Rented room will be locked by landlord

[Gaccha]

2 hours ago, billd766 said:

is illegally occupying the place. therefore IMHO the owner can do what HE wants with HIS own apartment.

"Illegally" is by definition a matter for the courts, not for the landlord. The lessee has the normal protection from eviction and the normal remedies should the landlord struggle to understand the concept of lawful eviction.

[Captain Monday]

57 minutes ago, Gaccha said:

This is a well established point of law. 

 

As an example, here is the English Law:

 

"Meaning of Belonging to Another

 

An owner can damage their own property if, at the same time, it belongs to someone else – s.10(2) CDA 1971. For example, if a person sets fire to their own house, which is subject to a mortgage, they can still be charged under s.1(1) and (3) CDA 1971 as the mortgagor will have a proprietary right or interest in the property."

 

The lock is subject to the lease. He can be charged with criminal damage.

What the hell does English law have to do with a jurisdiction where the law is whatever a man with a badge says it is? Pay the man with the badge, or maybe some toughs from the taxi rank and the deadbeat foreigner is out on the bones of his rump with or without his possessions. 
 

If this aggrieved party, this man who can’t pay two months rent later has the financial means to engage lawyers in the official legal system, all the best to him. 

[kingstonkid]

On 5/27/2023 at 9:13 AM, itsari said:

The landlord has to apply for an eviction notice from a judge after giving the 7 days notice to the tenant .

The procedure can take many months .

What do you do while you are taking him to court to get the lock removed?    The bottom line this is the landlord guaranteeing that the tenant is not going to pull a midnight move and leave you without the rent.

 

A simple solution is to have all friends cousins and significant others PAY THE F'ING RENT.

 

The landlord is not locking you out. HE?SHE is locking your stuff in.  There is a difference.

[Gaccha]

9 hours ago, Captain Monday said:

What the hell does English law have to do with a jurisdiction where the law is whatever a man with a badge says it is

This is is a great learning opportunity for you, as you have struggled to grasp the reason why I mentioned a point of English Law. I am going to assume you raise the question in good faith.

 

The point that I was responding to was the disbelief on the other commentator that a person could be charged with criminal damage even against their own property.

 

Their disbelief was unrelated to Thailand itself but simply a more general disbelief. Hence if I could show that a legal system recognises the idea of criminal damage to the person's own property then I would be able to disabuse the commentator of his false understanding of legal principles. I have done that.

 

What I have not done is what you seem to believe I have done, which is to discuss the practical application of the law in this case. But I have helped clarify the legal issues surrounding the possible practical application, which makes my comment rather useful.

 

[FritsSikkink]

10 hours ago, Gaccha said:

You are the lessor! You created a lease on the property. That alienates you from the property for the duration of the lease.

The people who rent sign a contract in which it states when they need to pay the rent and what the consequences are if they don't. Not paying rent ends the contract. Then I do what i want with it. Hell will freeze over before I get a problem with the police. 

[itsari]

16 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

What do you do while you are taking him to court to get the lock removed?    The bottom line this is the landlord guaranteeing that the tenant is not going to pull a midnight move and leave you without the rent.

 

A simple solution is to have all friends cousins and significant others PAY THE F'ING RENT.

 

The landlord is not locking you out. HE?SHE is locking your stuff in.  There is a difference.

That's the risk of being a landlord when complying with the law.

If you don't want the risk of a moonlight flit then don't become a landlord.

 

[FritsSikkink]

10 hours ago, Gaccha said:

This is a well established point of law. 

 

As an example, here is the English Law:

 

"Meaning of Belonging to Another

 

An owner can damage their own property if, at the same time, it belongs to someone else – s.10(2) CDA 1971. For example, if a person sets fire to their own house, which is subject to a mortgage, they can still be charged under s.1(1) and (3) CDA 1971 as the mortgagor will have a proprietary right or interest in the property."

 

The lock is subject to the lease. He can be charged with criminal damage.

English law isn't Thai law. I don't have a mortgage and not paying rent voids the lease.  

[Captain Monday]

11 minutes ago, Gaccha said:

This is is a great learning opportunity for you, as you have struggled to grasp the reason why I mentioned a point of English Law. I am going to assume you raise the question in good faith.

 

The point that I was responding to was the disbelief on the other commentator that a person could be charged with criminal damage even against their own property.

 

Their disbelief was unrelated to Thailand itself but simply a more general disbelief. Hence if I could show that a legal system recognises the idea of criminal damage to the person's own property then I would be able to disabuse the commentator of his false understanding of legal principles. I have done that.

 

What I have not done is what you seem to believe I have done, which is to discuss the practical application of the law in this case. But I have helped clarify the legal issues surrounding the possible practical application, which makes my comment rather useful.

 

 

Not at all informative and I have not struggled to understand the off topic tangent you are off on.

 

Everyone knows renters have legal rights in developed countries and cannot be locked out by a angry landlord or have utilities cut under extralegal circumstances. I think many of us come to Thailand to get away from quaint niceties like "English Law". Where bums can squat on your property for weeks or months and damage it walking away with no penalty at all. But I quite liked English law maybe before 1870 or so. There should be debtors prisons re-established where scroungers could be held to work off the debts and damages they caused.

