Exploring Thailand

1 hour ago, tgeezer said:

Thanks for replying. It is a different perspective but I can not see the connection.  อะไรจะเกิดก็(...)มันเกิด

I don’t know ‘hi’ .

Probably อะไรจะเกิดก็ไห้มันเกิด, echoing the Spanish que será, será

53 minutes ago, KeeTua said:

The more correct translation of that last line is as you suppose:

'To stay in the Kingdom for the period permitted'

Paste into Google Translate to check:

ให้อยู่ในราชอาณาจักรต่อไปได้ตามระยะเวลาที่ได้รับอนุญาต

Right, or even from my own intermediate Thai ตามระยะเวลาที่ได้รับอนุญาต = following/according to the the period of time for which {you} have received permission.

5 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

I am really wondering where the immigration officers that say it applies to those on extensions are reading or getting their info.

Studied the memos in the police order announcement again and noted this in the first one in English.

 

That appears to say it does not apply to a extension of stay for a OA visa entry.

 

Perhaps that is intended to mean that if you already have an extension, it won't be rescinded. If that's the case it would better if it said for "the" granted length of stay, meaning that your current extension based is unaffected, but if you apply for a new one, then the new rules will apply.

15 hours ago, balo said:

Listen , there are more than 10 000 retired expats right now only using agents and who do not have the 800k in the bank, and been doing so for many years, you would be surprised how many. 

Do you happen to have a source for that statistic?

1 minute ago, Sheryl said:

 

This is true and why many of us have opted for overseas policies.

 

there are some exceptions though. April Thailand will not raise premiums on an individual basis. Though April is not listed their plans can be used (provided include OPD) because LMG, a listed company, is the underwriter and will issue the certificate for Imm. However they enroll only up to age 65.

Coincidentally, I'm currently talking to a broker about April. I'm seeking clarification on the clause below. He told me that it is a "paper rule" needed because the policy is being used in Thailand. I pointed out that he is actually saying that company has the right to increase the premium based on health history, but they won't exercise that right. I've also asked what is the current approved rate referred to in the clause. He is contacting April for clarification. 

13. Premium adjustment
In case of renewal, the Company reserves the right to adjust the premium in accordance with the age and risk profile of the covered person(s), and the
premium adjusted must be within the approved rate by the Insurance Commissioner. The Company must also give prior written notice to the Insured.

The downside with Pacific Cross, and as I understand it, all Thai-based companies is that they include a clause like the one below.  Say you are diagnosed with, and treated for, cancer. The following year, they can increase your premium because you have, or have had, cancer. Further than that, they can increase they premium for any reason that pops into their mind "at their sole discretion". Good overseas policies don't have such a clause.

1 hour ago, moontang said:

The rules were designed to make it much more difficult for a quick deposit, and a withdrawal right after the stamp... but it just created the need for more "services." 

Have Immigration ever officially given that as the reason for the change in rules? I know that it is often given as the reason, and does seem logical, but if they really wanted to shutdown the agents, it would be much simpler to root-out the officials within their own department who are cooperating with the agents, which I'm sure they could very easily do. And if they don't really want to shut down the agents, why make the change at all?

I guess one reason could be that there was pressure from on-high to be seen to be doing something, so that is what they came up with.

I was planning to apply for an O-A in London before the 31st.  The Thai Embassy in London is already listing insurance as requirement, so I wrote to them 7 days ago asking when the insurance requirement becomes effective. I've just received this reply.

Dear Sir/Madam,

from 31 October hopefully 

Kind Regards,

Visa Officer

I hope s/he is right!

I'll soon know.

30 minutes ago, BritTim said:

If you do not have a really good understanding (and the official does not initiate a possible deal) stay away from offering bribes. Doing it the wrong way can lead to trouble.

Sounds like good advice to me.

1 hour ago, Orton Rd said:

sorry to hear this, 1,000 baht sorts it out at my office, have you tried?

How do you go about it? Do you say something like, "I'd be happy to pay a fine if that can fix it."?

10 minutes ago, Martyp said:

I don't think you have anything to worry about doing this from overseas. It shouldn't be much different than my doing it from my condo. Maybe an extra 5 days of mail time.

That's the part I was worried about. I might well be short on time. Looking at the London Thai Embassy, they refer to a "copy" of insurance documentation, so you would think an ink-signed original won't be required. I just wanted to remove as many possible stumbling blocks as I can.

1 hour ago, Martyp said:

I am living in Thailand and I purchased Pacific Cross insurance last year. The entire transaction occurred on-line using emails and pdfs.

So, at no point do you have to sign in ink - is that correct? I'm asking because I might be dealing with them from overseas.

13 hours ago, bangkokbanjo said:

secured a global insurance plan from Regency they have specifically for Thailand.  They sent me the policy and the signed legal document i need to confirm the coverage.  No issues at all. 

Thanks for the info. Are you talking about these packages? I don't see one specifically for Thailand. 

