letter from 20 per cent co owners to call EGM

[domdom]

Yes Kittentong.. People write " I cannot believe"... Maybe you cannot believe.. For 15 years and more

. there has not been a comitee.. except 4 years back when finally 3 people accepted to go for it to be able to throw out the JM who was not making AGM for years and not giving any account...

. At that time the JM, fighting like hell made a court case against the 3 commitee members..

. 2 of the 3 comitee members sold their condo 2 years ago

. the 3rd one who had to pay legal fees, go to court etc.. doesn t want to be a commitee member anymore..

 

Last meeting were there 2 co owners from BGK who don t want to be part of the commitee, and we had 9 proxies, so myself, my husband and one of the co owners voted with the 9 proxies..

NOBODY wants to take part in a committee.. The new JM for 2 years and a half is the only one to have signature in the bank account and the bank account was open by him only..

 

MAYBE INCREDIBLE.. but true..

 

One foreign co owner who has lots of condo everywhere and quite aware of laws and rules says that issues regarding the JM election and subjects related to the condo essential matters like for example, change in common areas etc.. HAS TO BE IN THE AGENDA and of course has to be voted by more than 50 per cent of total co owners (not co owners taking part in the meeting or being represented by proxies)

The best thing is that I am asking for 2 years a copy of the minutes of the AGM appointing this guy as a JM, meeting in which were voted important other matters.. He always promises to send but never does.. Went to the Land Office.. They gave me a load of papers and didn t find the minutes of the AGM of 2015 in it.. Have to go back

 

Have a good week

[KittenKong]

5 hours ago, inThailand said:

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!

There is nothing at all underhand about resolutions proposed and voted on at a GM. Indeed it is the only place where any major decision should be made.

 

Co-owners are supposed to attend GMs or send a proxy. If they cant be bothered that's their problem.

[KittenKong]

4 hours ago, smutcakes said:

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.

 

No, because major changes require a specific vote in favour from a percentage of ALL co-owners, not just those present. If the requisite number of co-owners are present and they vote in favour then there can be no arguing with the result.

 

As far as I'm concerned anyone who voluntarily doesnt attend a GM (or at least send a proxy) deserves no consideration at all. That said, the current 7 day requirement is much too short for people who live overseas and some sort of electronic notification/proxy system should be made legal.

[KittenKong]

4 hours ago, domdom said:

People write " I cannot believe"... Maybe you cannot believe.. For 15 years and more

. there has not been a comitee.. except 4 years back when finally 3 people accepted to go for it to be able to throw out the JM who was not making AGM for years and not giving any account...

. At that time the JM, fighting like hell made a court case against the 3 commitee members..

. 2 of the 3 comitee members sold their condo 2 years ago

. the 3rd one who had to pay legal fees, go to court etc.. doesn t want to be a commitee member anymore..

 

It's certainly a very sad tale and you have my full sympathy. When I wrote "I cant believe" it was a figure of speech. If you tell me that this is happening then of course I believe you.

 

I am however amazed that so few of your co-owners seem to care very much. I would have thought that they would all be up in arms about their money being controlled by someone who isnt even a co-owner and doesnt seem to answer to anyone. I would.

The level of apathy and general laziness shown by condo co-owners and condo managements here is astounding, as is the level of selfishness and greed.

 

For what it's worth those three former committee members you mention are technically still your committee. Leaving the building or resigning does not relieve them of their responsibility until their replacements are voted in at a GM. Their resigning or leaving is cause enough to hold an EGM to elect replacements, as if even only one left you would not have the legal minimum requirement of three members.

As they have not been replaced those former members should technically still be co-signatories on your cheques, so as to prevent the JPM from doing whatever he wants. This is probably why the JPM opened a new account.

