Condo management refusing to pay back the renovation deposit

[KittenKong]

I thank the lord that i live in an Issan village.

Do not have these problems. Do not have problems with neighbours over cockerels in the morning, just a nice quiet life.

Why would any sane person want to live in a condo?

Why would any sane person want to live in an Isaan village? It sounds like hell on earth to me.

And what makes you think that the people in your village are any less devious than some condo managers are? Most of them grew up in a village.

Why do I live in a condo?

I can own it. It requires little or no maintenance. Other people take care of the building and pool and car park at very little cost to me. I can shut the front door and go away for a week or a year without even thinking about it. It's very secure. I have a thousand restaurants of all types and prices within a few minutes walk or drive. I have a good view of the beach and sea from my living room and balcony (in fact I can see about 20 miles or more without leaving my bed). My utilities work nearly all the time.

[AlQaholic]

The condominium act of Thailand, which is the law, states very clearly "no installations above the level of the balcony railing". This regulation relates to another regulation that protects the exterior design and look of the building from being altered, so as to lower the overall value (sale price) of each condo unit.

I see no mention at all of any of that in the Condo Act. Please indicate which section it is in.

Are you sure that you are not confusing the act and your building regulations? Yes, I mixed up the bylaws in our condo with the Condominium act, however in the Condominium act 2008, Section 48 (3) it mentions about alterations to the building that needs co-owners vote and approval. Section 13 also deals with this issue.

The manager has no choice but to follow the law. The other units that has installed the air-con above are also illegal and poses a serious dilemma for the manager, who can be arrested as the manager is responsible along with the juristic committee chairperson.

The building manager has no legal responsibility. The Juristic Person Manager has legal responsibility. The chairman and committee members have some civil responsibility but no legal responsibility that I am aware of. I understood it as the OP was talking to the Juristic Manager, not the Building manager (if there is one). The Chairman has legal responsibilities listed in section 38. Managers Powers and duties are listed under section 36. Penalties are listed under sections 63 to 73.

As this problem particularly with the aircon unit is quiet common the law is usually loosely interpreted or ignored. But at a A.G.M. the situation should be addressed in the agenda and a resolution be found.

By the way the management has, also according the law, the right to fine you up to 100,000 baht as well requiring yo to pay for the relocation of the unit back to original place.

Easier said than done to deal with this at an AGM in most buildings. A large majority may be required to change the building regs in such a way.

I dont think that fine applies here. That provision relates to failure to comply with the act in relation to registration etc. And the fine is imposed by the Land Office on the JPM, not by the building manager on co-owner.

Again, I think you are confusing building regs and the condo act. Yes, you are right, I mixed up my own condos bylaws with the condo act, however as mentioned above sections 63 - 73 in the condominium act lists various penalties for Juristic managers, Juristic Chairperson and also co-owners.

As a final point, the Condominium bylaws are mentioned in numerous locations in the Condominium act, and so forms part of the law which should be followed just as rigorously as the Condominium act, as long as there is no conflicts between the two, in which case the Condo act takes Precedence, and finally on top of that is the civil law. Most Condo bylaws are very similar (read copies) because land offices will only approve what they can understand or have seen before.

Edited December 17, 2015 by AlQaholic

[denby45]

The condominium act of Thailand, which is the law, states very clearly "no installations above the level of the balcony railing". This regulation relates to another regulation that protects the exterior design and look of the building from being altered, so as to lower the overall value (sale price) of each condo unit.

The manager has no choice but to follow the law. The other units that has installed the air-con above are also illegal and poses a serious dilemma for the manager, who can be arrested as the manager is responsible along with the juristic committee chairperson.

As this problem particularly with the aircon unit is quiet common the law is usually loosely interpreted or ignored. But at a A.G.M. the situation should be addressed in the agenda and a resolution be found.

By the way the management has, also according the law, the right to fine you up to 100,000 baht as well requiring yo to pay for the relocation of the unit back to original place.

