Thai Condo Law...

[les1]

Is there anyone who can help with Thai Condo Law? We are trying to raise our condo common fees but I think that there is a misunderstanding reference the voting percentages. Can anyone help?

 

Thank you,                                                    

[CharlieH]

WRONG FORUM

 

MOVED to Real Estate

[Delight]

 Typically the Condo Maintenance fees are detailed in the Rules & Regs of the condo.

A 50% vote is required to amend these R&R  at a general meeting

Few condos can achieve this 50%

 

So the way around this is the use of  a device called a 'Special Assessment'

 

This just needs   a  majority vote at a general meeting.

 

The condition being that they only  have a short life . 3 years is normal.

So every 3 years it has to be 'renewed'.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited March 10, 2017 by Delight
Spelling

[Langsuan Man]

Yes, the Special Assessment is the way most Condo Committties get around the Maintenance fees that were established years ago, that the Thai majority refuse to change.  One of the unintended consequences of the 51% Thai 49% foreigner requirement 

[les1]

Thank you for the info' we are being advised by our JP that this is not acceptable in Chiang Mai Land Office I wonder!!

 

Thanks again,                                     

[blackcab]

6 minutes ago, les1 said:

Thank you for the info' we are being advised by our JP that this is not acceptable in Chiang Mai Land Office I wonder!!

 

Thanks again,                                     

 

It would be interesting to see the land office refuse to acknowledge a Special Assessment.

 

Get a Special Assessment voted in, then see what happens.

[les1]

Thank you......blackcab

Edited March 11, 2017 by les1
addition..

[Delight]

4 hours ago, les1 said:

Thank you for the info' we are being advised by our JP that this is not acceptable in Chiang Mai Land Office I wonder!!

 

Thanks again,                                     

 If you sense that the JPM is on the side of the committee-then perhaps you could ask him /her to seek independent legal advice.

If he /she proves difficult then you may have -on your hands -the more difficult task of replacing the JPM

Edited March 11, 2017 by Delight
grammar

[blackcab]

55 minutes ago, Delight said:

 If you sense that the JPM is on the side of the committee-then perhaps you could ask him /her to seek independent legal advice.

If he /she proves difficult then you may have -on your hands -the more difficult task of replacing the JPM

 

Either that or go to the local land office and ask them.

[les1]

"Delight"  thank you. Firstly I am on the committee & I think that the JP is on our side but is influenced by one or two specifically that do not want the increase they are able to influence other Thai. Not that that is difficult. The assessment idea I put to the rest of the committee several months ago along with another co owner but JP said it needed 50% of all owners not as pointed out a vote on the day of all attendees. I can see the point of all replies to my question. People who do not attend cannot win the vote. We had 35% attendance on a second meeting where quorum is irrelevant with 30% for the increase which in my opinion carried the increase.

[KittenKong]

19 hours ago, Delight said:

 Typically the Condo Maintenance fees are detailed in the Rules & Regs of the condo.

A 50% vote is required to amend these R&R  at a general meeting

Few condos can achieve this 50%

 

In some buildings it is 75% of the total vote (not just those present), and even more impossible to achieve. This is why the supplementary fee is so commonly used: it can be introduced by just a simple majority of those present at a second meeting, even if there are only a handful there.

[Delight]

8 hours ago, les1 said:

"Delight"  thank you. Firstly I am on the committee & I think that the JP is on our side but is influenced by one or two specifically that do not want the increase they are able to influence other Thai. Not that that is difficult. The assessment idea I put to the rest of the committee several months ago along with another co owner but JP said it needed 50% of all owners not as pointed out a vote on the day of all attendees. I can see the point of all replies to my question. People who do not attend cannot win the vote. We had 35% attendance on a second meeting where quorum is irrelevant with 30% for the increase which in my opinion carried the increase.

 It is not clear as to the voting pattern.

Are you  saying at the 2nd meeting  70% of the attendees  voted against the increase  or  are you saying that the vote  for the increase only represented 30% of the total building vote..

For this type of vote the total building vote is irrelevant. It  a simple majority vote of the attendees  who  accept or reject the motion.

[les1]

Delight....................2nd meeting does not require a quorum in our condo therefore we had a 35% attendance with a 30% of attendees for the increase. which now I am beginning to believe carried the motion. Correct?

[KittenKong]

5 hours ago, les1 said:

Delight....................2nd meeting does not require a quorum in our condo therefore we had a 35% attendance with a 30% of attendees for the increase. which now I am beginning to believe carried the motion. Correct?

