Well done Sarge for your very realistic attitude to solving the ongoing accomodation problem in LOS. Lets face it, it's been a nightmare for foreigners probably for as long as they have been there. (Even the establishment of the British Embassy wasn't without it's hiccups.)
Many farang would be wary about having a property in their Thai wifes' name. On the plus side, as you rightly say, if push comes to shove you have lost nothing, and pay less than for renting.
That was the great incentive in the UK property boom of the 70's as well. Mortgage payments could easily be less than rents.
Things can change - as they have now in the UK - and people have to reconsider their priorites, with many homeowners reluctant to give up on what they see as their God (or Thatcher) given right to own.
What is interesting (and disturbing) is your finding that the present 30 year lease law in LOS was a concession to IMF conditions. Which makes me think that the Thais may have allowed the law grudgingly, and no doubt with reservations - according to their political and/or patriotic viewpoint.
Despite my sympathy with Soi88 and others I still believe that Thailand is right in principal to be tough on land ownership by foreigners. What is worrying though is that as we all know even apparently watertight leases can go pearshaped. The IMF connection goes some way to explaining why.
Which brings me to CDs' statement that the level of ownership provided to his clients is 'the best possible permitted under prevailing laws.....the Thai equivalent of freehold ownership for foreigners..'
I have no personal reason to doubt CDs' business ethics at all. He, and no doubt many others in the Real Estate business in LOS, are only able to work within the confines of existing laws, and to make the best of them.
What I DO have a problem with is the concept that a 'Thai equivalent of freehold ownership for foreigners' actually exists!
Freehold, in the Western understanding of the term, is exactly what it says. A free (unfettered) ownership of land in perpetuity.
Leasehold is what Thailand offers to foreigners i.e. the right to occupy a dwelling built on land belonging to someone else, for a prescribed period of time.
The two are completely different. End of story.
90 year lease is just a con
-
margaretcarnes
- Rock Star
- Posts: 4172
- Joined: Wed Jan 02, 2008 8:28 am
- Location: The Rhubarb Triangle
90 year lease is just a con.
A sprout is for life - not just for Christmas.
[quote="Super Joe"]
[There's at least 8 or so key clauses to be included in the lease, (and I'm not talking about 30+30 extensions), that are not protected by Thai law unless added in the agreement.
This is an interesting thread. I've been looking at/considering purchasing land/property in Hua Hin for the last 4 years and right now I'm glad I haven't.
I think it would be extremely useful if SJ listed the 8 or so key clauses and it would be interesting to see what CD's comments are on them.
Reading SJ's post he doesn't seem involved in the property business, so no vested interest. And surely these clauses would be extremely useful for everyone to know. It's hindsight for the OP, whom I have every sympathy with, but it would undoubtedly help others considering a purchase/lease.
Over to you SJ . . . . .
[There's at least 8 or so key clauses to be included in the lease, (and I'm not talking about 30+30 extensions), that are not protected by Thai law unless added in the agreement.
This is an interesting thread. I've been looking at/considering purchasing land/property in Hua Hin for the last 4 years and right now I'm glad I haven't.
I think it would be extremely useful if SJ listed the 8 or so key clauses and it would be interesting to see what CD's comments are on them.
Reading SJ's post he doesn't seem involved in the property business, so no vested interest. And surely these clauses would be extremely useful for everyone to know. It's hindsight for the OP, whom I have every sympathy with, but it would undoubtedly help others considering a purchase/lease.
Over to you SJ . . . . .
Ipswich Town FC - pride of East Anglia
Hi Dave,
I'm a developer so am involved but here's some of the clauses (I did post some of them a while back) I would expect in a lease otherwise I'd walk away, particularly as it's now a buyers market:
1) Your right to buy the land or extend the lease period in line with any future law changes.
2) Your right to sub-let or transfer your lease rights a.n.other, ie: sell.
3) Succession (Inheritance) - Rights transfer to your heirs in event of your death. Go one step further and name additional people, family back home etc, on the initial lease then in the event of your death they continue the lease automatically without the need for the landowner to attend land office with your heirs.
