Lawyer says householder faces jail for this anti-social behavior

 

Image: Daily News

 

A picture of a householder's anti - social behavior has created a stir and caused much comment online.

 

The picture - posted on the Facebook page of Jiravut Choengvirach - shows a ramp that a householder made by pouring concrete in front of his house.

 

The ramp covers the sidewalk and blocks the drain.

 

The poster went to confront the householder before the cement was dry and was told that there was still plenty of room to get by on the road. And he was told to leave him alone.

 

But reporters contacted a lawyer who said that this behavior could warrant a jail term of six moths or a fine of 100,000 baht.

 

Source: Daily News

 

 

-- © Copyright Thai Visa News 2016-08-21

Do you know who I am?

9 minutes ago, trogers said:

Do you know who I am?

 

Ronnie Pickering?

what an idiot. He should at least used what little brains he has and put some pipes to help drain the water. There was also no reason to extend it so far out to the road, he could have made it slightly steeper and his Lambo still wouldn't have scraped.

Edited August 21, 20169 yr by taichiplanet
forgot smiley

Second offence, blocking the footpath with hedges.

Could be a sensational international news item! 

Should come to our village where a couple of farmers recently dug up the main concrete road, in two places, to lay a pipe connecting their paddy and sugar cane fields and refused to reinstate the concrete preferring to fill in the trench with soil. Endless fun in the rainy season.

Another self entitled looser. I ok jack the rest of you can go ______  your selves. 

Dig the concrete up restore the drainage and the foot path and give him 2 weeks to pay for it, then take the looser too court fine him 100,000 thb and give him a suspended sentence of 6 months gaol, and inform him of his wrong doing and then inform him if he try's anything like it again he will loose his freedom his house car bank balance everything.....   What a pelican.

I don't really see what the fuss is about.

Sure it would be better to put a drain pipe under his driveway but if you compare what he did what the average Thai does in front of his house this is nothing.

As far as I know it is pretty normal here to block foot paths, turn the curb into parking space, etc.

Idiots taking the sense of "entitlement" to new levels on a daily basis 

I'm just so glad I live where I do. lol

 

He illegally took part of the public road . Contact the District Office and have it removed or file a complaint with Army. The Army will take care of it and has police powers.

Ramps should be built like that in the first place.  Prevents the douches from parking in front of your gate.

1 hour ago, taichiplanet said:

what an idiot. He should at least used what little brains he has and put some pipes to help drain the water. There was also no reason to extend it so far out to the road, he could have made it slightly steeper and his Lambo still wouldn't have scraped.

 

Good point about pipes for drainage.

 

IMHO much worse is that a motorcyclist or a bicyclist could be driving / riding along the paved area (part of the the road) in the dark and hit the ramp and be thrown off with severe injuries. 

 

Selfish selfish selfish... should be both punished and forced to remove the ramp.

I thought a pavement in Thailand belongs to the house or business that it is in front of ,that is why they take over them and nothing gets done to stop them ,I know many pavement that are completely inaccessible to pedestrians 

1 hour ago, aussieinthailand said:

Another self entitled looser. I ok jack the rest of you can go ______  your selves. 

Dig the concrete up restore the drainage and the foot path and give him 2 weeks to pay for it, then take the looser too court fine him 100,000 thb and give him a suspended sentence of 6 months gaol, and inform him of his wrong doing and then inform him if he try's anything like it again he will loose his freedom his house car bank balance everything.....   What a pelican.

No, they can't punish him, by the look of the house entrance, he is well moneyed.

I'm sure most of us could walk out the door and see some sort of violation regarding sidewalks and drains. Expecting some sort of enforcement of laws (if there are any) is laughable at best when it comes to public footpaths and areas. Maybe lawyer is trying to make a name for himself, or has a death wish....

On the soi I used to live was this big house with high walls. Very high so looking place. The owners used to put traffic cones on the soi road as to stop people parking outside their house. You could park anywhere else on the soi but not outside their walls. I used to occasionally fuzz the cones over their walls as a little reminder that they don't own the soi. Childish I know, but enjoyable at the same time. 

planning permission lol

 

Apply to local authority lol

 

Just more things that need to change, this could be determined as encroachment

...is that the translation...wow.....

44 minutes ago, whatproblem said:

I thought a pavement in Thailand belongs to the house or business that it is in front of ,that is why they take over them and nothing gets done to stop them ,I know many pavement that are completely inaccessible to pedestrians 

 

 

Well this came up inside our new not cheap moo baa - one owner started to move his fence to include the pavement to be within his yard.

 

Very professional developer stopped it immediately and sent a clearly worded notice to every house informing them that they can't do this, and mentioned the standard clause in the sales contract for every house and land indicating what is common land etc., and reinforcing that nothing can be built on the common because it's the law. 

