Condo AGM

[Eneukman]

I know that under the Condo Act, a condo must hold its AGM within 120 days of the end of its financial year. It has been announced that our AGM will be on 22nd January, which is inside the 120 day period. However, if as is likely, there is no quorum on that date, the second attempt will be held 2 weeks later on 5th February, which will be about a week after the last date on which the AGM should have been held. Does the 120 day period refer only to the first attempt or must the second attempt  also be held within this period? In the 8 years or so since the first committee was electedm there has only once been a quorum at the first attempt. Last year, the number of co-owners in attendance was only around 15%.

 

A notice has been posted asking for volunteers for election to the committee but nothing has been said about electing a JPM. Should this not be advertised as well? Some members of the outgoing committee are, I suspect, strongly in favour of the existing JPM being re-elected. However, he is also the owner of our management company, which in my opinion is definitely not to be recommended. 

 

At the last election, 3 names appeared on the notice board the day before the election with a 4th name only being added immediately before the election. Is there a time limit before the election by which candidates should give notice of their intention to seek election to the committee?

 

Thanks,

 

Alan

[lkn]

Thai Condo Act section 42/3 says: “On summoning to the General Meeting, written letters indicating the place, date, tie and Meeting agendas and the matters to be presented to the Meeting together with reasonable details shall be made and forwarded to the joint owners at least seven days prior to the Meeting date.”

 

Personally I would think a new JPM candidate is “reasonable details” which should be expected to have sent to the co-owners seven days in advance, but not everyone agrees with me about this.

 

And this is really all it says about what information co-owners should be given prior to the AGM. Your bylaws may have more requirements.

 

As for second meeting, the requirement is to hold an ordinary general meeting within 120 days, and my interpretation is that this has been done even if enough co-owners does not show up.

[KittenKong]

As far as I know the rule concerning the date of the AGM and the end of the financial year is only for the first meeting to be held on time. Any subsequent EGM called due to lack of a quorum at the first meeting is not subject to that particular rule, though it may be subject to other rules relating to how soon it has to be called.
It's a complete mystery to me why any management company should need to drag out the presentation of simple building accounts for four months, unless they have some ulterior motive or are hopelessly lazy or incompetent (none of which would surprise me at all here). In a properly run building I would expect to see a meeting called and the accounts presented within a few weeks of the end of the financial year, and most buildings seem to manage this. It really isn't very complicated.

 

As far as I know there is no requirement whatsoever for co-owners to register as candidates for the committee at any particular time. They can present themselves at the last minute at the meeting itself if they so wish. I see no reason why that should not also apply to the position of JPM, or indeed any other issue subject to a vote. The whole point of a meeting is that all co-owners can speak their mind on the day and eventually get other co-owners to agree with them. The agenda and proposals of the committee are not written in stone, and are merely guidelines and suggestions.

[lkn]

26 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

In a properly run building I would expect to see a meeting called and the accounts presented within a few weeks of the end of the financial year

 

Some would probably prefer delaying closing the books until expected bills for December have been received, for example water and electricity. So this might delay closing the books untill end of January.

 

Then the books have to go to an accountant for auditing, which is generally not a fast process because they have to check that everything is in order, and if it is not, ensure it gets sorted out, which can involve having to get hold of third parties.

 

Furthermore, many do audit this time of year, so there may even be a bit of backlog at the accountant.

 

Lastly you have the board’s role. A responsible board should go through the financial report before it is sent to the co-owners, and if there are confusion in the report (misleading terminology or wrong accounts have been credited/debited) they should request changes to make it clear.

 

So all in all I do not think “well run” does necessarily mean that the AGM is held in January.

 

Although from the outside, it does seem like these things should not take a lot of time, but I have been involved in financial reports enough times to know they normally do (though not yet in Thailand).

 

[KittenKong]

2 hours ago, lkn said:

Then the books have to go to an accountant for auditing, which is generally not a fast process because they have to check that everything is in order, and if it is not, ensure it gets sorted out, which can involve having to get hold of third parties.

 

LOL. The auditor in my building must spend all of 5 minutes checking the accounts, based on the number of blatant errors that slip through.

[OneZero]

It would appear that the financial year for the ops condo ended on 31 October.

