Rights of a sitting Tennant

[spornb]

We lived in our house some 12 yrs

 

We sold it and were paid, the contract was registered at the land office and only said land and buildings

 

it was verbally agreed we caretake for three months, DURING WHICH TIME WE LEISURELY PACK AND MOVE

 

Two weeks later everything change the purchaser says we have no right to remain or contract

 

We are physically evicted

 

We are not allowed to remove our furniture including many family antiques

 

We have criminal cases and civil cases in progress but they keep adjourning them

 

We have doubts on the honesty of our lawyer

 

In the UK we would have sitting tenants rights and some protection, I am aware we are in thailand

 

THE  LOCAL POLICE DO NOT WANT TO KNOW

 

ANY INPUT OR HELP VERY GREATLY APPRECIATED we are in great distress

[Kwasaki]

If you have been paid and have a contract just leave taking everything with you including the light tubes and bulbs. 

Sounds like a con scare. 

[worgeordie]

Verbally  ...... that was your mistake ,

regards worgeordie

[mal129]

"We are physically evicted"
 

"We have criminal cases and civil cases in progress but they keep adjourning them"

 

By the sounds of it, it's past the 3 months and locks have probably been changed and/or people are living in the house. 

 

I would appeal to the new owners to be allowed to get your personal items. Also see if you can get a recorded admission that they agreed to allow you 3 months to vacate.  That might help in a court case. I know that verbal agreements are legally binding in many countries, but of course TIT. Worth a try in my opinion.

 

In any case, I wish you luck and hope things work out in the your favor. 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Antonymous]

Normally when you sell a house the Sale and Purchase Agreement will state what is included in the sale and what is not. You did have a Sale and Purchase Agreement didn't you?

 

So check what was stated about the furniture and other belongings in the house. Included in the sale or not? If stated that you would remove certain items then you may still be in your right to do so, even though you have been evicted already.

 

Within that S&PA you should also have stated clearly your agreement to remain in the property for three months and what responsibilities that would confer on you. Clearly you didn't and that was expressed verbally, which I'm afraid has no legal standing.

 

If you employed a lawyer or a real estate agent to handle the sale and they did not draw up a proper S&PA, you might have some recourse to sue them, but this is Thailand and your chances may be slim.

[Kwasaki]

3 hours ago, spornb said:

We have doubts on the honesty of our lawyer

Well get another he maybe stringing things so he gets more money that's usual game. 

 

Ask to see a police chief saying you were phisically evicted. 

[problemfarang]

if you can prove that the things at home are belong to you (like bills, invoice, etc.) you can get them easily. if you dont have.. probably will be a problem. Most likely they will find some witnesses telling to police that all that stuff are belongs to them and you are lying. 

[robblok]

1 hour ago, Antonymous said:

Normally when you sell a house the Sale and Purchase Agreement will state what is included in the sale and what is not. You did have a Sale and Purchase Agreement didn't you?

 

So check what was stated about the furniture and other belongings in the house. Included in the sale or not? If stated that you would remove certain items then you may still be in your right to do so, even though you have been evicted already.

 

Within that S&PA you should also have stated clearly your agreement to remain in the property for three months and what responsibilities that would confer on you. Clearly you didn't and that was expressed verbally, which I'm afraid has no legal standing.

 

If you employed a lawyer or a real estate agent to handle the sale and they did not draw up a proper S&PA, you might have some recourse to sue them, but this is Thailand and your chances may be slim.

I don't understand why people don't put important stuff like this in a written agreement. I mean its one of the most basic things all over the world. Now he is in for a lot of trouble.

 

[Kwasaki]

15 minutes ago, robblok said:

I don't understand why people don't put important stuff like this in a written agreement. I mean its one of the most basic things all over the world. Now he is in for a lot of trouble.

 

Agree for me it's hard to understand how he was physically removed without involving the police the whole thing sounds not right, even in Thailand. 

[sanuk711]

55 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Ask to see a police chief saying you were phisically evicted. 

