Jump to content

Internatltraveler

Member
  • Posts

    23
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Posts posted by Internatltraveler

  1. Tanoshi above neglected to copy entire requirement for BBK Bank for opening an account. This is what happens on this site when we get partial information that is not totally accurate. We need to pay attention to detail when advising others...the rest of that page:

    3. Foreigner with permanent residence in Thailand

     

    • Passport or Certificate of Residence or Alien Certificate
    • House Registration document

    This means that if you go to your local immigration office and get a certificate of residence that costs around 500 baht you can use that also and do not need to have a letter from your embassy....Same requirement as when you get your driver's license...the Certificate of residence is a legal document used for proof of  residence here in Thailand in most instances...

  2. Well for me, who originates from the USA and have lived in numerous countries and dealt with this immigration and visa issue many times now, it seems to me that the USA Embassy could take a position that they can identify what documents could be made available to them to verify the income. Social Security. VA Benefits, Military pensions and other governmentally issued pensions can easily be verified online by our Embassy. The Social Security Division of our embassy in BKK has been moved to the Philippines and is not so easy to work with now. But in the past in Costa Rica as an example, when the document to support our monthly income was needed they could simply pull up our social security or government record because that is a direct verification of income by a governmentally employed agent...end of story.

     

    So when they tell us now that it is impossible for them to verify incomes from so many sources, I can understand that completely. But they could certainly issue a list of easily verified documents that they could verify from their computers, and that would still take care of probably the majority of USA citizens here who can honestly verify their records.

     

    As for anyone on this site who calls us names, or looks down on us for using a monthly benefit as our income, it is a sad statement of them, and does not reflect on my lifestyle who has chosen to provide adequate monthly income for the rest of my life to live anywhere in the world. I have no heirs and never will plan to accumulate money to have it sit in a bank account like the Thais expect with their 800,000 baht requirement. Does the Thai government really even realize the millions or possibly billions of bahts of dollars that support their economy that could be in jeopardy if all of us that depended on monthly incomes were eliminated from this economy. So many countries welcome pensioners because we spend a lot of money in their countries and rarely get in trouble or cause problems for their governments.

     

    Yes, somehow we need to join in in our community voices to talk to our embassies and to Immigration in a professional and meaningful way rather than ridiculing them and making them even more defensive about our presence in their country. I am all in favor of immigration control and do believe we can find a realistic way to address the hardship this is going to cause each of us, our families here and the impact of loss income to the economy that needs that money badly also..

     

    Maybe the readers of this site can be encouraged to send letters to our embassy or even our state department in the USA to seek a resolution to this problem. It is everyone's best interest to resolve this in favor of the pensioners here rather than making us out to be the bad guys simply because we cannot or will not put 800,000 baht in their bank. No where in the world have I heard of this before anyway for a simple retirement visa...monthly income yes, but funds in a local bank????

     

    We need to find a strong voice to talk for all of us and somewhere I believe we can find someone who has contacts with someone who can be heard here in this country.

     

    So I encourage people to write and write and write again to our embassy and our government and deluge them with our letters to have them seek a diplomatic resolution on this issue. Isn't that what our embassy is partially there for anyway?

     

    Then the Immigration Police here in Thailand needs to update their online documents and enforce their own codes rather than allowing each immigration office to interpret the rules however they seem fit. There needs to be clarification because right now the Immigration Police guidelines indicate 65,000 baht income can be verified by simply showing of bank statements that consistently show that amount of income and do not indicate it has to be put through a Thai bank even...Sure we all know bank statements can be manufactured but that is a crime and should be prosecuted a such if discovered.

     

    But our embassy is another issue. It is simply not true that it is impossible for them to verify governmental pensions in the USA and this is where we need to concentrate our efforts if you are from the USA...a simple matter of contacting the government agency that issues that pension and verifying online...simple as apple pie...so I am not sure where they are coming up with the comment that it is "impossible" but certainly the impossible is doable with the advent of computerized records now for many years and there is no acceptable excuse for doing otherwise in my mind.

