SueOriginal

Thai Visa, how did you managed to come to 2683 days of overstay , if his last day of a legitimate stay was 25th June, 2014?
 

I am truly perplexed by your calculation result.

20 hours ago, Paulanna said:

Quick update.I've visited Thailand before.and many countries solo no issues..I left my bag  wallet with cash 3k GBP..I know that was stupid for less than a minute with people I had met before and spoke to for over a year.I had a few beers maybe 4 not enough to be semiconcious but don't recall much after 2 beers didn't notice loss till next day  as had 10k bust in pocket woke at 4pm not like me at all never sleep late??.airline are sending exactly 600 euros after a 3 hour call explaining everything ..not sure when it arrives but no more than 14days.  Within said visa I've had to open a bank acc here with a trusted Thai and make them poa..I told the guesthouse when I moved in I would pay when I get money here and all was fine and that's still my intensions it was only when another family member of the place showed up things went hostile..to those with advice thanks..I've commited no crime please don't judge me we all make mistakes I trusted the wrong people.I've not asked for anything other than advice I'l update again soon..

Delayed flights over 3500miles and 5 hours is 600euro..520gbp..standard payment under new regulations..Google it.

With your stubbornness about your right to get a compensation under Article 7 of Regulation 261/2004 , this Article is applicable , as it says, "Where reference made to this Article". And you just fail to see the obvious that delays, it is the Article 6 "Delays" refer only to the Article 8 and the Article 9, hence delays are not eligible for a compensation under the Article 7 in principle.

A reference to the Article 7 is made is in the Article 4 "Denied boarding"=overbooking situation, and in the Article 5 "Cancellations ", these are the cases when Article 7 compensation is due.

 

I looks, like you may googled "passengers claim assistance companies" website who will promise all kind of wonders in an exchange of 10-50 EUR downpayment "to start deal with your claim".

 

No airline will pay Article 7 compensation for a delay, whatever they told if you exhausted them by 3hrs telco.

 

If they failed to provide you with an assistance under Article 9 to which you was eligible for 5 hours delays - free meals and drinks at reasonable amount, 2 telco/emails, and you had incurred charges to do that yourself , they will, for sure, compensate you at cost, but no punitive damages or alike just because they didn't provided assistance as prescribed by the Regulation.

 

You must start to move to get money now, as you will not get a cent from your airline, as it looks now.

 

Otherwise your visa will expire, and you will go through a lengthy and expensive legal procedures.

To my understanding there is no precedents of scrapping blacklisting in a legal way, unfortunately...

 

As suggested above, if you hire lawyer, who is good in general administrative law, and is able to go through court, to fight your case e.g. referring to principle of proportionality, in conjunction with rights of kids to have a contact with parents and otherwise - but, first, it will take not months, but longer, and it will costs quite a lot, for sure not 10,000THB and likely more than 40,000THB - as good lawyers are charging at Western rates..

 

Another solution, if someone can overturn it "other way"... - but probability is very low, and expected to cost really a lot.

 

Feel sorry for you and your family. May be need to consider like moving all together e.g. to Lao or Cambodia for duration of these 5 years...

Just curious about outcome. Have you checked procedures how you officers do check for inclusion in blacklist at the border? Have you entered the country successfully?


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

Thanks for a very well and good reply.
 
You write in 2A about fingerprints. They did not take my fingerprints. It was a very fast thing to do when i arrived at the airport. When i went through the immigration i just paid the 20 000,- fine and signed some papers and off i was.
 
I also contacted KLM and earlier today they replied me that i needed to contact the embassy / consulat to get answers on question like this. They do not stop anyone entering the flight.
 
And i think it could be some holes in the system they got. In my country we use a personal number and NOT the passport number to identify a person. And this number i have never used in any applications i have had in Thailand before. 
That might be why i get a new number in the passport. Not sure if they do in other countries.
 
I have sent some emails and will also call the immigration tomorrow to ask if they can check this up if i am on the blacklist.
 
I will let you guys know more about how the situation ends.

Good luck then!

If you just appeared in the airport and left after paying 20kTHB - that I missed here, then chances that you will get positive biometric identification are much lower.

How persons are identified for domestic purposes in your home country, of course, is irrelevant for Thai inward immigration.
What we try to do here, is to make a [educated] guess how Thai immigration identify incoming visitors - and that we don't know for sure.

If you really are intent on just airside transit in BKK, then all these matters should not be your concern.

So neither airline nor embassy have access to the database.

I am curious how you are going to inquire immigration - they notoriously do not publish contacts, and you will have to send them at least your scanned passport (through LINE - their favorite communication channel?). I am afraid it may trigger that they will identify your previous identity and will forcibly link one to another, that may not necessarily happen, as discussed above, in the airport upon an entry.

