Fire sale properties, BEWARE

[madmax2]

There is a property being offered for sale in the PG by the fire sale lady 

This property has already had offers accepted on it twice at B6.8M by the vendor

We made the second offer which was the same as the first offer but the previous purchaser would not carry thru with the deal and we were not told why

 

We asked for copies of the company papers and chanote but the vendor would not supply them

Using due diligence we had the company checked out and found the vendors company (farang) only owned the house and another company owned by a Thai person owned the land

We were advised not to go forward with the purchase which made common sense to us so we cancelled the offer 

 

It seems some agents here do not use due diligence here and do a title check to make sure the properties they are selling are actually owned by the vendor 

Edited March 2, 2017 by madmax2

[macahoom]

 

Why were you advised not to go forward with the purchase? 

 

And why did the advice you received make common sense to you?

[Psimbo]

Why would anyone want to buy overpriced property in Phuket. The pitfalls are common knowledge. Hundreds of places to rent off people caught in the property trap who got their fingers burned.

[Old Croc]

Do they give the impression the sale includes the land?

Is the house worth that much without the land, or are they trying to steal from a naïve buyer who thinks they will be getting it all?

Wouldn't the ruse be discovered when the transfer went to be processed at the lands department.

[Old Croc]

2 minutes ago, Psimbo said:

Why would anyone want to buy overpriced property in Phuket. The pitfalls are common knowledge. Hundreds of places to rent off people caught in the property trap who got their fingers burned.

The whole rent or buy argument has raged on TVF for years. No point in starting it again here.

Different strokes for different folks.

[madmax2]

1 hour ago, Old Croc said:

Do they give the impression the sale includes the land?

Is the house worth that much without the land, or are they trying to steal from a naïve buyer who thinks they will be getting it all?

Wouldn't the ruse be discovered when the transfer went to be processed at the lands department.

We were led to believe the vendor was offering for sale the house and land which was held in a company name and she owned the company

Once we found out by due diligence this was a lie we did not proceed with the purchase

What is a 13 year old building worth in your opinion even if its well constructed, buildings do not appreciate in value they depreciate in value over time, its only land that appreciates in value over a period of time

The building was valued at B2M  for company reasons, would not have cost more than B4M to build 13 years ago 

[madmax2]

1 hour ago, macahoom said:

 

Why were you advised not to go forward with the purchase? 

 

And why did the advice you received make common sense to you?

Duuu, the building and land were held in different company names and the vendor only had a controlling interest in one of the company's, and that company owned the house/building only

The company that owned the land was in a Thai persons name not the vendors which means her building was built on someone else,s land

Would you buy it i am sure it will be back on the market again in the near future

[schlog]

Did you pay a reservation deposit?

Got it back?

If nope then she got again what she wanted like from your predecesdors.

[madmax2]

19 minutes ago, schlog said:

Did you pay a reservation deposit?

Got it back?

If nope then she got again what she wanted like from your predecesdors.

No way mate i tell everyone its cash on settlement and we can settle as soon as due diligence has been done on the property, have settled before in 7 days when vendor has been in a hurry for the cash ( bank issued and guaranteed check) 

[federicoP]

Did you understand the reason why they put the property of the house in the name of a company, if the land was already a separate property owned by thai people ?

 

Maybe just looking for a person believing to buy both house and land ?

[macahoom]

1 hour ago, federicoP said:

Did you understand the reason why they put the property of the house in the name of a company, if the land was already a separate property owned by thai people ?

 

Maybe just looking for a person believing to buy both house and land ?

"Maybe just looking for a person believing to buy both house and land ?"

 

This would never have worked as the ownership of the land would have been discovered in the land office when it was time to sign the standard "sale of a structure document" - which is signed 30 days before the completion
 

I don't understand what could have gone wrong for the buyer. Maybe I'm missing something.

Edited March 2, 2017 by macahoom

[madmax2]

1 hour ago, federicoP said:

Did you understand the reason why they put the property of the house in the name of a company, if the land was already a separate property owned by thai people ?

 

Maybe just looking for a person believing to buy both house and land ?