1 hour ago, FredGallaher said:

The question not being asked is why would some people apply for a OA visa in the first place. I can think of two types:

1) The person is naive and doesn't know there are other ways to retire in Thailand. ie Non Imm O or Elite visas. But these visas have financial requirement inside Thailand.

2) The other type of person knows the rules and can't or doesn't want to comply with the financial rules, ie no embassy funds guarantee letter, needs 800/400K in a Thai bank for months, or monthly foreign transfers.

 

The advantage of getting a OA (with a two year stretch) is gone,

In order to retire in Thailand everyone (95%)will need to go the Non Imm O based on retirement or marriage. So they will either have to meet the financials or use an agent. 

 

I feel that the new rule was specific for OA visa because it was a work around.

In my case, I'm coming to the end of retirement extension. The year proved to be more expensive than I anticipated, meaning I have to transfer another 800k. With the GBP/THB at a ten-year low, the prospect of leaving the money in the UK was attractive. Pretty much on the day I was about to buy my ticket to return to the UK and apply for an O-A, they announced the new rules.  I haven't decided yet whether to continue with the O-A or not. I'm going to submit the application without the insurance and see what happens. If I do decide to transfer the funds from the UK, I've missed the 3-month pre-seasoning for another extension, so I would have to start again from scratch.

Yes. If the government outsources anything to the private sector, it really needs to have some kind overseer in there to make sure the entity it outsources to acts in the public interest rather than its own interest.  Can't see that happening though!

3 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

This as well as clarifying that Imm will accept foreign policies is the issue. Western companies tend to think very legalistically and literally  and will not want to sign something attesting to immigration regulations they do not understand or that are not clearly spelled out, or that differ one iota from the exact wording of their own policies. They'll want to provide instead a summary of the policy benefits - if they are willing to pay attention to the issue at all.

 

I forget now which thread but there was someone working on this with their insurer and they were asked to provide an English language copy of the Cabinet Resolution....!

Exactly. I think the clause about the cabinet resolution is going to be the stumbling block. And there's no need for it to be there. All they really need is the company to confirm the 400/40. As far I know the resolution doesn't add any additional requirements. As TI seems to have farmed all of this of to the insurers, I'm wondering it they might be the ones who actually drew up that certificate. 

1 minute ago, DILLIGAD said:

Although I’ve not been in the situation as described, I’d have thought that this is why agnts also HAVE to do the 90day report service themselves. They then use the same corrupt official who arranged the visa AND get more money for the additional work.

Thanks. I didn't realize that the agents have to do the 90-day. That makes things a lot clearer.

3 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Firstly, every I.O is not requiring that a person shows evidence he still has the money on deposit for every 90 day address reporting. Also not every I.O. in the country is familiar with agent obtained extensions. But a more general answer is yes, offices are treating agent and non-agent applications differently.

That just seems so brazen. At the 90-day report how do they know it was initially an agent who provided the extension?  Regardless of how they know, it's difficult to believe they would so openly discriminate between agent- and non-agent extensions regarding the required supporting documents.

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

To be more precise: what is needed is a certificate on the letterhead of one of those companies stating you have a policy that meets TI requirements. So when discussing a policy with an insurer the question  should be" if I buy this policy will you issue me the O-A visa  letter for immigration?"

Is the information regarding the certificate on headed notepaper something you have learned about from talking to the Thai insurance companies? The only certificate I've seen is the one for foreign companies. If there is flexibility in exactly what the companies can write, that would help a lot.

37 minutes ago, yodsak said:

ga

 

Post below is a talking about a legit  DIY visa. Non agency.

People with agency visas do not have to show 400k.  ...

If the IO can waive 800k  before and after then he can waive 400k. 

That was my initial question. Say, someone goes to the same office as Dilligad's friend. If he didn't use an agent, he has to provide evidence of the 400k at every 90-day report, if he did use an agent he doesn't have to provide the evidence. Is that what you're saying? So every IO in that office is treating agent and non-agent applications differently?

25 minutes ago, yodsak said:

No. 

Looks like that might be office-dependent. See the post below.

3 hours ago, DILLIGAD said:

Only last night I was talking to a mate who has a (legit) retirement extension and he has to provide bank statement & letter, every time he does a 90 day report.
This is seeming to get more difficult every year!

3 minutes ago, DILLIGAD said:

Only last night I was talking to a mate who has a (legit) retirement extension and he has to provide bank statement & letter, every time he does a 90 day report.
This is seeming to get more difficult every year!

Right. I'm not clear how agents can circumvent that requirement.

2 minutes ago, Olmate said:

Seasoning of funds before and after has been waived

Can you expand on that a bit? Waived by whom, when? You say before and after has been waived, but what about the 400k during the entire period. Don't you have to provide proof of that?

ยุ่งวุ่นวาย: busy, chaotic, hectic.

3 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

I hope you mean "doesn't have a very detailed knowledge". He's not supposed to be a visa expert. 

Yes. Good catch. Thanks. I'll fix it.