    • Like 1
    • Confused 1
    • Thanks 1
  3. I left a message elsewhere on this site about this notification. Now I am asking someone who has contact with a decision maker at the USA Embassy to intervene in this issue based on this information. I have lived in Chile and Costa Rica before landing here in Thailand. Both countries have income requirements for long term visas in their countries. But the USA Embassy in both of those countries provide a letter certifying income where possible to American citizens. It is false and misleading for this embassy in BKK to say they cannot verify government records with the Social Security and Veteran's administration. All they have to do is go online and get that information directly and then certify that they have verified the funds, plain and simple, easy for them to do. For them to say otherwise is either an out and out lie or the rules have changed all over the world which I really doubt. This embassy simply does not have the creativity to simply establish a policy stating what documents are necessary to provide in order for them to verify funds. It is no big deal if our income depends on government pensions of any type and they could simply replace this new policy stating what can easily be verified by them rather than saying that income from any source cannot be verified. This is plain and simple not true in my personal experience.

     

    So these people need to be challenged with this false information and need to be challenged as to why they are not willing to take the simple steps to establish what sources that they can verify and what documents or steps would be necessary to verify our sources of income particularly if we receive our funds from a government source that is so easy to verify.

     

    This is a case of bureaucratic nonsense once again by our great government, rather than finding a way they can serve the citizens of the USA they simple close the door on us with this kind of nonsense. So if anyone here has a contact into the consulate general directly, then that seems to be the only way that we can challenge this decision which appears to be made more by the Thais working in our embassy than by the experienced officials who should be able to do a little research and find a better solution to this situation.

     

    I for one would never have 800,00) baht just sitting around to tie up in one of these unreliable banks that I read so much about being duped by, etc. And can you imagine having a direct deposit coming from the government in the USA to a Thai bank since we may be the first ones to get this offer? There are many places for our money to disappear being handled this way it seems to me. My monthly income is nearly double what is required to stay here and it just pisses me off to no end for our embassy to do this to us simply because they are too lazy to do the necessary research and get this resolved in our favor.

    • Like 2
    • Confused 1
  4. Well It is Official.

     

    I received an email from Citizen Services, USA Embassy this morning informing us that as of January 1, 2019, they will NO LONGER BE ISSUING CONFIRMATION LETTERS FOR INCOME used for verification of income in applying for VISAs in Thailand. I have written back to them with the following information: I have lived outside of the USA for over 20 years and all countries which I have lived have some sort of income requirement that must be verified in order to obtain a visa to stay there. The USA embassy in all of those countries has been able to verify my social security and veteran's incomes since they are directly connected through the internet to these agencies.

     

    Therefore, I do not understand why it is so difficult for the embassy in BKK to be able to do the same thing. The Social Security Services has been transferred out of Thailand and now is in the Philippines, but nonetheless, it is a government agency, and so is the V.A. that can be accessed electronically by any government agency seeking information about a citizen of the USA. So why they are refusing to take this simple step and simply require us to provide our social security number and release that information access, well I don;'t understand. But I do think that we Americans need to be writing the Embassy in mass numbers and complaining about them not doing the right thing with us. Many of us are here on a monthly income basis and do not want to make a direct deposit to a foreign bank with our monthly benefits since it tends to get screwed up and the times it takes to receive the funds is extended, plus quite honestly I do not trust the Thai Banking system enough to allow my only income to come into one of their unreliable banks here locally.

     

    But I thought all of you Yanks out there that are on monthly income retirement visas or extensions should get on the stick and if your renewal period is within the first six months of 2019, those letters are good for up to six months, so get to the embassy and get your letters while you can and let's see if we can push our embassy to do the right thing or take this to our representatives in the USA to put pressure on the consular services to take care of this issue as they can. Otherwise, I can just imagine the number of us that are going to not qualify otherwise.

