5 minutes ago, impulse said:

As far as the brands, there's so much incest that you never know what factory is making your appliances, regardless of whose nameplate goes on it.

Interesting way of putting it - 'incest' - but you are correct. Even Bosch are marketed by other brands and on the subject of Bosch, apparently there are big differences in quality depending on which country they are manufactured in.

3 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Yes. But, the topic is mostly about washing machines.

😁😁😁

You can't say that it's 'mainly' about washing machines when you included 'and Appliances' in the title - there is no 'mainly', the topic is about what the title states.

2 minutes ago, GammaGlobulin said:

This Topic, I had thought, was about washing machines.

Strange, the title says:

Samsung Washing Machines? And, appliances? Garbage compared to GE/Westinghouse/Maytag?

'The typical washer is a top loader' - really, which century are you living in?  Top loaders are old hat.

17 hours ago, GammaGlobulin said:

Compared to what I am used to, in the USA, in past years, Samsung provides cheap.....

Cheap garbage

I have mainly Samsung products throughout my homes, both UK and Thailand. I always insist on Samsung and that has proved to be a good policy for many years.

The one time that I varied from that and bought a Hisense TV because of a huge price difference was last year, within a few months the TV developed a colour fault which resulted in the TV being replaced. That doesn't instil me with confidence when the 3 year warranty runs out.

I did again sucumb to a big price advantage when I replaced my phone with a blatant Oppo copy of the current Samsung model (even the case fits both). Although the phone itself performs well, the Color operating system is full of bugs and tends to lose settings etc. Back to Samsung next time.

One Samsung TV has been fault free for over 7 years, the other for 5. My Samsung fridge freezer has been fault free for 11 years.

Cheap garbage? Far from it!

Haven't been to Pattaya for many years but when I did travel there by bus, I always went from Ekamai and there were several options - maybe a better choice?

Seen this before and although I agree with the taxi driver, this situation has been going on for many years - long enough for the taxi companies to put it in writing, in multiple languages, on a sign inside that car.

There used to be something like that but only in English, can't remember or maybe I just don't notice it but I don't think I've seen it for a while.

I'm not so sure that the tourists running away shows their guilt, thinking they were being ripped off, they may have thought that would be an end to the matter.  With some taxi drivers it would be but this girl stood her ground.

2 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

It's in that report from the AAPG and yes it is disgusting and an anomaly, particularly so in that pensioners don't make a big claim on the state for free bus fares healthcare and the like, making it doubly iniquitous. If a class action was to be attempted, then a lot of people would have to put up a lot of money to prepare a case and take the government to court. You're talking serious money here, and in many cases the government has Crown immunity anyway so normal laws do not apply. My sister just lost out at getting her pension at 60 when she had fully expected it all her working life , there was a court case I seem to remember, but they lost.

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/media/6061da7ad3bf7f5ce1060a85/Crown_Application__Jan_2021_.pdf

The key to taking the government to court on a matter of contract would be to first of all get a court to rule that the contract exists without revealing your next move.

13 hours ago, thesetat said:

They already have a help line to report these scamming drivers. They even have an app for it. But alot of good those did when no-one speaks english and the app is in Thai. I tried to report a driver once on the app and once on the phone. I had video footage of what happened for each incident. Nothing ever came about my reporting the drivers. So these nice new little help lines is just like most of the lip service foreigners read about. It will work for a short time then it will stop. 

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

45 minutes ago, richard_smith237 said:

100% agree with you Middle Aged Grouch....

Are you sure who you are agreeing with?

23 hours ago, shdmn said:

What was the problem exactly?

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.

22 hours ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

That said, what leaps out is the cost of doing that would be £600 million per year

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.

21 hours ago, Lacessit said:

How does one find a decent lawyer? I understand the term can be an oxymoron.

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.

39 minutes ago, Middle Aged Grouch said:

The main section of Thai road law is that the falang/foreigner/tourist is always the one at fault.

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.

8 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

I've started going through reds and turning left to avoid them, too much time wasted at traffic lights and long u turns

You've gone native then?

29 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Which is probably most of the service industry folks you encounter.

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.

25 minutes ago, beautifulthailand99 said:

Wise words and worth noting that's Thais only get 600 baht per month at 60 rising to 700 at 70 and 800 I think at 80.

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.

23 minutes ago, Georgealbert said:

Here is the report of the 2020 inquiry.

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.

5 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

“The Government has not made an assessment of the All-Party Parliamentary Group on Frozen British Pensions 2020 inquiry or its findings.

5 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

At no time, did I saw that the law is fair, I just gave the legal background to why it is there.

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?

9 hours ago, Georgealbert said:

The legality of the rule, dates back to the history of the state pension.

 

1925 -  Contributory pensions are first introduced and only payable in Great Britain, Northern Ireland and Isle Of Man.

 

1927 - The Contributory Pension Act 1929 Which allowed pensions to be paid in HM’s Dominions

 

1946 - The National Insurance Act 1946 Regulations which contained a provision for disqualification for payments of benefits abroad.

 

1948 - The pension is first increased, but these increases are not paid to people abroad.

 

1955 - The National Insurance(residence and persons abroad) Regulations ,which allowed the pension to be payable anywhere in the world, but not uprated.

These provisions have been carried over in all new acts and regulations since, and it is only where there is negotiated reciprocal agreements in place, that allows for uprating  

 

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.

8 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Agreed, but surely the real toxic ones are the people who commit tax evasion, a serious criminal offense, not the ones who provide evidence against them. 

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!

2 minutes ago, Baht Simpson said:

Agreed, but surely the real toxic ones are the people who commit tax evasion, a serious criminal offense, not the ones who provide evidence against them. 

Tax Evasion,? This is about pensions.

5 minutes ago, Madgee said:

You can inform the DWP that you are in the UK and you will receive the latest pension increase up to the date you leave, it then reverts to what it was before you entered the country, that is provided you tell them you are leaving (back to Thailand)! As a previous poster stated, they do call you periodically to check if you are still in the UK.  Remember that because of the increase you might be liable for more tax. 

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?