Ashton Asoke building permit revoked

[dj230]

Just out of curiosity, I noticed Ashton Asoke was on the news a few weeks ago for legal issues regarding it's entrance.

 

Can anyone break down the situation? The translation on the news articles are a bit off and the youtube videos are all in Thai. From what I understand, they didn't follow the legal specifications for some regulations (how close it was to the street and/or the land near the entrace).

 

Then I saw some video of an owner of a unit on YouTube, that said it might get demolished and it got me interested in knowing the full / complete story and what people think will happen. I think the video must have been something he submitted to the court/sent to Anada to use for their legal case. 

Here's the video:

เสียงสะท้อนจากลูกบ้าน Ashton Asoke - YouTube

 

I asked a real estate agent and they told me most likely nothing will happen as another building was ordered to be demolished for not listening to regulations but they didn't follow through with it yet after years. They also said it would take many years for them to even settle the case so it's nothing to worry about.

 

Also the real estate agent mentioned that none of the owners can sell their units right now because of this, so they're stuck with them. If this is true, that kind of sucks.

Anyone have opinions on this and what they think will happen?

[blackcab]

The key issue is the access road from Sukhumvit Soi 19 to the plot that the building sits on. Essentially, the access road is not a part of the condominium title deeds.

 

Instead, the access road is owned by a third party, who have given the condominium the legal right to use the road.

 

The problem with this is that to obtain the permit to build the condo, the access road needed to be owned by the condominium project and be registered as such on the title deeds.

 

The Administrative Court has recognised the problem and ordered that the construction of the building was illegal. The developer has appealed this decision to the Central Administrative Court. After that, the matter will undoubtedly be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

 

The previously condemned building you refer to is the Aetas Residence, not far away on Soi Ruamrudee. The Aetas needs to have 12 floors chopped off the top to comply with building regulations. The Supreme Administrative Court made that order a few years ago now, but the building is still there, as tall as ever.

 

What will happen? This is Thailand, so nobody knows. There are plenty of units listed for sale though, so if you are a gambling man you might consider making a lowball offer on one of the units...

[it is what it is]

 

there's a, now abandonded and boarded up, shopping centre at a crossorads in banglampu. it was built with more floors than permitted, these were removed and the building left in its sad, slowly decomposing state.

 

it begs the question how good are building inspectors at doing their job, or counting, if they dont notice that buildings have more floors than permitted?

[impulse]

1 hour ago, it is what it is said:

it begs the question how good are building inspectors at doing their job, or counting, if they dont notice that buildings have more floors than permitted?

When they do the inspections, they're too busy counting something else.

 

[smutcakes]

2 hours ago, blackcab said:

The key issue is the access road from Sukhumvit Soi 19 to the plot that the building sits on. Essentially, the access road is not a part of the condominium title deeds.

 

Instead, the access road is owned by a third party, who have given the condominium the legal right to use the road.

 

The problem with this is that to obtain the permit to build the condo, the access road needed to be owned by the condominium project and be registered as such on the title deeds.

 

The Administrative Court has recognised the problem and ordered that the construction of the building was illegal. The developer has appealed this decision to the Central Administrative Court. After that, the matter will undoubtedly be appealed to the Supreme Administrative Court.

 

The previously condemned building you refer to is the Aetas Residence, not far away on Soi Ruamrudee. The Aetas needs to have 12 floors chopped off the top to comply with building regulations. The Supreme Administrative Court made that order a few years ago now, but the building is still there, as tall as ever.

 

What will happen? This is Thailand, so nobody knows. There are plenty of units listed for sale though, so if you are a gambling man you might consider making a lowball offer on one of the units...

Ashton lease off the MRT, its not solely regarding not having the title deed of the access as their are other condos like a notable Noble one which have the same, its more to do with the width of the access coupled with other issues. The Aetas will never get removed, the owner is confident of that as they have the correct permit to develop as they did.

