Condominium Act

[khall64au]

Can anyone shed further light on revision of Condo Act?

"The cabinet has also approved the re-drafting of the condominium Act – removing the 49% foreign ownership limit – and has asked the Ministry of Interior to look in to raising the percentage for personal foreign investment in condos in Bangkok and the resort destinations, including Phuket, Samui and Pattaya."

http://phuket-post.com/article.php?id=603

[ThaiBob]

Can anyone shed further light on revision of Condo Act?

"The cabinet has also approved the re-drafting of the condominium Act – removing the 49% foreign ownership limit – and has asked the Ministry of Interior to look in to raising the percentage for personal foreign investment in condos in Bangkok and the resort destinations, including Phuket, Samui and Pattaya."

http://phuket-post.com/article.php?id=603

No, we are all still holding our collective breath. Thanks for the link. This has huge implications for land/housing owners current and future. The only thing I like in the article is the last paragraph you quoted. This was done in 1999 (but only for a five year period) to jump start the condo market.

[cclub75]

No, we are all still holding our collective breath. Thanks for the link. This has huge implications for land/housing owners current and future. The only thing I like in the article is the last paragraph you quoted. This was done in 1999 (but only for a five year period) to jump start the condo market.

This "news" about Condo Act didn't make it to the main stream daily newspapers, like BKK Post, Nation.

And during the long discussion about FBA 2 (still not closed, for that matter this article is a bit misleading) we never heard about a possible revision or amendment of the Condo Act.

This is very surprising.

[khall64au]

No, we are all still holding our collective breath. Thanks for the link. This has huge implications for land/housing owners current and future. The only thing I like in the article is the last paragraph you quoted. This was done in 1999 (but only for a five year period) to jump start the condo market.

This "news" about Condo Act didn't make it to the main stream daily newspapers, like BKK Post, Nation.

And during the long discussion about FBA 2 (still not closed, for that matter this article is a bit misleading) we never heard about a possible revision or amendment of the Condo Act.

This is very surprising.

According to law firm Tilleke & Gibbins, they too are surprised that no journalist has bothered delving further into same complex Thai property questions:

According to T&G: the Phuket Post report is correct. The proposed % is however unknown.

Best Regards

John R. Howard

Managing Director

Tilleke & Gibbins International Phuket Ltd

The proposed % is however unknown.

Best Regards

John R. Howard

Managing Director

Tilleke & Gibbins International Phuket Ltd

[briley]

A group from our condo were talking to a senior legal chap from the Bangkok land registry during a visit he was making to Chiang Mai last month.

His trip was part of looking into a new condo act to update the condo law.

What is proposed is beyond me but it seems some effort is being made to produce a new law.

Incidentally does anyone know of an English translation of the 2534 statute?

[cclub75]

According to law firm Tilleke & Gibbins, they too are surprised that no journalist has bothered delving further into same complex Thai property questions:

According to T&G: the Phuket Post report is correct. The proposed % is however unknown.

Fair enough.

But I still doubt....

I mean, FBA 2 has still large backfire effects (2 days ago, during the visit of PM in Japan, japanese businesses have spoken about it again).

A Condo Act 2 with higher % would be really like a sweet to give to foreigners (and at no cost ! ), from a PR point of view.... Why the gvt didn't use it ?

Thai press is always very happy to dispatch the good news from the gvt...

Now that we know that real estate starts to look bad (Finance Minister want to take some steps to boost the market)... a revision of Condo Act would perfectly make sense.

However, I'm wondering if the people in Phuket are not taking... their dreams for reality.

Anyway. Time will tell.

[eljeque]

If the condo act were to be chnaged and the % went to 60%, who would be the lucky buyers given the right to change from a company or their wife's name or... to their own name. Would it be done in the sequence of registry? It was done before, so it cannot be very difficult, but I was wondering.