And on a more technical note, the compressor unit makes much more noise on the wall (vibrations transferred into the wall structure) compared to it resting independently on the floor, for which it is designed.

Not to be argumentative but, MANY condo unit compressors are mounted high on the walls of balcony's all throughout Thailand. Houses, condos, buildings all have them mounted on walls.

Also on a technical note, compressors are designed to be mounted anywhere. And your vibration theory is your opinion. After all what is a wall but a sideways floor. 555

You know just as well as I how laws are enforced in Thailand. Now I was just stating the facts about the laws in Thailand pertaining to Condos specifically, not how they are enforced. Different condos have their own ways of solving, or ignoring this issue, but the law is still there and has been there for a long time. In this particular case the management has decided to try to enforce the law, simple.

The problem with vibrations transferred to the wall compared to the floor is that the floor is usually comprised of 2 layers of 9 mm reinforcement steel meshes, which makes the floor much more resistant to vibrations compared to the wall which has no reinforcement but consists of simple bricks and mortar. Also the wall has much more air pockets in it compared to the floor (no air if done correctly) giving ample opportunity for resonance amplification of sounds. I m also talking from own experience having just relocated a unit from a wall to the floor and reduced the noise significantly.

I am with you on this one AlQa. I have a similar predicament where the next door AC unit is mounted on my adjoining wall. I gotta tell you 2fishin, I have major problems sleeping in my master bedroom when the next door AC unit is running. I have to retire to the second bedroom. The reverberation through the wall has to be heard to be believed. Luckily the room is a hotel room and not always occupied so I get to sleep in my master so far most of the time. However high season is upon us and I guess it will be almost every night occupied from here.

I am currently fighting with the management for them to relocate the said offending unit without much luck so far even after I proposed to pay for the relocation work. As far as the OP is concerned I wonder if you had even considered that perhaps you were also causing noise pollution for next door as is the case with me.

Den

Edited December 17, 2015 by denby45

[2fishin2]

Den,

I sympathize with your sleeping issues. Condos walls, well they suck for keeping out noise. Both of the units for my condo are mounted on the wall directly outside my bedroom. I do not hear them. Older units are noisy and improperly installed ones can be the same. There are all kinds of cheap dampening devices available to help you with the noise. Take a look at your mounting setup and see if someone can help.

[KittenKong]

Yes, you are right, I mixed up my own condos bylaws with the condo act, however as mentioned above sections 63 - 73 in the condominium act lists various penalties for Juristic managers, Juristic Chairperson and also co-owners.

As a final point, the Condominium bylaws are mentioned in numerous locations in the Condominium act, and so forms part of the law which should be followed just as rigorously as the Condominium act, as long as there is no conflicts between the two, in which case the Condo act takes Precedence, and finally on top of that is the civil law. Most Condo bylaws are very similar (read copies) because land offices will only approve what they can understand or have seen before.

I understood it as the OP was talking to the Juristic Manager, not the Building manager (if there is one). The Chairman has legal responsibilities listed in section 38. Managers Powers and duties are listed under section 36. Penalties are listed under sections 63 to 73.

Yes, the condo act does mention modifications to common property and this must have co-owner approval. Whilst attaching an air-con to a wall is indeed modifying the wall, which is surely common property, I cant see the Land Office or anyone else applying those penalties in such a case. If they did apply the penalty then it would be applied to the JPM who is legally responsible for everything. This is why it is an important job (which I am glad to be ineligible for), though most co-owners are unaware of the importance.

It's true that the condo act and the building rules have to be taken together. The act always take precedence as you say.

The legal responsibilities of the chairman are limited to just a few lines of the act and are related to calling meetings and assuring there is always a JPM etc. Any other responsibility he (or other committee members) may have is civil in nature and it would be up to the Juristic Person to sue them if they failed to act correctly. I do not believe that a committee member could be fined by the Land Office (or anyone else) for allowing an air-con to be mounted on a wall. A judge could award damages if it went to court, but not a fine.

