Disputing a condominium fine

[wprime]

So my condominium fined me 6000 baht for a non-existent rule.

 

I spoke with the management about it and they said they spoke to a lawyer already and the lawyer told them I've neither broken any rule, nor is there anything in the rules that allows them to impose fines, but they haven't withdrawn the fine stating that there is a proposed rule change at the 2023 AGM that they will use to retrospectively fine me.

 

I'm in the process of selling the condominium and they have said they will refuse to issue a note stating everything is paid.

 

What can I do about this? Is there an ombudsman of sorts that can be used to sort this out or do I need a lawyer?

[soi3eddie]

What is it they accused you of doing? 

Just don't see how a new rule can be applied retrospectively.

What's the full story? Bad history? Seems like you upset someone.

 

 

 

[Jingthing]

Get 6000 more out the buyer and pay it now.

Life is too short.

6000 is nothing in the context of a real estate deal. 

[wprime]

2 minutes ago, soi3eddie said:

What is it they accused you of doing? 

Just don't see how a new rule can be applied retrospectively.

What's the full story? Bad history? Seems like you upset someone.

I don't want to go into too much details on fear of being identified, but I do feel like I've upset someone too but have no idea who or why as I've never actually lived at the property (I inherited it from my late father and I've just been using it for storage).

 

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Get 6000 more out the buyer and pay it now.

Life is too short.

6000 is nothing in the context of a real estate deal. 

It really frustrates me that just accepting unfair losses seems to be the norm.

[Jingthing]

I think it depends on the size.

Normally I understand 6000 baht is worth fighting about for most people in the world, but I'm looking at the context of your story -- selling your condo. 

[OneMoreFarang]

As far as I know the condominium manager (not sure if that is the position) if personally responsible for decisions they make.

So maybe you can threaten manager X to sue him personally if they don't refund your money.

That might scare manager X enough to give it back.

But obviously think this through. Maybe you need exactly that manager later when you sell your unit...

Sometimes life is not fair, and we have to live with that.

[dj230]

I’d just pay it and not break any rules in the future even if it’s a “future rule change”. 
 

 

[FritsSikkink]

1 hour ago, wprime said:

I don't want to go into too much details on fear of being identified, but I do feel like I've upset someone too but have no idea who or why as I've never actually lived at the property (I inherited it from my late father and I've just been using it for storage).

 

It really frustrates me that just accepting unfair losses seems to be the norm.

It is not a norm, just state what you are accused of.

[BigStar]

2 hours ago, wprime said:

they haven't withdrawn the fine stating that there is a proposed rule change at the 2023 AGM that they will use to retrospectively fine me.

So the rule change is merely proposed and may not be adopted. If not, then you're clear legally and morally. Yet if they're going to propose it at the AGM, they must think it has a chance.

 

Or maybe your behavior has proven why the rule is a good one and should have been adopted previously; so then it will be adopted.

 

If adopted, they'll have a moral case, but I think still not a legal one. Maybe, on reflection, you may see they have a point. It's not a lot of money.

 

Threatening to sue won't frighten anyone, as they know you wouldn't spend the time and expense to do so.

 

You may wait and see if they JM really won't sign off on the sale until the B6000 is paid and then pay it. But I'd assume they mean what they say.

[edwardandtubs]

I don't know about condo sales but when I had a problem getting my rental deposit back I went to the Consumer Protection Board at Chaengwattana and filed a complaint. A few weeks (or was it months?) later I was invited back and they told me they thought I had a case, so they talked with the landlord on the phone. In the end we settled and I got some of it back. The money involved was considerably more than 6000 baht and by agreeing to settle I lost a lot more than that, but I did feel a sense of justice, which I imagine is what the OP is looking for.

[scubascuba3]

If you have debt on the condo the office won't issue the letter, that's standard. Just pay the 6k, you've done something they don't like, they have to control owners somehow. Some real muppet condo owners like the ones that build on balconies.

 

Pay the 6k, end of problem, move on, sell condo

[richard_smith237]

Is it something permanent or temporary fir which you’ve been fined for ? 
 

 

In a condo in Bkk that I lived at. 

