MangoKorat

Which is precisely why this news report is a waste of space. As usual, lots of talk but no action.

Are you sure who you are agreeing with?

Simple, your entry history caused them to suspect you may in fact be working illegally. I understand your anger, I've also been warned. I had a conversation with an I.O. at a later date, as to why this happens and he said, "we think maybe you work". You know you weren't working - neither was I but we don't see the thousands they bar each year that are in fact, working, Immigration Officers do. I was once offfered a job in Sukhumvit and when I asked about a Work Permit, I was told the job didn't include one. On the way to the manager's office for my interview I must have passed at least 50 foreigners sat at desks - working. I wonder how many of those had Work Permits.

I'm not sure where that figure comes from but are you saying that's what the government is saving by freezing pensions? In other words, that's what they are fiddling pensioners out - so that's their real motivation. Its disgusting. This might have been taken to court many times without success but I'd be looking at the Law of Contract. A contract can be written, verbal or implied. In paying your National Insurance contributions, you have entered into a contract with the UK government - the implication being that you pay contributions and in return receive pension credits according to the amount of time you pay in for. When you retire you are then provided with a pension. A contract in law must comprise of several key elements: An Offer, an Acceptance, a Consideration, an Intention and a Certainty. The person making the Offer is refered to as the Promisor and the benificiary of the contract is known as the Promisee. In this case the Offer would be on the government's part that in return for the Consideration (your N.I. contributions) they will provide an amount of pension. The Intention is to provide you with the means to sustain yourself after you retire from work. The certainty applies to both sides in that you will make such payments and the government guarantees payment. Courts regularly rule against unfair contract terms.

I know exactly what you mean, I've experienced some of those idiots. Its not too difficult to see through them though - just stay away from anyone that behaves more like a used car salesman than a lawyer. The girl I use is very good and sorted a few things out for me over the years. When something's not worth it, she tells me - unlike the charlatans that would take my money knowing I've no chance. Conversely she also told me that I must take action against my ex wife, I did and I won.

That is a long told untruth, in the same way as the other one that says the bigger vehicle has to pay in an accident (something my Thai lawyer described as rubbish). If you get blamed for a road accident and/or the police say you have to pay up when you know it wasn't your fault. See a decent lawyer. Plenty of foreigners win in court cases when they have the motivation to fight - the courts are pretty fair actually but you have to be prepared to go to court. Plenty of Thai's also back down when they realise you are serious about court.

You've gone native then?

Yes but you can't compare two completely different pension systems. Despite the amount of long term unemployed etc. the majority of UK citizens pay N.I. during their working lives - a contributory pension scheme. I'm unsure of the actual percentage but I believe the majority of Thai's pay no tax or insurance and therefore no pension contributions. You could then, say they are lucky to get even 600 baht per month.

The recommendations of the All Party Group clearly appear to show political will. The general public won't be putting it at the top of their list - simply because the vast majority of them don't retire abroad and there are plenty of more serious widespread issues at the moment. I'm aware that this policy has remained in place throughout governments of all flavours but this UK government is particularly bad when it comes to looking after its own and sod everyone else. Granted, the country's been through Covid but in reality, the country is in a hell of a state after years of Tory cuts in public services. I'm baffled by the Tory's rhetoric at the moment - in the same news bulletin they talk about tax cuts and further cuts to public services. Some local authorities are looking at bankruptcy and I think it was 116 of them that have stated they are likely to run out of money in the next 5 years. The government says it won't even look at unfreezing pensions but knowing the ridiculous cost of anything that governments do, they are probably going to spend more on the new pension fraud checks than that 'fraud' is actually costing them.

Incorrect, that's the amount that Thai's get that haven't paid into a pension scheme, don't pay SS and don't pay tax.

Thanks for that. Typical of this Tory government. They hold an All Party Parliamentary Group Inquiry into the matter of Frozen Pensions and then fail to follow its recommendations. Why? Because those recommendations go against them. 'The report recommends that the UK Government end the ‘frozen’ pension policy and seek to provide UK pensioners living in ‘frozen’ countries with their full uprated UK state pension as soon as possible' http://frozenbritishpensions.org/wp-content/uploads/2021/05/Frozen-Pensions-APPG-1.pdf Given that the majority of MPs are millionaires and the rest will no doubt be very well off compared to the rest of us - they won't be worrying if their pensions are frozen.

