schlemmi

On 8/18/2019 at 12:41 AM, 4675636b596f75 said:

I think you could also register as the house master.  I rent my condo, but for the term of our agreement, this is my condo.  I choose who can walk through the front door.  The holder of the Chinote cannot just walk in without making prior arrangements with me and only for emergency reasons.

 

I am the master.

If there is a housemaster according to the housebook, this housemaster decides who passes the frontdor. In both ways, in or out.

On 8/18/2019 at 12:10 AM, Maestro said:

 

The fact that I cannot find a ministerial order replacing or modifying an earlier ministerial order does not necessarily mean that such newer ministerial order does not exist.

Ask by writing a letter to the officials. Writing a letter and follow up until it gets a result.

Not asking by talking with incompetent IOs.

On 8/18/2019 at 12:22 AM, Maestro said:

 

What makes you believe that the document to which the link you have given leads is a ministerial order?

I would please all posters, 

esspecially  in such essentially legal things belonging the the use of the actual law of the country where we live all together, to comment in a straight foreward way to get the highest benefit for all.

Want say:

1.) Explain what is to discuss

2.) What is your oppinion

3.) Maybe give a conclusion

In this particular toppic it could be:

Hi jackdd,

(1) that is not a ministerial order, its a police rule.

(3) Could be you put a wrong link ????

Additionally i want to ask all of the posters are joining the tm30 related threads:

Who  can read the thai law written in thai, fluent, and understand immediatily what is written without any use of a computerbased translationtool, and can explain the content right away in thai in in his own language?

From time to time, i have the feeling, it is  a discussion like blind persons discussing about colour.

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

When immigration made changes to several forms in January of 2017 it was authorized by a cabinet resolution.

See: https://www.immigration.go.th/read?content_id=58a54349ce597737a867ff49

All this discussion about the TM28 forms is really not all that relevant to the current discussion about TM30 forms.

 

The data behind this tells:

1.) The date where the forms 1-14 have to be used according to the Ministerial law "xxxxxxx" and the cabinet meeting on 17-01-2017.

Nothing more. The forms are developed due to ministerial law. You can find it in the online gazette and there is a straight pathway from the immigration act to the Ministry of interior as caretaker of the immigration act with the duty to develop a set of law and forms. 

A similar straight pathway is for the article 37 and 38 too. This path is:

Immigration act art. 37, 38 ==> police rule by director General. #End of path.

There is no ministry of interior involved. But could be overruled by royal decree, prime minister using 44 of the constitution.

If there would be some newer overruling stuff, then why the immigration does not publish it in the same way like the changes concerning tm1-tm14?

1 hour ago, schlemmi said:

As I wrote before I am certain if you were able to find it that there are newer ministerial orders that allows immigration to modify the forms as needed. 

1.) I read all the the concerning orders. I  found none.

2.) There is no texnode in the immigration act that permits the Ministry to release such a order. ( concerning article 37 and 38)

1 hour ago, schlemmi said:

Dredging up old orders in the royal gazette online can be misleading since there are probably many that that have not been scanned and posted online yet.

I strongly beleave the online gazette is quite complete. I have contact to officials too. They have no better informations too.

1 hour ago, schlemmi said:

I am sure there are also orders that refined the authority and responsibilities of immigration and the police.

If like this then it has to be based on the immigration law or higher lows. Like Royal decree, or art 44 of the constitution. This would be in the Gazette for sure. 

1 hour ago, schlemmi said:

You have to remember that the immigration act is very old and things have changed greatly since it was written. 

But not the law system of thailand. There is not a best before date glued to this part of the law.

6 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

As I wrote before I am certain if you were able to find it that there are newer ministerial orders that allows immigration to modify the forms as needed. 

Dredging up old orders in the royal gazette online can be misleading since there are probably many that that have not been scanned and posted online yet.

I am sure there are also orders that refined the authority and responsibilities of immigration and the police.

You have to remember that the immigration act is very old and things have changed greatly since it was written. 

 

To make up new forms with changed content, to change police rules, to change ministerial laws etc.. it needs a sufficient legal power to do it. Who and how this power can be used is written in the law. And the Thai law uses a quite straight forward process to make the law. The only what you need to do is to read it from Top to Down beginning at the concerning act (signed by HM. The King of thailand) than the Ministerial law developed by the Ministry assigned to take care about the content of the act and so far until you reached the bottom.  All this stuff is published in the government gazette. 

