Improper change of condo management?

[puuchaibaa]

​Three weeks before our AGM, the owners' committee head took it upon himself to replace the old management company with a new one. I want to make sure I understand the Condominium Act as it relates to management change. The Act states:

Section 35/236 The appointment of the Manager shall be done at a general meeting under Section 49 and the appointed Manager shall register his appointment as the Manager with the Land Office within 30 days from the date of general meeting. Supporting documents for registration shall include the evidence of appointment or the employment contract.
Section 35/337 The Manager shall be terminated for any of the following causes: (1) death (natural person) or termination of business (juristic person); (2) resignation; (3) contracted term expires; (4) lack of required qualifications or has disqualifications prescribed under Section 35/1; (5) violating this Condominium Act or Ministerial Regulation issued by the virtue of this Condominium Act or violating the employment contract and is dismissed at a general meeting under the provisions of Section 49; (6) dismissed at a general meeting.
...
Section 4957 A resolution on any of the following matters shall have not less than one-fourth of the votes of the total number of the votes of all the co-owners combined: (1) the appointment or dismissal of the Manager; (2) the prescription of the activities that the Manager is empowered to impose on other persons to carry out on his behalf.

1) Am I correct to state that the committee head acted in direct violation of both 35/337 (assuming early dismissal without cause) and 35/236 (appointment)? (Just want to be 100% sure).

2) I want to propose that we owners hire an individual (not a company) as the new manager under the condo's direct employment. Section 35 states that the manager 'may be an ordinary person'. So hiring an individual is allowed (and common I presume), correct?

3) Finally, regarding the committee head. If he is in the middle of his 2-year term, can we as owners vote to dismiss him at the AGM? The Act does not seem to mention anything specifically about dismissing a committee member. If I intend to put this to a vote, is there a protocol I have to follow before the meeting or can I just make a proposal for dismissal during the meeting?

TIA

[KittenKong]

The committee by majority decision can change the management company at any time, just as it can change the security company or the cleaners. The chairman cannot do it alone. However the committee cannot change the JPM at all (though it can appoint one of its own to be JPM if the existing one cannot fulfil his function. The references in the condo act are to the JPM and not the management company or building manager. You need to get your head round the three different things: JPM, management company, building manager.

The position of JPM is a specific vote that has to made by co-owners at an AGM/EGM and is valid for two years (unless the JPM resigns or is removed by another co-owner vote in accordance with the condo act and the building regs).

Committee members can be removed before the end of their term by a suitable majority of co-owners at an AGM/EGM according to the condo act and your building regs.

You need to give more details about how many people are on your committee and how many voted in favour of this change, and what the change actually was.

[puuchaibaa]

The committee by majority decision can change the management company at any time, just as it can change the security company or the cleaners. The chairman cannot do it alone. However the committee cannot change the JPM at all (though it can appoint one of its own to be JPM if the existing one cannot fulfil his function. The references in the condo act are to the JPM and not the management company or building manager. You need to get your head round the three different things: JPM, management company, building manager.

The position of JPM is a specific vote that has to made by co-owners at an AGM/EGM and is valid for two years (unless the JPM resigns or is removed by another co-owner vote in accordance with the condo act and the building regs).

Committee members can be removed before the end of their term by a suitable majority of co-owners at an AGM/EGM according to the condo act and your building regs.

You need to give more details about how many people are on your committee and how many voted in favour of this change, and what the change actually was.

​​​Wow thanks for clarifying that. I would've otherwise had a huge egg on my face!

Our committee comprises 4 members including the head I mentioned. Not sure if any of the other members were involved in the decision to change our building management but it is possible. I guess I could ask for the minutes of the relevant committee meeting.

I have no idea who our JPM is. Is it possible that our committee head is also our JPM?

Unless I can prove the committee head acted alone, it looks like I'm stuck with another year of some company managing our building. For transparency and cost, I really want to have building management staff employed directly with the condo. Perhaps a fallback strategy is to get the owners to vote to get such arrangement established within a year's time.