According to law firm Tilleke & Gibbins, they too are surprised that no journalist has bothered delving further into same complex Thai property questions:

According to T&G: the Phuket Post report is correct. The proposed % is however unknown.

Fair enough.

But I still doubt....

I mean, FBA 2 has still large backfire effects (2 days ago, during the visit of PM in Japan, japanese businesses have spoken about it again).

A Condo Act 2 with higher % would be really like a sweet to give to foreigners (and at no cost ! ), from a PR point of view.... Why the gvt didn't use it ?

Thai press is always very happy to dispatch the good news from the gvt...

Now that we know that real estate starts to look bad (Finance Minister want to take some steps to boost the market)... a revision of Condo Act would perfectly make sense.

However, I'm wondering if the people in Phuket are not taking... their dreams for reality.

Anyway. Time will tell.

[ThaiBob]

If the condo act were to be chnaged and the % went to 60%, who would be the lucky buyers given the right to change from a company or their wife's name or... to their own name. Would it be done in the sequence of registry? It was done before, so it cannot be very difficult, but I was wondering.

According to law firm Tilleke & Gibbins, they too are surprised that no journalist has bothered delving further into same complex Thai property questions:

According to T&G: the Phuket Post report is correct. The proposed % is however unknown.

Fair enough.

But I still doubt....

I mean, FBA 2 has still large backfire effects (2 days ago, during the visit of PM in Japan, japanese businesses have spoken about it again).

A Condo Act 2 with higher % would be really like a sweet to give to foreigners (and at no cost ! ), from a PR point of view.... Why the gvt didn't use it ?

Thai press is always very happy to dispatch the good news from the gvt...

Now that we know that real estate starts to look bad (Finance Minister want to take some steps to boost the market)... a revision of Condo Act would perfectly make sense.

However, I'm wondering if the people in Phuket are not taking... their dreams for reality.

Anyway. Time will tell.

Sequence of registry would be fair but may be difficult to administer. I would hope the % would be much higher than 60 (maybe 75-100) so to jump start the market.

Here's a summary of the proposed Condo Act changes. I'm not sure it is wise to drop the requirement that the unit must be free from any liens/encumberances before it can registered at the Land Office. What recourse would a Homeowners Association have against owners whose dues are in arrears?

http://www.jsm-law.com/live/Portal?xml=leg...content_id=2865

[cclub75]

Here's a summary of the proposed Condo Act changes.

http://www.jsm-law.com/live/Portal?xml=leg...content_id=2865

Ah we are moving forward.

"At present the draft proposed amendments are being considered by The Office of The Council of State before it is passed to The National Legislative Assembly for further consideration. "

But I'm still curious : who proposed this amendment ?

Edited April 7, 2007 by cclub75

[ZZZ]

A group from our condo were talking to a senior legal chap from the Bangkok land registry during a visit he was making to Chiang Mai last month.

His trip was part of looking into a new condo act to update the condo law.

What is proposed is beyond me but it seems some effort is being made to produce a new law.

Incidentally does anyone know of an English translation of the 2534 statute?

Official translations of all relevant land statutes can can be found at Department of Lands web site:

http://www.dol.go.th/eng_version/menu.php

Maybe someone could pin this to link to this forum as it answers a lot of questions and the information is first hand, until the laws are changed but hopefully this page will then be updated

[briley]

Thanks for the link but it doesn't cover the 2534 or the 2522 condo laws unfortunately.

[ZZZ]

Thanks for the link but it doesn't cover the 2534 or the 2522 condo laws unfortunately.

These laws are 16 and 28 years old, are they still in force or could they have been superseded by one of the newer laws listed in the dol web site?

[briley]

The 2522 law was quoted when we had a problem over replacement of manager and appears to be inforce. I have never seen the 2534 law or know what it says.

Condo law 3 of 2542 is mainly about allowing over 49% alien ownership in Bangkok, later extended to - was it pataya? and about source of funds. It refers to the condo act of 2522 amended by act of 2534 etc.