It is hardly surprising that people get angry at petty goverment rules on pensions paid to those living outside the UK when the following matters are considered: I was born in Leeds and last year listened to a radio broadcast that stated that Leeds now has 3rd generation people who have never worked. Not only have those lazy swines been claiming uneployment benefit throughout those 3 generations, you can be sure that they will also have been claiming housing and other benefits. More to the point, I believe that those in receipt of unemployment benefit automatically gain pension credits and will therefore be entitled to the full basic state pension. Even if I'm wrong on that point, they are able to claim Pension Credit which brings their income to more or less the same level. It is also not surprising that there are thousands of people camped out in Northern France, hoping to get on a 'small boat' across to the UK where they will claim Asylum. If they are successful in getting to the UK, we put them up in hotels until their claims are proceessed! From the time when they apply for Asylum until they are granted a degree of support from the UK and although it is very limited it does include housing. However, once they achieve Refugee status, they are entitled to the full range of benefits - including Pension Credit! So let's say you are receiving your pension and leave the UK this week it will be frozen at whatever rate it is at the moment. However, someone with refugee status will be able to claim £201.05 at the moment but they will get the rise to £221.20 in April (Pension Credit). I would state that I have nothing against helping out genuine refugees but when we can't allow our own citizens to receive their pension increases, it just seems plain wrong. It is not surprising that there is so much anti Asylum Seeker sentiment in the UK.

I know you didn't and there was no intended crticism in my reply. In your latest reply you refer to the 'All-Party Parliamentary Group on Frozen British Pensions 2020 inquiry' and Baroness Stedman-Scott's response. Do you know if the government has released the findings of that inquiry?

Thanks for the history but that doesn't make it right - it only makes it legal as things stand. Other unfair laws have been challenged and overturned. In my opinion, the law preventing those living abroad (in most countries) is morally illegal. I'm struggling to understand the reasoning behind this rule. The UK allows increases to be paid to residents living in a country that has a reciprocal agreement. I'm struggling to understand how having such an agreement would benefit the UK. A Thai citizen, living in the UK would only get a pension corresponding to the amount of any contributions they have made. I'm not due for a pension yet but over the last few years I've cost the NHS a significant amount due to illness, it is also likely that I will need further treatment in the years to come which, if I'm living in Thailand, I will have to fund myself. It is a given that as people get older, they are more liable to illness and therefore their cost to the country is higher. The UK population is aging so that position is likely to get worse. People living abroad and paying for their own treatment don't cause the UK to incur those costs and are therefore likley to actually save the UK money. Were we talking about a private pension with a provision for increases over time, there would be no way a private pension provider would be allowed to refuse such increases to a person choosing to live abroad. The amount you pay in determines the amount you get out - that should not be any different for people living abroad.

On the basis that you actually mean not declare that they are living in Thailand for pension purposes - how about this: 2 guys, identical ages, both worked all their lives and both paid their NI contributions throughout their lives. One remains in the UK for his retirement, the other decides to go live in Thailand. Is it fair that the guy who goes to Thailand has his pension frozen? Who's the criminal? I'd say its the UK government!

Tax Evasion,? This is about pensions.

Hmmm, I wasn't clear. If someone returned to the UK, what's to say that the intention is not permanent? Can you not then change your mind? There must be a point at which they consider you as residing in the UK otherwise someone could go to Thailand on a 1 year retirement visa stay until that visa expires and then return to the UK. If they stayed in the UK for a year and after that decided to go back to Thailand, surely their pension would not then revert to the amount it was before they went to Thailand the first time? I know of people who do 6 months in the UK and then 6 months in Thailand - how would DWP view that?

It would be interesting to test the legality of the rule that prevents people from receiving pension increases on the basis of 'residence'. The question is, do you actually reside in Thailand? You have to apply each year to extend your stay and technically that extension can be refused. You can also be told to leave at any time. There are of course written definitions of what is classed as resident for tax purposes but are there for pensions? Most expats in Thailand are, in reality, a guest. I would never really consider myself a resident unless I had PR. I also wonder about this scenario: Let's say you leave the UK whilst receiving a pension of £200 per week but the pension is due to increase by 10% the following April. In March of the next year you return to the UK and stay with a relative until May. Would you be entitled to receive the April increase? At what point would they consider you as resident and what would qualify that?

