Common Facilities & Parking Rights Of A Renter In A Condo

[mrducky]

Hi

My friend is in a dispute with the Building Management of her condo. She, along with others who are renting out their apartments for both short and long term have been told that their tenants can no longer use the common facilities and also are not allowed to park in the car park.

From the beginning, the condo had allowed renters (implicitly) to use all facilities, but in recent months, there have been incidents such as renters not following the Rules & Regulations of the condo and during the peak season, there are not enough car parks for owners who come to park themselves due in part, from renter's usage. This is not in BKK by the way, so most of the time the condo is less then 30% occupied. After complaints from owners, the management decided to block renters from parking but without changing the R&R OR informing all the joint owners . There were also some concerns that renters (who come every weekend) were increasing the wear and tear of the facilities. Anyhow, the management now disallows parking by renters but not yet disallowed the usage of facilities.

The main reasoning from the building management is the definition of "Joint Owners" doesn't mention anything about renters, proxies, friends so their definition only includes the actual owner and direct family of the condo purchaser.

They also would like owners or rental units to contribute more for the maintenance fee as it is not fair to other owners who are usually away and only come a few times a year.

Has anyone had any experience like this?

I disagree with the first point, as the definition "'Joint-owners' means the owners of the apartments in the condominium of each condominium". It is very broad, and I believe that the joint owner can assign his right to the tenant.

I do agree with the 2nd point though, but am wondering what would be a good way of implementing this. Anyone can suggest a way to allocate the charges? I think a 5% increase for the rental owners or those who stay longer and use the facilities more is fair.

Lastly I think that the management has no right to change the bylaws as and when they feel like it. They didn't consult all the owners and only talked to a handful of rental owners.

Any comments would be welcome on how she can fight them without going to court. The last thing she wants is to sell this because of a stupid policy that shouldnt' be there in the first place.

Thanks.

[isawasnake]

It sounds like your friend is getting screwed. The first thing I would think to argue is that you purchased based on a certain income and being able to pay the mortgage with that income. Since this will necessarily decrease the amount of rent you can collect, they would have had to inform her of all this during all the contract signing. It also sounds like the managers are trying to turn their problem (ie controlling behavior of residents) into your friend's problem. Do you get a sense they are being too picky with the renters, or are they really obnoxious?

I love the "wear and tear" argument - they make a crap building and then claim the renters are putting too much wear and tear. That is a good one. Maybe I am way off here btw, looking forward to what others have to say

Being right here means nothing though; being Thai (small and in charge) means everything. This is what I have learned. Most of these battles are not worth fighting imo.

Edited April 15, 2013 by isawasnake

[ballbreaker]

Condominium regulations are not open to interpretation by the condo management.

Condominium regulations must clearly state use of common property and if no renter restrictions are listed then renters can use. Any changes to these regulations must be done by meeting of co-owners and submitted by the juristic person manager to the competent officer for registration within 30 days from the date of resolution. The competent officer will verify changes in regulations are not against the law and if not will accept for registration.

[isawasnake]

Right, you can't sell the units based on a certain amount of monthly income expected, and then change the deal in a way that would lower that expectation after the fact. But now, what to do.... and thusly, the real annoyances will begin.

[BrianCR]

Condominium regulations are not open to interpretation by the condo management.

Condominium regulations must clearly state use of common property and if no renter restrictions are listed then renters can use. Any changes to these regulations must be done by meeting of co-owners and submitted by the juristic person manager to the competent officer for registration within 30 days from the date of resolution. The competent officer will verify changes in regulations are not against the law and if not will accept for registration.

Correct, additionally most condo's elect a committee made up of owners and who generally meet once a month when they should accept and make proposals regarding any possible changes in rules and also explain financial management and proposed spending of the monies collected from maintenance fees Edited April 15, 2013 by BrianCR

[rayongchelsea]

Condos cam fees are not based on use age..what about co- owners who do come at week- ends, should they pay more than co- owners who almost never go, neither of which ever rent out. I have co- owners in my condo who have never been, live overseas..

There is no rationale to this argument..other than as usual some owners not wanting to pay their fees.

What if a co- owners comes with a family of 6 another with a family of 3, they always come at the same time, should the later pay less because of usage based on persons occupying he condo..

What if a co- owners rents for a year another for 6 months..

Could go on and on..about where this may lead....

It is both illegal and nonsensical and impractical..think of the invoicing etc..