[BlackJack]

At the AGM is it possible to video tape the procedings as sometimes things are lost in translation?

Also, if a developer still has about 10% of the votes (registered as a company) can this be used as a co owner vote at the AGM? or does he need proxies from all the directors in the company to exercise these votes?

If a proxy is submitted at the AGM for election onto the Executive Committee is this legal - meaning that if the candidate cant turn up to the meeting can he or she submit a proxy?

Any help appreciated

[mikejphuket]

We intend to VDO our AGM next month.

Does anyone know if 30+30 year lease holders are legally considered to be "co-owners" and entitled to vote at AGM? Rumour has it that the developer of our condo building may try and pull a voting coup at our AGM.

At the AGM is it possible to video tape the procedings as sometimes things are lost in translation?

Also, if a developer still has about 10% of the votes (registered as a company) can this be used as a co owner vote at the AGM? or does he need proxies from all the directors in the company to exercise these votes?

If a proxy is submitted at the AGM for election onto the Executive Committee is this legal - meaning that if the candidate cant turn up to the meeting can he or she submit a proxy?

Any help appreciated

[Tammi]

We intend to VDO our AGM next month.

Does anyone know if 30+30 year lease holders are legally considered to be "co-owners" and entitled to vote at AGM? Rumour has it that the developer of our condo building may try and pull a voting coup at our AGM.

Under the law persons (co-owners) who have ownership (title deed) can vote. I would argue that a person holding a lease agreement cannot vote.

The Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979)Section 42. There is to be a meeting of all co-owners, called a General Meeting, within 6 months after the date of registration of the Condominium Juristic Person and subsequent general meetings at least once a year.

Is this your first AGM? I ask because the co-owners must study the Juristic Person Regulations that the developer may have submitted to the Land Office and he may have put in clauses that the co-owners may not like and the co-owners will have to sort it out at the AGM.

The Condominium Act (No. 4) B.E. 2551 (2008) will come into force in July 2008 and Section 6(7) states that the person (let's say the developer) wishing to register the real estate as private commonly owned housing shall apply to the competent officer (which I presume is the Land Office) with a draft of the condominium regulations.

I can't find a similar clase in the present Act.

Section 45 of the present Act states: In voting, each co-owner shall have the vote equivalent to the ownership ratio held in the common property.

If a single co-owner has votes exceeding one half of the total votes, the number of votes of such co-owner shall be reduced to equal the combined vote of all the other co-owners.

What's your reaction to what I have written?

[Tammi]

At the AGM is it possible to video tape the procedings as sometimes things are lost in translation?

Also, if a developer still has about 10% of the votes (registered as a company) can this be used as a co owner vote at the AGM? or does he need proxies from all the directors in the company to exercise these votes?

If a proxy is submitted at the AGM for election onto the Executive Committee is this legal - meaning that if the candidate cant turn up to the meeting can he or she submit a proxy?

Any help appreciated

Very good idea to video tape the proceedings.

The developer company has the right to the votes of each unit the developer's company has. I would argue that the company is a single entity and must vote as such.

Section 47 of the present Act states: "Co-owners may assign power of attorney in writing to other persons to vote instead of them. One person cannot be assigned power of Attorney to vote by more than three in one meeting.

The manager or spouse cannot preside over the meeting or be assigned power of attorney to vote instead of co-owners."

"Manager" means the Juristic Person Manager.

Section 35 of the present Act states "The Condominium Juristic Person shall have a manager who may be a natural person or a juristic person. If the manager is a juristic person, that juristic person is to install a natural person to act as manager in place of the juristic person."

A co-owner absent from the AGM can be voted onto the Management Committee. I know it sticks in one's craw but what to do! When the new Act comes into force the co-owners will be able to dismiss committee members at an AGM or EGM.

[mikejphuket]

We have been having AGMs for 7 years- the 20 years previous to that the developer acted as manager.

