007 RED

1 hour ago, Yadon Toploy said:

The 330e is not a model listed for sale in Thailand as far as I can see. Where did you get your information?

Simple Google search "Thailand BMW 330e list price" will reveal several examples.  I have attached below the price list from BMW.co.tha which is dated Feb. 2019 and I've highlighted the cheapest 330e model.

FYI.... I first spotted three of these parked outside of my local Immigration office a year ago (22/01/19 to be precise) so they must have been ordered quite some time before then.  I have also noted from the Google search that one 2nd hand site has 66 of this model available, so they have been in Thailand for some time.

price-list-2019-02-01.pdf

4 hours ago, ianezy0 said:

BMW’s are made locally in Rayong

If your statement is correct, then perhaps the car shown in the initial post was made just before, or more likely just after a long holiday when the level of alcohol in the system was still high.

Note the position of the steering wheel on the left.  Of course it could have been MIC and someone forgot to specify the steering wheel on the right.

I hope that they have disarmed the front passenger airbag.  If not the passenger will get more than a 'face plant' from the laptop if the vehicle is involved in a front end collision.

3 hours ago, VYCM said:

The SMART immigration vehicles are series 5

Sorry to correct you, but the so called SMART cars used by Immigration are not Series 5 BMWs..... Just been to my local Immigration office (Nakhon Pathom) for 90 day reporting and there parked outside the office was one of the three cars which are normally based there.  As you will see they are Series 330e models.

FYI... Current list price of the 330e is 2,300,000 THB including taxes.

4 hours ago, SupermarineS6B said:

Do you honestly think they would report an outbreak ?    Me thinks not......

I agree 100% with your observation.  There's no way that they (Thai authorities) will ever admit an outbreak of the coronavirus, that would be a total 'loss of face'.  What I do expect to see in the next week or so is a big announcement by one of the universities that the have just discovered a wonder vaccine to cure the coronavirus, just like they did for MERS and Ebola.

Quote:

"Of the people found to be in close contact with the infected persons -- 16 persons with the first patient and 20 with the second -- none were found with the new strains of the coronavirus. 

There are no concerns yet of an outbreak in Thailand".

Exactly how did the authorities establish that none of the 36 people who had been in 'close contact' with the 2 infected people did not have the new strain of the coronavirus ?

If the above mentioned 36 people were in close proximity during the 2 or 3 hour flight from China to the persons who have been confirmed as having the virus, then they are not gong to show any signs or symptoms of the virus after such a short period of time.  According to the World Health Organisation (WHO), the incubation period (time from initial contact to showing signs/symptoms) for the coronavirus is anywhere between 4 and 14 days.

So the authorities have let 36 potential carriers of the virus into the Kingdom and have clearly stated that "there are no concerns yet of an outbreak in Thailand".  Wait for another 1 or 2 weeks and then see if any more cases are reported.

1 hour ago, richard_smith237 said:

*Regarding the Driving license - I’ve read (on this forum) that some DLT’s do not accept the Yellow House Book as proof of address... this would be rather frustrating after jumping through hoops.

 

Has anyone renewed their Driving Licence at the DLT in Bangkok (Area 3, next to 99 Sukhumvit rd) using their Yellow house book as proof of address ????

I renewed my 5 year licence in September last year at the DLT HQ near Mo Chit.  I went there a few day before to enquire what documents they required.  The reception staff on the 2nd floor of building No. 4 where the licences are issued were very helpful, albeit with limited English.

As well as copies of my passport photo page and visa stamp, they stated that I needed to provide either a letter from Immigration or my embassy confirming my address.  I informed them that I had a yellow book and pink card and enquired if these were acceptable as proof of my address.  They advised that if my current driving licence showed my name in English and my passport number on it then the yellow book/pink card would not be accepted for renewing my licence.  They said that this is because my name in the yellow book was in Thai and they (DLT) are not authorised/qualified to authenticate the translation between the English on the original licence and the Thai in the yellow book.

They did say that if I was applying for a licence for the first time, then the yellow book would be accepted and my name and address would appear on the licence in Thai. 

18 hours ago, Maestro said:

 

I believe the MFA does not verify the translation but it authenticates the signature of the translator.

FYI.... The MFA, Consular Division, Legalisation Department do in fact verify the translation be it from English to Thai or visa a versa.  The whole purpose of having a document legalised is to certify that the translations is accurate.