[KittenKong]

2 hours ago, OneZero said:

It would appear that the financial year for the ops condo ended on 31 October.

 

Calculating back from what the OP said I think his financial year must have ended 4 months before the end of January. So presumably September 30 rather than October 31.

 

I really dont see why a management company should not be able to process the accounts and call a meeting in much less time than that, at what should be a very quiet time of year for both accountants and auditors.

[OneZero]

11 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

Calculating back from what the OP said I think his financial year must have ended 4 months before the end of January. So presumably September 30 rather than October 31.

 

I really dont see why a management company should not be able to process the accounts and call a meeting in much less time than that, at what should be a very quiet time of year for both accountants and auditors.

You're absolutely right.  In my haste I translated 120 days into 3 months not 4 months, even though I asked myself why didn't they end their fiscal year on the more commonly used 30 September.  I think more condos should make this fiscal year adjustment because it allows the snow birds a greater opportunity be be available for the AGM prior to heading back home.  

 

I am told that owners, at an AGM/EGM vote,  have to agree to make the fiscal year adjustment and that the committee / JP cannot make the decision themselves.  Is this advice correct?

[KittenKong]

3 hours ago, OneZero said:

I am told that owners, at an AGM/EGM vote,  have to agree to make the fiscal year adjustment and that the committee / JP cannot make the decision themselves.  Is this advice correct?

 

That's a fairly major change and I dont think that the committee/JPM could legally make that decision without the approval of co-owners.

[Eneukman]

Thanks for the replies. Yes, our financial year ends on 30th September so the first attempt at an AGM will be held within the 120 day period.

 

Originally, our financial year ended on 31st December but our then management company proposed to the committee that it should be changed to 30th September on the grounds that there would be more chance of getting a quorum at the first attempt. The then committee agreed though co-owners were never consulted on this. As the management company with the agreement of the same committee subsequently illegally introduced a new charge applicable to every room without the agreement of co-owners, this should not be a surprise.

 

No details of the agenda for the AGM have been released as yet though I suspect that we'll all get notification of it delivered to our individual mail boxes tomorrow and then have to go to the office to collect it. I suspect that a copy of the accounts won't be made available until immediately before the AGM. Considering the number of blindingly obvious mistakes in the accounts last year, this hardly gives time for those co-owners who are able to understand the accounts enough time to examine them in sufficient detail to raise questions (our condo accounts are supposedly audited). I very much doubt that anyone on the committee is capable of understanding even the most basic set of accounts and in one previous year, the arithmetic was wring!

 

The biggest problem where I live is that most of the people who attend meetings are truly apathetic. Error after error was pointed out in the accounts for last year, yet most people there were more concerned about how long the meeting was going to last! A further problem is that a large number of rooms are rented and consequently several give proxies to the agents (and their staff) who look after the property in their absence.

 

At the last AGM, I asked why so many emergency lights were not working and why many emergency exit signs were not illuminated. I very much doubt that there has been an improvement since then! Also, the most recent financial report that has been published on the notice board is for April which means that we are now missing the appropriate reports from May to December inclusive, unless some have suddenly appeared in the last 2 or 3 days. 

 

3 years ago, we brought in a new management company who are totally incompetent. Our previous management company had their faults but they at least did a reasonable job.

 

Alan

 

 

[lkn]

Changing the accounting year should not require a majority vote, unless it is defined in your bylaws, in which case it would require changing your bylaws.

 

For your other issues, sounds like you should try to get elected as a board member.

[Delight]

  You have written a few posts on this blog

Your general sense of dissatisfaction is clear-based on your  earlier posts

It is difficult to get a sense of your grievances unless you detail your CAM fees and how many floors in the building.

Given the lack of attendance at General meetings and also if  your condo is relatively old –say 15 years plus then the base fee is likely to be completely could be out of step with economic reality.

The solution to this is the introduction of a ‘Special Assessment’ which has to be agreed at a General meeting. From what you say this has already occurred in the recent past.

Co –owners will not attend if their presence facilitates  fees to be increased.

This extra charge can be agreed at a 2^nd AGM meeting-even if only 3 co –owners attend

 

My guess is that your building is under  funded.

Would you agree?

The way to get a response from apathetic co –owners is to raise the fees-via a new Special Assessment.

