dbrenn

I think Thai government do the right thing too many dirty poor nasty farangs in Thailand making too much troubles now is time to get rid off them!! I've met quite a few farangs living in Thailand with no visa for years ridiculous!

so much for compassion - during this holiday season. Kitty9, you wouldn't happen to be an ex-g.f. or ex-wife of some farang, would you? Familiarity breeds contempt. However, you'll notice that Thai women who have been steady with farang - will look exclusively to farang (not fellow Thai) - when they're again feeling frisky.

Hello,

I think it's unique move and the guys who will mostly suffer are backpackers who would like to spend 1m in Thai, then 3 weeks in Cambo and return for 1m in Thai.

Also, this 15 days by road/30 days by plane rule just says: You are poor - you get 15 days, you are rich to allow yourself to fly - you get 30 days. Not really fair and it shouldn't be done this way.

I have another suggestion, if "visa-runners" is what bothers immigration they should implement a rule, whereby if you re-entered and stayed in the neightboring country for less then 5 days, then you get 15 days, but if you stayed for more than 5 days you will get 30 days.

This way they will target only "visa-runners" who spend only few hours or less across the border and coming back to Thailand. Yet it will not affect backpacker's or any other traveler as normally they will visit neighboring countries and stay longer than 5 days.

Your suggestion is couched in common sense and fairness - two things which are in short supply among those making Thai Imm policies.

Hmmm. When you compare Thailand to countries around the world, its immigration policy is still one of the slackest. After all, most countries do not tolerate visa running at all, and Thais have to go to great lengths to get a single entry visa to most of the places where we farangs hail from.

Let's face it, many visa runners are wantonly lying on their arrival cards that the purpose of their visit is tourism, when it is really to work illegally without paying tax or stay for some other undeclared reason. It's no secret that Thailand is also a favourite hideout for fugitives, who must find this loophole that allows them to stay in Thailand unchecked for prolonged periods very convenient indeed.

This new 15 day rule is the latest in a series of steps to put pressure on visa runners, to get rid of them, or get them to regularise their stay by getting the correct visa, work permit and so on. Most countries would never have allowed visa running in the first place, and I say good on Thailand for bringing to an end this mockery of its immigration system.

Hi, I've read that after 3 years, 'abadonement' grounds for divorce apply. If one of the parties cannot be located then divorce proceedings can still go ahead and be approved.

Do divorce proceedings have to go through the hiring of a lawyer and the courts in Thailand or can it simply be done back at the amphur that the marriage was registered in?

I will be marrying a farang back in Australia and didn't want this to come back and bite me later on. As there's nothing to lose now it's probably a better idea to divorce sooner rather than later when I do have assets.

Then again how would the Australian government even know I was married to a Thai anyway? I didn't have to show any documentation at the marriage other than a passport for I.D purposes and obtained no forms from the Oz embassy that I was unmarried at the time..

Cheers

I would recommend that you talk about this with a MARA egistered Aussie migration agent or scour www.immi.gov.au rather than trying to get the answer to such a critical question on a forum that specialises in Thailand. While it is certainly not possible to get a Prospective Marriage or De Jure Spouse visa while you are already married (doing the forms for my other half now and recall reading it in the rules), I do recall reading an authoritative source on an Aussie immigration forum that it *is* possible to get a Defacto Spouse visa. Strange, but apparently true - being in a defacto relationship while legally married to someone else seems not to be viewed as bigamy under the eyes of Australian law. Go to the immigration forum at www.britishexpats.com for a better source of information on this subject, and the rules might have changed so an agent is the best way.

To get a divorce under any grounds other than mutual consent in Thaland requires that you go to court and get a court order to dissolve the marriage. Go to a reputable local law firm and they will help you with this, but you may have to appear in person and it will take some time to complete, so factor this into your marriage plans.A locaSee a local law

Agree with other posters here that it is highly risky to lie to Australian immigration. DIAC (the Aussie immi agency) does some very rigorous checking, and even if you slip through the net and get your visa and subsequent Australian citizenship, both could be revoked and you could find yourself deported if the truth comes out later on that your application was fraudulent.

Do you have a specific reason for thinking of doing this?

I take your point about the desirability of PR. For me the main reason would be peace of mind; they can always change the rules on retirement extensions, but PR is for keeps.