[KittenKong]

You should certainly look at committee meeting minutes to see how the decision was arrived at. In theory at least one of the other committee members must have agreed with it. Of course it may be that no proper minutes or records are ever kept: that is the case in my building also. There is very little you can do about that other than bring it up at a GM, and hope that other co-owners will be present and interested.

Co-owners should have voted for the JPM at one of the two most recent AGM/EGMs, probably at the same time as they last voted for the committee. By law this is at least every two years. Minutes should be available. The JPM can be anyone (subject to the condo act rules), including someone from the management company or a committee member.

A good committee would, where possible, consult with co-owners before doing something major like changing management company, but it sounds as though you dont have a proper committee. No surprises there. The managerial ability of most condo building committees here is minute, as is their financial knowledge.

Employing staff directly looks good on paper but leaves the building exposed to any losses that are incurred by dishonest staff. And if that is the manager the losses potentially could be very large. In my experience most condo staff/management are dishonest at worst or incompetent at best, mostly some mixture of the two.

You are unlikely to ever see much transparency here. The Thai way of bad building management is often to camouflage everything and to make as little information available as possible. This helps them not to be shown up as idiots (aka "save face") and also allows them to steal more easily.

[ripley]

The terminogy in the Thai Condo act can be very confusing but I believe the "Manager" is the person who manages the Business Office and bldg. - authorized to take decisions for the safety of the bldg in emergencies.I think courtesy - if not law - demands that the Manager or Management company needs to be approved by the majority of Owners in a GM. Likewise the dismissal.The Juristic Person Manager is the person who represents the Owners of a building by signing govt. documents, etc. The Juristic Person Manager is an elected officer and serves out a full term unless proved guilty of corrupt or inappropriate behaviour. In this case the JPM can be removed by Govt. entities or by a GM.

Also, it is inexcusable for the owners to be kept in the dark regarding the identity of their JPM.

Please correct me if you think I'm in error here. I'm very interested to learn more on this subject.

Edited April 8, 2016 by ripley

[KittenKong]

The terminogy in the Thai Condo act can be very confusing but I believe the "Manager" is the person who manages the Business Office and bldg. - authorized to take decisions for the safety of the bldg in emergencies.I think courtesy - if not law - demands that the Manager or Management company needs to be approved by the majority of Owners in a GM. Likewise the dismissal.The Juristic Person Manager is the person who represents the Owners of a building by signing govt. documents, etc. The Juristic Person Manager is an elected officer and serves out a full term unless proved guilty of corrupt or inappropriate behaviour. In this case the JPM can be removed by Govt. entities or by a GM.

Also, it is inexcusable for the owners to be kept in the dark regarding the identity of their JPM.

Please correct me if you think I'm in error here. I'm very interested to learn more on this subject.

As far as I know every reference in the condo act to "manager" means the JPM. The two jobs that you describe are in fact just one.

As the building manager (if any) is merely staff with no independent authority at all, and as the management company (if any) is merely a contractor, the condo act has nothing to say about them any more than it has anything to say about cleaners or gardeners or the pool people or the cable TV supplier. None have any real say in anything, though they can advise. The JPM alone can actually make decisions and take responsibility for them, and indeed the condo act imposes the legal duty on him to do so. (The committee just acts as a representative of the co-owners, though it is also responsible for its actions.)

There is certainly no requirement in law that a new management company has to be approved by co-owner vote, though as you say any decent committee would ensure that it was.

[stopvt7]

As I see it. To remove the “manager” (or JPM) requires 25% of the total co-owners votes. I know because we had a recall resolution and the manager keep his job. Even after the majority voting voted to remove him. But it was not 25% of all the co-owners combined. This is very deficit. Most condo can’t get 30% of the co-owners to come to an annual meeting.

The “manager” in the condo act is the same as JPM. But co-owners can contract "manager" duties to a management company. This take a resolution to your condo regulation and the management company duties needs to be written out in the regulation. The management company can be consoles as contract specifies.