If a court case is already proceeding, I doubt the police will interfere at this point--

 

Quote-"We have criminal cases and civil cases in progress but they keep adjourning them"

[khunPer]

5 hours ago, spornb said:

We sold it and were paid, the contract was registered at the land office and only said land and buildings

 

it was verbally agreed we caretake for three months, DURING WHICH TIME WE LEISURELY PACK AND MOVE

To my understanding, a property change owner the moment the new owner is registered on back of the title deed at the land office, and payment is settled.

 

Even a verbal agreement in principle is legally valid, then it can later be difficult to prove exactly what has been verbally agreed.

 

Any rent/lease under three years is not registered at a land office.

 

In my view, you need to consult a lawyer for legal advise.

 

In the always unbearable crystal bright light of hindsight, you should have packed and moved out before transferring the property. With a sales agreement, and a cash deposit in hand, you would be financially protected for moving-expenses in case buyer backed out before the transfer and didn't settle of balance. An often used clause in a Thai property sales agreement is, that buyer shall still pay the full agreed sales price in compensation, in case of buyer cancels the contract, and same applies for seller.

[newnative]

     This is a good example of why it is so important to have everything in writing.  Everything.  Take the time to make a contract addendum that lists everything that conveys and everything that does not convey.  If it's agreed that the seller can remain for a designated period, have that in writing with a specific exit date and with specific details as to who pays for what, what happens with damages, etc.  Never assume anything.  Well, I just assumed. . .  Don't.  Get it in writing.  

[Kwasaki]

23 minutes ago, khunPer said:

To my understanding, a property change owner the moment the new owner is registered on back of the title deed at the land office, and payment is settled.

 

Even a verbal agreement in principle is legally valid, then it can later be difficult to prove exactly what has been verbally agreed.

 

Any rent/lease under three years is not registered at a land office.

 

In my view, you need to consult a lawyer for legal advise.

 

In the always unbearable crystal bright light of hindsight, you should have packed and moved out before transferring the property. With a sales agreement, and a cash deposit in hand, you would be financially protected for moving-expenses in case buyer backed out before the transfer and didn't settle of balance. An often used clause in a Thai property sales agreement is, that buyer shall still pay the full agreed sales price in compensation, in case of buyer cancels the contract, and same applies for seller.

He has a lawyer who couldn't, wouldn't or was paid to let happen the Physical removal of is client to take place, come on.!!!!!!!!! 

[Kwasaki]

14 minutes ago, newnative said:

     This is a good example of why it is so important to have everything in writing.  Everything.  Take the time to make a contract addendum that lists everything that conveys and everything that does not convey.  If it's agreed that the seller can remain for a designated period, have that in writing with a specific exit date and with specific details as to who pays for what, what happens with damages, etc.  Never assume anything.  Well, I just assumed. . .  Don't.  Get it in writing.  

Well OP had a lawyer but also had a verbal agreement without witnesses it would seem but it still does not explain physical removal. 

[spornb]

The sale and purchase agreement was done in the land office, and included only land and buildings, in the narative bit

 

It did not include what was NOT included

 

There was no written agreement for us to stay and caretake for three months, YES on my behalf a major mistake

 

Problem is two danish and one thai are all lying together in unison

 

In court again yesterday Thai lady as registered owner said they paid 4.0 M for the land and buildings and 4.0m for the non listed F and F

 

The exhusband says we have no contract to stay for three months I reply they have no contract for the moveable F and F

 

Her ex husband then said he would release all if we paid back 500,000, I replied blakkmail if in all honesty they had paid 4.0 m for F & F make no sense to sell them back for just over 10% of cost

 

Now adjourned until dec 5

 

These two have apparently been involved in similar scams in the past, and had the assistance of the police so we understand

[spornb]

Can anyone give me reference to Thai law on sitting tenant and the like 

[newnative]

4 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Well OP had a lawyer but also had a verbal agreement without witnesses it would seem but it still does not explain physical removal. 

     A lot seems to be unexplained and I have no idea when the lawyer entered the picture.  My point was to get everything in writing in detail on the contract before the sale.  As a buyer--and I've bought a number of condos--I would never agree verbally to allow the seller to remain in the property I've bought for a vague 3 months--or 3 days, for that matter.  If I agreed to something like that it would have to be in writing with very specific rental terms like a regular rental contract--which is what it is, regardless of whether it's 3 days, 3 weeks, or 3 months.  

