The Thai elite and well connected have always fun roughshod over the poor and it doesn't appear that things will change in the near future.

The elite wants the government to be weak and ineffective. The elite are nearly immune to the law and often get away with murder. Do you really thing the government cares about those poor vendors. If the government WERE effective and a lawful lease had expired, it would still take too long to evict the tenants thus the heavy handed action.

This country suffers from way too many problems directly related to the boys in brown's complicity in crime, their inaction, short sightedness and incompetence. As long as these guys circus act doesn't get seriously straightened out and that THEy decide that the law is flexible for some while rigid for others, the country will remain a complete mess. No honest police, no hope. They are the shame of this country.

Refooooorm!

This country suffers from way too many problems directly related to the boys in brown's complicity in crime, their inaction, short sightedness and incompetence. As long as these guys circus act doesn't get seriously straightened out and that THEy decide that the law is flexible for some while rigid for others, the country will remain a complete mess. No honest police, no hope. They are the shame of this country.

Refooooorm!

Sorry, but that is a simplification which is not true.

The country suffers from huge problems of informal power networks that erode all aspects of the formal sector of power distribution. The same what you accuse the police off can be said about Army, civil service and politics. These informal patronage networks reach into the highest echelons of society.

Singling out police just does not describe the reality of the problem.

Correct, but without a police-force that is cleaned from this there cannot be any further cleaning performed.

What's a landowner to do?

The lease had expired months ago and they had been given notice to move.

Exactly. Even if you have a standard 30 year lease, if the owner decides to sell the property two months into the contract and notifies you 30 days in advance, you legally have to move out. The squatters were playing the same game that they had signed up to play 20 years ago (which likely clearly stipulated from the beginning that they were holding precisely NONE of the cards).

Re Soi 10. There was a civil decision recently in favour of those who pursued restitution through the courts. Companies of which Chuwit is director have been instructed to pay out 5.7 million baht. {This may be subject to an appeal} This judgement opens the way for others affected by the 'it was too dark at night time' action to make claims.

Report

Regards

/Correction to figures & link//

That's not a bad settlement from Chuwit's point of view. Not even USD$200k.

What's a landowner to do?

The lease had expired months ago and they had been given notice to move.

Exactly. Even if you have a standard 30 year lease, if the owner decides to sell the property two months into the contract and notifies you 30 days in advance, you legally have to move out. The squatters were playing the same game that they had signed up to play 20 years ago (which likely clearly stipulated from the beginning that they were holding precisely NONE of the cards).

I am not talking about this case and it would depend upon the contract signed

but

If you had a 30 year lease and the owner sold the land would you still not have the lease for the 30 years unless it said something in the contract saying any owner could give you 30 days?

Completely different I know but my lease continues for the full 2 years in Singapore even if the owner sells the condo - which she just has for a tidy 400,000 SGD profit in less than 9 months

What's a landowner to do?

The lease had expired months ago and they had been given notice to move.

Exactly. Even if you have a standard 30 year lease, if the owner decides to sell the property two months into the contract and notifies you 30 days in advance, you legally have to move out. The squatters were playing the same game that they had signed up to play 20 years ago (which likely clearly stipulated from the beginning that they were holding precisely NONE of the cards).

I am not talking about this case and it would depend upon the contract signed

but

If you had a 30 year lease and the owner sold the land would you still not have the lease for the 30 years unless it said something in the contract saying any owner could give you 30 days?

Yes, it would depend on the contract signed, I'm referring to the most common rental contract available in local stationary stores ...which is just about what everyone uses. A lot of landlords modify and add anywhere from a few to up to a dozen clauses to these basic contracts, but they certainly aren't adding clauses that are increasing their tenant's "rights," that's for sure.

The contract is between a particular landlord and particular tenant, it's not between any or all of the property's future owners, who may have no intention of being 'landlords' at all.