Splitlid, correct.
Clive, if there is a track record, which is important, than there is also capital to support future developments.
Code of conduct in the Hua Hin real estate market ?????
I understand that PK but most of the problem developers have finances in place sufficient to set up 10m Baht companies if they so wish. I am struggling here with this, what started out as supposed to be an expats club, changed to a real estate agents code of conduct but now seems to be a code of conduct for developers. I understand what you are trying to acheive and it is an admirable task but man has anyone really sat down and thought this out? You have a a government mind set that tells you what you want to hear but continues to cruise along at its own will, you have very rich developers who for sure are not going to change because a bunch of agents try and put pressure on them and then you have a decreasing number of Farangh agents being replaced by local agents who sure as hell are not interested in anyone but themselves. You have my full support in attempting to reach your objectives, they will benifit each and evry honest person in this town but thereby lies your problem, Honesty. My personal opinion is that the agents code of conduct is preferable and then advertise that fact that the reputable agents belong to a body of like minded people who trade ethically, but at the end of the day we are in Thailand and these developers are really not going to bother if we list their properties or not, they will just open their own retail stores.
I am in a good mind to lock this thread. On the surface it appears to be a repeat of previous incarnations of such endeavours as those that appear to be organizing it are one and the same, this forum does not wish to be involved or associated with it at the present time. Our stance will remain as so until further information is presented to us. HHAD does not warrant or assume any legal liability or responsibility for the accuracy, completeness, or usefulness of any of the posts in this thread.
I will allow the discussion to continue for now but we will be monitoring it closely, we duly request that all posters abide and adhere to our terms and conditions or they will find themselves banned from using this website:
http://www.huahinafterdark.com/forum/vi ... php?t=1783
I will allow the discussion to continue for now but we will be monitoring it closely, we duly request that all posters abide and adhere to our terms and conditions or they will find themselves banned from using this website:
http://www.huahinafterdark.com/forum/vi ... php?t=1783
Last edited by Lev on Sat May 31, 2008 2:01 pm, edited 2 times in total.
There was some confusion that stemmed from the first meeting as it wasn't clearly explained to officials from Friar T's side. Khun Prasit assumed a business was going to be formed for agents, and that would give them an unethical sway over the property market...etc... etc... opinions voiced on this forum itself. These qualms have since been ironed out, and Khun Prasit has voiced his backing of the association none the less.
Clive I think the confusion stems from the fact that this association is now seen to have 2 parts. A real estate brokers code of conduct and a developer's code of conduct. My understanding is that the association would umbrella both, and therefore a code could be put in place for agents, and for developers, and the two could easily co-exist.
Clive I think the confusion stems from the fact that this association is now seen to have 2 parts. A real estate brokers code of conduct and a developer's code of conduct. My understanding is that the association would umbrella both, and therefore a code could be put in place for agents, and for developers, and the two could easily co-exist.
Well "Bob the builder" haunts me.
I was just informed that there are reputable developers out there, operating like "Bob the builder" meaning w/o company set-up and being sucessful as well.
Well I was not aware of that and did not come across that yet.
If that is the case and it is within the legal framework, then yes they should be able to join as well. I am just not quite sure how that could work.
pk
I was just informed that there are reputable developers out there, operating like "Bob the builder" meaning w/o company set-up and being sucessful as well.
Well I was not aware of that and did not come across that yet.
If that is the case and it is within the legal framework, then yes they should be able to join as well. I am just not quite sure how that could work.
pk
-
huahinsimon
- Professional
- Posts: 392
- Joined: Sun Aug 05, 2007 11:43 am
personal attacks
Please refrain from personal attacks, thank you.clive wrote:PK no customers again today? or are you trying to get away from that amatuer status on HHAD?
HHS
The devil made me do it the first time.
The second time I did it on my own.
When I finally got to the land of milk and honey, the milkman shot me
Happy wife, Happy life!
The second time I did it on my own.
When I finally got to the land of milk and honey, the milkman shot me
Happy wife, Happy life!
PK wrote
"We propose the bare minimum which is
- absolutely clean title, no power of attorneys to act on behalf, no agreement with owner of land when only 10 or whatever % down, must be 100% clean, bankmortgauges accepted if prooven that money is used for development.
- clear company set up and structure, no nominees. Minimum paid up capital required. To be discussed what that should be.
- building permit required
- setting the standards for the agents to join the "body"
We propose bare minimum again which is
- not to list and sell any development not complying to above 3 points. "
Just a few thoughts for you all to mull over .
Should the developers have to meet an agreed build standard ?
Should they be expected to have some building knowledge,experience and background ?
In the very common case of land being owned in a Thai individuals name until home completion and then either transferred to the buyer/buyers company or leased directly from the individual why does the individual need a company unless of course the buyer is more comfortable with leasing from a company .Said company can be set up on a case by case basis as required .
