Condominium Act Amendments 2008

[Pappiklon]

My understanding is that the Amendments to the Condominium Act that come into effect on July 4th 2008 both impose further legal responsibilities on Committee members and also change the rules on voting at AGM's and EGM's amongst other things, I recently took on a post on our Management Committee and would like to know where I stand, despite asking the juristic person for a translated version nothing has been forthcoming, I have searched Thaivisa and read dozens of posts on and off topic but nothing definitive....does anyone have further info on the changes or better still a link to an English Version.

Many Thanks

Papi

[Tammi]

My understanding is that the Amendments to the Condominium Act that come into effect on July 4th 2008 both impose further legal responsibilities on Committee members and also change the rules on voting at AGM's and EGM's amongst other things, I recently took on a post on our Management Committee and would like to know where I stand, despite asking the juristic person for a translated version nothing has been forthcoming, I have searched Thaivisa and read dozens of posts on and off topic but nothing definitive....does anyone have further info on the changes or better still a link to an English Version.

Many Thanks

Papi

Try here:

http://www.pattayacityexpatsclub.com/modul...le&sid=1185

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

My understanding is that the Amendments to the Condominium Act that come into effect on July 4th 2008 both impose further legal responsibilities on Committee members and also change the rules on voting at AGM's and EGM's amongst other things, I recently took on a post on our Management Committee and would like to know where I stand, despite asking the juristic person for a translated version nothing has been forthcoming, I have searched Thaivisa and read dozens of posts on and off topic but nothing definitive....does anyone have further info on the changes or better still a link to an English Version.

Many Thanks

Papi

Try here:

http://www.pattayacityexpatsclub.com/modul...le&sid=1185

Thanks for that Tammi, appreciate it.

BT

[jojothai]

CLARIFICATION HELP Please

I have posted my query under topic 200487 but that one does not show up under search on condominium act, and does not have many views compared to this topic. so I trust you dont mind me repeating it here.

Refer to the translations of the new condo act posted on thai visa and section 18/1.

Section 18/1. The penalties definitions need clarifying. This topic provides the link to pattaya city expats that confirms 20% appears to be a cap refer

http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/redirect.php...le%26sid%3D1185

HOWEVER we at our condo have co-owners also refused vote at an EGM because of non payment of dues over 6 months.

We are told an interpretation of thai 18/1 stating the following

, the penalty fees shall be up to 20%, and the co-owner may be subject to cessation of uses of common services or utilities, and shall not be entitled to vote in general meetings.

ALL the english translations I have seen of the new condo act do not show the last item.

CAN ANYBODY please confirm if this exclusion from voting is included and therefore correct.

Please note that should this be correct, then:

If you have dispute over mis-management of your condo (and even if it is documented). And you donot pay your dues in order to force action, then you had better now reconsider. If over six months the new rule takes away your rights in general meetings and in particular the power to vote for censure or change of management.

Grateful for any help and clarifications, Thanks

jojothai

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

Hope this helps.

“SECTION 18 The co-owners shall jointly contribute payment toward the tax and duty costs in proportion to the ownership ratio to common property pursuant to Section 14;

The co-owners shall jointly contribute monetary payment toward the costs and expenses arising from the purchase and maintenance of common tools, equipment and facilities made available for the common benefit and toward the cost of expenses arising from the maintenance of common properties in proportion to the benefit rendered to a housing unit prescribed under Section 14 or as specified in the condominium regulations.

The owners of the land and building under the provision of Section 6 shall be the co-owners of the condominium units that have not had the ownership transferred to any other person and shall jointly contribute for the expenses described in paragraph one and paragraph two for the units so described.”

SECTION 11: The following provision shall be added as Section 18/1 of the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979):

SECTION 18/1 If a co-owner fails to make payment required under the provisions of Section 18 by the due date, the co-owner shall be subject to a maximum, non-compounded penalty of 12% per annum on top of the overdue amount as further prescribed in the condominium regulations.

