007 RED

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

So, if you have a return ticket they will use that? If you don't have a return tickets perhaps you have a better chance of going to KL or somewhere else?

In theory yes, but where the passenger who has been denied entry is flown too will depend upon:-

a)  The immigration officer who had denied entry.  The officer (under Section 55 of the Immigration Act) has the discretion to send the passenger back to the country where they embarked on the inbound flight or to allow the passenger to fly to another destination of their choosing.  In both cases it will also depend upon the passenger being allowed to enter that country.

b)  The airline is obliged to comply with the Immigration Officer’s instructions which will be given to them in a formal ‘Removal Notice’.  The airline can make representation to Immigration on behalf of the passenger but there is no guarantee that any such request will be granted.

On ‎3‎/‎22‎/‎2019 at 4:27 PM, bouph12 said:

A married couple can have a simple will registered and kept at the local Amphur for minimal cost without involving a lawyer. You could ask there if they'll do the same for you and your partner. 

 

I have seen this comment made on a number of other posts regarding making a will in Thailand.   It seems a sensible arrangement that could prevent the executor (in my case, Mrs MoneyBaht) being accused of modifying the will etc.

Unfortunately, when I enquired about having a copy of my will deposited at my District office (Sampran), the senior administrator (who was a very friendly) advised me that this service is only available for Thais. 

I'm not sure if there is any specific law which precludes a foreigner using this service, or if it is just a local get out phrase.

7 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Right, the only way they could get access to your accout (without your permission) is with a court order.

Remember.... This is Thailand.....  Normal logic and conventions do not always apply ????

4 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Unless you've committed some crime that the government decides to investigate, everyone knows nothing will ever happen.

 

 

For example, if you were trafficking drugs and they couldn’t get you for anything else, they could prosecute you for perjury and at the very least deport you.

 

I think that you may have misinterpreted my post.... The Perjury Act 1911 is a piece of UK legislation not Thai legislation.  If a British National submits false information to the BE in Bangkok and they discovered it that individual could potentially be prosecuted for Perjury in a British Court. 

That said, such an event is highly unlikely unless it was an extremely serious matter that warranted getting the individual extradited back to the Uk and a greater that 80% chance of a conviction.

No doubt there is a similar piece of legislation in Thai Law.

1 hour ago, Yellowtail said:

I understand how unbelivable this must seem, but most anyone can download a bank statment as  PDF, open it in Acrobat and edit most any of the entries, print it, submit it and anyone looking at the document would not know the difference.

 

 

Absolutely correct and can be done within a few minutes if you have access to the right software.

1 hour ago, PST said:

So what then happens when they use this income letter with 'false' info as proof on it to apply for an extension at immigration, and the IO wants to see the back up proof(edited statement) and then the bank card that corresponds to the details on the statement?, oh, and the atm receipts too for the transactions in Thailand.

The Embassy returns the documentation you submitted with their letter so you still have the false copy.  The only part of the bank statement that would need to be altered would be the deposit, withdrawal and balance amounts.  The account holders name, address and account details will remain unchanged and he/she should be able to produce the ATM card if ever asked to do so (which is unlikely).

It would be almost impossible for an IO to tell that a the statement had been changed unless they have access to your online account which is possible but highly unlikely. 

1 hour ago, wayned said:

.......  The US Embassy would never look at any documentation, you had to put the amount that you received on the form and come in in person and raise your hand under threat of purgery that the information was true.

FYI.... The UK has the Perjury Act 1911 (as amended).  Although it's dated 1911, it has been revised may times over the years and was last updated in 2018.  To commit perjury you don't necessarily have give false information under oath, submitting false information to a Government Official with the intent of gaining advantage is also covered by the Act.  A breach of this Act can result in a fine and/or imprisonment.

25 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Which confirms that the FO made the decision not the embassy. During an interview on Pattaya radio, a consular official stated that the decision was made as a result of a FO audit of the embassy.

 

This is also a FACT.

Spidey, you are correct in saying that it was the Foreign Office that was responsible for the BE decision to withdraw the income letter, but unfortunately once again your are wrong when you insist that it was the auditors.

In your post #2648 you specifically stated that the BE decision was as a result of a Foreign Office audit Announced by a BE consul on Pattaya Radio. Posted on TV.   I recorded that interview and have listened to her comments many times and nowhere during that interview did she mention that the Foreign Office auditors were involved in the BE's decision to withdraw the income letter.

The information which I gave in my post #2650 is based on factual information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and very clearly shows that it was the Legal Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who recommended that the BE cease issuing the income letter.

28 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

.....

Incomes have never been verified simply because the law doesn't allow third parties access to your personal information. The documentary evidence is taken at face value and the Embassies give a certified letter to that effect.

