Condominium Act Section 39

[Tammi]

section_39_Condo_Act_Retrieve_Property.doc

Can someone please translate this into English? It is a clipping from the very excellent book by Tony Crossley "Your Thai Condo Rights". I need to double check the translation as have been told very difficult to translate Thai to English. Many thanks.

[KondoKitty]

section_39_Condo_Act_Retrieve_Property.doc

Can someone please translate this into English? It is a clipping from the very excellent book by Tony Crossley "Your Thai Condo Rights". I need to double check the translation as have been told very difficult to translate Thai to English. Many thanks.

The law #39. The Juristic Office has the right to represent co-owners in the central area and facilities to others outside the condo, or go through all the process/legal action to take back the assets and facilities for the co-owners.

I had this translated by a friend, so I hope it helps.

She thinks it could refer to cases like if a neigbouring property was encroaching on the condo space (e.g. they build their driveway too wide into the land that belongs to the condo/co-owners), then the Juristic Office can stick-up for all co-owners and fight to have the asset returned to the condo for co-owner use.

[Tammi]

section_39_Condo_Act_Retrieve_Property.doc

Can someone please translate this into English? It is a clipping from the very excellent book by Tony Crossley "Your Thai Condo Rights". I need to double check the translation as have been told very difficult to translate Thai to English. Many thanks.

The law #39. The Juristic Office has the right to represent co-owners in the central area and facilities to others outside the condo, or go through all the process/legal action to take back the assets and facilities for the co-owners.

I had this translated by a friend, so I hope it helps.

She thinks it could refer to cases like if a neigbouring property was encroaching on the condo space (e.g. they build their driveway too wide into the land that belongs to the condo/co-owners), then the Juristic Office can stick-up for all co-owners and fight to have the asset returned to the condo for co-owner use.

Thank you for this.

There have been cases of parking being allocated by the developers or by management committee to co-owners resulting in some co-owners having shaded parking and the rest having to park in the sun. This, of course, doesn't make for a happy condominium especially when many of the shaded parking is allocated to co-owners who are hardly ever at the condo.

Do you and your friend think that the statement "or go through all the process/legal action to take back the assets and facilities for the co-owners." would apply in such a case? If it does apply the whole disagreement could be given to the Juristic Person Manager to do his duty and sort it out.

[KondoKitty]

Thank you for this.

There have been cases of parking being allocated by the developers or by management committee to co-owners resulting in some co-owners having shaded parking and the rest having to park in the sun. This, of course, doesn't make for a happy condominium especially when many of the shaded parking is allocated to co-owners who are hardly ever at the condo.

Do you and your friend think that the statement "or go through all the process/legal action to take back the assets and facilities for the co-owners." would apply in such a case? If it does apply the whole disagreement could be given to the Juristic Person Manager to do his duty and sort it out.

Hi Tammi

I'm not a lawyer, but I do think this clause would be relevant to any discussion about the fair sharing of common areas.

Were the car spaces re-allocated recently? I suggest that several of you raise the issue together with the Juristic Person Manager. They should explain the principle that was used when allocating the spaces. If they cannot articulate it, they'll have to recognize this is unfair. Especially if you are all paying CAM fee for the car space itself! If there aren't enough spaces to give everyone a decent "fixed" space, maybe the condo should change all spaces to be "non-fixed". I've never lived anywhere with all "non-fixed" (I'm sure it has its own problems), but at least it's equal for all, providing there are sufficient spaces.

At my condo there are 220 apartments and 142 car spaces. Only the 2 & 3 bedroom apartments get "fixed" spaces, so there are about 45 of these (and co-owners pay monthly CAM fees on them - the size of the space is in the purchase contract). The positions of the "fixed" spaces were allocated in an ordered way by the developer when the building was brand new (the apartment numbers are spray-painted on). Unlike your property, all "fixed" and "non-fixed" spaces are undercover. The building is only 2 years old, so none of the allocations have been modified by the Management/Committee.

At another condo I know, there are 79 apartments and 83 car spaces. All are "non-fixed" and undercover (no special treatment for larger apartments).

Hope this helps