Best way to handle profiteering scam in our condo?

[KittenKong]

4 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

 

Please be careful as some of this is incorrect. There is only ONE person who manages the condo and condo staff and that is the JPM not the committee. Staff are NOT appointed by the committee nor can they legally have any say in how the staff are managed including for visa reasons. The committee are there to 'monitor' the JPM etc. and can 'suggest' to the JPM priorities but the JPM is under no legal obligation to adhere to the committee's 'requests'. Also where did you get this 2 year rule from? 

 

Every building I have known here appoints a JPM for the same period as the committee and this seems like good procedure to me. As you mention, this is subject to internal building rules though, not the condo act, and maybe some buildings are different. Either way it is a voted decision of the co-owners at a GM as I pointed out.

 

Not all committee members are subject to visa and WP issues, though some farang ones may be. I think I made it clear that the JPM is in charge, though he should also listen to the committee and do what it asks. The committee, after all, does represent the co-owners of the building and the JPM is working for the co-owners, not the other way round.
It is for this reason that I consider it very inadvisable to allow the JPM to be a signatory to cheques. If only elected committee members have control of the money then this may help to rein in a crooked JPM, to an extent.

[KittenKong]

4 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

As for (5) you are totally wrong, I'm sorry to say,  it is ESSENTIAL that the JPM co-signs the cheques as the JPM is the ONLY one legally responsible for the condo and condo finances and no one wants the JPM to be able to say 'it wasn't me' if an investigation takes place. They MUST be accountable and that means co-signing cheques and the same for Bank signatories the JPM is essential as a co-signatory to take 'ownership' and responsibility for what happens legally.  Please be careful when giving advice because what you have said is bad advice.

 

In that case the JPM should be a counter-signatory, not a signatory.

[Mike West]

On 1/4/2017 at 7:30 PM, theguyfromanotherforum said:

 

I am sorry I upset you and as a result you sent me a pile of abusive private messages. I was just stating my opinion. I can assure you that I am not jealous of you being ripped off.

waaaaaahhh haha you are so jealous that you can't afford to buy a condo, you are probably still living at home with mum. 

[Mike West]

12 hours ago, kannot said:

Failure to let anyone know how he is profiteering really DOESNT help at all.............. wind yer angry neck in

"He" who is he? 

[Mike West]

On 1/4/2017 at 7:23 PM, SaintLouisBlues said:

I'd have thought it was such a statement of the bleeding obvious you wouldn't need to ask. Have you never owned property before?

Obviously not dopey. 

[Mike West]

On 1/4/2017 at 7:55 PM, Peterw42 said:

 

Asking for help then not saying what the problem is, could also be seen as trolling.

Because it's none of your business what the details are. if I said they are clearly profiteering then it's pretty obvious I know they are.
What are you my attorney or something?that you need to know all the finer details, are you going to take on this case? 

[Mike West]

On 1/4/2017 at 8:15 PM, LannaGuy said:

I have been through this a few times... very, very difficult and my top six advice would be:

 

1. get control of the committee
2. elect an honest JPM or even better outsource the JPM as I have done three times
3. elect a farang Treasurer
4. review and revise the Condo Regulations 
5. get honest cheque co-signatories - one normally the JPM the other a committee member
6. do NOT challenge, head on, the JP who I assume is also the condo manager but do so by stealth as I have indicated above

good luck and vote, vote, vote  (be careful you have list of owners emails etc. to get proxies)

thank you very much for that. 

[Mike West]

6 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

 

Sorry peter I don't mean or enjoy contradicting you but I do think we need to be clear for the OP's sake. 

 

Yes the committee CAN call an EGM (as can the owners and the JPM) but let's be clear - the owners elect the JPM with a 50%+ vote and can choose a new one the same way NOT the committee. The JPM, once elected, does not have a term UNLESS stipulated by the owners (usually in the Condo Regulations) but there is no hard and fast rule and, as you agree, it's not in the Condo Act. 

 

It's a minefield, i know, from long experience - hope all goes well, cheers

Thanks again for your advice, cheers 

[SaintLouisBlues]

22 minutes ago, Mike West said:

Obviously not dopey. 

VERY obviously not

[Mike West]

18 minutes ago, SaintLouisBlues said:

VERY obviously not

So why ask then? troll...

[LannaGuy]

14 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

In that case the JPM should be a counter-signatory, not a signatory.

 

exactly! one of the two signatories as there HAS to be TWO and one should be the JPM and as I said 'co-signs'  you did read my post?  please be careful when giving advice 

[lkn]

Note: Quoting multiple people in this post.