Not strictly correct.  It is possible for an organisation, such as a government body, to access a person’s personal information if:

They (the organisation) has the legal basis/power to do so (there is a law which gives the organisation the legal ability to access that information), or

The person concerned has been given comprehensive details as to why the information is needed, how it will be used, who else it may be shared with, how long it will be retained and that the individual concerned has given their explicit consent for the organisation to access that information for the purpose(s) stated.

In the case of the BE being able to validate the applicant’s income, they do not have the legal powers to access such information and the bank/pension provider etc would quite rightly refuse to disclose any information. 

The only way that the BE could verify the income of the applicant is if the applicant gave their explicit consent for their bank/pension provider etc to make such a disclosure.

The use of explicit consent may be feasible if there is only one bank/pension provider etc involved but would be an administrative nightmare if there were several sources of income each of which needed to be verified.

5 hours ago, Spidey said:

British expats didn't falsify income claims. They provided documentary evidence to the embassy regarding their income and no, it wasn't easy to forge those documents. The British Embassy letter clearly stated to TI what documents they had seen and based their income verification on. No lies, no deception involved. You have had this explained, in detail, to you before.

 

Change the record.

Spidey… Sorry but you don’t seem to be living in the real world.  Of course, it is possible to forge almost anything these days.  As I said to you once before, you should have taken a walk down the Khaosan Road before they sanitised it.

As you are aware the BE allowed applicants to email their application form to them for a letter confirming income together with copies of their supporting documents.  If the supporting documents were in JPEG or PDF formats, how would the BE be able to tell if they had been altered or not.  Just take a look at my P60 below and tell us if this is real or fake.

Also, The BE in their letter to Immigration never stated that they had verified that the figures provided by the applicant were true.  The words that the BE used were :–

“MR BOND has also stated that he receives monthly pensions totalling GBP 3100.71 and has shown us a P60 Tax Return from the Civil Service Pension Fund stating that he receives a pension of GBP 37208.53 per annum”.

So please, please stop protesting that people never submitted false information to their embassies in order to obtain a letter confirming income.  It happened and much more than most people realise, and this may well be the reason why Immigration insisted that four of the embassies verify their citizen’s income before providing a letter.

FYI.....  The answer to todays question above is that the P60 is fake and it took just 3 minutes to produce.

24 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Did you make the transaction using your mobile?

NBK is a mobile banking app.

https://www.nbk.com/kuwait/private/ways-to-bank/mobile-banking.html

 

It is definitely nothing to do with a mobile app or Kuwait bank.

I only make my online banking transactions through my PC.   I log into my HSBC (UK) account via a secure encrypted connection and then transfer the required GBP funds to BBK Bank London through BACS.  I understand that BKK Bank London then transfers the GBP funds to my FCD account held in their BKK HQ.

As I said previously I will ask what the code NBK on the statement stands for the next time I go to the bank.

Just to complicate the matter further, my FCD passbook shows completely different codes for both deposit and withdrawals.  Deposits are shown as I/R and withdrawals are shown as IOP.  At the back of the book there is a legend for some codes.  The Deposit code I/R is not shown, the withdrawal code IOP indicates Amount Transferred Between Accounts.

If it is confusing for us, what chance will the average IO have at deciphering all these codes.

24 minutes ago, skatewash said:

NBK = No (pass)BooK

Meaning the transaction was accomplished without showing a passbook, i.e., not done at a bank counter

17 minutes ago, MikeN said:

Did you withdraw online ? I think you will find NBK W/D is the Bangkok Bank code for “non book withdrawal” to match the non book deposit.

 Oops....my typing is too slow, already answered.

NBK might, just might, indicate that the bank book was not used when the deposit was made as I made the transfer from HSBC (UK) to Bangkok Bank London office online - Bangkok Bank London office then transfers the funds automatically to my FDC at Bangkok Bank HQ in BKK.

But NBK definitely does not indicate that no bank book was used when I made a withdrawal.  I go to Bangkok Bank on the Silom Road in BKK and are required to present my bank book and passport to affect a withdrawal.

As I said in my earlier post I will ask when I next go to the bank.

17 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Your deposits are coded as NBK. Did you ask them the meaning of the coding.

NBK is a credit card!

Although I obtained the statement just over a week ago for the insurance company, I never really paid any attention to the specific details until today after reading your OP.  I have absolutely no idea what the deposit coding NBK stands for and, as there is no glossary provided, I doubt very much if an IO would have the faintest clue what it means either.

It certainly isn't a credit card payment ????....  I will ask the next time I have to go into BKK Bank.

2 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

Very easily identified on a statement from the banks HQ.

 

I’m not so sure. 

A couple of weeks ago I was asked by my UK insurance company to provide proof of my Thai address and bank details so that they could transfer the proceeds of my life insurance policy which has matured (anti money laundering requirements etc.).  They indicated that my Thai bank statement would be acceptable provided it showed my account details and my address.