4) Building/s - Your right of ownership and registration in your own name at land office of the buildings (house) on the land.
5) Land owner agrees not to mortgage, loan against etc the land.
6) Land owner agrees that they can only sell the land if a new buyer also enters into the full agreement with you.
7) Landowner agrees to terminate the lease every 5 years and register a new 30 year lease if you wish to.
8.) Landowner agrees that at anytime during the initial 30 years if you decide to sell on that they will grant a new 30 year lease at that time.
9) The 30 year extensions, yawnnnnn
Just typed these quickly, they will be worded properly by a lawyer. Let me be clear some of these will not be enforceable under certain conditions, but will hold a lot of weight IF the landowner remains the same. My wife is a landowner and has twice now given customers new leases for their new buyers, she doesn't want to be taken to court. Equally how do you stop a landowner selling the land to their Uncle in the village ??
The only advice worth taking off anyone on the internet is see a good, competant Real Estate lawyer, if that means spending some money with a large Bangkok firm so be it. More than most of the customers I've seen did not use a lawyer as they wanted to save a few hundred quid. They chose themselves to risk their families life savings, I don't get it.
SJ
I'm a developer so am involved but here's some of the clauses (I did post some of them a while back) I would expect in a lease otherwise I'd walk away, particularly as it's now a buyers market:
1) Your right to buy the land or extend the lease period in line with any future law changes.
2) Your right to sub-let or transfer your lease rights a.n.other, ie: sell.
3) Succession (Inheritance) - Rights transfer to your heirs in event of your death. Go one step further and name additional people, family back home etc, on the initial lease then in the event of your death they continue the lease automatically without the need for the landowner to attend land office with your heirs.
4) Building/s - Your right of ownership and registration in your own name at land office of the buildings (house) on the land.
5) Land owner agrees not to mortgage, loan against etc the land.
6) Land owner agrees that they can only sell the land if a new buyer also enters into the full agreement with you.
7) Landowner agrees to terminate the lease every 5 years and register a new 30 year lease if you wish to.
8.) Landowner agrees that at anytime during the initial 30 years if you decide to sell on that they will grant a new 30 year lease at that time.
9) The 30 year extensions, yawnnnnn
Just typed these quickly, they will be worded properly by a lawyer. Let me be clear some of these will not be enforceable under certain conditions, but will hold a lot of weight IF the landowner remains the same. My wife is a landowner and has twice now given customers new leases for their new buyers, she doesn't want to be taken to court. Equally how do you stop a landowner selling the land to their Uncle in the village ??
The only advice worth taking off anyone on the internet is see a good, competant Real Estate lawyer, if that means spending some money with a large Bangkok firm so be it. More than most of the customers I've seen did not use a lawyer as they wanted to save a few hundred quid. They chose themselves to risk their families life savings, I don't get it.
SJ
CraigDunn and Super Joe, many thanks to both of you for sharing your knowlede with us and for your advice. We consulted our lawyer in Bangkok this morning and explained the advice you gave us but to be completely frank with you he said what you are telling us is a typical sales argument from real estate agents and it has always been known by insiders in the property trade that a Thai limited company does not and never has offered a secure method to own land.
He told us foreigners are restricted from using Thai nominee or proxy shareholders partners in the company and the use of nominees is illegal and will lead to unlawful foreign land ownership. Are you already aware of this and if so are you advising us to buy the land illegally or do you dispute what our lawyer is telling us? This is a genuine question as we are a little confused. There isno doubt you have valuable local knowledge but we also trust what our lawyer tells us.
We asked him why then is it possible to buy land using a Thai company with Thai nominees as they aparently do in Hua Hin and he told us local land officials may turn a blind eye because of corruption and pressure from leading figures with a financial interest in the property market. He informed us that all the land officers have been instructed to investigate the income of every Thai shareholders by looking into their work history of what kind of work they have done and what monthly salary they earned and the Thai shareholders must financially be able to actually invest the amount of capital in the company. So our question is do we have to bribe the land official so he doesn’t ask questions to our Thai nominee shareholders or do you use Thai’s who can tell a good story at the land office? What is the secret???
