Dear Sir,
I read with concern the distressed e-mail from condo
co-owner Francois and the banning of pets in her condominium. She is
unwittingly putting herself through tremendous anxiety and worry,
needlessly, over the reckless and illegal activity of management committee.
I know from my own, direct and indirect, experience that
she is not alone. She needs to appreciate that, unusually for Thailand,
there is special Condominium Legislation, which includes, for instance, that
all Condominium Marketing Brochures must be lodged and recorded by the Land
Office and any claims therein override the written signed individual
contract, where it, after construction, falls short of the marketing
description. Also, she needs to understand that as a co-owner she has
absolute exclusive dominion over the floor area of her condo, and the use
thereof, and, furthermore, she has an equal share in the external walls and
the common areas, similar to all other co-owners and, indeed, the committee
members.
As a co-owner, no committee can diminish, decrease or
unduly regulate her rights, in relation to the use of her own condo or the
common area. The function of a committee, elected by the co-owners, is
merely to oversee the ongoing management of common areas, under the overall
supervision and budgetary control of all co-owners, through the mechanism of
EGMs and AGMs. They have no other function, except through retained
management and staff, to make sure that the common area floors are clean,
the pool maintained, the lights are switched on and of, reception manned
etc. They cannot, legally, interfere, in anyway with co-owners rights or
activities.
Of course, as in her case, and she is not alone, and this
does not stop small-minded, insignificant, control freaking (and generally
small-bodied) committee persons, who are ignorant of the law and their
limited function, passing toothless resolutions. Such resolutions, which
impinge upon co-owner’s rights, are unenforceable, by law and are illegal.
Furthermore, the professional management people, who profess themselves to
be experts, are even more culpable, because they should advise the committee
accordingly, and they should absolutely and regimentally, refuse to
implement such resolutions, so as to protect all co-owners from tyranny and
unnecessary, expensive litigation and the inevitable resultant exposure to
awards for damages and costs.
Being a co-owner is no different than owning a private
stand-alone house, with pool and garden. The test is very simple, could an
external party instruct you in relation to your enjoyment of a private
house, tenanted or otherwise:
1. Not to bring a guest to your private house after 9
p.m.?
2. Not to bring a guest to your private house pool,
except, say, 5 times per month, having pre-recorded their identity?
3. Not to have a birthday party in your private house?
4. Not to have a family in your private house?
5. Not to have a child in your private house?
6 Not to have a Budgie in your private house?
7. Not to have a dog in your private house?
The answer to all these questions is obvious! No, no, no,
no! The unwritten rules governing the use of a private home are no different
than that of a condo. So the committee, and management, in this case, have
erred grievously, a practice which is not unusual in Pattaya. The good news
is that the committee are, unwittingly, driving down the capital and rental
values of their own property and that they have no legal power to levy or
collect a fine from a co-owner.
Francois has a clear and answerable case in law and if
she contacts the editor, I can arrange to put her in contact with a very
experienced Thai lawyer, who has both professional, and personal experience
as a co-owner, in this area and whose firm also manage condominium
developments in a proper and legally correct fashion. She need not be unduly
concerned about the cost, because ultimately the committee (in fact, in
reality, all co-owners in this case, but they can subsequently sue and
recover from individual committee members), and professional management,
will have to refund her legal costs, under threat of court order, and,
furthermore, pay damages for the blatant unnecessary trauma, intrusion and
worry they have caused her.
Robin Hood