I have a foreign currency deposit account with Bangkok Bank HQ, so on a recent visit I asked for a statement covering the past six months which they had no problem providing for 100THB.

I have attached below a redacted part copy of the statement which I received.

 and

As you will see:

1...... Under the deposit column, for August, there is no indication as to where the 2k GBP has come from, e.g. overseas transfer or local cash deposit.

2..... You will also see that in August there were two withdrawals of 1K GBP on each occasion.  In the case of the withdrawals it again does not show that the money was converted to THB or taken in GBP (cash).

My concern is if I was to use the ‘income method’, is the IO going to jump to the conclusion that I’m ‘carrouseling the funds’,  e.g. make a cash deposit 2K GBP at the beginning of the month and then do a couple of 1k GBP cash withdrawals during the month only to re-deposit that cash at the beginning of the next month.

Fortunately if I was to use the 'income method' I’m able to show my HSBC bank statements showing the same funds being transferred from the UK to Bangkok Bank, and also my Bangkok Bank THB savings book showing the funds being deposited on the same dates.  But will the IO take the time and trouble to cross check – possibly not.

FYI…. My pensions are paid into my UK HSBC account.  Then, as and when required, I do an online GBP  transfer from HSBC to Bangkok Bank’s London office, who in turn transfer the GBP funds to my foreign currency deposit account at Bangkok Bank’s HQ.

Had to go to Nakhon Pathom immigration office today and I spotted these brand new BMWs parked under the covered area reserved for staff vehicles. 

As you can see they have consecutive police number plates and from the side it became obvious that they were immigration vehicles - the immigration badge just behind the front wheel arch.

But what really caught my eye was what was mounted on the roof behind the emergency light bar.

I asked one of the IOs about the vehicles and what was mounted on top of them.  He smiled, but declined to make any comment.

As I left I took a another look and it is definitely a CCTV camera which has appears to have pan/tilt/zoom facility plus built-in infrared lights for night time vision.  It wasn’t possible to see inside the vehicle because of the very dark tinted windows, so I was unable to see what the camera might be connected to.

So, anyone like to guess what these are for?

21 hours ago, janclaes47 said:

Why are you so hesitant to post a link to the "quality product" you purchases at 6400 Baht?

 

Wait I'll do it for you.

 

https://www.worldtech.asia/product/worldtech-cctv-set-m-wifi-kit-2-megapixel/

 

Oh wait, that is a complete different price, doesn't even has a hard drive of any size included, looks like the biggest pile of crap, and surprisingly is not available.

 

Did you test your figures about recording 21 days with 8 Full HD cameras on a 1Tb drive. A full HD stream needs 1.5Gb for an hour, which means your 8 cameras would need 6Tb for 21 days.

 

https://www.seagate.com/as/en/tech-insights/how-much-video-surveillance-storage-is-enough-master-ti/

 

Tell us, did you buy it longer than 1 week ago, or did you even buy it at all?

Thanks for your post yesterday.  I’m not sure why the vitriolic attack was necessary.  Maybe you got out of bed on the wrong side, or perhaps had a bad hair day, or is it that time of the month for you?

If you think for one moment I’m going to justify the observations that I made in my posts regarding the CCTV system that I purchased and installed (as shown below), think again, but don’t loose any sleep on my behalf.

I hope that you have a better day today.

18 hours ago, steven100 said:

Hi Red, I'm going to buy this week but i'm not that cctv savy so excuse me for my lack of knowledge. You seem pretty happy with your system ... what item number / brand code is it.

I have looked at a few but haven't fully decided as yet.

Thaks.

steven100

I think that you will find most of the 'low price' systems are based upon the Sony 'bullet' camera and these are made in China and sold under a whole variety of names.

What you need to look for is a kit that contains 1080 HD WiFi cameras for best picture resolution.  Most of the CCTV kits come with either 4 or 6 cameras and you may be able to choose between 1 or 2 TB hard disc drive for recording.

The attached link will take you to the Aliexpress web pages for WiFi CCTV kits.  Most offer free shipping to Thailand which depending upon method may take a few days to a few weeks.

https://www.aliexpress.com/af/cctv-hd.html?SearchText=cctv+hd&origin=n&initiative_id=RS_20190120211858&spm=2114.search0604.1.4.31992729Y4Ff8D&jump=afs

Hope this helps with your search.

OP.... If I recall correctly the BE appointment system diary only shows the next 2 months appointment availability.  So for today 21/01/19 the diary will only show appointments that are available up to the 21/3/19 and as you have found most of these have already been taken.  It seems that a lot of people still want the Embassies services.

You should find that if you try again (normally at the beginning of the week) they will open up that equivalent week 2 months ahead.