[Gaccha]

1 minute ago, FritsSikkink said:

Thai law. I don't have a mortgage

Okay. This is another learning opportunity for you.

 

The English statutory law which I quote uses the example of a mortgage (it literally says in the statute that it is an example) to show that where somebody else has a proprietary interest besides the owner of the property, then criminal damage is a legal possibility.

 

It is irrelevant to my point that it is a mortgage. It is irrelevant to my point that it is English law. 

[FritsSikkink]

15 minutes ago, Gaccha said:

Their disbelief was unrelated to Thailand

 

No, it is Thailand related as I live here and have multiple properties. No rent, people are out in no time, whatever you think their rights are. Besides when having a right is one thing getting it is another. You have no clue how it works here.

[FritsSikkink]

1 minute ago, Gaccha said:

Okay. This is another learning opportunity for you.

 

The English statutory law which I quote uses the example of a mortgage (it literally says in the statute that it is an example) to show that where somebody else has a proprietary interest besides the owner of the property, then criminal damage is a legal possibility.

 

It is irrelevant to my point that it is a mortgage. It is irrelevant to my point that it is English law. 

I am in Thailand and don't have anything to do with English law, that should be a learning point for you as others stated this before but you keep rambling about it. 

[Gaccha]

5 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

No, it is Thailand related as I live here and have multiple

It was not Thailand related. He simply expresses the general claim-- a legal claim-- that since it is his property he can do what he wants. This is an interesting assertion based on his misunderstanding of the concept of ownership of property. I have helped remedy his misunderstanding.

[Gaccha]

5 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

you keep rambling about it. 

I am in fact doing the exact opposite; I am being very precise and on point.

[FritsSikkink]

1 minute ago, Gaccha said:

It was not Thailand related. He simply expresses the general claim-- a legal claim-- that since it is his property he can do what he wants. This is an interesting assertion based on his misunderstanding of the concept of ownership of property. I have helped remedy his misunderstanding.

It was my comment you reacted on and I am in Thailand. You haven't helped anyone and your understanding of Thai law and how things work generally in Thailand are way of the mark

[FritsSikkink]

3 minutes ago, Gaccha said:

I am in fact doing the exact opposite; I am being very precise and on point.

Goodbye, enough of your rambling.

[billd766]

11 hours ago, Gaccha said:

This is a well established point of law. 

 

As an example, here is the English Law:

 

"Meaning of Belonging to Another

 

An owner can damage their own property if, at the same time, it belongs to someone else – s.10(2) CDA 1971. For example, if a person sets fire to their own house, which is subject to a mortgage, they can still be charged under s.1(1) and (3) CDA 1971 as the mortgagor will have a proprietary right or interest in the property."

 

The lock is subject to the lease. He can be charged with criminal damage.

It might be a well established law in the UK but the thread is about Thailand and its laws, NOT the UK.

[billd766]

11 hours ago, Gaccha said:

You are the lessor! You created a lease on the property. That alienates you from the property for the duration of the lease.

If he does not pay the rent on time then he has broken the lease contract and it reverts back to the owner.

[billd766]

11 hours ago, Gaccha said:

"Illegally" is by definition a matter for the courts, not for the landlord. The lessee has the normal protection from eviction and the normal remedies should the landlord struggle to understand the concept of lawful eviction.

You are almost correct.

 

However in Thailand, Thai laws apply and NOT UK or any other law.

[billd766]

58 minutes ago, Gaccha said:

This is is a great learning opportunity for you, as you have struggled to grasp the reason why I mentioned a point of English Law. I am going to assume you raise the question in good faith.

 

The point that I was responding to was the disbelief on the other commentator that a person could be charged with criminal damage even against their own property.

 

Their disbelief was unrelated to Thailand itself but simply a more general disbelief. Hence if I could show that a legal system recognises the idea of criminal damage to the person's own property then I would be able to disabuse the commentator of his false understanding of legal principles. I have done that.

 

What I have not done is what you seem to believe I have done, which is to discuss the practical application of the law in this case. But I have helped clarify the legal issues surrounding the possible practical application, which makes my comment rather useful.

 

English law does NOT apply in Thailand or anywhere else in the world, other than England.

 

This thread is about Thailand only.

 

YOU are missing the point of the thread

[NanLaew]

On 5/27/2023 at 2:40 AM, Chicksaw said:

Get on your knees and beg for a grace period. Wrap your arms around his leg and weep and tell him that you gave your last baht to save an orphan with cancer.

 

Sometimes it works, sometime it doesn't. But ever since weed's been legal a lot of things work that didn't use to.

I've also heard that since weed became 'legal', a lot of people are forgetting all sorts of payments and obligations.

[Sandboxer]

I always look forward to reading tenant-cheated machete wielding local landlords VS. "I know my legal rights even though I'm a deadbeat loser" entitled snowflake GenZ Falangitstani stories.  They're the BEST!????