If a co-owner fails to make payment required under the provisions of Section 18 for more than six months past the due date, the co-owner shall be subject to a maximum, non-compounded penalty of 20% per annum on top of the overdue amount and may risk having the supply of utilities stopped and may be banned from using the common services and common property as further prescribed in the condominium regulations.

The penalties paid under paragraph one shall be regarded as an expense under Section 18.”

[quiksilva]

CAN ANYBODY please confirm if this exclusion from voting is included and therefore correct.

Please note that should this be correct, then:

If you have dispute over mis-management of your condo (and even if it is documented). And you donot pay your dues in order to force action, then you had better now reconsider. If over six months the new rule takes away your rights in general meetings and in particular the power to vote for censure or change of management.

Grateful for any help and clarifications, Thanks

jojothai[/color][/font][/color][/font]

Yes it is included. Nonpayment is never the best recourse for dispute resolution, as you will not be permitted to vote at AGM / EGM's, you can also be prohibited from using common areas and facilities.

Its far better to raise these matters through the proper channels i.e. via the Property manager, juristic commitee, and if these two routes fail at the next AGM / EGM.

It worth remembering that Juristic Condomiumiums are not in the business of making profit for profits sake. All fees collected are for the maintenance/improvement works to common parts that are necessary to maintain the investment value of your property.

Non payment of these fees actually works against you.

If you are displeased with the managers, talk with your neighbours and get them replaced.

[ace]

It worth remembering that Juristic Condomiumiums are not in the business of making profit for profits sake. All fees collected are for the maintenance/improvement works to common parts that are necessary to maintain the investment value of your property.

Meanwhile, in the real World.......

Sorry, not being rude, but let's say I think most Jurisitc persons make sure their expenses are fully covered.

[quiksilva]

Its okay I dont see that as being rude. The main thing that I have learned here on TV is that there is never any reasoning to be had with hardcore cynics.

I'll just say that in the real world these committees are comprised of your fellow co-owners who must stand for election every year. If you own a condo there you can stand for election too.

As a co-owner at an AGM you would also be welcome to scrutinize the audited accounts of the condominium. If they are collecting surplus CAM fees, (surplus meaning after all expenses and sinking fund contributions), question them, challenge them, propose a resolution to reduce CAM fees at the AGM.

The goal of these Juristics should be run to the building at the highest possible standards at the lowest possible expense. If they don't, and you never challenge them, then you are partly to blame.

[jojothai]

Yes it is included. Nonpayment is never the best recourse for dispute resolution, as you will not be permitted to vote at AGM / EGM's, you can also be prohibited from using common areas and facilities.

The goal of these Juristics should be run to the building at the highest possible standards at the lowest possible expense. If they don't, and you never challenge them, then you are partly to blame.

Thanks for info. Which version of the condo act did you see that has the no-voting statement?

The first response above does not include it and I still don't understand why it is not in ALL of the English translations I have seen.

Is it possible that there are two thai versions of the law? One with it and one without it.

What you say makes sense but sorry that you are not aware of reality.

Many developers run condominiums as they want and for their own benefit.

And it is extremely difficult to do anything about it.

Hence many complaints eventually generate changes in the regulations.

The changes are good but how do you get them implemented if the manager is not interested? The fines are nowhere near enough to bother unscrupulous managers / developers who could well be taking six figure sums each year.

Who is going to decide and charge the fines? The land office reps? H..mm. TIT.

How can you do anything about the committee if you cannot have a vote?

How can you judge the accounts when information needed is not provided?

To put you in the picture at our condo

The manager is the wife of the original developer and the committee has been their selected persons for a very long time. The manager does as she wants with disregard for the co-owners rights and the law.

In the last few years our condo has gone from 30% foreign ownership to the maximum 49% so we have gained enough strength to try to improve things. But this takes a hel_l of a lot of effort.

We know a lot of thai owners have not paid dues. Despite our requests the manager has still not yet provided a list of overdue accounts, since first requesting almost two years ago. AND the request was through the committee (we managed to get one farang on the committee then).