 

The second meeting never requires a quorum in any building as it falls under the rules of the condo act, and any normal motion can be carried by a simple majority vote of those present. However, your own building regs surely preclude your regs being changed by anything less than a favourable vote of perhaps 50% or 75% of all co-owners, not just those present. The common fee payment is normally part of the original building regs and this is why it cannot be changed easily. Introducing another supplementary fee at a GM is possible though, and this is why it happens like that in most (all?) buildings.

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by KittenKong

[KittenKong]

7 hours ago, Delight said:

Are you  saying at the 2nd meeting  70% of the attendees  voted against the increase  or  are you saying that the vote  for the increase only represented 30% of the total building vote..

For this type of vote the total building vote is irrelevant. It  a simple majority vote of the attendees  who  accept or reject the motion.

 

In my building changes to the regs always require a 75% majority of all co-owners, not just those present. So the common fee, which is stipulated in the building regs, cannot be increased without a favourable vote from 75% of all co-owners. A supplementary fee can be introduced and altered by a simple majority vote of those present at a second meeting, regardless of how few they are.

 

Just another example of lack of planning and detail here. It seems obvious to me that any properly-written regs should contain a clause for automatic yearly revision of the common fee according to some official inflation figure or building cost index, or at worst a clause allowing for a simple majority at a GM to alter the amount of the common fee in line with inflation.

 

Edited March 12, 2017 by KittenKong

[smutcakes]

16 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

In some buildings it is 75% of the total vote (not just those present), and even more impossible to achieve. This is why the supplementary fee is so commonly used: it can be introduced by just a simple majority of those present at a second meeting, even if there are only a handful there.

 

No it is not. Some old Condominiums may have failed to amend their regulations in line with the new act, but even if this is the case the new act overrides the building regulations. The voting is not less than one half of the total Co-owners to amend the Common Fee, and if quorum to start the meeting is not reached in the first meeting, a second meeting should be held within 15 days, where there is no quorum to open the meeting and amendment of Common Fee can be passed with not less than 1/3 of the total Co-owners.

 

Special assessments are a grey area, and sometimes you will have problems forcing people to pay, or the JPM refusing to sign debt free certificates. The general rule of thumb is, if it is to do with money/funding etc it should be approved as per the above voting, and the regulations should be amended at the same time to reflect the changes.

[smutcakes]

52 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

 

In my building changes to the regs always require a 75% majority of all co-owners, not just those present. So the common fee, which is stipulated in the building regs, cannot be increased without a favourable vote from 75% of all co-owners. A supplementary fee can be introduced and altered by a simple majority vote of those present at a second meeting, regardless of how few they are.

 

Just another example of lack of planning and detail here. It seems obvious to me that any properly-written regs should contain a clause for automatic yearly revision of the common fee according to some official inflation figure or building cost index, or at worst a clause allowing for a simple majority at a GM to alter the amount of the common fee in line with inflation.

 

Your building has not updated your regulations to reflect the new act. 

[KittenKong]

1 hour ago, smutcakes said:

Your building has not updated your regulations to reflect the new act. 

 

1 hour ago, smutcakes said:

The voting is not less than one half of the total Co-owners to amend the Common Fee, and if quorum to start the meeting is not reached in the first meeting, a second meeting should be held within 15 days, where there is no quorum to open the meeting and amendment of Common Fee can be passed with not less than 1/3 of the total Co-owners.

 

I know all that. It's one of many things that my building has not done. But just try and convince a brain-dead, lazy and dishonest management that the regs have to be updated because the condo act overrules them.

 

But in the end it makes no difference as neither 75% nor 50% nor 40% nor 33.3% may be possible to achieve. In mine we could perhaps do 20% on a sunny day with a tailwind. So it's the supplementary fee or nothing and I expect that the same applies in many buildings here.

[trogers]

1 hour ago, KittenKong said:

 

 

I know all that. It's one of many things that my building has not done. But just try and convince a brain-dead, lazy and dishonest management that the regs have to be updated because the condo act overrules them.

 

But in the end it makes no difference as neither 75% nor 50% nor 40% nor 33.3% may be possible to achieve. In mine we could perhaps do 20% on a sunny day with a tailwind. So it's the supplementary fee or nothing and I expect that the same applies in many buildings here.

What % remains unsold?

[Delight]

9 hours ago, les1 said:

Delight....................2nd meeting does not require a quorum in our condo therefore we had a 35% attendance with a 30% of attendees for the increase. which now I am beginning to believe carried the motion. Correct?

Not correct!

