MrZM

Leaving pattaya on a few weeks and am looking for a second hand shop that buys unwanted goods with fair prices.

Thank you

I will be leaving Pattaya in a few weeks and am looking to sell a few things.

A sofa bed.

An oven.

And a gas bottle.

Any ideas where to sell.

The rest of my belongings are going to the dragon in law no surprise there.

Thanks

My son is 3 and a half and loves Lego.

Recently purchased the transformers kre o range from centrals own shop. 4th floor.

If your nit looking to spend big amounts, they do have COGO, which is considerably cheaper.

If your son has no idea what lego is, then go for COGO, they have a good range!

As for my monkey he is obsessed with transformers lego and its far from cheap. But a lot of fun.

Not necessarily.

A fiancé visa is a type of settlement visa, so the OP would have needed to satisfy the financial requirements and his girlfriend would have needed to satisfy the English requirement and have a TB certificate.

None of which is needed for a marriage visit visa.

We don't know their circumstances, so saying which course of action would have been better is just speculation.

The point is moot, anyway.

Of which all of the above has to be met anyway for a spouse visa regardless.

What's your point?

I've read what it is.

Would have made more sense for you to have obtained a Fiancee visa originally, then you could have applied further in the UK.

What is a special marriage visitors visa?

I'm slightly confused.

I assume you are both in the UK. So therefore if you are marrying her in the UK, I would then assume your wife is on a Fiancé visa, therefore she wouldn't have to return to Thailand and you can apply for FLR in the UK.

If your girlfriend is on a tourist visa, I don't believe you are able to get married in the UK.

If you have £20,000 plus to invest.

Look for a shop in Thailand with small rent.

Buy everything you need, ie tables and chairs, cookers etc from a second hand auction.

Probably cost you less than 100,000 baht.

Make it appeal to westerners and then see how it goes.

If it fails in Thailand, you will know it would never work in the UK.

This topic doesn't interest me.

Is that because you have created your own baht bus pass?

I'm not sure where you live Kevin but in East Anglia it is pretty much one to one when the kid first arrives.

I have to say I was mighty impressed with the skills of the teachers and the kids abilities when I first encountered friends children

who arrived with zero English. The teachers are wonderful and the children are amazing in the way they adapt.

There are schools across the UK with dozens of different languages spoken at home. The challenge for the staff are to get them all up to speed.

I'd like to know which county you live in Kevin.

As for the extra money per child you'll never get the bargain that is state school education in the UK, in Thailand.

I am not sure where I am is relevant. Let's just say home counties. What about the schools in inner London that have high numbers of kids who can't speak English, do you think there parents have to earn £18600 per year?

Again another irrelevant comment.

Jay Sata comment was wrong, but if affordable the parent would pay for one and one tuition.

It is know different to a football player from Spain having private tuition to learn English.

Fact is.

Everyone lingers on the subject of £18,600, £18,600, £18,600.

There is nothing wrong with this figure.

It the ways to meet the financial requirement if you earn less, which is the problem.

If you are earning £15,000 a year you would need £30,000+ in savings to meet the requirement, of which you are only £3,600 out of reach.

That doesn't make sense.

But everyone ignores the savings requirement and carries in moaning about the £18,600.

Does anyone know what the difference of successful applicants year 2012/2012 is to the year 2012/2013?

I bet there's not much difference.

This has been gone through many times.

One cannot use the EEA freedom of movement regulations to gain entry to one's native country; unless qualifying under the Surinder Singh ruling.

A Romanian could not use the EEA route to take his Thai wife to Romania; she would have to apply under, and satisfy the requirements of, the Romanian immigration rules.

In my opinion you are correct in that the financial requirement of the new rules is completely unfair. But let's not cloud the issue by railing against the EEA freedom of movement regulations; regulations which many Brits take advantage of to live, work, retire in other EEA states.

The income requirement is not unfair. The rest of the financial requirements are unfair.

If your spouse was a millionaire you are not able to use this towards the financials, as its down to the sponsor. That is what is unfair.

Birth certificate needs to be translated.

You state it's not important to translate marriage certificate but birth certificate is a requirement.

