Changes In Condo Maintenance Fees, Or "Special Funds"

[ripley]

The Thai Condominium Act B.E. 2522 states that the owner will pay for the upkeep and maintenance of Common Property as determined by the Condo Regulations. Further, that the Owner will pay into additional "Funds" as determined by resolution of the AGM. A rise in Maintenance fees or a new Fund (for renovation, repair or any other perceived special need) is apparently determined by the simple majority vote of an AGM provided there is a quorum (consisting of 1/4 of the total condo votes) in attendance. If there is no quorum at the AGM, the EGM (second call meeting) decides the outcome.

My reading of the B.E. 2522 indicates that Maintenance and special funds do not fall into a category requiring 1/2 or 1/4 of the total ownership votes.

A second call EGM does not require a quorum, nor does it have a vote attendance minimum so technically a meeting of, say, 3 owners can pass whatever they like. And there are severe penalties for any owner refusing to comply.

Now, do I have this right? Can anyone provide correction, clarity or additional information on this matter? Any recourse in law for a condo with fees unnecessarily escalating out of control?

Edited January 10, 2012 by ripley

[ripley]

I've always understood that maintenance and other charges require a specific majority of the total co-owners. An AGM tried to pass a minor increase a few years ago, was reported to the Land Office, and had to revoke the increase.

I just checked and, no, I wasn't having a "senior moment". Siam Legal's page states that it does require a 3/4 majority of total owners to pass an increase. However, I don't see that in the English translation of the Act.

What's the story here?

[chris2004]

My condo needed to raise more money for maintenance. As i understand it to increase the normal common fee at least 50% of ALL the co-owners need to agree at an AGM. As we never get that many attend this was not possible. But it seems we can charge an additional fee using only 50% of co-owners ATTENDING an EGM. This is the route we took to get an additional 5million baht of funding. Our standard common fee is fairly low at 20 baht per sq m per month.

[ripley]

Just read a translation of B.E. 2522 which contains amendments made in 2008. I think this is the most recent.

It states that a second-call meeting (EGM due to lack of quorum at AGM) must have not less than 1/3 of joint owners total votes to pass a resolution.

So I guess that puts paid to the notion that a 2nd call mtng. needs only a simple majority?

Trawling thru the various versions/translations of Thai Condominium Law is certainly baffling and frustrating.

Edited January 11, 2012 by ripley

[Delight]

I would say that you have it about right.

The Co -owners are responsible for the maintenance of the building. This they do via the committee.

So as such they should attend General meetings.

Lack of attendance, due to either apathy or as a boycotting tactic -cannot interfere with the running of the building.

I think that the basis for posing this question is the phrase 'Unreasonable Rise in fees.'

If the building manager is operating within the law then on a monthly basis detailed income -expenditure data should be displayed .

A 30% increase in fees does ,I agree ,appear to be unfair on face value.

It becomes reasonable if It can be justified .

A well detailed agenda is useful in this regard.

There is no requirement for a 75% vote on any issue. That was not the case with the Act as originally presented.

A change of a Juristic Person Manager will always require a winning vote which comprises at least 25% of total building vote.

Certain issues that require a 50% vote can pass on a winning vote of at least 1/3 rd of total building vote (at the 2^nd Meeting)

Sinking funds only require a simple majority-even at a meeting without a 25% quorum. –unless the Condo Regulations specify something else.

Increasing the basic maintenance charge does require a 50% vote.

However an increase designated -'Special Assessment ' can be authorized with a simple majority.

This legally occurred at an EGM in the condo where I live. The meeting attracted 26%(by building vote –bodies and proxies) attendance ..The proposal got 100% 'Thumbs Up' from the attendees. But a simple majority would have achieved the same result.

I attach a couple of JPEGs in relation to the Condo Act (translated version -therefore has no legal authority)

[ripley]

Interesting and informative post. Thanks.

I'm not certain that Sinking Fund and Special Assessments require only a simple majority vote of those people and proxies present at an AGM or EGM.

The Sinking fund, I believe, is outlined in a condo's Regulations. A change in Regulations requires 50% of the co-owner vote.

Special Assessments vary wildly in purpose and cost to the owners. They amount to the same thing as a rise in maintenance fees, can be and are sometimes used as a way to get around proposing an actual maintenance fee increase. If allowed, these could easily mount up and sky-rocket the costs of condo living. Although they are passed at times using a simple majority, with no objection from the owners, I have questions about their legality. I wonder what the Land Office or courts would have to say about these if they were challenged. I can't find chapter and verse on specifics regarding special assessments in B.E. 2552 or 2551, but I could be missing something.

