letter from 20 per cent co owners to call EGM

[domdom]

Hello

 

We are very unsatisfied with our Juristic manager,, He is in place for over 2 years, called AGM but his election was not on the agenda.. So we could not vote to reelect or fire him.

We want to force him to organize an EGM with on the agenda, election of Juristic manager and commitee and other subjects

Would anyone know how to exactly write this letter ?
Thank you very much

Have a nice week end

[KittenKong]

42 minutes ago, domdom said:

We are very unsatisfied with our Juristic manager,, He is in place for over 2 years, called AGM but his election was not on the agenda.. So we could not vote to reelect or fire him

 

You should have called for a vote for his dismissal under "any other business". This is what meetings are for and the agenda is at most a guideline.

 

What does your committee/chairman have to say about this? Probably in bed with the JPM if my experience is anything to go by. Do you intend to remove them also?

 

If I were you I would pay a lawyer to draft the letter for you and to tell you how to submit it, and that should not cost very much at all. You will need to include a list of co-owners in favour of it, with signatures. Copies to the land office.

 

 

 

[domdom]

We were told that JM election has to be on the agenda and cannot be considered under the last point "any other business"

We have no comitee nor chairman as it is a small unit and we don t have 3 persons agreeing to form a comitee.... only JM who appoints a day to day manager..

Do we have to copy the letter to Land Office before the meeting is held ?

2 years ago appointed a lawyer who charged 50.000 bahts to attend the AGM and ruined everything.. He even did not know that proxies count for the percentage of owners assisting to the meeting, so the meeting was postponed.. At that time we got finally rid off the previous JM and it took 2 years to get back the access to bank account after a court case.. Now, new manager 2 years.. as bad as before. account is dried out.. All the time the same old story
Thanks

Have a nice day..

[KittenKong]

Wow. And I thought my building was bad.

 

12 minutes ago, domdom said:

We were told that JM election has to be on the agenda and cannot be considered under the last point "any other business"

 

That's rubbish. Anything and everything can be covered under "other business". The meeting decides what will be discussed.

 

 

14 minutes ago, domdom said:

We have no comitee nor chairman as it is a small unit and we don t have 3 persons agreeing to form a comitee.

 

I dont know what to say. If you can get 20% of co-owners to agree to calling a GM then surely you could get three people to agree to form a committee? Seems incredible to me.

 

 

17 minutes ago, domdom said:

Do we have to copy the letter to Land Office before the meeting is held ?

 

I would. It's just so that they have a record of what you are trying to do in case it all goes wrong (though apparently it's a bit late for that). Have you tried talking to your Land Office? Technically your building has to have a committee and it is the Land Office's job to police these requirements (not that many Land Offices are the slightest bit interested in doing their job).

 

 

19 minutes ago, domdom said:

2 years ago appointed a lawyer who charged 50.000 bahts to attend the AGM and ruined everything.. He even did not know that proxies count for the percentage of owners assisting to the meeting, so the meeting was postponed..

 

That was unfortunate as clearly you got a bad lawyer and paid him far too much.

 

Have you considered approaching one of the big condo management companies to see if they would be interested in taking you on? They should provide free legal advice/assistance for an initial meeting if they think there is a chance that they will get the job, and if they do then they should be able to act as JPM also. Of course your building budget may not be large enough to cover their fees, but it's got to be worth asking them.

I would NOT want to get involved with small management companies here though: I dont trust them one inch, any more than I would trust a JPM.

 

Good luck.

[domdom]

I explain you the reason of all this.. we are a very small unit.. 21 condos.... We are only 2 residents staying there all year long.. Others agree to give proxies for the meetings if I chase them.. BUT nobody wants to be part of the comitee.. Foreigners would agree but the ones who agree live abroad and the land office wants comitee members to have a long term visa in Thailand.. This is not written anywhere but it is what they say they want.. No big company is interested..

 

Thank you..

[KittenKong]

32 minutes ago, domdom said:

Foreigners would agree but the ones who agree live abroad and the land office wants comitee members to have a long term visa in Thailand.. This is not written anywhere but it is what they say they want

 

Your Land Office is clearly being very difficult, though I can see their point. As you say, there is no written requirement that I know of for anyone to have any sort of visa in order to be on a committee so perhaps you could complain to a higher level? I would also point out to the Land Office that the condo act specifies very clearly that the building must have a committee.