There's no hard and fast rule. But I would prefer to translate marriage certificate over birth certificate if it came to it.

For certainty, I had all my wife's / our Thai documents translated and notarised at MFA, including birth certificate, and they've served us well for last three years and no further requirement for additional expense. All these documents are stored safely and rarely see light of day now, but they're there.

The birth certificate is very important and needs to be translated.

It's the only document my wife has that's in Thai.

Well other than the marriage certificate.

My thai step-daughter, 8 years old, speaks thai/english/ chinese. I dpnt think u will find too many 8 year olds in the uk can. Ask them about Jeremy Kyle and they know everything.

How is that relevant.

You pretty much answered your own remark.

Ps: get her learning more languages she obviously has the knack for it

It's not important to translate the marriage certificate, as its quite obvious on your wife's of card and passport that you are married.

I didn't translate it for a spouse visa and had no problems.

Birth certificate needs to be translated.

And all documents that are t in English, ie job contract

I'm still waiting for 7by7 to justify the appeal.

Meanwhile

As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why?

Simple. A Thai child will not have the language skills of a UK counterpart therefore will need additional one to one schooling.

Do you actually think that they will get one to one tuition. You are living in cloud cuckoo land.

I don't believe it is the thought of Teresa May.

But if you have a child who speaks 2 words of English, then the instant thought would be for your child to learn English, as it would prove difficult if they were thrown straight into school.

I'm still waiting for 7by7 to justify the appeal.

Meanwhile

As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why?

Simple. A Thai child will not have the language skills of a UK counterpart therefore will need additional one to one schooling.

Plus there are additional costs as they would need a separate applicatiin

http://http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-23253092

This is interesting

I occasionally used them, and standing outside tuk com I have tried to flag them down only with refusal when I start to walk to sit down.

With the sudden increase in Japanese and Russian tourists, these empty baht busses are looking for one hit of 200/300 baht, they are not stopping for the 10 baht trips.

Yes it's annoying, but what can you do.

Only option is walk, then they would only bother you with a horn beep.

Well if you thought logically, the reason (she was refused) was they didn't believe I could afford, £2,500 for flights for my wife and child, though I don't know how they worked out the figure.

I don't need to lie, I am very open on this forum

Didn't she apply under the old rules and wasn't she refused on maintenance grounds because you followed a dodgy agent's advice and only supplied 7 days bank statements?

Or was that a different Mr and Mrs. ZM?

I know the requirement is illogically thought out; yet you seem to be supporting it.

Care to go into more detail and actually answer the questions?

A simple "I don't know" will suffice.

I just answered your questions or didn't I?

Actually there were many reasons of why my application was refused, and wouldn't expect a friend of 6 years to do what he did, I wouldn't class him as dodgy, he is quite successful at what he does.

I showed 7 days bank statements as he refused to how I had an overdraft of £100, which was cleared every week with my income but then taken out. It should have been explained I am mont currently working whilst I reside in Thailand with my family again another mistake.

On date of application I had a substantial amount of money in my account, more then was required to be showed. They also asked even though on my statement it had my name, about another bank account, that I transferee money from.

You don't need to try and be clever with me, as I said I'm very open to discuss.

The ECO was very nitty picky, on there answers for refusal.

I clearly stated there is nothing wrong with having a minimum income requirement, but you and everyone else miss the fact, that the savings requirements is actually the main problem.

If you are earning £15,000 a year, then you need to have savings exceeding £30,000 that is illogical.

If you are self employed you are unable to use savings to meet e requirement, that is illogical.

Shall I go on....

7by7 I am happy to discuss this properly and wisely, but you have the wrong manner, you have to be right in every topic, you don't think outside the box, and only disclose information on facts that you manoeuvre.

As I have said in my previous post.

The rules are set, the only problem is the savings requirement on top of an income of say £15,000 per annum is ridiculous.

Being unable to use savings as someone who is self employed is ridiculous.

An increase in income requirement if your child is not a British citizen is ridiculous.

It has not been thought out logically only simply.

7by7 wrote:

You want answers

Some questions for those who support the financial requirement:-

1) Do you think it right that third party support is not allowed? If so, why?