Our lease holders pay monthly service fees directly to the condo, act on the owners' committee and have always voted at our AGMs.

We have been in court against the developer regarding ownership of common areas and the leases were referred to, in Thai language, as "lease to buy". There is a clause in the lease that says if the laws are changed to allow foreign ownership title transfer would be made.

We intend to VDO our AGM next month.

Does anyone know if 30+30 year lease holders are legally considered to be "co-owners" and entitled to vote at AGM? Rumour has it that the developer of our condo building may try and pull a voting coup at our AGM.

Under the law persons (co-owners) who have ownership (title deed) can vote. I would argue that a person holding a lease agreement cannot vote.

The Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979)Section 42. There is to be a meeting of all co-owners, called a General Meeting, within 6 months after the date of registration of the Condominium Juristic Person and subsequent general meetings at least once a year.

Is this your first AGM? I ask because the co-owners must study the Juristic Person Regulations that the developer may have submitted to the Land Office and he may have put in clauses that the co-owners may not like and the co-owners will have to sort it out at the AGM.

The Condominium Act (No. 4) B.E. 2551 (2008) will come into force in July 2008 and Section 6(7) states that the person (let's say the developer) wishing to register the real estate as private commonly owned housing shall apply to the competent officer (which I presume is the Land Office) with a draft of the condominium regulations.

I can't find a similar clase in the present Act.

Section 45 of the present Act states: In voting, each co-owner shall have the vote equivalent to the ownership ratio held in the common property.

If a single co-owner has votes exceeding one half of the total votes, the number of votes of such co-owner shall be reduced to equal the combined vote of all the other co-owners.

What's your reaction to what I have written?

[Tammi]

You are saying that for 20 years you didn't have an AGM?

So the owner(s) of the unit(s) has an agreement "lease to buy" with the lease holders and that condo fees must be paid by the lease holder. That doesn't make the lease holders into co-owners holding title. Of course the owner can give proxy to lease holder.

It was recently reported in the press: "The cabinet has also approved the re- drafting of the Condominium Act - removing the 49% foreign ownership limit - and has asked the Ministry of Interior to look into raising the percentage for personal foreign investment in condos in Bangkok and the resort destinations, including Phuket, Samui and Pattaya."

The present Condo Act Section 19 thirteen: "Any person holding ownership in apartments in the capacity of an owner on behalf of an alien or a juristic person considered by law to be an alien whether or not such an alien or juristic person has right to hold the ownership in such apartments under this Act, shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment of not exceeding 2 years or a fine not ecceeding 20,000 baht, or both, and the provisions of paragraph 4 of section 19 (5) shall apply mutatis mutandis. (Paragraph 4 deals with the disposal of such apartments).

The new Act to take effect from 4 July 2008 Section 16 " The provision of Section 19 twelve and Section 19 thirteen of the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979) amended by the Condominium Act (No.2) B.E. 2534 (1991) shall be repealed.

Hope you won the case re the common areas. Why did you have to go to court? When the developer registered the condo with the Land Office he would have had to give details of the apartments, personal properties and common properties under Section 6 (Registration of Condominiums). I would have thought all you needed to do was go to Land Office? But maybe the developer didn't register all the common property that the owners had been given to understand would be common area? The new Act will close that loophole - sales brochures, commercial photos, or sales letters that were publicized by any method must be identical to the evidence and specification given to the Land Office by the developer and will be regarded as part of the Condominium Sale Agreement and if there is a difference it shall be interpreted for the benefit of the buyer.

I would be interested to know about your court case because I know of 2 condos here that are in the process and another condo where co-owners are disagreeing about use of common areas.

We have been having AGMs for 7 years- the 20 years previous to that the developer acted as manager.

Our lease holders pay monthly service fees directly to the condo, act on the owners' committee and have always voted at our AGMs.

We have been in court against the developer regarding ownership of common areas and the leases were referred to, in Thai language, as "lease to buy". There is a clause in the lease that says if the laws are changed to allow foreign ownership title transfer would be made.

