Condo Owner Refuse To Pay Fees

[Serpico]

A person in our condo building refuses to pay the fees.

We sent several late notices via registered mail with no response.

Is it legal to shut the water off?

Under the law, it refers to suspending common services.

The building does sell water to the residents.

Can this be considered common services?

Condo Law.

In the case where a joint owner fails to make payments set forth under Section 18 with the prescribed time, such joint owner shall pay surcharge at the rate not exceeding twelve percents (12%) per year of the amount unpaid without compound interest charging provided, however, that this shall be in accordance with the requirements set forth under the Bylaws.

A joint owner with an amount in arrears under Section 18 from six months and upwards shall pay surcharge at the rate not exceeding twenty percents (20%) per year and may be suspended from receiving common services or using common property as set forth under the By-laws including the non-existence of the right to vote in the General Meeting.

Edited October 19, 2009 by Serpico

[hhgz]

The latest condo act has all of the information, and I'm surprised that - apparently - neither your condo board not juristic person knows the answer.

[CRUNCHER]

Yes. After 6 months the juristic person manager can cut off electric and water, suspend use of common facilities and, in the event of the condo being sold, cannot issue a letter of being debt free which is needed to transfer ownership. Voting rights are suspended and, of course, interest is charged on the amount outstanding.

[ripley]

I just read the 2008 condo act posted on TVF & nowhere does it say that a person who refuses to pay maintenance can be punished by:

A. Turning off of water or electrictiy (these, incidentally, are arranged by contract w/ the owner and the company)

B. Denial of use of common property

C. Denial of access to unit (padlocks, etc.)

The act does state that a defaulter may be billed a surcharge. It is also true that a condo unit must be cleared of all debts before sale or transfer.

[CRUNCHER]

I just read the 2008 condo act posted on TVF & nowhere does it say that a person who refuses to pay maintenance can be punished by:

A. Turning off of water or electrictiy (these, incidentally, are arranged by contract w/ the owner and the company)

B. Denial of use of common property

C. Denial of access to unit (padlocks, etc.)

The act does state that a defaulter may be billed a surcharge. It is also true that a condo unit must be cleared of all debts before sale or transfer.

I think you have to read the 1979 Act as well.

[PrasitPC]

I just read the 2008 condo act posted on TVF & nowhere does it say that a person who refuses to pay maintenance can be punished by:

A. Turning off of water or electrictiy (these, incidentally, are arranged by contract w/ the owner and the company)

B. Denial of use of common property

C. Denial of access to unit (padlocks, etc.)

The act does state that a defaulter may be billed a surcharge. It is also true that a condo unit must be cleared of all debts before sale or transfer.

I stay at the Condo near Suvarnabhumi Airport which was built higher than allowed by the authorities. We have similar case like yours. Some of the co-owners never pay. So the stupid management and their juristic manager with unknown reasons sued the co-owners for Bankruptcy. For those who were deemed bankrupt by the court, the Condo will never get a cent back as the properties as they have to share the proceeds with other creditors. The banks get the first lien on the properties. Then when the property is auctioned the new owners do not have to pay the old debts to the condo. The condo was further saddled with a bill of more than Baht 1 million plus. The lawyer the condo employed never turned up to meet with their committee members to discuss the court cases.

My advice is do not mess around with the Thai lawyers. Best you go and make your complain to the Consumer Court. Prompt fast and you dont have to spend any money !

[ripley]

N 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. They also lose the right to vote at General Meetings. The penalties paid under paragraph one shall be regarded as an expense under Section 18 (1979 Condo Law)

Thanks for the referral to 1979. However, I believe the relevant wording is "may risk..." and "may be banned..." From personal experience, when the matter of non-payment was challenged the Juristic Person was forced to take each defaulting owner to court before punishment could be implemented.

[Jingthing]

I stay at a Jomtien condo managed by a large Bangkok based management company. Owners who don't pay their fees face cutoffs of water AND electricity. Thus, I reckon it is totally legal. Compliance is stellar.

[NormanW]

I stay at a Jomtien condo managed by a large Bangkok based management company. Owners who don't pay their fees face cutoffs of water AND electricity. Thus, I reckon it is totally legal. Compliance is stellar.