 

[Kwasaki]

8 minutes ago, spornb said:

Can anyone give me reference to Thai law on sitting tenant and the like 

No sorry but do you know of a heavy mob for hire like the one that evicted you. 

[MrJ2U]

No contract.  Your out of luck.  Thailand doesn't recognize verbal contracts.

 

Did you agree to pay rent for the 3 months?

 

If I bought a house I would expect it to be empty by the closing date.

 

Hopefully you can get your things out.  I don't understand anyone wanting your personal effects unless things got nasty towards the end.  

 

Good luck and congrats on selling your house.  No mean feat in Thailand.

Edited September 24, 2021 by MrJ2U

[Mayhem11]

The moral is such hold over agreements should be documented as a contract. In a contract for the sale of land vacant possession is what the buyer bargains for.  Hand shake agreements are worthless.

[Antonymous]

2 hours ago, spornb said:

The sale and purchase agreement was done in the land office, and included only land and buildings, in the narative bit

 

It did not include what was NOT included

 

There was no written agreement for us to stay and caretake for three months, YES on my behalf a major mistake

 

Problem is two danish and one thai are all lying together in unison

 

In court again yesterday Thai lady as registered owner said they paid 4.0 M for the land and buildings and 4.0m for the non listed F and F

 

The exhusband says we have no contract to stay for three months I reply they have no contract for the moveable F and F

 

Her ex husband then said he would release all if we paid back 500,000, I replied blakkmail if in all honesty they had paid 4.0 m for F & F make no sense to sell them back for just over 10% of cost

 

Now adjourned until dec 5

 

These two have apparently been involved in similar scams in the past, and had the assistance of the police so we understand

I don't think you know what a Sale & Purchase Agreement is. You say above that:

 

"The sale and purchase agreement was done in the land office, and included only land and buildings, in the narative bit"

 

This is flat out wrong. The S&PA is a contract entered into at the time that an offer is agreed. It sets out, inter alia, the full details of the property for sale, any conditions that apply, the amount of the deposit that has been paid (usually on the date of the S&PA), the final sum to be paid on closure and the expected date of closure (ie the date that the property will be transferred at the land office).

 

The S&PA is a private contract between seller and buyer and it is not presented at or to the Land Office. The land officers never have to see it. It is often the case, for example, that the actual selling price in the S&PA is higher than the selling price declared to the land office. This is so that transfer fees and taxes will be minimised.

 

From what you have told us so far, it appears that you never entered into a S&PA.

 

Then you've said that:

 

"In court again yesterday Thai lady as registered owner said they paid 4.0 M for the land and buildings and 4.0m for the non listed F and F"

 

So you sold the property for 8 million baht, right? Before the offer was made, did you mention (better yet write) that the land and buildings were to be sold separately to the F&F? Did you ever agree what proportion of the total selling price would be F&F? Unless you had these important details written into the S&PA the buyer cannot claim to have paid 4 million for the F&F.

 

My guess is that at the time of the transfer in the land office you all agreed to state a lower selling price of 4 million for the property to avoid paying higher fees and taxes. Is that what happened? If so you lied and had better be careful what you state while in court. If I'm right, I assume that the buyer is using this anomaly to suggest that the other 4 million that they paid must have been for F&F. Of course this is nonsense.

 

End of the day, you are screwed if you didn't have the nouse to get a proper S&PA drawn up, signed and witnessed at the time you accepted their offer. Taking this to court may end up in a heap of trouble.

 

 

[Kwasaki]

2 minutes ago, Antonymous said:

I don't think you know what a Sale & Purchase Agreement is. You say above that:

 

"The sale and purchase agreement was done in the land office, and included only land and buildings, in the narative bit"

 

This is flat out wrong. The S&PA is a contract entered into at the time that an offer is agreed. It sets out, inter alia, the full details of the property for sale, any conditions that apply, the amount of the deposit that has been paid (usually on the date of the S&PA), the final sum to be paid on closure and the expected date of closure (ie the date that the property will be transferred at the land office).

 

The S&PA is a private contract between seller and buyer and it is not presented at or to the Land Office. The land officers never have to see it. It is often the case, for example, that the actual selling price in the S&PA is higher than the selling price declared to the land office. This is so that transfer fees and taxes will be minimised.

