meand

8 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

That's an absolute definite refusal.

I haven't seen one report of anyone on an expired Non O and used the 60 day extension, manage to obtain a 1 year extension ..... without using an agent.

Immigration are not treating the automatic extension granted by the amnesty as a 'valid' permission of stay.

 

So, you have seen reports people were denied in this situation at CW?

Not that it matters, but the wording in the amnesty seems to encourage people to get a one year extension. 

On 8/24/2020 at 4:27 PM, Tanoshi said:

And there have been a few from CW.

 

So, it would be pointless requesting a report from the forum unless indeed they knew the name of the officer they dealt with, as a different officer may act differently according to you.

 

But just for you pertaining to CW.

If you still have a valid Non O Visa, then they will process a 1 year extension application.

IF your Non O Visa has expired, no they will not process a 1 year extension application.

 

That line is being taken by a few IO's, although how the validity of the Non O Visa affects their decision making is beyond our logic.

What were the few reports? Are you saying there have been a few reports of people with an expired non o ME having used their 60 day extension getting (or being denied) an extension? 

4 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

This is what's written (Dec 2018).

Evidence of income of father, mother or husband who is an alien which shows that throughout a year, an average income is not less than 40,000 baht monthly.

138-2557 (2019 )Supp Ev Income Eng P.pdf 89.42 kB · 3 downloads

 

Only CW can give you a definitive answer to that question.

As already stated the cabinet automatically extended your permission of stay from your Non O entry.

Theoretically you should therefore be able to apply for an annual extension, but in practice the Immigration offices aren't following the cabinet announcement and setting their own requirements to qualify.

 

You could also ring 1178 for an appraisal of your situation.

You are liable to get three different answers if you ask three different people at cw. Who to ask anyway? The officers after having taken a number and waiting all day, or the screening officers?

The reason this forum is here is for people to give reports. It is not feasible to go to cw every time someone has a question about a visa. I appreciate your answers but it seems this issue needs some more reports or perhaps its own thread. 

On 7/10/2020 at 1:44 PM, freesudani said:

They seriously think that tourists will be flocking to Thailand in October?

Tourists from Thailand, maybe, yes.. i suppose they think that. Probably true if they drop prices to where they should be when there is no demand. 

On 8/18/2020 at 5:42 PM, pixelaoffy said:

Bangkok has the craziest overpriced properties in Asia! The city is full of empty units and more being build to leave empty 

Do units being empty have some sort of negative effect? Many neighborhoods worldwide where occupation rates are low, they are vacation homes. 

Buying or not is an indicator. I do not believe living in it or not is an indicator of anything. 

Daily death toll Thai roads: 62

All time death toll covid 19: 58

Rest assured everyone, governments always make the right choices. 

Your time will be used efficiently and your tax dollars wisely spent.

No need to worry. 

It is what it is. 

Trump has a lot on his plate. He has got to worry about being reelected so he can save the world from this other guy. 

Only 3,300 cases in Thailand. Therefore, when the borders open it will be able to spread rapidly. 

Then they close the borders again of course. Maybe at that point we have 10,000 infected here. 

Repeat, repeat...

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

There are already confirmed reports of marriage extensions being accepted at CW when on the amnesty and having a valid Non Imm O Visa, but still subject to meeting the financial requirements.

After 60 day extension has been used, and when the original nonimm o has already expired (in other words, "on amnesty and having used 60 day extension")? 

11 hours ago, Puchaiyank said:

Thailand needs to learn a lesson about how to treat people who are putting money into their economy.

 

I believe there is a concerted effort by Thai immigration to create an atmosphere of uncertainty...fear...angst...unfriendly experience...to discourage some tourists and retirees...

 

The real question remains...why?

 

 

 

Now wait. I am always hearing Thais care only about money. But now you are upset at them because that is obviously not the case?

I am wondering which is it? Are they fully consumed by the almighty dollar? Or are they an evil empire that wants to expel all retirees. People can't have it both ways. 

I have been in Hua Hin and it has been bad. 

