eisfeld

No personal information apart from your name, address and purchase information. Same as with a card. Another reason not to use COD. If I pay by card I can open it whenever I want and if the content doesn't match what I expect I just return and get my money back easily. If Lazada refuses then I just tell my bank to do a chargeback. Good luck doing that with COD.

Again, just use a Thai debit card. Dead simple. I have no idea why Barclays are closing accounts but I doubt it's because someone bought stuff on Lazada with their card and as I said it's not a smart idea anyways because of additional fees. Life can be easy if people just make it easy for themselves.

You don't need a credit card. Just use a debit card. Using a foreign card raises no flags, no-one cares but it would probably incur additional costs for currency conversion etc. I'm not blaming you for having made the mistake, again I commend you for posting this. What I just don't understand is the insistence on COD when easier and safer options are readily available. Each to their own I guess?

It worked until it didn't. You made a mistake which everyone does every now but now you have no recourse, you can't get your money back. If you always paid by card and never accepted COD deliveries it wouldn't happen. Yes it has nothing to do with Lazada. It has all to do with being used to COD. Paying by card is safer and more convenient.

Well I applaud you for owning up and even telling people about it. And that your Thai partner seems to be on the ball as well. But why still insist on COD?

Now you know. But maybe next time your wife/gf/kids/pets are at home while you are not and just accept the package and pay. Or just use a card for payments and everything solved. I really don't know why people want to make their life more difficult.

And another COD scam victim. But I'm sure the AseanNow COD brigade will turn up in a second and swear it's the best thing since sliced bread.

I don't know the insulation rates for something like that but personally I'd worry about heat retention in the evening as the outer layer has more mass to save heat and also about the long term situation with the foam with mold and whatever growing there in this hot and moist climate. The bricks are not the biggest part of the costs of building in Phuket so why not use AAC would be my thinking. If you can avoid direct sunlight on your windows (e.g. bit elongated roof) that can make also a big difference.

AAC blocks are very common and I've seen many construction sites all over Thailand and also Phuket using them. If a builder is not experienced with these then just avoid the builder - super red flag. Let them show some prior projects they completed (the older the better) and maybe some on-going ones. Working with AAC blocks is not rocket science. Just a few easy things to consider. If you want good insulation then consider buying quite wide blocks or even better two narrow ones with cavity. Roof insulation and windows (double glas) are also very very important.

I believe there is a misunderstanding here. It does not matter where you physically are when the credit card is paid off. What matters are two things: 1. that you are a tax resident in Thailand (180 days in the country) and 2. that you transfer earned funds into Thailand. You see, your physical location at the time of transfer plays no role when trying to meet those two requirements. Also paying off a foreign credit card is not even transfering money into Thailand, it is transfering money to the foreign card issuer. Now, when you pay someone in Thailand or withdrawing cash with the card then you are actually transfering money into Thailand. Again, it doesn't matter if you are even in Thailand at that moment. All that matters is that you are transfering earned funds into the country. That being said, I doubt they'll be checking card transactions in the near future. If they are actually going to enforce it as announced then they will start with wire transfers first. Also they wont be taxing all incoming transfers. What will happen is that they will make people prove that the funds were either savings from before, or already taxed or count as assessable income that will be taxed.

What was the reason they gave for refusing the transfer?

If there is a lot of convincing scientific data and studies then I'm sure it'll be easy for you to provide links to that. Episodes of The Twilight Zone don't count.

A very similar thing happened to me a few months ago at a Tesco in Phuket. A middle aged women speaking english approached me saying something like she lost her wallet and doesn't have money. She even showed some sort of paper with a police report. Asked for money but didn't want any other help. Clearly a scam.

That's not how it works. When Amazon imports something they pay no VAT as VAT is charged when selling to an end user. The VAT of the country of the user is then charged. If you want to find the import duty for the motorbike accessories you could use a site like https://customsdutyfree.com/duty-calculator/

@Red Phoenix you are spreading misinformation once again. Modernas stock is at about 4x the price of what it was before the pandemic even after coming down from the high of the pandemic. You conveniently selected only the timeframe of the downward slope and are completely leaving out the upward part. Surely only by accident wink wink nudge nudge.

Santos admitted to fabricating most of his biography. That's why the joke works.

Hu? They followed the same rules that apply to every member of Congress. A motion to expel can be brought and has to be voted on, requiring two thirds to pass. That's what happened. They can't do "anything" and they are bound by the rules of Congress. There is no requirement for someone to be criminally convicted to be expelled. The charges against him will be tried independently in court. A supermajority thought he conduct was bad enough to vote him out. Nearly half of his own party agreed! You gotta be a real piece of work to make that happen.

Someone that likes to fight for sure :) He hasn't been acquitted of all charges. There are plenty more allegations by former staffers like bribery and organized crime. He's being prosecuted for state securities fraud currently. A state attorney should not be facing multiple court cases against himself. Even the State Bar of Texas is sueing Paxon for unethical behaviour and multiple attorneys are trying to remove him from practicing law. He seems like a textbook "bad cop".

Missing the point. I didn't claim he failed with all of them. Look at the number of cases he brought. He's like a sueing machine against the other poltical side. He brought more than 50 cases against the administration...

The guy is an extreme-right nutter and anti-vaxxer. He's brought and failed with literally dozens of court cases against the Biden administration. Now he has a court case against himself for securities fraud and there are plenty of allegations against him for other crimes. Even his own republicans supported an impeachement against him because of these and he got suspended from office for several months. Read the statements in the case he is bringing against Pfizer. No reputable AG would write something like that. It's just a matter of time before he's going down hard. (cross-posting from the other duplicate thread as it was closed)

The guy is an extreme-right nutter and anti-vaxxer. He's brought and failed with literally dozens of court cases against the Biden administration. Now he has a court case against himself for securities fraud and there are plenty of allegations against him for other crimes. Even his own republicans supported an impeachement against him because of these and he got suspended from office for several months. Read the statements in the case he is bringing against Pfizer. No reputable AG would write something like that. It's just a matter of time before he's going down hard. Truth you say? Maybe don't trust a serial lier.

Fair enough. I don't know why I forgot it was a hit and run, it's right there in the title of the topic :) Yea of course in that case you wont know if they'll pay or you'll sit on the costs.

On the other hand if the other sides insurance pays and he has 1st class then why wouldn't you use a private hospital? Chance that you get better care is higher and you are still not paying anything. Doctors working for private hospitals usually have to work certain hours at public ones but there are also some that only work at public hospitals and are not exactly good. The average quality at private ones is considerably higher. No guarantees of course but better chances. I've received treatment (or lack thereof) at a public hospital that if I hadn't switched to a private one I probably wouldn't be able to write this post. If it's something serious then I go to a private hospital, not going to gamble with my health.

The trajectory of the UK towards abolishing human rights at a record pace is a bit worrying. To "solve" the problem by just declaring Rwanda safe by law is a bit boneheaded. You can't redefine reality via law and expect everything to be fine.

... when it comess to data collection and monetization through ads.