faranggonzo

Hi

my father in law Jim was hit by a car whilst cycling in Klaeng he broke his neck and has already had an operation at a Rayong government hospital. The only good news is that his spinal column appears ok ie he has movement in his hands.

Although Jim is 70 he has been cycling quite a lot recently and has lost some weight and was feeling the benefits of exercise.
Jim is a lovely man and his temperament is probably due to the fact he was brought up in a Buddhist temple, he is patient kind and never loses his temper. I have known him for 12 years, 5 of which I was living in the same household.

I am in England so actual details are few but as I understand the lady driver was driving someone else's car did not stay at the scene but drove straight to the police station where the police are saying he was cycling across the road, however a family member in the ambulance recounts that he said he was hit from behind. There are 4 cctv cameras but none of them were working.

The insurance company are saying nothing and paying nothing despite the fact I understood that all vehicles had to have compulsory insurance and victims can claim against this insurance immediately at the hospital. There is no need to prove who is deemed responsible for the accident.

Originally he was taken to the hospital in Klaeng and to get his transfer to Rayong we had to pay 10,000 baht obviously there will be many more bills to come, unfortunately we have limited funds. My wife is flying out today.

I am a lifelong cyclist, one of my highlights was cycling down the Champs Elysee with a police motorcycle escort.

I am making contact in the hope that someone may have any helpful ideas or advice with regard to this situation. Recomendations for a good Thai lawyer in Rayong especially welcome.

Best wishes

Thanks a lot guys you pretty much nailed it.

Going to answer yes and explain the mitigating circumstances

Gonzo

Thanks guys just needed a little reassurance.

The only time I really heard this phrase before was when my barrister said it about me and it meant no previous convictions and I am still a man of good character.

Although it has 2 questions, any convictions? waiting on any convictions

Its the "might" "may indicate" that's slightly worrying. If I answer yes I have answers why she is of good character.

Yes actually she had worked in a bar for 3 weeks, that was over a year ago. I am not trying to hide that merely answer the question truthfully.

I have already been told by an OISC adviser

" Firstly having worked in a bar is no barrier whatsoever to getting a visa "

I was going to deal with all this in 6.4.3, where did you meet?

I would really appreciate some help with VAF4 Question 5.13

"Have you engaged in any other activities that might indicate you may not be a person of good character"

I am struggling with what they are really after ? "good character" the preceding questions are criminal convictions terrorist and genocide ...

Any thoughts or guidance very welcome