[murraynz]

On 5/27/2023 at 12:27 AM, d4dang said:

actually it is my next door neighbor....looks like he has to leave...legal or not

Haha...expats who don't pay their rent on time... Do not deserve any sympathy.. If you can't afford your obligations, go home... 

[NativeBob]

The whole thing is illegal:

so called "landlord" doesn't pay any (!!!) taxes from your payments,

he posses no license and/or legal status of his activity,

so called "contract" has no weight, can't be use in the court or anything else.

The "contract/agreement" thingy could be written in ancient Aramaic - matters not. The owner of the house/flat/room/cell can do whatever whenever he/she/it fancies. Even sell property with tenant, change monthly payments and schedules. Isn't that exciting?!
 

On the subject: talk, be nice to "owner", don't "wai" too much, try to convince he/she/it nicely. If not than move away asap.

[kingstonkid]

5 hours ago, itsari said:

That's the risk of being a landlord when complying with the law.

If you don't want the risk of a moonlight flit then don't become a landlord.

 

LOL you have not been here long I take it.

 

If his neighbor feels that he is being done wrong then simple solution is to call the cops and see who wins.

[NativeBob]

17 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

If his neighbor feels that he is being done wrong then simple solution is to call the cops and see who wins.

and always keep payment slips (from ATM) of payments. No cash, gold bars or shiny necklaces as an alternative form of pmnt. Insist on bank deposits only.

[itsari]

18 minutes ago, kingstonkid said:

LOL you have not been here long I take it.

 

If his neighbor feels that he is being done wrong then simple solution is to call the cops and see who wins.

If I have been here 10 years or 10 days the law on eviction of tenants is a fact.

If you know of people breaking the law when evicting tenants that does not make it right  however long you have been in Thailand.

[Mises]

18 minutes ago, itsari said:

If I have been here 10 years or 10 days the law on eviction of tenants is a fact.

If you know of people breaking the law when evicting tenants that does not make it right  however long you have been in Thailand.

You are correct and all those stating you are not should do some basic research.  They could start here:

https://www.opera.co.th/post/renting-your-real-estate-in-thailand-how-to-evict-a-bad-tenant

 

"Has your lease agreement come to an end, your tenant is no longer paying the rent or causing damage to your property?

The first step in order for your tenant to leave your apartment or villa will be to send a formal notice drafted by your lawyer stating explicitly that the tenant has a period of 7 days to leave the premises before launching an eviction procedure before the judge.

If your tenant does not leave the premises, you will have to present your request for expulsion and damages in court. The procedure can take between 3 and 6 months. Important: if the Thai law is not very conciliatory with the tenants not paying the rent, some actions are prohibited on your part: - You cannot enter the property using duplicate keys without the consent of the tenant - You cannot empty the property of the tenant’s personal belongings without permission from the judge."

[itsari]

2 minutes ago, Mises said:

You are correct and all those stating you are not should do some basic research.  They could start here:

https://www.opera.co.th/post/renting-your-real-estate-in-thailand-how-to-evict-a-bad-tenant

 

"Has your lease agreement come to an end, your tenant is no longer paying the rent or causing damage to your property?

The first step in order for your tenant to leave your apartment or villa will be to send a formal notice drafted by your lawyer stating explicitly that the tenant has a period of 7 days to leave the premises before launching an eviction procedure before the judge.

If your tenant does not leave the premises, you will have to present your request for expulsion and damages in court. The procedure can take between 3 and 6 months. Important: if the Thai law is not very conciliatory with the tenants not paying the rent, some actions are prohibited on your part: - You cannot enter the property using duplicate keys without the consent of the tenant - You cannot empty the property of the tenant’s personal belongings without permission from the judge."

Thank you , so much ignorance amongst so many on this forum .

[FritsSikkink]

11 minutes ago, Mises said:

You are correct and all those stating you are not should do some basic research.  They could start here:

https://www.opera.co.th/post/renting-your-real-estate-in-thailand-how-to-evict-a-bad-tenant

 

"Has your lease agreement come to an end, your tenant is no longer paying the rent or causing damage to your property?

The first step in order for your tenant to leave your apartment or villa will be to send a formal notice drafted by your lawyer stating explicitly that the tenant has a period of 7 days to leave the premises before launching an eviction procedure before the judge.

If your tenant does not leave the premises, you will have to present your request for expulsion and damages in court. The procedure can take between 3 and 6 months. Important: if the Thai law is not very conciliatory with the tenants not paying the rent, some actions are prohibited on your part: - You cannot enter the property using duplicate keys without the consent of the tenant - You cannot empty the property of the tenant’s personal belongings without permission from the judge."

And in the real world, your things will be out on the street and you will find that the door has new locks.

[Mises]

2 minutes ago, FritsSikkink said:

And in the real world, your things will be out on the street and you will find that the door has new locks.

That is illegal, so is disconnecting the electricity and/or the water.

Yes, you may get away with it with a tenant that cannot afford a lawyer or is afraid to go to the police.  Also if the landlord is a policeman but you are not.  In the real world you will be fair game for a 'fine' from the police.