Each attendee has a voting allocation. The voting allocation varies . Generally the larger the apartment -the larger the voting allocation

 

If only 30% of the total voting allocation associated with your general meeting voted for the motion -then 70% of the voting allocation voted against the motion (or abstained)

[smutcakes]

9 hours ago, les1 said:

Delight....................2nd meeting does not require a quorum in our condo therefore we had a 35% attendance with a 30% of attendees for the increase. which now I am beginning to believe carried the motion. Correct?

No, you needed not less than 1/3rd of the total vote, 30% would be below that required by law to increase the Common Fee, even in an EGM called due to lack of quorum in the 1st meeting.

 

Sounds like you could get the required voting though if you did  a bit of lobbying, so better than some condos.

[KittenKong]

55 minutes ago, trogers said:

What % remains unsold?

 

None.

[Delight]

11 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

No, you needed not less than 1/3rd of the total vote, 30% would be below that required by law to increase the Common Fee, even in an EGM called due to lack of quorum in the 1st meeting.

 

Sounds like you could get the required voting though if you did  a bit of lobbying, so better than some condos.

 It is my understanding that ,as smutcases states ' You needed not less than 1/3 of the total vote but also you need to win the vote.

Consider a general meeting with 100% attendance (just hypothetical) . If 1/3 vote to support the motion and 2/3 vote against -then the motion is lost albeit 1/3 voted for it.

 

Also I am still a bit confused over your references to percentages.

The 30% of attendees -what did that represent (expressed as  a percentage ) in terms of  total voting allocation.

[KittenKong]

35 minutes ago, Delight said:

Each attendee has a voting allocation. The voting allocation varies . Generally the larger the apartment -the larger the voting allocation

 

In some buildings more voting rights are attributed to units on higher floors when these originally had a higher list price than those on lower floors. It often seems to be based on a percentage of the total value of the building at the time it was originally declared a condo, which is not very clear but does make sense. I suppose the reverse might be true in buildings that have a ground-floor pool and where the ground-floor units with direct pool access cost correspondingly more.

[KittenKong]

3 minutes ago, Delight said:

Consider a general meeting with 100% attendance (just hypothetical) . If 1/3 vote to support the motion and 2/3 vote against -then the motion is lost albeit 1/3 voted for it.

 

So I should hope, even in Thailand!

[les1]

Hi all, lets try another scenario. We are running a deficit hence the reason for wanting the increase in Common fees. This has been going on for a number of years. We have made certain cuts in expenses but this will not erase the current debt. At least we need to cover the deficit. Any thoughts on this because surely if all co owners are responsible for all expenses then how can they avoid paying the debt. Surely there must be a way to collect!!

[trogers]

1 hour ago, trogers said:

What % remains unsold?

 

19 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

 

None.

Difficulty to get even 30% attendance when all units are sold, points to a poorly maintained building.

[Delight]

18 minutes ago, les1 said:

Hi all, lets try another scenario. We are running a deficit hence the reason for wanting the increase in Common fees. This has been going on for a number of years. We have made certain cuts in expenses but this will not erase the current debt. At least we need to cover the deficit. Any thoughts on this because surely if all co owners are responsible for all expenses then how can they avoid paying the debt. Surely there must be a way to collect!!

 There are 3 outcomes.

 Option 1 Given that raising the fees via the common fee is not going to work -then the use of the Special Assessment has potential

 

Option 2 ways are found to reduce expenditure to balance the books

 

The  3rd  is that the condo, in time, goes bankrupt. This assumes that 1 and 2 are ignored

Edited March 12, 2017 by Delight
Addes detail

[KittenKong]

3 hours ago, les1 said:

Hi all, lets try another scenario. We are running a deficit hence the reason for wanting the increase in Common fees. This has been going on for a number of years. We have made certain cuts in expenses but this will not erase the current debt. At least we need to cover the deficit. Any thoughts on this because surely if all co owners are responsible for all expenses then how can they avoid paying the debt. Surely there must be a way to collect!!

 

Do what everyone else does: vote in a supplemental fee as described numerous times in this thread. This is precisely why other buildings do it.

 

As for unpaid bills, the JPM can impose interest penalties in accordance with the condo act and, after giving suitable warning, can also cut off access to common areas (pool access, car parks, gyms) and building services such as water (assuming this is provided and billed for by the building), etc.

Also it is impossible to sell a unit without getting a debt-free certificate (assuming your JPM isnt a crook, which may be a big assumption) so in the end you will get the money.

[KittenKong]

3 hours ago, trogers said:

Difficulty to get even 30% attendance when all units are sold, points to a poorly maintained building.

 

I dont see what maintenance has to do with it either way. Absence is surely the most likely reason, with lack of interest probably coming a close second.