 

Perhaps an acceptable option would be for an elected absentee committee member to nominate a proxy who lives here to serve in his place when he isnt here? This would appear to be the only way out of your situation.

I think it's vital to have a committee as without one there is no control of expenditure, and also to ensure that the right things get done as far as maintenance etc goes. Committee members should be co-signatories on cheques so as to prevent your JPM from just doing what he wants with your money.

 

Good luck.

[domdom]

It is exactly our problem.. no comitee.. JM spending money the way he wants..

Yes the rules say there must be a commitee..  but what to do, as we don t have 3 persons agreeing to join

Will go to the Land Office and enquire.. (not so simple as they don t speak english).. It is Sattahip s land office

Have a nice week

[inThailand]

On 13/08/2017 at 3:41 PM, domdom said:

We were told that JM election has to be on the agenda and cannot be considered under the last point "any other business"

We have no comitee nor chairman as it is a small unit and we don t have 3 persons agreeing to form a comitee.... only JM who appoints a day to day manager..

Do we have to copy the letter to Land Office before the meeting is held ?

2 years ago appointed a lawyer who charged 50.000 bahts to attend the AGM and ruined everything.. He even did not know that proxies count for the percentage of owners assisting to the meeting, so the meeting was postponed.. At that time we got finally rid off the previous JM and it took 2 years to get back the access to bank account after a court case.. Now, new manager 2 years.. as bad as before. account is dried out.. All the time the same old story
Thanks

Have a nice day..

You can not introduce any significant resolutions on the fly at the meeting. This is main reason AGMs and EGMs exist, to give ALL owners a chance to vote on key resolutions with advance notice and supporting info. The meetings are really just a formal count of votes of resolutions on the agenda.

Edited August 15, 2017 by inThailand
fat fingers

[domdom]

Thanks.. will do..

 

[inThailand]

"We have no comitee nor chairman as it is a small unit and we don t have 3 persons agreeing to form a comitee.."

 

The Land Office requires a JP Mgr and at least three board members for each condo development. They are registered at the Land Office. You need to find out who these folks are. They then can call an EGM and owners can vote in a new JP Mgr. I would verify the current JP Mgr is actually registered.

[KittenKong]

31 minutes ago, inThailand said:

You can not introduce any significant resolutions on the fly at the meeting. This is main reason AGMs and EGMs exist, to give ALL owners a chance to vote on key resolutions with advance notice and supporting info. The meetings are really just a formal count of votes of resolutions on the agenda.

 

Not so. The meeting is for discussions to take place and the agenda is merely a guideline. Anything and everything can be discussed at a GM and eventually voted upon, though the condo act and internal building regs may introduce specific rules about voting percentages and numbers regarding some things like dissolution of the condo or election of committee members, or changes to common area usage, or common fees. Some (not all) of these percentage rules are relaxed for a second GM if a quorum was not present at a first GM.

 

It's up to co-owners (or their proxies) to attend all GMs precisely because resolutions can indeed be introduced and voted on at that time without any prior notification. This is especially important at a second GM.

 

Of course, a proper chairman/committee would ensure that any agenda is accurate and complete, and reflects the concerns of most co-owners, but relatively few buildings here seem to have a proper chairman/committee.

[inThailand]

1 minute ago, KittenKong said:

 

Not so. The meeting is for discussions to take place and the agenda is merely a guideline. Anything and everything can be discussed at a GM and eventually voted upon, though the condo act and internal building regs may introduce specific rules about voting percentages and numbers regarding some things like dissolution of the condo or election of committee members, or changes to common area usage, or common fees. Some (not all) of these percentage rules are relaxed for a second GM if a quorum was not present at a first GM.

 

It's up to co-owners (or their proxies) to attend all GMs precisely because resolutions can indeed be introduced and voted on at that time without any prior notification. This is especially important at a second GM.

 

Of course, a proper chairman/committee would ensure that any agenda is accurate and complete, and reflects the concerns of most co-owners, but relatively few buildings here seem to have a proper chairman/committee.

Then why does the Condo Act require you must give Advance Notice of meeting resolutions to All owners?

 

It would not surprise me in the LOS some ignore the law so they carry out their own agenda without giving their fellow owners a chance to have a say. That doesn't make it right or legal.