Right now I am just trying to establish if PR is a possibility. If it's not available to me then I won't waste any more time thinking about it.

PR is definitely worth having for peace of mind.

Immigration has a habit of making abrupt rule changes, normally making it more and more difficult to stay, that could quite conceivably see any retiree find himself or herself unable to renew a Non-Imm visa and have to leave the country. Picture getting told you have to relocate in your sunset years. Also, PR holders do not have to report every 90 days, and assuming they don't want to leave the country never have to travel to immigration. PR holders while residing in Thailand only need to visit their local police station every 5 years and keep their passport current.

With PR, you can stay forever, no matter what new criteria are imposed on temporary resident Non-Imm visa holders. If I was old and getting frail, that would be a very important consideration to me.

I was always of the understanding that tax payments is a consideration for PR, thus precluding retirees. It's a long time since I went through the PR process, and I did not apply as a retiree, so others on this forum might like to add their comments. Or, better still, go and find out the latest at immigration - they are usually helpful if you are polite to them.

The problem with retirement is that you don't pay tax. Paying (a fair amount of ) tax is a key element in getting PR. So if you can choose to pay tax in Thailand instead of the UK then you would qualify. The amount of tax you pay will be taken in consideration.

Criteria for PR from Thai immigration web site http://www.immigration.go.th/nov2004/en/do...tion4extend.doc

They are not his assets, he's married, they are shared assets.

The advice you have given is to remove the woman from the UK to where she cannot obtain her rights under UK law.

Like I say... The Nicest of People.

That's correct. If you marry in Thailand, then move to the UK with you wife, in the eyes of UK law you are married. It's as simple as that. After all, the OP likely used the fact that he was married to get his wife a UK visa, so it's hard to understand how he can now expect UK law to allow him to slectively appear unmarried now that his assets are at stake. His wife has every right to sue him under UK law for all that she would have got had she married in him in the UK. Caveat Emptor.

Marriage in Thailand is considered marriage in the UK too. Otherwise, many would have a wife in every port :-)

Dear oh dear . . you really don't have a clue about the dynamics of exchange rates, do you?

NO!

And I am not responsible for the current financial situation either.

The OP was looking for enlightenment, not sneering.

I get tired of Bendix's sneering too. So many of his posts are of a derisive or sarcastic nature, and many come across as pompous grandiosity at someone else's expense. Such a shame that he chooses to snipe and be spiteful, rather than offering anything constructive, insightful or useful to his fellow human beings.

Jai dee (when she's not trying to kill me)

I believe she loves me ??????????

Very affectionate (when she's not trying to kill me)

Mate - if she really loved you she wouldn't want to start violent fights with you all the time. She would avoid confrontation at all costs.

Things will only get worse as she despises you more and more for staying with her even though she treats you like a punch bag.

Get rid of her forever, if can .....

OJAS, I and frm Singapore. Dbrenn, what do u think is the minimum income i need to have a very good chance of getting Thai PR or citizenship. And at what kind of tax rate Im looking at? Thks mate.

The more income, the better the chance. Although there are exceptions, PR (and especially citizenship) applicants are looked at as a package but with a bias on financial status. The officials probably won't tell you that, but that's the way that the immigration committee thinks. The evaluation is rather subjective, and there is no hard and fast rule, but experience shows that men applying under the living/working/married categories should be earning well in excess of the stated minimums in order to stand a chance. Think THB 120K+ monthly salary and taxes paid on that full amount, with everything else in perfect order. 150K puts you on even safer ground, assuming all your other ducks are more or less in line.

Personal income taxation rates in Thailand can be found here http://www.rd.go.th/publish/6045.0.html

...... but PR normally requires proof of a very high income (80k per month) but is subject to exceptions. But without a degree there is almost no chance I suspect and even teaching legally will likely be a problem.

Whilst a degree is a prerequisite to teaching English legally, it is not necesasary for PR or citizenship applicatnts to be graduates (I know some that aren't). In considering applications for both PR and citizenship, education is only a minor parameter by which a candidate is evaluated. Often just high school certificates are accepted, or nothing at all so long as the salary and taxes look good. The weighting is heavily placed on income and payment of taxes. 80k per month would be unlikely to cut it, unless there were other factors that the immigration commission particularly liked about the applicant. I know a few hopefuls who were refused PR, and they all had one thing in common - they declared salaries in the 60 to 80k range.

