Examining the loopholes in the Condominium Act, which still allow consumers, buyers, or small co-owners to be oppressed and unfairly treated by sellers and project developers. Here are some key points to be aware of:

Many may be aware of the activities aimed at instilling traffic law respect among young children at schools in the Suthep area of Chiang Mai, including learning about regulations, laws, traffic signs, and wearing helmets while crossing the street or riding motorcycles to prevent accidents that may occur during travel on public roads outside the school.

The school principal stated in an interview that the activities were organized because the school's location is unsuitable, with public traffic routes cutting through the middle of the school premises. In the past, accidents involving students, parents, teachers, and school staff occurred frequently, prompting the school to collaborate with the Thai Health Promotion Foundation to implement this project.

Initially, the program did not attract much interest as it was unfamiliar, but over time, it became evident that children, youth, and parents absorbed traffic regulations well, understanding traffic lights, stopping, crossing pedestrian crossings, and the necessity of wearing helmets for both riders and passengers. The results may extend beyond merely reducing accidents; they foster a strong sense of awareness.

Students from this school often remind their parents to wear helmets when riding motorcycles.

The author “supports” the learning activities that instill respect for traffic laws among the youth of the school and hopes that other schools in different areas can use this as a “model” for children and parents, as it will help nurture responsible adults and quality citizens in the future.

However, the topic I wish to discuss with my column readers may “differ” from the activities of this school, but it concerns the condominium system, where consumers, buyers, and small co-owners continue to be oppressed and unfairly treated by sellers and project developers, from the past to the present. This may be due to the “loopholes” in the Condominium Act, particularly the regulations of the condominium juristic person, where sellers and project developers with a majority vote from unsold units (more than 30, 40, or 50% of the total units) can exploit the situation for their benefit in various ways as follows:

1.Regarding the expenses of co-owners (common fees and funds as per regulations)

Regulations are written to facilitate the business interests of the developers, allowing unsold units to pay common fees “monthly” without contributing to the fund or common fees, while small buyers are forced to pay annual common fees and fund contributions. According to Section 18, last paragraph, and Section 40 of the Condominium Act, sellers and developers of unsold units are considered “co-owners” and are obligated to pay these expenses just like small buyers.

2.Regarding the general meeting of co-owners (refund of common fees to co-owners)

Regulations are written to benefit their business by refunding common fees when there is a surplus at the end of each accounting period, relying on the majority vote of the general meeting of co-owners, while the purpose of every condominium juristic person is to manage and maintain common property according to the regulations, as per Section 33, last paragraph of the Condominium Act.

3.Regarding the general meeting of co-owners (appointment of committees as per regulations)

Using votes from unsold units (30, 40, or 50% of the total units) or a majority vote to appoint buyers, small co-owners, or nominees aligned with sellers and project developers, or by blocking the voting rights of small buyers who wish to promote capable individuals to serve on the committee.

4.Regarding the powers, duties, and terms of office of the manager (appointment of the manager)

The majority votes of sellers and project developers can interfere with the committee's activities by appointing a manager they initially designated when registering the condominium with the land office, or overturning committee decisions (from the small buyers' side) and calling for extraordinary meetings to dismiss the old committee and appoint a new one.

5.Regarding the “transitional provisions” at the end of the regulations (using nominees to act as managers and juristic persons managing common property)

When the “manager” and the juristic person contractor have a history of legal issues or poor management of common property in previous projects, how can small co-owners or the committee be assured that the manager, who is a “nominee” of the seller or project developer, will not cause harm to their condominium juristic person?

Nevertheless, there may be regulations “standard” applied in some projects or condominium juristic persons that do not exploit small buyers, but these are few. One fact I can share with readers is that registered companies in the Stock Exchange of Thailand, which develop condominium projects, have never been seen to apply “standard” regulations in their projects or condominium juristic persons, let alone those outside the stock market, where “most” do not apply “standard” regulations to small co-owners.

SOURCE: www.bangkokbiznews.com/news/detail/891853?utm_source=slide_recentnews&utm_medium=internal_referral