Jomtien condo building security

[ThaiBob]

View talay now check cars every night.

Stayed there last night, they didnt check mine,

Depends how you define checked. You were standing by your parked car 24/7 when security walked by and logged your license plate? You were monitoring security cameras? At VT7, security walks the parking lot, video surveillance, and every car license is recorded when entering /leaving.

[KittenKong]

View talay now check cars every night.

Stayed there last night, they didnt check mine,

Which VT? Each has its own procedure. There may also be differences between buildings in the VT projects that have two buildings.

[ToddinChonburi]

I thought they could raise 5 to 10% a year.

[balo]

View talay now check cars every night.

Stayed there last night, they didnt check mine,

Which VT? Each has its own procedure. There may also be differences between buildings in the VT projects that have two buildings.

VT2

I sometimes visit friends there or I park the car over night if I'm too lazy to drive home.

[ThaiBob]

View talay now check cars every night.

Stayed there last night, they didnt check mine,

Which VT? Each has its own procedure. There may also be differences between buildings in the VT projects that have two buildings.

VT2

I sometimes visit friends there or I park the car over night if I'm too lazy to drive home.

I visit friends at VT2A. If I am challenged by security I simply say I am visiting friends and I am waived on through. Security always seems tougher on the Thais. My friends tell me security does check the parking lot. A friend had a note put on his car for parking crooked and has seen disputes arise over the restricted parking area. Security has wheel locks available to them.

[pegman]

It would not allow me to quote the OP. I think it is nonsense. I live at VT2a and need to pass 5 security guys to enter my unit. The OP'er does not identify a specific concern. Use the safe and dead bolt. If you are paranoid or neurotic take a pill or grow a pair. If you have that many enemies here hire a couple more payboys for security.

[ThaiBob]

I prefer the video surveillance systems at VT5 and VT7 over the key card system at vt2. The open air lobbies at 5 and 7 are nicer too. The key card system is abused and can give a false sense of security. There are no security issues in any of these buildings. Every farang I know has a story to tell about their homes being burgled over the years. My condo friends all live in safe environments.

[Eneukman]

<script type='text/javascript'>window.mod_pagespeed_start = Number(new Date());</script>

The main problem isn't security, it's short-term tenants //
These days many residents are just there for a couple of weeks //

Is that authorised ?
I mean, some condominium have clear rules like 2 months or 3 months as minimal rent duration.

I think that the Condominium Act also has a rule on this point,
to forbid any owner to use his condominium units as an hotel,
but I can't find reference to this "rule" ? Anyone who knows about it ?

I had a new Will prepared by a lawyer a while ago and I asked her a few questions about condo law. She confirmed that, as already said above, short term rentals are only permitted on floors designated as being for commercial purposes and then only if the owner has a hotel licence. On all other floors, the minimum rental period is 1 month - something that has never been enforced where I live. I suspect it will be extremely difficult to enforce this now though it could perhaps be introduced over a period of time.

Alan

[fosseway]

If the second meeting doesnt have a 25% quorum then a third meeting can be held within 15 days and whoever shows up can vote and make the decisions for all.

God spare us!

I hope this will help. -- http://www.samuiforsale.com/law-texts/new-thailand-condominium-act-2008.html

[KittenKong]

I prefer the video surveillance systems at VT5 and VT7 over the key card system at vt2. The open air lobbies at 5 and 7 are nicer too. The key card system is abused and can give a false sense of security. There are no security issues in any of these buildings. Every farang I know has a story to tell about their homes being burgled over the years. My condo friends all live in safe environments.

I'm also curious as to why both VT2 buildings seem to think that keycards on the front doors are necessary when all the later VT Jomtien buildings (3A/B, 5C/D, 7 and 8) dont even have doors.

The last time I looked VT1 has sliding doors which they seem to lock open during the day.

[sotsira]

I prefer the video surveillance systems at VT5 and VT7 over the key card system at vt2. The open air lobbies at 5 and 7 are nicer too. The key card system is abused and can give a false sense of security. There are no security issues in any of these buildings. Every farang I know has a story to tell about their homes being burgled over the years. My condo friends all live in safe environments.