 

To do so the BMA, Land Dept who approved the construction would need to accept liabililty which is never going to happen. The problem with all of these, like Waterfront in Pattaya is that everyone knows how they got their permits. But when it kicks off the officials just clam up and bury it in the courts for as long as possible rather than accept blame or a more vigarous inspection of the approval process.

[Oxx]

5 hours ago, it is what it is said:

there's a, now abandonded and boarded up, shopping centre at a crossorads in banglampu. it was built with more floors than permitted, these were removed and the building left in its sad, slowly decomposing state.

It does, however, now house a wonderful fish pond.

 

https://coconuts.co/bangkok/features/bangkok-fishbowl-exotic-species-swim-free-abandoned-mall/

[tomazbodner]

Use Google Chrome and choose to translate to English on these links. The translation is quite accurate:

https://thestandard.co/lessons-learned-ashton-asoke/

https://thestandard.co/ashotn-asoke-villagers-loan-from-9-banks/

https://thestandard.co/ashton-asoke-100864/

https://thestandard.co/anan-stock-dropped-14-percents/

[Heng]

5 hours ago, smutcakes said:

Ashtone title deed of the access as their are other condos like a notable Noble one which have the same,

Which Noble development curiously? 

[dj230]

9 hours ago, smutcakes said:

Ashton lease off the MRT, its not solely regarding not having the title deed of the access as their are other condos like a notable Noble one which have the same, its more to do with the width of the access coupled with other issues. The Aetas will never get removed, the owner is confident of that as they have the correct permit to develop as they did.

 

To do so the BMA, Land Dept who approved the construction would need to accept liabililty which is never going to happen. The problem with all of these, like Waterfront in Pattaya is that everyone knows how they got their permits. But when it kicks off the officials just clam up and bury it in the courts for as long as possible rather than accept blame or a more vigarous inspection of the approval process.

So is this the same situation with Ashton Asoke?

[Joe Medina]

As per Thai law, the administrative court has already revoked their license , in effect, the ownership right is also revoked but right to possession remains. However, 99% the finality of this rule will be revocation of all title deeds, we have plenty of clients from Ashton now from our firm. 

[dj230]

43 minutes ago, Joe Medina said:

As per Thai law, the administrative court has already revoked their license , in effect, the ownership right is also revoked but right to possession remains. However, 99% the finality of this rule will be revocation of all title deeds, we have plenty of clients from Ashton now from our firm. 

Could you dumb this down for me

 

So since the license is revoked, you're saying the right to own is revoked as well (i.e no selling units), and "buyers/owners" are stuck with possessing the property only?

 

And the end result will be all the deeds cancelled? So the "buyers/owners" will lose all their money?

[Joe Medina]

On 8/16/2021 at 10:44 AM, dj230 said:

Could you dumb this down for me

 

So since the license is revoked, you're saying the right to own is revoked as well (i.e no selling units), and "buyers/owners" are stuck with possessing the property only?

 

And the end result will be all the deeds cancelled? So the "buyers/owners" will lose all their money?

Yes, the finality will be sooner. The owners have the right to have the installments and percentage or interest. And they have 2 years prescription to file a case. We have 2 clients now on this matter.

[dj230]

7 minutes ago, Joe Medina said:

Yes, the finality will be sooner. The owners have the right to have the installments and percentage or interest. And they have 2 years prescription to file a case. We have 2 clients now on this matter.

So what's going on with the owners? Are they trying to file a case and get out of ownership of the unit? Or are they keeping their units and waiting for the final ruling at the supreme court?

 

[Joe Medina]

5 hours ago, dj230 said:

So what's going on with the owners? Are they trying to file a case and get out of ownership of the unit? Or are they keeping their units and waiting for the final ruling at the supreme court?

 

Fight the developer to give back the hard earned money with interest. 

[monty1412]

On 8/15/2021 at 3:12 AM, it is what it is said:

 

there's a, now abandonded and boarded up, shopping centre at a crossorads in banglampu. it was built with more floors than permitted, these were removed and the building left in its sad, slowly decomposing state.