     

    I have read the Immigration Police guidelines and it states that we can provide bank statements to verify monthly income. It does not however say that it has to be a Thai Bank account. But knowing immigration interprets these guidelines as they see fit sometimes, it is a risky proposition to think that local immigration offices will accept copies of our bank statements and even a bank letter certifying the account somehow will meet the requirement. I am set up to do everything through PayPal and credit cards so having to rearrange my entire life to fit the Thai standard, well that is something I may have to consider before my next renewal period comes up in 2020. Good luck to all of you on a monthly income because I think you are going to find that the time has past for Immigration to accept those letters after the first of the year. I've attached the Immigration Police guidelines for document requirements as of the latest document available as translated by Siam Services, for all of your information.

    Immigration Bureau order 327-2557 (2014) - extension criteria & conditions en.pdf

    • Like 1
  5. It depends on the jurisdiction on what the bar is for the tort claim. Here in Thailand it is not the same as many of the countries where we are all from. Yes, in the USA anyone can bring a tort claim in civil court, but that does not mean it will bring about a decision that brings money or anything else into the pocket of the claimant. In fact it could be thrown out of court for insufficient proof of damages. The great majority of tort claims in the USA result in much smaller to no settlements than you might guess. And then again we have residency requirements within the jurisdictional lines to consider. Certainly, Vern has no standing in the USA so I am not sure how his attorneys would bring a claim that would stand....and those of you who think it is a slam dunk are just being naive.

    Most of you can remember OJ Simpson and his final court trial for criminal charges that found him not guilty, while the civil charges awarded the complainants a nice reward.

     

    I know nothing about the legal firm that is taking Vern's case and how good they are or if they are just another ambulance chasing group....that makes a huge difference also. But getting past the jurisdiction issues are the first hurdle...two different countries of citizenship and a third country that neither are citizens (Thailand)...someone would have to get an opinion from a good tort attorney here in Thailand about these issues...interesting to find out what they might say. But then again here in Thailand is may go down as a criminal action it seems, so even more issues may exist.

  6. The key factor Speedhump is "damaging" and as you said not true. What is damaging about what Musk said about Vern...How was Vern damaged. How did it affect him in any way other than maybe hurt his tender feelings? It brought him into media attention which may have increased his popularity and maybe even income...so no damages there. We do not know if it is true or not. That is to be proven in a court of law if it ever gets there. But that last standard does not seem to exist here in Thailand. Since we have read about suits brought against someone who simply reports a restaurant has bad food or bad service on some of the media. Or worse yet, if anyone says anything derogatory about the royalty or government officials here regardless if true or not and regardless if there were actual damages.

     

    In countries that adhere to the rule of law, the game is played differently rather than the arcane and out of date laws of other countries we are familiar with, that live by "saving face" rather than telling the truth.

  7. A new law went into effect May 1st, which applies to all "operators of five or more units."

    It appears that most of the contract you have attached is correct except the points that you are responsible for all repairs. Under the current property laws in Thailand, the owner is responsible for all repairs of the property which is called immovable property and anything attached to that property, unless it is the tenants negligence or purposeful or intentional damage. All other damage and repairs of said damage are the responsibility of the operator...

     

    As for all those additional charges. It is really unusual to make the tenant believe they are responsible for security, common area fees and the like. Utilities of electric, water, gas, cable t.v. etc are normally payable by the tenant. The operator is not allowed to add any additional fees to the actual cost of shared expenses such as electric (if they are shared)...But that other stuff is where they can play with the numbers and maybe be able to increase their monthly income substantially with a lower monthly rent cost.

     

    It is worth talking to an attorney for sure about those additional costs.

     

    Here is an actual summary provided by a real estate attorney to me personally. I was a corporate attorney in the USA so I wanted something in writing from an expert mind here in Thailand to understand the rightful laws here.