3 hours ago, scottiddled said:

Let's recap. Service charges are inherently deceptive, as they mean that the price listed is not the actual price. In Thailand, to legitimately engage in this already dubious practice, the government requires that "the service charge, and the rate, should be clearly stated on the menu or announced by a sign at the counter or out in front of the restaurant, so that customers are aware of this additional cost." Restaurant in question avoids clear statement disclosing the charge, putting only one reference on the back page of the menu, where a more-meticulous-than-usual consumer who is actually keeping an eye open for a service charge disclosure doesn't see it. Restaurant admits that it's not clear, apologizes, and says that it's transitioning to a new menu that will make the charge clear.

 

...And you side with the restaurant.

 

Remind me never to hire you as my attorney.

 

This has gone from bad argumentation into the realm of the absurd. I'm not going to defend deceptive corporate disclosures, etc. If you want to, feel free to do so. It's where you've positioned yourself: on the side of obfuscation based on the rationale that it's part of "everyday life." And then you play the role of critic of argument? Please. You're out of your depth.

 

For starters, it's not "everyday life." Insufficient/deceptive disclosures are pushed back on all the time. If a corporation tacked on an undisclosed surcharge not authorized by law, a consumer could refuse to pay it. In other industries, governments have intervened to regulate and even ban such nonsense. If an airline or travel company tried to engage in "drip pricing"--quoting you one price then tacking on additional charges at the end, they'd be fined in the U.S. And that's not half as bad as a restaurant, where you've already ordered and consumed the product.

 

I'll agree with you on one point: I think you understand just fine. You just choose to troll.

 

 

You are in la la land. I am not inferring it is everyday life, I am inferring it is good business. Make sure you understand, good business means making more money. 

The smart money of the world does not call up their clients and say "we are raising your rates". What power companies, internet providers etc all do is "announce" it on the invoice. That way, they have preemptively tempered the responses of any customers who feel like calling in about the supposed "injustice", and just refer the complainers to the invoice. Important note: pretty much exactly what happened to you, meaning this is just good business 101. If they lost money they'd lose the policy. 

It has simply been proven by the results we see all around us that good business means keeping negative information to a minimum. If you do not understand that yet, the phrase grow up is the only one that will fit.

It is so clear with your wording how warped you see the world. The restaurant "admitted" they screwed up. No, that is not how that works. Admitting anything would mean a refund. What you experienced is simply an employee trying to temper the complaint of a whiny customer. That is it, no need to examine that any further and infer "I got em",  because that is simply not true.  Just because I scream "this laptop is a pile of <deleted>" to an amazon employee, does not make it so when they reply with "yes". You do not seem to have any sort of grasp on how things actually work in the real world with customer client relations. 

You were informed the same way much of the rest of the corporate world informs clients. This is not complicated. 

2 minutes ago, OneMoreFarang said:

Why?

1. I know it's true in restaurants which I visit.

2. I think waiters and cooks should get a reasonable income.

3. The staff has to be paid. Does it matter if a restaurant charges i.e. 1000B + 10% services charge or 1100B and "no" service charge? It's the same.

I hope you will forgive me when I say I do not believe every "good place (restaurant)" in Thailand gives their employees 100% of the service fees they charge. 

1. There are some serious problems in there man. "I know it is true" usually does not fly for one. Hey Nixon, how do you know there were no recordings: "I just simply know it is true". 

2. And I am really not the type to go all step by step like this, but in your case each one is so bad. I do not believe Thai businessmen care who you think should get, or what you think a reasonable income is. 

3. "The staff has to be paid". I am not sure if I even need to point out what is wrong with that. 

I had to take a moment to recover. The length a company will go to in order to extract money from us is perplexing. 

Next thing you know, when I buy a piece of furniture, I may have to pay more to have it installed. When I hop on a flight, I may have to pay for extra bags. Or when I get my phone bill there may be some fees I have to pay. Not to mention the battery in my vehicle being disposed of fee and fuel prices being listed as 2.33 + 9/10! 

