talays 14 through 24 will be shaped like different letters of the alphabet. There will be a "U" shaped Talay, an "F" shaped Talay, a "C' shaped Talay -- etcetera. They will spell "<deleted> JOMTIEN" when seen from the air.
ripley Posted September 5, 2009 Posted September 5, 2009 "From the VT sales office; the construction is for a resort similar to the Avalon which will be a low-rise at the front (beach) rising to 7-8 floors in the back. " Now where and when have we heard this before from the VT sales office?! Not the most reliable source of info before a project is actually started. "Low rise stuff is a bit against the grain for View Talay. Why are they not going for the usual 30 floor highrise ?" Agreed. But it must be noted that VT could have built its shophouses higher and didn't. Second guessing these guys makes my head spin It is a bad idea to try to get into Vt's mind. That way lies madness.
BillK Posted September 6, 2009 Posted September 6, 2009 The layout of the foundations certainly has the look of an Avalon or perhaps more likely the resort taking shape next to VT3 which goes to 7/8 floors at the rear and is a much bigger development than Avalon. Either way, there will be plenty of room left to squeeze a couple of towers behind.
Guderian Posted September 7, 2009 Posted September 7, 2009 The new Jomtien Beach Penthouses development on Soi 9 has a nice website (links not allowed, so you will have to Google for it). Have a look at the picture there, it seems that this 4-6-8 storey up-market building style is becoming quite the thing.
tropiccapricorn Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 Did I hear that correctly that VT7 is now sewing JCC for 500 m Bath? It seems they sure want the delay of that ‘lawful construction’ reimbursed. Of course they would have to deduct some minor court-expenses from the gain but then oh well, here we go again.
Barack Posted September 10, 2009 Posted September 10, 2009 "Did I hear that correctly that VT7 is now sewing JCC for 500 m Bath?" Okay, I'll bite. Starting or spreading rumours?.... or can you substantiate or name source of what's implied.
ripley Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 "Did I hear that correctly that VT7 is now sewing JCC for 500 m Bath?"Okay, I'll bite. Starting or spreading rumours?.... or can you substantiate or name source of what's implied. Seem to be having trouble logging comments by "fast reply" on this site. Anyway, to repeat myself, the reason for applying to the Administrative Court was that this court was meant to give protection against any countersuits. But having seen countless misunderstandings/interpretations and dicey lawyers, who knows what the actual truth is? Anyone out there know?
richsilver Posted September 12, 2009 Posted September 12, 2009 "Did I hear that correctly that VT7 is now sewing JCC for 500 m Bath?"Okay, I'll bite. Starting or spreading rumours?.... or can you substantiate or name source of what's implied. I hope they have a sewing machine -- a waterproof one would be good if you want to take it into the bath.
ripley Posted September 14, 2009 Posted September 14, 2009 Still wondering" The suit against City Hall and VT names 8 (?) plaintiffs. (Incidentally, lawyers I talked with said that for JCC to sue they must have 10 individuals put their names to the suit.) BUT if the 8 plaintiffs decide to go for a cash settlement with VT, will they be obliged to distribute this amount to the other JCC co owners, or perhaps give it to the JP building itself? Or are they legally permitted to keep it? Anybody know about this?
tropiccapricorn Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 "Did I hear that correctly that VT7 is now sewing JCC for 500 m Bath?"Okay, I'll bite. Starting or spreading rumours?.... or can you substantiate or name source of what's implied. I hope they have a sewing machine -- a waterproof one would be good if you want to take it into the bath. Sorry indeed. You are ever so wright of course. The word I should have been using is suit like lawsuit, countersuit, of-the-peg-suit, protection suit, alimony suit, swimsuit, evening suit, gray suit, divorce suit, double breasted suit, and so on and so on and truly the sewing I’d prefer to delegate to some sweety around.
Barack Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 Still wondering" The suit against City Hall and VT names 8 (?) plaintiffs. (Incidentally, lawyers I talked with said that for JCC to sue they must have 10 individuals put their names to the suit.) BUT if the 8 plaintiffs decide to go for a cash settlement with VT, will they be obliged to distribute this amount to the other JCC co owners, or perhaps give it to the JP building itself? Or are they legally permitted to keep it?Anybody know about this? You talk about and ask how JCC and the plaintiffs will split their settlement from VT7. Tropiccapricorn speculates about VT7 now suing JCC for 500M baht. Anybody confused? All that we know is JCC court case was dismissed and VT7 will be completed within months. America has a better chance of winning next year's World Cup than JCC winning its' court appeal. And doesn't tropiccapricorn know that VT7 can't sue JCC because stopvt7 has told us so. Has anybody known stopvt7 to be wrong?
tropiccapricorn Posted September 15, 2009 Posted September 15, 2009 "Did I hear that correctly that VT7 is now sewing JCC for 500 m Bath?"Okay, I'll bite. Starting or spreading rumours?.... or can you substantiate or name source of what's implied. Honestly I don’t know who can sue who or not in this case. I was just reiterating a remark I got from somebody I supposed should know.
ripley Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 I have no idea what JCC & VT are doing one way or another. I just thought it was an interesting question: To sue in Admin. court one needs 10 people to stand up and sign in as plaintiffs. From there on all interaction is addressed to those plaintiffs. So I'm just wondering what would happen in the case of a settlement.