As “Section 49 A resolution on any of the following matters shall have not less than one-fourth of the votes of the total number of the votes of all the co-owners combined: (1) the appointment or dismissal of the Manager; (2) the prescription of the activities that the Manager is empowered to impose on other persons to carry out on his behalf.”

You must read your codo regulation for the answere. Or is some cases it is in the old AGM minutes at the land office.

[puuchaibaa]

​

Thanks guys. Your perspectives and experiences are very valuable.

I would like to ask about who has signing authority over the bank accounts and cheques. Is it the JPM? I ask because upon reviewing the inco/expense statements, there is a glaring "error" regarding one of our bank accounts. I don't think anyone noticed because you have to look at two monthly statements side by side, and only one month is ever posted. Let me describe this "error" by saying, for example, the Mar statement shows a 31.Mar bank balance of X. Then lets say the following Apr statement says that the 31.Mar balance was Y. Of course they should be exactly equal (ignoring minor accounting errors) but there is an instance in our statements where Y is materially less than X, and it is never corrected in the following months.

Obviously the person who has has signing authority must answer to this discrepancy. He/she is not not alone in this however. The accountant who prepared the statements (and works for the previously contracted management company) must have known about this discrepancy. But this latter part is not so important to the task at hand.

[ripley]

This comes as a shock to me. Years ago I collaborated with 2 others from TVF on "Condo Law Definitions". I consulted a lawyer specializing in Condo Law who advised me that the JPM served merely as the "hand" of the owners who was authorized to sign govt. and other approved documents on the owners' behalf. So we defined Juristic Person Manager in that way.

Reading the comments, I think they may be correct and the JPM - in my opinion - holds far too much power and is difficult to remove. And I think there are many condo owners out there who have no idea of the powers possessed by a JPM. As was mentioned earlier, some don't even know the identity of their JPM or whether they even have one!

Think I'll put the question to the TVF lawyer.

[ripley]

This comes as a shock to me. Years ago I collaborated with 2 others from TVF on "Condo Law Definitions". I consulted a lawyer specializing in Condo Law who advised me that the JPM served merely as the "hand" of the owners who was authorized to sign govt. and other approved documents on the owners' behalf. So we defined Juristic Person Manager in that way.

Reading the comments, I think they may be correct and the JPM - in my opinion - holds far too much power and is difficult to remove. And I think there are many condo owners out there who have no idea of the powers possessed by a JPM. As was mentioned earlier, some don't even know the identity of their JPM or whether they even have one!

Think I'll put the question to the TVF lawyer.

[tolsti]

You'll have a long wait for a reply

[KittenKong]

​

Thanks guys. Your perspectives and experiences are very valuable.

I would like to ask about who has signing authority over the bank accounts and cheques. Is it the JPM? I ask because upon reviewing the inco/expense statements, there is a glaring "error" regarding one of our bank accounts. I don't think anyone noticed because you have to look at two monthly statements side by side, and only one month is ever posted. Let me describe this "error" by saying, for example, the Mar statement shows a 31.Mar bank balance of X. Then lets say the following Apr statement says that the 31.Mar balance was Y. Of course they should be exactly equal (ignoring minor accounting errors) but there is an instance in our statements where Y is materially less than X, and it is never corrected in the following months.

Obviously the person who has has signing authority must answer to this discrepancy. He/she is not not alone in this however. The accountant who prepared the statements (and works for the previously contracted management company) must have known about this discrepancy. But this latter part is not so important to the task at hand.

Bank signatories should be a number of committee members. I think a minimum of three is best.

Under no circumstances should the JPM ever have signing powers on cheques: he already has all the legal power in the building anyway. The signatories are not responsible for discrepancies in the cash flow report though: that is the JPM and/or management company's job.

Yes, most condo owners are completely unaware of the power the JPM holds and what he can do, and how little a committee can do without his support.

Financial errors are commonplace here. In my experience many Thais (even the ones that purport to be accountants) simply cannot add up, and they rarely check anything properly.

