Liverpool Lou

You quoted me without leaving a comment, did you forget what to say?

I don't know, but I'd guess not, as they are not laptops. This may help... https://www.simplyduty.com/import-calculator/ The Customs Dept also has an English-speaking call centre, 1164

No, I did not, I posted that in this woman's case the outcome was not remotely serious. That is what I claimed. I agree that the act of leaving a swab could be dangerous, in itself, but it wasn't in this case.

No, that's not what was reported, try reading the title and the article; this is about Pattaya residents complaining, not "scammers and prostitutes" complaining.

That's like the pot calling the kettle black..... How? Are you suggesting that Pattaya residents are also involved in the flower- and candy-selling trade? That's the only way that the pot could be accused of calling the kettle black in this case.

Actors, playing the part of police officers in a video, are not "impersonating police officers" in the context that you mean.

No need to dream, that's happening already with prisoners clearing sewers and drains.

The world's worst ever analogy, perhaps.

There weren't 50 police officers, there were 50 "police officers" of which 30 were actual police officers. Read the OP properly and you'd know.

That those twenty are not police officers is what makes them exempt from RTP regulations.

Apart from not having to pay up front, what are the other "serious advantages" of COD?

yes you are right I know.

Unfortunately you are wrong it is very relevant to her case. The potential for harm was significant. i.e. she was put in harm's way by this act. I am not wrong, what happened in her case is 100% relevant to her case. In reality she suffered very little harm and arguing about hypotheticals is pointless.

What evidence do you have that those sellers have "never shipped any of the hundreds of articles they list"? None.

Why wouldn't they arrive? Ali is pretty efficient with deliveries.

"...there are hundreds or thousands of this fake sellers..." Why should you only assume that?

Just because one seller couldn't deliver does not give you grounds to allege that Lazada has thousands of "fake" or "imaginary" [sic] sellers. Why would Lazada be party to that, anyway, (even if it was true) what benefit would it give them?

That's a service fee that those courier companies are entitled to charge as reimbursement for collecting the duty on behalf of the Customs Dept., it is not a Customs clearing charge. Use other delivery means and there won't be that courier company charge.

You'd, unfortunately, be one of the tiny 10% or less minority that is not representative of the industry , in general, then.

B0ll0cks...unless you've got something empirical showing that to be the case. Insurers cannot "exclude you and delete you for any bloody reason" [sic] once the policy (contract) is signed and in force unless those reasons are included in the policy conditions or unless the policy holder has contravened any other conditions. The bottom line is, if you don't like the bloody (to use your word) policy conditions, don't buy the bloody policy.

The introduction date was originally 23rd June, revised to 1st July, so it's not in effect, officially, yet, that could be one reason. If your transaction limit was already set at over B100k there'd be no need to increase it, something the new rules probably wouldn't allow without facial recognition, that would be another reason. It also depends on which bank you're using, BBL would not allow me to increase my transaction limits on the app last week without registering. Kasikorn, KTB, UOBT, none of which I've facially registered with yet, would.

"...had to go to the branch where I opened the account..." Updating passport details is something that can be done at any branch, it should not be necessary to go to the account-holding branch.

It's the tenant's responsibility, the landlord is only the owner, he doesn't supply the rats to the property.

That is not true, it is extremely serious. She could have died from anaphalactic shock and sepsis, poisoned by this Item apart from the very severe pain she would have suffered. I speak as a former theatre nurse But, as I said, in this case, she did not. She did not contract sepsis, she was not in anaphylactic shock (interesting that as an "expert" you couldn't even spell it correctly) and she did not die. What could have happened but didn't happen is hypothetical and irrelevant to her case.

I have no reason to be against insurance companies which, overall, pay out in excess of 90% of all claims (there are industry statistics that are easily found that confirm that), but I am 100% against unsubstantiated claims from AN posters who, without any rational reason or empirical evidence, slag off the insurers in general (and specifically, in this case) by referring to them as "scumbags who do anything they can to deny claims" just because they do not entertain claims for circumstances that are not covered in the policy the customer signed up for. Maybe someone could explain to me why they should?