 

On 1/5/2017 at 8:33 AM, KittenKong said:

The JPM can overrule the committee, should he consider it to be in the building's best interest.

 

The JPM does have some extra powers, for example he can forego a majority vote (for actions that would normally require this) if he is acting to prevent building damage or similar, but I don’t see any specific provisions in our bylaws or the Condo Act that allows him to overrule the board.

 

What sort of actions are you thinking of here?

 

On 1/4/2017 at 4:15 PM, LannaGuy said:

I have been through this a few times... very, very difficult and my top six advice would be:

⋮

• elect a farang Treasurer

 

Is the treasurer the same as the building’s accountant? Or just the one responsible for petty cash and maybe holding the checkbook?

 

If the former, do you mean elect a co-owner (who is not Thai) to become the accountant? And would that be possible without a work permit?

 

On 1/5/2017 at 11:08 AM, LannaGuy said:

[…] The committee CANNOT sack the JPM only the owners at an AGM or EGM and a JPM can ONLY be appointed by the owners. You are factually wrong. 

 

PS Condo Act does not stipulate 2 years - this is for the committee term and you are becoming confused between the two

 

Condo Act section 35/3 says the manager vacates office upon “possessing prohibitions set forth under Section 35/1” where section 35/1 has “an incompetent or quasi-incompetent person” and “used to be removed from the capacity of a manager because of corruption or his conduct is detrimental or defective on morality”.

 

So if the manager is actually profiteering and there is proof for this, I do not think the board would be challenged by a decision to terminate his status as JPM.

 

On 1/5/2017 at 8:46 AM, KittenKong said:

[…] There can be massive manipulation of proxy votes by the JPM, which renders any real votes largely worthless. The level of corruption here can be quite incredible and many co-owners are blind to it.

 

Regarding voter fraud, the condo act has the provision that a proxy can at most hold 3 votes and board members, the manager, and staff (incl. spouses) are not able to be proxies.

 

I would think that this makes it harder for “those in power” to commit voter fraud, as for 27 proxy votes, they will need 9 proxies which are not building staff, board members, spouses, etc.

 

On 1/5/2017 at 10:34 AM, LannaGuy said:

[…] the JPM is under no legal obligation to adhere to the committee's 'requests'. Also where did you get this 2 year rule from? 

 

As for the two year term for the JPM, we have this in our bylaws, but I do not see it in the Condo Act, so could be KittenKong has it from bylaws as well.

 

As for the JPM not being legally required to adhere to the committee’s “requests”, he can (and should) definitely turn down unlawful requests, but if he turns down reasonable requests, I think there are grounds to terminate him for being incompetent per section 35/1.

 

[KittenKong]

On 06/01/2017 at 6:05 AM, LannaGuy said:

exactly! one of the two signatories as there HAS to be TWO and one should be the JPM and as I said 'co-signs'  you did read my post?  please be careful when giving advice 

 

I think two is not enough. You need at least two committee members, plus the JPM if you like. Though in practice it would make no difference as long as the co-owners are the main signatories.

[KittenKong]

10 hours ago, lkn said:

The JPM does have some extra powers, for example he can forego a majority vote (for actions that would normally require this) if he is acting to prevent building damage or similar, but I don’t see any specific provisions in our bylaws or the Condo Act that allows him to overrule the board.

 

What sort of actions are you thinking of here?

 

Given that the board can only suggest and not order, and given that there is no one with teeth to complain to if the JPM doesn't act correctly, the JPM can do what he likes if he thinks he needs to. I've certainly come across some that do.

 

"Condo Act. Section 36 The manager shall have the following powers and duties:

(1)     To carry out the work according to the objectives under Section 33 or resolution of the Regulations or resolution of the joint-owners General Meeting, however it shall not be contradictory to the law.
(2)     In the case of necessity and urgency, the Manager shall have the power by his own initiative to carry out the business for the safety of the building as a prudent person should do to his own property."

 

[KittenKong]

10 hours ago, lkn said:

Regarding voter fraud, the condo act has the provision that a proxy can at most hold 3 votes and board members, the manager, and staff (incl. spouses) are not able to be proxies.

 

I would think that this makes it harder for “those in power” to commit voter fraud, as for 27 proxy votes, they will need 9 proxies which are not building staff, board members, spouses, etc.

 

In some buildings the JPM and management completely ignore such rules.

[LannaGuy]

17 hours ago, lkn said:

Note: Quoting multiple people in this post.

