sicky

Just a brief update on this, Villa Market's principle management has indicated that the staff at the branch in question had taken it upon themselves to not give Satang coinage to customers (effectively short-changing them), since there is a genuine shortage of those coins, rather than resolve the issue properly in customers' interests.  He indicated that what happened at that branch, was not their company's policy and that he regarded what the branch staff did as "theft" - his words, not mine.

This sounds consistent with certain other posters' comments that they had received Satang coins from various other branches.  I wanted to put the matter straight on here, that it was due to the individual branch staff believing it was acceptable to avoid giving the full change back to customers, and not more broadly Villa Market's intention - in other words it was a lack of common-sense thinking at that branch.  He also indicated that as a result of raising it with them, they had re-priced certain items to avoid the smaller denomination.  So all's well that ends well!  Sorry I haven't read posters' comments and replied, but the above is the outcome and no doubt worth raising with them, as the matter is now resolved as it should be.

10 hours ago, Issanman said:

Villa Market in Udon Thani gave me my change including 25 satang just 2 days ago.

Yes, so it seems it's up to the manager at specific branches.  The cash register didn't contain any Satangs at Villa Market Index Hua Hin.  And it's happened repeatedly, with different cashiers at the same store.

On 13/02/2018 at 3:36 AM, pearciderman said:

 

And just where did you pull that load of tripe from?

It's common knowledge amongst economists. For instance, looking at Britain's withdrawal of the half-penny and the pertinent arguments considered at the time, such as here... http://news.bbc.co.uk/onthisday/hi/dates/stories/february/1/newsid_2828000/2828819.stm

The article makes several cases in fact, for the small denomination having benefit for those on low-income, though notwithstanding the cost of producing the small-denonination can outweigh its value, hence finally the government's decision to withdraw it.  But yes, several points in support of it are hidden in that piece - good luck!

Indeed, I'd rather the beggers receive the accumulation of all those 0.50s and 0.75s than the undoubtedly rich shareholders of Villa Market.  Let's not forget that across all the day's customers, that discrepancy is likely to be a thousand Baht or more.

In fact, the concept of the small denomination Satang is intended primarily to help the poor, but here we see an example at Villa Market, of them forming a policy to avoid giving it back.  Who's benefitting there -- the rich.

Yeah sure.  I wonder if they expect 42 Baht from me, for the sandwich, or happy to receive only 41.  But if I give them 42 and then complain about the absent 0.75 change, they'll then give me 1 Baht back! LOL

I wondered if it has become common practice now, for shops not to give customers their change if the change is less than 1 Baht.  I've found at Villa Market, every time, that they round-up the change, so it's in their interests, rather than the customer's.  Is this normal elsewhere too?

My understanding has always been that Satang is legal tender.  Is that the case?  Some shops don't accept Satang, I recall, but what I noticed with Villa Market, is that some items are in fact priced in Satang denominations, even items that aren't charged by weight.  For example, a sandwich was marked as 41.30 Baht and appears on the receipt as 41.25 Baht.  So presumably if the argument is that Satang isn't treated as legal tender, where is the justification for them marking items priced with Satang denominations?

On 09/02/2018 at 8:24 AM, NanLaew said:

Now THAT is just plain bloody scary.

I presume that the incident to which Spinman refers, in regard to Facebook pictures shown on the immigration computer, is due to the question on extension of stays, which requests social media information.

Not wishing to overreact, but it raises the question for some of us, perhaps, whether we want to continue staying in such a regime?  Isn't that type of thing conveying a feeling that there is a suspicion of visiting foreigners, almost as though individuals are not to be trusted at the outset?

Just a heads-up for others who have used the Teddy House website to order goods.  I have been receiving malware e-mails sent to a disposable e-mail address that I created specifically to place an order from this Thai company.  Initially I assumed it was just a virus on one of the Teddy House computers, which had obtained various e-mail addresses.  However, this doesn't appear to be the case, and it rather appears to have been a complete customer data breach.  The spammer appears to have obtained my other personal information in addition to my e-mail address.