Our lawyer also told us foreigner directors of a Thai Limited company may be required to have a work permit before any signed document will be accepted and if the company is not a trading company it would be almost impossible for us to obtain a work permit. How do your customers manage to get over this problem?
Another thing which puts us off forming a company to buy the land is our lawyer informed us that under Thai law, every year one third of the directors must retire from office and future law and regulations could make a foreign retiring director ineligible for re-election, therefore the foreigner could under possible future law loose control over the company. Have you heard of this?
Finally, we were told if we were to die our shares in the company do not get transfered to our heirs so our Thai nominees would be in control of the company and therefore own the land and it would be a very complicated process for our heirs to get control of the company. Do you agree with this?
It all sounds very messy and risky to us and we don’t really want to be breaking the law in a foreign country even though many other people are doing the same and seem to be getting away with it, but on the other hand getting the land into a company might be preferrable than the lease we have with our diminishing assett and a company may be the only way we can sell the house, so our next problem is to find our landlady and ask her to do this for us! Our Thai Lawyer has refused to help us with the company route because he says it’s illegal so we will need to find someone who is up on how the corruption works locally in Hua Hin!
Craig, we may take you up on your kind offer to help us but we are returning home this week so whatever we do will need to wait until next October when we return to Hua Hin.
Lev, I hope you don’t mind us pointing out the legal part of your website in the property section states that ‘you can use a Thai Nominee to purchase the house/land and have a 30 year lease with a 30 by 30 year option from the nominee’. As we have now found out it is illegal to use a Thai nominee and there is no legal basis of a 30 by 30 year option, so perhaps you should consider removing this misleading information? To be fair you do make a qualifying statement further down the page ‘Thai law stipulates that a property sold with a Leasehold title deed is only valid for up to 30 years. Renewal for a further 30 years only is at the discretion of the lease holder (land owner)’ I would also state your website is full of excellent information and thank you for allowing us to contribute about this obviously delicate subject!
Sargeant – we wish we had taken your advice before we got ourselves into this mess. You certainly talk a lot of sense on this subject.
A big thanks for all the other supportive responses and we hope with your help we might have saved at least one buyer from getting conned into splashing out their cash for the so-called 90 year lease deception!
He told us foreigners are restricted from using Thai nominee or proxy shareholders partners in the company and the use of nominees is illegal and will lead to unlawful foreign land ownership. Are you already aware of this and if so are you advising us to buy the land illegally or do you dispute what our lawyer is telling us? This is a genuine question as we are a little confused. There isno doubt you have valuable local knowledge but we also trust what our lawyer tells us.
We asked him why then is it possible to buy land using a Thai company with Thai nominees as they aparently do in Hua Hin and he told us local land officials may turn a blind eye because of corruption and pressure from leading figures with a financial interest in the property market. He informed us that all the land officers have been instructed to investigate the income of every Thai shareholders by looking into their work history of what kind of work they have done and what monthly salary they earned and the Thai shareholders must financially be able to actually invest the amount of capital in the company. So our question is do we have to bribe the land official so he doesn’t ask questions to our Thai nominee shareholders or do you use Thai’s who can tell a good story at the land office? What is the secret???
Our lawyer also told us foreigner directors of a Thai Limited company may be required to have a work permit before any signed document will be accepted and if the company is not a trading company it would be almost impossible for us to obtain a work permit. How do your customers manage to get over this problem?
Another thing which puts us off forming a company to buy the land is our lawyer informed us that under Thai law, every year one third of the directors must retire from office and future law and regulations could make a foreign retiring director ineligible for re-election, therefore the foreigner could under possible future law loose control over the company. Have you heard of this?
