Introduction of new fees by condo committee

[Eneukman]

The previous committee at the condo where I live voted to introduce a "trash" charge to cover the cost of collecting the rubbish from the building. This was 25 baht per unit for all those units that had used water during the month. The new committee, elected in January of this year, decided by a majority vote to increase the charge to 50 baht. The committee members who opposed the increase wanted to cancel the charge as they felt, as I do, that this is an expense that should be covered from the annual maintenance fee and additional fee whatever you want to call it as our maintenance fee is nowhere near adequate to cover the cost of running the building. We struggle to get 25% attendance so there is no chance of achieving the 50% necessary to increase the maintenance fee.

It has since been suggested that this additional fee was introduced illegally. So, my questions are -

1. Is this charge legal? It was not approved at a general meeting. I suspect it would have been defeated had it been raised at a general meeting.

2. If owners refuse to pay the charge, is there any way that payment can be enforced?

3.If the payment is illegal, can those owners who have paid the charge demand to be reimbursed for what they have paid?

Alan

[ripley]

If the fee was not put to a vote in a General Meeting, it is illegal. Committees are not authorized to levy charges. As such, punishment for non-payment would be illegal. As for getting a reimbursement - afraid that will take a lawyer or a group protest/ EGM. Maybe a letter to the Land Office...

Check out TVF on "Special Assessments" for some facts/opinions on this matter.

[Eneukman]

A further question.

The previous committee also increased the charge to residents for water (following an increase by the water company) and introduced a charge for waste water (again following the introduction of such a charge by the local authority). Neither of these were approved by co-owners. I accept the need for the increase in the water fee and the introduction of a charge for waste water though personally I would simply have combined the two. However, were the increase and the introduction of the waste water charge legal?

Thanks again,

Alan

[smutcakes]

There are many gray areas in the law, and i would check your Condo regulations as to what the Committee can and cannot do. In some Condo's, particularly older ones, there are provisions for the Committee to make special assessments in some cases. People will argue it is against the law, but the onus will be on the Co-owners actually taking it forward and getting a lawyer to do something, normally these protests stop when people have to actually dip their hand in their pocket.

[isawasnake]

I don't pay anything except what I signed to pay for. I get these new fees too. I don't pay. I haven't had any problems yet. If somebody stops and asks me a questions, I will just say "no hablo ingles, y tengo que irme cabron". If they turn off my water or something, I guess that will be a different matter. As long as I still have internet I should be ok.

Edited July 31, 2013 by isawasnake

[smutcakes]

I don't pay anything except what I signed to pay for. I get these new fees too. I don't pay. I haven't had any problems yet. If somebody stops and asks me a questions, I will just say "no hablo ingles, y tengo que irme cabron". If they turn off my water or something, I guess that will be a different matter. As long as I still have internet I should be ok.

Or until you try and sell your unit and the JPM wont sign your debt free certificate, where you have outstanding amounts for the last X years accruing interest at 20%. So you will either pay it then with the interest, or you will then have to fight it which will be very time consuming and cost you considerably more than the amounts due or you wont be able to sell your unit.

[Eneukman]

As far as I can tell from the regulations, nothing is said about the introduction of new fees such as this "trash" charge. The English translation I have is from an unknown source so I think I'll obtain a copy of the original Thai version next week and if necessary pay to have it translated "professionally' into English.

Alan

[Jerry Cornelius]

We have owned 2 condos in Thailand.W

We had problems with domineering commitees in both.

If you want to own a condo. Buy in Europe. There's fewer dictatorships.

Jerry

[cheeryble]

Eneukman

You're going to pay to have a translation done so you can find a reason to throw a spanner in the works and make life impossible for those committee members who give their time free on your behalf? You cannot be serious. You have nothing better to do with your time?

Why are you griping about pennies when you are way underpaying enough to run the building anyway?

You mention the (quite common) situation where the common area fees can't be raised because not enough votes.

Then you gripe about a small thing that may just help a bit to pay the bills. If it is not quite legal maybe the committee thought if they charged all owners including absentee owners there would be trouble, so they are only charging those who are present.

It's not perfect but life ain't perfect and it's a middle ground, so why are you griping? You prefer the building to go bankrupt?

The building will go inexorably downhill if you don't get the fees up and attract a decent committee by supporting them and not moaning about trivia....will you be happy then?

