Thai Condominium Act Amended

[george]

Thai Condominium Act amended

Clarity for condo owners

BANGKOK: -- The rights of condominium buyers will be protected under an amended Condominium Act that will take effect on July 4, according to the Lands Department.

Surasith Sahasthamrangsee, the director of the department's Real Estate Promotion Office, said the new law clarified many issues that had been disputed between developers and unit buyers.

It makes developers accountable for claims made in their advertisements and imposes fines of 50,000 to 100,000 baht ... [more...]

-- Bangkok Post 2008-03-27

[Canadianvisitor]

Accountability is a nice move forward.

[ericB]

Well is it anything specifically intended for Foreigners who own Condominium in this article related to a law? I read it, but appart the usual 'that is made shall be what was promised' (common sense isn't it?) I see nothing but the usual blah blah.

To avoid the usual abuse, I precise my comment is directed to the Bangkok Post article, not at all directed to Georges , or to the law itself ... That article give no informations that can be critical for a foreigner who already own or who is looking to own one (as I am looking currently).

Edited March 27, 2008 by george
Excess quoting removed

[Oliver Reed]

100,000 BT fine.. ...sure gonna scare the pants off the developers of these multi million baht developments

[North]

Isn´t this just an invitation to break the rules ?

If the maximum fine cannot exceed 100,000 baht then builders of big projects costing possibly several hundreds millions of baht can just calculate how much extra money they would make by breaking the rules, pay the fine and put the rest of the money in their pocket !

North

[icemaniac]

100,000 BT fine.. ...sure gonna scare the pants off the developers of these multi million baht developments

I can't believe they write new laws with riduculously low fines still. I thought the reason for the preposterous fines was that the laws had been on the books for so many years when Thailand was poor poor poor. But now I see that the mentality is still there. This is the type of instance where they could really sock it to 'em because they are dealing with rich developers. Not the average somchai.

[danmtl]

Still doesn't give you much specially to Foreigner who want to buy one and the way Law is follow in Thailand not much new until they give you the right to a Visa when you own a condominium i will never invest in Thailand other south east asia country are much more practocal and complaisant .Bull as always from Thailand

[A_Traveller]

My understanding is that the the updates to the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 {1979} proposed are designed to alleviate difficulties involved with the enforcement and implementation of the existing Act, and additional measures to protect condominium unit buyers are also being introduced.

The significant amendments are:-

• the definition of "Co-Owners" will be further clarified
  
• the ownership right of co-owners to common property shall be according to the ratio of the official appraisal price prescribed by the relevant authorities
  
• the land official will have the authority to register the transfer of the condominium unit without requiring a "certificate of free of debts,” subject to other requirements being fulfilled
  
• standard rules and regulations governing condominium juristic persons are also proposed
  

In particular, under the proposed amendment the definition of "co-owners" will be clarified as "a person whose name is registered in a condominium unit title deed in each condominium” whilst the existing Act provides only that it is an “owner of condominium unit in each condominium.”

Point three above allows the relevant official, provided certain conditions are fulfilled, to register the transfer of the condominium unit without the "certificate of free of debts,” which is a critical document required for the registration under the existing Act. This will solve the problem of situations where the manager of the condominium juristic person does not issue a "certificate of free of debts" to the co-owner.

Another significant amendment is the standardisation of the rules and regulations for condominium juristic persons by prescribing a standard form with clarifications stipulating the qualifications of the manager of the condominium juristic person as well as the process for the appointment and removal of the manager of the condominium juristic person, which, perhaps surprisingly, are not currently prescribed in the existing Act.

Other areas reviewed include:-

• The evidence and other particulars required for the application to register the condominium.
  
• The ownership right of co-owners over the common property.
  
• The expenses and taxes for which co-owners shall jointly be responsible, including payment of the same and measures to enforce payment obligations.
  
• The rules and procedures for meetings of co-owners, the co-owners´ right to call a meeting and the voting procedure in a meeting.
  
• Foreigners´ entitlement to own condominium units in proportion with the area of the condominium units.
  

Regards

PS This post is based on email conversations with knowledgeable individuals. I've not seen authoritative texts at this time.