     

    Section 35 bis of the Consumer Protection Act B.E. 2522 (1979) grants the Contract Committee of the Consumer Protection Board the power to designate “contract-controlled businesses,” in order to control the contents of written contracts between certain businesses and their consumers in the course of sales or services. Designation as a contract-controlled business is intended to ensure that contracts contain necessary terms and conditions and to prevent consumers from being unreasonably disadvantaged by unfair contract terms.
    On February 12, 2017, the Contract Committee used that power to issue “Notification of the
    Contract Committee Re: The Stipulation of Residential Property Leasing as a ContractControlled Business B.E. 2561 (2018)” (the “Notification”), which was published in the Government Gazette on February 16, 2018. As a result, residential property leasing will be deemed a contract-controlled business as of May 1, 2018.
    The Notification defines a “residential property leasing business” as a business that leases (or subleases) five units of property or more to individual lessees, for residential purposes, in exchange for a fee collected by the business operator, regardless of whether or not the units are in the same building. Property is defined to include any accommodation, house, condominium unit, apartment, or other kind of residential property leased for residential purposes, excluding dormitories and hotels which are regulated under a separate regime.
    The Notification imposes the following requirements:
    1. Residential lease agreements must include a version in Thai and must contain the following details:
    a) Name and address of the business operator and its authorized person;
    b) Name and address of the lessee;
    c) Name and location of the property;
    d) Details of the property’s physical condition, including any items and equipment in the property;
    e) Term of the lease specifying its commencement date and expiration date;
    f) Rental fee rates and due dates for payment;
    g) Public utility fee rates and due dates for payment;
    h) Service fee rates, which must be reasonable and at the actual cost paid for the services, and due dates for payment;
    i) Other fees and expenses (if any), which must be reasonable and at the actual cost paid, and due dates for payment; and
    j) Amount of security deposit.
    2. Invoices for the fees in items (f)-(i) above must be sent to the lessee at least seven days before their due dates, and the lessee will have the right to check information related to the payments shown in the invoices.
    3. Details of the physical condition of the property and equipment (if any), inspected and acknowledged by the lessee, must be attached to the lease agreement, and a duplicate must be delivered to the lessee.
    4. The security deposit must be immediately returned to the lessee at the end of the agreement, unless the business operator has to investigate any damage to ascertain whether or not it is the responsibility of the lessee. If the lessee is found not to have caused such damage, the security deposit must be returned within seven days from the end of the agreement and the business operator retaking possession of the property. The business operator is also responsible for any expenses incurred in returning the security deposit to the lessee.
    5. The lessee has the right to terminate the lease agreement early provided that at least 30 days’ advance written notice is given to the business operator.
    6. Any material breach for which the business operator can terminate the agreement must be clearly written in red, bold, or italic font. The business operator can only terminate the agreement if written notice has been given to the lessee to rectify the breach within 30 days of receipt and the lessee fails to do so.
    7. The agreement must be made in duplicate, one of which must be given to the lessee immediately upon execution.
    Under section 35 ter of the Consumer Protection Act, any residential lease agreement which does not contain the required terms above shall be interpreted to include them as implied terms.
    Residential lease agreements must not contain:
    1. Any waiver or limitation of the business operator’s liability from its breach of agreement or wrongful acts;
    2. Any advance rental fee equivalent to more than one-month’s rent;
    3. Any term allowing the business operator to change the rental fees, public utilities fees, service fees, or any other expenses before the end of the agreement;
    4. Any security deposit of more than one-month’s rental fee. If the lease agreement was written prior to May 1, 2018 which included a security deposit greater than one month’s rent fee, then all excess funds are to be returned to lessee no later than the seventh day of May, 2018;
    5. Any term allowing the business operator to confiscate the security deposit or advance rental fee;
    6. Any term allowing the business operator or its representatives to inspect the property without prior notice;
    7. Any stipulation of electricity and water supply fees exceeding the rates specified by the relevant authorities;
    8. Any term allowing the business operator to prevent or obstruct the lessee’s access to the property to seize or remove the lessee’s belongings if the lessee defaults on rental fees or other expenses related to the lease of the property;
    9. Any term allowing the business operator to request any fee or expense for renewing the lease;
    10. Any term allowing the business operator to terminate the agreement early other than for a material breach of the lease agreement by the lessee;
    11. Any term making the lessee liable for damages incurred due to ordinary wear and tear from usage of the property’s contents and equipment;
    12. Any term making the lessee liable for damage to the property, contents, and equipment that was not the lessee’s fault and in force majeure situations; and
    13. Any term making the lessee liable for defects to the property, contents, and equipment incurred due to ordinary wear and tear through usage.
    Under section 35 quarter of the Consumer Protection Act, a residential lease agreement that includes any of the prohibited terms above shall be interpreted as not including them.
    Any business operator who fails to meet the above requirements may be subject to imprisonment not exceeding one year and/or a fine not exceeding THB 100,000 (section 57 of the Consumer Protection Act).