Edited August 3, 2013 by cheeryble

[Eneukman]

Eneukman

You're going to pay to have a translation done so you can find a reason to throw a spanner in the works and make life impossible for those committee members who give their time free on your behalf? You cannot be serious. You have nothing better to do with your time?

Why are you griping about pennies when you are way underpaying enough to run the building anyway?

You mention the (quite common) situation where the common area fees can't be raised because not enough votes.

Then you gripe about a small thing that may just help a bit to pay the bills. If it is not quite legal maybe the committee thought if they charged all owners including absentee owners there would be trouble, so they are only charging those who are present.

It's not perfect but life ain't perfect and it's a middle ground, so why are you griping? You prefer the building to go bankrupt?

The building will go inexorably downhill if you don't get the fees up and attract a decent committee by supporting them and not moaning about trivia....will you be happy then?

That is exactly the attitude that allows committees to get away with doing what they want regardless of what is legal or not! The sinking fund will, I estimate, be below the original fund but not by much so we are in a strong financial position just now. As far as I can gather, there is at present NO properly translated version of the condo's regulations so surely it is in EVERYBODY'S interest to have this.

Alan

[cheeryble]

.......our maintenance fee is nowhere near adequate to cover the cost of running the building.

.......so we are in a strong financial position just now.

Does not compute

Does not compute

ps: You want to take day to day expenses from the sinking fund?

Now is THAT legal?

Alan....

I'm not trying to be cantankerous here.

the fact is your root problem is caused by the law....who with the best will in the world that owners are protected have come up with a usually unmeetable %age for major votes, which can have severe consequences for buildings upkeep and therefore the owners equity.

This is a difficult one.

Other parts of the Condominium Act....which was certainly improved at it's revision bringing in lots of back fees....are simply lazily written and cause no end of problems, such as the section about changing or improving parts of the building. These terms or their Thai equivalent are simply not expanded in principle or exemplified enough, and they should be. One can only run by the spirit of the law as it is simply not defined. They can be used at the drop of a hat to threaten suits by litigious owners and the defendant can only show that the principle or spirit of the law is carried out....that owners equity is not affected. The case may usually not be found valid but all this means talented owners won't stand for committee and everyone loses.

Cheeryble

Edited August 3, 2013 by cheeryble

[cheeryble]

Just occurred to me it might be better if people had to vote AGAINST certain requests for change to stop them. Maybe it would be less than 50% to veto.....a figure would need working out.

At the moment the default position is no change to ensure safety of tenants' equity....but is it safe to let a building rot? Should the default be the other way round?

There could be caveats like all owners must be forewarned of a vote by 3 months or whatever so if they want to object they really can. All owners could be informed yearly how the new law worked so if they wanted to have a say they would never be uncontactable......and if they're too lazy to stay in touch do they deserve a vote anyway?.......the details would need working out.

Edited August 3, 2013 by cheeryble

[isawasnake]

Maybe this is a question for a new thread, but I admittedly just don't get the regulations at all. I am living in my first new condo, and I do realize somebody could claim "do your due diligence" on me, which is fine, but I thought on the surface that you look at the contract, see you are paying 1500 baht a month in HOA fees etc. Yet, when the condo says something like "the 1500 isn't covering our costs", well, isn't that their problem (I guess not). I signed up under the guise of a certain battery of fees. If you can just advertise "1000 baht HOA Fee", and then charge whatever the hell you bloody please, what is the point? I am also talking about extra fees they just seem to add on out of the blue; fees I have never heard of before when reading through the contract at least. What responsibility does the condo have to maintain things under the financial constraints they proposed when they sold the units?

Signed

Admittedly clueless, yet overall very happy condo owner

Edited August 3, 2013 by isawasnake

[cheeryble]

Maybe this is a question for a new thread, but I admittedly just don't get the regulations at all. I am living in my first new condo, and I do realize somebody could claim "do your due diligence" on me, which is fine, but I thought on the surface that you look at the contract, see you are paying 1500 baht a month in HOA fees etc. Yet, when the condo says something like "the 1500 isn't covering our costs", well, isn't that their problem (I guess not). I signed up under the guise of a certain battery of fees. If you can just advertise "1000 baht HOA Fee", and then charge whatever the hell you bloody please, what is the point? I am also talking about extra fees they just seem to add on out of the blue; fees I have never heard of before when reading through the contract at least. What responsibility does the condo have to maintain things under the financial constraints they proposed when they sold the units?

Signed

Admittedly clueless, yet overall very happy condo owner

You signed a contract with the condominium?

