Juristic Persons want to introduce rental fee

[appleman_thai]

Hi,

I own a villa (classed as condo) in Cha-am and pay my yearly fees. This year its over 105,000 baht!

However, at a recent AGM, the committee want to introduce a 300 baht rental fee per night. So in other words, every night I rent out my villa I have to pay them 300 baht.

Is this legal?

They say its because of wear and tear - but to what? The only common facilities we have are the swimming pools..... the wear and tear is all on my villa.

WIth their logic, every owner who lives there all year round should also pay an extra fee.

Anyone hear of something like this before?

Apple

Edited October 23, 2013 by appleman_thai

[Khun Jean]

The joy of having a condo that is not really a condo,

How is that even legally possible.

If it was a real condo, you just get the owners together and vote about it.

A juristic person is just a representation of the owners and would need to follow the owners wishes.

I guess all of the owners would not choose to pay 300 per day.

Or did you 'rent' for 30 years.

Because then there is nothing to vote about because you are not an owner.

Or are more then 50% of the 'condo's' owned by the developer.

Then there is also nothing to vote about.

[KittenKong]

It sounds as though the owners who dont rent out want to make those who do pay more, possibly to dissuade them from letting their property at all.

This sounds very reasonable to me as there is little doubt in my mind that on average renters use the facilities far more than owners do, make more noise and general hubbub, and they are more likely to treat the facilities badly as well.

I would vote "yes".

Edited October 23, 2013 by KittenKong

[pancakeman]

If 50% of the owners want it then there's not much you can do about it.

Of course it's a moot points as enforcement would be impossible. Just tell them you have a very large extended family and they all like to pop in from time to time to stay...

Edited October 23, 2013 by pancakeman

[Delight]

In order to introduce this change -the Rules and Regs .of the condo will need to be ammended .

This will require agreement by at least 50% of the total vote allocation . The can only occur at a legally convened general meeting.

Suspect that such a high attendance will be almost impossible to achieve..

Even if just 50% is achieved and you vote againt the motion -then it will fail.

Edited October 23, 2013 by Delight

[PattayaPhom]

Wear and tear is what you are paying your maintenance fees for. As stated above about voting. It is becoming increasingly common here in Pattaya for managements to intoduce new fees...debt free letter charges of upto 2,000 baht, additional sinking fund payments etc. One condo has made it almost impossible for their owners to rent or sell through agents by requiring shedloads of info...reason being they then rent them out or sell themselves coining commission from the owners.

[appleman_thai]

Thanks for feedback.

First off, it's a registered condo that I own so I have voting rights. It's part of a condo development but they were able to build some detached houses in front of the condo block and get them classed as condos. I only own a condo - not land.

ANyway, right from the outset there has been conflict between owners and renters.....and it has gradually got worse over the years.

I understand that over 50% would have to agree with the motion and it would have to be added to agenda and voted at AGM.

BUt I am wondering if they can legally do this? Can they discriminate against an owner who sometimes rents out their condo?

As for wear and tear, this I cant understand....... all the wear and tear is on my condo.... not the shared facilities........ of which there is just a swimming pool. SO why should I have to pay more? And with that logic, someone who lives there all year round should have to pay more.

I pay my yearly fees and I shouldnt be charged extra just becuase someone stays there more often.

With all this said, I am also very aware of owners concerns to renters.... and I am very strict on who I rent out to..... and have never had complaints about my guests.......

[KittenKong]

I understand that over 50% would have to agree with the motion and it would have to be added to agenda and voted at AGM.

BUt I am wondering if they can legally do this? Can they discriminate against an owner who sometimes rents out their condo?

As long as there is a quorum they can do what the majority wants. That's democracy.

As for wear and tear, this I cant understand....... all the wear and tear is on my condo.... not the shared facilities........ of which there is just a swimming pool. SO why should I have to pay more? And with that logic, someone who lives there all year round should have to pay more.

The logic is possibly that many owners dont actually live there all year and their places remain empty when they arent there, whereas a rented place is more likely to have people in all the time.

And just because your tenants are the creme de la creme doesnt mean that other tenants aren't a complete load of yobs. Maybe it is those who are being targeted?

[Langsuan Man]

I don't agree with the quoted 50% requirement. Permanent changes to the condo rules usually require a 75% positive vote

At my condo we desperately need to raise our maintenance fees since they are still at the 20THB per square meter that was established when the condo was built. At every AGM where we try to up it to a more reasonable amount those owners who have multiple units are able to block the increase.