On one of the other threads a contributor made the statement that it was a legal requirement that aliens carry their passports at all times when in the LOS.

I don't usually carry my passport with me, it's too valuable to risk it being lost or nicked. I usually have my Thai driver's licence with me and sometimes a photocopy of my passport.

So is it likely to be a big problem if I get caught without it? Or is it one of those things that a modest on the spot "fine" will cover?

The magnitude of the problem will depend on the mood of the policeman and what (if anything) you were doing that prompted him to ask for your passport in the first place, i.e., anything between being let off, to being fined on the spot, to being locked up.

Before I had a Thai ID card (Thais have to carry ID cards, so the law argues that foreigners who don't have ID cards have to carry passports instead), I just carried around my driving licence. Not because I was worried about getting asked for ID, only because having some sort of photo ID is necessary to enter a lot of places like residences and places of business. Never once got asked for my passport in 18 years, but I've heard of people who were asked with consequences of varying severity for failing to produce a valid passport and visa. In most cases they had sone something to upset the cop in question ...

Work hard, behave yourself and keep a low profile, and it is unlikely to happen to you.

i dont recommend this but a friend told me what he does

step 1. go to another country, wherever. get your thai exit stamp.

step 2. mail passport to friend in usa who then mails it to the thai embassy. get your visa. have friend mail it back to your hotel room 1 day express while on vacation. go back to LOS.

is he being honest? does this work?

Worked in the past even if I myself never had to resort to tricks like....

I had some USA friends though who used it....

I would not call this a "trick"...there is nothing illegal, immoral, or fattening about it.

It is no different than if you went back to your own country, then sent your documents to the embassy by post or courier. same-same.

Sending you passport abroad so as to purport to be in a country when in fact you are somewhere else is a trick. It's kind of like pretending to be resident at your home country so as to claim a benefit usually applicable only to a resident, when in fact you are on a beach in Thailand.

There is always the possibility of getting caught too, if someone notices the date that you were trying to get or got a visa issued did not correspond to entry and exit stamps in your passport.

People might get away with it for a while, but schemes like this often end in tears when they get spotted by the authorities, who have no sense of humour at all.

Agreed - there is no downside whatsoever to Thai/US dual nationality. You might both want to live in Thailand some day, so don't burn any bridges.

i had no idea that the U.S. joined the EU. when did it happen, was the Dollar abandoned and the €uro adopted?

quoting the OP: "I am from EU country and my wife is Thai..."

Oops - not wishing to offend and you are quite right and sorry for the oversight - but speaking as a Thai/EU dual national the advice remains the same

Ideological reasons or otherwise, why on earth would anyone bother wading through an incredible amout of bureacracy to try to renounce something that carries absolutely no disadvantage? Just putting the ID card and passport in the bin, or keeping them on your mantlepiece as souvenirs of a past life, would save an awful lot of bother when compared with trying to petition the Interior Minister...

She should maintain dual citizenship in my opinion.

Agreed - there is no downside whatsoever to Thai/US dual nationality. You might both want to live in Thailand some day, so don't burn any bridges.

I have dual nationality (Thai/British).

On occasion I have been asked (esp back to the UK. When exiting Thai immigration). They sometimes just check where you are flying to etc.

This is because they want to know why I do not have a visa to enter the UK in my Thai passport and how I intend to enter the UK on a Thai passport with no visa?

That is why I have been asked to show both passports at Immigration when exiting Thailand.

But as far as I have experienced it is not illegal to hold dual nationality for these two countries.

Same thing happened to me - immigration on the way out asked to see both passports (Thai and UK) to make sure that I was entitled to travel to the UK. Other than that, no hassles with Thai immigration apart from raised eyebrows and casual questions on how a white male could possibly hold a Thai passport.

Worst experience I had was when I showed my Thai ID card at Bang Pa In palace to get the Thai rate. The woman behind the counter looked at me like I was from another planet and became rather unpleasant. I reminded her that her King had approved my application personally, and that under the Thai constitution I had to be treated just like any other Thai, and that she was obliged by law to let me pass, which she grudgingly did. She wrote "Has ID card" on my ticket and waved me through - the miserable old hag.

I always smile and speak "sawatdee khrap".

Just treat them with respect and courtesy......never lose your cool with them even if they are giving you a torrid time with your documentation !

Also I think a smart appearance helps as well.