[stopvt7]

Most co-owners can’t read the yearly financial statement.

Who signs checks? Is not in the condo act. The committee can make the rule because they are in charge to oversee the JPM “manager”. In our condo 3 persons are required to sign a check. They are committee members. The committee made the resolution that the bank requires before they would change signature cards.

We had 4.5 million disappear at our condo. And the co-owners set at the AGM and only one asks question. He was the only committee member that didn’t resign before the AGM. All the other committee members resigned. We had an election that replace everyone but the one person. He was the committee member that reported the missing funds.

After the election of a new committee and new JPM, the new JPM registered most of the old unelected member back unto the committee. They took over as in a coup and nothing was done about the 4.5 million.

The registering of fake AGM election minutes were reported to the co-owners nothing was done at the next years AGM. It was reported to the police and they been investigating for 3 years.

Maybe this is why they call Thailand Amazing?

[KittenKong]

^^^ There is nothing at all unusual or surprising about this level of corruption in condo management here.

The only really surprising thing, as you say, is that so many co-owners show so little interest in how their money is being stolen. I am constantly amazed by this.

JPMs have far too much power here and it should be seriously restricted by law. I've certainly never met one that I would trust further than I can spit.

As for who signs the cheques, the committee does as the money belongs to the co-owners. It doesnt need to be specified in the condo act. Up to the committee to decide how many signatories they want/need, unless co-owners have previously stipulated this in the building regs.

[puuchaibaa]

​It is very discouraging and shocking to learn what people can get away with. I feel for you guys who have gone through this and are still going through this type of situation. It is an utter waste of time and an uphill battle with complacent co-owners, not to mention the anger and resentment.

To be clear I do not yet have absolute positive proof that any deliberate misdeeds has been done. However I intend to be prepared as much as possible if my questions are not adequately answered. I'm thinking of distributing leaflets, filming the meeting myself (thanks stopvt7) , and maybe even bring a lawyer with me.

If any of you can PM me a relevant and reliable lawyer from a local firm (ie, not too expensive) I would really appreciate it.

[ripley]

About the lawyer: I'm not saying that there are not honest and competent lawyers out there, just that I have never found one. Lawyers specializing in Condo Law are hard to find anyway. I'd be interested as well if anyone here knows of a good Condo lawyer.

I bought into a beautiful building and thought I was "home and dry". At the time I was pretty unaware and casual about the administrative end of things. A year or two into it and I discovered how little we as owners had to say about anything, how little power for change or correction of administrative misbehaviour. The arrogance and disregard astounded me! Fortunately, in the early days, there were Owners prepared to stand up for themselves and their neighbours with some success.Thai Condo Law is complicated and difficult to navigate but, in my opinion, the real stumbling block these days is the Owners themselves. They don't appear at General Meetings or send proxy votes, they don't speak up for their rights, they fork over money or see it being stolen and utter not a word. Our AGMs usually go to a Second call meeting (which does not require a quorum - votes in most cases being carried by the number of Owners present). These "EGMs" are usually attended by stooges for the Administration. So huge "Special Funds" are voted in and digressions from Law are ignored.

My beautiful building has become a cesspit of graft and corruption, our services have been cut to the bone although we've paid millions over the years in Special Assessments (for which we often receive no report). Auditors of our books refuse to sign off on them, but the dazed owners approve them anyway at the GMs.

As I've said before, in the beginning I thought that, even if they didn't mind being bullied, Owners would respond - as most people do - to having their pockets pinched or picked. But ours don't seem to care at all. Some are intimidated perhaps, but most simply can't be bothered.

Anything taken to the courts is an expensive and long drawn out affair - sometimes lasting for years. Cases reported to the Land Office are "disappeared". Direct action by the owners thru petitions, Extraordinary General Meetings, protests just don't happen. And thus far no way has has been found to engage them.