Yet the manager produces her own list to bar people from voting recently. Many farang???? Could it be a case of when and who she wants? We don't know and cant find out. The developer is not included and still has his votes yet we don't know if he is paying anything for his units. She barred a large unit area holder who has a very well documented dispute.

Very good isn't it that the manager can do and sign off anything she wants to, such as clearance of outstanding dues without any accountability.

Excellent that nobody can check!

We had no AGM last year despite repeated requests the manager hold it, and no accounts.

We submitted the 25% request for a EGM early this year and the manager told us it would be held then cancelled it. She did not comply with it.

Because she has persistently and deliberately refused to comply with the law many co-owners don't believe they should pay the money to her until she does comply with legal obligations, has the vote for the new committee and we resolve the issue over who are not paying. Other courses of action all have no effect.

Why should we all pay if many people do not and nothing is done about it?

Also, DO YOU give money to people who donot want to account for it??

She held an agm a few months ago and refused to have a vote for new committee, despite co-owners in the majority demanding it!!

She arranged for another meeting then cancelled it.

Finally after several months of us trying to get a vote for a new committee she recently held the meeting with this on the agenda. But the meeting had to be closed because there were too many disputes over her application of the new law.

Since when is a new law retrospective?? Is that how things work here in Thailand?

Should the six months not be from the date of the new law??

Are there any legal eagles out there who can clarify please.

Also I still have to try and establish without doubt that the non-voting statement is in 18/1.

We have a second meeting to vote again shortly so we would welcome any further comments.

Regards

Jojothai

[quiksilva]

I am aware of the reality and it is a fact that not all projects choose to abide by the law, but this does not mean that the majority are cheats and scoundrels.

I sympathize with your situation. I know how difficult it can be to clear out that sort of mess.

But that does not mean that there are no legal avenues available to you, and it also does not infer that all projects are run in the manner that you describe.

The translation I have seen has been done internally and amounts to the same as described by beentheredonethat and has been echoed in a summarised version that addresses the key points in an article prepared by a bangkok based British Lawyer, Stephen Frost that has been made available to all British Chambers of Commerce Thailand (BCCT) members on their website. Google him. He is a good guy.

If placed in that circumstance myself I would get your group of co-owners together if more than 20% and call a general meeting to dismiss the manager, and make sure that you have at least a lawyer present to witness that meeting, perhaps even a court attendant.

This should be possible under the following new clause

SECTION 42/2 In case of necessity, the following persons have the right to call an extraordinary general meeting at any

given time:

(1) the Manager;

(2) the Committee by a majority vote of its members at a Committee Meeting;

(3) co-owners that hold not less than 20% of the total votes who jointly sign a written request to the committee to

organize an extraordinary meeting. The committee shall organize the meeting within fifteen days from the date of

receiving the written request. If the committee fails to organize such meeting, the referenced co-owners have the right to

convene the meeting thereof and to appointment one of its members in the group to release the meeting invitation.

SECTION 42/3 Calling a general meeting shall be made by sending out a Notice for the General Meeting specifying

the meeting location, date and time and the meeting agenda as well as the details of matters to be presented in the

meeting that shall be sent to co-owners at least seven days before the meeting date.

SECTION 26: The provision of Section 43 of the Condominium Act B.E. 2522 (1979) shall be repealed and replaced

by the following provisions:

“SETION 43 A general meeting shall be attended by at least one-fourth of the members who have the right to vote

of the total number of the qualified members in order to constitute a quorum.

If the co-owners do not attend the meeting in the number to constitute a quorum pursuant to paragraph one,

another general meeting shall be announced and held within fifteen days from the published date of the previous meeting.

For this new meeting the constitution of a quorum shall be irrelevant.

The Manager and the marriage party of the Manager shall not preside over the meeting.”

You might perhaps need to make sure that you have sufficient numbers who have at least made payment recently, you really legal advice on this, but I hope this at least puts you on the right path.

