duration of rental contracts

[prk888]

I was surprised to be told that any condo rental agreement under 3 years is not actually valid under Thai law. I also read that a 3 year agreement should be lodged at the Land Office.

It seems therefore that say a 12 month or 2 year rental agreement has no validity and is therefore actually meaningless and unenforceable. This may well be Thai law but ..................

What say you?

[Chang_paarp]

A short lease is a legally enforceable contract, if you don't believe me try not paying the rent. Having said that if the property is sold the new owner has obligation to honour the rental agreement.

On the other hand if the agreement is over 3 years it can be registered with the land office and a new owner can be made to honour the lease. One other reason leases are not over 3 years is the registered leases attract attention from the tax office and the owner is required to declare the income and pay tax on it. This is one of the reasons landlords are very reluctant to offer long term leases of over 2 years but 2+2+2 is not uncommon.

[fosseway]

Chang_paarp is spot on, I would have nothing to add.

[Mobi]

Your 'adviser' got it arse about face.

Leases longer than 3 years are not legal unless they are registered at the land office, and as Chang Parp says, this rarely - if ever - is done to due the tax implications on the rental income.

As regards the 2+2+2 or more commonly 3+3+3 - or even 30+30+30 for farangs who buy houses in their wife's name and then lease them back from her, these contract agreements are a very moot point and have been debated at length in the annals of Thai Visa.

The fact remains that a 3+3+3 or a 30+30+30 lease is NOT legal or enforceable or 'registerable' on the Chanod under the Thai land law.

All that these so-called contracts contain is an undertaking (promise) by the lessor that they will agree to grant a new lease at the expiry of the old one.

Some legal experts will tell you that in the event the lessor fails to grant a second, or third lease as required in the contract then he may be sued in the civil court for breach of contract.

This is probably so, but I have never heard of such suit been instigated, and whatever the success or otherwise of such as case, it does not confer any rights on the lessee to lease the land for the new period as stated in the contract.

He may claim compensation for any incidental losses incurred by being evicted from the property, but there is no Thai law that will compel the lessor to renew the land lease if the owner elects not to do so.

I am even very sceptical whether such a claim for compensation would succeed, and in any event it would probably be stuck in the courts for years.

These 30+30+30 contracts are devices dreamt up by property owners and agents to convince foreigners that they have security of tenure for 90 years.

If this were the case, then why doesn't everyone do it and why doesn't the government acknowledge that this is legally possible and scotch all the demands for land leases to be permitted for longer than 30 years?

[emilymat]

Your 'adviser' got it arse about face.

Leases longer than 3 years are not legal unless they are registered at the land office, and as Chang Parp says, this rarely - if ever - is done to due the tax implications on the rental income.

As regards the 2+2+2 or more commonly 3+3+3 - or even 30+30+30 for farangs who buy houses in their wife's name and then lease them back from her, these contract agreements are a very moot point and have been debated at length in the annals of Thai Visa.

The fact remains that a 3+3+3 or a 30+30+30 lease is NOT legal or enforceable or 'registerable' on the Chanod under the Thai land law.

All that these so-called contracts contain is an undertaking (promise) by the lessor that they will agree to grant a new lease at the expiry of the old one.

Some legal experts will tell you that in the event the lessor fails to grant a second, or third lease as required in the contract then he may be sued in the civil court for breach of contract.

This is probably so, but I have never heard of such suit been instigated, and whatever the success or otherwise of such as case, it does not confer any rights on the lessee to lease the land for the new period as stated in the contract.

Mobi......good to see you are still here.

Maybe the 30 year lease challenge in court has never taken place yet! It would need agreements from 1984 or before to be up for renewal, and I don't know how long this 'idea' has been around. Also of course, many of the 30/30/30 people would be pensioners - or near pension age. I had one for a while but I would have had to be 102 before I knew whether it would be renewed. I suspect I would have been long gone. Now rent, so I can clear off next year back to Europe.

He may claim compensation for any incidental losses incurred by being evicted from the property, but there is no Thai law that will compel the lessor to renew the land lease if the owner elects not to do so.

I am even very sceptical whether such a claim for compensation would succeed, and in any event it would probably be stuck in the courts for years.

These 30+30+30 contracts are devices dreamt up by property owners and agents to convince foreigners that they have security of tenure for 90 years.

If this were the case, then why doesn't everyone do it and why doesn't the government acknowledge that this is legally possible and scotch all the demands for land leases to be permitted for longer than 30 years?