The work around has been a special assessment every year which only requires a simple majority

Maybe someone with a greater knowledge of the Condominium Act can weigh in here

[harrry]

Not sure diferential fees are allowed. The act lays down a maintainance charge in terms of area and to impose a further one would not seem to be legal to me. Talk to the lands department. they can certainly stop short term rentals which without proper licences are not legal.

Edited October 24, 2013 by harrry

[KittenKong]

The work around has been a special assessment every year which only requires a simple majority

My building is the same. There has never been a quorum since the thing was built.

But as far as I can see this charge on rental units could be levied under the majority rule either way, even if they have to vote it every year because they cant get a quorum.

[appleman_thai]

Thanks.

Not sure about the 75% agreement - I thought it was just 50%. WOuld like to hear someones view who has a good understanding of the condo law.

We havent had quorum issues before..... but unlikely that they could get over 50% to agree to this....

We managed, however, to get 100% approval on increasing annual fees by 50%..... that's unheard of! And I think that is enough.... no need for extra rental fees!

Sure, there are others who rent and who dont have the same high quality guests that I have :-)

It's basically dead there during the week and only busy at weekends... and certainly owners who dont rent would prefer if no-one rented at all......

BUt from the outset, it was marketed to many as an investment for rentals...... so they knew what they were getting involved with (or at least the should have)

[ripley]

Absolutely out-f...ing-rageous! Of course you don't have to pay extra fees because you rent out - just as you don't have to pay extra if you were to have personal guests, or if you were to live there year 'round. The ONLY exception is if there is something written into your condo regulations already, and even then I don't know that it would be legal. **note to all here: always always always check the condo regs before purchasing.

Check your condo regs, be scrupulous about paying any taxes on rental income, then damn the torpedoes. Your JPM has not a leg to stand on and no AGM is going to pass such a resolution.

[Jingthing]

I think they can do it legally.

I think the general concept is reasonable because tenants, especially holiday makers, have a tendency to treat the public property without care and more resident owners vs. tenants is desirable for any condo.

I think the amount, 300 baht per day, is outrageous.

[Delight]

Absolutely out-f...ing-rageous! Of course you don't have to pay extra fees because you rent out - just as you don't have to pay extra if you were to have personal guests, or if you were to live there year 'round. The ONLY exception is if there is something written into your condo regulations already, and even then I don't know that it would be legal. **note to all here: always always always check the condo regs before purchasing.

Check your condo regs, be scrupulous about paying any taxes on rental income, then dam_n the torpedoes. Your JPM has not a leg to stand on and no AGM is going to pass such a resolution.

Ripley has made an interesting point.

Possibly the OP should insist that the proposed surcharge should also apply to guests.

That will guarantee that the motion fails.

I attach a JPEG ref . business in a condo and one detailing the conditions where a 50% vote is required-both are extracts from the current condo act

[KittenKong]

It's basically dead there during the week and only busy at weekends... and certainly owners who dont rent would prefer if no-one rented at all......

That's what I suspected and I can understand why they want to dissuade people from renting there.

[appleman_thai]

Thanks again for feedback.

300 baht is ridiculous....... agreed. IN fact, in my opinion, any rental fee is ridiculous.

I still cant accept that my guests create more wear and year...... it's only my house that gets the wear and tear. SO I cant see any justification in such a fee.

As they cant actually stop people renting out their places, this is the next best thing they can try - to gradually force people not to rent and to eventually sell.

THanks for the extract from the Condo Law..... it's as I understood.

From the replies so far, no other development seems to have such a rental fee......... and it will be difficult for them to get 50% agreement so I think I should be OK for now.

[trogers]

Alternatively, vote to fill up the swimming pool with soil and pave over it. This should reduce the maintenance cost for the project...

[johnnyk]

I see it as a deterrent fee. We've all been on holidays where a few yobbos ruin things for all. What jumps out at me is the communal pool(s) and that's where the yobbos can be a huge pain making it unpleasant, even impossible, for residents/owners to enjoy what they have paid for. My house is on an estate and I just turned down a rental request from two 30-something males from a northern country well-known for boozing at all hours but there are other owners who don't care or check out who they rent to and everyone suffers when noisy drunks stumble home at 3am or take over the pool.

That said I believe the rules can be changed or amended by vote, whether 50% or 75% is necessary should be laid out in the articles or constitution of the residents' association and is certainly nothing to do with any other body.

Voting can be conducted by e-mail.

Edited October 25, 2013 by johnnyk

[PattayaPhom]

Does the same apply on LT rental...thats 9K a month?....guessing your place rents somewhere between 30-40K a month thats 20-25% charge.