Finally, we were told if we were to die our shares in the company do not get transfered to our heirs so our Thai nominees would be in control of the company and therefore own the land and it would be a very complicated process for our heirs to get control of the company. Do you agree with this?
It all sounds very messy and risky to us and we don’t really want to be breaking the law in a foreign country even though many other people are doing the same and seem to be getting away with it, but on the other hand getting the land into a company might be preferrable than the lease we have with our diminishing assett and a company may be the only way we can sell the house, so our next problem is to find our landlady and ask her to do this for us! Our Thai Lawyer has refused to help us with the company route because he says it’s illegal so we will need to find someone who is up on how the corruption works locally in Hua Hin!
Craig, we may take you up on your kind offer to help us but we are returning home this week so whatever we do will need to wait until next October when we return to Hua Hin.
Lev, I hope you don’t mind us pointing out the legal part of your website in the property section states that ‘you can use a Thai Nominee to purchase the house/land and have a 30 year lease with a 30 by 30 year option from the nominee’. As we have now found out it is illegal to use a Thai nominee and there is no legal basis of a 30 by 30 year option, so perhaps you should consider removing this misleading information? To be fair you do make a qualifying statement further down the page ‘Thai law stipulates that a property sold with a Leasehold title deed is only valid for up to 30 years. Renewal for a further 30 years only is at the discretion of the lease holder (land owner)’ I would also state your website is full of excellent information and thank you for allowing us to contribute about this obviously delicate subject!
Sargeant – we wish we had taken your advice before we got ourselves into this mess. You certainly talk a lot of sense on this subject.
A big thanks for all the other supportive responses and we hope with your help we might have saved at least one buyer from getting conned into splashing out their cash for the so-called 90 year lease deception!
Where did I advise you that the Limited Company route is a secure method to own land ? I didn't, it has a risk as your shareholders are 'nominees', I was merely suggesting it as a possible solution to your current problems.Soi 88 wrote:CraigDunn and Super Joe, many thanks to both of you for sharing your knowlede with us and for your advice. We consulted our lawyer in Bangkok this morning and explained the advice you gave us but to be completely frank with you he said what you are telling us is a typical sales argument from real estate agents and it has always been known by insiders in the property trade that a Thai limited company does not and never has offered a secure method to own land.
This lawyer is giving you a lot of good advice now, you should have seen him 3 years ago.
SJ
Some decent advice and factual feedback there SJ
SJ wrote
"The only advice worth taking off anyone on the internet is see a good, competant Real Estate lawyer, if that means spending some money with a large Bangkok firm so be it.
More than most of the customers I've seen did not use a lawyer as they wanted to save a few hundred quid. They have chosen themselves to risk their families life savings, unbelievabubble. "
I am also shocked how few people take out house insurance and swerve first class insurance on cars
Crazy 88
SJ wrote
"The only advice worth taking off anyone on the internet is see a good, competant Real Estate lawyer, if that means spending some money with a large Bangkok firm so be it.
More than most of the customers I've seen did not use a lawyer as they wanted to save a few hundred quid. They have chosen themselves to risk their families life savings, unbelievabubble. "
I am also shocked how few people take out house insurance and swerve first class insurance on cars
Crazy 88
No problem at all, we also clearly stipulate that anyone considering a property purchase in Thailand should use a qualified lawyer and that the laws regarding foreign property ownership change frequently.Soi 88 wrote: Lev, I hope you don’t mind us pointing out the legal part of your website in the property section states that ‘you can use a Thai Nominee to purchase the house/land and have a 30 year lease with a 30 by 30 year option from the nominee’. As we have now found out it is illegal to use a Thai nominee and there is no legal basis of a 30 by 30 year option, so perhaps you should consider removing this misleading information? To be fair you do make a qualifying statement further down the page ‘Thai law stipulates that a property sold with a Leasehold title deed is only valid for up to 30 years. Renewal for a further 30 years only is at the discretion of the lease holder (land owner)’ I would also state your website is full of excellent information and thank you for allowing us to contribute about this obviously delicate subject!