This is utterly outrageous. Companies are trying to make more money without plastering that fact all over their walls. For the love of god!

10 minutes ago, stevenl said:

" f you really want to quibble over how deceptive a back-of-the-menu disclosure is, go right ahead. But that's really just slapping lipstick on a pig. "

Apparently that is what he wants to do.

Wait. And please, stop the presses! I do think I understand now.

You mean, a company, as they were communicating a price increase (or some other negative form of information), put the info in fine print somewhere! Wow! How dare they. Facebook and Instagram would never do that and give themselves say onerous rights to use your videos and photos. Utility companies would never put a price hike in fine print somewhere where you wont look on your old invoices. This stuff simply does not happen in everyday life. 

This is just shocking behavior that i simply do not see in everyday life. I am outraged. 

But wait, op's argument is even better. Using the power company, he complains they did not inform him on the invoice. But they did! So, not only is this everyday behavior, and in fact business 101 and the way corporations communicate negative info, but they also did in fact inform him, which was his gripe to begin with. Tough world it is. 

7 minutes ago, scottiddled said:

You're doing a pretty selective reading there. Perhaps my attempt to write it as a linear narrative wound up muddling what happened, but I think the context was pretty clear.

 

It wasn't visible to me on the menu when ordering. In other words, not on the front, not on any of the pages where the food (and prices) are listed, and therefore, when I got the bill, my wording that "it wasn't on the menu" was accurate. I was given a menu and read it from the front cover most of the way through (Did I look at the deserts? I'm not sure, to be honest.). I didn't see it. And I was looking for it. I wasn't fresh off the airport line, unaware that service charges exist in many Bangkok establishments. I didn't see "++" and not know what it meant. I didn't miss it due to laziness, poor eyesight, etc. And I wasn't trying to pull a fast one by seeing it but getting creative by seeing it elsewhere but realizing it wasn't on the specific page as my entree.

 

When I brought the issue up, the manager instantly conceded that it wasn't clear and apologized. She promised that they'd soon have a clearer menu. I thanked them for that and told them that it still didn't resolve the current bill, as customers are not liable for unlisted service charges. She then essentially pulled a "well, technically it is listed" and pointed to the back page of the menu.

 

While you might be confused and/or doing some clever online "dabaiting" by pointing out that I wrote:

and then wrote that they:

...at best you're splitting hairs. On a scale of deceptiveness, with 1 being totally transparent and 10 being not compliant with the law, what's sneaking a service charge notice on the back page? 9? 

 

It's a footnote without a footnote. A supposedly binding addendum after the signature page without any reference prior to you signing. It's shady at best, and I'd argue it still doesn't comply with the legal requirements for a notice of service charge. I wasn't ordering affogato or something from the kids menu or whatever was on the back page. I didn't get that far, and didn't need to. So when I wrote "there was no legally required notice on the menu," despite your apparent confusion, I stand by that.

 

But really...is that the important takeaway? The degrees of shadiness (or laziness, or negligence, or indifference, or greed, or whatever) a business will go to in tacking on a service charge? This place didn't strike me as actively trying to defraud customers. Maybe it was an honest mistake.

 

The bigger issue is that a service charge, no matter how it's disclosed, is deceptive. The manner of disclosure only makes it relatively more or less deceptive. If you really want to quibble over how deceptive a back-of-the-menu disclosure is, go right ahead. But that's really just slapping lipstick on a pig.

It was visible to you on the menu. You mentioned you saw it. Moreover, your premise was "it is not on the menu, so it is not fair/legal". But, it was on the menu. You defeated yourself in your opening statement. 

4 hours ago, TaaSaparot said:

How many uses do I need out of my reusable (alternative to plastic) bag before it is more environmental friendlier?

Study found cotton to need over 7000 uses to compete environmentally with a single use plastic bag. 

It is sort a weird study because they are not taking the actual trash into account, I believe. 

But, 7000 is using it everyday for almost 20 years. 

https://qz.com/1585027/when-it-comes-to-climate-change-cotton-totes-might-be-worse-than-plastic/