Your  management company will advise the committee on this.

[Eneukman]

2 years ago for some unknown reason, 2 years ago, co-owners voted to elect a committee of 3. That quickly disintegrated with 2 of the 3 members resigning though no EGM was called, contrary to condo law. It seems that the 3rd member of the committee also resigned at some point though exactly when I don't know. 

 

At the AGM last year, co-owners voted to elect a committee of 5. Three Thais whose names only appeared the day before were elected and two farangs one of whose names only appeared at the last minute. When the result of the election was published, there was a substantial gap between the candidate with the 5th highest and the 6th highest number of votes, which to many people was highly suspicious. Between 6th and 7th (myself) the gap was 1000 votes, which is effectively a difference of 2 co-owners due to how the voting ratios work out. 

 

The original date of the AGM has been changed at least once, if not twice and is now due to be held on the very last day allowed by law - assuming that day 1 is not the 30th September when our financial year ends. 

 

The condo has 18 floors with a total of 880 units and is about 14 - 15 years old. The maintenance fee was originally set at 3600 baht per unit, which was unrealistically low. When the first committee took over, it had to build up the funds, which had been badly depleted by the builder. At the last AGM our financial position was satisfactory though I don't know the current position due to the continued failure of the management company to post the monthly financial statements. The fee for last year was, I felt, on the low side and I suspect it will be the same this year. That said, at the last AGM we were in a reasonable position financially.

 

There is general dissatisfaction amongst a number of co-owners but many are simply not interested. Unfortunately, we have many rental units, several of which are rented, illegally, for periods of less than 1 month. 

 

However, nothing will change unless a strong committee is elected in the future and I think the chances of that changing anytime soon is extremely remote.

 

Alan

 

 

[Delight]

. By law cashflow data must be published at the latest 15 days after the end of each month.

 The  way I see it your only hope is to challenge the illegal behaviour of your JPM

Suspect that you will need a lawyer for this.

That said -what would change if the monthly data was published?

 

As you say many of the co -owners are dissatisfied but apathetic.

 

Why are you dissatisfied enough to complain -when others are not ?

 

 

[KittenKong]

I see it as the committee's job to pressure management into doing theirs. Of course if the committee is also useless and/or corrupt then that wont happen. It sounds as though in the OP's building this is the case (and it certainly isn't the only building to be like that).

 

And how do you know that other co-owners dont agree with the OP? Just because many co-owners are too stupid to know what day it is does not mean than some wont see through bad management. But maybe many who do see a problem are unwilling to complain because they fear reprisals. Or maybe they are just completely apathetic about life in general. Or maybe many are absentee owners who only see the building once a year, if that. Plenty of all of those in my own building.

[Delight]

1 hour ago, KittenKong said:

I see it as the committee's job to pressure management into doing theirs. 

 

 I do not see it that way

 

It is the responsibility of co –owners to complain to the building manager with respect to symptoms of bad quality within the building

 

The committee should not do this.

 

That said committee members can make complaints-however they are acting as co –owners in this  role-not  as committee members

 

The  building manager has to report to the committee –detailing the progress in dealing with such  complaints

 

The culture of co-owner’s complaints and their   satisfactory  resolution is essential for a well managed condo.

 

Suspect that the co –owners (or the committee  ) in the OP’s building do not see it that way.

 

The culture in the condo where you live sounds to be identical

[KittenKong]

2 hours ago, Delight said:

I do not see it that way

It is the responsibility of co –owners to complain to the building manager with respect to symptoms of bad quality within the building

The committee should not do this.

That said committee members can make complaints-however they are acting as co –owners in this  role-not  as committee members

The  building manager has to report to the committee –detailing the progress in dealing with such  complaints

 

You seem to be living on another planet to the one I live on.

 

What is the point of complaining to the building manager about the shortcomings or dishonesty of the building manager? Will such complaints cause him to rethink his life and become a good person? I don't think so.

[Delight]

49 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

 

You seem to be living on another planet to the one I live on.

 

What is the point of complaining to the building manager about the shortcomings or dishonesty of the building manager? Will such complaints cause him to rethink his life and become a good person? I don't think so.