Farangs use a Thai company with Thai nominees  to purchase land with or without a house on it in the company name which they are the real owner off (illegal as only a Thai national can own land in Thailand) 

You do not need a company to buy buildings only land 

[federicoP]

2 minutes ago, madmax2 said:

Farangs use a Thai company with Thai nominees  to purchase land with or without a house on it in the company name which they are the real owner off (illegal as only a Thai national can own land in Thailand) 

You do not need a company to buy buildings only land 

Sure. this is why it seems strange to me that a company was the owner of the house only

[macahoom]

1 minute ago, madmax2 said:

Farangs use a Thai company with Thai nominees  to purchase land with or without a house on it in the company name which they are the real owner off (illegal as only a Thai national can own land in Thailand) 

You do not need a company to buy buildings only land 

 

"You do not need a company to buy buildings only land"

 

Yes, I understand that. But there's no reason why a company can't own a house - and the company ownership would have been discovered in the land office when it was time to sign the standard "sale of a structure document" - which is signed 30 days before the completion.

 

 

[federicoP]

 

Yes, I understand that. But there's no reason why a company can't own a house - and the company ownership would have been discovered in the land office when it was time to sign the standard "sale of a structure document" - which is signed 30 days before the completion.

 

I do not know in Thailand, but in other countries if you buy a company that owns a immovable property, you do not need to go to the land office, you just buy the company shares.

[madmax2]

The vendor (a foreigner) claimed to own both the house and land thru her company

Her company only owned the house not the land, so she could not sell the land as it was not owned by her company/her

We agreed to pay all the selling costs and the people we employed to do due diligence on the property  found a separate company owned the land, this company was owned by a different person, a Thai national not the foreign vendor claiming to own both house and land

You cannot sell something you do not own even in Thailand, but this does not stop people from trying to do so 

[madmax2]

5 minutes ago, federicoP said:

 

Yes, I understand that. But there's no reason why a company can't own a house - and the company ownership would have been discovered in the land office when it was time to sign the standard "sale of a structure document" - which is signed 30 days before the completion.

 

I do not know in Thailand, but in other countries if you buy a company that owns a immovable property, you do not need to go to the land office, you just buy the company shares.

My wife, her son and our financial  adviser were going to take over the company (all Thais)

I was told the company would be transferred into their names if we purchased the property

The same company still owns the property so you just transfer the company to its new owners, there is no change of ownership of the property 

[macahoom]

1 minute ago, madmax2 said:

The vendor (a foreigner) claimed to own both the house and land thru her company

Her company only owned the house not the land, so she could not sell the land as it was not owned by her company/her

We agreed to pay all the selling costs and the people we employed to do due diligence on the property  found a separate company owned the land, this company was owned by a different person, a Thai national not the foreign vendor claiming to own both house and land

You cannot sell something you do not own even in Thailand, but this does not stop people from trying to do so 

 

4 minutes ago, madmax2 said:

My wife, her son and our financial  adviser were going to take over the company (all Thais)

I was told the company would be transferred into their names if we purchased the property

The same company still owns the property so you just transfer the company to its new owners, there is no change of ownership of the property 

 

Ah! That makes all the difference (that you were going to take over the company.)

 

If you had stated that in your opening post we all could have saved ourselves posting nonsense.

 

Taking over a company is not wise (too many risks) and your financial advisor should have advised you of that. 

 

 

[manarak]

13 minutes ago, madmax2 said:

My wife, her son and our financial  adviser were going to take over the company (all Thais)

I was told the company would be transferred into their names if we purchased the property

The same company still owns the property so you just transfer the company to its new owners, there is no change of ownership of the property 

a much better option is to transfer the company into the name of a reputable lawyer who already has hundreds of similar clients, so your wife and her family don't end up with a conflict of interest.

Edited March 2, 2017 by manarak

[macahoom]

3 minutes ago, manarak said:

a much better option is to transfer the company into the name of a reputable lawyer who already has hundreds of similar clients, so your wife and her family don't end up with a conflict of interest.

 

Sounds like a great idea - not!

 

I'm outa here!