I recall many years ago when Miss MoneyBaht and I were getting married in Bangkok, I needed to get various documents translated from English to Thai and then have them legalised by MFA.  MFA rejected one of the documents because the translation from the original English to Thai was incorrect.  Fortunately it was not a 'show stopper' as we used the translation shop located on the 2nd floor and they corrected the error within a few minutes.  MFA then stamped their red 'seal' on each document (including the original English) and we were ready to go. 

I think that you are confusing the situation when some people (myself included) who were supplied with embassy letters confirming their income in order to support their extension of permission to stay were instructed by some immigration offices to have the letter certified by MFA.  In these cases MFA obviously could not verify the details contained within the embassy letter, but what they did do was to verify that the signature of the embassy officer on the letter was authentic and they put a sticker on the back of the embassy letter confirming that the signature was authentic.

12 hours ago, saengd said:

I still want somebody to account for how the AOT air traffic report on plane arrivals and plane loadings shown above manages to confirm the 40 million. I expect the answer will be that AOT is not to be trusted, along with BOT, TAT, government and anyone else in Thailand!  

Simple... Have you never noticed that one of the people standing on the air bridge as you get off the plane has a handheld counter and is clicking away as each person leaves the plane.  This is TAT 0.001.

3 hours ago, Traubert said:

What about those who arrive overland or by sea?

A very valid point which makes TATs figures look even worse.

If they (TAT) say that 39 million people will have visited the kingdom by the end of this year, and their figures includes all arrivals by air, land and sea, then this is definitely a drop on the number of arrivals over last year. 

As I indicated in my post #101, Airport Of Thailand figures for 2018 indicated a total of 40.25 million international air arrivals.  If you then add the land and sea international arrivals (whatever they may be for 2018) to the international air arrivals, then the actual fall in the number of international arrivals year-on-year will be considerably more than I indicated in my original post e.g. greater than 1 million.

As I said, another set of ridiculous statistics produced by the Ministry of Silly Numbers (AKA TAT). 

I’m not sure why Tourism Authority Thailand (TAT) are making so much 'song and dance' about 39 million tourists arriving by the end of the year.  Quote ”the highest numbers in many years”.  This is complete, and utter, BS yet again by the Ministry of Silly Numbers.

In stating 39 million, they are actually admitting that the numbers are down by 1 million against last year (2018).  According to the Airports of Thailand Annual Air traffic Report for 2018 https://www.airportthai.co.th/wp-content/uploads/2019/05/Annual-Airport-2018.pdf

The breakdown numbers of international arrivals for 2018 are as follows:

Suvarnabhumi   25,483,275

Don Mueang       7,923,731

Chiang Mai         1,352,824

Hat Yai                 179,323

Phuket               5,194,929

Chiang Rai             120,535

Total                40,254,617

NOTE:

1.....The above figures only relate to international arrivals at the six airports managed by AOT and do not include international passengers who transited through any one of the six airports managed by AOT.  International transit numbers are given separately.

2.....International arrival figures for Kho Samui and Hua Hin are available from separate providers and the total number of international arrivals at these airports combined was less than 60,000 during 2018.

3.....There is no way that AOT, or TAT, will know if the person arriving is arriving for the purpose of tourism or for any one of several other reasons e.g. Ex-Pat returning from vacation/visa run, offshore worker or even a Thai national returning home from working overseas.  They are all classed as international arrivals.

I’m sure that the powers that be didn’t take the PM all the way along the road to inspect it. If they did, it would explain the grin on his face.

This road is going nowhere because of the apparent total lack of planning!

For the past 4 years or so my wife and I travel along the 3004 from Salaya to Wat Lam Phya floating market most Saturdays to do some shopping and must pass the construction site.  Every time we pass the site, we always chuckle and there is a big smile on our faces.

They started this project way back in 2012.  You would think that they (DLT) would have purchased the land before starting work, and then constructed the road as one continuous project.  OK, I know that’s western logic.

Just take a look at the Google map below.  I have highlighted in yellow stretches that have been completed so far.  These sections are fully tarmacked but not joined up so unless you have a 4x4 with good off-road capabilities you’re going nowhere.

Better still is where I have placed the yellow arrow on the above map.  Approximately 2 years ago they started constructing a flyover that will cross the 3004.  They’ve completed half of it and stopped just short of where it should cross the 3004 – see close up Google map below.

Just one very minor problem.  On the opposite side of the 3004 there is a large factory, and it’s been there (according to the Google map since at least 2012). 