That means, to change actual law to become new law, there has a to be a document starts with the wording:

Due to the power given in article ## of the xXxX act .... or something comparable. Otherwise there is no legitimation for it.

7 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

Those were the first forms done as an example I would guess. I think you might find later orders that allows immigration to change the forms without a new order being needed.

What you will find on the immigration websites are the latest versions and are certainly official and legal forms.

 

That is completely wrong.

The police rule from 40 years ago are not written as an idea as it could look like.

This rule was written as reaction of the content of article 37, 38 of the immigration act. 

The immigration act orders the "director General of the police" to develop the how to the reports have to be done. This includes the forms as well.

If there are new rules they have to be published. As far and deep I take a look to the government gazette I found nothing. As far as I discussed with an immigration officer in the position of the vice boss of a not small immigration near Bangkok in the ranck of a police lieutenant colonel I know there is nothing else than this 40 years old police rule. 

On 8/16/2019 at 3:14 PM, MikeN said:

And if you look at the actual form, (http://www.immigrationbangkok.com/files/visa_forms/tm28.pdf) it says no such thing....  the TM28 starts "To the Immigration officer" and ends as being signed at "xxxxx" Immigration office.

The original template developed 40 years ago says "to the local police" or something equal. They changed it. Maybe accidentally while making new (computer developed) templates (as jackdd suggest already) or with the goal to get all the power to the Immigration, or for other reasons. However this tm28 with the wrong wording is not according the law, as far as we know.

A second important point is, if you want to report to the local police by using this form, they would most likely not accept it because it is addressed to the Immigration. That means they hinder you to act according the written law. 

39 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Yes, it is, as other people mentioned before, but this is not in accordance with the law, so imho this is just wrong.

 

I guess, some years ago, it went about like this:

Somebody decided that after copying the documents from 1979 a million times it just looked crap, so somebody got the order to make a new version of all these documents (TM27, TM28, TM30, TM47).

Three of these documents are addressed "To immigration office", only TM28 is addressed "To local police station". The person who created these new version of the documents just made a mistake and wrongfully used "To immigration office" on the TM28 as well, because that's what he also used for the three other documents.

The law is not enforced, nobody cares about it, so maybe nobody ever noticed this mistake, or if they did notice it, they just didn't care to correct it. So this wrong version of the TM28 was just shared across the immigration offices.

 

That it happened like this is way more likely than that there was an update to the immigration act itself plus a new ministerial order (this would be the only way to change this in accordance with the law), which everybody including the Council of State missed.

Thanks to find the tm27. Indeed that is the missing form and is in accordance with the law.

You wrote the wrong text in the tm28 is just a failure by produce the new templates. It could be, but also on some posters of the immigration and other material published, I have seen the original text in Thai without any failures but the officer is shown as a cosmic picture is sitting at an immigration desk and not at the local police. I Not want to insist the immigration to bend the law, but if some experience with the Thai authorities that leads me to a more pessimistic point of view.

On 8/16/2019 at 2:39 PM, jackdd said:

What i wrote is still true, even if your friends did it there.

Immigration police might accept it, but actually it's supposed to be done at your local police station, just look at the law:

For the TM28 it says:

 

 

For the TM30 which has to be done with immigration police:

 

 

Hi jacked,

what you wrote is ok, but I feel to remember I had seen the words " to the Immigration officer" on the actual tm28 forms, or isn't it?

On 8/16/2019 at 1:24 PM, jackdd said:

You do a TM28 at a police station, not at immigration police, that's written on the form itself and in the law.

The person who you talked to just told you what is written in the law (but most foreigners are exempt from this anyway, for example people on tourist or business visas and some others), the person didn't tell you that this law is currently not enforced, so currently nothing to worry about.

This is partialy correct.

The truth is, as long as no one can show that the 40 years old police rule, defining all these forms, is no longer to use or has  partially changed this 40 years old rule is part of the actual law.

This rule defines a set of forms, but without any TM## numbering.

1.) The form that is actually tm30. According article 38 immigration act.