Our disclaimer also covers us for anything posted on this forum or any services our advertisers offer, we are not real estate agents, we are an information portal so consider your experiences and findings a worthy addition to this section.
Soi88,
your lawyer is most certainly not wrong. (But please read on).
Dave,
SJ's 8 points and his remarks about them are all valid and sound. These issues are not neccessarily included in a basic, standard registered lease, so they should absolutely be included where desirable.
I want to try and put all this into a practical perspective ...
There's an expression many of us have largely digested the meaning of: "This Is Thailand", or TIT in shortform. For me, this means that there are useful, inventive, practical solutions to most things. They may or may not be entirely legal, they may or may not be enduring, but they make you feel comfortable, or sabai jai.
Basically, there is absolutely no way a foreigner can own Thai land. Yes, there are provisions under Board Of Investment (BOI) regulations, and a foreigner with at least 7 year's tax-paying residency can apply for citizenship and, if successful, thereby acquire land-ownership rights, but even these solutions can be undone under certain circumstances.
Setting up a company using nominees in order to buy land, or registering a 30 lease with renewal options and further backup by private contractual arrangements, are both perfectly viable, because This Is Thailand. Helpful lawyers can do a pretty good job of both and the Land Department only objects when someone's taking the mickey or violating their rules, some of which are unwritten. In 2006, the Ministry of Tourism and Sports introduced its Vacation Investment Program for foreign property buyers, a commercial venture in which it had a 30% stake, and whose legal solutions were no better then we've discussed here.
Sellers participate because they want to sell, and buyers participate because they want to buy. Example: 8,000 square feet of land, maybe 3,000 square feet of really beautiful house (well constructed and well finished in many cases), swimming pool and tropical garden. For as little as 150,000 British pounds. If you've got the cash to spare, and you have a real fondness for Thailand, you're going to take a favourable approach to the legal issues.
The legal options don't get any better than already discussed in this thread, but it is important to use really good lawyers because there are intricacies which ought to be incorporated and which may be missed by poorer counsel. SJ's 8 points serve well to illustrate this point.
Especially when leasing, it is also important to consider the integrity of the lessor. Perhaps a development company with a high profile and a reputation to protect is a better choice than other possible lessors, in the context of the promises of your rights to resale and renewal.
Lastly, I'd mention the notion that Thailand certainly earns a lot of money, (the National Candy?) from the sale of real estate to foreigners and all the years of live spending that follow. I know I am not alone in my impression that Thailand is very unlikely to rip us all off by changing and backdating legislation.
"If you can't afford to lose it, don't spend it" is oft-given advice to people considering investment in 3rd-world or emerging countries where conditions are less than stable. The good folks among us honestly try to help others and strive to create the best conditions possible.
cd.
ps: Soi88, we have never been asked to pay under the table to register a lease or to register a property in the name of a company.
your lawyer is most certainly not wrong. (But please read on).
Dave,
SJ's 8 points and his remarks about them are all valid and sound. These issues are not neccessarily included in a basic, standard registered lease, so they should absolutely be included where desirable.
I want to try and put all this into a practical perspective ...
There's an expression many of us have largely digested the meaning of: "This Is Thailand", or TIT in shortform. For me, this means that there are useful, inventive, practical solutions to most things. They may or may not be entirely legal, they may or may not be enduring, but they make you feel comfortable, or sabai jai.
Basically, there is absolutely no way a foreigner can own Thai land. Yes, there are provisions under Board Of Investment (BOI) regulations, and a foreigner with at least 7 year's tax-paying residency can apply for citizenship and, if successful, thereby acquire land-ownership rights, but even these solutions can be undone under certain circumstances.
Setting up a company using nominees in order to buy land, or registering a 30 lease with renewal options and further backup by private contractual arrangements, are both perfectly viable, because This Is Thailand. Helpful lawyers can do a pretty good job of both and the Land Department only objects when someone's taking the mickey or violating their rules, some of which are unwritten. In 2006, the Ministry of Tourism and Sports introduced its Vacation Investment Program for foreign property buyers, a commercial venture in which it had a 30% stake, and whose legal solutions were no better then we've discussed here.
