Land Lease Reduced From 30 Years To 5 Years?

[yuyi]

Oops, a friend tried to register a 30 year lease, and it was refused. Reason given was a new order (dated August 15) telling the land offices to not register land leases > 5 years for foreigners. Plus no more usufructs for foreigners.

There was a discussion if this is indeed a new law, however it seems to be not a real law, but just a rule given by the land department. There is a 100plus page document in Thai there with all details.

Since in my eyes this is a shocker, however I see it happening, I wonder if any of the gurus here can shed some light on this.

(and please refrain from stupid "oh so terrible" "better pack your stuff and run" comments)

[lazeeboy]

Oops, a friend tried to register a 30 year lease, and it was refused. Reason given was a new order (dated August 15) telling the land offices to not register land leases > 5 years for foreigners. Plus no more usufructs for foreigners.

There was a discussion if this is indeed a new law, however it seems to be not a real law, but just a rule given by the land department. There is a 100plus page document in Thai there with all details.

Since in my eyes this is a shocker, however I see it happening, I wonder if any of the gurus here can shed some light on this.

(and please refrain from stupid "oh so terrible" "better pack your stuff and run" comments)

this is news to me ,if its true its scary

[midas]

I am definately going to watch this thread ! Maybe the Sunbelt legal team can comment ?

[yuyi]

... Maybe the Sunbelt legal team can comment ?

Well, that's what I'm hoping for. Sunbelt or Indo Siam might have access to some facts, at least I hope they do.

[tmd5855]

If that is the case, then the GF will be living in a shoebox? Take it, they will not allow multiples of 5 years.

That is a big worry for me, in my 50's and retiring in the next few years. Big worry for similar guys, similar boat??

Edited September 29, 2008 by tmd5855

[yuyi]

... Take it, they will not allow multiples of 5 years. ...

The said clearly that it can be extended again for another 5 years later (well, for now at least)

[harrry]

If this is the case I definitely won't be buying a condo....yes I know I can buy it in my name but if they have shown their intentions that clearly I cannot be sure of what will come.

[midas]

If that is the case, then the GF will be living in a shoebox? Take it, they will not allow multiples of 5 years.

That is a big worry for me, in my 50's and retiring in the next few years. Big worry for similar guys, similar boat??

Even if they did - you would have to have more money than sense to invest

any meaningful sum here on that basis They could do something else in year 6 !

and w know how much they like to change the rules!

Talk about a country that shoots itself in the foot all the time. How can the anti farang

lobby argue that a lease to a farang causes any disadvantage to the Thai people

[steveromagnino]

If that is the case, then the GF will be living in a shoebox? Take it, they will not allow multiples of 5 years.

That is a big worry for me, in my 50's and retiring in the next few years. Big worry for similar guys, similar boat??

Even if they did - you would have to have more money than sense to invest

any meaningful sum here on that basis They could do something else in year 6 !

and w know how much they like to change the rules!

Talk about a country that shoots itself in the foot all the time. How can the anti farang

lobby argue that a lease to a farang causes any disadvantage to the Thai people

I work in real estate of sorts, and know nothing about this. Is this in Pattaya, Samui or upcountry and a ruling from one of the local land districts?

Most of the clamp down re leases/companies came from TRT so it isn't a wonder they are doing the same thing again; goodness knows why.

[prefabs]

Don't worry. Even if it IS true the real estate industry will re-assure yu that there are ways round it. Doesn't matter if they are spouting lies, they will still do it.

I saw an advert in an estate agents in Hua Hin recently asking why you would even think of worrying about all the hassles of trying to buy land!!!!!!!!!! Their system would circumvent all the hassles. Their system?? Pay up front for what was thinly disguised as a lease. Who was the owner for all the 30 years? The builder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

[midas]

Don't worry. Even if it IS true the real estate industry will re-assure yu that there are ways round it. Doesn't matter if they are spouting lies, they will still do it.

I saw an advert in an estate agents in Hua Hin recently asking why you would even think of worrying about all the hassles of trying to buy land!!!!!!!!!! Their system would circumvent all the hassles. Their system?? Pay up front for what was thinly disguised as a lease. Who was the owner for all the 30 years? The builder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Surely there is still an unacceptable risk in that situation also ? If the builders name is shown to be

the owner for 30 years - at anytime there is a potential for him to do something against your interests ?

That sounds potentially worse than putting it in the name of some bar girl ?

[BEENTHEREDONETHAT]

I think someone has been smoking something (are you going to share?). Even the Thai rule makers aren't that dumb.

[prefabs]

Don't worry. Even if it IS true the real estate industry will re-assure yu that there are ways round it. Doesn't matter if they are spouting lies, they will still do it.