 

 

4 hours ago, domdom said:

The best thing is that I am asking for 2 years a copy of the minutes of the AGM appointing this guy as a JM, meeting in which were voted important other matters.. He always promises to send but never does.. Went to the Land Office.. They gave me a load of papers and didn t find the minutes of the AGM of 2015 in it.. Have to go back

 

Nothing unusual about this. In my building the minutes are incomplete at best, and out and out lies at worst. Also the Thai and English versions often say different things, and sometimes they say the complete opposite of each other.

 

Good luck.

[Delight]

7 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

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.

 

 

 

 

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.

 

 your reference to work permits is in the strict sense

 

In the  exact same strict sence no farang can be a committee member without a work permit

The land office take a pragmatic view.

They allow farang on committees

They allow farang JPM

In the context of the OP's problem -the building manager will do the day to day.

The condo where I live uses QPM as its management company. They provide the JPM

 

We never see him. He's the JPM for 20+ condos

He just ensures that the condo is on the right side of the law and signs the cheques

 

That said all JPM's must have a working knowlege of the condo act

The OP needs serious help !

It is very likeley that if a coherent plan is submitted to the L.O then I am fairly certain that they will assist

 

The L.O will not wish for any condo to fail .

 

The prospect of that should and hopefully will motivate the LO to help

 

If the LO gets rid of the current JPM then another co -owner can step into that role. The L.O will facilitate this -I am sure

No need for  general meeting

 

 

 

[domdom]

Hello

 

Yes a farang JM definitely needs a work permit.. We have friends in another condo where in fact a foreigner was acting even not as a JM but just helping to try and get things done by the constructor.. of course he annoyed the builder .. was arrested and had to pay 100.000 bahts to go out on bail..

We are the only one to care in fact.. some other farangs also want to change things.. but we are the only one to follow up and try to push the subject.. The good thing is after 2 years of efforts. I could get 9 proxies out of 21 units for the last meeting and convince 2 co thai co owners to come and vote with us..

In this meeting we voted that the JM has to organize another meeting mid december AND that his reelection must be on the agenda..

I repeated this 3 times and wrote it very clearly on the papers we had to fill to vote.. BUT he obviously is not ready for this..

Another point on my side is that I was the chairman of the meeting.. SO... he has to ask me to sign with him the minutes of the meeting..

I won t sign unless this is clearly written.. and I will put before signing "approving english version of the minutes of the meeting.. Thai version not checked as I don t speak and read thai"..

Land Office is of no help.. They don t care, actually..

Cherry on the cake.. he opened a new account because the previous JM refused to go and sign in the bank to transfer the account signature to the new JM.. Took a court case and one year to get access to previous account..

We call a meeting mid december as I imagine we will face the same problem to get access to the bank account.. The JM dried it anyway and last meeting was about increasing the fees.. Seems to be the way of managing things here.. Spend money in stupidities.. then, increase the monthly fees from co owners..

To avoid this.. we voted urgent maintenance expenses in last meeting... and between this and what he spends for his salary, electricity and basic expenses, the account will be at 0 mid december, so if he refuses to sign for account transfer.. won t be bad.. we can call for the 6 month expenses to be paid in another account..

Very bad to have so many problems.. What surprises me.. people NEVER appear here, the location is excellent, place very quiet and we have all advantages of a house without having maintenance problems.. and it would be the ideal location if the condo was properly ruled..

Thanks everybody

Have a nice day

[smutcakes]

3 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

No, because major changes require a specific vote in favour from a percentage of ALL co-owners, not just those present. If the requisite number of co-owners are present and they vote in favour then there can be no arguing with the result.

 

As far as I'm concerned anyone who voluntarily doesnt attend a GM (or at least send a proxy) deserves no consideration at all. That said, the current 7 day requirement is much too short for people who live overseas and some sort of electronic notification/proxy system should be made legal.

So you could also vote out a Committee in any other business and replace them without it being on the agenda? 

 

[Delight]

1 hour ago, domdom said:

Hello

 

Yes a farang JM definitely needs a work permit.. We have friends in another condo where in fact a foreigner was acting even not as a JM but just helping to try and get things done by the constructor.. of course he annoyed the builder .. was arrested and had to pay 100.000 bahts to go out on bail..