 

 

The JPM does have some extra powers, for example he can forego a majority vote (for actions that would normally require this) if he is acting to prevent building damage or similar, but I don’t see any specific provisions in our bylaws or the Condo Act that allows him to overrule the board.

 

What sort of actions are you thinking of here?

 

 

Is the treasurer the same as the building’s accountant? Or just the one responsible for petty cash and maybe holding the checkbook?

 

If the former, do you mean elect a co-owner (who is not Thai) to become the accountant? And would that be possible without a work permit?

 

 

Condo Act section 35/3 says the manager vacates office upon “possessing prohibitions set forth under Section 35/1” where section 35/1 has “an incompetent or quasi-incompetent person” and “used to be removed from the capacity of a manager because of corruption or his conduct is detrimental or defective on morality”.

 

So if the manager is actually profiteering and there is proof for this, I do not think the board would be challenged by a decision to terminate his status as JPM.

 

 

Regarding voter fraud, the condo act has the provision that a proxy can at most hold 3 votes and board members, the manager, and staff (incl. spouses) are not able to be proxies.

 

I would think that this makes it harder for “those in power” to commit voter fraud, as for 27 proxy votes, they will need 9 proxies which are not building staff, board members, spouses, etc.

 

 

As for the two year term for the JPM, we have this in our bylaws, but I do not see it in the Condo Act, so could be KittenKong has it from bylaws as well.

 

As for the JPM not being legally required to adhere to the committee’s “requests”, he can (and should) definitely turn down unlawful requests, but if he turns down reasonable requests, I think there are grounds to terminate him for being incompetent per section 35/1.

 

 

In response to my 'bits' :

 

1/ The Treasurer overseas the accounting on behalf of the committee - the AUDITOR signs off the accounts not the treasurer who is merely selected by the committee 

 

2/ Only an AGM or EGM may dismiss the JPM - no other provisions you have the list from the Condo Act for misbehavior but added the owner can just change if they want a replacement  - you try firing a JPM and see what happens if you don't follow the law!

 

3/ I already mentioned it 'could be' in the Condo regs as voted in by 50% of owners at an AGM/EGM but many condo have not had that legal vote. Your last point is illegal. The JPM is NOT required to follow the committee in any way, but would be wise to do so,  because they are not elected by the committee and the committee CANNOT dismiss them. If the committee feels the JPM is not 'listening' they call an EGM and recommend to owners to terminate and elect a new one.

[lkn]

7 hours ago, KittenKong said:

Given that the board can only suggest and not order, and given that there is no one with teeth to complain to if the JPM doesn't act correctly, the JPM can do what he likes if he thinks he needs to. I've certainly come across some that do.

 

I wouldn’t have phrased that as the ability to “overrule the board”, rather, he can ignore the board (with the potential consequence that he gets replaced).

 

There is a difference between ignore and overrule, for example if the board are making decisions that are not in compliance with the Condo Act, it would be nice if the JPM could overrule such decisions, but it doesn’t seem like he can (he can refuse the carry out the decision, but it might not be a decision that requires his participation).

[lkn]

38 minutes ago, LannaGuy said:

1/ The Treasurer overseas the accounting on behalf of the committee - the AUDITOR signs off the accounts not the treasurer who is merely selected by the committee 

 

I see the following roles involved in the finances of a building:

 

1. Person responsible for petty cash.
2. Person(s) signing checks.
3. Accountant making the P&L statements.
4. Auditor making the annual statement and checking that everything adds up.

 

I am still not clear about where your farang treasurer fits in. Do you mean that they read through the (monthly) P&L statements to ensure everything adds up?

 

[LannaGuy]

9 minutes ago, lkn said:

 

I see the following roles involved in the finances of a building:

 

1. Person responsible for petty cash.
2. Person(s) signing checks.
3. Accountant making the P&L statements.
4. Auditor making the annual statement and checking that everything adds up.

 

I am still not clear about where your farang treasurer fits in. Do you mean that they read through the (monthly) P&L statements to ensure everything adds up?

 

 

I was not suggesting 'farang' or otherwise but The Treasurer who oversees the accounts, reports to the committee about how finances are going and works with the auditor to present to the AGM/EGM. That's how it has worked on the four condo committees I have served on but the JPM is legally responsible for everything.

[Peterw42]

All of this "How to sack the JPM" is a mute point, if the committee is also part of the profiteering scam. I know of blocks were the JPM and condo managment run around selling/renting real estate and get commissions, and the commission is shared with the committee. 

Unless the JPM is in breech of common law,  the Condo act, the bylaws or their employment contract, technically they are not doing anything wrong and may be hard to sack.