I saw an advert in an estate agents in Hua Hin recently asking why you would even think of worrying about all the hassles of trying to buy land!!!!!!!!!! Their system would circumvent all the hassles. Their system?? Pay up front for what was thinly disguised as a lease. Who was the owner for all the 30 years? The builder!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Surely there is still an unacceptable risk in that situation also ? If the builders name is shown to be

the owner for 30 years - at anytime there is a potential for him to do something against your interests ?

That sounds potentially worse than putting it in the name of some bar girl ?

Risk?? You wouldn't believe the attitude of the developer(Englishman married to a Thai woman) I spoke to in Hua Hin. He would not have it that anyone would try and DECIEVE people. He was sure that everyone in Thailand real estate was ABOVE BOARD, except for maybe a few in Pattaya he had heard about. When I put it to him that customers would, in effect, be paying for a 30 years rental deal only, he couldn't believe my attitude either. Needless to say, we parted with no business being done. Having said that, and to be fair to the man, his houses were first class. And he was selling.

[Mobi]

I would like to know if anyone else can confirm the OP's experience.

I'm not doubting him, but this is potentially so serious that it should be verified from a range of sources.

Don't expect Sunbelt to comment - I haven't seen anything from them on Thai Visa for many months.

How about the sponsor of this forum? (Soho Properties). Surely they have some information?

[skippybangkok]

Don't expect Sunbelt to comment - I haven't seen anything from them on Thai Visa for many months.

You could be put in the dog house for such blasphemous comments

[yuyi]

I would like to know if anyone else can confirm the OP's experience.

I'm not doubting him, but this is potentially so serious that it should be verified from a range of sources.

Well, I fully agree with this "potentially so serious", which is why I don't want to believe it. However I witnessed it happening, and I saw the Thai lawyer receiving this 100plus pages document, in Thai, from the hands of the land office officer. I have no reason to doubt the words of the Thais involved there, it was in their own interest to get the 30 year lease registered. Still, I don't wanna post this as facts, but simply as a question.

There seems to have been no announcement of this whatsoever, but only by actually trying to register a 30 year lease this came up. And both the owners and the law firm and even the leaseholder are in the real estate business, so they should have heard about it, if that would have been announced somehow, somewhere. But no.

[donx]

I would like to know if anyone else can confirm the OP's experience.

I'm not doubting him, but this is potentially so serious that it should be verified from a range of sources.

Well, I fully agree with this "potentially so serious", which is why I don't want to believe it. However I witnessed it happening, and I saw the Thai lawyer receiving this 100plus pages document, in Thai, from the hands of the land office officer. I have no reason to doubt the words of the Thais involved there, it was in their own interest to get the 30 year lease registered. Still, I don't wanna post this as facts, but simply as a question.

There seems to have been no announcement of this whatsoever, but only by actually trying to register a 30 year lease this came up. And both the owners and the law firm and even the leaseholder are in the real estate business, so they should have heard about it, if that would have been announced somehow, somewhere. But no.

It sounds like the rogue action of a specific land office or a restriction based upon some specific aspects of the lease agreement other than the fact that a farang was involved. Since you were witness to this, which land office was involved? Was the lease for an individual farang or for a foreign company? Anything unusual about the situation or was it simply a farang trying to lease a plot of land for 30 years? We have already heard of stories where some land offices refuse to register a usufruct on a land title.

[yuyi]

It sounds like the rogue action of a specific land office or a restriction based upon some specific aspects of the lease agreement other than the fact that a farang was involved.

May be it sounds like that, but if these guys justify the refusal by quoting their rules and by handing over a 100plus pages document then it certainly does not look like a rogue action to me.

It was said very clearly that this concerns farangs as leaseholders, only farangs.

Since you were witness to this, which land office was involved? Was the lease for an individual farang or for a foreign company?

Individual farang.

Anything unusual about the situation or was it simply a farang trying to lease a plot of land for 30 years?

Nothing unusual. The same development has already successfully registered 30 year leases before.

We have already heard of stories where some land offices refuse to register a usufruct on a land title.

As said, this was more 'business as usual' which suddenly does not work anymore. There's a good relation between Thai lawyers and land office, they work together for a long time. That's probably why they gave the lawyers a copy of that document without hesitation.

If nobody has heard about this new rule, may be someone can report success registering a 30 year lease very recently?

And yes, even if there was no usufruct requested in this case, they said that usufructs for foreigners are also concerned, and will not be accepted anymore.

[hellohello]

yuyi- Could you at least tell us what area this was in? Bangkok, The Sticks, Samui? Thanks!

[donx]

yuyi- Could you at least tell us what area this was in? Bangkok, The Sticks, Samui? Thanks!

Yes, yuyi, please tell us which land office this was. After your great responses to my other questions, this is the only one you left unanswered.