If it is common ,documented, knowledge that a company or individuals from,or associated with, that company are having legal action taken against them regarding property disputes will the member agents still be allowed to list,show and sell their properties ?
Will the member agents be able to list property where the developer is not a member but clearly is of good standing and clean reputation ?
I will see you all monday
Crazy 88
"We propose the bare minimum which is
- absolutely clean title, no power of attorneys to act on behalf, no agreement with owner of land when only 10 or whatever % down, must be 100% clean, bankmortgauges accepted if prooven that money is used for development.
- clear company set up and structure, no nominees. Minimum paid up capital required. To be discussed what that should be.
- building permit required
- setting the standards for the agents to join the "body"
We propose bare minimum again which is
- not to list and sell any development not complying to above 3 points. "
Just a few thoughts for you all to mull over .
Should the developers have to meet an agreed build standard ?
Should they be expected to have some building knowledge,experience and background ?
In the very common case of land being owned in a Thai individuals name until home completion and then either transferred to the buyer/buyers company or leased directly from the individual why does the individual need a company unless of course the buyer is more comfortable with leasing from a company .Said company can be set up on a case by case basis as required .
If it is common ,documented, knowledge that a company or individuals from,or associated with, that company are having legal action taken against them regarding property disputes will the member agents still be allowed to list,show and sell their properties ?
Will the member agents be able to list property where the developer is not a member but clearly is of good standing and clean reputation ?
I will see you all monday
Crazy 88
Crazy88 wrote:
Also, as I understand, a lease can not be given and registered by a Limited Company with foreign shareholder and Thai nominees, lease has to be issued by a Thai national freeholder of land.
Someone please tell me if they know different and this is wrong.
SJ
Agree, this is normal to me. A government regulation was issued 21st July 2006 preventing Limited Companies with foreign shareholder and Thai nominees to sub-divide land for the purpose of property development. I'll bring a copy of it along.In the very common case of land being owned in a Thai individuals name until home completion and then either transferred to the buyer/buyers company or leased directly from the individual
Also, as I understand, a lease can not be given and registered by a Limited Company with foreign shareholder and Thai nominees, lease has to be issued by a Thai national freeholder of land.
Someone please tell me if they know different and this is wrong.
SJ
Last edited by Super Joe on Sat May 31, 2008 6:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Crazy 88,
very good questions, I try to answer as follows
- yes, they would have to meet a minimum standard which we are just trying to get. It probably will be the governmental one, which is bare minimum. We have to start somewhere. However, as said before there are different standards out there, which we will be getting too. We could reach, also as said before, a rating system, which may be awards the bare minimum standard a bronze medal and as higher it gets, silver, gold or platinum. But all that is to be discussed and agreed upon.
- not necessarily, it of course would help a lot, but if they do not and employ an architect, structural, electrical engenier who is fully licenesed,I think it would do the job as well.
- well, as said before, I was not aware of the fact that several developers do not operate via companies and still doing a good job and being sucessful, the straight ownership transfer should not be a problem, however the lease could be, as you said more comfortable leasing from a company than an individual. This also has to be discussed and clarified.
- that is a hard one. I would say, that depends on a case by case basis. The developer could have been sued for something which might be irrelevant to the body. However, if it shows that the developer is sued for substandard built, non delivery or other serious matters concerning construction or infrastructure or maintenance I would agree that the agents should not promote that developer any more.
- another toughy! If the developer is of good standing and clean reputation I hope he would be within this "body", so no problem. If he is not, for whatever reason, I am not sure what to answer. Developers like Sansiri group, Major Developments and all the other big players will not join this "body" anyway, but are open for other or co-agent listings. Should they be refused, I think not. But I know it is hard to draw a line.
This also needs more thoughts and discussions.
pk
very good questions, I try to answer as follows
- yes, they would have to meet a minimum standard which we are just trying to get. It probably will be the governmental one, which is bare minimum. We have to start somewhere. However, as said before there are different standards out there, which we will be getting too. We could reach, also as said before, a rating system, which may be awards the bare minimum standard a bronze medal and as higher it gets, silver, gold or platinum. But all that is to be discussed and agreed upon.
- not necessarily, it of course would help a lot, but if they do not and employ an architect, structural, electrical engenier who is fully licenesed,I think it would do the job as well.
- well, as said before, I was not aware of the fact that several developers do not operate via companies and still doing a good job and being sucessful, the straight ownership transfer should not be a problem, however the lease could be, as you said more comfortable leasing from a company than an individual. This also has to be discussed and clarified.
- that is a hard one. I would say, that depends on a case by case basis. The developer could have been sued for something which might be irrelevant to the body. However, if it shows that the developer is sued for substandard built, non delivery or other serious matters concerning construction or infrastructure or maintenance I would agree that the agents should not promote that developer any more.
- another toughy! If the developer is of good standing and clean reputation I hope he would be within this "body", so no problem. If he is not, for whatever reason, I am not sure what to answer. Developers like Sansiri group, Major Developments and all the other big players will not join this "body" anyway, but are open for other or co-agent listings. Should they be refused, I think not. But I know it is hard to draw a line.
