Square metres or Talang Wah?

[Grusa]

I know that the Condominium Act states quite clearly that common fees must be calculated on the basis of living space, measured in square metres.

 

I am told, by Thais, that "the law" says that "Mu Baan" property common fees must be apportioned by land area, measured in Talang Wah. (One Wah^2 = 4m^2). But, no-one will quote me a reference for this assertion! - just "every Thai knows this"!

 

Questions:-

1. How does "the law" deal with a mixed property with both condo units and standalone houses sharing common facilities?

 

2. Can anyone direct me to  original sources, preferably with English translations,  for example an Act of Parliament, for this assertion. Mr Google does not help!

 

Thanks, Grusa

[Kwasaki]

Go to your local govt office. 

[stouricks]

In which ever units the area is measured, it's still the same actual area. 1 T Wah = 4 sq mtrs. Not the most difficult maths in the world.

[mahjongguy]

As said above, It doesn't matter if the annual fee is set per sq. meter or sq. wah, though it is traditional to use sq. meters for indoors and sq. wah for outdoors.

 

It would be useful to know why the OP is asking. It sounds as if the condo JPM is also managing the mooban. If so, it must be an informal arrangement. A condo and mooban cannot exist under one committee, one JP, because they are creations of different Laws. Moobans are governed by the Land Act as it existed when the mooban was approved.

 

I don't currently have an English translation of the current or prior Land Acts but I did at one point study them. They are shorter and less detailed than the Condo Act, and they do not specify what factors go into calculating annual fees. That formulation (lot size, number of floors, whatever) is decided by the homeowners and made part of the bylaws. 

[Grusa]

18 hours ago, mahjongguy said:

As said above, It doesn't matter if the annual fee is set per sq. meter or sq. wah, though it is traditional to use sq. meters for indoors and sq. wah for outdoors.

 

It would be useful to know why the OP is asking. It sounds as if the condo JPM is also managing the mooban. If so, it must be an informal arrangement. A condo and mooban cannot exist under one committee, one JP, because they are creations of different Laws. Moobans are governed by the Land Act as it existed when the mooban was approved.

 

I don't currently have an English translation of the current or prior Land Acts but I did at one point study them. They are shorter and less detailed than the Condo Act, and they do not specify what factors go into calculating annual fees. That formulation (lot size, number of floors, whatever) is decided by the homeowners and made part of the bylaws. 

Thank you for your very informative answer. Your second paragraph describes the situation exactly. It is complicated by the age of the development, (30 years), absent landlords, an illegal committee, and no contracts, at least for houses that have changed hands in recent years (i.e. most of them!). The nett result is a grossly unfair common fee structure, and the worms are turning! Some houses are charged by metres living area, same as the condos, and some by wah land area at the same rate.

 

I would appreciate, if you have it, a link to the Land Act in force 30 years ago, in Thai if need be. I know it's a lot to ask!

[BritManToo]

6 minutes ago, Grusa said:

Thank you for your very informative answer. Your second paragraph describes the situation exactly. It is complicated by the age of the development, (30 years), absent landlords, an illegal committee, and no contracts, at least for houses that have changed hands in recent years (i.e. most of them!). The nett result is a grossly unfair common fee structure, and the worms are turning! Some houses are charged by metres living area, same as the condos, and some by wah land area at the same rate.

 

I would appreciate, if you have it, a link to the Land Act in force 30 years ago, in Thai if need be. I know it's a lot to ask!

If you don't like the fees, don't pay them.

There's nothing they can do to home owners, probably not even on purchase/sale.

They can take court action, but in reality they can't recover from an unwilling home owner (especially if you have a mortgage).

[Grusa]

19 hours ago, stouricks said:

In which ever units the area is measured, it's still the same actual area. 1 T Wah = 4 sq mtrs. Not the most difficult maths in the world.

It matters when rates are 25baht per square metre for some, and 25 baht per talang wah for others. The result is 8-12 baht per metre for those on wah, and 200-300 per wah for those on metres! The discrepancies arise from the type of house, and size of plot.

[Grusa]

2 minutes ago, BritManToo said:

If you don't like the fees, don't pay them.

There's nothing they can do to home owners, probably not even on purchase/sale.

They can take court action, but in reality they can't recover form an unwilling home owner.

That is exactly where we stand! It has taken 10 non-payers to catch the attention of the committee: a big hole in their finances. We now get threats to cut off services, attempts to block access to the pool, etc.

We, the house owners, know there is nothing in law the jpm can do to collect unpaid revenues, so long as water and electricity are paid for. We do however want to pay a fair share, and not  have all the aggro.

[KKr]

1 hour ago, Grusa said:

That is exactly where we stand! It has taken 10 non-payers to catch the attention of the committee: a big hole in their finances. We now get threats to cut off services, attempts to block access to the pool, etc.

We, the house owners, know there is nothing in law the jpm can do to collect unpaid revenues, so long as water and electricity are paid for. We do however want to pay a fair share, and not  have all the aggro.

Who owns the swimming pool and roads etc ?? Condo juristic person or moo Baan ?

[brianthainess]

22 hours ago, stouricks said:

In which ever units the area is measured, it's still the same actual area. 1 T Wah = 4 sq mtrs. Not the most difficult maths in the world.

And it was supposed to have changed in Thailand to Sq. mtrs from Wah in 1923 !! but TIT.     edit You can google old Thai land Measurements.

[mahjongguy]

"Who owns the swimming pool and roads etc ?? Condo juristic person or moo Baan ? "

 

This is a case where the facts are essential. If the OP and other homeowners feel that the condo is taking advantage of them then they need to go to the Land Office. Someone well familiar with failed developments of that era needs to assess the notations on the back of every chanote - the streets, recreational areas, and every home lot whether occupied or not. The notes indicate, for example, the intended use and ownership as stated in the project approval.  

 

Unless the mooban has its own juristic person, they have no ownership of the common areas. Under general Thai law the residents cannot be denied access (pedestrian and vehicular) to their lots. That's all.  

 

There were a lot of these condo + house developments built in that era before the most recent revision (2008) of the Land Act required developers to create a separate juristic person for the houses.

 

Decades after construction, it is a huge effort -often unsuccessful- to create a separate JP for the homeowners. And if you succeed, then you still face the universal issues of getting homeowners to care, to get involved, to serve on the committee, and to pay the annual fee, no matter how small or large an amount it may be.

 

I've attached the mooban section of the Land Act which was in effect roughly from 1977 to 2008. Well, that's what I've been told. I can't read it so maybe it's actually something else entirely. Just don't expect much. There is a lot you need to know, and for that you and the others who feel mistreated by the condo will need paid assistance. In the end, you may have to accept a negotiated settlement with them regarding rates.   

 

16-ปว286.pdf

[Grusa]

4 hours ago, KKr said:

Who owns the swimming pool and roads etc ?? Condo juristic person or moo Baan ?

Good Question! No one knows! Roads, parking etc., we can not be denied access. The rest is in "who knows" land. The situation is exacerbated, if not caused, by a stupid hi-so bitch of a chairperson, and her cronies, who will not budge and does not respond, even in the face of impending legal action.