 The situation that  you describe is not what I had  in mind and not relevant

Clearly the farang was 'shopped' by the builder . The builder obviously approached  immigration

Immigration had no choice but to take action

 

If Immigration was  forced to act  it would fine every single farang committee member in the whole of  Thailand.  Maybe past and present.

They do not !

.However for certain they legally could.!

 

The current action that you are undertaking and propose to undertake  is illegal-unless you have a work permit

 

The root of the problem are condos where 100% of the  co -owner purchases are  financed with farang money

 

If buying thru a company ceased then the problems that the OP describes would simply not occur.

Ofcourse building of condos in farang land would also not occur.

 

Money makes the world go around!
 

 

 

What I had in mind was for Immigration to approve  the move.

Then the LO would protect their decision.

Immigration would not  act -unless they were forced to

 

Clearly the JPM approved by the LO would not get paid

Edited August 16, 2017 by Delight
Spelling

[KittenKong]

7 hours ago, Delight said:

your reference to work permits is in the strict sense

 

In the  exact same strict sence no farang can be a committee member without a work permit

The land office take a pragmatic view.

They allow farang on committees

They allow farang JPM

 

The two jobs are very different. Being JPM is a proper job with a contract and responsibilities, and the person doing it is often salaried or does it as part of a paid condo management package.

I know of no farangs without work permits who currently act as a JPM, though I do know 3 who did it previously and had major problems with Immigration as a result, or had to pay monthly bribes to continue doing it. At our own AGMs two different management companies have repeatedly pointed out that only Thais or people with work permits can be JPM.

 

On the other hand, a representative of Jomtien immigration went on record somewhere (was it an Expat meeting?) to say that being on a building committee would not cause a problem as it was not salaried and not a proper job.

Think about it a little. Being on a building committee is exactly the same as being a director of a company. Indeed the condo act actually refers to the "board" many times. If being a director required a work permit then every farang who owns a house or business here could expect Immigration to be knocking on his door. But they dont, unless the farang in question is also doing some sort of real work related to the business.

 

The Land Office has nothing to do with this issue as they do not police work permits, or visas, or immigration or labour law.

 

 

[KittenKong]

6 hours ago, smutcakes said:

So you could also vote out a Committee in any other business and replace them without it being on the agenda? 

 

Assuming the correct number of voters was present and voted for the resolution, yes, of course you could.

[KittenKong]

8 hours ago, Delight said:

The L.O will not wish for any condo to fail .

 

The prospect of that should and hopefully will motivate the LO to help

 

If the LO gets rid of the current JPM then another co -owner can step into that role. The L.O will facilitate this -I am sure

No need for  general meeting

 

You live in a dream world. In my experience, outside of Bangkok most Land Offices prefer not to get involved in what happens in condo buildings unless there is an envelope involved. And the man with the biggest envelope calls the tune.

 

Edited August 16, 2017 by KittenKong

[KittenKong]

6 hours ago, domdom said:

Very bad to have so many problems.. What surprises me.. people NEVER appear here, the location is excellent, place very quiet and we have all advantages of a house without having maintenance problems.. and it would be the ideal location if the condo was properly ruled..

 

Co-owner apathy is extensive here. I dont know why.

 

Good luck with this mess.

[scubascuba3]

I'm now swinging towards renting.

If a farang JPM received no salary would he still need a work permit?

[lkn]

26 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

If a farang JPM received no salary would he still need a work permit?

The Thai definition of “work” (requiring a work permit) does not consider salary.

 

However, as it is extremely broad there was a narrower interpretation made in 2015 which explicitly allow a list of activities (like attending a board meeting) and also says that for something to be work, it has to affect the local labour market.

 

Sort of questionable whether or not having a (foreign) co-owner be JPM affects the local labour market, for our building, I would have a hard time define our JPM’s role as a real job, as he doesn’t really do anything besides signing cheques.

