The difference between jurisdic manager and chairman of Committee?

[Delight]

7 hours ago, thairookie said:

Is any crime involved if the JPM appointed by the developer, the latter who still holds many unsold units, happens to be in cahoots with the developer by not collecting common facilities fees from the developer?

 

 The Condo Act  does not specify a procedure for the selection of the 1st JPM.

 

It simply refers to the profile of  a JPM

In the condo where I live we had one from day 1 –appointed by the developer.

After 3 years that  JPM-who was a puppet to the developer - was   simply replaced.

Section 42 refers to the initial JPM

 

There is no reference, in the Act, to the crime which you refer to.

The developer and the JPM do not seem to be connected -as far as the law is concerned

 

The rules say that a committee should be appointed 6 months after the condo is registered.

 

Suspect that that time frame is rarely achieved.

 

Also the Act does not detail a profile for the committee members.

It appears that an outsider can be on the committee.

 

Edited April 4, 2017 by Delight
missed a line

[thairookie]

9 hours ago, Delight said:

 

 The Condo Act  does not specify a procedure for the selection of the 1st JPM.

 

It simply refers to the profile of  a JPM

In the condo where I live we had one from day 1 –appointed by the developer.

After 3 years that  JPM-who was a puppet to the developer - was   simply replaced.

Section 42 refers to the initial JPM

 

There is no reference, in the Act, to the crime which you refer to.

The developer and the JPM do not seem to be connected -as far as the law is concerned

 

The rules say that a committee should be appointed 6 months after the condo is registered.

 

Suspect that that time frame is rarely achieved.

 

Also the Act does not detail a profile for the committee members.

It appears that an outsider can be on the committee.

 

We have a situation like yours.  The JPM is a puppet of the developer.  How did you manage to replace the puppet? 

 

The Act does stipulate the qualifications of the committee members:

 

[thairookie]

I am wondering if the JPM, if he knowingly and deliberating allows the developer to NOT pay for the common facilities, and goes further to lie to the joint owners during a General Meeting that the developer has been paying for common facilities, which he is apparently in cahoots, as such to allow the developer to use what rightfully should have been contributions to the juristic person for the developer's personal interests, has committed a "breach of trust".

 

I know if the funds have been credited into Juristic Person's (i.e. the condo) bank account, and the money is being used to serve the purpose and for the benefits of the developer, then in all likelihood it's breach of trust.  But the problem now is the money has been paid in the first place and is not under the "custody" of the Juristic Person.

[Delight]

7 hours ago, thairookie said:

We have a situation like yours.  The JPM is a puppet of the developer.  How did you manage to replace the puppet? 

 

The Act does stipulate the qualifications of the committee members:

 

 The sections 37/1 and 2 are relate to a JPM not committee members.

Before you consider replacing the JPM the new JPM must be in mind

 

The process

 

1) Co -owners met .Must be  at least 20% of total vote for this meeting to be legal. This meeting demanded that an EGM to be held.

The agenda and the minutes must be in Thai -also in English for convenience.

2) EGM held and  a vote at that meeting replaced the JPM. It must be a winning vote and at least 25% of total vote must agree

 

If the new  proposed JPM is any good then  that  person should guide you thru the process.

 

Also

 

Has a co -owner's bank account been organised ?

If not then all the monies will be going into the developers bank account.

Not actually illegal.

However no co -owner will know what is happening to the money

 

 

 

[KittenKong]

On 03/04/2017 at 8:43 PM, Hans Rayong said:

The problem in Pattaya is that it is almost impossible to get the 25% owners to come to an AGM / EGM and vote for a candidate.

 

This is why you then have a second meeting at which that requirement is waived.

[KittenKong]

On 03/04/2017 at 5:38 PM, smutcakes said:

What law prevents the JPM being chairman of the Committee? 

 

None. However, only co-owners or their representatives can be on the committee and the committee elects one of its own to be chairman .

 

In case anyone is still in doubt:

 

The Juristic Person is the building. It is not a person. Think of it as meaning "legal entity", which it does.

 

The JPM can be a person or the representative of a company.

 

The management company, if any, is just a contractor employed to run the building.

 

The building manager, if any, is just a staff member and has no power at all.

 

 

[KittenKong]

On 03/04/2017 at 8:15 PM, Hans Rayong said:

If he meets all other requirements for WP, for example, salary 50,000 baht per month.

 

In many buildings the JPM receives no salary at all or just a token amount of a few thousand Baht. Not least because he doesnt normally have a lot to do, though he does carry a lot of responsibility.

 

50,000B is ridiculously over the top. Even if he was working full time which a JPM never needs to do,  that much would still be way too high.

[thairookie]

17 hours ago, Delight said:

 The sections 37/1 and 2 are relate to a JPM not committee members.

Before you consider replacing the JPM the new JPM must be in mind

 

There is a separate section that talks about the JPM

 

 

Section 37, indeed, talks about Committee Members:

 

[Delight]

11 hours ago, thairookie said:

There is a separate section that talks about the JPM

 

 

Section 37, indeed, talks about Committee Members:

 

 The Act clearly does not wish certain committee members to 'Hog their positions '

 

However there is no reference to the  actual qualifications of a committee  member.

Ex jail birds are not excluded

At our recent AGM the proxy for a co -owner was elected onto the committee

 

Edited April 6, 2017 by Delight

[KittenKong]

6 hours ago, Delight said:

At our recent AGM the proxy for a co -owner was elected onto the committee

 

The JPM can also appoint someone to represent him as JPM.

[smutcakes]

10 hours ago, Delight said:

 The Act clearly does not wish certain committee members to 'Hog their positions '

 

However there is no reference to the  actual qualifications of a committee  member.

Ex jail birds are not excluded

At our recent AGM the proxy for a co -owner was elected onto the committee

 

I believe that is only the case when the unit is owned by a company, the company can make someone else the representative of the unit. I don't believe a Co-owner with a unit in their own name can give a proxy to a non Co-owner to be elected onto the Committee. If any old person was allowed on the Committee there would be no point even having the first point of 37/1 (1) which is that the they need to be a Joint owner or their spouse.

 

Same with the JPM, when a company is appointed the JPM, they give authority to one authorized person to be the representative of the company which could be changed as it is the company which is elected JPM not the individual representative of the company. I don't believe an individual elected as JPM can proxy to someone else to do their duties.

 

I have run into this before with regards Committee members giving proxies to other people to go to Committee Meetings to vote for them. It was ruled this one not allowed as Committee members were individually elected personally by the ownership, not the person that might hold the proxy.

[thairookie]

On 4/7/2017 at 10:40 AM, smutcakes said:

I don't believe an individual elected as JPM can proxy to someone else to do their duties.

I think you are right:

But it's also true that the JPM need not be a co-owner.  He can be an employee of the condo.