[davejones]

Whether the management company has a right to change the rules depends on their contract to manage the building. It would be impossible to speak to all owners over every little thing. If the owners who rent out their condos think this is wrong, then they should call a meeting. It's up to the owners as a whole to do something about it. But this is the problem of buying a condo when there is a mixture of owners who use themselves and short-term rentals. Short-term renters tend to take less care of things, so I'd not want them to use the facilities either if I was an owner there. But it's all down to the contracts. It's not possible to say whether the management are right or wrong without seeing the contracts. People should clarify these issues before the buy, and have them included in the sales contract. No point complaining later. As for your friend, best thing for her is to move out.

If there aren't enough parking spaces, then the management have to do something about it. Stopping short-term renters parking there seems the obvious solution. I can't think of a fairer solution.

Edited April 15, 2013 by davejones

[givenall]

By defilation, the renter has the same right as the owner and you can let the owners know so they can take care of the problem.

the manager probably renting the parking paces, but I am not sure why you cant use the rest of the common areas like pool, etc.

[AnotherOneAmerican]

If I owned such a condo.

I would park my car in a parking space every day, and allow my renters to use my car.

Or that would be the story I told the management team anyway.

[Delight]

This is the way that I see it.

Tenants ,as such ,are not mentioned in the Condo Act.

Rules concerning tenants ,should feature in the R&R

In the strict sense a co –owner can rent out his /her room. This does not give him /her the automatic right to ‘rent out ‘ the common area.

R & R rules could specify this right.

Section 33 of the Condo Act says:

A juristic private, commonly owned housing that has been registered pursuant to Section 31 shall have the status of a juristic person.
A juristic private, commonly-owned housing is for the purpose of managing and maintaining the common property and shall be empowered to perform any act for the benefits
of the said purposes which, however, subject to the resolution of the co-owners under this Act.

i.e .It is the Juristic Person Manager(JPM) who manages the condo and has legal right to take all necessary steps.

So unless the R &R specifically inhibits certain actions then the JPM can act as he/she sees fit.
.Section 36 of the act determines the right of the JPM to do so.

Tenants have only rights applicable with the room that they are renting.They do not have co -owner rights. A co -owner can not endow rights on them.

Condos are not hotels.

[rayongchelsea]

In my condo elevators are defined as common property and listed as such in the rules and regulations,.. So they can't use those?

I think it's incredulous that a renter would not be able to use the condo the same as an owner.

[BlackPuddingBertha]

Right, you can't sell the units based on a certain amount of monthly income expected, and then change the deal in a way that would lower that expectation after the fact.

How the units are sold (by the developer) has nothing at all to do with the building management or the common fees. It's up to the buyer to assure himself that he can afford to pay for all future costs before signing on the dotted line as future rental income is not guaranteed, nor are costs fixed.

In some condos short-term rentals are prohibited and I think this is a good thing as there is no doubt at all that short-term tenants tend to cause far more trouble and wear and tear than long-term tenants or owners do. I seem to remember reading that short-term condo rentals aren't even legal anyway, though the law on this is probably very vague or open to much interpretation.

If I owned a unit in a building that had many rentals I would vote for a per night per person common fee to cover extra wear and tear, and I would also vote for allocated parking spaces.

[rayongchelsea]

Btw, we had problems with wear and tear and that was because of the poor maintenance by the previous managing agent.

With less than 30% occupancy they should be able to maintain common properties easily.

As for parking, remove all the motor bikes to start with or designate a specific area, it can be surprising how much space they can utilize.

Do all renters have cars?

Also in my limited experience families coming at week- ends sometimes bring more than one car?

[Suradit69]

Right, you can't sell the units based on a certain amount of monthly income expected, and then change the deal in a way that would lower that expectation after the fact.

How the units are sold (by the developer) has nothing at all to do with the building management or the common fees. It's up to the buyer to assure himself that he can afford to pay for all future costs before signing on the dotted line as future rental income is not guaranteed, nor are costs fixed.

In some condos short-term rentals are prohibited and I think this is a good thing as there is no doubt at all that short-term tenants tend to cause far more trouble and wear and tear than long-term tenants or owners do. I seem to remember reading that short-term condo rentals aren't even legal anyway, though the law on this is probably very vague or open to much interpretation.

If I owned a unit in a building that had many rentals I would vote for a per night per person common fee to cover extra wear and tear, and I would also vote for allocated parking spaces.