Sellers participate because they want to sell, and buyers participate because they want to buy. Example: 8,000 square feet of land, maybe 3,000 square feet of really beautiful house (well constructed and well finished in many cases), swimming pool and tropical garden. For as little as 150,000 British pounds. If you've got the cash to spare, and you have a real fondness for Thailand, you're going to take a favourable approach to the legal issues.
The legal options don't get any better than already discussed in this thread, but it is important to use really good lawyers because there are intricacies which ought to be incorporated and which may be missed by poorer counsel. SJ's 8 points serve well to illustrate this point.
Especially when leasing, it is also important to consider the integrity of the lessor. Perhaps a development company with a high profile and a reputation to protect is a better choice than other possible lessors, in the context of the promises of your rights to resale and renewal.
Lastly, I'd mention the notion that Thailand certainly earns a lot of money, (the National Candy?) from the sale of real estate to foreigners and all the years of live spending that follow. I know I am not alone in my impression that Thailand is very unlikely to rip us all off by changing and backdating legislation.
"If you can't afford to lose it, don't spend it" is oft-given advice to people considering investment in 3rd-world or emerging countries where conditions are less than stable. The good folks among us honestly try to help others and strive to create the best conditions possible.
cd.
ps: Soi88, we have never been asked to pay under the table to register a lease or to register a property in the name of a company.
All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing. (Edmund Burke).
Super Joe wrote
Just typed these quickly, they will be worded properly by a lawyer. Let me be clear some of these will not be enforceable under certain conditions,
SJ
i think you know what your talking about and i would listen to what you have to say. i also understand that your trying to help and i,m sure that's appreciated. that said nearly all of your inclusions would not be supported in a Thai court.
all that i have read so far reinforces my view not to acquire land through the company route. keep the money in the bank and rent.
miked
Just typed these quickly, they will be worded properly by a lawyer. Let me be clear some of these will not be enforceable under certain conditions,
SJ
i think you know what your talking about and i would listen to what you have to say. i also understand that your trying to help and i,m sure that's appreciated. that said nearly all of your inclusions would not be supported in a Thai court.
all that i have read so far reinforces my view not to acquire land through the company route. keep the money in the bank and rent.
miked
Last edited by miked on Mon Apr 06, 2009 8:23 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Super Joe wrote:Hi Dave,
I'm a developer so am involved but here's some of the clauses (I did post some of them a while back) I would expect in a lease otherwise I'd walk away, particularly as it's now a buyers market:
1) Your right to buy the land or extend the lease period in line with any future law changes.
2) Your right to sub-let or transfer your lease rights a.n.other, ie: sell.
3) Succession (Inheritance) - Rights transfer to your heirs in event of your death. Go one step further and name additional people, family back home etc, on the initial lease then in the event of your death they continue the lease automatically without the need for the landowner to attend land office with your heirs.
4) Building/s - Your right of ownership and registration in your own name at land office of the buildings (house) on the land.
5) Land owner agrees not to mortgage, loan against etc the land.
6) Land owner agrees that they can only sell the land if a new buyer also enters into the full agreement with you.
7) Landowner agrees to terminate the lease every 5 years and register a new 30 year lease if you wish to.
8.) Landowner agrees that at anytime during the initial 30 years if you decide to sell on that they will grant a new 30 year lease at that time.
9) The 30 year extensions, yawnnnnn
Just typed these quickly, they will be worded properly by a lawyer. Let me be clear some of these will not be enforceable under certain conditions, but will hold a lot of weight IF the landowner remains the same. My wife is a landowner and has twice now given customers new leases for their new buyers, she doesn't want to be taken to court. Equally how do you stop a landowner selling the land to their Uncle in the village ??