Edited March 27, 2008 by A_Traveller

[animatic]

100,000 BT fine.. ...sure gonna scare the pants off the developers of these multi million baht developments

I can't believe they write new laws with riduculously low fines still. I thought the reason for the preposterous fines was that the laws had been on the books for so many years when Thailand was poor poor poor. But now I see that the mentality is still there. This is the type of instance where they could really sock it to 'em because they are dealing with rich developers. Not the average somchai.

Yes, a wrist slap that they pre-make up for just in case in the sales price.

it doesn't say 'per item 100,000 baht', so 10 things are wrong

it's all one case, 100k baht over an out. The still made 2 million.

Once the project is completed, the developer has to submit its brochure

to the juristic person, the legal body that manages the condominium,

to confirm that the finished product matches what had been claimed.

Isn't this much of the time the SAME people.

Developer isn't manager?? Why develop it then?

Build it to manage it. Oh gee our brochure isn't precise..

No worry it's a low fine.

[abrise]

The Bangkok post artickes says "Regarding voting rights for the juristic person, any representative can vote on behalf of a maximum of three units"

I would like to have this double checked and if we should read three owners instead of three units.

During my condo last general assembly, the former developer still controled everything with more than a hundred units. I can't believe he will be limited in voting rights.

[Tammi]

I got all excited there for a minute that something really useful to condo co-owners had been done - e.g: Educating Condo Juristic Persons, managements, and condo committees, that Section 43 means that quorum at a General Meeting is one third of the total eligible to vote and that if a quorum is not present that it is not a legitimate meeting.

[distortedlink]

This new law does nothing for the rights of any residents (lease holders of condos).

Leaseholders are normally imposed by the terms of the lease to pay service changes to the Estate management company for communal area maintenance, repairs, block insurance coverage, the Management Company's administrative fees, plus extras for a sinking fund.

The directors of the Management company are the juristic persons responsible for imposing the terms of the lease and ensuring leaseholders pay their management fees.

Their are 2 ways that an estate management company can be formed. Firstly turn it over to the residents themselves (a company limited by guarantee) or use an outside management company (a company limited by shares).

The problem is that many property developers are also the owners of the management company that they create to run the estate. So in fact the juristic persons can be the Management company belonging to the actual developers that built and sold the estate in the first place, meaning they are only answerable for any breaches of contract or misleading advertising to themselves.

Edited March 27, 2008 by distortedlink

[Taijitu]

I got all excited there for a minute that something really useful to condo co-owners had been done - e.g: Educating Condo Juristic Persons, managements, and condo committees, that Section 43 means that quorum at a General Meeting is one third of the total eligible to vote and that if a quorum is not present that it is not a legitimate meeting.

That's correct and always has been so.......but a meeting can be reconvened after 15 days and those co-owners attending the reconvened meeting, irrespective of the number, will constitute a quorum

[Taijitu]

The Bangkok post article says "Regarding voting rights for the juristic person, any representative can vote on behalf of a maximum of three units"

I would like to have this double checked and if we should read three owners instead of three units.

During my condo last general assembly, the former developer still controled everything with more than a hundred units. I can't believe he will be limited in voting rights.

This isn't new; it has always been a fundamental part of a condominium constition.. It refers to proxy votes and the maximum number of proxies that can be held by any owner is three. The reference is owner and not unit

[Tammi]

The Bangkok post artickes says "Regarding voting rights for the juristic person, any representative can vote on behalf of a maximum of three units"

I would like to have this double checked and if we should read three owners instead of three units.

During my condo last general assembly, the former developer still controled everything with more than a hundred units. I can't believe he will be limited in voting rights.

This is no change from the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979). Section 47 states: Co-owners may assign power of attorney in writing to other persons to vote instead of them. One person cannot be assigned power of attorney to vote by more than three in one meeting".

Section 48 of the same Act states: "In voting, each co-owner shall have the vote equivalent to the ownership ratio held in the common property. If a single co-owner has votes exceeding one half of the total votes, the number of votes of such co-owner shall be reduced to equal the combined vote of all the other co-owners."

[Tammi]

I got all excited there for a minute that something really useful to condo co-owners had been done - e.g: Educating Condo Juristic Persons, managements, and condo committees, that Section 43 means that quorum at a General Meeting is one third of the total eligible to vote and that if a quorum is not present that it is not a legitimate meeting.

That's correct and always has been so.......but a meeting can be reconvened after 15 days and those co-owners attending the reconvened meeting, irrespective of the number, will constitute a quorum

What if only one co-owner turns up for the reconvened meeting?