2.) The form for the 90 day report. Actually tm47. According article 37(5) immigration act.

2.) Two different forms to use by the foreigner to report:

A) if he not live at the place he reporter at the time when he entered Thailand by using the tm6 (departure/arival card). This form is addressed to the Immigration officer. This is according article 37(2) immigration act.

B) another second form to report to the local police office in the case he moved his place of residence. This is according article 37(3)(4) immigration act.

Actually, the tm28 is used for both cases and is addressed to the Immigration officer and is not defined by the police rule.

I never found anything written that there was a legitimate transfer of those both forms to be the actual tm28. Additionally I never found a legitimate transfer of the duty from the local police ( case B) to the Immigration organisation.

Furthermore the duty to report in the (case B) article 37(3)(4) has some exceptions e.g. tourism, business and a few more.

On 8/16/2019 at 12:49 PM, Peterw42 said:

Thats a TM28 for a new arrival and permanent address, thats about the only time an immigration office requires a TM28. I have never heard of it being enforced for short stays like TM30 is.

Maybe its a Hua Hin local rule.

There is no HuaHin local rule about the immigration act and any subsequent law. The immigration law is the same all over thailand. 

The officers know that!!!

Only two choices.

1.) IO is braindeath.

2.) IO tries to open a new money source.

I apologise to all immigration offices to write this very clear. If we have some IOs here around, May be as members please clarify.

On 8/16/2019 at 11:05 AM, spambot said:

For nationality the options are not that clear - Since I'm from UK - The choices could be Britain, England, Great Britain, United Kingdom - Can not seem to find any of these after translation - Anyone got the answer?

 

None of them.

Bermudas

Bolivia

Brasil

Barbados

Brunei

Buthan

Mugobowet

Botswana

Caroline

Kuratshauan

Africa ylang (middle Africa)

Canadian

Coconut islands

Switzerland

Chile

On 8/16/2019 at 10:25 AM, spambot said:

Ok - You are probably right - I live in a condo in Bangkok together with 70 other residents and I have a 6 month contract to pay rent monthly.

If you moved in (your body)

before you signed the contract then the person you rented from has to report you.

If you moved in after you signed the contract then you have to report, because from this moment you are the "chief possessor".

On 8/16/2019 at 9:29 AM, jackdd said:

I think your understanding of "occupier" and "possessor" is somehow off.

Please explain your living situation. At what kind of place do you stay, who is the owner of the place where you stay and in which way were you given permission to stay there?

That is the correct approach. 

On 8/16/2019 at 8:11 AM, spambot said:

Is there an online TM30 reporting for occupiers only, rather than owners.

 

If I look here at the IOS app it says that the app is for "Owner or occupant of a dwelling place" - is this really true?

Are you shure this app belongs to us as foreigners living in a normal house, registered at the district, with a house book assigned to it ? I Not want to write something wrong or confuse other posters, but if I read "the app is for "owner or occupant of a dwellingplace"" than it sounds to me as it would concern to the second group of persons the art.38 immigration act is talking about.

I not downloaded the app to take a look to it, it was just the description makes me to comment it.

Here the 3 groups we have in article 38:

1st group is "housemates".

2nd group is "owner or possessor of the residence" but better translated from Thai ==> English would be "owner or possessor of a dwellingplace".

3rd group is "hotel managers" etc.

Please trust me in understanding written Thai. I can read it fluent in the most cases. I am not perfect but perfect enough to fight with the authorities in written form using the Thai language without any need of a lawayer or a translator.

The 2nd group covers dwelling or living places where people could live. Those places differ from normal houses or condos because they are not registered at the district office due to different reasons.

Because they are not registered according the people registration act, they do not have a house book too and we can not apply the definition "housemaster", because this definition comes from the people registration act. The "housemaster"

definition only takes place if the house or whatever place is registered at the district office under the law of the people registration act.

There still a lot of possible living places not registered at the district office an may be can not be registered because they fail in some regulatory aspects to be a "house".

This could be a boat, a storage hall, a worker's camp with temporary simple homes, a wooden small house without any sanitary rooms in the middle of a rice field or something similar. 

For this kind of living or dwellingplaces the "housemaster definition" can not be used.