This also needs more thoughts and discussions.
pk
As a non-builder/developer/real estate agent I think I have been following this at a reasonable pace and hereby submit the following:
Per Peter, Vaughn and Clive it appears we are working on two ideas to be headed by one central clearing agent/committee/whatever....but by people definitely not at all involved in the building/developing or selling of real estate.
The two "ideas" are (1) a builder/developer group subscribing to a code of ethics, conduct and building practices developed and monitored by the clearing agent, and (2) a second group comprised by sellers of real estate and/or developments who will similarly adhere to a code of conduct and professional ethics again developed and monitored by the clearing agent.
If this is a reasonable assimilation of the ideas presented would it not be prudent for us to firstly attempt to define the size, scope, responsibilities and selection process of the "clearing agent", or at least make beginning this task one of the expected outcomes of Monday's meeting.
I would like to propose as there are obviously all three of the trade elements represented in this thread, who are in large part responsible for getting this process started, we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Can builders/developers and sales agents be restricted from this process and have it carry any weight or meaning?
How about a more reasonable suggestion that they be part of the process, but not the whole process. Trade associations, by their nature, are groups of tradesmen banding together to discuss and resolve common issues. It wouldn't seem likely they would allow themselves to be directed by laymen who know nothing of their trades or problems.
Could the "clearing agent" or regulating body be comprised by a combination of the three trade elements along with interested members of the community at large? Would it also be reasonable to elect these representatives to some reasonable term of office once the process is established, and to limit the terms of office so as to promote a broad based representation that would turn over on a regular basis?
Would it be a reachable goal of Monday's meeting to identify and appoint the first such group of people to "anchor" beginning discussions, develop a record of the proceedings, establish a list of objectives and set a subsequent meeting date?
I would suggest the appointment of eleven members to this organizing committee. Two developer representatives, two small builder representatives, two contractor representatives, two sales representatives and three representatives from the general public not involved in any way professionally with the building trades. For starters, keeping the number odd would allow for a majority decision to rule on votes.
I know only one or two of the participants in these exchanges, but have been a regular reader of these forums for nearly three years. I apologize for the temerity of my suggestion(s), but pretty clearly they'll be bounced at once if not appropriate. I think Lev is suggesting today that we stick to the topic of getting this process started and leave the jokes and jabs for another time......ten pages already and not a lot of meat to this very important discussion.
Cheers -
Lou Cherniss, CPA (retired)
Cha Am out of California
Per Peter, Vaughn and Clive it appears we are working on two ideas to be headed by one central clearing agent/committee/whatever....but by people definitely not at all involved in the building/developing or selling of real estate.
The two "ideas" are (1) a builder/developer group subscribing to a code of ethics, conduct and building practices developed and monitored by the clearing agent, and (2) a second group comprised by sellers of real estate and/or developments who will similarly adhere to a code of conduct and professional ethics again developed and monitored by the clearing agent.
If this is a reasonable assimilation of the ideas presented would it not be prudent for us to firstly attempt to define the size, scope, responsibilities and selection process of the "clearing agent", or at least make beginning this task one of the expected outcomes of Monday's meeting.
I would like to propose as there are obviously all three of the trade elements represented in this thread, who are in large part responsible for getting this process started, we don't throw the baby out with the bath water.
Can builders/developers and sales agents be restricted from this process and have it carry any weight or meaning?
How about a more reasonable suggestion that they be part of the process, but not the whole process. Trade associations, by their nature, are groups of tradesmen banding together to discuss and resolve common issues. It wouldn't seem likely they would allow themselves to be directed by laymen who know nothing of their trades or problems.
Could the "clearing agent" or regulating body be comprised by a combination of the three trade elements along with interested members of the community at large? Would it also be reasonable to elect these representatives to some reasonable term of office once the process is established, and to limit the terms of office so as to promote a broad based representation that would turn over on a regular basis?
Would it be a reachable goal of Monday's meeting to identify and appoint the first such group of people to "anchor" beginning discussions, develop a record of the proceedings, establish a list of objectives and set a subsequent meeting date?
I would suggest the appointment of eleven members to this organizing committee. Two developer representatives, two small builder representatives, two contractor representatives, two sales representatives and three representatives from the general public not involved in any way professionally with the building trades. For starters, keeping the number odd would allow for a majority decision to rule on votes.
I know only one or two of the participants in these exchanges, but have been a regular reader of these forums for nearly three years. I apologize for the temerity of my suggestion(s), but pretty clearly they'll be bounced at once if not appropriate. I think Lev is suggesting today that we stick to the topic of getting this process started and leave the jokes and jabs for another time......ten pages already and not a lot of meat to this very important discussion.
Cheers -
Lou Cherniss, CPA (retired)
Cha Am out of California