I doubt it, you may have signed a contract with the seller of your unit , which wouldn't contain anything about fees.

Perhaps you mean you just weren't told, or didn't ask, about insurance, sinking fund, as well as the common area fees.

ps: The "condo" doesn't say "That's not covering our costs". Your elected representatives or the JP chosen by them say that.

If your representatives say that, they are saying "WE owners as a group are not paying enough to cover costs." Not us and them.

[isawasnake]

Maybe this is a question for a new thread, but I admittedly just don't get the regulations at all. I am living in my first new condo, and I do realize somebody could claim "do your due diligence" on me, which is fine, but I thought on the surface that you look at the contract, see you are paying 1500 baht a month in HOA fees etc. Yet, when the condo says something like "the 1500 isn't covering our costs", well, isn't that their problem (I guess not). I signed up under the guise of a certain battery of fees. If you can just advertise "1000 baht HOA Fee", and then charge whatever the hell you bloody please, what is the point? I am also talking about extra fees they just seem to add on out of the blue; fees I have never heard of before when reading through the contract at least. What responsibility does the condo have to maintain things under the financial constraints they proposed when they sold the units?

Signed

Admittedly clueless, yet overall very happy condo owner

You signed a contract with the condominium?

I doubt it, you may have signed a contract with the seller of your unit , which wouldn't contain anything about fees.

Perhaps you mean you just weren't told, or didn't ask, about insurance, sinking fund, as well as the common area fees.

ps: The "condo" doesn't say "That's not covering our costs". Your elected representatives or the JP chosen by them say that.

If your representatives say that, they are saying "WE owners as a group are not paying enough to cover costs." Not us and them.

yes, not told, and did not ask about insurance etc. the other thing that bugs me is i know not all the members are paying these fees, but i guess this is just stuff you need to learn to live with if you own one. overall, i am actually pretty happy... i guess my main gripe/annoyance is the JP is a very arrogant thai lady who i'd really rather not have any contact with whatsoever. anyway, thanks for the info

[rayongchelsea]

I am on a committee. A lot of work. Some co- owners can be a nightmare.

Get your rules and regulations and understand them, then raise questions at the agm.

Most co- owners do not have clue what goes on within the running of a condo.

Don't sweat the small stuff but it maybe an indication of how the condo is run.

Make sure you have a contact list of all co- owners, if you are so concerned get into a discussion with other co- owners not here on Thai visa.

In my experience I had a complaint about certain rules and regulations when I managed to get hold of them and discovered that certain common properties hadn't been transferred even though we were paying for them, non compliance with fire lane regulations etc.. Removed the committee and we are now in court, there are vested interests out there not all doing what is correct for all co- owners, especially if the developer is still involved.

I have lived in my other condo for 15 years and never a problem.

[cheeryble]

Yes it seems in any large grouping of people you will get someone who makes trouble. Don't be surprised, because you can expect it.

An American I know told me in the US you even get people taking their lawyers to meetings!

No doubt it's been known for a developer to control things for their advantage but generally it's overblown or imagined. I can think of one large condo in CM where the developer still runs it like a dictatorship after 20 years, but the fact is the fees are still low and it's clean and well run and he has a great deal of experience in getting things done. I say keep him..

Even in well-run condos with democratically elected committees whose members may be generally well heeled and could not be less interested in corruption a few residents will always imagine they are being ripped off. It may reflect much more on the accusers than on those they accuse.

Edited August 4, 2013 by cheeryble

[cheeryble]

the other thing that bugs me is i know not all the members are paying these fees,

You will be pleased to hear that swingeing interest soon up to 20%pa accrues on any unpaid bills so you are probably winning by them paying late! (They can't get away with it long term as all bills must be paid and signed off before a unit can be sold, and short term the normal legal remedies are available not to mention even cutting off water!).

i am actually pretty happy... i guess my main gripe/annoyance is the JP is a very arrogant thai lady who i'd really rather not have any contact with whatsoever. anyway, thanks for the info

Your charming JP I cannot help you with.

Edited August 4, 2013 by cheeryble

[rayongchelsea]

I can think of one large condo in CM where the developer still runs it like a dictatorship after 20 years, but the fact is the fees are still low and it's clean and well run and he has a great deal of experience in getting things done. I say keep him..

I wish all were so ethical but generally if a developer is in charge stay well clear.

[cheeryble]

I can think of one large condo in CM where the developer still runs it like a dictatorship after 20 years, but the fact is the fees are still low and it's clean and well run and he has a great deal of experience in getting things done. I say keep him..

