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