 

[LannaGuy]

2 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

All of this "How to sack the JPM" is a mute point, if the committee is also part of the profiteering scam. I know of blocks were the JPM and condo managment run around selling/renting real estate and get commissions, and the commission is shared with the committee. 

Unless the JPM is in breech of common law,  the Condo act, the bylaws or their employment contract, technically they are not doing anything wrong and may be hard to sack.

 

 

Can happen I guess but the point is an AGM/EGM can change the JPM without having to go through the process of 'proving' anything... in fact that this is what I'd advise to mitigate the risk of defamation etc. Just 'replace' at the next AGM or if urgent call an EGM. If committee are in on the act the owners can do the same with 20% of owners signing-up for the meeting.

[lkn]

2 hours ago, LannaGuy said:

I was not suggesting 'farang' or otherwise but The Treasurer who oversees the accounts, reports to the committee about how finances are going and works with the auditor to present to the AGM/EGM […]

 

Sorry to be a stickler, but you actually wrote: “elect a farang Treasurer”.

 

Anyway, it was only the treasurer role I wanted to have clarified, and it sounds like this is what I refer to as the accountant (number 3 on my list), or possible called the bookkeeper, with revised terminology, the roles should be:

 

1. Building manager in charge of petty cash
2. Board members in charge of authorizing larger payments (signing the checks)
3. Bookkeeper/treasurer receiving all invoices, sending out bills, and creating P&L statements.
4. Accountant doing audit of the bookkeepers work.

With this setup though there is still some room for profiteering by the building manager, two additional measures would be:

 

1. The person responsible for issuing invoices for services rendered should not be the same who schedules these, nor should this person be the one who read metered services.
2. An invoice should be issued for any building service (from an invoice book with numbered invoices, so it is not possible to dispose the carbon copy).

For the first one, this should make it harder for one person to issue inflated bills for water/electricity or pocket the money paid for room cleaning or similar services, because they will need to collude with the person who actually does the bookkeeping for these things (to avoid the paper trail).

 

The second one is to have a paper trail for everything, but especially for a building with short-term rentals, it’s probably not that difficult for the cashier to have a separate invoice book and use that for people “checking out” when billing them for water, electricity, and possibly other services like cleaning.

[LannaGuy]

1 minute ago, lkn said:

 

Sorry to be a stickler, but you actually wrote: “elect a farang Treasurer”.

 

Anyway, it was only the treasurer role I wanted to have clarified, and it sounds like this is what I refer to as the accountant (number 3 on my list), or possible called the bookkeeper, with revised terminology, the roles should be:

 

1. Building manager in charge of petty cash
2. Board members in charge of authorizing larger payments (signing the checks)
3. Bookkeeper/treasurer receiving all invoices, sending out bills, and creating P&L statements.
4. Accountant doing audit of the bookkeepers work.

With this setup though there is still some room for profiteering by the building manager, two additional measures would be:

 

1. The person responsible for issuing invoices for services rendered should not be the same who schedules these, nor should this person be the one who read metered services.
2. An invoice should be issued for any building service (from an invoice book with numbered invoices, so it is not possible to dispose the carbon copy).

For the first one, this should make it harder for one person to issue inflated bills for water/electricity or pocket the money paid for room cleaning or similar services, because they will need to collude with the person who actually does the bookkeeping for these things (to avoid the paper trail).

 

The second one is to have a paper trail for everything, but especially for a building with short-term rentals, it’s probably not that difficult for the cashier to have a separate invoice book and use that for people “checking out” when billing them for water, electricity, and possibly other services like cleaning.

 

yes that's true and I was saying that as I don't trust Thais but didn't mean to suggest it HAD to be a farang - I should have been clearer but the JPM is responsible not the committee and the audited accounts have to be agreed by an AGM/EGM

[lkn]

11 hours ago, KittenKong said:

In some buildings the JPM and management completely ignore such rules.

 

But it would be blatantly obvious to the co-owners if the management or JPM pull out dozens of proxy votes at the AGM and should give them plenty of reason for a vote of no confidence.

 

[LannaGuy]

4 minutes ago, lkn said:

 

But it would be blatantly obvious to the co-owners if the management or JPM pull out dozens of proxy votes at the AGM and should give them plenty of reason for a vote of no confidence.

 

 

ahhh 'proxies'  I have rarely known an AGM/EGM not take place without some manipulation of proxies. Most come in blank but signed and are used by the JPM or the Committee or, more often, the Building Manager for their 'favourites' and it's really difficult to stop unless the owners are united and 'on the ball' which is as rare as finding an honest traffic cop.