I agree that the cost of living increases, rises in Maintenance fees are sometimes necessary, and this is frustrated by the lack of attendance to AGMs. Getting a 50% vote can be difficult and the condominium shouldn't have to suffer losses of services and upkeep. More work in the areas of educating the co-owners about the importance of participating in decisions, encouragement and facilitating of proxy votes, as well as earning their trust is part of the answer here.

Edited January 21, 2012 by ripley

[Darrel]

I attended the AGM of a large building a little while ago. The chairman pointed out several times that a 50% quorum had never been achieved in the entire history of the building.

Several of the co-owners attending didnt register, as they specifically didnt want a quorum to be achieved as that could entail an increase in the maintenance fee. They wont escape the special charge though.

[ripley]

Interesting.

It somehow never occurred to me that owners were sabotaging meetings this way instead of taking the opportunity to work out solutions. Naive of me! The only thing I can say in their defense is that an alarming number of condos completely ignore the laws regarding proper condo administrative procedure, attention to input from owners and full disclosure at AGMs. Often co-owners enter a condominium which ignores the law and then don't know how to correct the situation. Often they enter an AGM without being supplied the necessary documents and statistics upon which to make an advised decision. The owners naturally become frustrated & in some cases feel that boycotting the AGM is their only recourse.

The attempt to prevent a quorum seems like a very short-sighted and irresponsible tactic to me. By so doing the owners prevent other necessary resolutions from being passed. They miss the opportunity to work out differences with the administration. They frustrate the best attempts of an honest administration, while having a limited effect on a dishonest one. They force a "Second Call" meeting which requires no quorum and a smaller percentage of co-owner votes to pass resolutions, thus sabotaging their own interests. (That is, assuming the condominium is abiding by lawful procedures.)

Nor is it correct, in my opinion, to attempt to circumvent the proscribed percentage of votes for a maintenance increase by calling it a "Special Assessment". I do see mention of Special Funds in the Act, but no detail.

Most of this really boils down to the fact that, on both sides of the equation, nobody can be arsed to pin down and act upon the laws as they are written and practiced in court and by the Land Office/ Competent Officers. They gloss over these things and hope nobody will notice or if they do notice they won't challenge. If a thing is allowed to happen, many take it as read that it must be legal!

A "Second-Call" meeting doesn't require a quorum and resolutions are passed by a 1/3 majority of total co-owners. Do we know if resolutions regarding items 1 thru 6 in Section 43 of B.E.2552/2551 are included? (#5 item is maintence fee changes).

I recommend great caution when dealing with "Special Assessments". They can be ruinous. It's worth pinning down the working Thai Law about these. I certainly intend to continue research, for my own edification.

Edited January 22, 2012 by ripley

[Darrel]

The attempt to prevent a quorum seems like a very short-sighted and irresponsible tactic to me. By so doing the owners prevent other necessary resolutions from being passed. They miss the opportunity to work out differences with the administration. They frustrate the best attempts of an honest administration, while having a limited effect on a dishonest one. They force a "Second Call" meeting which requires no quorum and a smaller percentage of co-owner votes to pass resolutions, thus sabotaging their own interests.

Indeed. The maintenance fee in this particular building is under 5000B per unit per year and has never been increased since the building was built. So it takes a special sort of idiot to worry about it being voted up as even if it was doubled (which would probably still be less than inflation over the time) it would still be absurdly cheap.

[ripley]

My apologies. I keep referring to current condo law as B.E. 2552 when it is, of course, B.E. 2522.

Darrel -

Just curious - how has your condo managed to operate with no increases since registered? In what condition?

[Darrel]

Special charges double the maintenance fee. The condition seems fine.

[Delight]

Special Assessment ( and Sinking Funds) can save condos.

In relation to the condo where I live, achieving a 50% Vote to increase fees would either be impossible or at least very difficult(my opinion)

In the event it was achieved (as a Special Assessment) at an EGM with 26% of total building vote.-It raised the fee by 25% p.a. and this Assessment has a 3 year life)

The management company that was appointed, after the Condo voted to get rid of the original developer /manager, advised us of the approach.

With out it the condo would be in a mess.

i.e. Not enough money to give a good service –which results in non-payments from some Co-owners as a protest –which then results in a further reduction in service etc.etc.