These stories will become more and more common, its come to light today that a condo is leveing a selling chargeof 1% to the management...they wont issue docs unless this is paid.

[Delight]

Thanks again for feedback.

300 baht is ridiculous....... agreed. IN fact, in my opinion, any rental fee is ridiculous.

I still cant accept that my guests create more wear and year...... it's only my house that gets the wear and tear. SO I cant see any justification in such a fee.

As they cant actually stop people renting out their places, this is the next best thing they can try - to gradually force people not to rent and to eventually sell.

THanks for the extract from the Condo Law..... it's as I understood.

From the replies so far, no other development seems to have such a rental fee......... and it will be difficult for them to get 50% agreement so I think I should be OK for now.

As a pure technical point.:-

It is clear that you have the 100%right to rent out your villa.

However,

Do you have the right to rent out the common area-without approval from your fellow co -owners.

To my mind this is less clear.

You only have the 100% right to rent out the common area if that concession is specified in the regs.

Suspect not many condos have this detailed in their regs.

[appleman_thai]

Alternatively, vote to fill up the swimming pool with soil and pave over it. This should reduce the maintenance cost for the project...

THis was actually put forward as a serious suggestion by an owner! I kid you not!

[appleman_thai]

Thanks again for feedback.

300 baht is ridiculous....... agreed. IN fact, in my opinion, any rental fee is ridiculous.

I still cant accept that my guests create more wear and year...... it's only my house that gets the wear and tear. SO I cant see any justification in such a fee.

As they cant actually stop people renting out their places, this is the next best thing they can try - to gradually force people not to rent and to eventually sell.

THanks for the extract from the Condo Law..... it's as I understood.

From the replies so far, no other development seems to have such a rental fee......... and it will be difficult for them to get 50% agreement so I think I should be OK for now.

As a pure technical point.:-

It is clear that you have the 100%right to rent out your villa.

However,

Do you have the right to rent out the common area-without approval from your fellow co -owners.

To my mind this is less clear.

You only have the 100% right to rent out the common area if that concession is specified in the regs.

Suspect not many condos have this detailed in their regs.

Hmmm.

Will check the regs for details but they were sold to many people as investment property with rental income.... so it was clear from outset that many of the units would be rented.

I am very strict on who I rent out to....... but unfortunately, I have to admit, that others are less strict and therein lies the problem

[appleman_thai]

I see it as a deterrent fee. We've all been on holidays where a few yobbos ruin things for all. What jumps out at me is the communal pool(s) and that's where the yobbos can be a huge pain making it unpleasant, even impossible, for residents/owners to enjoy what they have paid for. My house is on an estate and I just turned down a rental request from two 30-something males from a northern country well-known for boozing at all hours but there are other owners who don't care or check out who they rent to and everyone suffers when noisy drunks stumble home at 3am or take over the pool.

That said I believe the rules can be changed or amended by vote, whether 50% or 75% is necessary should be laid out in the articles or constitution of the residents' association and is certainly nothing to do with any other body.

Voting can be conducted by e-mail.

Hi

Voting by email? Never heard of that and really dont think that is possible. It would have to added to a properly convened meeting - with a quorom - and then voted on.

[ripley]

So - where is your guarantee that obnoxious, unpleasant or mentally deranged oafs won't buy into the condo?? (And they're permanent fixtures.

Or perhaps a co-owner should pay an extra maintenance fee if s/he's from a particular country? If s/he drinks? If s/he's sexually promiscuous? If s/he's overweight? Cooks curry or sauerkraut? What about the owners who live in Thailand and come to their condo on holidays, just like (dog forbid) holiday makers. C'mon!

[Delight]

Thanks again for feedback.

300 baht is ridiculous....... agreed. IN fact, in my opinion, any rental fee is ridiculous.

I still cant accept that my guests create more wear and year...... it's only my house that gets the wear and tear. SO I cant see any justification in such a fee.

As they cant actually stop people renting out their places, this is the next best thing they can try - to gradually force people not to rent and to eventually sell.

THanks for the extract from the Condo Law..... it's as I understood.

From the replies so far, no other development seems to have such a rental fee......... and it will be difficult for them to get 50% agreement so I think I should be OK for now.

As a pure technical point.:-

It is clear that you have the 100%right to rent out your villa.

However,

Do you have the right to rent out the common area-without approval from your fellow co -owners.

To my mind this is less clear.

You only have the 100% right to rent out the common area if that concession is specified in the regs.

