Juristic problem with condo management...

[zappalot]

End of October 2013 we bought a condominium here in Bangkok, 90 m², two huge rooms. We asked the management for permission to set up a second entrance to the public floor. Of course the first answer from everyone was "no".

No changes in the public area would be ever allowed. But we didn't give up. We prove that in at least 50% of the 32 floors there were made changes to the floors already. Making them looking stupid they had no choice but at least telling us that we have to wait until the co-owners meeting to get permission there.

So we waited until January 2014. We brought up the case but the juristic person manager told us that he won't accept a request like this and this is clearly a case the land department has to decide. He cannot do anything for us, please call the land Department.

The next day we called the land Department and they just laughed at us and told us we have to see the management, it's not the land Department's business at all.

This time we showed up in the main branch of the management company. We explained the situation and were told by the manager in charge that if we pay her privately 10,000 baht she would make sure that we get the permission to build this entrance in the next director's meeting end of January.

Beginning of February 2014 we got a phone call that we can start to do this entrance. This manager told us after questioning that it would need a few days to let everyone sign the necessary letter but nevertheless we can start to build the entrance right away.

Everyone knew that we started to build this entrance, the buildings manager showed up in person and everything was okay.

A few weeks back a letter was in the postbox stating that we build a second entrance without permission and we have to close it again. We should have asked for permission in the co-owners meeting and as we didn't do it we have to close the entrance.

Of course we did ask in the co-owners meeting and there is evidence we did.

Several letters we wrote to them explaining what really happened are ignored.

They called us and gave us seven days now, else they would sue us at court.

Is it worth to invest in a lawyer in this case? What do you think?

[Delight]

Does this new door ( I assume) take you to/from the corridor. If so I am fairly confident that that wall is common area i.e. it does no belong to you. The balcony wall is not yours either.

Technically you need a 50% co -owner vote in your favour in order to get official permission.

You have been suckered into spending money. They have got you!

I suspect that the other co -owners have used the bribery procedure to get permission. If so that is a cheap and effective method. Suggest that you do the same. Cheaper than a lawyer.

[zappalot]

Does this new door ( I assume) take you to/from the corridor. If so I am fairly confident that that wall is common area i.e. it does no belong to you. The balcony wall is not yours either.

Technically you need a 50% co -owner vote in your favour in order to get official permission.

You have been suckered into spending money. They have got you!

I suspect that the other co -owners have used the bribery procedure to get permission. If so that is a cheap and effective method. Suggest that you do the same. Cheaper than a lawyer.

I know, we waited for the co owner meeting. We would have gotten 50%, But as I have written they didn't want this vote, The juristic person manager said the co-owner meeting is not the right place.

Three other managers at the same meeting agreed to what the JPM said. So practically it's their fault, in a civilized country I would held them responsible, but is this possible in Thailand?

As you can read from above: we also tried to bribe, without success.

[KittenKong]

I don't understand.

Did you get written confirmation that you could do the work or not?

If you did you have nothing to worry about. If you didn't you should not have done it.

Phone calls are worse than useless.

[Delight]

Does this new door ( I assume) take you to/from the corridor. If so I am fairly confident that that wall is common area i.e. it does no belong to you. The balcony wall is not yours either.

Technically you need a 50% co -owner vote in your favour in order to get official permission.

You have been suckered into spending money. They have got you!

I suspect that the other co -owners have used the bribery procedure to get permission. If so that is a cheap and effective method. Suggest that you do the same. Cheaper than a lawyer.

I know, we waited for the co owner meeting. We would have gotten 50%, But as I have written they didn't want this vote, The juristic person manager said the co-owner meeting is not the right place.

Three other managers at the same meeting agreed to what the JPM said. So practically it's their fault, in a civilized country I would held them responsible, but is this possible in Thailand?

As you can read from above: we also tried to bribe, without success.

In all seriousness the only action that you can take is with a very good Bangkok lawyer.

The law is on your side.