[KittenKong]

55 minutes ago, domdom said:

Yes the rules say there must be a commitee..  but what to do, as we don t have 3 persons agreeing to join

 

A committee with only two members would be better than no committee at all. A third person could stand and be elected and never attend a committee meeting, if necessary.

 

I really cant believe that out of 21 co-owners you cant find 3 who agree enough with each other to form a committee. Do your co-owners really not understand what their stupidity is probably doing to the value of their property, not to mention the building's bank balance?

 

Though having been on building committees here I can understand any reticence to serve: I've met some incredibly stupid, dishonest and greedy people on committees here, and few seem to want the job for altruistic reasons.

[inThailand]

5 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

 

A committee with only two members would be better than no committee at all. A third person could stand and be elected and never attend a committee meeting, if necessary.

 

I really cant believe that out of 21 co-owners you cant find 3 who agree enough with each other to form a committee. Do your co-owners really not understand what their stupidity is probably doing to the value of their property, not to mention the building's bank balance?

 

Though having been on building committees here I can understand any reticence to serve: I've met some incredibly stupid, dishonest and greedy people on committees here, and few seem to want the job for altruistic reasons.

Some folks are registered as your board members. Its a requirement. There can not be less than three registered.  

 

For example, yearly audited reports must be signed off by the board and JPM. Opening new bank accounts, the bank requires a approval from the board, normally signed board meeting minutes.

Edited August 15, 2017 by inThailand
fat fingers

[KittenKong]

2 hours ago, inThailand said:

Some folks are registered as your board members. Its a requirement. There can not be less than three registered.  

 

For example, yearly audited reports must be signed off by the board and JPM. Opening new bank accounts, the bank requires a approval from the board, normally signed board meeting minutes.

 

Apparently you haven't read the entire topic. From the information provided it seems that the JPM is doing everything in this building.

[inThailand]

2 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

 

Apparently you haven't read the entire topic. From the information provided it seems that the JPM is doing everything in this building.

Yes, I have.

 

There are two ways to deal with a unwanted JP Mgr, 20% of all owners call an EGM or the board does. The latter is usually easier and more widely accepted. 

[KittenKong]

2 hours ago, inThailand said:

Then why does the Condo Act require you must give Advance Notice of meeting resolutions to All owners?

 

The act requires advance notice to be given of the meeting, along with the agenda. It doesnt say that other things cant be discussed or voted on as well.

[inThailand]

1 minute ago, KittenKong said:

 

The act requires advance notice to be given of the meeting, along with the agenda. It doesnt say that other things cant be discussed or voted on as well.

It says resolutions to be provided in advance. No where does it say you can introduce new resolutions at the meeting. This makes no common or legal sense. Please consult an attorney.

[KittenKong]

2 hours ago, inThailand said:

Some folks are registered as your board members. Its a requirement. There can not be less than three registered.  

 

For example, yearly audited reports must be signed off by the board and JPM. Opening new bank accounts, the bank requires a approval from the board, normally signed board meeting minutes.

 

For all we know the building has never had a registered committee since it was declared a condo. Or maybe it did have a committee and they are all dead. It's all very well to say that this and that are requirements, but this would not be the only building in Thailand in which the law is completely ignored even by the Land Office.

 

Or maybe there was a duly elected committee which is still working behind the scenes with this JPM? There's often a back story in Thai condo management, and usually involving deceit, lies and cover-ups.

[KittenKong]

17 minutes ago, inThailand said:

It says resolutions to be provided in advance. No where does it say you can introduce new resolutions at the meeting. This makes no common or legal sense. Please consult an attorney.

 

It is entirely legal to discuss and vote on anything at all at a meeting. This is what meetings are for.

[inThailand]

3 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

 

It is entirely legal to discuss and vote on anything at all at a meeting. This is what meetings are for.

So according to you, the meeting attendees can introduce a resolution at the mtg such as raising fees and pass it, without giving all owners a chance to have a say, ie a chance to vote on such?

Edited August 15, 2017 by inThailand
fat fingers

[theguyfromanotherforum]

Very informative thread.

[KittenKong]

4 hours ago, inThailand said:

So according to you, the meeting attendees can introduce a resolution at the mtg such as raising fees and pass it, without giving all owners a chance to have a say, ie a chance to vote on such?

 

Major items like altering common fees or dissolving the condominium have specific requirements of voting percentages and quorums that would have to be met, but if the correct number of voters were present at a GM and if enough of them voted in favour then yes this could happen.