The only advice worth taking off anyone on the internet is see a good, competant Real Estate lawyer, if that means spending some money with a large Bangkok firm so be it. More than most of the customers I've seen did not use a lawyer as they wanted to save a few hundred quid. They chose themselves to risk their families life savings, I don't get it.
SJ
Hi SJ,
Thanks for this - very useful.
It would be really good to know if the top 8 are legally enforceable, especially no. 7. They're all vitally important clauses to have in my opinion but no. 7 would have helped the OP and many other leaseholders.
Cheers,
Dave
Ipswich Town FC - pride of East Anglia
CraigDunn wrote:Soi88,
your lawyer is most certainly not wrong. (But please read on).
Dave,
SJ's 8 points and his remarks about them are all valid and sound. These issues are not neccessarily included in a basic, standard registered lease, so they should absolutely be included where desirable.
I want to try and put all this into a practical perspective ...
There's an expression many of us have largely digested the meaning of: "This Is Thailand", or TIT in shortform. For me, this means that there are useful, inventive, practical solutions to most things. They may or may not be entirely legal, they may or may not be enduring, but they make you feel comfortable, or sabai jai.
Basically, there is absolutely no way a foreigner can own Thai land. Yes, there are provisions under Board Of Investment (BOI) regulations, and a foreigner with at least 7 year's tax-paying residency can apply for citizenship and, if successful, thereby acquire land-ownership rights, but even these solutions can be undone under certain circumstances.
Setting up a company using nominees in order to buy land, or registering a 30 lease with renewal options and further backup by private contractual arrangements, are both perfectly viable, because This Is Thailand. Helpful lawyers can do a pretty good job of both and the Land Department only objects when someone's taking the mickey or violating their rules, some of which are unwritten. In 2006, the Ministry of Tourism and Sports introduced its Vacation Investment Program for foreign property buyers, a commercial venture in which it had a 30% stake, and whose legal solutions were no better then we've discussed here.
Sellers participate because they want to sell, and buyers participate because they want to buy. Example: 8,000 square feet of land, maybe 3,000 square feet of really beautiful house (well constructed and well finished in many cases), swimming pool and tropical garden. For as little as 150,000 British pounds. If you've got the cash to spare, and you have a real fondness for Thailand, you're going to take a favourable approach to the legal issues.
The legal options don't get any better than already discussed in this thread, but it is important to use really good lawyers because there are intricacies which ought to be incorporated and which may be missed by poorer counsel. SJ's 8 points serve well to illustrate this point.
Especially when leasing, it is also important to consider the integrity of the lessor. Perhaps a development company with a high profile and a reputation to protect is a better choice than other possible lessors, in the context of the promises of your rights to resale and renewal.
Lastly, I'd mention the notion that Thailand certainly earns a lot of money, (the National Candy?) from the sale of real estate to foreigners and all the years of live spending that follow. I know I am not alone in my impression that Thailand is very unlikely to rip us all off by changing and backdating legislation.
"If you can't afford to lose it, don't spend it" is oft-given advice to people considering investment in 3rd-world or emerging countries where conditions are less than stable. The good folks among us honestly try to help others and strive to create the best conditions possible.
cd.
ps: Soi88, we have never been asked to pay under the table to register a lease or to register a property in the name of a company.
Thanks Craig.
Both your and SJ's posts have been highly informative and useful. I imagine most of the ex-pats living there know all this anyway, but for people considering taking this huge plunge the more accurate information available the better.
You'll always be accused of having a vested interest, but Companies/people who give bad/dodgy advice don't normally last long. They get found out, unfortunately by an innocent person who perhaps hasn't done all the homework necessary.
But others can learn from it and hopefully don't fall into the same traps.
Surely, surely if/when the government becomes stable in Thailand they'll relax these ridiculous, draconian, growth inhibiting land ownership laws. Foreign investment will ultimately result and the whole country will benefit.
I don't purport that they relax the laws so that massive property developers can come in and buy thousands of rai to make millions, but if controlled properly to have a wealthy (in relative terms) farang actually own his house and own his 1 or 2 rai of land everybody would benefit.
