sandyf

Forum is full of those that think Thailand can do no right, have to wonder why they are here. You were wrong also to interpret that the ETA was not postponed. The ETA system, designed to streamline immigration procedures for visitors, was originally scheduled to launch in December 2024. However, the ministry said a launch date had yet to be determined as coordination with relevant agencies is still ongoing. https://www.nationthailand.com/news/general/40041755

The ETA has been scheduled to rollout from Dec to June 25 and as far as I am aware it is still Sept. The real "problem" is those that that expect everything to be fully functional before day one.

I made the same point some time ago and got the same responses from the same people. Those that live in some areas see it as normal, those of us living elsewhere do not. After 25 years and seeing the majority of Thailand, it is not normal practice. There are some "chains" that have that policy but I just avoid them. Certainly rife in Bangkok which makes it a bit difficult to vote with your feet.

Not so much the distance as the road. A lot of people that lived up that way used Soi Siam and that can be difficult. Friend of mine used to have a house in Soi 11, Soi Siam and it wasn't too bad going there but could be problematic coming back. A lot of traffic wanted to turn right at the railway causing massive tailbacks. We still see some of that at times coming down the road from Siamburi.

Last October they opened Pandora's Box and now the lid doesn't fit anymore.

Garbage again. As far as the exeption is concerned, the number of transactions required is from one month after arrival until the very first 12 month application. The same "exception" applies to those that want to extend based on marriage, or are you going to argue the toss on that as well. Of course you are. Of course it's an option for the OP but there are those that want to suppress options they do not favour. It is the OP's decision, not yours.

If you had read my post properly you would have noted it was about 2.18, referring to "family members" not retirement. All your talk about retiring and pension highlights how you fail to put things into perspective.

If you want to maintain the exception has been rescinded then some verification to that should be forthcoming. Until then it is a perfectly valid option for the OP, obviously you don't realise it is only valid if the OP were to arrive on a Cat O visa. Your views shouldn't be an impediment to the OP's options, it is the facts that count.

But a lot to do with the damaged inflicted.

It would appear to have been a plot that was to be used in conjunction with other moves. Apparently someone discovered a device that wasn't "normal", so the perpetrators had to use it or loose it. As you say the outcome would have been a lot more significant.

When people have dug themselves into a hole they start making things up based on their interpretation of the translation wording, for example using the literal because it suits. Differnent scenario when it doesn't suit. The order amending requirements for income based extensions is quite clear. If you arrive in October the first transaction would need to be in November, you get a month to open a bank account. Why would the OP be unable to open a bank account within a month? In the interest of simplicity, Immigration has a tendency when referring to "income" to use the word pension, you are however perfectly free to believe that only those with a "pension" can use the income method. You disputed my posts because you thought you knew better, referring to "leniency" when in fact there was an official order in effect. I said in the beginning that I tried this option and had a protracted conversation with the senior IO on the issue. Entirely up to you what you want to believe but you cannot try and make it fact. If the "exception" has not been rescinded then it is a perfectly valid option for the OP and up to him if he wants to look into it.

The post you replied to was referring to the "exception" granted under the Dec 2018 notice. The lack of reference to what I posted highlights the fact the post wasn't read and assumptions made. From the last sentence you appear to be denying the "exception" exists, obviously you would have evidence it has been rescinded.

Immigration acknowledges that 12 months of transfers is difficult for those that have just arrived, but some on here would prefer not to. Feel free to provide a link to the "exception" being rescinded.

There was no incorrect information, you were well aware of the exception stated in 0029.173/Wor 4950. As usual, just posted without thinking about what you read.

That doesn't change the rules. When I was challenged I very politely referred to the notice issued. There followed a quite prolonged and civilised conversation on the issue during which she quite poliely pointed out the difference between a first extension and the first extension on a different visa.

Don't bother to read what gets posted, do you.

Yes it is fairly easy to change from one method to the other. As I mentioned earler you don't need 12 months on a very first application. There is an execption in place for people just arriving in Thailand and I am quite sure you could claim that to be the case. In the attached document you can see down in the bottom left hand corner of the first page how it is applied.

What's doubtful? In Aug 2020 I was half way through an ME visa and had been getting auto extensions. They were due to come to an end so I went along to immigration and tried to get a 12 month extension based on 2 months of transactions. The IO initially nodded but looking through my passport suddenly shook her head and pointed to an extension a few years previous and said it would need to be 12 transactions. Not a big problem the auto extension went on another month which gave me the 12th transaction I needed. I think the OP would be fairly safe having been out of the country for 10 years.

Indeed, and why I think it is being blown out of proportion. I am not particularly concerned, can't see the turkeys voting for Christmas.

I got married in 2008 and since then been in and out of the various visa scenarios. No big deal whichever way you decide to jump, really a question of what best suits your circumstances. Last Oct i came back on a new visa and new passport so when i went for the marriage extension in the Dec did expect some questions, not so, probably the smoothest one ever, only at the desk about 20 minutes.

I have had 5 home visits and no 2 have been the same, witnesses only required once. Last time only one guy came with a tripod, just took a couple of photos with him included. Must have been here all of 10 minutes. Your imagination has nothing to do with it, people are free to make whatever decision suits them best.

Doesn't need to. The first extension he does can be done on a reduced number, 2 or 3 possibly depending on office. Would however need to address the issue on arrival.

Quite. From the London site. Financial evidence showing monthly income of no less than 65,000 THB (£1,500) or having the current balance of 800,000 THB (£18,000), e.g. bank statements, proof of earnings - Applicant’s recent official UK/Ireland bank statement shows your name, address (Screenshots are not accepted). For monthly income of last 3 months no less than £1,500/month. https://london.thaiembassy.org/en/page/retirement-visa

Cha Am is ok but limited, does not have the same level of facilities and access as BS. Personally I would much rather have a day out or an overnighter in Pattaya than Hua Hin.

Indeed. Not going to rush into it again, may well try and get a lot more airports fitted out before flicking the switch.