     

    Good luck. I hope this helps all readers of this forum regarding the current rental laws as of May 1 this year.

    • Thanks 1
  8. Almost all of us men here have come from divorced wives, broken homes and the like, and we come here expecting a submissive, and subservient gf or wife is just what the doctor ordered and then we turn around and treat them like s _ _ t as our servants and slaves. No wonder most of us are not wanted in our own countries and not really loved for much more than our money pits in other cultures...no wonder. The story is right here in front of us....

     

    Could you please stop your very strange assumptions? I was never divorced, I'm not from a broken home and I'm not unwanted in my country of origin.

     

       Time to get a life. 

     

    Jennyh2017

     

    Interesting that you ignore your own question and only focus on comments that had nothing to do with you personally. Your comments indicate your are totally blind to the idea that your question reflects an abusive nature in you. You have no right to control your wife regardless of what your background is. She is not your property, nor you hers and until you get that at a conscious level you will continue with your abusive thinking that you own her and her time.. This is the problem that was the center of my entire comment and you chose to overlook it and make a stupid comment about my life....I won't attack you because of the irrelevance of your response. Nice try of deflection though, I will give you that.

     

    Get a grip on reality that you have no legal, moral, or ethical right to own your wife's life or her time. This is the very nature of being psychologically abusive toward your partner. By the way I have a great life with my dream partner who I respect her independence and autonomy, both of us being very successful world renown medical and neuroscience researchers. She warned me about engaging in these kind of dog fights but the repugnance of your comments is at the center core of the women's movements that are tired of being treated like second class citizens by men like those that speak out here about owning their women's time and bodies....it is you that needs to get a decent, respectable and respectful life. Your partner is not a dog you own and your attitudes simply reflect your own nature  here.

    • Like 1
  9. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. It is like a watching a circus of an expat parade sometimes here. If the police do something that follows the laws here then it is "not enough" or criticized for doing what they are paid to do. And on the opposite side, if they don't do something some of us think they should be doing then we criticize and are judgmental about their lack of action. Never ceases to amaze me.

     

    On this specific article. Having lived internationally in nine countries as a permanent resident and in some cases working as an ESL instructor (but with a teacher's certification from the USA, and holding a high level of advanced education whereby I am also qualified to teach at the university level), my personal opinion is that back packers are simply taking advantage of the system of being recruited based on native English skills and little else. There are few professionally qualified teachers who would accept such low compensation for the work they have to do and put up with the nonsense of visas and the like they are required to obtain, so the black market thrives on the supply and demand. Both parties to these actions are fully aware that they are doing something illegal in most all cases and both parties can always blame the other side for misleading,

     

    There is no wonder that English is not being learned in non English speaking countries. Between the teachers that teach English in their native tongues, and the unqualified teachers then matched by the get rich quick mentality of many "so called schools" what would we expect. I for one am happy to see this crackdown on the whole corrupt system. Is there more to do, absolutely, but how does one eat an elephant if not one bite at a time. We need more good guys like Big Joke doing their job, and maybe there will be more, maybe not, but to sit on your bar stools and criticize someone for doing what they are paid to do with the very little they are getting paid to do it, well maybe it is you that has the more serious problem.

     

    Corruption has existed for over 5,000 years in this culture, and look at your own cultures that are a mere 100's years old that are full of corruption also. Maybe your countries will get as good as Thailand if they were around for 5000 years which is highly unlikely. It's a way of life here, like it or not. It is the oil that makes this machine work. We either adapt to it or we get our tail feathers all ruffled up and sit and judge this culture while our own cultures leave a lot to be desired or maybe a lot of us would not be here in Thailand in reality. Anyway, just one man's thoughts who reads this forum only from time to time and is always amazed at the no win thinking of this forum and its readers. I would be curious if it is even slightly possible if for one or two editions we all could look at only the positives and not the negatives living in our host country....nah forget it, that would be too much to dream for!

