roath

I registered at Big C Hang Dong on Sunday using my Pink card only (no need for passport).

I wasn't given an appointment as they weren't giving them to those under 60 at the present time. I was told that they were expecting to give me an appointment for sometime in July. I was given a choice of local hospitals at which to get vaccinated in due course, and opted for Klaimor 

I went in the afternoon, and there was no queue at all. A friend of mine went in the morning and had the same experience. There seemed to be a steady (but small) stream of expats though. There was no sign at the front of Big C (none I could see anyway) to highlight that they were making registrations (the registrations were set up at the back in the food court) so if you were just there to shop normally, you wouldn't be aware of anything going on at the back so it could have been given more prominence. 

On 5/14/2021 at 10:45 AM, EricTh said:

 

 

It's either Sinovac or Astrazeneca. These are the only two approved so far.

 

It seems that Thai people aren't keen on being vaccinated.

 

https://www.chiangmaicitylife.com/citynews/covid-19/under-10-of-eligible-registered-for-vaccine/?fbclid=IwAR2MdmlZTPW6eETUaImFjsxYcEemG685zZBezLawVGRogunq17Q164GesnQ

Moderna has just been approved and Johnson is expected shortly. People seem to forget that Thailand has its own vaccine making facility coming online, which is going to provide the bulk of vaccines 

With regard to the British Embassy being on Thai or British soil, the answer sort of depends on what the question relates to, but the short answer is that it technically remains Thai soil, but subject to a number of caveats

Is an Embassy on Foreign Soil the Sovereign Territory of the Host Country or the Embassy's Country? - Path to Foreign Service

On 2/6/2021 at 11:53 AM, Neeranam said:

As a naturalized Thai citizen, it is illegal for me to use my UK passport in Thailand.

My question to the Consular Services is if I can use their consular services. I believe the UK embassy is not on Thai soil, so I could use my passport?  

With 2 of my kids I got that FCDO at the British Embassy. I can't remember but assume I had to show my British passport. 

Here is one example of a British/Thai citizen who had his Thai one revoked for entering Thailand on his British passport - 

http://www.ratchakitcha.soc.go.th/DATA/PDF/0E/00142164.PDF

It would seem that you are referring to the Thai Nationality Act 2508 (1965) which seems to be still in force

Section 19 states that The Minister is empowered to revoke Thai nationality of a person who acquires Thai nationality by naturalization if it appears that: (1) The naturalization was effected by concealment of facts or making any statement false in material particular; (2) There is evidence to show that he still makes use of his former nationality; (3) He commits any act prejudicial to the security or conflicting the interests of the State, or amounting to an insult to the nation; (4) He commits any act contrary to public order or good morals; (5) He has resided abroad without having a domicile in Thailand for more than five years; (6) He still retains the nationality of the country at war with Thailand. The revocation of Thai nationality under this Section may extend to children of a person whose Thai nationality is revoked, in case such children are not sui juris and acquire Thai nationality under Section 12 paragraph two. The Minister shall, after the order for revocation of Thai nationality has been given, submit the matter to the King.

Therefore, whilst it would appear that the use of your British nationality is prohibited (the sanction being that your Thai nationality would be removed), that is not the same as it being actually illegal (in that it is not a criminal offence which would lead to imprisonment etc.).

As you are probably aware, Thai law is more fluid than most countries, which means that the law can change in practice even if the actual law is not amended or repealed. It is well known for example that Thailand has relaxed the regulations about having a dual nationality without any actual amendment of the law, which means that (I suspect), it is unlikely that the Thai government would be as interested in your comings and goings as they would have been two decades ago. Simply looking at the date and era that it was signed and in particular the person who signed it (Army Field Marshal Kittichachorn) should give you a pretty good idea of the thinking behind it when it was drawn up and mentality of the times.

Equally, the article that you refer to is about 17 years old, and it seems to be an inordinate amount of trouble for someone to have used their passport of original country to enter Thailand. It is likely that there is something else behind that, but you never know, I accept. Even so, times have changed significantly since then and the Thai authorities seem very relaxed these days about Thais using dual nationality without any issues.

In any event, if you were to attend at the British Embassy, it seems untenable that the Thai Government would know what you were actually doing there or would be following you around to see what you got up to. 

14 hours ago, hml367 said:

I was not and am not legally married to a Thai.  I got a "yellow book" 16 years ago at Hang Dong Amphur.

I don't remember if it was needed, but I have a 30 year lease.

The village kamnan went there and another Thai person, as well as the home owner.

 

The Amphur had given us the requirements printout on a visit to the office.

 

Of course things could have changed.