Recently, I noticed that one of the malware messages quoted my birth date, as I had entered into the company's website.  The birthdate I entered wasn't actually my correct birthdate, but I recognised it was the date I entered into the website.

I reported this to a member of staff at Teddy House by e-mail but received no response.  Finally I logged into the company website and I found that they had purged the customer data (credit card, address and phone number, and date of birth).  It appears that Teddy House has been aware of the data breach but hasn't notified customers of this.  It is quite serious, given that credit card information was stored.  Although the company has at some point removed customers' main personal data, presumably as a weak attempt at resolving the problem, they haven't removed historic orders (which in turn contains personal information anyway), neither have they notified customers of any password reset for example.

I have always been wary of using Thailand e-commerce sites, because their ability to secure data is often extremely rudimentary, but this has been a lesson.  If you've ordered from Teddy House, you may want to double-check your credit card statement.

Thanks, yes I get really confused, because sometimes people refer to "retirement visas" or "marriage visas" but in fact they are extensions based on those circumstances.  I think it's all made overly complicated by the immigration department and I just want to switch-off sometimes, especially given that members of this forum report that certain immigrations offices apply inconsistent standards.  I just want to leave Thailand, rather than going through that kind of thing!  We have enough uncertainty in our lives.  But anyway, I don't want to sound negative.  Thanks for the input on this!

3 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

The embassy letter is only relevant where stamps are being transferred to a new passport for those on an extension of stay.

Thanks very much, appreciate your reply.  I feel a bit dumb about Thais visas and immigration, as there are clearly a lot of you on this forum who have a tremendous amount of knowledge, but the subject seems so complicated.

Sorry to ask further though, but the term "stamps" is mentioned a lot - is this the entry/exit stamps, or extension of stay stamps.  I only have entry/exit stamps, as I never stay beyond a few weeks at a time.

I just want to confirm this to be sure please and apologies if this subject has been covered.  I renewed my British passport and will soon be returning for a stay in Thailand.  I have a multiple-entry visa in my old cancelled British passport that is still in its validity period.

I understand from other threads on the forum that the old cancelled passport can be presented on arrival to show my visa, along with my new passport that doesn't contain a visa.  I just want to confirm that the immigration official will not insist on an "embassy letter" (for want of a better description) to permit me entry into Thailand.  I would be unable to obtain one anyway, as I'm not in Thailand.  Thanks.

I noticed on renewal of a British passport that the number of pages, either 32 or 48, seems rather arbitrary, since the first several pages are occupied by feint grey notes (see attached).  The number of notes pages has increased slightly from earlier passports.

Is there any definitive information available which indicates we can use these pages, for the purposes of visas?  I have tried to find out online, but see nothing.  It isn't really important, but why waste the first few pages, if we travel so frequently?

11 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

Stamp the new one. The old one can't used for travel.

Nice clear answer, many thanks indeed!

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

You can use a valid visa for entry that is in a canceled passport by showing both passports. They will then stamp you into the country in the new one.

Thanks very much indeed, this was exactly the clarification I was looking for.  Will they also stamp me out when leaving Thailand, within the pages of old expired British passport, or do they need to stamp the new one?  It's not really that important, but it's just useful to know what the usual procedure is, as Thais often ask for things they aren't entitled to.

Is there any requirement to transfer a Thailand visa (which expires early next year and shall be renewed with another visa in due course anyway) to a new British passport?  Is it acceptable to present the previous passport containing the current visa, with the new British passport, when travelling to Thailand?  To be clear, I am only asking about the visa, not about extensions.  Thanks.

5 hours ago, JackThompson said:

But note - do not trust the IATA website's info on money requirements.  You need 10K Baht worth of Cash or Travelers Checks on your person for a Visa-Exempt entry, and 20K worth with a visa.  IATA incorrectly states that plastic-money is OK, but people have been sent-back by Immigration for not having it, and not allowed to withdraw it from an ATM to show.

