Exploring Thailand

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Perhaps that is intended to mean that if you already have an extension, it won't be rescinded.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 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.

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.

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?

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.

1 minute ago, Max69xl said:

Don't forget that The Nation are very often wreckless with facts. A total of 80k with O-A,retirement O and extensions based on retirement could be correct. Then I also think that the minister doesn't have a clue what he's talking about.

Yes. It's very sloppy reporting. As you say, who are they including in "seeking long stay"? He's the Deputy Minister of Health so probably does have a very detailed knowledge of the different types of visa.

14 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Not sure but I think said non immigrant visas. It don't think there are 80k people on a OA visa in the the country.

Not sure where that number came from. I don't think immigration could supply such a number.

6 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

I'll stand to be corrected Joe, but I think it was in a recent statement made by the deputy Public Health Minister.

This article mentioned 80,000 people "seeking long stay".

9 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Keep thinking!

If you cancelled your policy you would effectively be in an overstay position.

Of course. I'm not suggesting that anyone do it, or that it would be legal.  They intend that you have insurance, not just that you buy it. I'm just pointing out that for those that way inclined, it looks like a loophole. I'm sure if anyone did it and got caught they would be in very hot water.

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Sounds more like probably to me after immigration reads your post. Also aren't these insurance deals typically pay the entire year in advance?

Bear in mind that the insurance companies would have to report all cancellations, because they don't know whether the policy was use for an O-A or not. If Immigration have good computer systems, the checking should be straight-forward. I think most, or at least some, of the policies allow you to cancel within a certain period without penalty, providing you have claimed.

3 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Perhaps as a means of preventing someone on an O-A entry pursuing an extension immediately after entering the kingdom, and cancelling their insurance? Even if that is possible. Other than that I don't see why it is there.

I think the idea of cancelling your insurance is a viable loophole for anyone that way inclined. Get your insurance. Apply for the O-A, during which process your passport will be annotated to confirm that you have insurance, enter the kingdom, cancel your insurance. Your passport, which is what the IOs check, will still show that you have insurance.  The authorities could require all insurance companies to notify them whenever one of their policies is cancelled, but that sound doubtful to me.

1 hour ago, baansgr said:

I'd like to know which company offers 13mil at 50% , the Thai company's are offering basic complient at 22k....really only 11k premium for 13mil?

I asked Saltire the same question. He is with Health Care International

On 10/13/2019 at 1:44 PM, Saltire said:

Thanks for the info, I will check the link.

 

I am with Health Care International (HCI) I can't recommend or otherwise as I have luckily never had to claim. Been with them 5 years and at 65 soon, better staying with them than changing in my opinion. Not sure if they would honour it, but they say if there is no claim based on my pre-existing conditions in the first 3 years of cover, they put a moritorium in place and would 'consider' covering them.

7 minutes ago, Lovethailandelite said:

Absolutely 100% not. Are you a tour guide? ???? 

OK. No worries. If you're not, you're not.  I'm not trying to be confrontational, just curious.  I'm not a tour guide, btw, nor am I ever likely be one ????

5 minutes ago, Lovethailandelite said:

I won't comment any further until there is a concrete link I can post. That would be pointless and start another argument. Suffice to say though, I am not the only one pointing to this route. I caught a cold before with this O-A visa and particularly with the E visa news. It actually happened rather later than I said it would. I am not aware of anything changing with the way Thailand Elite operates at this time.

Are you in some way associated with Thailand Elite?

3 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

No policies listed in the longstay.tgia website

 

Only companies listed.

 

You can get any policy that any of those companies will issue you that meets the 400/40 requirement.

 

I just wanted to check that you are aware that Pacific Cross offers more policies than those that you see when you follow the link from longstay.tgia. If you go to the menu you will find other policies which appear to meet the 400/40 requirement, though the 40 part is a little muddy.

2 hours ago, watgate said:

Sheryl- When I click on your link it says"This file does not have an app associated with it for performing this action. Please install an app or, if one is already installed, create an association in the Default Apps Settings page".  I have no idea what they are referring to. I don't have Word so can that possibly be the reason why I can't open up your link? Any info would be appreciated.

Here is an online copy  http://bit.ly/2pgEbCM