I had to have a letter from the village headman approving me, but he didn't need to go in person and I didn't need any witnesses

The process at Hang Dong was pretty straightforward (for me anyway), but it seems that other Amphurs can be a lot more demanding

14 hours ago, Mavideol said:

the yellow book has nothing to do with marriage, it has to do with owning a property, if you own a condo and not married you can get a yellow book, if that's the case, depending where you live/province/city/town requirements may vary but not very hard

You don't need to be a property owner in order to get a yellow book. It's about proof of residence, not ownership. You may well be looked upon more favourably if you have a property but many people have got them (based on reports) with rental agreements only

I obtained a YB from Hang Dong Amphur about 5 years ago and wasn't married, but I did go with my girlfriend as you do need a translator as someone has already mentioned unless you have a very good grasp of Thai as there is typically an interview of sorts as to what you do in Thailand, why you want a YB etc. and you will need some documentation translated (usually only your passport but requirements can change depending on who is doing the administration at the time that you visit)

Once you get the YB, don't forget to get the Pink Card from the same place before you leave, which is only an additional 60 baht

48 minutes ago, aussiep said:

Maybe this has changed.
Before when you opened an A/c with your passport.
If you had renewed your passport before  going to renew your bankbook,
you had to have your old and new passports with you or they would not renew the book.
This was a few years ago.
The bangbook was full, tried to get a new one, at another bransh, wouldn't do it.
They printed the extra transactions on a sheet of paper and stapled it into the bankbook.
aussiep....

Yes, if you've renewed your passport, then you need to go to your original account opening branch and renew your identity documentation. The same goes for things like mobile phone registration and Driving Licence etc (although few, if any, bother to change their DL until expiry on that basis)

1 hour ago, fred110 said:

Bangkok bank makes me go where the account was opened.

That's simply not correct. Any branch within your region should be able to provide you with this service

On 6/29/2020 at 11:10 AM, samtam said:

If joint accounts are as dodgy as you suggest, I'm surprised they are in existence anywhere.

I didn't use the word 'dodgy' once. Neither did I suggest that they were in any way 'dodgy'

Within the context of the original post, I was simply pointing out that there are issues with joint accounts in terms of either party typically being unencumbered as to what they can do with the account, which isn't necessarily what people want when they set up the account, or don't think about it, or don't think it will be a problem because at the time, they are 'in love' etc.

There is nothing wrong with joint accounts, provided that the parties accept that the other party can empty the account without any reference to you and possibly even take out lending/borrowing/overdraft without the other party (i.e. you) knowing about it or agreeing to it

Just now, natway09 said:

The Thai Embassy in your present country has at least one person authorized to check if they are allowed to be imported into Thailand.

Unless they are "special" he will issue the said Licence for about 500 BHT.

This does not automatically allow you to export them again

That's useful to know. Not something they seem to advertise widely

A friend of mine imported some statues on the customs exemption (Thai returning back from UK), and the shipping company wrapped them up and marked them as something innocuous like 'furnishings' (I can't remember quite what but something like that). Lampshades or object d'art look the same if wrapped up a certain way with bubble wrap and cardboard or put in a box like a tv. 

There is always a possibility of someone undoing all the wrappings to check what it is, but as I understand, that seems to be an uncommon occurrence, and if done through an agent, they should be able to sort out any difficulties at the other end if something untoward does happen. 

If the statues are for religious purposes, that usually helps and if you are going through the upfront route by getting an import licence, it would be worth explaining why you wish to bring them.

It obviously can be done as it does seem that statues are regularly shipped from India to Thailand by Buddhist and Hindu temples without difficulty (or presumably nothing insurmountable).

16 hours ago, samtam said:

I just withdrew the (daily) maximum THB200k today in cash from the ATM and walked it round to my OUB account. I will do that continuously until it has the bare minimum.

 

Yes, the account is operable by one signature only. My understanding this is only Krungsri which has arbitrarily introduced this block for online transactions. Going to the ATM to do transactions/transfers to third parties seems so backward, but perhaps I've misunderstood, and you are not suggesting that.

 

Actually, it is. It's operable by one signature.

 

Well, I don't suppose it occurred to them to exclude any liability in the myriad of forms we signed when we opened the joint account, the successors to our HSBC accounts after they closed retail business in Thailand. And, yes we operate all other joint HSBC accounts worldwide online or by one signature, probably because they've covered their liability.  

Legally, to say that something is 'yours' when it belongs to two people jointly is problematic, as in law you hold on trust for the other person rather than actual ownership which would be an unencumbered right

The issue is problematic in other countries, as well as Thailand, and simply getting joint account holders to sign forms doesn't necessarily mean the end of any disputes or indeed the bank's responsibility or liability in law (e.g. if one party requires the bank to send SMS or emails to only one of them, so the other party has no idea what is going on and/or they change the terms of the original mandate so that a higher amount can be withdrawn than was agreed on the original mandate).

Yes, the forms can say that that can happen, but nevertheless people still don't always appreciate the extent of the sole mandate e.g. that it means that the other person can clear out the account without any reference to the other person. Mostly, the bank avoids liability, but not always (e.g. if one account holder calls the bank to put a hold on transactions, but the system isn't updated or something or if the T&Cs aren't signed by both parties or aren't clear enough or extensive enough etc.)

Most lawyers' recommendations (and common sense) would be that you use a joint account for household etc. expenses which is a relatively limited amount rather than have all your savings in a joint account (all your eggs in one basket)

5 hours ago, NumbNut said:

I'm amazed too. I've been in Thailand for ten years now and I've never heard of a single even-handed legal decision like this come down when a defacto relationship was being adjudicated on.