I have done something radical on the few occasions when I have had a perceived grievance in my building. I go have a chat with the manager, just as if I thought she was a normal, rational person. Surprisingly, that's how she acts toward me as well. We've always been able to resolve whatever issue it is. If nothing else, she and I better understand how we feel about it.

If the issue is purely a matter of academic interest rather than something solely to do with me, I've even talked with a board member or two when we've met on the elevator. It's amazing what they know and what I learn when that happens.

I suppose if the problem really appeared to have reached an impasse, I could even talk to the condo lawyer or my own lawyer, either of whom know a great deal more about Thai law than I do ... or even more than the resident experts on TV, whose view of the law seems to revolve around such starters as "I think" or "I feel" or such other referenced opinions.

I do agree that high season renters are often a pain in the butt and that they might best be drawn and quartered, although I'm not completely sure if that's sanctioned under Thai law. Just watching their sweaty bodies bob up and down in the swimming pool puts me off completely and don't get me started on their inability to park between the clearly painted lines.

Edited April 16, 2013 by Suradit69

[wprime]

I've seen this before, somebody owns most of the condos, he uses the majority this gives him on the condo board to seize control of the carparks, pool, gym, in one case even the phone lines, then rents them out in order to pay for a highly skilled staff member to man the front desk who is by pure chance the guy's sister.

From what I've heard there isn't much you can do about it.

[Card]

This is a rip off.

Homes are assumed to be occupied full time. If some owners choose to be away for much of the time, then that is their problem - others who use their homes full time should not have to cough up more for wear and tear because of that.

What would stop renters from using the facilities - are they locked up? If not, then they are assumed to be available for all owners/ renters.

[how241]

By defilation, the renter has the same right as the owner and you can let the owners know so they can take care of the problem.

the manager probably renting the parking paces, but I am not sure why you cant use the rest of the common areas like pool, etc.

+1

[maddermax]

I am chairman of a COC of a condominium in Jomtien and have some experience here. All condos are subject to the laws of the Condo Act 2008 which covers most of what has been discussed. It is available free on the internet.

Before any such rules can be imposed on the owners, there must be either an AGM or EGM called by a certain percentage of the owners. Those attending the meeting will need to show that they are owners, their number of shares/votes being dependent on the floor area of the apartment(s) that they own. If there is a majority of absentee landlords in the condo, they should be able to prevent any such rules being imposed.

I agree with what has been said above. When she bought the apartment she bought it on the understanding that she could rent it out and the tenants could use the facilities. If there is a large percentage of the condo owned by absentee landlords for renting and the tenants are not allowed to use the common facilities, the owners would have to sell but would have little chance of recouping their full investment. The resident owners should be aware that when they come to sell theirs, theirs will also be reduced in value and there will be fewer buyers interested in purchasing.

At our condo we do not differentiate between owners and tenants, they are all residents. Each would be subject to our wrath and consequences if they break the rules. We have limited car parking spaces and have introduced rules that all are able to use the car park on a 'first come' basis. Visitors are allowed but must register with reception. If they don't or stay after midnight, they will be wheel clamped and released at a cost of Baht 2,000. All residents are issued with a car and/or motorcycle sticker so that they can be identified in the car park.

We try to keep posted notices to a minimum but all are reminded to be considerate to other residents.

Hopefully, market forces will prevail here.

[HarryMilton]

I am chairman of a COC of a condominium in Jomtien and have some experience here. All condos are subject to the laws of the Condo Act 2008 which covers most of what has been discussed. It is available free on the internet.

Before any such rules can be imposed on the owners, there must be either an AGM or EGM called by a certain percentage of the owners. Those attending the meeting will need to show that they are owners, their number of shares/votes being dependent on the floor area of the apartment(s) that they own. If there is a majority of absentee landlords in the condo, they should be able to prevent any such rules being imposed.

I agree with what has been said above. When she bought the apartment she bought it on the understanding that she could rent it out and the tenants could use the facilities. If there is a large percentage of the condo owned by absentee landlords for renting and the tenants are not allowed to use the common facilities, the owners would have to sell but would have little chance of recouping their full investment. The resident owners should be aware that when they come to sell theirs, theirs will also be reduced in value and there will be fewer buyers interested in purchasing.