 

it begs the question how good are building inspectors at doing their job, or counting, if they dont notice that buildings have more floors than permitted?

given that 4 fingers and one thumb of the inspectors are occupied with a brown envelope it does understandably reduce their ability to count 

[dj230]

3 hours ago, Joe Medina said:

Fight the developer to give back the hard earned money with interest. 

I see, do you think they will win the case?

and they will give up ownership? if there was a tenant renting at the time, would he just be kicked out?

[Bangkok Barry]

On 8/15/2021 at 3:12 AM, it is what it is said:

it begs the question how good are building inspectors at doing their job, or counting, if they dont notice that buildings have more floors than permitted?

They notice but they don't care. Same as every law enforcement agency in Thailand. They get paid anyway so why upset the status quo.

[saakura]

On 8/15/2021 at 10:19 AM, Heng said:

Which Noble development curiously? 

I heard it is the one opposite The Esplanade on Ratchadaphisek, which also uses MRT space as access road.

[Heng]

1 hour ago, saakura said:

I heard it is the one opposite The Esplanade on Ratchadaphisek, which also uses MRT space as access road.

Yeah, that case is slightly different though because the development's land can be accessed by Ratchadapisek Soi 6 Alley, so it's not a 'blind' property.  If they were going to press them on the MRTA owned land, they could simply redo the entrance.   Ashton is in trouble because there is no existing public road to their land, ONLY the rail department's land. 

[dj230]

1 minute ago, Heng said:

Yeah, that case is slightly different though because the development's land can be accessed by Ratchadapisek Soi 6 Alley, so it's not a 'blind' property.  If they were going to press them on the MRTA owned land, they could simply redo the entrance.   Ashton is in trouble because there is no existing public road to their land, ONLY the rail department's land. 

Curious, any takes on what you think will happen?

 

[Heng]

11 hours ago, dj230 said:

Curious, any takes on what you think will happen?

 

Who knows.   Likely nothing though if the inspectors can't get any benefit from pressing the land owner/condo owners.   The MRTA easement in all likelihood was simply obtained as a selling point (to make the entry/access design more attractive).  If Noble (or more specifically the present day condo juristic person) had to, as mentioned they could simply redesign the entry so it would directly access Ratchadaphisek 6 Alley (it would literally just be a construction job of knocking down some shrubs, a few hundred square meters of asphalt work and moving the guard booth).    More of a bottleneck, but 100% legal.  Have seen that kind of thing with smaller private properties.    

 

Not an insider by the way, just looking at Google street view. 

[smutcakes]

13 hours ago, Heng said:

Yeah, that case is slightly different though because the development's land can be accessed by Ratchadapisek Soi 6 Alley, so it's not a 'blind' property.  If they were going to press them on the MRTA owned land, they could simply redo the entrance.   Ashton is in trouble because there is no existing public road to their land, ONLY the rail department's land. 

But does Ratchadapisk Soi 6 Alley have the necessary width to permit the development of high rise condominium? The Building Control Act of 1979, states that buildings taller than eight storeys cannot be built on a road less than 10m wide. In essence without the MRT access, would they have got the permit to construct high rise?

[wavodavo]

On 8/15/2021 at 6:12 AM, it is what it is said:

 

there's a, now abandonded and boarded up, shopping centre at a crossorads in banglampu. it was built with more floors than permitted, these were removed and the building left in its sad, slowly decomposing state.

 

it begs the question how good are building inspectors at doing their job, or counting, if they dont notice that buildings have more floors than permitted?

What building inspectors..????..T.I.T.

[Heng]

3 hours ago, smutcakes said:

But does Ratchadapisk Soi 6 Alley have the necessary width to permit the development of high rise condominium? The Building Control Act of 1979, states that buildings taller than eight storeys cannot be built on a road less than 10m wide. In essence without the MRT access, would they have got the permit to construct high rise?