A condo can lose critical mass –such that it can never be pulled back and ends up a bankrupted mess.

Of course in some circumstances it is the inefficient use of resources.

(A condo which is the older sister of the one where I live is a case in point.

It is a complete mess- mostly as a consequence of inherent structural problems that been ignored by the co –owners (and the developer))

The Condo Act is there to avoid this.

The reason why condos fail is not because of unscrupulous/incompetent managers ,it is entirely a consequence of Co –owners who ignore their responsibilities and are seduced into complacency by the prospect of long term low fees.Most co -owners only look at the fees.

In truth you also need a body of co –owners (by law at least 20% of the building vote)who are prepared to go the extra mile -and within that 20% a few who are good managers and organisers.

The Act is only weak –in my view-in relation to a lack of a provision to obtain unpaid fees from delinquent co –owners- via a Civil court .

Maybe the Thai Civil code covers this in the respect of Non –Payment of Debt in a general sense.

[ripley]

"The reason why condos fail is not because of unscrupulous/incompetent managers ,it is entirely a consequence of Co –owners who ignore their responsibilities and are seduced into complacency by the prospect of long term low fees."

There are indeed unscrupulous/incompetent managers & Committees responsible for the deplorable conditions in some condominiums. There are also irresponsible and incompetent co-owners who only look at the fees without troubling to insist upon and study the audits and other financial documentation.

I can certainly see your point about the difficulties of achieving a 50% vote and how an insufficient maintenance fund can bring down a condominium. The inevitable increases in the cost-of-living which affect us all make it necessary to raise the fees from time to time. Perhaps reasonable, regularly scheduled automatic cost-of-living Maintenance Fee increases - tied to the actual rises in cost-of-living across the board - could be sought and pursued. Beat the bushes, get the proxies and votes in by straightforward means, working well in advance of an AGM. Worth the extra effort to be rid of the problem once and for all.

A local legal-eagle expressed an interesting opinion. Any proposal for a Special Assessment must be specific as to need and purpose. He could think of only 4 purposes: 1.) New and unforeseen taxes or other govt. levied expense 2.) Emergency repair of Common Property 3.) Improvement, alteration or addition to Common Property/ Facilities 4.) Topping up the Sinking Fund.

Aforementioned Legal-eagle pointed out that:

1.) May qualify as a legitimate extra expense, requiring a Fund and not mentioned in the list of proposals requiring 50% total vote

2.) Should be covered by the Sinking Fund (as emergency repairs are the stated purpose of that fund)

3.) Is either a Maintenance issue - as such should be requested as a Maintenance increase; or falls under the sections in Thai Condo Law concerning Common Property issues. In neither case will a simple majority vote cut it. Maintenance and Common Property issues require a vote of 50% total co-owners at an AGM, (minimum 1/3 total at a Second Call mtng.? Do we know that yet?)

4.) May qualify as a legitimate extra expense requiring a fund. Condo Law isn't specific regarding Sinking Fund vote requirements.

Edited January 23, 2012 by ripley

[Delight]

My thoughts are that you would do better to speak with an accountant (prefereably one with knowledge of Condo running costs) rather than a lawyer.

Let's not lose sight that the committee's raison d'etre is to produce happy customers .i.e. happy co-owners.

The Special Assessment in the first instance will be used to address wrongs of the past-the fee is too low for a variety of reasons.

Once it is updated then on a fixed frequency(say every 3 years) it can be reviewed to deal with the impact of inflation (or deflation )

[ripley]

"The Special Assessment in the first instance will be used to address wrongs of the past-the fee is too low for a variety of reasons.

Once it is updated then on a fixed frequency(say every 3 years) it can be reviewed to deal with the impact of inflation (or deflation)"

Given the many difficulties in achieving a legitimate increase, this seems a pretty fair and reasonable method of getting a Maintenance Fund back on track.

For many reasons, tho, the legality of Special Assessments on the basis of a simple majority vote needs to be researched and tested. Often these Assessments are for purposes other than necessary Maintenance Fund adjustments.

Do you think it would be a good idea to amend the condo's Regulations to include a fixed frequency cost-of-living increase/decrease?

[Delight]

Good Point. I think that It's up to the individual CJP.

In the condo where I live the Special Assessment only has a 3 year life -therefore a review automatically occurs.

I sense that some contributors to this blog are not convinced as to to legality and scope/limitations of a Special Assessment .

Defining that and including in the Definitions .=may be of use.

