CRUNCHER

There but for the grace of God go I.  A few people on this thread need to show a bit more sympathy.

 

I am afraid I can't provide a magic solution, but can anyone supply this guy with an Immigration e-mail address.  It probably won't completely solve the problem, but  he could start the ball rolling and save some time when comes back.

 

Good luck OP.

1 hour ago, Grusa said:

If the book does not show movement in the account - any movement will do - it is an "inactive account" and they will reject it: it has happened to me. They want to see a movement in the three days preceding the application. 

This has been so for at least 1 1/2 years! ( my last two renewals). One week ahead was not good enough!

Don't know why you have a problem. I have been doing it for years with no movement; the last one 2 months ago.

6 minutes ago, Grusa said:

You could still have a problem, because at Jomtien at least, they want to see it is an "active account". This means they want to see movement in the account in the three days preceding the application!  If you do nothing, account invalid, go away. If you take money out, not enough money, go away. So, you need to put a few thousand in, immediately before you get your book made up and the bank letter printed, not more than three days before you apply. Might be difficult if it's a holiday weekend, you have no margins for error! 

Imm might be kind and work on the basis of working days, not calander days. All depends on how much or how little they like the look of you, so dress up well, and on which side of whose bed the officer got up that morning........

For Jomtien no need to put money in. When you get your letter from the bank they will update your passbook. Never had a problem.

50 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Which means he only had 799,750 baht in the bank on the date he applied for the extension. Why would anybody only have exactly 800k baht in the bank.

I usually put my "visa money" on fixed deposit at least 3 months before the renewal date. It is kept separate from all my other banking.

5 minutes ago, rkidlad said:

And who are the people most likely to have 20k in cash in nice new crisp 1000 baht notes? The very people they're trying to get rid of. 

 

Well, until they change the rules again. 

Well if they have got the cash they are less likely to have a problem.

 

Rule have not changed; only enforcement.  Enforcement powers are a tool which can be used if necessary.  Authorities have discretion as to when to use them.  Clearly immigration have decided it is time to deal with people who break or circumvent Thai laws.

 

No problem there.

1 hour ago, billd766 said:

 

I was responding to your post which is misleading .

 

It doesn't really matter in this case because the thread is NOT about 3, 6 or 9 month METV, NOR is it about married or retirement extensions, but about people who are not really tourists using 30 day entries and 30 day tourists visas for a lot of entries to Thailand per year. They are the ones complaining about having to show 20,000 thb on entry to Thailand.

Well said sir!

 

There is too much obfuscation in this thread.  People do not get their pockets picked because they are carrying (so called) large amounts of cash.  They get their pockets picked because they do not take sensible precautions. These people make airports a pick pockets paradise and this is nothing to do with Thai Immigration.

 

Why don't they target bus loads of Chinese tourists? Because immigration know they are tourists and not people trying to live (and perhaps work) in Thailand full time.

 

The bits about taxi drivers really lost me.

 

Every country has its own laws and customs.  You don't have to like them, but if you live there obey and follow.

Wait until they try to demolish Waterfront.

Last year, when traveling in Europe, my credit card got scammed and I had to cancel it.  Because I was traveling it took over a week to replace.  Without a wad of cash I would have been in real trouble, not the least paying for hotels.

 

I make good use of my credit card, but when acting the tourist it makes sense to have some cash just in case.

2 minutes ago, AsianAtHeart said:

This might seem easy to say, and perhaps you are just simplistic enough to believe in such a vain pipe dream as you describe.  The facts are often different.  Just as no two humans are alike, no two circumstances are identical either.  There are not enough visa categories to encompass all of the possibilities.  Consider, for a moment, the foreigner living and working in Laos.  He/she has a valid one year work permit/visa to stay in Laos and would like to cross the border regularly to access some much-need supplies that are unavailable or high-priced in Laos.  What visa type should he or she apply for?  Non-immigrant?  Business?  …..tourist visa perhaps?  But it's not really a genuine tourist situation, is it?  So, the system has to be played--and tourist visa it is.  This means heaps of tourist visas in the passport--just the kind that you might assume to be a "red flag."  Of course, if Thailand doesn't want shoppers or their money . . . .

I know a few people who do this (although not Laos).  Because they work in another country there is a limit to the number of visits and the length of such visits.  They are not living in Thailand; they are living elsewhere.  Visa exempt entry is appropriate to their stay.

 

In your scenario their passports would show they spend most of their time in Laos and I would guess details of work permit.

 

People who spend most of their time in Thailand claiming to be tourists are the targets.

Below is a letter sent to buyers on 2nd July.  Does not seem that there is likely to be any "...developments later this month".

 

I have seen a few of these over the past couple of years.  City Hall has no obligation to  respond, but it is shame they do not in the interests of openness and transparency.  Perhaps they do not have a good answer.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

Dear Client

Subject: Bali Hai Limited – Waterfront Pattaya Project

Further to our communication of 08 May 2017, we write to update you on the latest developments concerning the Waterfront Pattaya Project.

Construction Permit

As previously reported, after Bali Hai’s submission lodged on 12 January 2017, Pattaya City Hall (“PCH”) further postponed its decision from the end of March 2017 to mid-May 2017. On the 1st of June 2017 Bali Hai received, with much disappointment, PCH’s reply dated 11 May 2017, notifying that the Company’s building modification application had not been approved due to incompleteness of certain information and some discrepancies. By the reply, Bali Hai is legally allowed now to file a new application for building modification permit with PCH. As you are aware, the general understanding following discussions between the Company’s professional team and PCH in 2016, was that should the Company be willing to compromise, by demolishing the top 5 floors of the building to observe the floor area limits of the approved scheme, PCH would view the new reduced floor area scheme favourably by approving the application and accommodating other minor changes. This was evidenced by the Company submitting an application for modification permit for the reduced floor area scheme, together with detailed demolition plans, an updated EIA report and all relevant plans and documents as required by law, for proceeding with the same. Many questions which were subsequently raised by PCH regarding this scheme had confirmed that this was indeed the mutual understanding.