I was going to say, how can you get an owner to pay their fees????????

[Jingthing]

I stay at a Jomtien condo managed by a large Bangkok based management company. Owners who don't pay their fees face cutoffs of water AND electricity. Thus, I reckon it is totally legal. Compliance is stellar.

I was going to say, how can you get an owner to pay their fees????????

Well, not sure what point you are making, but breaking their legs is NOT legal.

[harrry]

Well, not sure what point you are making, but breaking their legs is NOT legal.

and breaking arms makes it hard to write the check.

[NormanW]

I stay at a Jomtien condo managed by a large Bangkok based management company. Owners who don't pay their fees face cutoffs of water AND electricity. Thus, I reckon it is totally legal. Compliance is stellar.

I was going to say, how can you get an owner to pay their fees????????

Well, not sure what point you are making, but breaking their legs is NOT legal.

It's a hard one though isn't it?

Trying to get an owner to pay up.

If you go down the legal route it will cost a lot of dosh, so just how do you make someone pay their fees?

without violence.

[Serpico]

Thank you all for the advice.

We turned off the water.

The gentleman then paid a good portion of bill with a promise to pay the balance at the end of the month.

We will miss that 20% interest though

[donx]

So the owner no longer had any water. He couldn't get his shit out of his toilet, so he quickly agreed to make payments. What a brilliant solution to your problem! Congratulations on a job well done!

[thecatman]

It's a hard one though isn't it?

Trying to get an owner to pay up.

If you go down the legal route it will cost a lot of dosh, so just how do you make someone pay their fees?

without violence.

I guess the answer is, you can't.

But by shutting off the water and electric you then make the condo almost worthless to the owner and anyone else for that matter. The condo owner can no longer live in, lease, or sell the property too easily until he resolves his debt issues.

Edited October 23, 2009 by thecatman

[ripley]

"I stay at a Jomtien condo managed by a large Bangkok based management company. Owners who don't pay their fees face cutoffs of water AND electricity. Thus, I reckon it is totally legal. Compliance is stellar"

Oh well, gosh. If a large Bangkok based management company does it it MUST be legal!! Right....?

[Jingthing]

"I stay at a Jomtien condo managed by a large Bangkok based management company. Owners who don't pay their fees face cutoffs of water AND electricity. Thus, I reckon it is totally legal. Compliance is stellar"

Oh well, gosh. If a large Bangkok based management company does it it MUST be legal!! Right....?

I actually think in this case probably so. Being large if they openly implement illegal policies they would open themselves up to lawsuits and also damage their reputation to get new clients.

Edited October 24, 2009 by Jingthing

[Topprofile]

The latest condo act has all of the information, and I'm surprised that - apparently - neither your condo board not juristic person knows the answer.

Great help!

[wpcoe]

I always assumed (warning: assumptions are dangerous) that an individual building can include rules beyond what the national condo laws provide.

e.g. My condo building might have a provision in the bylaws and constitution (or whatever that legal document is that sets rules for the condo owners) to turn off water and electricity for non-payment of homeowner association dues, and by my "voluntarily agreeing to" that rule at purchase time, it becomes a legal method to punish me for non-payment of dues.

IF that assumption were correct, it could vary on a building-by-building basis.

[ripley]

Compelling argument.

Still, I think you'll find that - if a defaulter is determined enough to press the matter - it will still come to court.

Another consideration is that the by-law in question may not have existed at the time of purchase.

[richm7]

Yes, the bylaw SHOULD exist at the time the unit is purchased (regardless of the governing law changes since, though as far as I can see those changes don't really affect this issue). If it WAS in the bylaws, which it probably was, you can cut their services off, including (usually) water and lift service if it is card controlled.

The poster who mentioned they have got one payment with another promised but won't get the interest needs to be careful. Another co-owner would be within his/her rights to sue the juristic person and the board (or committee, however it is defined) for failing to fully collect from the errant co-owner. So, if the board says the effective under payment is OK, they're potentially in trouble. If you are on a board, beware, you might end up finding yourself criminally liable if some selfish pr*ck refuses to pay up and you let it slide.

Cutting off the water seems to be pretty effective in most cases!!