Your comment about reconvened meeting after 15 days applies ONLY to Section 48 of the Act and the resolutions mentioned therein.

A General Meeting must be attended by 1/3 of the votes to be a meeting at which legitimate business can take place.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Tammi

[palm]

I got all excited there for a minute that something really useful to condo co-owners had been done - e.g: Educating Condo Juristic Persons, managements, and condo committees, that Section 43 means that quorum at a General Meeting is one third of the total eligible to vote and that if a quorum is not present that it is not a legitimate meeting.

That's correct and always has been so.......but a meeting can be reconvened after 15 days and those co-owners attending the reconvened meeting, irrespective of the number, will constitute a quorum

What if only one co-owner turns up for the reconvened meeting?

Your comment about reconvened meeting after 15 days applies ONLY to Section 48 of the Act and the resolutions mentioned therein.

A General Meeting must be attended by 1/3 of the votes to be a meeting at which legitimate business can take place.

The main problem with all of this is that, as you might expect, is that 'anything-goes' until someone decides to actually litigate. I know of several so-called committee members who did not know there was even a Condominium Act in the first place to abide by; not to mention some were not legally able to be on a juristic committee on the first place. This is a common situation in my experience worldwide, not just Thailand.

It would be great to get an update of the Act, that actually spelt-out, in plain English, all of the sections that are contentious, such as the voting rights and procedures etc and helped clarify the rights of 'co-owners'. I am sure that would be of great help to many condo owners. The Act as it stands does appear to be quite reasonable in offering legal protection for co-owners rights.

[Aikido]

Im starting to believe the Thai government is really very stupid, when will they learn if they want investment they are gonna have to give people something tangable in return.

if i wasnt married to a Thai national and couldnt own land houses or condos without all the b*ll s**t i would just take my hard earned somewhere it was appreciated plain and simple.

who in their right mind is going to spend thousands of pounds when theres a good chance they will be scammed!. actually better repharase that last bit.

seems some folk leave their brains at the airport when they land here and let whats down below do the thinking for them.

[warmwater7]

Im starting to believe the Thai government is really very stupid, when will they learn if they want investment they are gonna have to give people something tangable in return.

if i wasnt married to a Thai national and couldnt own land houses or condos without all the b*ll s**t i would just take my hard earned somewhere it was appreciated plain and simple.

who in their right mind is going to spend thousands of pounds when theres a good chance they will be scammed!. actually better repharase that last bit.

seems some folk leave their brains at the airport when they land here and let whats down below do the thinking for them.

maximim profit.classic. is anyone suprised?

[bangkokrick]

I think that they can change the condo laws as much as they like, but thye real issue is being allowed to access that condo at any time. I would not like to think that i had invested in a condo in Thailand but was unable to get the correct visa so that i could access the condo for 12 months of the year. I am married to a Thai but i still worry about the changes in the visa laws. ie. will i get the next visa?

Cheers, Rick

[Tammi]

I got all excited there for a minute that something really useful to condo co-owners had been done - e.g: Educating Condo Juristic Persons, managements, and condo committees, that Section 43 means that quorum at a General Meeting is one third of the total eligible to vote and that if a quorum is not present that it is not a legitimate meeting.

That's correct and always has been so.......but a meeting can be reconvened after 15 days and those co-owners attending the reconvened meeting, irrespective of the number, will constitute a quorum

What if only one co-owner turns up for the reconvened meeting?

Your comment about reconvened meeting after 15 days applies ONLY to Section 48 of the Act and the resolutions mentioned therein.

A General Meeting must be attended by 1/3 of the votes to be a meeting at which legitimate business can take place.

The main problem with all of this is that, as you might expect, is that 'anything-goes' until someone decides to actually litigate. I know of several so-called committee members who did not know there was even a Condominium Act in the first place to abide by; not to mention some were not legally able to be on a juristic committee on the first place. This is a common situation in my experience worldwide, not just Thailand.

It would be great to get an update of the Act, that actually spelt-out, in plain English, all of the sections that are contentious, such as the voting rights and procedures etc and helped clarify the rights of 'co-owners'. I am sure that would be of great help to many condo owners. The Act as it stands does appear to be quite reasonable in offering legal protection for co-owners rights.