Edited August 6, 2008 by quiksilva

[jojothai]

Thanks Quiksilva

We can address the clearing of payments may just take a bit of time. However still need to resolve whether the law includes the statement about not being able to vote at meetings. I will have to follow up the BCCT route.

We called for a meeting before with 25% and the manager did not hold it!

We are aware of the new 20% rule and know we can ultimately dismiss the manager if she will hold the appropriate meeting. However we understand dismissal could entail staff compensation under the labour law so we have alternative strategies.

We already have a lawyer and he is the one advising us that the thai law includes the further statement "and shall not be entitled to vote in general meetings"

Beentheredonethat version does not include it.

jojothai

[ripley]

It's disturbing that there are no practical ways to censure the committee, "manager" or whatever (I think we need to get consistent terminology) or to compel them to follow the law or the regulations. Committees are taking out insurance against lawsuits from co-owners (and their maintenance funds are paying for it!) And now co-owners can be severely punished for withholding payments in protest. Also, there is no moral and not many legal barriers for who can become JPM or committee. For instance, a person could have served before and misbehaved, then get voted in again a few years later. Not even a qualification for dismissal such as: "if it is proved that s/he stole or misdirected monies".

It seems the game is fixed with the committees & managers, etc. holding all the good cards. It is incredibly difficult to alter or compel their actions. It is incredibly difficult to get a "grassroots" movement going. If you have a repressive regime it is nearly impossible. This all may sound dramatic, but I've had to deal with jojothai's situation and worse. It was hel_l.

"We had no AGM last year despite repeated requests the manager hold it, and no accounts."

Check that out! Now let's assume the "manager" has insured herself on condo funds against lawsuits. This is dangerous stuff.

I think that there are only two effective ways to combat these defects in the laws:

1.) Websites with absentee/proxy voting facility

2.) Regulations which do not contradict the law but fill the loopholes

Why are we leaving ourselves open to the kind of abuse jojothai describes. And it can get a lot worse. Some may be blessed with decent committees, but they and we are doing nothing to protect ourselves from indecent ones. And they're out there. C'mon. We all know it. It's ridiculous not to protect ourselves. Against a good committee it does no harm.

[jojothai]

Thanks ripley

Very true.

We have the grassroots movement and taken a long time building it up.

With each new frustration we can get into arguments.

Keeping things together and common goals is critical.

Thankfully we are maintaining our resolve. We are also starting to get the support of thai co-owners and need to improve in this area as best we can.

jojothai

[quiksilva]

No. Jojo, read the bold bit again.

If the committee fails to organize such meeting, the referenced co-owners have the right to convene the meeting thereof and to appointment one of its members in the group to release the meeting invitation.

She does not have to call the meeting. If they fail to do so, YOU can.

It also did not say that you have to be fully up to date with all payments did it? Just

If a co-owner fails to make payment required under the provisions of Section 18 for more than six months past the due date,

So just make sufficient payment to be less than six months past due date.

Check with your lawyer though

[Tammi]

Yes it is included. Nonpayment is never the best recourse for dispute resolution, as you will not be permitted to vote at AGM / EGM's, you can also be prohibited from using common areas and facilities.

The goal of these Juristics should be run to the building at the highest possible standards at the lowest possible expense. If they don't, and you never challenge them, then you are partly to blame.

Thanks for info. Which version of the condo act did you see that has the no-voting statement?

The first response above does not include it and I still don't understand why it is not in ALL of the English translations I have seen.

Is it possible that there are two thai versions of the law? One with it and one without it.

What you say makes sense but sorry that you are not aware of reality.

Many developers run condominiums as they want and for their own benefit.

And it is extremely difficult to do anything about it.

Hence many complaints eventually generate changes in the regulations.

The changes are good but how do you get them implemented if the manager is not interested? The fines are nowhere near enough to bother unscrupulous managers / developers who could well be taking six figure sums each year.

Who is going to decide and charge the fines? The land office reps? H..mm. TIT.

How can you do anything about the committee if you cannot have a vote?

How can you judge the accounts when information needed is not provided?