First GMs have specific requirements for quorums but second GMs - held when the initial quorum is not met - have much more relaxed requirements so in a second GM the proposition of having a supplementary fee could be raised and, if voted for by a simple majority of those present, it would be passed. This happens every year in my building and many others that I know of. Even if only very few people were present it could still be passed, as long as more than half of them were in favour. The same applies to votes for committee members etc. A simple majority of co-owner votes is enough at a second meeting and people can stand at any time, right up to the moment of the vote. The same would apply to choosing an auditor or a JPM.

 

If you were correct then nothing could ever be discussed or voted for unless the chairman agreed with it, as the chairman decides the agenda. Clearly that is not the case and if it was it would make a complete mockery of the idea of a meeting. Though I'm sure that some chairmen would be delighted if it did happen like that.

[Delight]

 I was press ganged into organising an  EGM . The purpose was identical to yours. It was back in 2010

The following occured . See also 2 attachments.

As an aside :The first issue to be resolved is who will replace the current JPM

There is no point in proceeding without this firmly in place

 

(Also  A condo can never be without a committee. The committee last recorded at the land office are still the current committe-I think dead or alive)

 

Procedure for calling an EGM by the co –owners

 

Note:

 

All the agendas and minutes of all meetings have to be in Thai .

An English (or any other language) translation can be included for convenience

 

1 Letter to all the co –owners inviting them to a  co –owners meeting

See Doc 001

There will be minutes taken at this meeting

2) Agenda for the  co –owners meeting

 

See Doc 002

There will be minutes taken at this meeting

3) Letter sent to current JPM requesting an EGM. This was carried out by the proposed new management company

 

 4)  A response from the then current JPM agreeing to the meeting

 

(That was the  first  and only correspondence from the then JPM)

 

5)Then the EGM

 

The organization of the EGM was totally  organized by the proposed  new management company

In my view you will need professional help to ensure success

A   As I  stated earlier  it all must be in Thai

Relevant sections of the condo act must be referenced

 

This is no job for amateurs.

 

Good luck

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

001 Dear All call meeting with agenda.doc

002 We as a list of a 20.doc

[lkn]

3 hours ago, KittenKong said:

If you were correct then nothing could ever be discussed or voted for unless the chairman agreed with it, as the chairman decides the agenda. Clearly that is not the case and if it was it would make a complete mockery of the idea of a meeting. Though I'm sure that some chairmen would be delighted if it did happen like that.

The Condo Act requires that the meeting agenda and reasonable details about the items to be discussed be sent to co-owners no less than seven days in advance.

 

If resolutions can be passed that have not been sent to co-owners in advance, you can wonder why would the Condo Act require reasonable details for the items to be discussed, when anything can be brought up (for voting) on the meeting?

 

Though I do not think the law (as usual with Thai law) makes it clear one way or the other.

 

My own interpretation is that votes to be held at the AGM must be communicated to the co-owners seven days in advance, but this interpretation is because it is the one that is most fair to the people who does not show up at the AGM.

 

As for the chairman setting the agenda: As a non-board member I have sent proposals to all co-owners prior to an AGM and told them that I wished a vote to be held about this. A chairman cannot deny a co-owner to do that.

 

[KittenKong]

46 minutes ago, lkn said:

The Condo Act requires that the meeting agenda and reasonable details about the items to be discussed be sent to co-owners no less than seven days in advance.

 

If resolutions can be passed that have not been sent to co-owners in advance, you can wonder why would the Condo Act require reasonable details for the items to be discussed, when anything can be brought up (for voting) on the meeting?

 

I see no difficulty with this. Items that are known about in advance can be included in the agenda which is sent to co-owners in advance. Items that are not known about are dealt with on the day. Unless such late items are specifically prohibited (and they are not) then by definition they must be permitted. This is why, for example, our agenda every other year mentions electing a new committee but does not give a choice of names. And above all this is why all agendas should include the item "any other business". That's what it's for.

Let's suppose, for example, that following dissension (or a vote of no confidence) some or all committee members resign during a meeting and before the end of their full term. Or suppose that one just drops dead from excitement. A vote can be taken to replace them immediately at the meeting as long as a quorum is present. No need to wait for anything.