Edited March 2, 2017 by macahoom
Addition

[manarak]

12 minutes ago, macahoom said:

 

Sounds like a great idea - not!

 

I'm outa here!

?

[madmax2]

Our financial adviser is a highly qualified accountant with her own in House lawyer and i will except her advice any day, its always been accurate over any bush lawyer who likes to give out information on free forums who think they know the facts and do not

 

I started the thread as a warning to other people about how sellers and real estate agents operate here compared to other countries, not for free inaccurate business advice

The real estate agents we have done business with here have no recognized qualifications and have no ruling body to make sure everything they say and do is fair and legal

 

In developed countries like Australia real estate agents are held responsible for everything they say and do and must give the prospective buyer accurate information  about any property they are interested in buying, they also must return any deposit to the prospective buyer if any deal does not go thru  because of inaccurate information or no fault of the buyer 

Edited March 3, 2017 by madmax2

[madmax2]

22 minutes ago, nongkhaidude said:

What's the big deal that's why you do due diligence most agents in Thailand rely on the details from the seller it is not there job to check titles and such , even if they did and it was clear that does not prevent the seller from going to the bank tomorrow and get a loan and never informing the agent .... ect ect.

 

by the way I now the lady you are talking about and though a bit scattered she is better then most that work in that business

It is not the responsibility of Real estate agents in Thailand to do anything except collect their high commission which they are very fast at doing

 

In any country where agents are properly trained, registered and controlled it is the agents job to do a title check on any property before offering it for sale, this does not apply in Thailand, People are agents and sales people with no proper training

 

You claim to know our financial adviser and from your description of the person you claim is her you are completely wrong.She is not scattered in any way but her clients quite often are

PM me her first name, if it starts with S you could be right but i doubt you are

You sound more like one of her scattered clients 

Edited March 3, 2017 by madmax2

[madmax2]

3 minutes ago, nongkhaidude said:

First of all I don't have time to go back and forth with you but to answer you , 

If you dislike Realestate Agents in Thailand so much why did not you buy FSBO only and save your self from having to complain on public forums and the person I was making reference to is the "Fire sale lady" and it starts with a K.

 

Have a nice life and good bye !

You would not be in the real estate game yourself by any chance

It certainly sounds like it by your posts

I do not dislike honest trustworthy estate agents just the conmem and women operating in Phuket

Edited March 3, 2017 by madmax2

[Old Croc]

3 hours ago, nongkhaidude said:

by the way I now the lady you are talking about and though a bit scattered she is better then most that work in that business

She is quite well known and from memory was a member of Thaivisa a few years back. I think your description of her personality is accurate.

Here's an interesting, on-topic link from the paper which still carries the ad for the property in question.

 

http://www.phuketgazette.net/phuket-property/Property-Watch-Keeping-Phuket-property-dealings-honest/66319

[madmax2]

I think people, Aussies for sure should be informed about the way real estate agents operate here

Its completely different from Australia, where you make a agreement with a agent to sell your property for a set time period

 

The agent does a property search and due diligence at the lands dept and finds out who actually owns the property and who else has a interest in it, for instance a bank could have a mortgage on the property as they lent the majority of the money used to buy the property and the bank would hold the title deed until the property is paid of by the mortgagee or there could be a caveat on the property which has to be removed before the property can be sold

 

The real estate agent arranges a settlement agent for the property who is not usually a law firm but a company set up to handle other peoples property settlements

The settlement agent arranges for all people or their agent who have a financial interest in the property to be there at the time of settlement and be paid all monies owed to them

 

The article that Old croc mentions is a perfect example of what  some agents and vendors do here

In Australia if a signed agreement is made between a buyer and seller its legally binding and if either party does not complete the agreement at due date they can and are fined on a daily basis until they  do complete the agreement

 

 

[NamKangMan]

On 02/03/2017 at 1:15 PM, Old Croc said:

The whole rent or buy argument has raged on TVF for years. No point in starting it again here.

Different strokes for different folks.

 

True, but when those who chose to "buy" get done over, it's something that other potential buyers should be made aware of. 