I wish all were so ethical but generally if a developer is in charge stay well clear.

Ethical isn't the word I'd use.

Efficient perhaps.

It seems many new condos are charging top whack for fees when in fact they have no major renovation coming up, and some older condos seem to run quite well with a much lower cost basis. This means prospective buyers should be careful when buying new that all or nearly all units are sold before signing up. Because unscrupulous developers who still have the vote for a lot of units may....errr....finish off snagging from condo fees though in fact it should be paid by them.

They may be making their maintenance duties easy at the cost of the regular owners.

Very easy to get work done with no hassle to oneself if one throws money at it.

Edited August 4, 2013 by cheeryble

[Eneukman]

I am on a committee. A lot of work. Some co- owners can be a nightmare.

Get your rules and regulations and understand them, then raise questions at the agm.

Most co- owners do not have clue what goes on within the running of a condo.

Don't sweat the small stuff but it maybe an indication of how the condo is run.

Make sure you have a contact list of all co- owners, if you are so concerned get into a discussion with other co- owners not here on Thai visa.

In my experience I had a complaint about certain rules and regulations when I managed to get hold of them and discovered that certain common properties hadn't been transferred even though we were paying for them, non compliance with fire lane regulations etc.. Removed the committee and we are now in court, there are vested interests out there not all doing what is correct for all co- owners, especially if the developer is still involved.

I have lived in my other condo for 15 years and never a problem.

I do have a copy of the condo's regulations but the translation is somewhat suspect in places. The condo act has changed twice since the copy I have was prepared. An updated translation was prepared by a former committee member, whose qualifications for preparing an English translation are the same as mine - zero.

At least one owner has stated that he will no longer pay the "trash charge" as he has been told by his lawyer that it is illegal. The problem with where I live is that many condos are rented often on a short term basis 2 weeks or less with a flat rate rental being charged per day. It is true, though, that many owners do not have a clue about what is involved in running the condo. In fact, there are still some who seem to think that it can still be run for the same as the original maintenance fee, which was set close to 10 years ago. In my opinion, it was inadequate even then! All of the previous committee either owned condos that were rented or managed condos on behalf of absent owners.

As already stated, our annual maintenance fee is nowhere near adequate to cover the cost of running the building so we have to charge an additional fee every year. This is approved by owners at the AGM. Fortunately, whilst the sinking fund will likely be below that when the building was built at the end of the current financial year, the shortfall will be fairly small so that is not a major problem.

Alan

[rayongchelsea]

Alan.

Your condo doesn't seem so bad, heard a lot worse.As long as it is being maintained satisfactory I think that is of paramount importance in maintaining value.

I have a condo where a lot are empty or 2 week lets and then very busy in high season and long week- ends I decided I couldn't live there permanently.

[cheeryble]

Alan.

Your condo doesn't seem so bad, heard a lot worse.As long as it is being maintained satisfactory I think that is of paramount importance in maintaining value.

Exactly it must be properly maintained, then the building will last indefinitely and as cities grow larger your location will automatically become more central and desirable.

I have a condo where a lot are empty or 2 week lets and then very busy in high season and long week- ends I decided I couldn't live there permanently.

Sounds ideal. Many condo buildings have a lot of owners only in residence occasionally. Quieter, isn't it?

Edited August 5, 2013 by cheeryble

[sotsira]

As far as I can tell from the regulations, nothing is said about the introduction of new fees such as this "trash" charge. The English translation I have is from an unknown source so I think I'll obtain a copy of the original Thai version next week and if necessary pay to have it translated "professionally' into English.

Alan

Sounds like the committee have acted illegally with this "trash charge"

without it going to a vote at an AGM.

If it were that easy to charge fees to all the co-owners with made up charges,

then i would assume that it would be a regular occurrence at most condominiums

all over Thailand.

If the committee feels it has the right to do so, then whatever will be the next

charge that they think up?

Cleaning charge?

Gardening charge?

Security charge?

Swimming Pool charge?

Office admin charge?

Common area charge?

TV/Internet cabling charge?

They could make one up for every month of the year if they wanted to!

[cheeryble]

At least one owner has stated that he will no longer pay the "trash charge" as he has been told by his lawyer that it is illegal. The problem with where I live is that many condos are rented often on a short term basis 2 weeks or less with a flat rate rental being charged per day. It is true, though, that many owners do not have a clue about what is involved in running the condo. In fact, there are still some who seem to think that it can still be run for the same as the original maintenance fee, which was set close to 10 years ago. In my opinion, it was inadequate even then! All of the previous committee either owned condos that were rented or managed condos on behalf of absent owners.