I suspect that the factory owner is holding the DLT to a hefty ransom.

54 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Complete nonsense and I doubt anyone seriously thinks there are many retirees putting together convincing looking forgeries of pension statements and tax returns. 

You may be right in so far that there weren’t many, but unfortunately it only takes a few to spoil it for the majority.

It should also be borne in mind that British citizens applying to the Embassy for an income letter did not have to supply original documents to support their claimed income. The applicant could submit their application via email and attach a photo or PDF of their supporting documents.  Unfortunately, both photos and PDF’s can be easily altered.

Also, you may recall that it was reported here in TVF a couple of years ago that a few Immigration Offices in and around Bangkok were insisting that applicants presenting a British Embassy income letter to support their application for permission to stay  have the letter (or at least the signature) authenticated by the Thai Ministry of Foreign Affairs – Consular Division. 

The reason given to me by my local IO, when I present my letter, was that they (Immigration) had detected a number of letters which did not appear to be genuine.

FYI… The letter was produced by a standard LaserJet printer, on bog standard paper (no water marks or security ink).  The letter (in the last few years) did have an embossed red paper sticker attached to the letter.  The paper sticker was cheap and the embossing very poor, thus enabling someone with a minimal computer and handicraft skills to easy to replicate the letter.

During the interview, the Ambassador said that he estimated that some 73,000 British citizens are currently resident here in Thailand.

How on earth did he, or his Consular colleges, arrive at this figure?

Firstly:

In my passport, under section 4 of the NOTES on page 2, it states: 

“British nationals resident overseas who are entitled to the protection of the United Kingdom authorities should contact the nearest British High Commission, Embassy or Consulate to enquire about any arrangements for registration of their names and addresses.  Failure to do so may in an emergency result in difficulty or delay in according them assistance or protection”.

When I retired to Thailand, some 10 years ago, I contacted the British Embassy in order to register as advised in my passport.  I was informed at the time that the Embassy no longer maintains a register of British national living in Thailand.

Without such a register, how do they know, or even estimate, how many Brits live here?

My only guess is that Thai Immigration provide them with numbers of British citizens who currently hold long term permission to stay.  If my assumption is correct, then like figures produced by Tourist Authority of Thailand they are more than likely highly over inflated.

Secondly

Following the BE announcement that they were no longer able to provide income letters late last year, I made a series of Freedom of Information requests via the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London.  One questions being… How many letters did they (the BE) provide in each of the previous 5 years?  The reply for the last year (2018) was just under 3,000 letters.

So, if the Ambassador’s estimate that some 73,000 British citizens are currently living in Thailand is to be believed, then only 4% of those living here used the income letter to support their extension of stay, the other 96% used alternative methods to support their application.

34 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

P.S. The company was "Insure and Go".

 

But pretty much all travel insurance (and even general health insurance) policies have general exclusions for injuries suffered due to negligence or intoxication. The following is from Insure and Go's list of General Exclusoons (which are not in small print):

 

"8. Any claim arising directly from you, your partner, relative or your travelling companion consuming alcohol"

 

18. Any claim arising from you being involved in any deliberate, malicious, reckless, illegal or criminal act."

 

As soon as any insurance company sees something like diving on the premises of a bar in the middle of the night, red flags would go up and they'd look more closely.

 

While these quotes are specific to Insure and Go you will find similiar in the General Conditions of any policy. None will insure you for injuries that occur as a direct result of being drunk or high nor for injuries that result from recklessness usually defined as something an ordinary prudent person would not do.  Now obviously there is some subjectivity with both of these things. The alcohol consumption must be a direct cause of the injury, simply having consumed alcohol by itself is not a disqualifier. And there is also room for debate around what constitutes deliberate recklessness. 

 

One would assume the family has appealed but either lost or the appeal is still in progress.

 

 

Sheryle....  I'm not sure which of the Insure and Go policies you are quoting from, but the specific backpacker (Bronze) policy is even more specific:

https://www.insureandgo.com/media/1336/iag_mf_pw_adv_0918.pdf

Quote from page 11, under the heading Reckless or Malicious Acts... Also repeated further in the policy under medical exclusions.

"We do not expect you to avoid alcohol consumption on your trips or holidays but we will not cover any claims arising because you have drunk so much alcohol that your judgement is seriously affected and you need to make a claim as a result e.g. any medical claim where in the opinion of the treating doctor, your excessive alcohol consumption has caused or actively contributed to your injury or illness, including but not exclusively having a blood alcohol reading of more than 150mg per 100ml".