At our condo we do not differentiate between owners and tenants, they are all residents. Each would be subject to our wrath and consequences if they break the rules. We have limited car parking spaces and have introduced rules that all are able to use the car park on a 'first come' basis. Visitors are allowed but must register with reception. If they don't or stay after midnight, they will be wheel clamped and released at a cost of Baht 2,000. All residents are issued with a car and/or motorcycle sticker so that they can be identified in the car park.

We try to keep posted notices to a minimum but all are reminded to be considerate to other residents.

Hopefully, market forces will prevail here.

As someone who follows the laws, as you clearly try to be, is it legal for you to wheelclamp cars and charge a fee to release them?

[Naroge]

If nothing is mentioned of this in the bylaws, then common sense is that the Renter takes over the right to parking and common facilities as long as he rent. At the same time, the Owner will have no rights to parking or facilities (no double dipping by the owner!).

Introducing varying common fees is just a non-starter. No one will be able to agree on a "fair" formula except for basing it on sqm owned.

[william-pad]

Its a pity the condo is not named or where in Thailand it is. there are still too many bad Condominium Managers around.

the condominium Regulations are available at the local land office as is the registration of Juristic manager and committee, also the ratio of all rooms in the condo with common area defined.

The Condominium act 2008 is available on many Expat sites for example Pattaya city expats club.

Any attempt to take over and charge for common areas Must be approved by a general meeting of more than half the owners with a postponed meeting the Quorum is one third.

Try the local Trading Standards Office at City hall if there is one otherwise go to court.

[BlackPuddingBertha]

I agree with what has been said above. When she bought the apartment she bought it on the understanding that she could rent it out and the tenants could use the facilities.

The vendor was in absolutely no position to guarantee this and so I doubt very much that it formed part of any contract of sale. Of course if it was mentioned in the contract of sale then the owner could pursue the vendor for damages. (Though if I was the owner I probably wouldnt want to waste my time and money trying it.)

Owning a thing does not give you the inalienable right to rent it out to other people as all sorts of laws and rules may prevent you from doing this. These same laws and rules may impose financial penalties on you for doing it, or impose other restrictions/obligations.

[smutcakes]

If nothing is mentioned of this in the bylaws, then common sense is that the Renter takes over the right to parking and common facilities as long as he rent. At the same time, the Owner will have no rights to parking or facilities (no double dipping by the owner!).

Introducing varying common fees is just a non-starter. No one will be able to agree on a "fair" formula except for basing it on sqm owned.

This is what i expect is happening which has caused the Committee to ask the management to take the actions they are proposing. When a Co-owner rents out their unit, they apportion there right of parking/use of parking facilities to the tenant. In this case I expect Co-owners who have rented out their space are also parking there, as well as the renters.

In most Condo's there are the Rules & Regulations, and the house rules. The R&R's need a General Meeting to amend, whereas the house rules can be amended by the JPM after a resolution of the Committee. The main issue is that how can you enforce the house rules, the Committee and the management company in the Condominium's are absolutely powerless to stop people breaking the rules. There are no practical things that can be done to enforce them.

[MichaelSong]

I am chairman of a COC of a condominium in Jomtien and have some experience here. All condos are subject to the laws of the Condo Act 2008 which covers most of what has been discussed. It is available free on the internet.

Before any such rules can be imposed on the owners, there must be either an AGM or EGM called by a certain percentage of the owners. Those attending the meeting will need to show that they are owners, their number of shares/votes being dependent on the floor area of the apartment(s) that they own. If there is a majority of absentee landlords in the condo, they should be able to prevent any such rules being imposed.

I agree with what has been said above. When she bought the apartment she bought it on the understanding that she could rent it out and the tenants could use the facilities. If there is a large percentage of the condo owned by absentee landlords for renting and the tenants are not allowed to use the common facilities, the owners would have to sell but would have little chance of recouping their full investment. The resident owners should be aware that when they come to sell theirs, theirs will also be reduced in value and there will be fewer buyers interested in purchasing.

At our condo we do not differentiate between owners and tenants, they are all residents. Each would be subject to our wrath and consequences if they break the rules. We have limited car parking spaces and have introduced rules that all are able to use the car park on a 'first come' basis. Visitors are allowed but must register with reception. If they don't or stay after midnight, they will be wheel clamped and released at a cost of Baht 2,000. All residents are issued with a car and/or motorcycle sticker so that they can be identified in the car park.