 

From what you have told us so far, it appears that you never entered into a S&PA.

 

Then you've said that:

 

"In court again yesterday Thai lady as registered owner said they paid 4.0 M for the land and buildings and 4.0m for the non listed F and F"

 

So you sold the property for 8 million baht, right? Before the offer was made, did you mention (better yet write) that the land and buildings were to be sold separately to the F&F? Did you ever agree what proportion of the total selling price would be F&F? Unless you had these important details written into the S&PA the buyer cannot claim to have paid 4 million for the F&F.

 

My guess is that at the time of the transfer in the land office you all agreed to state a lower selling price of 4 million for the property to avoid paying higher fees and taxes. Is that what happened? If so you lied and had better be careful what you state while in court. If I'm right, I assume that the buyer is using this anomaly to suggest that the other 4 million that they paid must have been for F&F. Of course this is nonsense.

 

End of the day, you are screwed if you didn't have the nouse to get a proper S&PA drawn up, signed and witnessed at the time you accepted their offer. Taking this to court may end up in a heap of trouble.

 

 

I think OP is a troll.

[khunPer]

3 hours ago, spornb said:

The sale and purchase agreement was done in the land office, and included only land and buildings, in the narative bit

 

It did not include what was NOT included

To my knowledge the land department/office only register owner of title deeds, nothing else, and not a sales agreement. When the deed is transferred and registered to a new owner, then that's the legal owner of the property.

 

The Thai rent/lease law in English translation is HERE.

Edited September 24, 2021 by khunPer

[khunPer]

3 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Well OP had a lawyer but also had a verbal agreement without witnesses it would seem but it still does not explain physical removal. 

OP is of course not going to see the lawyer he already used, who didn't seems to be able to sort the things out for his client. OP needs to get legal advice from a lawyer, preferably a specialist in proterty transfers....????

[NoshowJones]

17 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

Well OP had a lawyer but also had a verbal agreement without witnesses it would seem but it still does not explain physical removal. 

Physical removal in a normal country would mean assault, but with this being a military governed Banana Republic ????

[Kwasaki]

2 hours ago, possum1931 said:

Physical removal in a normal country would mean assault, but with this being a military governed Banana Republic ????

I don't believe in that the military are better than the police. 

OP was set up. 

[Kwasaki]

29 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

I don't believe in that the military are better than the police. 

OP was set up. 

To report police negligents OP

ombudsman.co.th.

[Puccini]

2 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

To report police negligents OP

ombudsman.co.th.

In what way is the police negligent or has been negligent in this case? The OP has given no details on this subject.

[spornb]

20 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

I think OP is a troll.

Sadly this is very real

 

there was no separate sale and purchase agreement

 

Viewed first time on a Tuesday, offer made, tried to improve it but could not Accepted offer

was paid 8.0 M at land office on Thursday, at least I got my money

 

21 hours ago, MrJ2U said:

Thailand doesn't recognize verbal contracts.

This statement is if factual helpful can anyone else verify it

The three purchasers are lying in unison and  are all saying there was a verbal contract for the sale of F & F

If and only if the above statement is correct there claim is then not valid

[spornb]

3 hours ago, Kwasaki said:

 

OP was set up. 

Thank you yes thats our belief, we were set up,  but at least i got paid all the money just missing belongings amounting to well over 2.0M

 

We have registered a lien over the property  and land at the land office

 

On investigating the purchasers there is a lot of evidence of similar wrong doings in collusion with the local police about six years ago

 

I do not want to open the can of worms on police complicity and involvement it could be too dangerous, the same police are again involved

 

Lawyer was employed about a week after sale, I think and believe honest, I hope so 

 

When we were evicted both he and the police were present

 

By eviction I mean we had gone out of our house and the purchasers blocked our drive and prevented us entering  our property on returning from shopping, our maid was present as was the gardener and my wifes son, the house was not left vacant

 

Our agreement to remain until end of october and caretake the property was NOT documented

 

We at this stage still had not handed over the keys to the houses but had given a gate key only

 

The purchasers then forced entry, that again we reported to the police, but they did nothing

 

Our lawyer has commenced criminal proceedings on several counts