Had I realized this, I would not have bought a condo at all. You either calmly pay out and ignore the indignity of being cheated and misled, or you fight on your own and get blackballed and threatened OR you make your peace with how things are. (Or you sell out.)

My advice to others contemplating purchase of a condominium unit is to do some homework: Read Thai Condo Law (there are booklets for sale and it's also on the Net), check out the Regulations of your building - they're very important, Examine financial statements and make sure that they are posted every month. And, most important, take the time to talk with some of the owners.

Two tips, and this is from direct experience: 1.) No matter how intelligent, reasonable and likeable a candidate may be, after election to the Committee you wouldn't recognize them! 2.) If you begin a movement to make change and challenge the administration - Watch Your Back!

Edited April 10, 2016 by ripley

[Delight]

About the lawyer: I'm not saying that there are not honest and competent lawyers out there, just that I have never found one. Lawyers specializing in Condo Law are hard to find anyway. I'd be interested as well if anyone here knows of a good Condo lawyer.

I bought into a beautiful building and thought I was "home and dry". At the time I was pretty unaware and casual about the administrative end of things. A year or two into it and I discovered how little we as owners had to say about anything, how little power for change or correction of administrative misbehaviour. The arrogance and disregard astounded me! Fortunately, in the early days, there were Owners prepared to stand up for themselves and their neighbours with some success.Thai Condo Law is complicated and difficult to navigate but, in my opinion, the real stumbling block these days is the Owners themselves. They don't appear at General Meetings or send proxy votes, they don't speak up for their rights, they fork over money or see it being stolen and utter not a word. Our AGMs usually go to a Second call meeting (which does not require a quorum - votes in most cases being carried by the number of Owners present). These "EGMs" are usually attended by stooges for the Administration. So huge "Special Funds" are voted in and digressions from Law are ignored.

My beautiful building has become a cesspit of graft and corruption, our services have been cut to the bone although we've paid millions over the years in Special Assessments (for which we often receive no report). Auditors of our books refuse to sign off on them, but the dazed owners approve them anyway at the GMs.

As I've said before, in the beginning I thought that, even if they didn't mind being bullied, Owners would respond - as most people do - to having their pockets pinched or picked. But ours don't seem to care at all. Some are intimidated perhaps, but most simply can't be bothered.

Anything taken to the courts is an expensive and long drawn out affair - sometimes lasting for years. Cases reported to the Land Office are "disappeared". Direct action by the owners thru petitions, Extraordinary General Meetings, protests just don't happen. And thus far no way has has been found to engage them.

Had I realized this, I would not have bought a condo at all. You either calmly pay out and ignore the indignity of being cheated and misled, or you fight on your own and get blackballed and threatened OR you make your peace with how things are. (Or you sell out.)

My advice to others contemplating purchase of a condominium unit is to do some homework: Read Thai Condo Law (there are booklets for sale and it's also on the Net), check out the Regulations of your building - they're very important, Examine financial statements and make sure that they are posted every month. And, most important, take the time to talk with some of the owners.

Two tips, and this is from direct experience: 1.) No matter how intelligent, reasonable and likeable a candidate may be, after election to the Committee you wouldn't recognize them! 2.) If you begin a movement to make change and challenge the administration - Watch Your Back!

Is it fair to say there are 2 features about your condo

1) The majority are Thais

2) In relative terms your fees are cheap.

[KittenKong]

Is it fair to say there are 2 features about your condo

1) The majority are Thais

2) In relative terms your fees are cheap.

In theory (1) applies to every building here.

What difference does (2) make? Theft is still theft.

For what it's worth my building is as farang-dominated as it is possible to be here but it is still absolutely riddled with corruption and mismanagement. The committee chairman and the management company should both be in jail, and in any civilised country I'm sure they would be.

[ripley]

Nope. Actually, due to said corruption, recently our Thai-foreign ratio of ownership was out of balance with foreigners owning the majority of units! The Committee is composed entirely of Foreigners!

Our original maintenance fees were low as these things go, but with B.60 million and counting in Special Assessments, they can't be any stretch of the imagination be said to be low now.