We intend to VDO our AGM next month.

Does anyone know if 30+30 year lease holders are legally considered to be "co-owners" and entitled to vote at AGM? Rumour has it that the developer of our condo building may try and pull a voting coup at our AGM.

Under the law persons (co-owners) who have ownership (title deed) can vote. I would argue that a person holding a lease agreement cannot vote.

The Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979)Section 42. There is to be a meeting of all co-owners, called a General Meeting, within 6 months after the date of registration of the Condominium Juristic Person and subsequent general meetings at least once a year.

Is this your first AGM? I ask because the co-owners must study the Juristic Person Regulations that the developer may have submitted to the Land Office and he may have put in clauses that the co-owners may not like and the co-owners will have to sort it out at the AGM.

The Condominium Act (No. 4) B.E. 2551 (2008) will come into force in July 2008 and Section 6(7) states that the person (let's say the developer) wishing to register the real estate as private commonly owned housing shall apply to the competent officer (which I presume is the Land Office) with a draft of the condominium regulations.

I can't find a similar clase in the present Act.

Section 45 of the present Act states: In voting, each co-owner shall have the vote equivalent to the ownership ratio held in the common property.

If a single co-owner has votes exceeding one half of the total votes, the number of votes of such co-owner shall be reduced to equal the combined vote of all the other co-owners.

What's your reaction to what I have written?

[KondoKitty]

At the AGM is it possible to video tape the procedings as sometimes things are lost in translation?

Also, if a developer still has about 10% of the votes (registered as a company) can this be used as a co owner vote at the AGM? or does he need proxies from all the directors in the company to exercise these votes?

If a proxy is submitted at the AGM for election onto the Executive Committee is this legal - meaning that if the candidate cant turn up to the meeting can he or she submit a proxy?

Any help appreciated

Very good idea to video tape the proceedings.

The developer company has the right to the votes of each unit the developer's company has. I would argue that the company is a single entity and must vote as such.

Section 47 of the present Act states: "Co-owners may assign power of attorney in writing to other persons to vote instead of them. One person cannot be assigned power of Attorney to vote by more than three in one meeting.

The manager or spouse cannot preside over the meeting or be assigned power of attorney to vote instead of co-owners."

"Manager" means the Juristic Person Manager.

Section 35 of the present Act states "The Condominium Juristic Person shall have a manager who may be a natural person or a juristic person. If the manager is a juristic person, that juristic person is to install a natural person to act as manager in place of the juristic person."

A co-owner absent from the AGM can be voted onto the Management Committee. I know it sticks in one's craw but what to do! When the new Act comes into force the co-owners will be able to dismiss committee members at an AGM or EGM.

Can someone please tell me what the current Condo Act states re. dismissing committee members?

Can it be done at an AGM or EGM? And what is the required attendance, and required % agreement to dismiss the individual?

And on what grounds would someone in the committee usually need to be dismissed in the first place?

And what if others "gang up" to dismiss a farang for example... Can anything be done?

Finally, at other condos, what kind of number of votes does one need to be elected in the first place? At my condo, you can be in the committee with only one vote. (This can happen if there are not enough volunteer candidates running).

Thanks, KondoKitty

[mikejphuket]

To the best of my knowledge NO AGM's from 1979-2001. I am asking around to find out if there ever was a meeting.

Since we started having meetings (instigated by the developer when they were trying to end involvement) our lease holders have been voting and being on Owners' Committee.

We won the court case of one common area (now being appealed by developer) and lost another area- including staircase that allows access to the roof!

You are saying that for 20 years you didn't have an AGM?

So the owner(s) of the unit(s) has an agreement "lease to buy" with the lease holders and that condo fees must be paid by the lease holder. That doesn't make the lease holders into co-owners holding title. Of course the owner can give proxy to lease holder.