Are my senses correct?

[ripley]

I agree that "Special Assessments" would make a useful addition to the Glossary of Condominium Terms. But first there needs to be more legal research to pin down that definition. My questions are:

-What constitutes a legitimate Special Assessment and what should, in Law, be classed instead as a Maintenance Fee or other category?

-What circumstances require a proposal for a Special Assessment?

-What is the law regarding voting ratio for a Special Assessment in AGM and Second Call mtngs.?

May I ask, when your administration asked for and received a Special Assessment how was the proposal termed? What reason was given to the co-owners?

You know, another useful thing that could be done would be for all interested parties to exchange ideas about how to increase the attendance/proxy votes in an AGM. Also, what are the most effective ways to present a proposal and get it passed? I'm well aware of the recalcitrance, studied ignorance and indifference of some co-owners, but I think much of that could be overcome with a period of sustained effort on the part of the administration. A good "brain-storming" session might be useful.

Obviously, if we have at least 50% of total votes represented in an AGM it is then only a matter of selling a proposal to them. It passes or it doesn't - legitimately and with no lingering questions..

[ExpatJ]

As long as they use the increased maintenance fees to pay for building upkeep, this is a good thing. Generally fees are way too low for Pattaya/Bangkok condos as i guess they are tyring to lure short sited buyers who care about saving a few bucks now but dont realise their building will soon deteriorate.

Im paying about 300 US$ per month fees for my condo (that i rent out)- for that i get a large well maintained garden, 2 pools (in door heated, outdoor), squash , tennis, excellent gym (over 20 running/bike/rowing machines etc), playground, jazuzzis, steam rooms etc. Its also much easier to find tenants when the propoerty is well maintained.

[Darrel]

Im paying about 300 US$ per month fees for my condo (that i rent out)- for that i get a large well maintained garden, 2 pools (in door heated, outdoor), squash , tennis, excellent gym (over 20 running/bike/rowing machines etc), playground, jazuzzis, steam rooms etc.

That's nearly as much as my rent! And I have a 65sqm unit with a very nice view.

Personally I'm not at all interested in any building facility apart from an elevator and one outdoor unheated pool. Anything else is just a complete waste of money as far as I'm concerned, and even if I had a billion USD in my pocket I wouldn't want to live anywhere that had such facilities.

[ripley]

"As long as they use the increased maintenance fees to pay for building upkeep, this is a good thing. Generally fees are way too low for Pattaya/Bangkok condos as i guess they are tyring to lure short sited buyers who care about saving a few bucks now but dont realise their building will soon deteriorate.

Im paying about 300 US$ per month fees for my condo (that i rent out)- for that i get a large well maintained garden, 2 pools (in door heated, outdoor), squash , tennis, excellent gym (over 20 running/bike/rowing machines etc), playground, jazuzzis, steam rooms etc. Its also much easier to find tenants when the propoerty is well maintained. "

If your building had these standards and facilities when you bought in, you will have known what you were getting into & made the choice to pay a hefty Maintenance Fee. Or, perhaps, the building had fewer facilities & your fellow Co-owners voted in improvements. Fair enough & each to his own.

For those who chose a more basic Condominium with a lower Maintenance Fee it can be ruinous to have that fee pumped up to $300/mo. for facilities they never wanted and don't require.

This is one reason why the AGM is so vital to the interests of the owners.

• Like This
  
• Unlike
  

• Back to top
  
• Quote
  
• MultiQuote
  
• Report
  

[ripley]

I recently replied to a person who was having problems getting attendance to AGMs - the old, old problem which means nothing ever gets done & discussed again & again.

Had the thought that perhaps the all-out thrust of effort ought to be to change the Regulations of a condo to require attendance to the AGMs either in person or thru proxy vote. The Regulations carry a lot of weight legally and are no more difficult to vote in than say Maintenance increases, etc. I reckon anything that can increase attendance of AGMs will work to get things done and end a lot of frustrations.

I'll add here that I think there are condo administrations who don't want well-attended AGMs, who encourage owner indifference so that they can run things as they please unhindered.

[Johnny_Aloha]

I do not agree and the Land Office in Pattaya also does not agree. Jomtien Complex Condotel at their 2010 AGM had over 35% of all co-owners votes represented and voted by 95% of those voting voteed in favor of increasing the Maintenance Fees for every co-owner. However, only about 20% of the total of all co-owners actually voted their votes on this issue and the Land Office deemed that one third of all co-owner votes were required to change the Maintenance Fees so disapproved the AGM minutes, specifically this vote.