So far, it's my feeling this specific app is to register for those specific cases and most likely not for us.

 To make the tm30 reporting process as simple as possible I would do it as follow:

1.) Download a tm30 form. This form has 2 Pages. The first page is the tm30 form itself and the second page is to write down all the person's you have to report.

2.) Make as many copies of this form along with copies of your rental contract as you think you ever will need. 

3.) Fill in the tm30 page and list all person's you have to report on the second page. At the last column of the second page fill in the status of all person's you report. For your own list item, because you do the report, fill in "house master in the state as renter" or similar similar. The best would a verbatim copy of the therm the used in the translated art.4 of the immigration act of the description of house master. I Not have the actual wording the use with me while writing this here.

4.) Sign the copy of the rental contract as "copy correct, date, sign".

5.) Prepare e return envelope with your address as receiver as written in the tm30 already.

6.) Affix a 3 THB postage stamp on it

7.) Make copies of this whole set of paper as evidence.

8.) Bring it to a post office and send it by registered mail to your concerned immigration and keep the registration slip from the post office along with the copies you made before.

9.) Wait for the tm30 receipt slip they have to send to you by using the return envelope.

2nd Method:

Step 1-4 the same as above.

5.) Bring it to your nearest police station to process it and keep the receipt slip of the tm30 form.

Do it as often you feel you should do it.

Here the definitions "owner" and "posessor" taken from a Thai dictionary that is written in Thai. I translated to english as good as possible, but i know my english is bad. Unfortunately it was not possible to avoid the use use a few thai words:

ครอบครอง KrobKrong: In the sense of the law it is: To have rights, maybe limited rights, on something (movable or not movable) because it is in your access because its your own thing, or you got it from another person. 

This matches what we would say "to posess something".

เจ้าของ DjiauKong: Is the person with the right as owner. That means he can posess it, use it, make profit with or from it and give it to others. 

So far this matches what we would name "the owner".

If we are talking about "เจ้าของ DjiauKong" we point to the owner with the full set of rights. If we talk about "ผู้ ครอบครอง Poo KrobKrong" than we are pointing to the possessor.

The posessor and the owner could be the same person.

It could be, the owner is not allowed to posess something where he has ownership. E.g. Weapons, explosives, drugs, chemicals, ... Here he could be the owner but not the posessor.  But as owner he could make profit with it. Only he can not posess it because he has no licence to have this goods in his own access.

The ownership of a house is not registered in the TabienBaan. 

In the case you need to bring evidence for your ownership, you have to use a contract that gives you the ownership. Or a "Testament, last will" of the person who transfered the ownership to you. Or other evidence. 

For the posessorship you could use a lease contract by example. 
Every person is living in a house has possesorship because they all have access to this house, maybe with different rights. For this reason there is the term "chief possesor" to point out the person who is dedicated to do the report.

The part of article 38 of the immigration act, where the words "owner" and "posessor" are used, is not related to the first part "the housemaster". It is missleading because they use the words "the owner or posessor of the residence". That leads to the miss-understanding they want to refere to the owner or posessor of a normal registered house or condo where we expats normally live in. 

This is not correct. It should be better  "The owner or posessor of a dwellingplace". This would match the original Thai version much better. This is a second and different  group of places where people could live and a different group of persons to have to report. This group does not mean our normal houses and condos. Here we have livingplaces without any house registration and there is no houseregistration number at the district office.

Due to this, there is no TabienBaan and the whole "people registration act" does not apply. If this act does not apply, then the "Housemaster" defininition in this act does not apply too. This would be the reason to bring this second group into article 38 of the immigration act.

12 hours ago, roamer said:

Owner = เจ้าของ

Possessor= เจ้าของ

 

Note the similarity ? Thai language has no simple way of distinguishing between the two. It follows that an English translation will also not make any distinction.

There is another term in the thai law to point to the person who is what we understand as owner. Translated 1:1 (i not use the thai letters to write it except i get permission to do) "Person who has ownerright in a good" 

On 8/14/2019 at 5:54 AM, lamyai3 said:

I was googling to see if I could find if this is a Thai specific thing, or whether the laws have parity with those from the West. The best explanation I found was in this article on Zimbabwean law, which sounds quite similar in the distinction made between ownership and possession. If immigration continue to stubbornly insist on TM30s for all travel, but manage to create a user friendly and reliable app and a more reasonable timeframe for reporting, this is at least easier for people to comply with than hassling the landlord each time you return. I'd be curious if any legal minds on the forum know whether this is common legal practice in law in the major Western countries.