I agree with Kitten Kong who says "Theft is Theft." Civilized? I wouldn't use that word in fairness. But I would say that in Asia there is a different value put on telling the truth and honest deaings in business. Because most Asians see things the same way, it's an even playing field for all. Here, if you're out front and honest you are very often considered a fool and it's thought you deserve what you get.

And - our Administration, including the Committee, should be busted big-time and publicly. But a lot = certainly not all - of what they do is countenanced by the Law.

You know, I realized after my last post that I've been singing the same old song on TVF for years! I apologize for that. But it does get so frustrating and one hopes someday to find a solution here, or the key to one...

Edited April 10, 2016 by ripley

[KittenKong]

Our original maintenance fees were low as these things go, but with B.60 million and counting in Special Assessments, they can't be any stretch of the imagination be said to be low now.

Not that it makes any difference but 60MB would cover the entire budget of many condo buildings in Jomtien for several years. As such I think it represents a significant sum.

But even if it was just 60kB or 600B it still belongs to the building and the co-owners, and they should be able to assume that it will stay in the accounts and not just be stolen by staff or management or anyone else who takes a fancy to it.

[stopvt7]

Think of the committee as a company’s board of directors and the JPM “manager” as the company president. It operates must the same.

You never say in America the company president has too much power. Only in Pattaya to many dishonest people come to live.

Edited April 10, 2016 by stopvt7

[ripley]

So - is it fair to say that when your JPM and Committee are either ignorant, arrogant or corrupt and your fellow Co-owners are indifferent you're stuck, stymied and up the creek without a paddle? That is, unless you're highly motivated, with all the time in the world and money to fight in the courts?

Caveat Emptor.

Edited April 11, 2016 by ripley

[stopvt7]

At our condo when the co-owners elected six new committee member. After six of the seven committee members had resigned over missing 4.5 million. I reported these facts to the co-owners.

Co-owner elected 6 new members to investigate the missing money. I was the only member that remained. At the 1st committee meeting I gave every the main pages from our regulation and the condo act about committee duties. No one cared about the condo act or regulation about committee duties.

One new member said we the committee and "we can due anything we like" and "why read this?” Not one carried about duties and at the end of the meeting and all the copies were left on the table.

Then our condo lawyer talked three newly elected members into quieting. Then the new elected JPM replace the three members that quite with three that had resigned. It was a real coup and the JPM sent the fake election minutes to the land office. Also one committee menber was not even a co-owner. The land office did remove him (American) but it was never reported to the co-owners.

I went to a coup more meeting and final stop going. Nothing was done about the missing 4.5 million of co-owners fund that was missing on the financial statements.

I filed a police report and after two years nothing is finished. They have interviewed all of the people that sign the fake minute. They heard the AGM recordings of the election.

Amazing Thailand because the next year only I question committee chairmen about his coup. No one else would talk or ask questions. About how nonelected co-owners got onto the committee. Cove up was complete. 4.5 million is still missing!

But today I was told the Pattaya Persecutor Office was ordered the police to do more investigation work.

No one want an honest committee member at our condo. Their much more but you never believe!

[stopvt7]

puuchaibaa I don’t know how to “PM” you. What Is PM?

I do know a good lawyer in Bangkok. He is not too expensive. But he charges travel to Pattaya.

[puuchaibaa]

puuchaibaa I don’t know how to “PM” you. What Is PM?

I do know a good lawyer in Bangkok. He is not too expensive. But he charges travel to Pattaya.

Hi stopvt7, PM means "Personal Message". You can see your PM page by clicking the envelope icon on the top right of any Thaivisa page. I tried sending you a PM just now but got an error message saying that you cannot receive any more messages. Please try sending a PM to me. If I received it I'll acknowledge so on this forum. Thanks.

[puuchaibaa]

I do know a good lawyer in Bangkok. He is not too expensive. But he charges travel to Pattaya.

Got your PM. Thanks kindly. Hope your case can progress now.