- Other occupants were charged 20,000 baht when their son (about 6 yrs old) threw some paper out of the balcony.  (not sure if they paid).

 

- Wife’s friend turned up to drop something off, she had a dog in the car (a fluffy little thing) wife was told it dog gets out of car = a fine (no pets allowed) 

 

- We were told Son (2 yrs old) can’t ride his balance bike or we’d get a fine. I told them they’d better call the police ! 
 

- We were also told son couldn’t play with a ball in play area - no ball sports….

 

… The condo committee were making up rules as they went along, new ridiculous rules weekly. 
 

I’ve no idea if any of their fives were paid.
 

IF a rule is not in writing it’s not a rule.
Op should just laugh it off.,

But. If it’s related to building code or so ring similar, then he may need to make corrections.  

[richard_smith237]

46 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

If you have debt on the condo the office won't issue the letter, that's standard. Just pay the 6k, you've done something they don't like, they have to control owners somehow. Some real muppet condo owners like the ones that build on balconies.

 

Pay the 6k, end of problem, move on, sell condo

I guess that depends upon what the rule is… some juristic committees & condo management companies make up ridiculous rules & fines….  & they may be pocketing the fines ! 
 

Some rules are valid (i.e. no pets allowed), others are over the top yet ‘slightly’ understandable; such as no alcohol at the pool (stops idiots getting drunk & being loud, but really what’s wrong with a beer at the pool?)… 

… other rules are just moronic…
 

 

[Peterw42]

9 hours ago, wprime said:

I've neither broken any rule, nor is there anything in the rules that allows them to impose fines,

It would come down to what the fine is for, The manager has some broad powers to levee fines for some broad issues, that are all written into the Condo act.

There are the condo bylaws, like no dogs etc, but there are also broader legislation and fines within the Condominium act. There doesn't need to be a "rule that allows them to impose fines", that authority already exists in the Condominium Act.

There doesn't need to be a specific condo bylaw/rule that covers (for example) enclosing a balcony, because that is covered under broader (changes to common property) laws in the Condominium Act.

[TimeMachine]

Advice.

In this case, pay because you have to to sell your condo. Easiest solution and move on.

 

In future, befriend reception of your next condo. Be a nice sweet cuddly person. And then take your revenge at a later time. Haha. Nah, strike that last bit.

 

[MRToMRT]

Pay it, move on. 

[mikeymike100]

8 hours ago, dj230 said:

I’d just pay it and not break any rules in the future even if it’s a “future rule change”. 
 

 

How can you see into the future, they might change it again?

Without knowing any details its difficult to figure out, but changing the rules retrospectively doesn't seem fair or legal?

[robblok]

10 hours ago, wprime said:

It really frustrates me that just accepting unfair losses seems to be the norm.

Its not the norm just sometimes its better to take a loss then to fight it. Especially if you already have a buyer for your condo. They will want the condo soon. So they got you as even if you fight it it might take time.

 

So do you want all that stress and fight for what you is right or do you take the easy way.

 

That is up to you id take the easy way and forget about the right way But im lazy and dont need extra stress.

[Cake Monster]

10 hours ago, soi3eddie said:

What is it they accused you of doing? 

Just don't see how a new rule can be applied retrospectively.

What's the full story? Bad history? Seems like you upset someone.

 

 

 

It doesn't matter whether you have broken a rule or not.

If you have upset the management in  some way, they will make rules to suit their needs,

Remember ! TIT and, yes , they are able to stop a sale of a property legally for such things as not paying Service Charges Etc.

Just pay the fine and move on

 

[Hamus Yaigh]

Why not bring up the matter at the next AGM in front of everyone?

 

I once had a fine levied on my condo unit for an unpaid fee, it was genuine and 15 years old, but I complained face to face with manager that they never ever informed me about it for 15 years, just let it sit and acquire interest without my knowledge. The management agreed it was unreasonable as I never knew to start with, so waived the fine and I just paid the unpaid fee 15 years later!

[Hummin]

9 hours ago, dj230 said:

I’d just pay it and not break any rules in the future even if it’s a “future rule change”. 
 