"I do not believe this should be acceptable, I agree that you should be allowed to reside in your families home, as expats, may have sold up before leaving the country. But using 3rd party support does not in anyway show that you are able to take care of your family"

2) Do you think it right that when the immigrant spouse has a guaranteed job once in the UK that their earnings from that job are ignored? If so, why?

"I think a job offer should be acceptable if it meets the financial requirements only if you have been in employment and earning within the last 6 months and can show some savings I could write you out a contract now, saying you will start employment xxx and wil be earning xxx."

3) Do you think it right when an ex pat is returning to a guaranteed job in the UK with an income above the required level that they need to have been earning that amount in the UK for at least 6 months before their partner can apply to join them unless they have also been earning above the limit for at least 6 months whilst abroad; regardless of whether or not the UK job is with the same employer? If so, why?

"I had to do it, I took my wife home on a tourist visa worked for the 6 months, and then returned with everything intact. Again written above answers this question."

4) Do you agree that the first £16,000 of any savings are ignored? If so, why?

"I don't agree, the minimum savings requirements are wrong, and extremely high. How many people have £64,500 of savings."

5) Do you think it right that the self employed cannot use any savings to help them meet the financial requirement? If so, why?

"His is wrong and illogically thought out."

6) As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why?

"Again this is illogically thought out."

Some questions for those who support the financial requirement:-

1) Do you think it right that third party support is not allowed? If so, why?

2) Do you think it right that when the immigrant spouse has a guaranteed job once in the UK that their earnings from that job are ignored? If so, why?

3) Do you think it right when an ex pat is returning to a guaranteed job in the UK with an income above the required level that they need to have been earning that amount in the UK for at least 6 months before their partner can apply to join them unless they have also been earning above the limit for at least 6 months whilst abroad; regardless of whether or not the UK job is with the same employer? If so, why?

4) Do you agree that the first £16,000 of any savings are ignored? If so, why?

5) Do you think it right that the self employed cannot use any savings to help them meet the financial requirement? If so, why?

6) As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why?

Some of those who express support for these requirements have posted in this topic since I asked the above questions; several times by the requirements' most vocal supporter.

But no one has answered any of the questions!

I wonder why?

Surely it cannot be because they don't have any answers?

Answers, gentlemen, please.

If you don't answer, I'm sure readers of this topic will draw their own conclusions as to the reasons for your silence.

7by7 wrote:

You want answers

Some questions for those who support the financial requirement:-

1) Do you think it right that third party support is not allowed? If so, why?

"I do not believe this should be acceptable, I agree that you should be allowed to reside in your families home, as expats, may have sold up before leaving the country. But using 3rd party support does not in anyway show that you are able to take care of your family"

2) Do you think it right that when the immigrant spouse has a guaranteed job once in the UK that their earnings from that job are ignored? If so, why?

"I think a job offer should be acceptable if it meets the financial requirements only if you have been in employment and earning within the last 6 months and can show some savings I could write you out a contract now, saying you will start employment xxx and wil be earning xxx."

3) Do you think it right when an ex pat is returning to a guaranteed job in the UK with an income above the required level that they need to have been earning that amount in the UK for at least 6 months before their partner can apply to join them unless they have also been earning above the limit for at least 6 months whilst abroad; regardless of whether or not the UK job is with the same employer? If so, why?

"I had to do it, I took my wife home on a tourist visa worked for the 6 months, and then returned with everything intact. Again written above answers this question."

4) Do you agree that the first £16,000 of any savings are ignored? If so, why?

"I don't agree, the minimum savings requirements are wrong, and extremely high. How many people have £64,500 of savings."

5) Do you think it right that the self employed cannot use any savings to help them meet the financial requirement? If so, why?

"His is wrong and illogically thought out."

6) As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why?

"Again this is illogically thought out."

Some questions for those who support the financial requirement:-

1) Do you think it right that third party support is not allowed? If so, why?

2) Do you think it right that when the immigrant spouse has a guaranteed job once in the UK that their earnings from that job are ignored? If so, why?