Suspect not many condos have this detailed in their regs.

Hmmm.

Will check the regs for details but they were sold to many people as investment property with rental income.... so it was clear from outset that many of the units would be rented.

I am very strict on who I rent out to....... but unfortunately, I have to admit, that others are less strict and therein lies the problem

Developers will say that which you wish to hear-inorder to get the sale.

When they exit the scene-all that is left is the Condo Act.

They have little knowledge of this Act -and rely on the fact that prospective customers typically have zero knowledge

[Khun Jean]

So - where is your guarantee that obnoxious, unpleasant or mentally deranged oafs won't buy into the condo?? (And they're permanent fixtures.

Or perhaps a co-owner should pay an extra maintenance fee if s/he's from a particular country? If s/he drinks? If s/he's sexually promiscuous? If s/he's overweight? Cooks curry or sauerkraut? What about the owners who live in Thailand and come to their condo on holidays, just like (dog forbid) holiday makers. C'mon!

You have pretty much summed up the reason why i have small condos to rent out and live in a condo i rent.

Being able to move quickly is one of those advantages of renting, and that is also worth quit a lot.

It is also probably why many want to live in a house, for me the perfect spot would be at least 100 meter distance in all directions from the nearest neighbor or busy road.

[johnnyk]

I see it as a deterrent fee. We've all been on holidays where a few yobbos ruin things for all. What jumps out at me is the communal pool(s) and that's where the yobbos can be a huge pain making it unpleasant, even impossible, fovr residents/owners to enjoy what they have paid for. My house is on an estate and I just turned down a rental request from two 30-something males from a northern country well-known for boozing at all hours but there are other owners who don't care or check out who they rent to and everyone suffers when noisy drunks stumble home at 3am or take over the pool.

That said I believe the rules can be changed or amended by vote, whether 50% or 75% is necessary should be laid out in the articles or constitution of the residents' association and is certainly nothing to do with any other body.

Voting can be conducted by e-mail.

Hi

Voting by email? Never heard of that and really dont think that is possible. It would have to added to a properly convened meeting - with a quorom - and then voted on.

We do it because only about 25% are there at any one time. Easy to do, votes can be easily verified and impossible to vote twice and residents can ask to see the votes. Yes, you can know how your neighbour voted in fact we publish that info to avoid disputes. A small price to pay but it shouldn't be a problem among civilized people, we are adults and understand the difficulty of having 25% of people on the ground.

On another point, drunken yobbos cannot be prevented from buying but ownership brings a different mind set with an awareness of responsibilities. My experience in Thailand is that yobs are interested in staying pissed as cheaply as they can for a week or two then go home and pay off the plastic until next year. Home ownership is not really on the list for party hearties.

Edited October 25, 2013 by johnnyk

[harrry]

I see it as a deterrent fee. We've all been on holidays where a few yobbos ruin things for all. What jumps out at me is the communal pool(s) and that's where the yobbos can be a huge pain making it unpleasant, even impossible, fovr residents/owners to enjoy what they have paid for. My house is on an estate and I just turned down a rental request from two 30-something males from a northern country well-known for boozing at all hours but there are other owners who don't care or check out who they rent to and everyone suffers when noisy drunks stumble home at 3am or take over the pool.

That said I believe the rules can be changed or amended by vote, whether 50% or 75% is necessary should be laid out in the articles or constitution of the residents' association and is certainly nothing to do with any other body.

Voting can be conducted by e-mail.

Hi

Voting by email? Never heard of that and really dont think that is possible. It would have to added to a properly convened meeting - with a quorom - and then voted on.

We do it because only about 25% are there at any one time. Easy to do, votes can be easily verified and impossible to vote twice and residents can ask to see the votes. Yes, you can know how your neighbour voted in fact we publish that info to avoid disputes. A small price to pay but it shouldn't be a problem among civilized people, we are adults and understand the difficulty of having 25% of people on the ground.

On another point, drunken yobbos cannot be prevented from buying but ownership brings a different mind set with an awareness of responsibilities. My experience in Thailand is that yobs are interested in staying pissed as cheaply as they can for a week or two then go home and pay off the plastic until next year. Home ownership is not really on the list for party hearties.

But totally invalid and ilegal.

[ezzra]

Alternatively, you can seek to boot out said JP at the next AGM election if you the muscles

to do so, I mean other disgruntled owners who have a beef with this fees, and simply

abolish this new rule back to the old rule....

Also, demand that said money collected from you will be spent solely on those areas

that have show 'excessive wear and tear' for every one to see...