I totally agree with your observation that their policy is not in small print.  That said, it is 34 pages long of double column script and I doubt very much that most young backpackers will take the time to read through it and fully understand their obligations as part of the contract.

It is possible that when the insurer discovered the circumstances of the incident (late night party with alcohol involved), and they subsequently requested her medical notes from the hospital, if her notes indicated that she a high blood alcohol reading at the time of initial admission, this would almost certainly have given them (the insurance company) the 'golden bullet' to deny her claim. 

The insurance company in question was named as Insure and Go (according to a BBC report dated 27 December 2018).  This is a  apparently a low cost travel insurance company who aims their business at specifically low cost travellers e.g. backpackers.

According to the BBC report, Insure and Go said in a statement: "We do understand that people go on holiday to have fun and enjoy themselves, but we are not able to cover circumstances where a customer has acted in a way that puts themselves at risk".

"This is clearly stated in the policy terms and conditions."

If the insurance companies statement above is to be believed, perhaps they should have made it clear in their policy (in big bold letters), that travelling to Thailand is likely to be putting yourself at risk and, therefore, we (the insurance company) won't pay out for anything that happens to you whilst your there.

If I recall correctly, at the time this hit the news last year, the company (Insure and Go) was being investigated by the UK Financial Ombudsman following complaints that it (the company) had refused a very high number of allegedly valid claims.

4 hours ago, overherebc said:

Your in/out records on the computer are only that. There is no way to add comments or whatever at the airport.

The only place that can 'change' anything in your computer file is at CW, eg stamped in for 30 instead of 90 at the airport. CW can do it, airport can't.

Sorry to have to correct you, but you are wrong on of the above both points.

Firstly, there is a facility within the Immigrations System for any IO to enter notes and this facility is used for a wide variety of purposes.  The notes field is free format, so the IO can basically enter whatever they want, subject to the restriction on the size of the field.  The only data that is prescribed within the notes field is the date the entry was made and the ID of the Officer who made the entry.

When an IO initially calls-up a person’s immigration data they are initially presented with the person’s basic biographical information e.g. passport number, country of origin, gender, date of birth, name(s) etc.  If the IO wants further information about the person e.g. history, he/she has to ‘drill down’ from a menu to display that information so the notes do not automatically appear unless requested by the IO.

Secondly, CW are not the only office in Thailand that can change details on the Immigration Database.

For example, if you were to change your passport and present both the old and new passports to your local Immigration Office they will be able to amend the database accordingly, no need to send any information to CW.  The same goes for a lot of other common issues including incorrect length of stay dates.

I’m somewhat surprised that your local Office was unable to amend your stay from 30 to 90 days.  I suspect that the real reason was that the IO who you spoke to was not authorised to make such changes whereas his senior most likely was but was not available at the time, hence the face-saving excuse of having to send it to CW.

FYI.... when an IO makes a change to specific data like in your case from 30 to 90 days the original record is not deleted, a new one is created which then supersede the previous entry and the IO may well put a note in the notes field giving the reason for the change.

FYI....  There are certain entries in the Immigration Database that CW, or any other office for that matter regardless of the seniority of the IO, are unable to change.  For example, if someone has been banned from entering the Kingdom and it is subsequently discovered that the ban expiry date is incorrect, the only office that can make such a change is Immigration HQ (Suan Plau).  In these cases the change is physically made by a senior system administrator who can only make the change on the written authority of a very senior Immigration Officer (Major General or above).

FYI.....  When any Immigration Officer logs into the Immigration system using their ID + PW, the system only allows that officer to perform certain tasks on the system which have been pre-assigned to their specific role/function/duties.  So, for example a front line officers at ports of entry may only be able to undertake tasks ‘A’, ‘B’ and ‘C’ on the system.  That officer’s senior will also be able to carry out those tasks but also tasks ‘D’ and ‘E’.  An officer in a local office will only be able to undertake tasks ‘A’, F’ and ‘G’ but not tasks 'B', 'C' or 'E'.

FYI…. Because the Immigration Database is considered to be part of ‘National Security’ it has a built-in audit trail facility which automatically records in the background the date/time/ID of the IO who has made any changes to the data.  It does not record who just viewed the data.

    @localexp    I'm not sure that it is necessary to start another post with exactly the same question that you asked yesterday and subsequently received some valid information.