 

Also of interest, in the Thai Condo Act, it says that if the JPM resigns, then a one of the board members has to step in as interim JPM. But in theory, all board members could be foreigners.

[lkn]

38 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

As far as I'm concerned anyone who voluntarily doesnt attend a GM (or at least send a proxy) deserves no consideration at all. That said, the current 7 day requirement is much too short for people who live overseas and some sort of electronic notification/proxy system should be made legal.

It’s of limited use to send a proxy if you do not know what things to vote on. For example on our last AGM the chairman wanted to vote on various restrictive house rules which had not been included in the invitation. Even if people had sent a proxy, the proxy would not know how the person they represent feels about these restrictions, and even if a majority of co-owners is present at the AGM, there could be a lot of people not really caring about the restrictions and thus not voting against them, because those affected by the house rules is not there to argue their case (as no-one has told them that there will be a vote).

 

But as I wrote earlier, the Thai Condo Act does not make it clear whether or not all matters to be voted on must be sent to co-owners 7 days in advance, I generally argue that they must, because it is the most fair, but I understand that not all lawyers will reach the same conclusion, as is so often the case with Thai law.

[inThailand]

6 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

Assuming the correct number of voters was present and voted for the resolution, yes, of course you could.

This the way shady and illegal developments operate.

[smutcakes]

8 hours ago, KittenKong said:

 

Assuming the correct number of voters was present and voted for the resolution, yes, of course you could.

No way in hell that would be accepted.

[smutcakes]

15 hours ago, domdom said:

Hello

 

Yes a farang JM definitely needs a work permit.. We have friends in another condo where in fact a foreigner was acting even not as a JM but just helping to try and get things done by the constructor.. of course he annoyed the builder .. was arrested and had to pay 100.000 bahts to go out on bail..

We are the only one to care in fact.. some other farangs also want to change things.. but we are the only one to follow up and try to push the subject.. The good thing is after 2 years of efforts. I could get 9 proxies out of 21 units for the last meeting and convince 2 co thai co owners to come and vote with us..

In this meeting we voted that the JM has to organize another meeting mid december AND that his reelection must be on the agenda..

I repeated this 3 times and wrote it very clearly on the papers we had to fill to vote.. BUT he obviously is not ready for this..

Another point on my side is that I was the chairman of the meeting.. SO... he has to ask me to sign with him the minutes of the meeting..

I won t sign unless this is clearly written.. and I will put before signing "approving english version of the minutes of the meeting.. Thai version not checked as I don t speak and read thai"..

Land Office is of no help.. They don t care, actually..

Cherry on the cake.. he opened a new account because the previous JM refused to go and sign in the bank to transfer the account signature to the new JM.. Took a court case and one year to get access to previous account..

We call a meeting mid december as I imagine we will face the same problem to get access to the bank account.. The JM dried it anyway and last meeting was about increasing the fees.. Seems to be the way of managing things here.. Spend money in stupidities.. then, increase the monthly fees from co owners..

To avoid this.. we voted urgent maintenance expenses in last meeting... and between this and what he spends for his salary, electricity and basic expenses, the account will be at 0 mid december, so if he refuses to sign for account transfer.. won t be bad.. we can call for the 6 month expenses to be paid in another account..

Very bad to have so many problems.. What surprises me.. people NEVER appear here, the location is excellent, place very quiet and we have all advantages of a house without having maintenance problems.. and it would be the ideal location if the condo was properly ruled..

Thanks everybody

Have a nice day

 

There has been one case taken by a developer against a farang JPM regarding this type of thing on a condo in Phuket. The court found in favor of the farang and he did not need a work permit.

[inThailand]

10 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

No way in hell that would be accepted.

Yup! pussykong continues to profess that he can pass resolutions without all owners getting advance notice and a chance to vote. Shady and illegal, but apparently not uncommon here.