  10. Midas,

    I did not write my "unique perspective" to defend all that happens, anywhere. I am not in the position to know all the facts of any criminal actions anywhere here, so do you expect someone who only reads a media article about anything being able to render a legal opinion on any action? This is what I am talking about....we read an article with the spin the media puts onto it and then we formulate an uneducated opinion that is mostly critical about something that may or may not have been reported accurately or not in its entirety with the intention of getting more readers or provoking some action based on the agenda of the writer.

     

    Until you factually and objectively know the facts about any case you are referring to it is best to keep our mouth closed and do sufficient research acting on behalf of an independent investigator to formulate our belief. That is what any justice system is supposed to be based on isn't it? We do not often agree in total to any criminal action in any country that is a high profile case. Often it is not the crime that is being prosecuted anyway, it is the system that is being tested. Even in systems that offer innocence till proven guilty, this is not the whole case. Prisons are loaded with cases that were found guilty who have proven later to be totally innocent but many criminals slide out of the case simply by challenging the system of its rigid compliance guidelines in presenting a case.

     

    Things are rarely as simply as we would like them to be and to offer comments that have minimal basis in reality only show us our own ignorance and misunderstanding of the law or guidelines of proof in whatever country we live in. Not all countries adhere to the idea of innocent to proven guilty of the English standard. Look at international laws that require the proof of innocence rather than the proof of guilt and you will not agree with the way they approach the law, but their laws do not comply to the same standards.

     

    As you know the junta here has its own set of standards that it has to adhere to the best it can even with corruption issues and time tested issues that it deals with. We as foreigners may agree or disagree but these rules are what they are. If we do not want to comply then the gates are open for our departure. We are only guests in Thailand and are obligated to adhere to the laws regardless of who impose those laws, be it a military junta, a democratic government or a socialistic or communist one. We have choices and one of those choices is to understand a country that expressing our opinions may be forbidden then we best understand the seriousness of the violations we knowingly are creating. If we were citizens then maybe we would have a better position to challenge the system but otherwise we are just seen as trouble makers that can be expelled out of the system.

     

    I do not agree with a lot of things in some countries I have lived in but I still comply with the laws, plain and simple. I choose to live a happy and joyful life as much as I can instead of destroying my happiness by fighting battles that cannot be won by me. I have learned to accept things that I cannot change and to make an effort to change the things that I can when I have the power and ability to do so. That is simply a wisdom that comes from the lack of good judgement in my years of living. You live as you wish and understand that the consequences of your actions and beliefs are your responsibility to live with, no one else's. You are always free to make choices in life. I choose to live in harmony as much as I can and to adapt to where I live and I intend to live as long as I can by adapting to my environment and controlling my perceptions because that is all I really have ultimate control of anyway..there is always a choice on what road we take.

     

    Thanks for sharing your comments.

    • Sad 1
  11. Be aware. Social Security has put out letters telling us that they are sending out Letter of Confirmation to confirm you are still alive every two years now. My check is always deposited on the 3rd of each month but a few months ago it did not arrive so I checked with the embassy in BKK and was told that my last four digits of my ssi # determined if I would have to fill in a special form to verify I am still alive on odd years or even years. Then once I got that figured out, they sent me the form which I had to send to the SSI Service Center in Thailand which is not located in the Phillipines explaining that I had not received my deposit and had attached the necessary confirmation form.

     

    My check was then deposited within 5 business days. But you must be aware that this is now a ruling and keep track of when you sent it in and if your year is odd or even so you can be ahead of the game next time it is due. This is not new actually. It happened to me two years ago in Chile as well. So it is up to you to say up with these rulings and to make sure you comply with this new requirement.

×
×
  • Create New...