That's what I always do. Never had any problems with Thai officialdom by adhering to the following rules:

1) Dress smartly. Asians in general despise scruffiness

2) Speak slowly and clearly

3) Always be polite, respectful and cheerful

4) Sit down. Don't stand over the person to whom you are talking. Bow your head slightly when walking past people who are seated

5) Avoid boorishness at all costs

6) Always be patient. Show understanding for the fact that person you are dealing with cannot change the rules just for you, no matter how onerous the rules may seem and no matter how much running around you have to do

7) If possible, befriend the person who is dealing with your case, so that they can coach you through the process. Sometimes they will even give you a cell phone number so that you can follow up with them directly and save wasted return visits

8) Learn to speak Thai if you intend living here. It makes communication MUCH simpler

Waiing should follow the normal rules of waiing, and need not be initiated when meeting a clerk of junior years, as pointed out elsewhere in this thread.

Cheers

My lawyer has also offered me a 1 yr multi entry visa for 30K done at a Thai Immigration office. Which I will leave unnamed.

Currently I do 3 monthly runs which are timely & costly.

So it is an attractive option.

Given that the law doesn't provide for such visas, I would be seriously concerned about using one. What if it is a forgery? What if the government cracks down on the immigration office that illegally issued it? I've seen cases in the local press over the years of people who were caught, arrested, got deported (and probably blacklisted) for using similar services.

Illegal shortcuts are always attractive, until you get caught. Don't expect the law office that issued you the visa to help out either.

Attractive, yes. Legal, no.

Visas are only issued at Immigration when for the process of one year extensions of stay.

The question remains: Did the OP's passport do a visa run to a foreign Thai embassy, exiting and entering Thailand without him/her? If, so, it's illegal whatever the law office or others might have said.

If his existing visa was extended at a Thai immigration office (i.e. not a nw visa from a foreign Thai embassy), then he should be OK so long as the reason given by the law firm for the extension and supporting documents were not fraudulant.

Sending a passport out of the country while you stay in Thailand is illegal and the Visa would be invalid.

(If this in fact is what happened)

Easy to check - just look at where the visa was issued. If it was issued at a foreign embassy or consulate, then the passport must have been sent abroad. If it was issued in Bangkok, then the rules must have changed and visa running for B class visas is a thing of the past ....

Beware - there are agencies and law firms that offer illegal services, but those who are caught using them can get into a lot of trouble.

I have found law firm that specialised in visa's and permits that gaurantees, I recieved my type B within 4 days without leaving the country. This is the first time i have applied for a B type having had a non 'O' for the last 2 years. It's all above board and not under the table stuff.

I'm not sure what the cost differences of travelling out of the country Vs this law firm is, however it cost me 20k in total, but was totally stressles.

They also guarantee a permit for those who are teaching, but don't have enough details to acquire one, degree etc. Providing you have details from your employer (and a TEFL if you intend to teach) they can obtain a letter from the ministry of education to acquire a permit.

Not sure if this is helpful to anyone but if you need the contact info then please PM me.

That visa renewal technique may be less sterssful, but doesn't it involve sending your passport out of the country without you, and is therefore illegal? There were signs up on the Nong Khai immigration posts recently warning against doing this, and threatening those who are caught with legal action.

Have the rules changed?

I don't find Scientologists freaky or scary; I find them rather pitiful. To have one's life so wrapped up and based around something so trite makes me feel for them.

I was once approached by a Scientologist in Auckland. Of course, I knew what he was immediately - the ridiculous questions about life's challenges etc. He asked me if I would like to take a free Personality Test. I said there was no need; I already knew I was screwed up.

But, curious to see what happens and at a loose end before a meeting, I went along.

It was all very nice for the first 10 minutes until they asked me to fill in a form of personal details. I put in a false name, false address and under "Occupation" I completely lied and wrote "Investigative Journalist."

They asked me to leave.

I was a bit more naive when offered the free Personality Test outside the (now closed) Sciemtology Centre in London's Tottenham Court Road.