Ipswich Town FC - pride of East Anglia
Craig quote you
I know I am not alone in my impression that Thailand is very unlikely to rip us all off by changing and backdating legislation.
let me surprise you by saying your above statement is totally correct but does not include me
what i will say is that they do not have to change or backdate any legislation the laws are all there already all they WILL do, when it is politically or financially to THEIR advantage is enforce the already existing laws
I have had this debate so many times in the 25 years i have been involved with Thailand
Just because the Immigration,land office or business ministries are either incompetent, corrupt, lazy or just plain stupid and dont enforce the law does not mean the law does not apply
A law only becomes a law the day it is passed up to and when it is enforced and if any falang thinks he can predict this country and its polititions and officials he should stay home and make a fortune on the grand national
Too many farangs think because they have got away with it that particular law does not apply and when they are held to the law the official is corrupt and a thief they make the problems for themselves
I wont be here in 2027 (i dont expect to live that long)you may be, if you are please remember this prediction the number of posters and people on 30+30+30 leases who find their landlord is now uncle jimboon sangsom on a rice farm in Issaan who happens to be NOT legally bound by all these clauses and does not want to renew the lease for FREE (emphasize FREE) are going to look like red or yellow shirts on a parade day
I do have one ray of hope if Thailand needs the IMF again i will guarantee that the IMF WILL insist on 90 year leases they wont allow the Thai govt to pull the wool over their eyes twice
edit
forgot to add your ecellent paragraph is exactely why i think the way i do in three letters TIT
I know I am not alone in my impression that Thailand is very unlikely to rip us all off by changing and backdating legislation.
let me surprise you by saying your above statement is totally correct but does not include me
what i will say is that they do not have to change or backdate any legislation the laws are all there already all they WILL do, when it is politically or financially to THEIR advantage is enforce the already existing laws
I have had this debate so many times in the 25 years i have been involved with Thailand
Just because the Immigration,land office or business ministries are either incompetent, corrupt, lazy or just plain stupid and dont enforce the law does not mean the law does not apply
A law only becomes a law the day it is passed up to and when it is enforced and if any falang thinks he can predict this country and its polititions and officials he should stay home and make a fortune on the grand national
Too many farangs think because they have got away with it that particular law does not apply and when they are held to the law the official is corrupt and a thief they make the problems for themselves
I wont be here in 2027 (i dont expect to live that long)you may be, if you are please remember this prediction the number of posters and people on 30+30+30 leases who find their landlord is now uncle jimboon sangsom on a rice farm in Issaan who happens to be NOT legally bound by all these clauses and does not want to renew the lease for FREE (emphasize FREE) are going to look like red or yellow shirts on a parade day
I do have one ray of hope if Thailand needs the IMF again i will guarantee that the IMF WILL insist on 90 year leases they wont allow the Thai govt to pull the wool over their eyes twice
edit
forgot to add your ecellent paragraph is exactely why i think the way i do in three letters TIT
A Greatfull Guest of Thailand
MikeD & Dave T, if the landowner remains the same individual who entered into a legal agreement with you accepting these inclusions, I would think most of them would be supported by a court. If the landowner does not want to honour them and disposes of the land then I'd agree with you.miked wrote:i also understand that your trying to help and i,m sure that's appreciated. that said nearly all of your inclusions would not be supported in a Thai court.
SJ
-
Randy Cornhole
- Rock Star
- Posts: 3701
- Joined: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:01 pm
- Location: London
- Contact:
Its always quite funny when one of these property threads crops up. It gets started, and by day 2 or 3 its already on page 4 or 5.
They really consists of the same people arguing about the same things as they did last time one of these threads popped up.
The original posters question quickly gets hijacked as the naysayers move in and the developers defend their profession...
They really consists of the same people arguing about the same things as they did last time one of these threads popped up.
The original posters question quickly gets hijacked as the naysayers move in and the developers defend their profession...
www.35mmview.com