[kaneko86]

Thank you for the many advices, I personally find Gsxrnz advice the best and I think I will follow that one as it is the most easy way to solve the case without headaches and still do it as planned...

[AlQaholic]

Section 13

Unit owner shall not conduct any act against his personal property that may impact the construction
structure, protection system, or any other restrictions prescribed in the Regulation.

Section 48

(3) A permission to a joint owner to build, decorate, make a change in, alteration on or addition to his own
unit at his own expenses which adversely affect the common property or the external features of the
condominium,

These two extracts from the Condo act refers to alterations to private property, not common property.

For the responsibilities of the Chairperson they are quiet extensive and described in 4 points extended by another 3 in 2008 to include the annual reports on accounting and performance as well as maintaining these. In other words The Committee is responsible for the annual balance sheet, performance report as well as maintaining these.

I suspect that OP bylaws are similar to the ones we have, so if he follows Gsnx advice he will be in trouble. The trouble with many people that buy a new condo, they do not realize that it is a community, the manager and Committee are there for their benefit, the common interest of ALL co-owners, if there is a rule that aircon units cannot be installed on the wall they must enforce this rule, otherwise they will slowly loose control and other co-owners will start asking what the h... is going on?

Edited December 17, 2015 by AlQaholic

[SOTIRIOS]

....you paid 20,000 baht for what exactly......

...and did you get a receipt.....

...I would guess not....

...otherwise it makes no sense for the 'manager' to try to pull this on you...

[Jingthing]

Condos often take a deposit against insurance for damages. For example if you do a renovation and mess up something in an adjoining unit, they've at least got that money on hand to compensate the other owner. But there are probably also provisions about doing prohibited stuff you didn't inform them about before the work was done, etc.

[kaneko86]

Of course I have a receipt, my gf talked to other "thai" co-owners who moved the aircon from the floor up next to the roof and they told her they never had problems doing so.

It is not installed between my unit and the neighboor but on the wall of my balcony, it is installed on the side far away from the neighboor. My unit is a corner unit.

After I paid the deposit for doing the renovation the owner asked me to borrow her 5.000 baht that she needed to pay her mothers "hospital" bill which of course I didn't gave her.

[gemguy]

As I have always told people:

All too many Thais can be real Axxholes when it comes to money issues while they will turn all belligerent and nasty about the smallest amounts of money....let alone fairly significant sums ...even if they are dead wrong about the issue.

I would go around to all the other condo owners or condo residents ( everyone of them ) and find out if they have any complaints and or legitimate grievances about the management and if so... then try to lodge a more or less class action complaint to the Better Business Bureau or any other relevant authorities supported by as many complaints and grievances attested to and for the record and signed by each condo resident and gather as many signatures as possible from the disgruntled condo dwellers.

Fight back in numbers.

And get ready to fight with the management.

Just reminding you.

[hhgz]

The OP doesn't realize that there's a difference between obtaining permission to move the A/C v moving the A/C without permission.

[denby45]

Den,

I sympathize with your sleeping issues. Condos walls, well they suck for keeping out noise. Both of the units for my condo are mounted on the wall directly outside my bedroom. I do not hear them. Older units are noisy and improperly installed ones can be the same. There are all kinds of cheap dampening devices available to help you with the noise. Take a look at your mounting setup and see if someone can help.

Actually you are probably not far from the truth here. I believe the units are either too old or are just not adequately maintained. I am not sure what you mean about dampening devices. Please be aware that it is not my AC units causing the problem but the AC units belonging to the hotel.

At the moment the units are mounted on angle iron brackets which are bolted directly to the wall. The units themselves are then mounted on circular rubber washers. I suppose these become useless over time due to hardening in the heat and should be frequently replaced. I am sure currently they are not. If those rubber mounting washer are all they rely on they don't work well at all. I would like the unit to be remover completely from the wall and either mounted on the floor of the terrace or on the other wall.