20,000 is a lot to carry around through airports on each trip and worry about losing it!   Frankly with Thailand's improbable rules at times, I feel like not bothering to come back anyway!

37 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

If the airline is a member of the IATA they would accept what is shown in their data base. 

The problem arises when an airline is not a member. This can be the case with some low cost carriers. For example Air Asia has a minimum of 6 months passport validity in their terms and conditions when you buy a ticket.

Also remember it is not the same for all countries. Many still need 6 months of validity.

Thank you, that's very clear.  So this list would be very useful... http://www.iata.org/about/members/Pages/airline-list.aspx

Also, the 19 visa-on-arrival countries you refer to is clarified in Thailand's official tourism website here and specifically mentions the six-month validity requirement as you say.  Ironically, it's this page which really had me convinced over the weekend that the six-month requirement applied to everything and everybody!  https://www.tourismthailand.org/About-Thailand/Passport-Visa

I'm really sorry this question has taken up a lot of people's time.  It's really appreciated.

Many thanks for the comments on this.  We seem to have shown that in terms of immigration, there is no six-month passport validity requirement.  What would then remain to be seen however, is whether airline companies comply at check-in and what would one do given that situation, should they claim otherwise.

The other unknown, is that if the six-month validity is untrue, then what is the immigration rule?  Hong Kong requires at least one month remaining at the time of departure.  They've made it clear, but I wonder what Thailand's rule is.

31 minutes ago, perthperson said:

 

Are you saying that you obtained a visa the validity of which exceeded the validity of your passport?  

 

Interesting.

Yes, that's correct indeed.  My UK passport visa expires in January 2018 and my Thai visa expires in mid-March 2018.  Presumably that's normal though, because we can use the existing unexpired visa in our old passports, when presenting our new passport, without the visa needing to be transferred from the old passport to the new passport.  Certainly that's what I've read others advocate.

16 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

You do not show a departure date from Hong Kong is why it says that. You don't have enough passport validity if you were to stay for 180 days.

Try with a multisegment with a flight out of Hong Kong a month before the passport validity date you enter.

Yes, you're right, my apologies.  It took me some time to understand that website, I must say.  I was just trying to re-post that result, together with an updated itinerary but ran out of edit time.  Yes, I found that with an additional segment from Hong Kong, before the remaining month's expiry on the passport, that it indicated all was well  As the attached shows, crucially, we can arrive in Thailand just over three months before passport expiry.

50 minutes ago, perthperson said:

It would not be possible to obtain a visa from a Thai embassy/consulate which was valid beyond a passports period of validity. 

I already have a visa.

Thanks very much for doing that.   I had some difficulties given that my travel will be to Hong Kong, but that aside, it seems to indicate that Thailand does not require six months' validity.

5 hours ago, perthperson said:

http://www.iatatravelcentre.com/

Thanks for the link.  That link appears to show that with short stays, fewer than six-month's validity is allowed.  But what about holders of visas of various types?  I'm not sure that the page allows that information to be specified, unless I'm mistaken.

Do those who already possess a visa, of various types, require six-months' validity?

Having read through posters' replies on this subject, I'm a bit unclear whether the apparent lack of requirement for a six-month validity period applies to those visiting with a visa-on-arrival, or for those who have a visa. Some have said that they did not require six-months' validity when they arrived, such as Perthperson whose son only had five months left on his passport (presumably visa-on-arrival), but Phuket Man adds "There is no six month requirement. - Simple as that."

So I'm still quite confused. Is it simply the case that as visitors, we have no way of knowing, because Thai authorities follow their own rules and make up the rules as they go along? I read on another thread just now about 90-reporting and that "some offices do x" and "some offices do y". Is it simply the case that this is how Thai authorities are, and they often think they know the rules, but the rules are just vapour? Just a thought!