We try to keep posted notices to a minimum but all are reminded to be considerate to other residents.

Hopefully, market forces will prevail here.

As someone who follows the laws, as you clearly try to be, is it legal for you to wheelclamp cars and charge a fee to release them?

Maybe it is illegal, but parking a car on private property certainly is.

The owner of the car knows the consequences very well as a badge is needed to enter the parking area, so he (or the owner of the condo who has the badge) is familiar with the house rules.

Another (legal IMHO) option would be to tow the car away and dump it on nearest road. The owner then would have to pay for the cost and most probaly the damage on the car.

[Delight]

To answer the OP,s question about selectively increasing fees by 5% for the Co –owners who rent out their rooms. The condo act allows for selective extra pricing.

It is implicit in Section 46

SECTION 46. Upon it being required of only some co-owners by the rules to pay for the
expenses of some specific activity, only such co-owners shall have the right to
participate in voting on the ex­penses of this activity with the number of
votes for each co-owner to be as prescribed in the rules pursuant to Section 18
paragraph one.

It may be appropriate in your case. I am certain that half of the co –owner vote would need to support it (at a general meeting).

The Board cannot just apply an increase without this positive vote.

Also
In the condo where I live the R&R includes a section on Co –owner (bad) behavior

If the rules are breached (by co –owner /tenant/guest) then the offender is sent a written warning (twice) . If this fails then the co –owner is fined 5000 baht.

If that money is not paid (within 48hrs or longer by negotiation ) then the water is cut off.
These measures have been approved by the land office.

Therefore we treat them as being legal.
Luckily there has not been one occasion when these measures had to be enforced.

Further
Smutcase states:

In most Condo's there are the Rules & Regulations, and the house rules. The R&R's need a General Meeting to amend, whereas the house rules can be amended by the JPM

after a resolution of the Committee.

The concept of un -enforceable house rules separate to the R & R is new to me.
In reality they are House Requests.

Is Smutcakes correct –do most condos have ‘House Rules’ as described ?

[ripley]

It never ends. Condo management continues to try ways and means of extorting more money from the owners. I must say that this particular instance astonished me.

The purchase of my unit included the right to use the common facilities unhindered, a parking space and the responsibility to pay CAM fees. Whether I am using my condo or renting out usage to another party is nobody's business and makes no difference whatsoever to building depreciation. It is precisely the same thing as my living there full time. People who never live in their units or who only come at weekends pay the same CAM fees as others and own the same rights - whether or not they use the facilities. I would have thought all of this obvious and can't imagine why anyone would question the logic.

Obviously, if a tenant is in anyway mis-using the unit/condo facilities, that needs to be addressed but, again, in exactly the same way as it would be addressed if the owner were doing the same thing.

I think condo owners should vigorously contest any management that attempts to curb their rights as homeowners.

[Naroge]

It never ends. Condo management continues to try ways and means of extorting more money from the owners. I must say that this particular instance astonished me.

The purchase of my unit included the right to use the common facilities unhindered, a parking space and the responsibility to pay CAM fees. Whether I am using my condo or renting out usage to another party is nobody's business and makes no difference whatsoever to building depreciation. It is precisely the same thing as my living there full time. People who never live in their units or who only come at weekends pay the same CAM fees as others and own the same rights - whether or not they use the facilities. I would have thought all of this obvious and can't imagine why anyone would question the logic.

Obviously, if a tenant is in anyway mis-using the unit/condo facilities, that needs to be addressed but, again, in exactly the same way as it would be addressed if the owner were doing the same thing.

I think condo owners should vigorously contest any management that attempts to curb their rights as homeowners.

Ripley, I agree with your view in general as it is all common sense to me too. What I don't understand is the complain of the Management you are doing at this forum. The Management is managing the condo on the instructions from the Board (and the Owners). As you (or your friend) are an owner you should first address these issues with the Board. If the Board would side with the Management, then your only way to get a change is to make sure a new Board is elected at the next AGM.

Maybe I missed something in your explanation, but this is how I would have handled it.

[Langsuan Man]

Unless the condo was purchased with a designated parking space then it is reasonable for the condo committee to set up whatever rules they want for the parking lot. As another poster has mentioned, they issue one parking sticker to each owner. If that owner wants to give his to a tenant then that should be permitted. Since there are never enough parking spaces for the number of condos then it is also reasonable to establish a first come, first served option.