To put you in the picture at our condo

The manager is the wife of the original developer and the committee has been their selected persons for a very long time. The manager does as she wants with disregard for the co-owners rights and the law.

In the last few years our condo has gone from 30% foreign ownership to the maximum 49% so we have gained enough strength to try to improve things. But this takes a hel_l of a lot of effort.

We know a lot of thai owners have not paid dues. Despite our requests the manager has still not yet provided a list of overdue accounts, since first requesting almost two years ago. AND the request was through the committee (we managed to get one farang on the committee then).

Yet the manager produces her own list to bar people from voting recently. Many farang???? Could it be a case of when and who she wants? We don't know and cant find out. The developer is not included and still has his votes yet we don't know if he is paying anything for his units. She barred a large unit area holder who has a very well documented dispute.

Very good isn't it that the manager can do and sign off anything she wants to, such as clearance of outstanding dues without any accountability.

Excellent that nobody can check!

We had no AGM last year despite repeated requests the manager hold it, and no accounts.

We submitted the 25% request for a EGM early this year and the manager told us it would be held then cancelled it. She did not comply with it.

Because she has persistently and deliberately refused to comply with the law many co-owners don't believe they should pay the money to her until she does comply with legal obligations, has the vote for the new committee and we resolve the issue over who are not paying. Other courses of action all have no effect.

Why should we all pay if many people do not and nothing is done about it?

Also, DO YOU give money to people who donot want to account for it??

She held an agm a few months ago and refused to have a vote for new committee, despite co-owners in the majority demanding it!!

She arranged for another meeting then cancelled it.

Finally after several months of us trying to get a vote for a new committee she recently held the meeting with this on the agenda. But the meeting had to be closed because there were too many disputes over her application of the new law.

Since when is a new law retrospective?? Is that how things work here in Thailand?

Should the six months not be from the date of the new law??

Are there any legal eagles out there who can clarify please.

Also I still have to try and establish without doubt that the non-voting statement is in 18/1.

We have a second meeting to vote again shortly so we would welcome any further comments.

Regards

Jojothai

Why don't you take to court? Jomthien Condotel did and won - got rid of of the management committee.

First you might want to read the new Condo Act and take all the infringements you can find to the Competent Officer at the Land Office as advised in the new Condo Act. If he can't/won't help then go to court.

I believe the new condo Act says that co-owners can be on committee for 2 years and may only be re-elected if nobody else wants to stand. It doesn't matter how many votes the incumbent may get - if he has done 2 years he is out if somebody else wants the position.

And remember that committee members are no longer allowed to hold proxy votes.

[Tammi]

Its okay I dont see that as being rude. The main thing that I have learned here on TV is that there is never any reasoning to be had with hardcore cynics.

I'll just say that in the real world these committees are comprised of your fellow co-owners who must stand for election every year. If you own a condo there you can stand for election too.

As a co-owner at an AGM you would also be welcome to scrutinize the audited accounts of the condominium. If they are collecting surplus CAM fees, (surplus meaning after all expenses and sinking fund contributions), question them, challenge them, propose a resolution to reduce CAM fees at the AGM.

The goal of these Juristics should be run to the building at the highest possible standards at the lowest possible expense. If they don't, and you never challenge them, then you are partly to blame.

I think the new Act says that the monthly accounting has to be posted on the bulletin board within 15 days of month end and must remain on the board for 15 days. Any and all co-owners have the right to inspect the accounting records.

At this condo the accounting was posted but after the 15 days and consists of a few generalised lines. Not good enough!!! And there is no information on where OUR money is and what interest it is earning.

I advise that if co-owners believe that condo is not being well managed that they should get in touch with all the rest of co-owners asking if they would like to form an Interest Group. I have heard that Grand Condo did this, held meetings, and made written reports to Management. It wasn't liked by management but results were got and I now hear that GC is much better looked after.

[jojothai]

All good points thanks and useful for any others reading the thread.

We have gone through the new condo act in detail and it is a great pity that none of the english versions had the full clause 18/1 which caused us the problem at the last meeting.