PattayaBunLover Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 Now foundations are being dug for another highrise nextdoor which means an outrageous expanse of VTs in the area. ...From the VT sales office; the construction is for a resort similar to the Avalon which will be a low-rise at the front (beach) rising to 7-8 floors in the back. The pile driving construction should be minimal when compared to VT7. However, another VT highrise beside VT5D someday should surprise nobody. Wow that's a nice view...what did folks in JCC pay for these...are there any more for sale?
tropiccapricorn Posted September 16, 2009 Posted September 16, 2009 Now foundations are being dug for another highrise nextdoor which means an outrageous expanse of VTs in the area. ...From the VT sales office; the construction is for a resort similar to the Avalon which will be a low-rise at the front (beach) rising to 7-8 floors in the back. The pile driving construction should be minimal when compared to VT7. However, another VT highrise beside VT5D someday should surprise nobody. Wow that's a nice view...what did folks in JCC pay for these...are there any more for sale? Actually the pile noise is not minimal. Again somebody told me that apparently VT is having problems selling VT5C and VT7 on the in between side because potential buyers are scared of a further high-rise between them. Therefore that low rise must come up rather fast, which leaves me wondering if, when sales have progressed the whole thing could be caterpillared away to make room for that ominous high-rise. In case of course potential customers would still be queuing up for it.
BlackJack Posted September 20, 2009 Posted September 20, 2009 anyone buying into these buildings face years and years of co owners renovation noise, dust, etc. Something to remember if you want to retire in peace and quiet
beachtalkers Posted October 7, 2009 Posted October 7, 2009 I have no idea what JCC & VT are doing one way or another. I just thought it was an interesting question:To sue in Admin. court one needs 10 people to stand up and sign in as plaintiffs. From there on all interaction is addressed to those plaintiffs. So I'm just wondering what would happen in the case of a settlement. From the horses month it takes 10 to start a case. I talked with one of the stopvt7 group members and was told last week they had a court hearing. Vt7 did file a countersuit asking for damages because construction was delayed for 2 years and they claimed it was a frivolous case. But at the hearing they were unable to present any evidence of a delay or losses. Also the judges did not like the frivolous charges and the judges recommended dismissing the countersuit. They are waiting for the court order. The project was finishing ahead of planes. Also, I was told vt7 suited for more then the told vt7 condos are worth.
plasticpig Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 You talk about and ask how JCC and the plaintiffs will split their settlement from VT7. Tropiccapricorn speculates about VT7 now suing JCC for 500M baht. Anybody confused?All that we know is JCC court case was dismissed and VT7 will be completed within months. America has a better chance of winning next year's World Cup than JCC winning its' court appeal. And doesn't tropiccapricorn know that VT7 can't sue JCC because stopvt7 has told us so. Has anybody known stopvt7 to be wrong? Thats true, he does know it all. Apart from he failed to realize his own head was firmly jammed up his own arse That’s why he could never see the light. And loose gracefully.
ripley Posted October 8, 2009 Posted October 8, 2009 The case is of interest as it will give a clear indication of how things go here in reality. First question about who would righteously receive any settlement money is still out there. But another interesting bit is the notion of a countersuit by VT. JCC plaintiffs did not begin their suit against VT7 - they were suing city hall. It was the courts who instructed them to make Vt7 a party to the case. So, if Vt7 is allowed to sue JCC it will be a clear statement that there is no point whatsoever in applying to the courts for redress of grievances. Sad news, but the upside is that those of us in difficulties can save ourselves a lot in grief and legal fees by allowing this example to let us know we're on our own.
beachtalkers Posted October 9, 2009 Posted October 9, 2009 This is from the horse month. I was told a group of 8 from the original group of 10 was suited for 100,000 bahts in damages by vt7 in the Admin Court of Rayong. They received the judge’s conclusion and the vt7 suit was dismissed for lack of evidence. It looks like vt had two plants in the group of 10. Amazing Thailand!
ThaiBob Posted October 26, 2009 Posted October 26, 2009 Some may not be aware (like me) but the new VT7 has a grass covered tree lined roof with helicopter pad.
prospero Posted October 27, 2009 Posted October 27, 2009 Some may not be aware (like me) but the new VT7 has a grass covered tree lined roof with helicopter pad. Glad I don't have a unit on the top floor!
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png.8488ab72b8bb2e508209bfe3211b6e08.png)
Recommended Posts