The present Act IS quite reasonable and is straigtforward except for the aforementioned Section 48's last paragraph which lots of managers and committees say annuls Section 43 which requires a quorum to be 1/3 of the total votes. It's the Condominium Juristic Person manager (who may be a natural person or a juristic person) and the elected committee who haven't a clue about what is in The Act and the Regulations of the Juristic Person. Often one finds that the Regulations (which is a legal document) goes against what the Act states and that is definitely a NO-NO.

For years I have been advising condo co-owners to go get a copy of the Act and to go to the condo office and demand an English translation copy of the Regulations of their condo's Juristic Person. Know your rights and stand up to ignorant and controlling managers and committees.

Never forget that a manager and 9 co-owners on a committee cannot pass resolutions. Most Resolutions are passed by the majority at a General Meeting which must be attended by 1/3 of the votes; some resolutions need 50% of the total votes of the condo but may, at a second reconvened meeting, be passed by the majority of the 1/3 quorum; some resolutions require 75%.

Edited March 27, 2008 by Tammi

[wrecker]

That is exactly what will happen. It is like with the huge shoppingmalls that endager the lives of their shoppers like Merry king in the past. They laugh about the fines, it is far cheaper to pay a fine than to comply with the law. 100,000 is nothing of course, on the other hand, here is no information whatsoever in this post, it is just a statement, we do not have sufficient info to judge.

[robint]

thai law and europeans, DONT MAKE ME throw up

NEVER forget you have no rights here in reality and if it comes to a serious business conflict with some poo yai then expect to be terminated with extreme prejudice

BUT It will be interesting to observe how the Ruskies will fair in Pattaya now they are buying up huge chunks of real estate and are the dominant farangs in the area (around 50% at a casual glance). We can all guess how these well heeled middle ranking Krasnaya do business

Just google the subject for yourself

starting with

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/21/...ain217683.shtml

If the Us government cant handle the problem, how can the plod from Chonburi

[rufanuf]

Im starting to believe the Thai government is really very stupid, when will they learn if they want investment they are gonna have to give people something tangable in return.

if i wasnt married to a Thai national and couldnt own land houses or condos without all the b*ll s**t i would just take my hard earned somewhere it was appreciated plain and simple.

who in their right mind is going to spend thousands of pounds when theres a good chance they will be scammed!. actually better repharase that last bit.

seems some folk leave their brains at the airport when they land here and let whats down below do the thinking for them.

Am I reading this right? My understanding of Thai Property Law is that YOU as a farang cannot own anything. (except a condo lease). Yes of course we can all give our money away to our wifes. But in my mind that was always a bit like settling the divorce before it happened! I've wanted to invest in Thai property for 10yrs but have refrained becuase I dont like my choices. Trust a developer or trust a wife! Its a lottery...hope you got a winning ticket!

[rufanuf]

thai law and europeans, DONT MAKE ME throw up

NEVER forget you have no rights here in reality and if it comes to a serious business conflict with some poo yai then expect to be terminated with extreme prejudice

BUT It will be interesting to observe how the Ruskies will fair in Pattaya now they are buying up huge chunks of real estate and are the dominant farangs in the area (around 50% at a casual glance). We can all guess how these well heeled middle ranking Krasnaya do business

Just google the subject for yourself

starting with

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2000/07/21/...ain217683.shtml

If the Us government cant handle the problem, how can the plod from Chonburi

Well said...but not just Europeans...everyone not Thai!

[rufanuf]

I got all excited there for a minute that something really useful to condo co-owners had been done - e.g: Educating Condo Juristic Persons, managements, and condo committees, that Section 43 means that quorum at a General Meeting is one third of the total eligible to vote and that if a quorum is not present that it is not a legitimate meeting.

That's correct and always has been so.......but a meeting can be reconvened after 15 days and those co-owners attending the reconvened meeting, irrespective of the number, will constitute a quorum

What if only one co-owner turns up for the reconvened meeting?

Your comment about reconvened meeting after 15 days applies ONLY to Section 48 of the Act and the resolutions mentioned therein.

A General Meeting must be attended by 1/3 of the votes to be a meeting at which legitimate business can take place.

The main problem with all of this is that, as you might expect, is that 'anything-goes' until someone decides to actually litigate. I know of several so-called committee members who did not know there was even a Condominium Act in the first place to abide by; not to mention some were not legally able to be on a juristic committee on the first place. This is a common situation in my experience worldwide, not just Thailand.