The 2 years on committee is subject to legal interpretation. When does it apply from?? Surely The old committee stands down and can be voted on again for a year at least. We have been told this is a grey area until the law has been challenged or 2 years passes.

Quiksilva

On the subject of updating payments you read the situation well, we already have advice similar to what you have stated and there are good reasons for it.

Under the old act there was no way we could have got the percentage attendance required to dismiss the manager and we are well aware that with the new act we can now hold the meeting ourselves, but there are a lot of pitfalls in doing so and many issues to figure out before we takeover like that. We also need a lot of previous information from the manager and will not get it. She has it all in her company office outside, not in the condominium premises.

And we have to know the laws very well indeed. It is better for all concerned if she stands aside and we can start to take over in a cordinated manner. With the new condo act her days are numbered.

We are starting to more seriously discuss legal options.

But at present we dont need to do these things as we have a documented committment and fixed date to reconvene our EGM for committee vote.

We have a long lists of faults against the manager increasing,and depending on the legal interpretation of 18/1 we want to add if she has illegally deprived co-owners of the right to vote.

We also need to see if she does post monthly accounts as this is only just a new requirement. Complaining over an initial problem for the first month is not good enough. Next monmth (2 months since the act) we are much more justified in raising the isssue as an unacceptable infringement.

As i said our list of infringements grows steadily and time for more direct action will come soon.

At the present the manager is working hard at making it appear to be farang vs thai and we are the problem so she can generate more thai support. So it essential we redress that issue as best we can before taking over the management.

regards

jojothai

[jojothai]

To update

I got the version from BCCT site it is UNOFFICIAL and it shows

18/1 Penalty for non payment of contributions:

Where unit owners do not pay for the costs within the due date, they are liable to pay a penalty not exceeding 12% per year, but this may not be compounded. Unit owners who owe money for more than 6 months must pay an additional amount at a rate not exceeding 20% per year and may not use communal property, or their communal services may be discontinued, and they may not be permitted to vote at the annual general meeting.

The last bit is the important one, our lawyer's interpretation is " shall not be permitted to vote at general meetings". which is much more definitive than "May Not".

So I am clear that the clause is there now but need to clarify "Shall not" or "May Not".

clarify if it is Just AGM or all general meetings.

Clarify if the law is retospective. Does the manager not have to give six months from the new act?

I am querying the matter further outside.

NB ALSO please note TERM OF COMMITTEE. A term is two years and committee members can be 2 terms. ie 4 years subject to standing down at the end only if others will take the place.

An unofficial version shows

The committee will hold office for two years. Where a committee member ceases to hold office before his term has expired, or there are additional committee members appointed whilst the old committee still hold their term of office, the newly appointed member will hold office only for the time that the previous committee member had to serve. When the term of office has expired, if no one was appointed to be a new committee member, the previous committee members whose term of office has expired will continue to perform their duties, until new committee members are appointed to serve. Committee members whose term of office have expired may be re-appointed provided they may not hold office for more than two consecutive terms, except where no-one else can be found to perform such duties. The manager must register details of committee members with the competent official within 30 days from the date of the unit owners' resolution.

regards

Jojothai

[ripley]

"3) co-owners that hold not less than 20% of the total votes who jointly sign a written request to the committee to

organize an extraordinary meeting. The committee shall organize the meeting within fifteen days from the date of

receiving the written request. If the committee fails to organize such meeting, the referenced co-owners have the right to

convene the meeting thereof and to appointment one of its members in the group to release the meeting invitation."

C'mon! There is a description of a condo whose "manager" refuses to hold AGMs or respond in any way to co-owners requests and demands. She has the files, etc. in her own office which is not even in the bldg.

So they get their 20%, hold their meeting & she refuses to cooperate. It may be illegal, but how do the enforce t the law? Call the police?? Get a lawyer to sue her?? Storm her office, take the papers and ride her out of town on a rail?? Have you ever tried to get enforcement of a condo law or regulation before?!

[glyph]

"Get a lawyer to sue her?? "

Precisely.