They can only refuse to vote on your topic if a meeting has less than 50% attendance, Even then you can call a 2nd meeting where only 33 1/3 % vote needs to agrees with your proposal.

It appears that your condo is operating illegally.How many managers do you have? The law says one manager -who can delegate to only one other person

So any action without a lawyer will probably fail.Also legal 50%(or 33 1/3 )votes are very difficult to win.

Be prepared to spend a lot of money on a lawyer. Probably less on a bribe. The trick with this 2nd option is to find the true authority. Beware of false claims in this area.

My best advise overall is to ignore the threat of legal action

Any legal action that the condo takes must be agreed at a general meeting. Maybe just get an opinion from a lawyer.

[Crossy]

Yup KK, verbal (or even email) communication is transient.

Only written permission is valid.

[Pralaad]

Why not wait and see if they do file lawsuit, if they do present all your evidence and let judge decide.

If they do not, just carry on

[zappalot]

We would not fear a lawsuit.

Interesting is that any legal action that the condo takes must be agreed to at a general meeting.

Attendance at the last three co-owners general meetings was around 3%.

So the JPM was right to refuse to vote about that, just didn't know the real reason as he pointed out that the land Department is responsible which is clearly not the case.

Would be interesting if to take legal action also in attendance of at least 50% must be given. Then we would not need to fear anything, or can they take other action as well such as a daily fine or something like that?

Edited May 8, 2014 by zappalot

[Pralaad]

We would not fear a lawsuit.

Interesting is that any legal action that the condo takes must be agreed to at a general meeting.

Attendance at the last three co-owners general meetings was around 3%.

So the JPM was right to refuse to vote about that, just didn't know the real reason as he pointed out that the land Department is responsible which is clearly not the case.

Would be interesting if to take legal action also in attendance of at least 50% must be given. Then we would not need to fear anything, or can they take other action as well such as a daily fine or something like that?

I have had my fair share of fighting with body corporate.

Legally they can only file law suit.

To impose daily fines would require a new bylaw, unless there is one in place already which is highly unlikely.

I also doubt they would file law suit as it also costs money and all co-owners would have to pay for it.

While talk is cheap, when it comes to actually paying, most people do not and will not care about some door to your room, because it does not affect them at all.

Thai way, would be to say yes and do nothing.

Yes and nothing can go on for years, until forgotten.

I would suggest the yes and do nothing approach, and if i had to guess, i would say eventually you would be presented with an option to make some kind of payment. Should that come about, agree to 1/10 of the amount asked, because rest assured this would be bribe money to let it go.

[Delight]

We would not fear a lawsuit.

Interesting is that any legal action that the condo takes must be agreed to at a general meeting.

Attendance at the last three co-owners general meetings was around 3%.

So the JPM was right to refuse to vote about that, just didn't know the real reason as he pointed out that the land Department is responsible which is clearly not the case.

Would be interesting if to take legal action also in attendance of at least 50% must be given. Then we would not need to fear anything, or can they take other action as well such as a daily fine or something like that?

Just to clarify my statement about 'any legal action that the condo takes must be agreed to at a general meeting. '

This is about the monies that the condo commits itself to by taking such action.

No professional JPM would allow this decision with co -owner approval.

I am aware of 3 condos who have taken co -owners to court for lack of payment -in all cases general meeting approval was obtained.

[Globalist]

"were told by the manager in charge that if we pay her privately 10,000 baht she would make sure that we get the permission to build this entrance in the next director's meeting end of January."

I think this could be the crux of the issue. In many less transparent countries, these kinds of situations are excellent opportinities for less scrupulous "opportunists" to obtain "tea money". This can be the case also, or maybe in particular, with public officals. A telltale sign is when you get a "no" without any rationale whatsoever. Some options can be to pay the tea money, to try to impact a superior officer, or to file a law suit.

[Crossy]

Please continue in the new thread here http://www.thaivisa.com/forum/topic/741622-management-had-extra-co-owner-meeting-without-informing-all-residents-in-the-building/