 

 

52 minutes ago, lkn said:

As for the chairman setting the agenda: As a non-board member I have sent proposals to all co-owners prior to an AGM and told them that I wished a vote to be held about this. A chairman cannot deny a co-owner to do that.

 

I've known chairmen who have specifically broken the law, with the collusion of the JPM and other committee members. I dont think that such a person would have any qualms at all about refusing to include items in the agenda. Besides which for an item to be included in the agenda it would have to be requested at least a couple of weeks before the meeting. In some buildings the first that co-owners know about a meeting is when the invitations drop through their letterboxes.

[Delight]

13 hours ago, domdom said:

It is exactly our problem.. no comitee.. JM spending money the way he wants..

Yes the rules say there must be a commitee..  but what to do, as we don t have 3 persons agreeing to join

Will go to the Land Office and enquire.. (not so simple as they don t speak english).. It is Sattahip s land office

Have a nice week

 The following extracts from the condo act may help.

 

Section 38 The Board shall have the power and duty as follows:

(1) Monitoring control over the condominium corporate managements,
(2) Appointing a member to assume duties of the Manager of the condominium corporate in the case where there is no Manager or the Manager is unable to perform normal duties in excess of seven days.
(3) Arranging the Board Meeting to be convened at least once every six months.
(4) Other duties prescribed under Ministerial Regulation.

Section 49 A resolution relating to the following matters shall receive the votes of not less than one fourth of the joint owners’ total votes:

(1) Appointment or removal of the Manager,
(2) Stipulation on the business which the Manager has the power to assign the other person to carry out on his behalf.

 

If  the condo is in breach of Section 49 paragraph 2 then maybe there is  justification to get rid.

The land office should be able to advise

 

With him out of the way then maybe you could be the new JPM as per Section 38 paragraph 2

 

I recogognize that I am stretching things alot!

 

However it may work if you can get the land office on to your side

 

As things stand your only hope is solid advice from this authority

 

First job -get a translator and Thai copy of the condo act.

 

[KittenKong]

7 hours ago, Delight said:

With him out of the way then maybe you could be the new JPM as per Section 38 paragraph 2

 

JPM is a real job and I dont think that a farang can legally do it without a work permit. Any farang on a retirement extension would probably jeopardise his visa status by doing it. This would be particularly inadvisable if Thai feathers may get ruffled at some point during the process. They can be very vindictive and petty.

 

My suggestion would be to find a Thai partner of a farang co-owner who could do the job under direct supervision of the committee.

 

 

 

7 hours ago, Delight said:

Section 49 A resolution relating to the following matters shall receive the votes of not less than one fourth of the joint owners’ total votes:

 

(1) Appointment or removal of the Manager,
(2) Stipulation on the business which the Manager has the power to assign the other person to carry out on his behalf.

 

To put this in perspective, in this building about 6 co-owners, or their proxies, out of a total of 21 would need to agree at a meeting to remove the JPM and to elect another. Exact numbers may vary according to how the voting rights are allocated as some units may have more voting rights than others.

 

Edited August 15, 2017 by KittenKong

[inThailand]

20 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

A committee with only two members would be better than no committee at all. A third person could stand and be elected and never attend a committee meeting, if necessary.

 

I really cant believe that out of 21 co-owners you cant find 3 who agree enough with each other to form a committee. Do your co-owners really not understand what their stupidity is probably doing to the value of their property, not to mention the building's bank balance?

 

Though having been on building committees here I can understand any reticence to serve: I've met some incredibly stupid, dishonest and greedy people on committees here, and few seem to want the job for altruistic reasons.

Agreed, like those that introduce new resolutions behind owners backs and votes on them in the back room. You mean these kind of shady and illegal actions? The ones you profess are ok!

[smutcakes]

Kittenkong, you would never get away with trying to vote out a JPM if it was not on the agenda. Something of that importance which is specifically mentioned in the Condominium Act would need to be included on the agenda. You would be getting your knickers in an almighty twist if you read the agenda and then found out later that they had suddenly introduced a vote to remove the JPM or suddenly increased the Common Fee by 50%. Whats the point in having a 7 day stipulation for circulating an agenda at all if you can just add, remove major issues like that.

 

If they can do what you suggest it would open up all kinds of avenue for CAM fee manipulation etc. People send around a completely boring and mundane agenda unbeknown to others that they plan to add a large common fee increase onto the meeting etc etc.