 

I would think this will heartened a lot of folks in a similar situation.

 

 

There have been a number, if you read the press regularly...

19 hours ago, Captain Monday said:

If I looked at a property I check water pressure for sure. Do you have home inspections

for home loans over there? Checking all the outlets and breaker box require electrical.

No need to keep the phone and internet.

 

Maybe the OPs brother wants to save on motels when he takes his gik out?

Utilities mean gas, electric and water

you may find this article useful

https://www.funeralguide.co.uk/help-resources/managing-your-estate/removing-and-substituting-executors#:~:text=If the named executor refuses,for a grant of probate.

If the utilities are cut off for non-payment, the costs of reconnection can be not insubstantial. a buyer may well require that the reconnection costs are deducted from the purchase price as usually only derelict properties are disconnected

equally, if you are trying to sell the property and someone turns on the taps and no water is coming out, or they turn on the lights, and nothing works, and walk into a freezing cold house (in winter), it makes it harder to sell, and/or less likely to get a full market value so the utilities are far from 'pointless'.

you should also be aware that many insurance policies require occupancy of the property, so you need to check the policy, and should inform the insurance company of the circumstances to prevent them voiding any claim you might need to make. you should also make sure that regular inspections of the property take place e.g. by the estate agent appointed

the Will provides the names of the executors. if the executors named are not available or don't wish to act, then it is possible that a beneficiary can step forward and apply for letters of administration. if your brother is the named executor and you don't agree with what he is doing, then there are steps that you can take, but you really would be best off trying to resolve matters amicably (and sensibly - and in fairness, it does seem that your brother hasn't actually done anything wrong or senseless so far) rather than act through a solicitor, although that is always an option of course

On 6/14/2020 at 4:55 PM, Russell17au said:

Thailand, America, Australia, UK, Europe are all the same. The only ones allowed into the countries are the nationals. You are all whinging about the farang who is married to a Thai not being allowed to return to Thailand. Then get your Thai wife into you home country and see what happens. Your spouse will not be allowed to enter your home country because she is not a national of your home country and it works both ways.

If she had a valid long-term visa, or had indefinite leave to remain, she would be entitled to enter. Very few countries are banning non-nationals from entering regardless of their right of residence, and they all seem to be Asian countries. If you can name a single Western country that is doing so, then name it....you might find it difficult

4 hours ago, OneeyedJohn said:

If u wanna be totally literal about it, the curfew should finish at 23:59 tonight and normality should resume at 00:01 hours Monday morning.

 

There is no such time as 00:00

It said restrictions removed from 14.06.20 so curfew should have finished at 00.01 this morning. Yes, why they can't just be clear about things is beyond any comprehension. Anyway, no curfew this evening (Sunday) based on that report

Both have been open for some time now. Join some local facebook groups (for Chiang Mai) where this news is disseminated

21 hours ago, scorecard said:

I have no argument with any of the points you make, good interesting points with good arguments.

 

I don't have an easily accessible copy of the Thai Commercial Code. Myself and my son did have detailed discussions with our lawyer who certainly has good knowledge of the law and he has our trust, and whatever the subject is he always checks with an appropriate respected expert person to ensure he is not making incorrect assumptions.

 

One point is that usufruct can (from my understanding) provide a form of protection, which in our case was the real reason why my son wanted to put the usufruct on the chanote, as a protection for me and for his kids, for no other reason . Perhaps that's why is seems to override the selling situation. 

 

 

any form of agreement which is registered on the chanote gives (varying) degrees of protection

for sure as i have said several times, it is far better to have a chanote than not and the absence of a chanote gives zero protection so a no-brainer in my view.

the technicalities of usufruct in thailand are not as clear as in western countries as frankly the legal system here is not as advanced (e.g.the concept of trust law is non-existent here which is massively problematic) and there is of course corruption unfortunately which is problematic as well as the fact that even a legally registered chanote is subject to challenge as in nearly every case they amount to a proxy purchase in reality (the money comes from the husband but the property is put in the wife's name with a usufruct granted to the husband). Really Thailand needs to tidy up the laws and provide better protection for those who are living here and invest here but let's not hold our breath....

21 hours ago, BEVUP said:

I think you may find that a Usufrut may be removed if it is concluded in a court of law (obviously with you present ) that you have Degraded the property / & or not paid taxes (don't quote me on this bit )

Usufrut = The use of such property in the maintained state 

yes of course you need to comply with the terms of the usufruct which normally provide that you will maintain the land and pay any relevant property taxes etc. and if you are in substantive breach, a court order can be made to terminate the agreement (probably though you would be given notice to comply with the usufruct first though and put things right)

Your attendance at court would not neccessarily be required and provided that the court is satisfied that you were aware of the proceedings and had no reasonable excuse not to be there, they may proceed in your absence. typically, the first time you didn't attend there would be likely to be an adjournment but if you continued to fail to attend, the court can make an order in your absence

In theory, you don't need a new usufruct as whoever is buying the land is subject to the existing agreement

However in practice land offices don't like the practice (not least because of the potential for fraud) so prefer that the old agreement is voided and a new agreement is entered into