I was only a young uni student at the time, and had never even heard of Scientology. I took the test, after which I was subjected to a hard sell to buy the Dianetics book, which I foolishly bought. After I'd paid for it, the cashier casualy asked me for my address 'to put on the tax receipt'. Big mistake - I gave her my address (she was very pretty) and was bombarded over the next several months by personally handwritten letters from various people asking me how I was getting on with the book, and offering me all sorts of 'courses' to help me rectify all the defects in my personality that the test had apparently revealed. I didn't reply to any of the letters, but they kept coming. Eventually, I wrote to them pretending to be someone else and telling them that I had moved on with no forwarding address. A couple more letters came, so I started returning them to sender, then they finally stopped.

Completely deranged, sinister and dangerous bunch of people, who are really just after your money and have no scruples at all.

Interesting cult awareness website here: http://www.rickross.com/ that talks about Scientology and other similar soul destroying cults.

I think its awful that someone like the OP, given his history & length of it (creating 100 Thai jobs, etc.) has to technically leave the country within 7 days on cessation of employment. Its just ridiculous.

Is there no way, given the collective power of TV, we can get a contact high up in immigration who may be receptive to having some of these idiosyncrasies pointed out?

Also, i found post 17 of intrigue as i have recently read (on TV i think) of a public meeting with a senior immigration official (or labour dept. i forget, there's so many departments!) & he was asked the specific question about having a 2nd job. His response was "Not possible."

Using Australia as an example again, the Thai Non-Imm (Temporary Resident) visa is analogous to the Australian 457 business visa. Supposing you go to Australia to live and work on on a 457 (perhaps because you are inelligible for PR) and you renew your 457 again and again, year after year as some people do. If you then you lose or even change your job, then you will have 28 days to leave the country unless you can find a new employer that is willing to apply from scratch for your new 457. I think that many other countries differentiate between temporary and permanent residency in a similar way - temporary residency (think Non-Imm, 457, etc) is dependent upon a specific set of personal circumstances, and can be revoked as soon as those circumstances change.

If you move to a country as a temporary resident, and then wish to stay permanently, the moral of the story is to upgrade your status as soon as you possibly can, even if it is a hassle.

Thanks to all of you for your advice. The information surely helped me to make up my mind. Very helpful thread and I am sure it also provides a good insight for others who planning to move to Thailand. It is a great country but you should be aware of thin legal platform you are building your future.

I already took some legal advice and the feedback I got is pretty much matches what has been posted hear.

When I decided to move to Thailand I have been aware of the immigration laws and some friends warned me that these make it very difficult to gain a permanent resident status. On the other hand many people thought, if Thailand is serious to take the next step, FBA and immigration laws have to improve soon. History taught us - despite many neighboring countries are opening - Thailand has chosen another way. History again will teach us whether this has been a wise decision. Looking at the current situation I would definitely say that Thailand is heading into the wrong direction but that's another story.

Anyway I managed to make a deal with the new owners – which BTW are Indian to answer another posters question – for another 3 months, keeping my current status and paying them back offshore.

This will give me enough time to look for a new job in Thailand or to move to another country where I am (hopefully) more welcome.

Congratulations in finding a way to maintain your status! Once you do get your PR, then the decision to keep your current Non-Imm visa alive is one that you definitely won't regret. In spite of the rather draconian and frustrating immigration laws, the fact remains that Thailand is a great place to live and we all try to find ways to stay here. For all its drawbacks, once you do get your Thai PR you will feel very relieved (I certainly did) at having the right to stay here indefinitely regardless of what happens to your job.

The PR (and the concept of PR is a joke in itself, as there are many ways it can be revoked) department is one of those in-active postings that immigation officers get assigned to, as there is a set of catch 22's that need to be negotiated to get the rediculously titled PR. I mean for example, having to be married to a Thai for a full 5 years before you are entitled to apply for PR under the marriage provision, and then still requiring a work permit after that.

Actually, PR in Thailand works much like PR everywhere else in that there are two components to it: a permanent residency component and a re-entry facility that allows the holder to leave the country and return again as a PR. The permanent residency component of Thai PR does allow the holder to stay in Thailand forever, just like PR anywhere else. The re-entry component (effected via endorsements and Non-Quota Immigrant visas only if the holder wishes to travel abroad) allows the holder to leave Thailand for up to a year. Unlike many other countries, however, Thailand imposes no minimum residency period on its PR holders, which means that a Thai PR holder can maintain his PR indefinitely even while living abroad, so long as he visits Thailand once a year to renew his new endorsement/Non-Quota re-entry permits. Contrast this with Australia, where PR can be lost unless the holder spends at least two years in any given five years actually in the country, with most other countries imposing similar restrictions on minimum time in. Most other countries reserve the right to revoke PR in certain cases, such as criminal behaviour, so you have to keep your nose clean, but for normal people living and working in Thailand the rules governing Thai PR are not all that bad.