Best of luck

8 hours ago, BritTim said:

For a denied entry, the airline has the responsibility under international agreements to return you to your last departure point. The airline terms and conditions often, in principle, entitle the airline to try to recover the cost from you, but whether this is enforceable without a signed indemnity form is questionable. That would depend on the jurisdiction where they were attempting recovery. If you already have a paid return flight from that airline, they will usually grab it, and it is difficult to do anything about it. Anyway, very few travellers know the international regulations and their rights in respect of denied entry (which, by the way, are completely different from deportation).

In the case of the OP, he posted that he had received a ‘blue stamp’ in his passport which he thinks states “lack of income unable to support himself”.  Therefore, possibly refused under Section 12(2) of the Immigration Act. This being the case, the airline would not be financially responsible for returning him.

Under the International Civil Aviation Organisation (ICAO) rules (Chapter 5 of Annex 9) the airline is only responsible for funding the repatriation flight of an inadmissible person if it can be shown that the airline did not carry out due diligence in accepting the passenger for transport.  For example:

1)   Accepting the person for travel after having received a ‘Do Not Board’ warning code via the Advance Passenger Information System (APIS).

2)   The person’s travel documents (passport, visa) have expired or are obviously counterfeit, forged, altered or the person is presenting someone else’s travel document(s).

In such cases the airline is also responsible for the care and welfare of the passenger whilst awaiting transportation and they may be liable to a substantial fine imposed by the country rejecting entry of the passenger.

In the case where the airline is responsible for repatriation of a passenger deemed to be inadmissible, the airline shall return the passenger promptly to the point where they commenced the use of the airline’s aircraft.  The airline shall not return the person to a country that has already refused entry to that person.

In the case where the airline is responsible for repatriation of a passenger deemed to be inadmissible, the airline may recover their transportation and ancillary costs from the passenger.

The airline is not responsible for any costs or fines relating to the return of a person who has been deemed inadmissible when the problem is beyond the reasonable expertise of the airline or beyond the control of the airline operator, for example: Insufficient funds, or considered to be working without permission.

32 minutes ago, janclaes47 said:

 US$ you mean ?

 

No way you get all that for 6400 Baht

No, it was Thai Baht not US$   And yes all that for 6,400THB (I checked the receipt) Mrs MoneyBaht is a very hard negotiator.

35 minutes ago, Rimmer said:

You are not advertising you are helping other people on here, if you do not want to tell the name of the system your glowing report is of little help to other people.

My apology… your quite correct… I was just responding to sarcastic comment which is of no help to anyone.

The system is produced by Worldtech and similar to that which the OP mentioned in his original post, but the HD 1080 version.

6 minutes ago, NCC1701A said:

and the name of this system is?

Sorry… I don’t get paid to advertise ????

Last year I purchased a WiFi camera system to replace our aging hardwire system.  At the time of purchase I was considering a system with SD card in the camera but the techie in the shop advised against this type of system as the SD cards can be susceptible to failure caused by damp from the humidity.

The system comprised 8 cameras (a bit OTT for what I need) plus a router with built in hard drive.  Cost 6,400THB from Pantip (Bangkok) with 1 year warranty.  FYI – A 4 camera system was priced around 4,500THB.

The cameras are HD (1080) fully waterproofed and fitted with inferred which switches on automatically during low light levels and provides great images (albeit B&W) at night.  They are fixed cameras, meaning that they do not have tilt/pan/zoom (PTZ) facilities.  The cameras are viewed on my TV and can be monitored individually, 4, 6 or all 8 camera combinations as required.

According to the manufacturer’s information the distance between camera and router/hard drive is claimed to be as much as 500 meters with clear line of sight.  However, that will decrease with any obstructions (buildings trees etc).  My router/hard drive is in my lounge (near the TV) and therefore is surrounded by brick walls.  The furthest camera is about 100 meters away and I get excellent images from it.

The router/hard drive is fitted with a 1 TB drive and records all 8 cameras simultaneously, 24x7, for approximately 21 days before automatically recording over the 1st day.  Video replay is easy to obtain and can be for any one, or all 8 cameras.  It is also possible to fast forward the video up to x32 if required.  The router/hard drive is connected to my TV through an HDMI cable.  The camera router/hard drive is also connected to my internet router by cable and I can log into my cameras remotely on my phone/tablet/laptop/PC.

Installation was a dream compared with the previous hardwired system – no cables to install.  As I already had 6 power points for the old system, I only needed to add a couple of extra sockets to be able to utilise all 8 cameras.  The setup was very easy to follow from the instruction provided in the box.

We've had a couple of power outages since I installed the system but the system recovers automatically once power is restored.

I would, however, strongly recommend anyone with a WiFi system changing the router default user ID/password (admin/admin) to prevent anyone nearby ‘hacking’ your system.

I’ve been more than satisfied with the system.