[NamKangMan]

On 03/03/2017 at 6:41 PM, madmax2 said:

I think people, Aussies for sure should be informed about the way real estate agents operate here

Its completely different from Australia, where you make a agreement with a agent to sell your property for a set time period

 

The agent does a property search and due diligence at the lands dept and finds out who actually owns the property and who else has a interest in it, for instance a bank could have a mortgage on the property as they lent the majority of the money used to buy the property and the bank would hold the title deed until the property is paid of by the mortgagee or there could be a caveat on the property which has to be removed before the property can be sold

 

The real estate agent arranges a settlement agent for the property who is not usually a law firm but a company set up to handle other peoples property settlements

The settlement agent arranges for all people or their agent who have a financial interest in the property to be there at the time of settlement and be paid all monies owed to them

 

The article that Old croc mentions is a perfect example of what  some agents and vendors do here

In Australia if a signed agreement is made between a buyer and seller its legally binding and if either party does not complete the agreement at due date they can and are fined on a daily basis until they  do complete the agreement

 

 

 

 

I am not Australian, but I still own a property in Australia. 

 

"The agent does a property search and due diligence" - my solicitor, at the time, did what is called there, the conveyancing.  I doubt a Real Estate Agent, who should remain at arms length from the sale, is also a qualified solicitor, and will also do the conveyancing.  

 

"The real estate agent arranges a settlement agent for the property who is not usually a law firm but a company set up to handle other peoples property settlements" - this was not my experience in Australia.  The solicitor arranged settlement, and there was no third part company involved.  I was never directed towards a "settlement company" to finish the deal, nor should I have been.

 

I bought this property some time ago, and it's still a great earner.  Maybe the system has changed since then, but when I went through the process, the Real Estate Agent was involved in listing, advertising, and marketing the property, not valuing, due diligence, finance, and settlement.

 

 

[madmax2]

registered agents in Australia always do a title check in the lands dept before advertising a property for sale, its standard practice to check out ownership and debts against a property which are registered on the back of a title deed

Its due diligence and title search to make sure the seller is the registered owner and to make sure they are not involved in fraud of any kind

My son is a registered, qualified and licensed real estate agent and my father was also

 

Agents do value properties for sale in the areas they specialize in, even licensed valuers ask local agents their opinion of a property to establish their written value on it, this is a fact,not guess work

 

At least 90% of people in Australia use a registered settlement agent to handle the sale and purchase of a property the system has never changed in at lest 40 years, only mugs use law firms which charge a lot more for exactly the same service, these same type of persons are experts about nothing, just like to think they are especially on the internet, called trolls

 

NKM is  not a Australian 55555,  why do you keep giving your opinion about things of interest to Aussies then, tax etc, or should i say repeating other peoples opinions that you think are accurate 

 

Agents and the farang salespersons i have met here quite often do not even inspect a property before offering it for sale

A perfect example of this is a property we were told about by a salesperson, when we went to see it her fire truck was parked out front, the house had cracks in the walls floor/foundation and the ceiling of the living area, a footpath attached to to side of the house was subsiding and had broken away from the side of the house and the boundary wall had cracks in it

The swimming pool was like a duck pond and you could not see the bottom so it was probably cracked as well

I asked her if she had inspected the property before offering it for sale and she said she had, needs to get her eyes checked in my honest opinion

 

Only worth the value of the land after you deducted the cost of demolishing the house on it and refilled the land to make it stable 

[Old Croc]

Over the years I've bought and sold about a 15 properties in Australia. (Divorces and separations drove a few of them!)  The  profits on these sales helped finance my retirement

The real estate agent, in consultation with the owner, will decide on a sale price. As part of their job agents are cognisant with  property values in your area through research and experience.

If the buyer is seeking finance to make the purchase, the bank will also do a valuation on the house before they approve a loan. Generally, when a deal is made, the transfer of title, and exchange of monies, is handled by both party's settlement agent. I've always used one unconnected to the RE agent. With my last sale, I already held the title deed, so much of the work was done, and a friend in settlements gave me a good price to finish the transaction.

The thought of using a solicitor, who would be both inexperienced in settlements, and very expensive, is anathema to me

Edited March 12, 2017 by Old Croc