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

Ripley

Sent you a copy of the condominum act #4. I believe that is the latest.

If you look at chapter 8 section 69 it shows you there are penalties for not abiding by the rules, might send the chairperson a highlighted copy of the rules and notifiy him/her of the fines for not complying.

[ripley]

Been There -

Thank you. I will study it with interest. Can you send it also to "Thai condo law texts", if it's not too much trouble?

[ripley]

"Get a lawyer to sue her?? "

Precisely

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

And if she's insured herself against lawsuit (on your fees)?

Actually, that's something that we might look at. For committees, jpms, etc who have insured themselves on condo funds, what kind of conditions exist on the policies? For instance, if the company decides that laws have indeed been broken are they still bound to pay out?

Edited August 9, 2008 by ripley

[glyph]

"And if she's insured herself against lawsuit...?

What is your point? I'd preferred her to be insured - improving the chance of a financial settlement, rather than uninsured - lowering the possibility of a financial settlement. Call me foolish, but I'd prefer the former. You prefer the latter, and I do not know why. Before you get your Skivvies in a bind, you should consider talking to the condo management company, and members of the management board. Too, it is necessary to show that you have been harmed by negligence. A meeting held a week later than provided for in a statute would probably not be considered harmful. Your posts read as though you're loaded for bear and, you shoud realize, sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you.

[jojothai]

Comments noted since my last entry.

I was out of town at ameeting of our condo team and will give some comment myself but it will have to be late today.

jojothai

[jojothai]

Regarding my previous notes I am told that in thai there is no difference between "May " and "Shall'. So this effectively means the new rule 18/1 stands that you can be barred from voting.

I still don't understand how the law can be retrospective. How can the manager apply it to the six months before the law came into effect?

Getting a lawyer to sue.

Get a lawyer to sue her for what? We do not have any proper information to do so!!!

All we can currently claim is we want the manager dismissed for non-compliance with the condo act.

What are we suing for?

After we take over we may be able surmise information from previous accounts.

But it will be difficult to prove anything when we have none of the paperwork.

And TIT! We are being portrayed as Farangs trying to take over for our own benefit.

Even so, how long do you expect to wait for financial matters to be resolved in court??? 5 - 10 years perhaps.And how much will it cost considering we may not be able to prove anything sufficiently???

In the meantime we have to try to run the condo not knowing how anything is run, who has paid, what liabilities they have, etc ., etc.

We must be mad getting into all of this, but we don't now have any choice.

We have tried everything we can to get things improved without going head on and are now running out of time as the manager's term will come to its renewal soon and the manager gives us no option but to now fight to ensure it ends.

INSURANCE

I don't understand the discussion about insurance.

If we need to fight in court for control of managing the condo then I don't see how liability insurance comes into play. The main problem then is the manager has not been complying with the law. How does insurance cover that?

If we have to fight for financial matters after then, there is no point in us fighting unless we have enough evidence to prove things. The manager has already set things up so nobody can get the information easily. Then we are not going to be suing her but going to court to get the condo records.

Where does the insurance cover against this?

I can understand insurance covering liabilities for managers to co-owners / third parties for things happening out of expectation or unknowingly but don't believe it covers against not complying with the law.

We will probably need to go to court to get the manager to provide the relevant accounts information that should be kept according to thai law. Then where/how does any insurance cover apply. Please can you clarify so I can understand.

regards

jojothai

[ripley]

"And if she's insured herself against lawsuit...?

What is your point? I'd preferred her to be insured - improving the chance of a financial settlement, rather than uninsured - lowering the possibility of a financial settlement. Call me foolish, but I'd prefer the former. You prefer the latter, and I do not know why. Before you get your Skivvies in a bind, you should consider talking to the condo management company, and members of the management board. Too, it is necessary to show that you have been harmed by negligence. A meeting held a week later than provided for in a statute would probably not be considered harmful. Your posts read as though you're loaded for bear and, you shoud realize, sometimes you eat the bear, and sometimes the bear eats you. [/b}

******************************************************************************

Dear glyph - You worry about your skivvies & I'll take care of mine!