The Thai Supreme Court before the enactment of the July 4, 2008 admendment to the Thai Condo Act did decide in the favor of a single co-owner who sued his condominium for increasing the Maintenance Fees without the required percentage of co-owner votes, however, they stated that a Special Fund for specific, non-routine maintenance kind of work, e.g. painting the entire building, could be approved by a simple majority at a second meeting but the funds approved could only be used for the specific item(s) that was voted on. Unfortunately, unknowing or unscrupulous Committees and JPMs have used these Special Funds on occasion for their own agenda leaving the spefific items approved without monies to accomplish the work. Both scenarios are being contested in numerous court cases with no new verdicts to date to my knowledge.

I advise having registered co-owners taking their passports and condo deeds to their local Land Office and get an interpretation of the law from them as they are the ones responsible for enforcing the Thai Condo Act.

I have attached my version of the Thai Condo Act showing all revisions in color coding for anyone's use with the understanding that there may be errors and it certainly is not official.

Aloha, Johnny Aloha,

!1 Thai Condo Act 2522 ('79) with rev No2- 2534 (91), No3-2542 (99) & No4-2551 (08)-r10 (w Penalties & retroactive info) Thai a.doc

[ripley]

The attachments above represent an impressive amount of thought and labour to sift through the complexities of Thai Condominium Law past and present. I, for one, intend to read through these with the attention they deserve before making any in-depth comments (should I have any!)

. However, a careful study of Condominium Law with the amendments contained in B.E. 2551, plus initial scanning of your text, still indicates to me that "Special Funds/Assessments" for the most part fall under categories which require 50% or 1/3 of total co-owner votes to be passed. The law as it stands does not reflect the Supreme Court opinion you mention regarding a simple majority vote.

Collecting funds for a stated purpose and then diverting them to another purpose without permission legally obtained is fraud - pure and simple - although the wheels of the justice system may grind slowly.

My compliments to you for your superb efforts and contribution, despite the hours of work ahead of me to study them!

[justcruisin]

Another thing to keep in mind is that Condo voting rights are by percentage of ownership of the total area of the rooms, example, a large two bedroom unit has proportionally more voting rights than a small studio.

The studio may have .86% of the vote and the large unit may be for example 1.20%.

[Delight]

. However, a careful study of Condominium Law with the amendments contained in B.E. 2551, plus initial scanning of your text, still indicates to me that "Special Funds/Assessments" for the most part fall under categories which require 50% or 1/3 of total co-owner votes to be passed. The law as it stands does not reflect the Supreme Court opinion you mention regarding a simple majority vote.

Perhaps Ripley could explain this statement.

Section 48 of the Act makes no reference to any kind of maintenace funding.

For convenience I attach the relevant passage –extracted from the Johnny_ Aloha contribution.

SECTION 48, A resolution on any of the following matters shall not be less than one-half of the votes of the total number of the votes of all co-owners combined:

(1) a purchase of immoveable property or an acceptance of immovable property of binding value as common property;

(2) disposal of common property;

(3) an approval granted to any one co-owner for construction that has effect to the common property or the outside appearance of the building at the expense of such co-owner;

(4) an amendment of the rules in connection with the use of management of the common property;

(

(5) amendment that changes the ratios of the joint payments in the rule pursuant to Section 32 (8);

(6) a construction that modifies, adds to or improves the common property;

(7) a management of common property that provides benefits from use, (for example, the lease of common property)

If the co-owners do not attend the meeting in the number to constitute the majority votes pursuant to paragraph one, another general meeting shall be appointed to be held within fifteen days from the appointed date of the previous meeting. For this new meeting the resolution on matters prescribed in paragraph one shall be determined by one-third of the total co-owners combined.

What can Ripley see that I cannot?

[justcruisin]

I know here in CM that a lot of condos have been bought in foreign names by proxy. It is legal as the law simply states that that the funds must be transferred from overseas. Opens another can of worms that the land office don't even know about.

I know of seven units in one building purchased by one person that has never been in Thailand.

Is it a good thing that they actually allow people from overseas to buy through an agent without ever being here or never will come here ?

[ripley]

Considering the number of owners present and accounted for in most condos who never attend meetings, pay fees or take any interest in the community as a whole - I can't see that they're any different from the absentee owners you mention.

