zappalot Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Our dumb management stopped renting out the part of the car park space that is common property. Causes a nice 6 digit loss in extra income per year. In 20 years never ever anything happened. Anyway they say since the insurance of the ones renting the car park spaces does not pay in case of an accident they can not take the risk... In Europe the car insurance pays the damage of the third party, so far I guessed the same for Thailand... Anyone with experience? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_smith237 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Can you be a little more specific... something seems lost in translation. As I understand it - Its irrelevant whether you are on private land or not - If a vehicle is using public road it must be insured at least to pay damages to another vehicle (3rd party). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappalot Posted September 24, 2015 Author Share Posted September 24, 2015 More specific? Who pays if a car owner causes an accident in the common car parking area of a condo car parking area. The car owners insurance pays the damage he causes (of the third party). At least that is what I think... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
richard_smith237 Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 More specific? Who pays if a car owner causes an accident in the common car parking area of a condo car parking area. The car owners insurance pays the damage he causes (of the third party). At least that is what I think... You think correctly - The Car owns insurance pays out (3rd party)... if this wasn't the case we wouldn't' be allowed to enter any private car part, hotel car park, Tesco's car park etc.... Something is perhaps missing from the Condo's explanation as to why they stopped renting out the spaces. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
peterrabbit Posted September 24, 2015 Share Posted September 24, 2015 Maybe they are referring to a 'public liability' insurance. IE A person (the public) is injured on the 'car park' (accessible by the public) resulting in a big claim against the land owner (who failed to ensure their safety and the person who did it 'disappeared'). In the UK this would be covered by a specific 'public liability' clause or policy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
craigt3365 Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 I had an accident at a car wash a number of years ago. I called the police but they said since it was private property, nothing they could do. The other party left, but the police showed up anyway. Luckily, they counted that as leaving the scene of an accident and charged him with fault. Which it was anyway. Not sure about here, but insurance rules can be strange at times! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KittenKong Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 You cant normally commit a traffic offence on private property, so that explains why the police dont want to get involved. But anyone who causes damage to anything on private property is responsible for the cost of that damage and this can be pursued in civil court. If that person has insurance then the insurance should cover it. If he has no insurance (or the insurance wont pay) then he is liable to pay for it himself. Being on private property doesn't absolve anyone. I dont really see what "risk" the management company is worrying about anyway. Have they said? And have they investigated the possibility of using part of the 6-figure income to pay for some extra insurance? If they are anything like our management then I bet they haven't. It sounds to me like the building management has just got a stupid idea in its head, which is common enough here in my experience. In our building we had big discussions about how (according to management) we could not possibly get the security guards to deliver mail as part of their job as "the security company wont take responsibility". So now we pay the guards a couple of thousand Baht a month in cash and they deliver the mail unofficially during their working hours. Which of course changes nothing at all as far as responsibility goes. Thai "logic", my eye. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trogers Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 A car parked in a private car park and suffers damage from falling debris or leaky pipes would render the owner of the car park liable. Even if the car owner were to claim from his motor insurance, the car park owner can be sued by this insurance company. Thus, the car park owner needs his own insurance to cover the risk in running this business. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StefanBBK Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 A car parked in a private car park and suffers damage from falling debris or leaky pipes would render the owner of the car park liable. Even if the car owner were to claim from his motor insurance, the car park owner can be sued by this insurance company. Thus, the car park owner needs his own insurance to cover the risk in running this business. Good point. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappalot Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share Posted September 25, 2015 Okay, that would be about the only thing that might happen, falling debris. But seriously: how often do you see pieces of concrete breaking out of a well-maintained concrete ceiling that is 100% intact? And if that can happen in the car parking area it can happen in any condo of the building as well. So since that never happened in the more than 20 years the building is in use I would say the risk is negligible. Away from that there are CCTV cameras in every corner recording footage for at least 30 days. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KittenKong Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Okay, that would be about the only thing that might happen, falling debris. And theft. And vandalism. And fire or flood. Hence my suggestion that the management could invest part of the revenue in extra insurance. In our building our security company is responsible for losses caused by theft of/from vehicles, up to a limit of a few tens of thousands of Baht. I have no idea who is responsible after that point according to Thai law but as our car park is free to use I consider that vehicle owners take their own risks when using it. Thais probably see this differently. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