[Nadia 2]

Oops, a friend tried to register a 30 year lease, and it was refused. Reason given was a new order (dated August 15) telling the land offices to not register land leases > 5 years for foreigners. Plus no more usufructs for foreigners.

There was a discussion if this is indeed a new law, however it seems to be not a real law, but just a rule given by the land department. There is a 100plus page document in Thai there with all details.

Since in my eyes this is a shocker, however I see it happening, I wonder if any of the gurus here can shed some light on this.

(and please refrain from stupid "oh so terrible" "better pack your stuff and run" comments)

There is no new regulation, the letter is probably a partly foreign company, August 15 are the business registration rules, before allowing the registration of the lease the land official wants the letter (company) to submit proof the company's shareholders are not nominees (this is not a general requirement), the 5 years is probably 3 (unregistered lease)

[lannarebirth]

Oops, a friend tried to register a 30 year lease, and it was refused. Reason given was a new order (dated August 15) telling the land offices to not register land leases > 5 years for foreigners. Plus no more usufructs for foreigners.

There was a discussion if this is indeed a new law, however it seems to be not a real law, but just a rule given by the land department. There is a 100plus page document in Thai there with all details.

Since in my eyes this is a shocker, however I see it happening, I wonder if any of the gurus here can shed some light on this.

(and please refrain from stupid "oh so terrible" "better pack your stuff and run" comments)

There is no new regulation, the letter is probably a partly foreign company, August 15 are the business registration rules, before allowing the registration of the lease the land official wants the letter (company) to submit proof the company's shareholders are not nominees (this is not a general requirement), the 5 years is probably 3 (unregistered lease)

Good to see you back Nadia2. You're knowledgable posts have been missed.

[womble]

yuyi- Could you at least tell us what area this was in? Bangkok, The Sticks, Samui? Thanks!

Yes, yuyi, please tell us which land office this was. After your great responses to my other questions, this is the only one you left unanswered.

Yeah which land office?

[Nadia 2]

Oops, a friend tried to register a 30 year lease, and it was refused. Reason given was a new order (dated August 15) telling the land offices to not register land leases > 5 years for foreigners. Plus no more usufructs for foreigners.

There was a discussion if this is indeed a new law, however it seems to be not a real law, but just a rule given by the land department. There is a 100plus page document in Thai there with all details.

Since in my eyes this is a shocker, however I see it happening, I wonder if any of the gurus here can shed some light on this.

(and please refrain from stupid "oh so terrible" "better pack your stuff and run" comments)

There is no new regulation, the letter is probably a partly foreign company, August 15 are the business registration rules, before allowing the registration of the lease the land official wants the letter (company) to submit proof the company's shareholders are not nominees (this is not a general requirement), the 5 years is probably 3 (unregistered lease)

Good to see you back Nadia2. You're knowledgable posts have been missed.

Thanks, but just guessing. Seems there is a regulation dated August 19 that mentions something about a lease agreement with a foreigner as the hirer and the right or option to transfer the land to freehold in the lease agreement, that this was not allowed. Could be refused for this reason?

[yuyi]

To end all speculation that this was an isolated action by a rogue office, I tried to get hold of the document serving as basis of the refusal. I managed to get the header copied, here it is:

ที่ มท ๐๕๑๕/ว ๒๑๙๔๙

มท = Ministry of Interior

กรมที่ดิน

ถนนพระพิพธ กทม. ๑๐๒๐๐

ิ

Department of Lands

๑๙ สิงหาคม ๒๕๕๑

19 August 2551

๑๙ สิงหาคม ๒๕๕๑

เรื่อง ระเบียบกรมที่ดิน ว่าด้วยการจดทะเบียนสิทธิและนิติกรรมเกี่ยวกับการเช่าที่ดินและ

อสังหาริมทรัพย์อยงางอื่น ตามประมวลกฎหมายแพงงและพาณิชย์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๑

From the Land department, about leasing land (etc)

เรียน ผู้ว่าราชการจังหวัดทุกจังหวัด

-> To all provinces

สิ่งที่ส่งมาด้วย ระเบียบกรมที่ดิน ว่าด้วยการจดทะเบียนสิทธิและนิติกรรมเกี่ยวกับการเช่าที่ดิน

และอสังหาริมทรัพย์อย่างอื่นตามประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๑

Sorry, time did not allow me to get more now, but I will try today to get the pages copied which contain the specifics. It's more than 100 pages, so I will not ask or order a translation of the whole thing.

However that above might already enable someone having access to these kind of things to look it up.

[LoveDaBlues]

I bought 421 TW a week ago and was given a 30 year usufruct by the helpful lady at the

Udon Thani land office. Cost: 50 baht.