As already stated, our annual maintenance fee is nowhere near adequate to cover the cost of running the building so we have to charge an additional fee every year. This is approved by owners at the AGM. Fortunately, whilst the sinking fund will likely be below that when the building was built at the end of the current financial year, the shortfall will be fairly small so that is not a major problem.

Alan

You're seriously saying the guy consulted a lawyer over what sounds from your post like 50 baht a month (remembering that it still has to be paid somehow, it will never actually be saved).

Out of interest what do the regs say about levying an extra charge to make up the running costs. Are you speaking of a special assessment?

[harrry]

As the condo does not have to dispose of your rubish as this is a personal expense just like the telephone maybe you can tell them you will dispose of it yourself and carry it all to work with you. This is one charge it it is comletly fair to charge only tenants in residence as others do not produce personal rubbish and expect others to look after it.

[rayongchelsea]

Not practical. Rubbish is a central cost and budgeted for, what about removal of items in the common areas, who would pay for that etc..we have a lot of garden rubbish that goes out with the personal stuff..

I think you have a very valid point however, that some residence who are more permanent than those who are not and therefore use the facilities and services more, should pay more. I am trying to implement this at our condo..think it is too much hassle..

[Eneukman]

At least one owner has stated that he will no longer pay the "trash charge" as he has been told by his lawyer that it is illegal. The problem with where I live is that many condos are rented often on a short term basis 2 weeks or less with a flat rate rental being charged per day. It is true, though, that many owners do not have a clue about what is involved in running the condo. In fact, there are still some who seem to think that it can still be run for the same as the original maintenance fee, which was set close to 10 years ago. In my opinion, it was inadequate even then! All of the previous committee either owned condos that were rented or managed condos on behalf of absent owners.

As already stated, our annual maintenance fee is nowhere near adequate to cover the cost of running the building so we have to charge an additional fee every year. This is approved by owners at the AGM. Fortunately, whilst the sinking fund will likely be below that when the building was built at the end of the current financial year, the shortfall will be fairly small so that is not a major problem.

Alan

You're seriously saying the guy consulted a lawyer over what sounds from your post like 50 baht a month (remembering that it still has to be paid somehow, it will never actually be saved).

Out of interest what do the regs say about levying an extra charge to make up the running costs. Are you speaking of a special assessment?

That were his exact words to me and a fellow co-owner.

This is not a special assessment - it is a monthly charge if you use sufficient water to receive a water bill every month. As far as I can see from a quick look at the regulations, they only provide for the sinking fund going below 30% of the original fund which was not the case when this charge was introduced.

Alan

[sotsira]

As the condo does not have to dispose of your rubish as this is a personal expense just like the telephone maybe you can tell them you will dispose of it yourself and carry it all to work with you. This is one charge it it is comletly fair to charge only tenants in residence as others do not produce personal rubbish and expect others to look after it.

The condo fees that everyone pays yearly cover the running of the building,

that includes the monthly charge paid to the garbage truck service from the

condo fund.

The cleaning ladies who take out the wheelie bins twice daily are also paid a salary

from the condo fund.

So why would an additional fee need to be implemented on top of the condo fees?

Doesn't make logical sense to me, what it does say though, is that the committee are

thinking of ways to generate more income, but why?

[harrry]

As the condo does not have to dispose of your rubish as this is a personal expense just like the telephone maybe you can tell them you will dispose of it yourself and carry it all to work with you. This is one charge it it is comletly fair to charge only tenants in residence as others do not produce personal rubbish and expect others to look after it.

The condo fees that everyone pays yearly cover the running of the building,

that includes the monthly charge paid to the garbage truck service from the

condo fund.

The cleaning ladies who take out the wheelie bins twice daily are also paid a salary

from the condo fund.

So why would an additional fee need to be implemented on top of the condo fees?

Doesn't make logical sense to me, what it does say though, is that the committee are

thinking of ways to generate more income, but why?

Because it increases the volume and involves more work for the cleaning ladies in collecting and disposing of the domestic waste of the units. It seems to me that it is fair to base this charge on use as empty apartments do not create domestic waste. They seem to have devised a system of paying for this just as the person wold have to pay to get his room cleaned. This does not seem acceptible to the OP so I just indicated a way of legitimately avoiding it.