 

"Although the terms “ownership” and “possession” may be closely related, they are not synonyms. They, however, both relate to property, be it movable or immovable, tangible or intangible.
To start with, ownership is just that, ownership. On the other hand, possession is the state of being in actual physical control of something.
Often, ownership and possession are crocheted together where the owner and the possessor are one and the same.
It is common cause that a thing can be owned by one person and yet be possessed by another.
A good example is what happens in a lease agreement. The property is owned by the landlord but is possessed by the tenant. If you send your car to the mechanic for service, the mechanic becomes the possessor but you remain the owner."

https://www.sundaymail.co.zw/property-ownership-possession-and-the-law

In german law ther is a difference between ownership and possessorship.

In German the owner is the "Eigemtuemer" and is the person with the, lets say full rights on something. No matter of mobiel or immobiel. 

The possessor is the "Besitzer" and is the person actually can access and use a thing.

Possessor and owner may be the same person or not. If the posessor is not the owner than he has restricted rights are granted by the owner.

In case of a rented house, the tenand is only the posessor and not the owner. Except in the case of a selfdeal when the owner makes a selfcontract and rents his own property.

If the owner lives in his own house them he is the posessor too.

5 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

He stated her name was on the lease, not in his Tabien Baan.

Yes, sorry. I read it wrong and corrected already. But you were faster ????

22 minutes ago, berybert said:

If the lease is in his wife's name she will be the possessor and not him.

The lease is to the thai lady. Due to this the thai lady has to do the report.

34 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I have read it. I researched this subject in detail several years ago.

Please give us a translation of the housemasterdefinition in the people registration act.

38 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

 

 

I count 3 separate entities and no statement that responsibility only falls to the housemaster.

 

Section 38 : The house – master , the owner or the possessor of the residence , or the hotel manager where the alien , receiving permission to stay temporary in the Kingdom has stayed , must notify the competent official of the Immigration Office located in the same area with that hours , dwelling place or hotel, within 24 hours from the time of arrival of the alien concerned. If there is no Immigration Office located in that area , the local police official for that area must be notified.

 

 

Yes, 3 entities. But as long you not live in a hotel (entity 3) or on a workers camp a boat etc

 ( entity 2) than is only entity 1 left that is the housemaster.

Tha tranlatiom is missleading.

The part "owner or possessor of the residence" is wrong.

It is "The owner or possessor of a dwellingplace" and is a sepatate entity not to mix up with a posessor or owner of the house you live in.

Additionally i put the translation of housemaster from the people regisytaton act here:

"Housemaster" means the chief posessor of the house in the position as the posessor or renter or any other position comparable to this. 
In the case there is no housemaster to find or the housemaster is not there, is dead, is away or he is not possible to do his duty consider the person with the duty to take care of the house to be the housemaster during this period.

25 minutes ago, elviajero said:

No. They are considered the Possessor. 

 

No. They are considered the Possessor.

 

Yes.

 

No. They are considered the Possessor.

 

The Immigration Act is not designating who the "house-master" is. It is simply confirming that whoever the house-master is, “in accordance with the law on people act", they are responsible to report. 

 

The owner is always responsible, however, they don’t always live in the property, or are named as house-master, or know about foreign guests. The reason “Possessor” is included in the act is as a catch all backup in case the owner isn’t living in the property and no house-master is nominated in the TB. 

 

The act gives responsibility to three separate entities; Owner, House-master, or Possessor. Based on your wrong understanding they simply need to specify its down to the House-master. However, if they did that the owner or anyone else responsible for the property is off the hook.

The act gives the responsibility only to one entitie the housemaster. But the housemaster could be the owner, the posessor or each other person. It not gives the resposinsibiloty to 3 different entities. 

But there a still 3 dif. entities, the act is talking about:

1. Housemster

2. Owner or posesor of a KeHaSataan (dwellingplace, like a workers camp etc...)

3. Hotelmanager.