On the negative side, Thai PR does not give the holder as many rights as PR in some other countries, such as property ownership for example. Not holding my breath for any changes there though, but Thai PR holders can go on to get Thai nationality which confers all the rights that the locals themselves enjoy. Thai PR is not as worthless as it may look at first sight..

The application fee is THB 7,600. If accepted, the fee for the issuance of the Certificate of Residence (blue book) is THB 191,400 for a applicant under the employment or investment categories, or THB 95,700 for applicants under the spouse of Thai national category or for the spouse or children of a permanent resident. So for myself, my (non-Thai) spouse and two children, the fee was 191,400 + (3 x 95,700) = THB 478,500. At the time I wondered whether it was worth it, but with the continuous changes to the extension of stay rules, I'm now glad we did it. Of course, there is no guarantee that the rules for remaining in Thailand as a permanent resident won't be changed to make it more difficult.

All that said, this isn't a realistic option for the OP. While it is true that you are automatically granted extensions of stay for the approximately 18 months it takes to process your application, in practice without employment his application won't be accepted.

I wouldn't worry about changes to extension of stay rules with respect to PR, because there aren't any. As a PR, you can stay here forever and it will never lapse. There are a few conditions, such as staying out of trouble and remembering to get the re-entry permits if you leave Thailand, but PR in itself never needs extension. The only things that they could impose are residency requirements, where PR holders must spend a minimum period of time in the country per so many years, as is the case elsewhere, but that hasn't happened yet.

Agreed that the OP will need a WP to apply for PR, but keeping his current Non-Imm visa alive would defer this problem until the end of the year, when he applies for PR. Breaks in WP are not a problem in the three years running up to a PR application, only breaks in a Non-Imm visa, or missing tax returns for even one year, will reset the 3 year clock to zero.

Sorry to hear from the OP that there are political reasons for his PR being declined. Depending on who doesn't like him and why, that would make things much more complicated to deal with.

<H3 style="MARGIN: 9pt 0in 6pt">Thanks to all for your detailed information provided. I have to partly blame myself for having not read the Thai immigration laws to details. On the other hand the regulations are very complex and worse prone to frequent changes. That these amendments are hardly and if poorly publicized make things not better.</H3>I must say am somehow shocked that after working here continuously for over 10 years, having paid millions THB for taxes and created employment opportunities for over 100 locals, I am treated worse than first time tourist on a VISA exempt stamp. He can get at least a 2 weeks extension, I get max 7 days.

BTW I applied for a PR twice, in 2001/2002, but both times my applications were rejected. No reasons given. As Mr. T. increased the fee by 400% I just did not bother anymore.

I hope my case is a warning and eye-opener to many who are planning to make Thailand home base. Despite being a wonderful country with nice people, its discriminating laws towards foreigners and the absence of secure legal platform, make Thailand a poor choice to become a new permanent home.

I'm sorry that you were rejected for PR twice, and I can underdstand your frustration at having tried the PR route but been turned down. Just out of interest, and to help guide others here through the PR process:

1) I've seen a few cases of rejected PR, and the common reason seemed to be that they were declaring the minimum salary for tax and visa extension purposes for the three years running up to their PR application. Businessmen, in particular, are inclined to do this as they have more control over the taxes that they declare than salary people do, and often quite legitimately minimise tax in this way. However, the immigration commission seems of late to take a dim view of PR applicants who declare minimums, and quite often reject them. A friend of mine, for example, who also declares only the minimum salary to qualify for a Work Permit, was told to not even bother applying last year when he took his docs to the immigration to lodge his PR application. Not saying that this is true in your case, but minimums just don't seem to cut it and immigration seems to take declarations over the minimum (the more, the better) it as s sign of 'honesty' and prioritise such people. Conversely, people who declare much more than the minimums always seem to sail through the PR process even if they are sadly lacking in other areas, such as in their ability to speak Thai.

2) The fee for PR has indeed increased substantially. However, the full amount is only payable on approval. Upon application one only must pay a deposit, which, if I recall correctly, is only just over 5% of the total. In the case where an application is rejected, nothing further is payable.