The point is that, should the co-owners have to sue, they'll have to do so by taking up a collection to pay legal fees. Whereas the errant manager coasts along on insurance. I agree about the financial settlement - hadn't thought about that - but getting a lawsuit going and maintaining it takes money.

I can't understand why you are not "loaded for bear". Read over jojothai's story. They're dealing with an arrogant, dismissive manager who has entrenched herself so well that these people can't even access their own papers. Our condo had a similar one. I advocate dissemination of accurate information and that co-owners protect themselves in every way that they can. Sometimes the bear is content to poop in the woods. But it's foolish to rely on that.

As someone said on another thread "Silence is Consent."

Edited August 11, 2008 by ripley

[ripley]

" I don't understand the discussion about insurance. "

I don't know much about insurance coverage in these cases and I imagine policies vary. I suggested that we find out what the terms of such insurance policies are.

This is relevant to us because whenever ultimate confrontation/enforcement is required it is "go to court", or "sue". That takes money, for lawyers, court fees, etc. Depending on the terms of the insurance policy, the manager might not care if you sue her - her costs are covered. Yours are not.

I may be wrong, but I don't think that the insurance company can make the determination whether the insured party is guilty of wrongdoing before it pays out for court costs & lawyers.

[jojothai]

Perhaps I can clarify where I dont understand.

If we sue for money I can understand it, but we dont do that for some time.

The first step is taking management control.

So the first thing we will need to do is get the information we need to run the condo including accounts information and such items as payments / non-payment data.

If we have to go to court to get this then that is where i dont understand insurance.

The manager is required by law to have the information we will need.

If the manager does not give it to us, then

either

the manager simply Will not give it to us

or

the manager does not have it and is breaking the law.

In either case why would any insurance come into the discussion?

We would be going to court to get an order for the manager to give us the information.

If we get the order and the manager then does not comply, they are not complying with the law.

If there are resultant financial damages to sue for then it will be as a result of not complying. This is the manager's non-compliance.

I doubt insurance will cover this under its terms but I suppose it is possible they may have to fight the case first, and then if judgement is against the manager then surely they recover costs from the manager not the condo.

We will not know whether the manager has any insurance and its terms.

So any discussion is hypothetical, and points are noted.

HOWEVER. The points made about such insurance are important to investigate.

If our action group is going to take control then we need to look into the matter.

Is there anybody out there has knowledge of such insurance policies? Or which companies do them?

regards

jojothai

[quiksilva]

I think you need to decide what it is that you want most. Financial damages or a remedy to your woes?

Suing the juristic condominium, adds to your own shared costs. In fact the condo is most likely only covered for all risks liability but this will exclude professional indemnity insurance which is something altogether different. In any event even if they were covered I don't see the value in that approach, well at least not much beyond a short term mild gain, IF you win. BUT I thought you wanted them out? Isn't this the main driver here? Or is it money?

You ask why it must be applied retroactively. Of course it must. It needs to be because of the thousands of other non-payers in other condos who deliberately refuse payment, but have no outstanding issues with management.

Why should these people get any say in how things are run at their projects? What about all those other absentee co-owners who haven't paid anything in years at your condo why should they have a say?

You need to face the fact that witholding payment is not regarded by Thai law to be a valid solution to solving this dispute, after all the building has running expenses that must be incurred every month. What about those co-owners whop do not have a problem, and pay on time?

The law has to serve the majority of the people, so it must be applied retroactively across the board. This six month period is not unreasonable, in fact I think its pretty lenient compared with more mature markets like Australia, USA, or the UK.

So to reiterate in your position I would do as previously advised.

Pay a token bill, so as to bring your non-payment to within the 6 month limitation so that your group can vote at an EGM to oust the current management, and if the committee don't do it and you have sufficient numbers call one yourselves as provided for under the law.

Work with what the law provides and use it to your advantage by helping your group achieve its main objective, i.e. a change of management.

Good luck.