That would of course disturb the people on the other side. However it would be on the wall of their living room which is not really a problem for sleeping and of course it would be their hotel guests being affected. I tried to explain the obvious solution to management. What a waste of time. They even have the cheek to put posters up warning people to avoid noise pollution at night e.g. loud music and parties. I pointed out this rule of theirs and asked why it did not apply to the noise they are creating with their old/noisy/non-maintained/poorly mounted or located AC units. They had no answer.

Den

Edited December 17, 2015 by denby45

[jacko45k]

I would be tempted to move the AC unit, reclaim the deposit, and then put it back again.

Although the fact that they do not return it suggests it is spent.

Legal action, police, facebook, use them.

[AlQaholic]

Post #40 mentions "the owner"?? is the OP actually not the owner of the condo unit but rather a tenant?

I cant believe some of the posts here. I know of numerous condos in Pattaya that are corrupt to the core, where the Committee consists of mostly Thais and they are only looking for various ways to siphon off money from the condo, these are mostly the very large condos where such misappropriation might go under the radar or at least known but accepted by co-owners. Mostly for the reason there are very few co-owners present at the A.G.M. which is usually scheduled conveniently when most co-owners are not there.

But in a smaller Condo lets say 100 units or less and with "Farang" committee that will not work. Please note the Committee is doing all these things and taking this responsibility for free, they do not get anything for it. A person who buys a condo unit in that condo also agrees to all the rules and regulations of the condo when they sign the sales contract. The committee and the manager are there for the co-owner. The manager receives his/her salary from YOU, the Co-owner, the manager is keeping the 20,000 baht because YOU, are paying him/her to enforce the regulations as agreed on and voted on at the A.G.M. All these ridiculous suggestion about class actions and consumer protection (which is just a paper Tiger) are all just stupid! how can you sue or protest against someone who YOU are paying to do his/her job???

The proper way to solve the issue is to file a formal complaint with the manager in writing, possibly with a lawyer present, request a meeting with the committee chairman. If the issue is not resolved at the meeting request it to be an agenda item at next A.G.M. As a formal complaint has been lodged the issue cannot be ignored by the chairman.

But all the above of course only applies if you are a co-owner, not a tenant.

[TheKnave]

Section 13

Unit owner shall not conduct any act against his personal property that may impact the construction

structure, protection system, or any other restrictions prescribed in the Regulation.

Section 48

(3) A permission to a joint owner to build, decorate, make a change in, alteration on or addition to his own

unit at his own expenses which adversely affect the common property or the external features of the

condominium,

These two extracts from the Condo act refers to alterations to private property, not common property.

For the responsibilities of the Chairperson they are quiet extensive and described in 4 points extended by another 3 in 2008 to include the annual reports on accounting and performance as well as maintaining these. In other words The Committee is responsible for the annual balance sheet, performance report as well as maintaining these.

I suspect that OP bylaws are similar to the ones we have, so if he follows Gsnx advice he will be in trouble. The trouble with many people that buy a new condo, they do not realize that it is a community, the manager and Committee are there for their benefit, the common interest of ALL co-owners, if there is a rule that aircon units cannot be installed on the wall they must enforce this rule, otherwise they will slowly loose control and other co-owners will start asking what the h... is going on?

Wise attorney say, "If you have the facts, pound the facts. If you have the law, pound the law. If you have neither, pound the table."

Hand getting tired yet, AlQ?

You lost all credibility with your first post. Why not give it a rest?

[KittenKong]

I cant believe some of the posts here. I know of numerous condos in Pattaya that are corrupt to the core, where the Committee consists of mostly Thais and they are only looking for various ways to siphon off money from the condo, these are mostly the very large condos where such misappropriation might go under the radar or at least known but accepted by co-owners. Mostly for the reason there are very few co-owners present at the A.G.M. which is usually scheduled conveniently when most co-owners are not there.