 

8 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

 

There has been one case taken by a developer against a farang JPM regarding this type of thing on a condo in Phuket. The court found in favor of the farang and he did not need a work permit.

If your referring to the Canadian who owned at Black Canyon, he was not actually the registered JP Mgr, just an owner and board member who was trying to collect unpaid fees from some owners.

 

A falang JP Mgr needs a work permit. The Land Office, banks and others will not accept his signature. 

Edited August 17, 2017 by inThailand
fat fingers

[smutcakes]

Just now, inThailand said:

Yup! pusskong continues to profess that he can pass resolutions without all owners getting advance notice and a chance to vote. e

 

If your referring to the Canadian who owned at Black Canyon, he was not actually the registered JP Mgr, just an owner and board member who was trying to collect unpaid fees from some owners.

 

A falang JP Mgr needs a work permit. The Land Office, banks and others will not accept his signature. 

I stand corrected on BC then, but i was pretty sure he was.

[inThailand]

3 minutes ago, smutcakes said:

I stand corrected on BC then, but i was pretty sure he was.

The article actually stated he was, but it turned out he in fact was not.

[KittenKong]

 

40 minutes ago, inThailand said:

Yup! pussykong continues to profess that he can pass resolutions without all owners getting advance notice and a chance to vote. Shady and illegal, but apparently not uncommon here.

 

All co-owners would have the chance to vote if they attend the meeting, and they would all have received advance notification of the meeting as the law stipulates. Up to them what they do about it.

[KittenKong]

2 hours ago, inThailand said:

This the way shady and illegal developments operate.

 

No, it's the way all AGMs of all companies and associations operate. This is exactly what a general meeting is supposed to be for: to allow any shareholder/member to voice his opinion and eventually call for a vote on any relevant matter.

 

Restricting resolutions to those only listed in advance on an agenda prepared only by the chairman would clearly be a type of disenfranchisement.

[inThailand]

9 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

 

 

All co-owners would have the chance to vote if they attend the meeting, and they would all have received advance notification of the meeting as the law stipulates. Up to them what they do about it.

Yes they must be notified by law.

 

pBut you believe pulling resolutions out of your a.. at the meeting is ok, thus denying all owners their rightful and legal right to have a say. Your the kind of people we don't want on the board.

 

And how many owners of your condo live at the building or even reside in Thailand? I am sure like most in Phuket, it's less than 5%.

 

The 7 day notice is unreasonable. The previous law of 30 days notice was good.

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by inThailand
fat fingers

[KittenKong]

3 hours ago, lkn said:

It’s of limited use to send a proxy if you do not know what things to vote on. For example on our last AGM the chairman wanted to vote on various restrictive house rules which had not been included in the invitation. Even if people had sent a proxy, the proxy would not know how the person they represent feels about these restrictions,

 

You misunderstand the purpose of a proxy. The proxy should be someone who can act in the place of the co-owner. That's to say someone who can make up his own mind if needed. If the co-owner particularly wants to give specific instructions to the proxy that's up to him, but the proxy does not have to follow the instructions and has complete freedom to vote as he wishes.

 

What you are thinking of is a postal or remote vote, and as far as I know these are not valid in Thailand.

 

 

 

3 hours ago, lkn said:

But as I wrote earlier, the Thai Condo Act does not make it clear whether or not all matters to be voted on must be sent to co-owners 7 days in advance, I generally argue that they must, because it is the most fair,

 

It would certainly be fair and open, but it is not a legal requirement as far as I can see. And anything that is not specifically prohibited is permitted.

[inThailand]

4 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

 

You misunderstand the purpose of a proxy. The proxy should be someone who can act in the place of the co-owner. That's to say someone who can make up his own mind if needed. If the co-owner particularly wants to give specific instructions to the proxy that's up to him, but the proxy does not have to follow the instructions and has complete freedom to vote as he wishes.

 

What you are thinking of is a postal or remote vote, and as far as I know these are not valid in Thailand.