I'm also curious as to why both VT2 buildings seem to think that keycards on the front doors are necessary when all the later VT Jomtien buildings (3A/B, 5C/D, 7 and 8) dont even have doors.

The last time I looked VT1 has sliding doors which they seem to lock open during the day.

The developers, who are the Viewtalay office on Thappraya rd in front of VT2A only manage

VT 3A/B, VT 5C/D, VT6 and VT7.

They resigned from VT1 & 2 when they sold all the units several years ago.

VT8 was built and managed by another family member and has no connection with the others.

[sotsira]

I had a new Will prepared by a lawyer a while ago and I asked her a few questions about condo law. She confirmed that, as already said above, short term rentals are only permitted on floors designated as being for commercial purposes and then only if the owner has a hotel licence. On all other floors, the minimum rental period is 1 month - something that has never been enforced where I live. I suspect it will be extremely difficult to enforce this now though it could perhaps be introduced over a period of time.

Alan

I know of several co-owners who own or sub-let multiple units for short term and long term

tenants in VT2A.

Basically, they are trying to run a business by doing this without any work permits or using

another business like a bar to front their work permits, this has been going on for years in that building running it down in all it's communal assets which the genuine co-owners have

to pay for every year through maintenance fees.

[KittenKong]

I prefer the video surveillance systems at VT5 and VT7 over the key card system at vt2. The open air lobbies at 5 and 7 are nicer too. The key card system is abused and can give a false sense of security. There are no security issues in any of these buildings. Every farang I know has a story to tell about their homes being burgled over the years. My condo friends all live in safe environments.

I'm also curious as to why both VT2 buildings seem to think that keycards on the front doors are necessary when all the later VT Jomtien buildings (3A/B, 5C/D, 7 and 8) dont even have doors.

The last time I looked VT1 has sliding doors which they seem to lock open during the day.

The developers, who are the Viewtalay office on Thappraya rd in front of VT2A only manage

VT 3A/B, VT 5C/D, VT6 and VT7.

They resigned from VT1 & 2 when they sold all the units several years ago.

VT8 was built and managed by another family member and has no connection with the others.

Yes, but that doesnt explain why the VT2 buildings think keycards are necessary and keep the doors closed all the time. Something must have prompted that idea at some point, and I'm curious to know what.

(Not that it matters but as far as I know VT didn't resign as management: they were replaced by vote of the co-owners. Also as far as I know they stayed on well after the last units were sold.)

[sotsira]

I lived in VT2A for 7 years from when it first opened,

and was present at the AGM when the developers announced their resignation in 2007,

so your mistaken that they were voted out.

During the years i lived and attended the AGM'S we never had any more than

a 25% co-owner attendance which would make it impossible to vote out the

management as i understand you need a 50% quorum in favour.

I believe they resigned due to them opening VT5 & VT3 at the same time as they took all the

staff with them to the new buildings, it was all pre planned. they also resigned from VT1 earlier that same year.

The security doors and keycards were introduced in 2006 under the developers

management due to a series of walk in walk out burglaries that took place and also

strangers walking in and using the pool which was also fenced off at the same time.

There were also many late night unexpected visitors walking in and banging on co-owners

doors which caused a lot of disturbances too.

Edited April 9, 2015 by sotsira

[KittenKong]

I lived in VT2A for 7 years from when it first opened,

and was present at the AGM when the developers announced their resignation in 2007,

so your mistaken that they were voted out.

During the years i lived and attended the AGM'S we never had any more than

a 25% co-owner attendance which would make it impossible to vote out the

management as i understand you need a 50% quorum in favour.

I believe they resigned due to them opening VT5 & VT3 at the same time as they took all the

staff with them to the new buildings, it was all pre planned. they also resigned from VT1 earlier that same year.

The security doors and keycards were introduced in 2006 under the developers

management due to a series of walk in walk out burglaries that took place and also

strangers walking in and using the pool which was also fenced off at the same time.

There were also many late night unexpected visitors walking in and banging on co-owners

doors which caused a lot of disturbances too.

That would certainly explain why key-cards were considered desirable, thanks.

Some long-term 2A and 2B residents have told me that the original VT management were removed rather than chose to leave, but I don't suppose it matters much either way.