[ripley]

Johnny_Aloha: "I do not agree and the Land Office in Pattaya also does not agree."

Sorry - "agree" with what?

I've been perusing J. Aloha's work & referring to the translation of the 2008 Thai Condominium Act with amendments (B.E.2551) included. Just started in earnest so brain spinning at times. My thoughts thus far upon revisiting certain issues:

The 2008 Act w/ amendments states in Sec.48 - #4 that a 50% of total co-owner votes is required to pass "an alteration on or a change in the ratio of the common expenses in the Bylaws defined under sec. #32. I read that as "an alteration on OR a change in the ratio of the common expenses in the Bylaws ...etc. This seems an important distinction.

A Special Assessment is an alteration on the common expenses, is it not? As is a rise in Maintenance Fees?

Question: Section 32 mentions "other statements prescribed under "Ministerial Regulation". Can anyone tell me what the Ministerial Regulations are and where they are to be found? They're obviously different from the Condo Regulations (Bylaws).

One thing that glares out in the Law is the power, use and misuse of a Condominium's Regulations/Bylaws. These are some very mean monkeys. They very definitely affect procedures and policies, including those related to Maintenance, Sinking and Special Funds. I'd suggest that every owner obtain a copy of the original Bylaws written at the inception of the Condominium, then compare them to the current Bylaws. If they are different, I'd recommend checking the minutes of past AGMs for evidence of votes to alter them and the registration of the alterations with the Land Office. Recent experience teaches me that Condo administrations have a tendency to alter the Bylaws without regard to proper procedure which, as we know, includes the votes of 50% of total owners at an AGM.

Lots of people have quotes at the bottom of their posts. Here's one (paraphrased) I came across recently:

"People will tolerate being bitten by a wolf, but are enraged when bitten by a sheep."

Edited February 26, 2012 by ripley

[Delight]

Ripley states:

The 2008 Act w/ amendments states in Sec.48 - #4 that a 50% of total co-owner votes is required to pass "an alteration on or a change in the ratio of the common expenses in the Bylaws defined under sec. #32. I read that as "an alteration on OR a change in the ratio of the common expenses in the Bylaws ...etc. This seems an important distinction.

A Special Assessment is an alteration on the common expenses, is it not? As is a rise in Maintenance Fees?

This the way that I see it:

Common Property –Ownership and Maintenance .

Section 14 details the rules for Ownership of Common property –these rules are fixed .

Section 18 details the rules for Co –owner Payment to the Maintenance costs of Common property.

This states that the ratio of who' pays for what' has to be detailed in the Regulations. The acceptance of any change in this detail must have a minimum 50% vote(in some circumstances 1/3 of the total building vote).

The ratio of who pays what in respect of maintenance of Common property is detailed in the initial set Regulations. Typically the cost is proportional to ownership of Common property. The ownership is defined as the space of a condo unit as a proportion of the total space of all the condo units . This is as per the detail in Section 14.

If the Regulations do not detail maintenance fees(illegal) then co –owners will pay as per the ratio of ownership –as detailed in Section 14.

Any other funding requirement –assessed and detailed as being special -can be generated with a simple majority vote at a legal

Co –owners meeting (i.e. AGM or EGM)

Also:

Every unit has to owned by somebody or some company. Whoever owns must pay.

Section 32-paragraph 4- specifies that any ‘up front ’fees (ie an initial Sinking fund and the 1^st payment to maintenance fees) has to be detailed in the Regulations.

[ripley]

dam_n. Just wrote a post & lost it while checking a reference. Annoying.

Suffice to say that I disagree with arguments so far presented that increases in Maintenance Fees and Special Assessments can be achieved with a simple majority of votes of attendees to a General Mtng. I've argued this in most of my posts to this thread and haven't got much to add.

If Maintenance Fees were not covered by Sec. 48, getting increases would not be the pain in the arse it is currently! And if Maintenance Fee increases are covered by SEc.48, then most Special Assessments are as well.

As it seems Property Management Companies are recommending the "Special Assessment" route, my personal view is that the matter will eventually be put to further tests with the Land Office and the courts. According to J. Aloha's post, so far cases in both the Land Office and the Supreme court have gone in favour of those protesting Maintenance Fee increases in any guise which has not conformed to Sec. 48.

If the matter is tested repeatedly and with diligence, perhaps yet another Amendment to Thai Condo Law will come along to clarify.

And I still would like to know what "Ministerial Regulations" are and how to find them.

Edited March 1, 2012 by ripley