cleopatra2

My reading of the last paragraph is simply a clarification that the first paragraph includes persons that hold multiple entry and re entry permits. This is given by the following part phrase. ให้หมายความรวมถึงคนต่างด้าวที่ได้รับ Is given the meaning of including foreigners/aliens that have received ....

พักแรม is a verb or verb phrase and thus does not have a plural form. The actual meaning is defined as พักค้างคืน to stay overnight.

Bob you are a sheep that has cried wolf

Yes I have just had it clarified. The TM30 indicates arrival date and expected stay duration. It is this duration that section 2,2 refers to not the permission of stay. My previous comments are incorrect. apologies

To clarify In Section 2 we have mentioned foreigners being given temporary stay เป็นการชั่วคราวเข้าพักอาศย This is obviously the time limited permission of stay Next we come to section 2,2. and ภายใต้กรอบระยะเวลาการรับเข้าพักอาศัย Within the time of stay. To me section2,2 is referring to the time limited permission of stay mentioned in section 2.

It is not clear to me if การรับเข้าพักอาศัย is referencing the stay granted in paragraph 1 ชั่วคราวเข้าพักอาศัย or some other , e.g the planned length of stay in hotel.

After further thought I don't see how this changes the situation. The sections quoted state, paraphrasing, if the foreigner stays at other places occasionally and then returns . For this to make sense the foreigner must still be staying/resident at the original location for any visit elsewhere to be regarded as occasional. Thus I would regard รับเข้าพักอาศัย as meaning receiving residency and that being the permit to stay. However I could be wrong.

To me กรอบระยะเวลาการรับเข้าพักอาศัยที่ยังไม่สิ้นสุดลง Can only be referring to permission of stay. If not what is the timeframe that is being referred to, rental contract, leasehold, hotel reservation However how would this apply to somebody whose rental contract exceeds the permission of stay or somebody who owns their own property. The other aspect, and maybe somebody can clarify, when informing of residency to the relevant officer is a timeframe of residency tenancy stated or requested.?.( I have not completed one myself so do not know)

I am confused How could you declare the stent operation whent is this operation that the insurance declined. Secondly a previous post you stated you did not declare the hemorrhoid operation and it was this non disclosure led to insurance calculation. Also can you clarify if the NHS refused you treatment or requested you to visit the health authority where you are registered.

The OP previously claimed that the health insurance cancellation was due to failure of reporting an operation carried out in a Pattaya hospital, not an undiagnosed illness

So if I understand correctly. You flew to the UK and then returned to Thailand. Enrolled on 2 Alcohol rehabilitation courses at a total cost 800,000 baht . Seems that the OP was just not misleading but at best a fabrication of your financial situation.

Tenovir disproxil only comes in a dosage of 300mg The combination you describe appears to be Trustiva a single tablet combination .

This is incorrect See section 5 And associated appendix 1 https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-overpayment-recovery-staff-guide/benefit-overpayment-recovery-guide#chapter-5

What is cost effective for yourself does not equate that it is cost effective for everybody. Consider if I was purchasing an AC unit for a bedroom that would only operate for 2 hours each night Should I buy a unit with a lower efficiency rating for 16,000 baht or a more efficient unit costing 42,000 baht. Let's say ( I have not done the actual maths) that the less efficient unit will cost an extra 2 baht in usage over the more efficient unit. How many nights of usage is required before the additional 26,000 baht purchase price pays for itself.

True The question for me is If The Thaiger now owns this site , why rewrite an article that already exists on Thaiger.

I believe that the Thaiger is the source for this article. However the Thaiger report is 100% better , provides the correct photograph, explains why the last plane is stored in December, does correctly attribute the ministry of foreign affairs with the statement " no immediate risk to Thai Citizens ...."

Yes. However they have still not corrected the factual mistake that it was the Foreign ministry who stated there was no risk to Thai nationals in Israel or Iran.Not the Thai Airways President.

This supposedly news article is riddled with inconsistencies. The article states that a photo of the retirement ceremonary was provided. However the photo used is totally different The article states all the aircraft was put in storage in march , with last one in December. The article claims Thai Airways President stated that there was no immediate risk to Thai nationals in Israel or Iran. This is factually wrong .it was the Foreign ministry who made this statement. This is not news but a bastardisation of an article that appears in the Thaiger

The analysis does not address the salient issue at hand. The receiving of an unfrozen pension in pension frozen land is not a criminal offence, However the act of receiving does not automatic confer entitlement or ownership. As an example consider a person receives a package on behalf of another person. The receiver is not legally entitled to the contents of the package. Thus the question at hand is not if the pensioner is receiving an unfrozen pension in pension frozen land , but one of legal entitlement. The failure to inform a change of circumstances resulting in monies paid that the claimant is not entitled to is an offence. Even without the relevant SS regulations the basic UK unjust enrichment common law would apply allowing the injured party to claim restitution.(UK restitution law).

Gone quiet ? As far as I am concerned you are either trolling or unable to understand what you read. I am favouring the former. If people wish to claim the unfrozen pension when not entitled , that is up to the individual and of no concern to me. I have provided the DWP policy showing that the state pension is not immune to compulsory deductions to repay the overpayments and fines that may be imposed. The document also provided the legislation that the DWP relies upon when making such decision. The claim that the State Pension somehow has this magical immunity is so easily disproven. The State pension is lost if a claiment is imprisoned or placed in remand. The majority of frozen pensioners are aware that if they return to the UK the pension benefit is uprated to the level as if not frozen. However once they return to a country that is not uprated the pension reverts back to the original frozen level. The disqualifying and sanctionable clauses are only applicable to the issue of when a benefit is subject to a penalty of a Benefit Sanction as laid in the Social Security legislations. As the State Pension is not a Sanctionable Benefit and thus no such penalty is applied , it becomes moot.

Deleted

https://www.gov.uk/government/publications/benefit-overpayment-recovery-staff-guide/benefit-overpayment-recovery-guide#appendix-1 See section 5 , particularly section 5.8, 5.9 and appendix 1 Which state that compulsary deductions can be made against the state pension benefit. 5.9 even provides an example where another benefit overpayment can be recovered from the state pension.

Like I pointed out . Your presumption is flawed at a basic level. The guidance you refer to states If you are charged with benefit fraud There is no obligation on behalf of the DWP to commence criminal proceedings, or even make a claim of fraud. There are other possible criminal charges available other than fraud. The DWP can and are recommended in such cases to use the civil powers available. In addition the overpayment calculation and recovery are separate from any criminal proceedings.

You are talking rubbish. The statements/guidance you are quoting states that the Benefit cannot be reduced. This simply means that the DWP have to credit the claimant , in this case a pensioner with the value of the state pension. Take note it's states the Benefit. It does not state the claimant must receive the benefit in full. As an example a person who claims housing benefit may have the benefit paid direct to the council , landlord or to their bank account. Regardless how the housing benefit is paid the claimant is still regarded as receiving the benefit amount. However let's just assume your position is correct in the case of a charge of benefit fraud on the state pension. The CPS guidelines on such a situation is that the DWP does not commence criminal charges but use the civils powers available. Thus the DWP start proceedings to apply a fine for failure to notify a change of circumstances without reasonable excuse. They then calculate the overpayment and request the repayment. Failure to reach an agreement , the overpayment on accounts legislation allow the DWP to deduct amounts from the state pension to clear any outstanding debt. It now should be obvious that the DWP has not charged the pensioner with fraud thus the statement)guidance about sanctionable / non sanctionable benefits is moot.

Ok cheers Missed that