Throughout the process, the Company complied and co-operated with all orders raised by PCH in good faith and it is disappointing to now discover that, despite PCH having twice extended the statutory deadline for its decision and despite having had many months to review Bali Hai’s submission, it chose not to inform the Company during this period at all and rejected the Company’s request for a meeting for mutual discussion.

Having reviewed PCH’s comments to the Company’s submission in PCH’s reply, many of the queries had in fact previously been responded to while some remain unclear or are minor in nature and could easily have been addressed.

 

Future Plans

Before the Company can submit a new application for building modification permit as instructed by PCH, and in order to ensure that such course of action will be correctly executed to PCH’s complete satisfaction, particularly in the context of the above, the Company considers it is highly essential that our representatives meet with PCH’s relevant officials to have the opportunity to discuss and clarify exactly what PCH’s comments and requirements are, to avoid any future misinterpretations.

 

The Company has therefore submitted the letter to PCH to formally request a meeting between the professional teams of PCH and the Company on 29 June 2017. As you may appreciate, the process for resubmission is complicated and likely to take considerable time. The Company hopes to be able to resubmit as soon as reasonably practical after the said meeting (or meetings) take place.

 

Rehabilitation Status

As previously reported, the court had to postpone the previous hearing due to an internal court error and the new hearing date has been scheduled on 17 July 2017 at 9.00 a.m. We will advise you of the outcome after the hearing.

As previously advised, the rehabilitation process has been embarked upon to preserve the value of the Project and enable it to survive this extraordinary crisis which it has been challenged with. The Company remains steadfast in its objective to see to it that the construction is resumed and completed so that all buyers will eventually receive their condominium unit’s title.

We remain most grateful for your continued support and patience.

Yours faithfully,

Mr. Lior Widenfeld

Authorized Director, Bali Hai Limited 

Try Gulliver's on Beach Road

If the narrative is correct, the Thai woman started the fight.  Perhaps some advice on how Thai women should behave might also be appropriate

Yes

My own experience - I have been with HSBC UK for over 50 years, since they were the Midland Bank,  I have not lived in UK since 1975.  Since then they have had and used my overseas address where ever that happened to be.

On 1/26/2017 at 11:24 AM, VBF said:

UPDATE 26-1-17

 

Spoke to Mike, the owner yesterday. Apparently the shop closed in October, for  reasons he wishes to remain private but he still has the stock stored safely and plans are afoot to open in another location "as soon as possible". That is all he wishes to be made publicly known but when the shop re-opens he will ask me to post here.   So........that's all for now folks.

Any developments?  I sure miss that bookshop.

Was this the Emerald Nirvana?  Nearly bought because it looked a good project until I discovered the developer only had an option to buy the land.

8 minutes ago, pattayadude said:

New York has its land-mark called The Statue of Liberty and its in every tourist's snapshot

Paris has its land-mark called The Eiffel tower and its in every tourist's snapshot

Rome has its land-mark called  The Pizza tower and its in every tourist's snapshot

Pattaya has its "Shame"-mark called The Waterfront and it is and will be in every tourist's snapshot

The pride of Pattaya

 

If City Hall lets this drag on, in 10 years time it will be leaning like Pizza as well.

12 minutes ago, champa said:

I think there was a sign "out of service" at the door of sale office for long time. 

 

I saw by myself once in July 2016.

 

Pattaya Day released the article Boulevard of broken dream on September 2016. The article confirmed the sales office appeared to be open, although an “out of service” notice on the front door was not encouraging. 

That sign was there when Tulip was still in control.  It just meant that one of the two doors was not working

I think the expression is "a lawyers gravy train"

The closure of the sales office came a couple of days after Bali Hai filed for bankruptcy protection, a process which could drag on for up to 7 years.

 

It has been suggested that City Hall were upset by Bali Hai's action, because they wanted Bali Hai to slip into bankruptcy to remove the requirement for City Hall to authorize continued construction. The problem seems to be that nobody at City Hall wants to make the decision one way or the other, which is why this has dragged on for so long.

 

I cannot vouch for the suggestion, but my source is someone who used to work in City Hall

1 minute ago, pattayadude said:

the office has already been closed for some time now for "security concerns" and buyers were informed according to a previous post.

encroached office?

I don't think that makes much difference at this point.

That's  like having a minor headache while fighting an advanced cancer

Pettiness on the part of City Hall???

18 minutes ago, Asiantravel said:

I noticed there are many pages of information but in Thai posted on the entrance door of the small office / marketing building next to the development and it looks as though the office building itself ihas been closed.

There is also this sketch plan. What this is the shaded part? does this mean the office building has also encroached onto public land?

I believe the sales office was closed in January by order of City Hall.

 

Looking at the sketch it looks like a case of encroachment.  All I can say is that it has taken City Hall two and half years of having Waterfront under the microscope to work this out and do something about it. 

 

If that is the level of efficiency of City Hall it is small wonder that this is taking so long to resolve. Whatever faults that Bali Hai might or might not have, it is clear that a major contributing factor to this fiasco lies at the door of City Hall.