If the first AGM does not have a quorum then a second is called, and at that second meeting a simple majority of those present would be enough to replace the management company. Also as far as I can see the committee has the power to replace a management company without a co-owner vote at all, as the management company is just another contractual outsourced service like security or gardening or pool maintenance or elevator maintenance etc. Removing the JPM is a different matter.

[ThaiBob]

My friend at VT2A was on the very first Homeowner's Committee there. To say that VT Management resigned is being polite. When the Homeowner's Committee discovered the sinking funds were depleted they solicited contracts for new management. VT management elected not to participate in the vote at the AGM for a new management company. The story at VT1 is similar.

Several years went by and a future homeowners committee decided to enclose the lobby and install key cards. I prefer the open lobby.

[sotsira]

My friend at VT2A was on the very first Homeowner's Committee there. To say that VT Management resigned is being polite. When the Homeowner's Committee discovered the sinking funds were depleted they solicited contracts for new management. VT management elected not to participate in the vote at the AGM for a new management company. The story at VT1 is similar.

Several years went by and a future homeowners committee decided to enclose the lobby and install key cards. I prefer the open lobby.

Slightly wrong information there Bob,

Firstly, there was no homeowners committee while VT developers were managing the building.

They were managing the building in 2006 when the key card system was installed and they did

resign in the 2007 AGM as i was present in that meeting.

Your correct that when they did resign, the sinking fund was very depleted, maybe that's one reason

that they resigned as they couldn't fund the expenses of the building, but i don't think it was just a

coincidence that they were about to open VT5 & 3 at that same time and transferring all their staff there

too, imho it was all preconceived.

Since their resignation in 2007 the co-owners formed the first committee and appointed a new management

company, but all this created a lot of additional expenses and in house fighting between the co-owners and

has continued to this day.

The increases for maintenance charges, special assessment charges and sinking fund charges have tripled

since 2007 on a yearly basis.

In hindsight, i would definitely say that although the building has been maintained well over the years by the

co-owners committees, it has created a lot of friction between co-owners and also affected their pockets,

somewhat, so it could be argued that the grass wasn't greener for them after all.

[ThaiBob]

My friend at VT2A was on the very first Homeowner's Committee there. To say that VT Management resigned is being polite. When the Homeowner's Committee discovered the sinking funds were depleted they solicited contracts for new management. VT management elected not to participate in the vote at the AGM for a new management company. The story at VT1 is similar.

Several years went by and a future homeowners committee decided to enclose the lobby and install key cards. I prefer the open lobby.

Slightly wrong information there Bob,

Firstly, there was no homeowners committee while VT developers were managing the building.

They were managing the building in 2006 when the key card system was installed and they did

resign in the 2007 AGM as i was present in that meeting.

Your correct that when they did resign, the sinking fund was very depleted, maybe that's one reason

that they resigned as they couldn't fund the expenses of the building, but i don't think it was just a

coincidence that they were about to open VT5 & 3 at that same time and transferring all their staff there

too, imho it was all preconceived.

Since their resignation in 2007 the co-owners formed the first committee and appointed a new management

company, but all this created a lot of additional expenses and in house fighting between the co-owners and

has continued to this day.

The increases for maintenance charges, special assessment charges and sinking fund charges have tripled

since 2007 on a yearly basis.

In hindsight, i would definitely say that although the building has been maintained well over the years by the

co-owners committees, it has created a lot of friction between co-owners and also affected their pockets,

somewhat, so it could be argued that the grass wasn't greener for them after all.

I checked with my friend again and your recollection of events was better than his and yes it was Vilai(VT management) who had that dam key card system installed. Doing something like that without co-owner input would have grounds for me to vote her out. Explaining the depleted sinking fund in my mind was the primary reason for resigning and the openings of vt3 and VT5c secondary.

[ToddinChonburi]

The main problem isn't security, it's short-term tenants //

These days many residents are just there for a couple of weeks //

Is that authorised ?

I mean, some condominium have clear rules like 2 months or 3 months as minimal rent duration.

I think that the Condominium Act also has a rule on this point,

to forbid any owner to use his condominium units as an hotel,

but I can't find reference to this "rule" ? Anyone who knows about it ?

This is set by the association board. 51% to 49% what do you think will eventually happen.