It would be great to get an update of the Act, that actually spelt-out, in plain English, all of the sections that are contentious, such as the voting rights and procedures etc and helped clarify the rights of 'co-owners'. I am sure that would be of great help to many condo owners. The Act as it stands does appear to be quite reasonable in offering legal protection for co-owners rights.

The present Act IS quite reasonable and is straigtforward except for the aforementioned Section 48's last paragraph which lots of managers and committees say annuls Section 43 which requires a quorum to be 1/3 of the total votes. It's the Condominium Juristic Person manager (who may be a natural person or a juristic person) and the elected committee who haven't a clue about what is in The Act and the Regulations of the Juristic Person. Often one finds that the Regulations (which is a legal document) goes against what the Act states and that is definitely a NO-NO.

For years I have been advising condo co-owners to go get a copy of the Act and to go to the condo office and demand an English translation copy of the Regulations of their condo's Juristic Person. Know your rights and stand up to ignorant and controlling managers and committees.

Dont bother with "The Act". If you want to invest in Thai Property, you simply have to hope you are dealing with honest people. The law in Thailand will not protect you. Does anyone have a story of a Farang taking a developer to court and getting a favorable outcome that was worth the hassle?.....No thought not.

[nikster]

BUT It will be interesting to observe how the Ruskies will fair in Pattaya now they are buying up huge chunks of real estate and are the dominant farangs in the area (around 50% at a casual glance). We can all guess how these well heeled middle ranking Krasnaya do business

I'd think the Russians can take care of themselves. After all they got rich / reasonably wealthy in a country that's even more corrupt and mafia-run than Thailand. Where business people are regularly gunned down on the street. Thailand is a walk in the park for these guys

[Tammi]

Dont bother with "The Act". If you want to invest in Thai Property, you simply have to hope you are dealing with honest people. The law in Thailand will not protect you. Does anyone have a story of a Farang taking a developer to court and getting a favorable outcome that was worth the hassle?.....No thought not.

There was a case in Pattaya a year or so ago where co-owners found that they got less area than they'd paid for. I cant remember if it went to court but I believe many of the co-owners got money back after the error was made public.

[distortedlink]

Anyone seriously considering purchasing leasehold for a condo should think again.

For developers the big bucks are to be made from their estate property management subsidiaries, which in the long term is more lucrative than the actual selling of the units. Residential and commercial Estate property management is big business.

Many of these companies are run and owned by foreigners. I can remember one event that happened 20 years ago. An American and a Japanese man both were partners as developers and estate mangement directors for a block of condos in Phuket. There was a dispute between them and the Japanese partner took out a contract killing of the American.

Once in, the business becomes the old boys network. They collect the service changes gaining huge profits under the guise of administrative and professional fees, which forms as part of the service charge. The company directors is paid commissions from insurance companies, contractors and gardening companies for being chosen to complete any works or to block insure the estate, plus they often use their own contractors working for companies specially created by the Management company that have a ready made clientele (the residents).

The Management company according to the terms & conditions imposed by most leases can serve lump sum extra payment demands for any amounts to residents for repairs or refurbishing that they claim is necessary and essential work. The company directors and their workers usually give themselves annual inflationary or above cost of service increases that is obtained from yearly increases in service charges to lease holders.

For those who purchase a condo for investment purposes and are renting out their unit to tenants, may be contravening the terms of the lease and some clauses in the block insurance policy, meaning that in the event of a fire or disaster damaging or destroying the unit, may not be able to claim with the insurers and the management company.

I personally would rather take my chances in Thailand purchasing real estate in my wife`s name rather than find myself lumbered with a property trapped under the imperium of an estate management company.

Edited March 27, 2008 by distortedlink

[Aikido]

Look its this simple whatever people try to tell ya Thailand is still third world and is moving backwards! its 500 yrs behind the rest of europe and as long as the idiots maintain this stupid face thing about not wanting to give up the land here it will remain so.

my advice to anyone who wants to move to los is to rent not buy till the morons who try and run the country finally scratch their tiny brains and realise people who invest in something want something for their hard earned cash.

without Farangs the Thais would still be in mud huts fact, you only have to go into a real Thai village to see how backward the place really is.

its all about perception and face and in the glossy mags on the face of it, all looks great untill you get here and get to know the real animal.