 

Vise decission, life is to short to fight every unfair battle, unless you get fueled by it.

 

[chuang]

Still not willing to say what is it......????

[lkn]

The only real claim they could have is, if something you did has caused damage in the order of 6,000 baht.

 

If it is a fine for just violating a rule, and this rule is not in the bylaws, they have no case, OTOH if the JPM is serious about not signing your certificate of no debt, it’ll probably cost you more than 6,000 baht to pursue this issue legally.

 

Who actually issued the fine? JPM? Management? Committee?

 

And very curious about how you can get a fine when you do not live in your condo. This is not about something you caused? E.g. letting pigeons or rats nest in the unit or something like that.

[Mavideol]

18 hours ago, wprime said:

I don't want to go into too much details on fear of being identified, but I do feel like I've upset someone too but have no idea who or why as I've never actually lived at the property (I inherited it from my late father and I've just been using it for storage).

 

It really frustrates me that just accepting unfair losses seems to be the norm.

welcome to Thailand where rules change on a daily basis or as it fits

[bbi1]

Here is another extra reason why NOT to own property in Thailand. Renting is the way to go.

[mikeymike100]

9 minutes ago, bbi1 said:

Here is another extra reason why NOT to own property in Thailand. Renting is the way to go.

There are pros and cons to both renting and owning?

If you own you are responsible, as in this case, for any fines etc, you must pay the common fees and and other fees, as is is a condo? And of course you are stuck with it until you can find a buyer. But you could rent it out?

Renting, you can change condos easily, you are not tied down, but renting is 'lost' money at the end of the day?

 

[pomchop]

You may win the battle but lose the war.  If you have a buyer who is ready to buy and suddenly all goes sideways due to delays or some threats of lawyers/litigation the buyer may walk away...or i suppose buyer could sue you for not disclosing unpaid debt?

 

  Go outside and kick a tree to get rid of frustration. 

 

Then PAY THE MAN.

[lkn]

14 hours ago, bbi1 said:

Here is another extra reason why NOT to own property in Thailand. Renting is the way to go.

In this case, a renter would actually be in worse situation, as they can be kicked out and have the fine deducted from their deposit.

 

If it wasn’t because OP is about to sell, and JPM (apparently?) is threatening to not sign certificate of no debt, they could just ignore it.

[wprime]

On 1/4/2023 at 5:09 PM, lkn said:

The only real claim they could have is, if something you did has caused damage in the order of 6,000 baht.

 

If it is a fine for just violating a rule, and this rule is not in the bylaws, they have no case, OTOH if the JPM is serious about not signing your certificate of no debt, it’ll probably cost you more than 6,000 baht to pursue this issue legally.

 

Who actually issued the fine? JPM? Management? Committee?

 

And very curious about how you can get a fine when you do not live in your condo. This is not about something you caused? E.g. letting pigeons or rats nest in the unit or something like that.

So I've got some clarification.

 

There is a rule pertaining to the internal use of the condos which I was accused by a resident of breaking, but I obviously wasn't as I don't live there. It's a rule that's impossible to prove because it doesn't affect other tenants and pertains to the use of one's own condo so there's no way they can prove it (unless you do it on the balcony or something). The new rule is being proposed in order to make the first rule enforceable by limiting what can be brought into the condo building. The reason they thought they could fine me was because I was accused of breaking the first rule.

 

Juristic asked me to declare at the AGM that I'm not breaking the first rule and told me that the account can be adjusted later.

[scubascuba3]

57 minutes ago, wprime said:

So I've got some clarification.

 

There is a rule pertaining to the internal use of the condos which I was accused by a resident of breaking, but I obviously wasn't as I don't live there. It's a rule that's impossible to prove because it doesn't affect other tenants and pertains to the use of one's own condo so there's no way they can prove it (unless you do it on the balcony or something). The new rule is being proposed in order to make the first rule enforceable by limiting what can be brought into the condo building. The reason they thought they could fine me was because I was accused of breaking the first rule.

 

Juristic asked me to declare at the AGM that I'm not breaking the first rule and told me that the account can be adjusted later.

Very vague, what exactly do they think you did?