Juristic Persons want to introduce rental fee

[appleman_thai]

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!

Fair point. And actually, I could even add that this has happened already :-)

Some people forget that they bought into a community..... if they dont like their neighbours they should have bought a house out on its own in the middle of nowhere!

[Delight]

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.

Chapter 5 section 44 of the Condominium Act states:

Section 44

The resolution of a general meeting shall be by the majority of the votes of joint-owners attending the meeting unless this Act has provided otherwise.

The only 'otherwise' is the use of proxies.

E mail voting is illegal

[appleman_thai]

Chapter 5 section 44 of the Condominium Act states:

Section 44

The resolution of a general meeting shall be by the majority of the votes of joint-owners attending the meeting unless this Act has provided otherwise.

The only 'otherwise' is the use of proxies.

E mail voting is illegal

So if I understand correctly, it's more than 50% to agree..... that INCLUDES those in attendance and proxies - right?

[harrry]

Chapter 5 section 44 of the Condominium Act states:

Section 44

The resolution of a general meeting shall be by the majority of the votes of joint-owners attending the meeting unless this Act has provided otherwise.

The only 'otherwise' is the use of proxies.

E mail voting is illegal

So if I understand correctly, it's more than 50% to agree..... that INCLUDES those in attendance and proxies - right?

The votes must be made at the meeting. Everything the committee has done or the Juristic Mangager without this is his personally responsibilty. Very very risky.

[appleman_thai]

The votes must be made at the meeting. Everything the committee has done or the Juristic Mangager without this is his personally responsibilty. Very very risky.

So at the next AGM (or EGM), when they vote on this, there must be over 50% in agreement...... they do NOT have to attend but can use a proxy instead..... right?

As I understand it, if they try to implement this without an approved vote then its not valid and they cannot enforce.

[harrry]

The votes must be made at the meeting. Everything the committee has done or the Juristic Mangager without this is his personally responsibilty. Very very risky.

So at the next AGM (or EGM), when they vote on this, there must be over 50% in agreement...... they do NOT have to attend but can use a proxy instead..... right?

As I understand it, if they try to implement this without an approved vote then its not valid and they cannot enforce.

Personally I do not think it could be enforced even if passed. The Act limits fees to a ratio based on room sizaed. There is no authority for any other.

Everything the committee has done since one year after the physical meeting they were elected by only those in the room is invalid.

[Delight]

The votes must be made at the meeting. Everything the committee has done or the Juristic Mangager without this is his personally responsibilty. Very very risky.

So at the next AGM (or EGM), when they vote on this, there must be over 50% in agreement...... they do NOT have to attend but can use a proxy instead..... right?

As I understand it, if they try to implement this without an approved vote then its not valid and they cannot enforce.

Personally I do not think it could be enforced even if passed. The Act limits fees to a ratio based on room sizaed. There is no authority for any other.

Everything the committee has done since one year after the physical meeting they were elected by only those in the room is invalid.

Not quite true.

Chapter 5 section 46 allows for 'extras'

Section 46

Upon there being a Regulation stipulating that certain joint-owners shall pay

expenses in respect of a particular activity, only these joint-owners shall have the right to vote in the resolution

concerning the said expenses with the number of votes of each joint-owner is entitled

according to the ratio prescribed in the prescribed in the Regulations under Section 18, first paragraph

[harrry]

The votes must be made at the meeting. Everything the committee has done or the Juristic Mangager without this is his personally responsibilty. Very very risky.

So at the next AGM (or EGM), when they vote on this, there must be over 50% in agreement...... they do NOT have to attend but can use a proxy instead..... right?

As I understand it, if they try to implement this without an approved vote then its not valid and they cannot enforce.

Personally I do not think it could be enforced even if passed. The Act limits fees to a ratio based on room sizaed. There is no authority for any other.

Everything the committee has done since one year after the physical meeting they were elected by only those in the room is invalid.

Not quite true.

Chapter 5 section 46 allows for 'extras'

Section 46

Upon there being a Regulation stipulating that certain joint-owners shall pay

expenses in respect of a particular activity, only these joint-owners shall have the right to vote in the resolution

concerning the said expenses with the number of votes of each joint-owner is entitled

according to the ratio prescribed in the prescribed in the Regulations under Section 18, first paragraph

OKI may be wrong.

So only those who rent their condos can vote.

[appleman_thai]

OKI may be wrong.

So only those who rent their condos can vote.

Huh?

If its only voted for by those who rent then it will surely not pass!

BUt is it really that way - I thought all owners could vote..... seems a little unfair if it only limits to certain owners.

[harrry]

OKI may be wrong.

So only those who rent their condos can vote.

Huh?

If its only voted for by those who rent then it will surely not pass!

BUt is it really that way - I thought all owners could vote..... seems a little unfair if it only limits to certain owners.

Yes. The group cannot pick on the minority. They can really only make rules that apply to everyone.

I do not think it would pass and I do not think it should.

[Delight]

Chapter 5 section 44 of the Condominium Act states:

Section 44

The resolution of a general meeting shall be by the majority of the votes of joint-owners attending the meeting unless this Act has provided otherwise.

The only 'otherwise' is the use of proxies.

E mail voting is illegal

So if I understand correctly, it's more than 50% to agree..... that INCLUDES those in attendance and proxies - right?

Just to correct my post. The 'otherwise' also icludes those resolutions that require a 25% and a 50% of total vote available.

To clarify your point

Any alteration in the Regs needs minimum 50% of total vote available i.e. total building vote.

The meeting vote will be proxies and those in attendance. A proxy attends.

Also to answer your comment

If its only voted for by those who rent then it will surely not pass!

A 50% vote is required to ammend the regs to include the surcharge proposal

Section 46 ,I suspect, did not have this 'surcharge'concept in mind.

My understanding is that it covers area where say a private Gym is avaialble for those who are prepared to pay the extra. Then issues such as Gym development are covered by Section 46.

As you say those who have to pay the surcharge are not going to vote for an increase in fees.

My reference to Section 46 was in response to a different ,but related , topic. Sorry if that was not clear.

Edited October 26, 2013 by Delight

[appleman_thai]

Delight

Thanks for clarifying.... it's all clear now.

Actually, we used to have a gym but they closed it because they couldnt find anyone to repair the equipment..... a feeble excuse but there you go!

I would have happily paid a little extra to keep the gym.... but dont want to pay extra just cuase I rent out my villa.....

Thanks for all feedback too.... much appreciated from all.