 

Quickly after that the two owners in the houses at the end of a dead end internal soi (opposite sides of the soi) started to build a carport across the soi. Developer warned them by letter (and sent a copy to every house) to stop or the developer would bring an outside team to pull it down and in fact that's what eventually happened.

 

Developer is still looking for any overall improvements they can make and often sends a polite 'newsletter'. But the newslatter also includes full details of any unpaid fees and mentioned the house number. The unpaid costs of removing the half completed carport still included in every newsletter.

 

Owners committee decided to take a vote of all owners in regard to cutting off electricity and water to owners who don't pay fees. About 80% responded, and about 85% agreed that the committee have the right to request the utilities providers to cut services. 

I would like to congratulate Khun Jiravut on his principles and his bravery.

I stopped reading after the words 'lawyer says'. Yeah 

The culprit didn't think it through - i.e. he'd be blocking drainage and possibly causing a problem for scooter drivers when it is dark.  Not sure this part is a problem though, as it seems to be a parking area.

 

Hopefully, he'll be forced to remove the concrete and replace it in a way that allows for drainage.

Blocking a drain? Surely that is a case of suing him for encockroachment.

3 hours ago, trogers said:

Do you know who I am?

Add get lost.

Consideration for others?  Another of those silly farang notions.

 

 

37 minutes ago, dageurreotype said:

I stopped reading after the words 'lawyer says'. Yeah 

Yeah its the one word that makes me sick. I am looking for a good competent one to make up a will. I keep thrashing around all the bad experiences I have had in the past with this so called "profession" and I get ill. 

Why did the reporters contact a lawyer, and not the local police or district office?

 

As halloween also notes (above), the footpath is blocked too so there are two offences! I agree, as the Land traffic Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) Section 109 (500B) says:

No person shall commit any act on a footpath or any other way provided for pedestrians in any manner that obstructs other persons without sufficient cause.

 

This type of total disregard for public roads (and footpaths) is oh so common in Thailand (and is symptomatic of the much bigger problem of "respect" for law in this country)!

 

The photo used in the TV post does not give readers the best insight into the "householder" involved. The other photo in the Daily News article provides a better picture - a big property, a substantial fence, and the appropriate flags - this more aptly sends a loud and clear message that the guy is a bigshot who most probably sees this as his right (to do as he pleases, and damn the rest of us).

 

 

Just like the shit-heads who put things in the street to prevent people parking on public roads in front of their property or shop. As noted in the following link "... The police have previously pointed out politely that the traffic lane adjoining the kerb was not part of the deal when they purchased their properties. Rather, it belongs to the public in perpetuity..." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/life/Were-going-to-need-more-roads--or-places-to-park-o-30286382.html

 

Bangkok Post also did an article on this on May 18th.

 

 

Edited August 21, 20169 yr by metisdead
Photo from Bangkok Post removed.

Well, it's in a development.   So it would depend on the overall ownership of the road and sidewalks. If it's govt land then yeah. A problem. If it's a private roadway owned by the developers. Than that's another story. 

1 hour ago, bendejo said:

24 minutes ago, waldroj said:

Why did the reporters contact a lawyer, and not the local police or district office?

 

As halloween also notes (above), the footpath is blocked too so there are two offences! I agree, as the Land traffic Act, B.E. 2522 (1979) Section 109 (500B) says:

No person shall commit any act on a footpath or any other way provided for pedestrians in any manner that obstructs other persons without sufficient cause.

 

This type of total disregard for public roads (and footpaths) is oh so common in Thailand (and is symptomatic of the much bigger problem of "respect" for law in this country)!

 

The photo used in the TV post does not give readers the best insight into the "householder" involved. The other photo in the Daily News article provides a better picture - a big property, a substantial fence, and the appropriate flags - this more aptly sends a loud and clear message that the guy is a bigshot who most probably sees this as his right (to do as he pleases, and damn the rest of us).

 

 

Just like the shit-heads who put things in the street to prevent people parking on public roads in front of their property or shop. As noted in the following link "... The police have previously pointed out politely that the traffic lane adjoining the kerb was not part of the deal when they purchased their properties. Rather, it belongs to the public in perpetuity..." http://www.nationmultimedia.com/life/Were-going-to-need-more-roads--or-places-to-park-o-30286382.html

 

Bangkok Post also did an article on this on May 18th.

 

 

I'm missing out on the point of your post.

 

The householder may well be one of the 'I can do whatever I like' brigade, but the 'photos don't show that or support your assertions.

 

The area concreted doesn't seem to extend beyond the parking area (as per your 'photos and those in the OP) but, apparently has blocked drainage.

 

Up to the RTP (or neighbours, in a less than subtle manner) to tell him that drainage needs to be provided?

Edited August 21, 20169 yr by dick dasterdly