 

 

 

 

It would certainly be fair and open, but it is not a legal requirement as far as I can see. And anything that is not specifically prohibited is permitted.

The Condo Act says resolutions be provided 7 days in advance with appropriate info. What could be more clearer than that?

[KittenKong]

5 minutes ago, inThailand said:

But you believe pulling resolutions out of your a.. at the meeting is ok, thus denying all owners their rightful and legal right to have a say. Your the kind of people we don't want on the board.

 

You still dont understand. All co-owners are invited to all meetings. If they care to attend, or to send a proxy, then their voice will be heard and their vote counted. This is what a meeting is all about: attending so as to be able to vote on any issues that might arise. Those who cant be bothered will not be able to vote, but even then the condo act protects them by preventing certain important issues from being voted on without a quorum of all co-owners being present.

 

And I think that I am exactly the sort of person you should want on a board as I am scrupulously honest and fair, and have absolutely no axe to grind and no ulterior motive apart from the well-being and improvement of my building. In that respect I differ from most committee members I have ever met here.

[KittenKong]

Just now, inThailand said:

The Condo Act says resolutions be provided 7 days in advance with appropriate info. What could be more clearer than that?

 

An agenda is just a guide to what will be discussed. It is neither complete nor written in stone. The condo act does not say that other resolutions cannot be added later and it is standard practice in general meetings to do so.

For example, does your AGM agenda name the candidates for a committee election? No, it doesnt, because anyone can stand right up to the last minute before the vote occurs. Yet by your way of thinking this would not be acceptable as voters would not be able to make up their minds about it in advance.

[inThailand]

37 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

 

An agenda is just a guide to what will be discussed. It is neither complete nor written in stone. The condo act does not say that other resolutions cannot be added later and it is standard practice in general meetings to do so.

For example, does your AGM agenda name the candidates for a committee election? No, it doesnt, because anyone can stand right up to the last minute before the vote occurs. Yet by your way of thinking this would not be acceptable as voters would not be able to make up their minds about it in advance.

Your one shady character, that its right and legal to go behind owners backs to make decisions regarding their investment and their money.

Using your logic, then you could call a meeting with no or pointless resolutions and then make key discussions by purposely excluding most owners. Yes, this is what law permits according to you! Not! 

 

Yes, our resolutions are specific. They name the JP Mgr name or owners names for the board. How else can you cast an informed vote? 

 

Most condos do as we do, the owners cast their votes on the voting form and the proxy just submits their ballot at the meeting. Or those with no proxy, a proxy is assigned to them at the meeting so their votes can be counted. 

 

 

Edited August 17, 2017 by inThailand
fat fingers

[KittenKong]

2 hours ago, inThailand said:

Your one shady character, that its right and legal to go behind owners backs to make decisions regarding their investment and their money.

Using your logic, then you could call a meeting with no or pointless resolutions and then make key discussions by purposely excluding most owners. Yes, this is what law permits according to you! Not! 

 

I believe you are being deliberately obtuse as I have repeatedly explained why that is not the case.

 

 

2 hours ago, inThailand said:

Yes, our resolutions are specific. They name the JP Mgr name or owners names for the board. How else can you cast an informed vote? 

 

The resolution will be specific, of course, but the advance agenda will not, for the reason I explained: anyone can stand up to the very last minute before the vote.

 

 

2 hours ago, inThailand said:

Most condos do as we do, the owners cast their votes on the voting form and the proxy just submits their ballot at the meeting. Or those with no proxy, a proxy is assigned to them at the meeting so their votes can be counted. 

 

This may indeed happen but it is not correct. Certainly the part about proxies being assigned at the meeting is totally illegal and leaves full scope for all sorts of trickery and vote manipulation which is something that the condo act goes to some length to prevent (trickery and manipulation being common here).

 

So perhaps before you call me shady it might be an idea to examine the beam in your own juristic person's eye?