is the condo plumbing considered 'immovable structure'?

[chetuchakcharlie]

Hi there

My two year old condo in Phahonyothin/chetuchak area developed a pipe leak in the wall, staining the other side in the bedroom. My tenant moved out, and I'm in Korea right now,trying to get something done remotely before I arrive there in two weeks to sort this out. I had a look through the contract I signed with the developer (same company that built the BTS) and the only that might be alluding to this situation seems to be the following:

8.1 The Vendor shall be liable for any damages arising from defects in the Condominium or the Unit: 8.1.1 in relation to the structure and equipment incorporated to the Building which are immovable, for five (5) years from the date of the condominium registration; and 8.1.2 in relation to component parts other than those specified in clause 8.1.1 hereof, for two (2) years from the date of the condominium registration. This English translation is prepared solely for non-Thai purchasers. It should neither be relied upon as the definitive nor the official agreement. The Thai version is the definitive and official agreement and shall prevail in all respects in the event of any inconsistency with this English translation. 7 8.1.3 in relation to equipment and accessories other than those specified in clauses 8.1.1 and 8.1.2 hereof, for the period as specified in the Attachment.

8.2 The Vendor shall make good any defects arising in the Condominium within thirty (30) days of the notice thereof by the Purchaser or the Condominium Juristic Person, as the case may be, except in the event that such defect must be urgently rectified. In such case, the Vendor shall rectify the defect upon receipt of the notice. If the Vendor fails to rectify such defect as required in the foregoing sentences, the Purchaser or the Condominium Juristic Person, as the case may be, shall have the right to rectify or cause such defect to be rectified by a third party. The Vendor shall indemnify any and all damages and expenses incurred thereby

I haven't been there yet in person, but through emails, the condo management company has initially told me that I'm only covered from one year of date of purchase. I'm not sure if this is because they are the management company that took over from where the developer left off, and they are somehow separate entities, or because Thailand. They have the keys and have had over two weeks to send the building technicians up to assess the situation and damage/cause, etc, but so far are being really quiet about what the techs have diagnosed-though it's possible they just haven't had the time.

So my question is:

1. is this definitely under either the 5 year or even barring that, if it's an 8.1.2 kind of object, 2 year warranty?

2. Do I need a lawyer? Or better just to cut my losses and have it repaired under a third party. If this is the case, any recommendations? My first impulse is to get Home Pro techs to do it, since it will involve not only pipe repair, but possibly wall /floor repair and maybe i'm better off buying a new shower tiling setup from them.

Any advice at all, no matter how abusive, is welcome, as long as it's actual advice. Thanks, a new condo owner (though not green to Thailand).

[huawei]

I think it will be itemised as common property ( immoveable items) in your rules and regulations booklet.Therefore is under 5 year warranty. If you haven't got the booklet request it. It is against the law not to provide one to each owner on transfer. Also ask for a copy ( English )of the building insurance, maybe covered there. Good luck, always happens in new builds, your probably not the only one who has had this problem.

[KittenKong]

Such damage should be the responsibility of the developer as it was part of what they provided you and not part of any furniture package. Proving it and getting them to pay will be another matter.

It certainly has nothing whatsoever to do with the building management company who are merely there to ensure the corrent functioning of the building and who are never responsible for anything like that. It also wont be the responsibility of the juristic person as it is not common area piping. For the same reason the juristic person building insurance will not cover it either. Some buildings take out extra insurance to cover water damage between rooms and if your building has this then it would cover the damage, albeit with a probable excess.

Being Thailand, everyone concerned will try and wriggle out of doing anything or accepting any responsibility.

[hhgz]

Regardless, ignoring the problem won't make it better. Pay to have it fixed and you'll realize that the cost is insignificant.

[chetuchakcharlie]

Thanks all for quick, concise and from what I'm seeing now correct responses. Now I have to ask, please hold your laughter, is it worth pursuing legal action against the developer for this? The reason I'm bothering is not that I'm not taking the "proving it will be another matter" comment seriously, but that the damage is worse than I thought, ruining perhaps 25 to 30% of the condo wall and floor space.it's huge, and I'm not even sure yet I buy management's techs assessment that the source was a shower joint...it may still yet prove to be from another leak.

[chetuchakcharlie]

Oh, and here's my Newtonian reasoning: on the bedroom side where the rot has set in, the hugest point is about 20 cm HIGHER than in the bathroom where the tech says the leak is. Now I know water could maybe travel on the outside of the pipe, but how does it go up from there? Anybody have any real estate lawyers they recommend?

[chetuchakcharlie]

Highest not hugest, sorry, and I used Newton ironically, no offense to the great man.

[chetuchakcharlie]

The main part of it

[KittenKong]

Difficult to tell anything from that photo.

What is on the other side of the wall? If it's tiles and a shower tray then my bet is that the grouting/joints are faulty somewhere.

Water can move upwards though by capillary action.

[chetuchakcharlie]

Ah. Shower is on the left side of this wall, so the alleged leak would be one meter high and about 70-80 cm to the left of the corner. Yeah, so capillary action happens inside of the tube, right? I guess I should admit I don't actually understand plumbing at all.

[chetuchakcharlie]

The weirdest thing is how far the molding seems to carry the water, like some kind of sponge or something.

[KittenKong]

Capillary action can cause water to rise in the wall to above the point of the leak. It's the same principle as rising damp and has nothing to do with plumbing. Imagine holding a cloth and dipping the bottom into a puddle. The water will rise up the cloth.

But you say the shower is on the left? The damp wall appears to be on the right and that doesnt tie in with capillary action. Or maybe the picture is just bad. I think you need to be much more specific.

[chetuchakcharlie]

Behind the wall on the right is another apartment, or....I'm not really sure, because this bathroom to the left is edging three elevator shafts. I just realized ib need to see a building blueprint and possibly to visit the neighbor

[chetuchakcharlie]

Other view

[chetuchakcharlie]

Actually there WAS a tiny drop of water visible on the joint, though this shower has not been used in three days

[KittenKong]

Other view

This is much clearer. On the original photo the wall stain appears to be on the right of the picture, but apparently that was just a reflection.

The stain line you have drawn in would suggest that the leak is at or near that pipe joint half-way up the wall. It may have been over-tightened, or perhaps not tightened enough.

Not easy to see but the shower cubicle appears to be a solid plastic unit rather than tiled and a hole seems to have been cut in it for the pipe to come through. If so it may be that water is just running back out through that hole into the wall when the shower is used. So maybe silicone mastic would cure that problem.

As for the original question of liability I think it would be hard to prove responsibility for this. It's the sort of thing that I would expect my own contents insurance to pay for (less excess). Any insurer would be likely to say "why didnt you do something about it before it went this far?" and I'm inclined to agree with them. Your tenant really should have noticed the problem and informed someone, and so he is probably partially to blame.