3) Do you think it right when an ex pat is returning to a guaranteed job in the UK with an income above the required level that they need to have been earning that amount in the UK for at least 6 months before their partner can apply to join them unless they have also been earning above the limit for at least 6 months whilst abroad; regardless of whether or not the UK job is with the same employer? If so, why?

4) Do you agree that the first £16,000 of any savings are ignored? If so, why?

5) Do you think it right that the self employed cannot use any savings to help them meet the financial requirement? If so, why?

6) As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why?

Some of those who express support for these requirements have posted in this topic since I asked the above questions; several times by the requirements' most vocal supporter.

But no one has answered any of the questions!

I wonder why?

Surely it cannot be because they don't have any answers?

Answers, gentlemen, please.

If you don't answer, I'm sure readers of this topic will draw their own conclusions as to the reasons for your silence.

7by7 wrote:

You want answers

Some questions for those who support the financial requirement:-

1) Do you think it right that third party support is not allowed? If so, why?

"I do not believe this should be acceptable, I agree that you should be allowed to reside in your families home, as expats, may have sold up before leaving the country. But using 3rd party support does not in anyway show that you are able to take care of your family"

2) Do you think it right that when the immigrant spouse has a guaranteed job once in the UK that their earnings from that job are ignored? If so, why?

"I think a job offer should be acceptable if it meets the financial requirements only if you have been in employment and earning within the last 6 months and can show some savings I could write you out a contract now, saying you will start employment xxx and wil be earning xxx."

3) Do you think it right when an ex pat is returning to a guaranteed job in the UK with an income above the required level that they need to have been earning that amount in the UK for at least 6 months before their partner can apply to join them unless they have also been earning above the limit for at least 6 months whilst abroad; regardless of whether or not the UK job is with the same employer? If so, why?

"I had to do it, I took my wife home on a tourist visa worked for the 6 months, and then returned with everything intact. Again written above answers this question."

4) Do you agree that the first £16,000 of any savings are ignored? If so, why?

"I don't agree, the minimum savings requirements are wrong, and extremely high. How many people have £64,500 of savings."

5) Do you think it right that the self employed cannot use any savings to help them meet the financial requirement? If so, why?

"His is wrong and illogically thought out."

6) As it costs as much to look after a British child as a non British one, do you think it right that a couple with non British children need to have a higher income than a couple where the children are British? If so, why?

"Again this is illogically thought out."

Going round in circles again.

If you want to talk facts then fine.

The fact is the current rules are set.

The minimum required income is £18,600.

If you have a non british citizen child then you require more income. (Take into consideration extra cost for application, for flights etc)

Under the old rules you could be refused for not having enough funds to pay for flights.

The income set is not high, in fact it's the lowest in the whole of Europe.

Fact the new rules are not logically thought out. Ie a self employed person should be allowed to use there savings towards meeting the requirement.

The savings level is far to high, they require you to have 3/4 times the minimum income.

Fact everyone in this topic and previous topics are going round in circles.

If you don't meet the requirement get an extra job and do so.

It's an English trait, to complain.

We complain when's there no sun in England and when there is we complain its too hot.

Just get on with it.

Could you please show me where under the old rules you could have a visa refused for not having enough funds to pay for flights? The booking or paying for flights where never part of the visa application you just had to show that you could support yourselves without recourse to public funds

If I could be bothered digging up my refusal letter.

But the funny thing is the flights were booked, but my agent told me not to disclose them.

Not that it really matters but there is nothing in the old rules about flights:

• 2 recent passport photographs and your passport - see the Photographs and passport page
• evidence of your age and your partner's age
• your marriage or civil partnership certificate
• evidence that you were both free to marry or enter your civil partnership, if either of you was previously married or in a civil partnership
• evidence that you have met
• evidence of your English language ability - see the English language page
• evidence that you can can maintain yourselves and any dependants adequately without needing public funds - see the Maintenance (funds) page
• evidence of your accomodation
• http://www.ukba.homeoffice.gov.uk/visas-immigration/partners-families/citizens-settled/spouse-cp/before9july/documents/

Well if you thought logically, the reason was they didn't believe I could afford, £2,500 for flights for my wife and child, though I don't know how they worked out the figure.

I don't need to lie, I am very open on this forum