Not sure about the legal fine print myself....and as always, lawyers and judges are always ready to interpret what 'on a road means' and ready to measure and resurvey what the actual road width is.  Maybe a dead end ally does not need sidewalks (that can be added to the width requirements)?

 

Again it's a who knows situation, but again IMO not as worrisome as the Ashton situation.   ????

[smutcakes]

16 hours ago, Heng said:

Not sure about the legal fine print myself....and as always, lawyers and judges are always ready to interpret what 'on a road means' and ready to measure and resurvey what the actual road width is.  Maybe a dead end ally does not need sidewalks (that can be added to the width requirements)?

 

Again it's a who knows situation, but again IMO not as worrisome as the Ashton situation.   ????

With whats happening with the family of the son, i am sure if they try to take things further then it suddenly WILL become an issue.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

fyi:

 

20 August, 2021

Chaos in the making? A look into Ashton Asoke’s predicament and the revocation of its building permit

 

https://silklegal.com/chaos-in-the-making-a-look-into-ashton-asokes-predicament-and-the-revocation-of-its-building-permit/

 

Pisut & Partners advise and represent Unit Owners of Ashton Asoke on the potential or contingent risk of impact on the right over the properties

 

https://pisutandpartners.com/pisut-partners-advise-and-represent-unit-owners-of-ashton-asoke-on-the-potential-or-contingent-risk-of-impact-on-the-right-over-the-properties/

 

The central adminstrative court, subject to a likely appeal to the Supreme Administrative Court, has revoked one or more building permits for an already completed high-rise luxury condo project. So what exactly does that mean?

 

Lord knows, considering how things work here. One thing seems pretty clear -- nothing meaningful is likely to physically happen with the building / development itself until what could be a very drawn out appeals process is ultimately settled.

 

In the meantime, however, I suspect the recent court ruling casts a considerable cloud over the ownership status of the existing owner-occupants. Not that they're likely to see the complex demolished, ever or any time soon. But the current case certainly would likely cast a pall over anyone looking to sell their existing unit under these cloudy circumstances.

 

Separate from this case, I've watched the snail's pace crawling developments in the somewhat similar (but different) Aetas Ruamrudee case for many years. And as noted, that condo-hotel complex is still there and in business AFAIK, despite allegedly having been built too tall on a street not having sufficient width per Bangkok building regulations. The developer lost that case, AFAIK, but after that, the matter went back to the BMA, and thereupon seems to have fallen into a deep, dark invisible hole of Thai bureaucracy....

 

Stay tuned....

 

 

[smutcakes]

The problem with all of these and possibly the one in Pattaya as well, is that everyone knows how they got the permits- exploited grey areas, and assisted by compliant officials who use these grey areas to hide in to avoid being punished.

 

When developers do this they know the general rule is that if things back fire or someone important enough causes a problem, that the BMA, Lands dept, Building Dept who were complicit in the giving the permits are simply going to shut up shop, never admit wrong doing, and just bury the cases and run them around for eternity.

 

The Developers all have the necessary permits, just they got them by 'playing the game'. When someone calls them out the authorities are never going to admit wrong doing so they get stuck in this situation which is really unsolvable.

[stratocaster]

I wonder that if the Ashton project had been 100% Thai instead of a 49/51 venture with a Japanese property company things would be different.

[smutcakes]

15 hours ago, stratocaster said:

I wonder that if the Ashton project had been 100% Thai instead of a 49/51 venture with a Japanese property company things would be different.

Many of the residential developers if not all the major ones have JV's with Japanese firms. Sansiri, AP, Noble, Raimon Land- Japanese bring cheap financing. Even groups like Central have JV's or investments with Japanese- i believe Mitsubishi are part owners of Central Village, Siam Piwat have a foreign partner with Siam Outlet etc etc I seriously doubt the Govt want to pee of Japanese investment.

 

And for Ananda and Mitsui, its not as if they are developing to hold- they develop with the Thai partner with majority and then sell the individual units as per the Condo Act- so eventually the idea would be that like most condos in Bangkok the foreign ownership is probably less than 10-20%.