[lkn]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

ahhh 'proxies'  I have rarely known an AGM/EGM not take place without some manipulation of proxies. Most come in blank but signed and are used by the JPM or the Committee or, more often, the Building Manager for their 'favourites' and it's really difficult to stop unless the owners are united and 'on the ball' which is as rare as finding an honest traffic cop.

 

Back home I have been chairman of several condominium boards, and have often received blank proxies that basically just said that the member would vote per the board’s suggestion.

 

So I was actually surprised to learn that in Thailand it is not allowed to hold proxies for the board, JPM, staff, or spouses, and that there is a limit to how many proxy votes you can hold.

 

For example back home (again) if something needed majority vote, we would do an EGM at our administrator’s office and have residents vote by proxy, that way, everything is done by the books.

 

In Thailand there is enough friction to make the board simply forego an EGM and just go ahead with something that really should have been voted on at the EGM (yes, I have seen examples of this).

 

What I am saying is that the “manipulation” you have seen could actually be an attempt of doing things closer to the rules. I mean, if residents were informed about what topics would be up for vote at the AGM/EGM (as they should), and they actually did submit the blank proxy to the board or JPM, yes, it is technically invalid, but if the resolution to be passed is not something that is specifically benefitting board members and not enough physical people show up to pass the resolution, etc. then it could simply be a pragmatic move.

 

[blackcab]

Accountancy is a Category A prohibited occupation. There is not much chance of a non Thai person getting a work permit to account for money.

[LannaGuy]

16 minutes ago, lkn said:

 

Back home I have been chairman of several condominium boards, and have often received blank proxies that basically just said that the member would vote per the board’s suggestion.

 

So I was actually surprised to learn that in Thailand it is not allowed to hold proxies for the board, JPM, staff, or spouses, and that there is a limit to how many proxy votes you can hold.

 

For example back home (again) if something needed majority vote, we would do an EGM at our administrator’s office and have residents vote by proxy, that way, everything is done by the books.

 

In Thailand there is enough friction to make the board simply forego an EGM and just go ahead with something that really should have been voted on at the EGM (yes, I have seen examples of this).

 

What I am saying is that the “manipulation” you have seen could actually be an attempt of doing things closer to the rules. I mean, if residents were informed about what topics would be up for vote at the AGM/EGM (as they should), and they actually did submit the blank proxy to the board or JPM, yes, it is technically invalid, but if the resolution to be passed is not something that is specifically benefitting board members and not enough physical people show up to pass the resolution, etc. then it could simply be a pragmatic move.

 

 

Doesn't work like that here as many issues are raised at the meeting that proxy holders would not be aware of... i.e. electing committee members when any owner has the right to stand up and demand they can stand for committee - no requirement to put name forward in advance

 

don't forget those blanks are NOT sent to the committee and mostly the JPM or Building Manager receive them and pass them out to 'friends' 

[lkn]

1 minute ago, LannaGuy said:

don't forget those blanks are NOT sent to the committee and mostly the JPM or Building Manager receive them and pass them out to 'friends' 

 

Right, so the issue is that too many residents trust the JPM and give him a blank proxy vote which he distributes to friends, since he himself cannot use them, and he would need a new friend per every third proxy vote.

I understand that there are many who are unhappy with how their condominiums are being run, and the complacency of their co-owners or blindness to what goes on, this is a general problem with democracy, but does not necessarily imply voter fraud or manipulation.

 

I say this not to be nitpicky but because we are many foreigners who are co-owners, and with so many stories about issues with condominiums, I think it is important we are precise in exactly what to watch for.

 

For this reason, it would also be very useful to know what sort of profiteering the OP is talking about.

[KittenKong]

1 hour ago, LannaGuy said:

ahhh 'proxies'  I have rarely known an AGM/EGM not take place without some manipulation of proxies. Most come in blank but signed and are used by the JPM or the Committee or, more often, the Building Manager for their 'favourites' and it's really difficult to stop unless the owners are united and 'on the ball' which is as rare as finding an honest traffic cop.

 

That is indeed the problem. In some buildings co-owners dont appear to care about or understand how the management structure works, nor do they attend any meetings or vote. If 50% or 75% of co-owners never attend GMs then it isnt exactly difficult to manipulate (ie forge) enough proxies to swing votes. And if that happens there is virtually nothing anyone can do as proving that the proxies are forged would be hard or impossible without the assistance of management which, of course, they would be unlikely to give.