I'm not a US citizen.

I agree that the article is from August 2023 but where does it say its regarding a pending change to the rules. Seriously, if this company are trying to make it look like a rule when its not in order to obtain more business, I will take it up with them. My apologies, I had not seen the 'Conclusion' the text of which is completely at odds with what is stated in the other sections which state: 'Financial institution notices will not require taxpayer or tax tribunal permission, although HMRC argues there will be safeguards: the information must be fairly required.' and: 'However, it appears that HMRC can assess what is reasonably required, as notices must be approved by an ‘authorized officer’ of HMRC)'

An example of what I wrote above from Facebook Marketplace today - complete rubbish. The translation on Facebook is not too good but note the bit that says if you don't pay 5000 deposit, you won't get to see the truck. 😁 Pay 5000 and you'll never see the truck. _________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ Year 2018 NISSAN NP300 NAVARA E CAB (WHITE) 2.5 Diesel MT 6speed Airbags Mile 6x,xxx km. Nance GE tax 66 The price is 69,000. - Baht New customers, please read the details before calling. Cheap price but there are restrictions as follows. ☎📱[hidden information] Golf Line🆔 : golfbkk356 💰💰Selling for cash only. Price is as posted. Cannot pay installment. Cannot finance. (Cash purchase, based on the listed price, no installment required) 👉The car is out of the pawn shop, cannot be transferred. Cannot sell books. The book is attached to the loan. You will get the pawn documents, ID copy, copy of the first page of the registration book. Transfer book, power of attorney, loan agreement and others. 👉Car that has lost pawn can be driven all over Thailand. All documents are handwritten with a name and a valid copy only from the owner of the car. The car cannot be transferred, but there is no legal problem because there are pawn documents of the owner directly. 👉Tax extension. You can use a copy of the page of the book. Act. Insurance. I can do it as usual. 👉Guarantee for safe usage from customers who take our cars every day. You can see from the sales reviews. *Ready to receive the car. Deposit 5,000 as usual. If you don't deposit, you won't make an appointment to pick up the car. In any case, this prevents customers who made an appointment to see the car, missed the appointment and didn't come to see the car. Sometimes the car is in the branch of the province. It will be a big loss. Check the trading history from the page. If you're not ready to buy, you don't need to make a deposit. It's a waste of time for both parties. Thank you very much !!! 🙏🏻🙏🏻🙏🏻 *Accept parking pawn. Interest 10%. Parking fee 1000 Baht/month. 1 month advance interest deducted. Someone will take care of it. *Buy pawned cars. Traffic jammed. Evaluate the price according to the condition. Translated from Thai

HMRC can check your bank account Back in July 2020, HMRC announced the creation of a new ‘financial institution notice’ to speed up the process of obtaining information about a known taxpayer’s tax position from banks and other organizations. Instead of altering its powers for all third-party notices, HMRC will now create this new notice. Financial institution notices will not require taxpayer or tax tribunal permission, although HMRC argues there will be safeguards: the information must be fairly required. However, it appears that HMRC can assess what is reasonably required, as notices must be approved by an ‘authorized officer’ of HMRC). https://sterlinxglobal.com/non-compliant-to-uk-tax-laws/

I've had several letters from Korat Immigration confirming my address in Thailand, I don't think any of them were the official Residence Certificate but they were all in Thai.

Sadly, despite the complaints, it will make no difference. People will just moan and pay up.

Have you read the link I provided? The ability for an 'authorised officer' of HMRC to issue a third party notice to a bank or other financial institution is already in place and nothing to do with the DWP matter currently going through parliament. That bill however, will enhance the overall ability of both authorities to look into your bank accounts. If the HMRC noticed a potential issue over what look like pension payments going into a foreign account or amounts corresponding with payments in the UK, are you suggesting that they would not pass that information on to the DWP? Signatory's to AEOI are already required to firstly supply details of a foreigner opening a bank account and if subsequently requested, supply further details regarding that account. No court order required to the best of my knowledge. The third party notices and AEOI rules are extant and the bill going through parliament will simply serve to complete the circle.