It was recently reported in the press: "The cabinet has also approved the re- drafting of the Condominium Act - removing the 49% foreign ownership limit - and has asked the Ministry of Interior to look into raising the percentage for personal foreign investment in condos in Bangkok and the resort destinations, including Phuket, Samui and Pattaya."

The present Condo Act Section 19 thirteen: "Any person holding ownership in apartments in the capacity of an owner on behalf of an alien or a juristic person considered by law to be an alien whether or not such an alien or juristic person has right to hold the ownership in such apartments under this Act, shall be liable for punishment of imprisonment of not exceeding 2 years or a fine not ecceeding 20,000 baht, or both, and the provisions of paragraph 4 of section 19 (5) shall apply mutatis mutandis. (Paragraph 4 deals with the disposal of such apartments).

The new Act to take effect from 4 July 2008 Section 16 " The provision of Section 19 twelve and Section 19 thirteen of the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979) amended by the Condominium Act (No.2) B.E. 2534 (1991) shall be repealed.

Hope you won the case re the common areas. Why did you have to go to court? When the developer registered the condo with the Land Office he would have had to give details of the apartments, personal properties and common properties under Section 6 (Registration of Condominiums). I would have thought all you needed to do was go to Land Office? But maybe the developer didn't register all the common property that the owners had been given to understand would be common area? The new Act will close that loophole - sales brochures, commercial photos, or sales letters that were publicized by any method must be identical to the evidence and specification given to the Land Office by the developer and will be regarded as part of the Condominium Sale Agreement and if there is a difference it shall be interpreted for the benefit of the buyer.

I would be interested to know about your court case because I know of 2 condos here that are in the process and another condo where co-owners are disagreeing about use of common areas.

We have been having AGMs for 7 years- the 20 years previous to that the developer acted as manager.

Our lease holders pay monthly service fees directly to the condo, act on the owners' committee and have always voted at our AGMs.

We have been in court against the developer regarding ownership of common areas and the leases were referred to, in Thai language, as "lease to buy". There is a clause in the lease that says if the laws are changed to allow foreign ownership title transfer would be made.

We intend to VDO our AGM next month.

Does anyone know if 30+30 year lease holders are legally considered to be "co-owners" and entitled to vote at AGM? Rumour has it that the developer of our condo building may try and pull a voting coup at our AGM.

Under the law persons (co-owners) who have ownership (title deed) can vote. I would argue that a person holding a lease agreement cannot vote.

The Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979)Section 42. There is to be a meeting of all co-owners, called a General Meeting, within 6 months after the date of registration of the Condominium Juristic Person and subsequent general meetings at least once a year.

Is this your first AGM? I ask because the co-owners must study the Juristic Person Regulations that the developer may have submitted to the Land Office and he may have put in clauses that the co-owners may not like and the co-owners will have to sort it out at the AGM.

The Condominium Act (No. 4) B.E. 2551 (2008) will come into force in July 2008 and Section 6(7) states that the person (let's say the developer) wishing to register the real estate as private commonly owned housing shall apply to the competent officer (which I presume is the Land Office) with a draft of the condominium regulations.

I can't find a similar clase in the present Act.

Section 45 of the present Act states: In voting, each co-owner shall have the vote equivalent to the ownership ratio held in the common property.

If a single co-owner has votes exceeding one half of the total votes, the number of votes of such co-owner shall be reduced to equal the combined vote of all the other co-owners.

What's your reaction to what I have written?

[pkrv]

We are somewhat off track - Thinking about this I would now be in favour of removing the 49% foreign ownership issue entirely. I am not keen to see Thai owned units and Foreign owned units differently priced, 'down the road' that is not good news for social cohesion.

[briley]

pkrv -

Not sure that may THai's realize that limiting foreign ownership to 49% is against their interests when ownership hits the limits. We are almost in that position and the penny is slowly sinking in for a few owners.

Interesting times ahead.

[Maestro]

These laws are 16 and 28 years old, are they still in force or could they have been superseded by one of the newer laws listed in the dol web site?

The Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979) has been amended, not superseded, by the Condominium Act (No. 2) B.E. 2534 (1991) and the Condominium Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542 (1999)

Strangely, I have not been able to find the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979) and the Condominium Act (No.2) B.E. 2534 (1991) on the Internet. If anybody has a link to it, please post it in this thread.

At the moment, I have the following links regarding condominium ownership:

Condominium Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542 (1999)

http://www.samuiforsale.com/Condominium_Act_BE2522.htm

Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979), as amended by Condominium Act (No.2) B.E. 2534 (1991) and Condominium Act (No. 3) B.E. 2542 (1999)

http://www.dol.go.th/low_ministry/commandm...do_no3_2542.htm

Ministerial Regulation No 8 (B.E. 2543)

http://www.dol.go.th/low_ministry/laws/condo_no8_eng.htm

Ministerial Regulation No 9 (B.E. 2543)

http://www.dol.go.th/low_ministry/laws/condo_no9_eng.htm

Guide: Acquisition of Condominium Unit by Alien

http://www.dol.go.th/guide/condo_080745_eng.htm

Guide: Application for acquisition of condominium

http://www.dol.go.th/guide/foreigner_Eng_ver.htm

20080409 Important changes to Condominium Act

http://www.mayerbrown.com/broker.asp?id=4418&nid=6

--

Maestro

[pkrv]

Here are the links

http://www.samuiforsale.com/Condominium_Act_BE2522.htm

http://www.dol.go.th/low_ministry/commandm...do_no3_2542.htm

They really need to be consolidated - PKRV

[briley]

Let me post this - but if anyone wants to claim copyright then do have it removed.

The translation is not mine and I do not know who did it.

The amalgamation of Condo Laws 2 and 4 (and some of 3) is mine and is designed to show the changes.

Condo Acts 2, 3 and 4 - Condominium_Act_2___Anotated_with_changes_in_Condo_Act_4.pdf

(reason for edit - forgot to spewl chuck)

Edited April 25, 2008 by briley

[PattayaParent]

We are somewhat off track - Thinking about this I would now be in favour of removing the 49% foreign ownership issue entirely. I am not keen to see Thai owned units and Foreign owned units differently priced, 'down the road' that is not good news for social cohesion.

What do you mean 'down the road', dual pricing of condo units exists NOW.

[PattayaParent]

If the condo act were to be chnaged and the % went to 60%, who would be the lucky buyers given the right to change from a company or their wife's name or... to their own name. Would it be done in the sequence of registry? It was done before, so it cannot be very difficult, but I was wondering.

When the percentage of foreign ownership was increased previously it was only for new build condos and so only benefitted the developers, not existing condo Farang 'owners' outside the 49%.

[pkrv]

We are somewhat off track - Thinking about this I would now be in favour of removing the 49% foreign ownership issue entirely. I am not keen to see Thai owned units and Foreign owned units differently priced, 'down the road' that is not good news for social cohesion.

What do you mean 'down the road', dual pricing of condo units exists NOW.

I understand your comment and fully agree. For the moment this is 'small fry'. IMO Thailand is accelerating and has its own aspirations. If this 'price differential' continues it will eventually cause deep resentment. Agreed some may 'work the system to their favour', and see only money in their pocket, but I would much prefer to sleep safely at night knowing everyone is treated equally – most especially ‘the Locals’. OK - look that is how I see things, I am a really stupid idealist, but we all know that when things go wrong - they go wrong big time! IMO this is an excellent potential opportunity for a long term damage limitation exercise.

[Maestro]

Let me post...

Thank you, Briley.

Do you by any chance have the following as separate documents?

-- Condominium Act B.E.2522 (1979), original version without amendments added in.

-- Condominium Act (No.2) B.E. 2542 (1999)

-- Condominium Act (No. 4) B.E. 2551 (2008)

These are still missing in my collection.

--

Maestro