[donx]

To end all speculation that this was an isolated action by a rogue office, I tried to get hold of the document serving as basis of the refusal. I managed to get the header copied, here it is:

ที่ มท ๐๕๑๕/ว ๒๑๙๔๙

มท = Ministry of Interior

กรมที่ดิน

ถนนพระพิพธ กทม. ๑๐๒๐๐

ิ

Department of Lands

๑๙ สิงหาคม ๒๕๕๑

19 August 2551

๑๙ สิงหาคม ๒๕๕๑

เรื่อง ระเบียบกรมที่ดิน ว่าด้วยการจดทะเบียนสิทธิและนิติกรรมเกี่ยวกับการเช่าที่ดินและ

อสังหาริมทรัพย์อยงางอื่น ตามประมวลกฎหมายแพงงและพาณิชย์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๑

From the Land department, about leasing land (etc)

เรียน ผู้ว่าราชการจังหวัดทุกจังหวัด

-> To all provinces

สิ่งที่ส่งมาด้วย ระเบียบกรมที่ดิน ว่าด้วยการจดทะเบียนสิทธิและนิติกรรมเกี่ยวกับการเช่าที่ดิน

และอสังหาริมทรัพย์อย่างอื่นตามประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๑

Sorry, time did not allow me to get more now, but I will try today to get the pages copied which contain the specifics. It's more than 100 pages, so I will not ask or order a translation of the whole thing.

However that above might already enable someone having access to these kind of things to look it up.

Hmm, you had plenty of time to post this Thai-language document yet you still failed to tell us which land office this happened in? Why are you afraid to tell us? You want us to make a guess? OK. I'll bite. I bet it happened in Yabbatani province.

Now that LoveDaBlues has shown that usufructs are still allowed in at least one land office, all we need is for someone else to claim that they have registered a 30 year lease since August 19 2008. Maybe we will and maybe we won't. I'm very curious to find out the reason why the lease registration you witnessed was rejected. It's definitely getting very interesting.

I'll ask my wife to translate the Thai script above when I can get her to take a look at it. Thank you for posting it for all of us to see.

[womble]

troll..............

[yuyi]

troll..............

Well, if you think so then don't feed it.

I'm always amazed what people post here just to get their post count up...

[yuyi]

To end all speculation that this was an isolated action by a rogue office, I tried to get hold of the document serving as basis of the refusal. I managed to get the header copied, here it is:

ที่ มท ๐๕๑๕/ว ๒๑๙๔๙

มท = Ministry of Interior

กรมที่ดิน

ถนนพระพิพธ กทม. ๑๐๒๐๐

ิ

Department of Lands

๑๙ สิงหาคม ๒๕๕๑

19 August 2551

๑๙ สิงหาคม ๒๕๕๑

เรื่อง ระเบียบกรมที่ดิน ว่าด้วยการจดทะเบียนสิทธิและนิติกรรมเกี่ยวกับการเช่าที่ดินและ

อสังหาริมทรัพย์อยงางอื่น ตามประมวลกฎหมายแพงงและพาณิชย์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๑

From the Land department, about leasing land (etc)

เรียน ผู้ว่าราชการจังหวัดทุกจังหวัด

-> To all provinces

สิ่งที่ส่งมาด้วย ระเบียบกรมที่ดิน ว่าด้วยการจดทะเบียนสิทธิและนิติกรรมเกี่ยวกับการเช่าที่ดิน

และอสังหาริมทรัพย์อย่างอื่นตามประมวลกฎหมายแพ่งและพาณิชย์ พ.ศ. ๒๕๕๑

Sorry, time did not allow me to get more now, but I will try today to get the pages copied which contain the specifics. It's more than 100 pages, so I will not ask or order a translation of the whole thing.

However that above might already enable someone having access to these kind of things to look it up.

Hmm, you had plenty of time to post this Thai-language document yet you still failed to tell us which land office this happened in? Why are you afraid to tell us? You want us to make a guess? OK. I'll bite. I bet it happened in Yabbatani province.

Now that LoveDaBlues has shown that usufructs are still allowed in at least one land office, all we need is for someone else to claim that they have registered a 30 year lease since August 19 2008. Maybe we will and maybe we won't. I'm very curious to find out the reason why the lease registration you witnessed was rejected. It's definitely getting very interesting.

I'll ask my wife to translate the Thai script above when I can get her to take a look at it. Thank you for posting it for all of us to see.

donx, it does not really matter where this happened. The document was issued by the Ministry of Interior, Department of Lands, under number ๐๕๑๕/ว ๒๑๙๔๙, and sent to the governors of all provinces. If some read their mail and other don't, well, TiT. But if it really helps you, it was in Rayong.

As said, I will try to get the page with the details, and post here.