Tales of Woe effecting the Economy, Where will it End????

Post by **Burger** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 7:48 am

canada1 wrote:

Here it is! Section 96 land code.
When it appears that any person (including a juristic person) has acquired land as the owner in place of an alien or juristic person under the provisions of section 97-98, the director general shall have the authority to dispose of such land and the provisions of section 94 shall apply mutatis mutandis.

Mate I've already explained to you above that the land code is about foreigners owning land.
You need to understand what the word 'acquired' means, and the difference between that and leasing.

From Dictionary:
acquire â€“ verb (used with object), -quired, -quirng. 1. to come into possession or ownership of; get as one's own: to acquire property.

Leasing is 100% legal, get a new solicitor asap.

Burger

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:26 am

Well Bugger me i am still struggling with working out he who is a mutant mutated

But i could have a good

Post by **canada1** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 8:28 am

This law firm is one of the top companies in Thailand and the Canadian embassy regards them highly.

never mind the sun is shining and we are off to the beach.

Steve

BTW, what about my question about those who bought 18months ago,

Post by **BEARHUG** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 9:11 am

If you have taken legal advise from a respected Law Firm then abide by it.

You will here Bar Room advice and suggestion's from people with a secondary motive. The property sector is struggling at the moment since the coup and the announcement regarding land purchse.

I stated in an earlier post under the Real Estate Section that 1 - 2 years ago people were litterally queing to get in the Real estate office's, now the staff are standing around or playing game's on the PC.

Also note that the verbal jousting on this post is by a prospective purchaser and a local developer, one is cautious and studying the paper trail the other trying to convince that the good time's are still with us, make your own mind up.

Post by **Burger** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 11:24 am

canada1 wrote:

This law firm is one of the top companies in Thailand and the Canadian embassy regards them highly.

Have a look at this law firm, they talk about leases:
http://www.thailand-lawyer.com/land_lease.html

They say things like:
A foreigner can obtain 100% interest for a land lease in Thailand. Unlike direct land ownership, the law allows foreigners to obtain long-term land leases.
A foreignerâ€™s lease rights are formally recognized by the Thai law.

Re: Your question about the 18 months ago thing, give us some detailed information please (no names though).
Are you buying off a developer ?
Who told you and what were you told, that the land and house, or just house, would be 100% yours personally in your own name or that it would be 100% your Limited Company's ?
What did your solicitor say to that (seeing as you say you have a top law firm recommended by the Canadian Embassy) when you double checked these promises with them ?

Burger

Post by **caller** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 12:32 pm

Burger,

You're in the wrong trade, you should have been a politician! John Humphries (BBC) et al would have no chance with you.

It takes a lot of gall to blame the probems that buyers, whatever route they take, irrespective of the quality of legal advice they get, on everyone, apart from those on the ground whose responsibility it is to sell the things in the first place and who should be giving good and accurate advice - and I apreciate that doesn't apply to all - but the bad taint the good.

To blame it all on foolish (or smart) buyers is at best, abdicating responsibility and at worst, being a passive party to a con.

Thats me done. We really are on a merry go round of Q & A's.

I got up early to deal with this and all I feel is p##sed off! I'm of for a bacon sarnie - sod the cholestoral!!

Post by **Jockey** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:12 pm

mmmmmm bacon sarnie! Is that back or streaky?

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 1:23 pm

Canada1 and bearhug i hope you dont think i am a prospective purchaser because i am not I have my property signed sealed and safe as houses on a bulk standard fixed mortgage with the siam commercial bank in my girlfriends name
I have no vested interest in property whatsoever other than to try to ensure people who correctly try to get answers on this website get them when they ask, on this web site.
I do not have any legal standing or qualifications i have however lived watched and observed thailand up close and personal for 23 years 9 X 365 days a year continuous to this date all i offer is my experience
I am a lone voice calling for vested interests to be stated the simple ommission of the vested interests calls into question the persons integrity IMO

Post by **canada1** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 2:01 pm

Thanx all,

My question though again, what happens to those of us who bought and could now have problems.

Are we just left out to hang, sure i will ask the question to the lawyer next week but what is the general opinion?. If we bought through the company route as advised and told this was standard practice and we own the land 100% only to find we dont, what next??. We never intended to lease.

Thats all for me, think it could end in a brawl.

ST

Post by **Burger** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:28 pm

caller wrote:

Burger,
It takes a lot of gall to blame the probems that buyers, whatever route they take, irrespective of the quality of legal advice they get, on everyone, apart from those on the ground whose responsibility it is to sell the things in the first place and who should be giving good and accurate advice - and I apreciate that doesn't apply to all - but the bad taint the good.
To blame it all on foolish (or smart) buyers is at best, abdicating responsibility and at worst, being a passive party to a con.

Caller,
No apology needed for getting the 'solicitor' thing wrong or calling people 'fools' before even asking a question about the houses involved. Class mate.

You totally miss my point, I have on numerous occassions on here pointed out how foolish and naieve people are being and constantly saying they should seek proper legal advice, ie: see proper law firms in Bangkok. I personally give them the best info I can but it's the professionals (solicitors) who know the law re: leases etc.

I'm not blaming anyone, I'm trying to help them, here's some examples of me advising people to get proper legal advice which will help protect them AGAINST the property sellers (all these were seperate posts):

If you need advice from a good solicitor, PM me and I will give you the address of one who has an office both in Bangkok and Hua Hin, and spreads his time between the two

me and a couple of others gave him some helpful advice, including contacting a proper solicitor

That's why I have said on here many many times, get a good solicitor, check the contract word for word and ask for any changes to contract BEFORE signing or paying deposits

You'd need to check with a solicitor though

as I understand it you use the solicitor in the shopping mall, I did too for about 5 minutes. Everyone should do themselves a favour and seek proper advice.

if you used a decent solicitor to set the company up. If you went to a small-time 'shopping mall' solicitor to save money then you should know what you are letting yourself in for.

I'm not asking anyone to take my word for it, simply check with your solicitor.

Exactly, get a good solicitor and follow the guidelines/regulations, don't try and shortcut them.

We all need to get the full facts from a solicitor.

Please check with a solicitor in case we are not 100% correct.

In the lease contract have the solicitor enter a buy-out clause for you

You really need to see a solicitor for proper advice, but I'm sure you know that.

If so make sure your solicitor includes a 'buy out' clause, it's only 1% of the land value

you need to check it out with a 'proper' Bangkok law firm and they should advise you off any such pitfalls

Best to get some good advice from a decent Bangkok lawyer firm

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:44 pm

Yeeaah RRRiiiiGGht

i belieive you

i think you meant to add

help them fill my pockets

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 3:46 pm

and if you dont larf at that in a sly chuckle you got no sense of humou whatsoever

Post by **Burger** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:09 pm

Caller wrote:

To blame it all on foolish (or smart) buyers is at best, abdicating responsibility and at worst, being a passive party to a con.

That's a fair old accusation you're making there about a lot of people in town, sponsors and other posters on here. Care to elaborate ?

Burger

sargeant · Post by **sargeant** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 4:53 pm

MODS how come mr burgher can change his posts after i have answered it because that aint goddamn fair

Buksi DR Dave answers on forum and pm please

His last post 3.28 pm today was altered after i answered it

Post by **lomuamart** » Wed Mar 28, 2007 5:24 pm

sargeant wrote:MODS how come mr burgher can change his posts after i have answered it because that aint goddamn fair

Buksi DR Dave answers on forum and pm please

His last post 3.28 pm today was altered after i answered it

I doubt that a comment from anyone would have been edited in any way without an explanation by the mods.