But in a smaller Condo lets say 100 units or less and with "Farang" committee that will not work. Please note the Committee is doing all these things and taking this responsibility for free, they do not get anything for it. A person who buys a condo unit in that condo also agrees to all the rules and regulations of the condo when they sign the sales contract. The committee and the manager are there for the co-owner. The manager receives his/her salary from YOU, the Co-owner, the manager is keeping the 20,000 baht because YOU, are paying him/her to enforce the regulations as agreed on and voted on at the A.G.M. All these ridiculous suggestion about class actions and consumer protection (which is just a paper Tiger) are all just stupid! how can you sue or protest against someone who YOU are paying to do his/her job???

The proper way to solve the issue is to file a formal complaint with the manager in writing, possibly with a lawyer present, request a meeting with the committee chairman. If the issue is not resolved at the meeting request it to be an agenda item at next A.G.M. As a formal complaint has been lodged the issue cannot be ignored by the chairman.

Sounds great on paper but in some buildings management and the committee completely ignore the law and do precisely what they want. Given that the Land Office is not interested in anything other than an easy life and brown envelopes, the only other options open to co-owners with problems is to get help from the consumer protection people and such-like or start legal proceedings at their own expense.

I didnt vote for our JPM but I got him anyway because no other alternative was proposed. I didnt vote for our management company or building manager either as the possibility was not presented to the co-owners in my building at all. So why shouldn't I protest against these people if I dont like them and dont think they are competent?

Yes the manager does "work for me" but, like the management company, he may need to be beaten with a very big stick to get him to do his job properly, if at all.

[AlQaholic]

I cant believe some of the posts here. I know of numerous condos in Pattaya that are corrupt to the core, where the Committee consists of mostly Thais and they are only looking for various ways to siphon off money from the condo, these are mostly the very large condos where such misappropriation might go under the radar or at least known but accepted by co-owners. Mostly for the reason there are very few co-owners present at the A.G.M. which is usually scheduled conveniently when most co-owners are not there.

But in a smaller Condo lets say 100 units or less and with "Farang" committee that will not work. Please note the Committee is doing all these things and taking this responsibility for free, they do not get anything for it. A person who buys a condo unit in that condo also agrees to all the rules and regulations of the condo when they sign the sales contract. The committee and the manager are there for the co-owner. The manager receives his/her salary from YOU, the Co-owner, the manager is keeping the 20,000 baht because YOU, are paying him/her to enforce the regulations as agreed on and voted on at the A.G.M. All these ridiculous suggestion about class actions and consumer protection (which is just a paper Tiger) are all just stupid! how can you sue or protest against someone who YOU are paying to do his/her job???

The proper way to solve the issue is to file a formal complaint with the manager in writing, possibly with a lawyer present, request a meeting with the committee chairman. If the issue is not resolved at the meeting request it to be an agenda item at next A.G.M. As a formal complaint has been lodged the issue cannot be ignored by the chairman.

Sounds great on paper but in some buildings management and the committee completely ignore the law and do precisely what they want. Given that the Land Office is not interested in anything other than an easy life and brown envelopes, the only other options open to co-owners with problems is to get help from the consumer protection people and such-like or start legal proceedings at their own expense.

I didnt vote for our JPM but I got him anyway because no other alternative was proposed. I didnt vote for our management company or building manager either as the possibility was not presented to the co-owners in my building at all. So why shouldn't I protest against these people if I dont like them and dont think they are competent?

Yes the manager does "work for me" but, like the management company, he may need to be beaten with a very big stick to get him to do his job properly, if at all.

Have to agree with you on this. Difficult situation.

Edited December 18, 2015 by AlQaholic

[smutcakes]

I would say in this situation the Co-owner is at fault, and the management are trying to enforce the rules and retaining the deposit as per the Committee's instructions. Just because other Co-owners have done something does not mean that you are allowed to.