zappalot Posted September 25, 2015 Author Share Posted September 25, 2015 Every customer of our carpark space needed to sign a specific risk policy ruling out any responsibility of the building in case of damage, theft and so on. And as others say with an income higher than 150,000 baht per year it should be possible to find an insurer taking over any remaining risk. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Billmont Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 My hired car parked in hotel car park and was hit by another car. Security guard spotted it and held the other car until we returned. Called our insurance, all agreed other driver to blame. We were given a paper to hand back to the hire company who then checked the damage and compared with sketch on paper and that was it, we got our deposit back in full. All smooth as clockwork. This was about 5 years ago waiting for delivery of our new car but should be the same today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KittenKong Posted September 25, 2015 Share Posted September 25, 2015 Every customer of our carpark space needed to sign a specific risk policy ruling out any responsibility of the building in case of damage, theft and so on. In that case I really cant see what your management's problem is. If they are like ours they are probably just trying to remove anything that may make them have to work. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wombat Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 if its between a thai and a farang, farang pays...if you where'nt in Thailand the accident wouldn't have happened. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silent Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 You cant normally commit a traffic offence on private property, so that explains why the police dont want to get involved. But anyone who causes damage to anything on private property is responsible for the cost of that damage and this can be pursued in civil court. If that person has insurance then the insurance should cover it. If he has no insurance (or the insurance wont pay) then he is liable to pay for it himself. Being on private property doesn't absolve anyone. I dont really see what "risk" the management company is worrying about anyway. Have they said? And have they investigated the possibility of using part of the 6-figure income to pay for some extra insurance? If they are anything like our management then I bet they haven't. It sounds to me like the building management has just got a stupid idea in its head, which is common enough here in my experience. In our building we had big discussions about how (according to management) we could not possibly get the security guards to deliver mail as part of their job as "the security company wont take responsibility". So now we pay the guards a couple of thousand Baht a month in cash and they deliver the mail unofficially during their working hours. Which of course changes nothing at all as far as responsibility goes. Thai "logic", my eye. Yes, for sure talk about logic escaping Thais and a security company concerned over liability refusing to accept responsibility for delivering mail, but not (dumb) guards. Mind you ain't got a leg to stand on if'n they ain't got same code as the pony express. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bazza40 Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 if its between a thai and a farang, farang pays...if you where'nt in Thailand the accident wouldn't have happened. Some people on this forum seem to live for an opportunity to bag Thais. Pathetic really. While I was in Australia, a Thai driver crunched the rear fender of my car in the condo car park. A friend of mine saw it. Thai driver very apologetic. Damage was repaired at Thai driver's cost, I wasn't involved at all. Fender good as new. Have also met a falang who had a foot fracture in a collision with a Thai motorcyclist. Thai paid the hospital bills. So Wombat, forget about the eating and the roots. Just leave. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
asdecas Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 You cant normally commit a traffic offence on private property, so that explains why the police dont want to get involved. But anyone who causes damage to anything on private property is responsible for the cost of that damage and this can be pursued in civil court. If that person has insurance then the insurance should cover it. If he has no insurance (or the insurance wont pay) then he is liable to pay for it himself. Being on private property doesn't absolve anyone. I dont really see what "risk" the management company is worrying about anyway. Have they said? And have they investigated the possibility of using part of the 6-figure income to pay for some extra insurance? If they are anything like our management then I bet they haven't. It sounds to me like the building management has just got a stupid idea in its head, which is common enough here in my experience. In our building we had big discussions about how (according to management) we could not possibly get the security guards to deliver mail as part of their job as "the security company wont take responsibility". So now we pay the guards a couple of thousand Baht a month in cash and they deliver the mail unofficially during their working hours. Which of course changes nothing at all as far as responsibility goes. Thai "logic", my eye. I see your point but I, at any rate, would rather have these casual arrangements that are a feature of Thai, indeed Asian, culture. Better by far than the more-than-my-job's-worth, health-and-safety by the letter of the book attitude that is crushing the life out of my own country. Long may we be able to negotiate without the dead hand of corporate lawyers poised over us. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sutty Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 Long disputed in UK that's why now there are signs saying park at your own risk in all private car parks in UK as far as I'm aware since I left the job it may well have changed mind and this example is UK. If there is an accident involving motor vehicles with no personal injury police will not get involved at all advise is always contact your insurances let them sort it and on my experience 99.9999999% of the time it comes back 50-50 regardless of who was to blame. Knock for knock as the Spanish would say. It is a very very grey area even when personal injury occurs it is still very hard to get any sort of conviction. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KittenKong Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 I see your point but I, at any rate, would rather have these casual arrangements that are a feature of Thai, indeed Asian, culture. I hate them. It's just appallingly bad management that results in unnecessarily inflated costs and very poor service. In fact non-management would be the correct way to describe it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trogers Posted September 26, 2015 Share Posted September 26, 2015 I see your point but I, at any rate, would rather have these casual arrangements that are a feature of Thai, indeed Asian, culture.I hate them. It's just appallingly bad management that results in unnecessarily inflated costs and very poor service. In fact non-management would be the correct way to describe it. That's the difference between a juristic body of committee and a board of management of a profit making company. Guess who gets perks, pay and bonuses? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
impulse Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 It may also be the general liability they're concerned about. It's not just car accidents. If someone trips and falls, or hits their head on a beam, or gets electrocuted, or gets raped or robbed, or carjacked, or has their cars broken into, there is liability for the entity that controls the space and is therefore responsible for the safety of that space. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
nithisa78 Posted September 27, 2015 Share Posted September 27, 2015 Ask the lawyer. That is who would know. Correctly direct you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.png.3b3332cc2256ad0edbc2fe9404feeef0.png)
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.