 

 No   I live in a condo  that works

 

Granted -if all the co -owners had your negative attitude -then failure is the only option

 

   People who lead -as distinct from those who just moan is required

 

Are you one? A leader that is.

 

I suspect  not !

[blackcab]

Personally I prefer the route where the co-owners report problems to the committee and then a nominated committee member liaises with the building manager.

[Delight]

8 hours ago, blackcab said:

Personally I prefer the route where the co-owners report problems to the committee and then a nominated committee member liaises with the building manager.

 That is not the role of the committee

Managers manage -committee sets policy.

Co -owners must complain -and complain to the manager -never the committee

[blackcab]

22 minutes ago, Delight said:

 That is not the role of the committee

Managers manage -committee sets policy.

Co -owners must complain -and complain to the manager -never the committee

 

Actually the Committee's role is whatever it decides it to be. It can be as active as it wants (subject to work permit restrictions), to the extent that a building manager is not employed and a JPM is outsourced purely to fulfil statutory functions. This tends to happen for smaller buildings with less units. Things are not so difficult to manage and costs are kept low.

 

From my experience, when owners complain to the committee it is not because a light bulb needs changing in the car park. It's because there is a systemic problem that is not being addressed.

 

As an example, light bulbs can be checked daily, but whats the point of complaining to a building manager if this is not happening?

 

In this example the problem is with the building manager who is not supervising the staff.

[KittenKong]

11 hours ago, Delight said:

No   I live in a condo  that works

 

Well. I'm happy for you. But this topic is about buildings that dont work. I dont see that it furthers the discussion much to say that buildings that dont work properly would be much better if they did work properly. I dont see that it requires much perspicacity to work that out either.

 

 

11 hours ago, Delight said:

Granted -if all the co -owners had your negative attitude -then failure is the only option

People who lead -as distinct from those who just moan is required

Are you one? A leader that is.

I suspect  not !

 

I shall put this nonsense down to inauguration fever.

[Delight]

1 hour ago, blackcab said:

 

Actually the Committee's role is whatever it decides it to be. It can be as active as it wants (subject to work permit restrictions), to the extent that a building manager is not employed and a JPM is outsourced purely to fulfil statutory functions. This tends to happen for smaller buildings with less units. Things are not so difficult to manage and costs are kept low.

 

From my experience, when owners complain to the committee it is not because a light bulb needs changing in the car park. It's because there is a systemic problem that is not being addressed.

 

As an example, light bulbs can be checked daily, but whats the point of complaining to a building manager if this is not happening?

 

In this example the problem is with the building manager who is not supervising the staff.

 

 For a condo   management to be effective then clear lines of authority need to be adhered to.

 

If the committee does the manager’s job –then for certain the manager will become de-motivated..

For the effective management of a condo then a clear understanding by all the stake holders of the roles of each authority has to be established

 

The quick fix that you  describe will produce results in the short term

 

In the medium and long term things are almost guaranteed to fail.

 

 The negative symptoms described by the OP (and others ) have their root in  the management practice that you describe.

 

 I have referred  to Co –owners complaints and  the effective management of these complaints as been the basis  for a well run  condo.

 

On reflection the word Complaint has a  negative connotations.

 

A more positive word or phrase would be better.

[Eneukman]

I speak to a number of co-owners at the pool in the afternoon, none of whom is satisfied with either the management company or the committee. No minutes have been published and it is not at all certain that there is even a committee at present.

 

As for complaints, these should be directed, initially, at the management company but if they fail to take the appropriate action, the committee should then seek to resolve matters. Unfortunately, where I live the management company just ignores co-owners' complaints. I attended a brief meeting where the Juristic Person Manager showed a total lack of respect by insisting on speaking in Thai despite a Thai committee member specifically asking him to speak in English.

 

Meantime, the agenda for the AGM has just been delivered and for the first time ever, is all in Thai rather than in both languages. Also, the date for the meeting in the agenda is given as being 29th January which, if correct means that the management company  will be in infringement of the Condo Act. That said, as far as I can recall, the notice in the lobby indicates that the meeting is due to be held on 28th January. Incompetence?

 

The problem as I see it is that too many co-owners don't know and / or don't care about the condo's regulations. I suspect, however, that if a fraud was to be discovered at some future date, they would be the ones shouting the loudest.

 

Alan