Your previous name is blacklisted for sure.
If you are inquiring under the new name, and they will see there were no entries so far - they also not that stupid not to understand why a person with such dataset is inquiring on the matter, and they may became motivated to dig further, beware.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

1. Embassies didn't check blacklisted persons database few years ago, as they simply were not linked to it.
It is important to understand that a Visa is among factors to be be granted at the border an Entry Permit.
Other factors include a possession of documents confirming a purpose of a visit, ability to return to home country and possession of ticket / funds for that, availability of a place to stay, a possession of sufficient funds for a duration of the visit, travel document (passport) with enough duration.
Also another factors are that person is not blacklisted and does not posses a threat to security or public health.
Hence at the border immigration may check if you are blacklisted, but embassies simply do not check for that.

2. About capacity of immigration systems to get biometric identification at border I have got last year two different opinions from immigration officers, who are not directly involved in border procedures, so these opinions are not authoritative enough to be relied upon, but give a hint for hypotheses to investigate further:

A. immigration routinely collect fingerprints from all deported persons. I understood your circumstances that you have been deported, and then you have been for sure fingerprinted.
There are doubts whether all these fingerprints got into databases already, and even if yes, whether they are actually used for matching on every entry.

B. Another immigration officers gave a hint to what was mentioned above - that "intelligent system" routinely looks for persons with the same date of birth and citizenship, or name - in case if person changes his/her name or citizenship. I do not know how interface of this system looks from immigration officer at the border end, but it well may be that they have discretion to click through "suspicious similar identity options" generated by the system - that will include information gathered on previous entries/exits, incl. photos, or not to click through at all, or to do it in a part - so then it clearly depends on good luck.

My personal opinion , that is based on impressions of level of interconnection of systems, how well their capacities are utilized - actually, often manifestly underutilized , so there is a good chance to get through.

3. I never heard that airlines are able to get access to blacklisted persons database and match all data there, but who knows.

4. Your stamp in the passport is clearly for 1 year blacklisting , that counts from a date of actual departure.

5. If you transit airside , I do not think it should be a problem, unless you have e.g. outstanding arrest warrant, and they will get check of the list of passengers.
Of course, if KLM has got an access to that database, they may check some matching data, but surely not all options will be available to them, incl. biometric ones - I am not sure what they match with a database, your new name and passport number? - it will clearly generate response that you are not blacklisted - but you are - and only further options, presumably unavailable to them, may generate positive match.

If you will go for this options, please drop then few words here about an outcome.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

It's not that simple as you suppose that you are left with real choice of currency in this case:

First, you need to understand which laws governs your legal relationships, under which your obligations and a contract exist.It is quite difficult legal task, if such governing law was not apparently specified in written form. The place were litigation took a place or if this is mentioned in the contract. does not define applicable laws.

Second, let's assume that the contract is governed by laws of civil law country like continental Europe or Thailand or Scotland. Then you need to look whether those laws prefer so called objective or subjective interpretation of will and contractual terms.

If that is a subjective interpretation, then it means true will of the parties need to be identified regardless of what is written in the contract. It is that all pre-contractual, as well as pots-contractual communication in any form can be used to recognize what exactly parties meant. If parties written in the contract dollars but meant actually say British pounds, and it can be proven, then so it be GBP.

In case an objective interpretation method is to be used, then it is vice versa, it doesn't matter what is the true will of the parties, but how the text of contract can be understood by impartial third party.

Still, if it can be proven that in fact no consensus between parties has been reached on fundamental conditions of contract, then the whole contract can be declared void.

If that particular condition is not fundamental, then only that contract's clause can be declared void, but the contract itself stays put.

Under either of interpretations methods above, most laws stipulate, that such interpretation of the contract to be preferred, that keeps the contract valid., and if contract conditions are unclear, then such conditions to be interpreted for the benefit of a debtor.

This is probably the clause which you are going to invoke here.

Currency of course is the fundamental clause. Therefore for the fundamental clauses the rule of interpretation for the benefit of debtor can not be applied, as fundamental clause is inseparable part of the contract, it should be either agreed and have particular meaning, and then contract is valid, or not, then no consensus, no valid contract.

But it will be difficult for you to prove that you didn't come to the consensus.

Even if both of you didn't pay any attention to what dollar to be used in settlement, then, even under subjective interpretation method, the choice of what is more beneficial for debtor is limited to business practice in the area where contracts was concluded, or in the country which laws are to be applicable to the contract. In case of objective interpretation, then it is modelled on abstract impartial third party, again with reference to business practice in any of above areas. Business practice would include how people usually denominate the currency in contract, how detailed contracts are usually drawn, and what means what is some particular points are not apparently discussed in the contract.

In practical terms, it will be analysed which dollar currency has any link with the particular contract. E.g. if the contract has been negotiated at the dollar's country soil, like NZ/AU, the it can be used as a link. If there are various leads, then most closest and reasonable link is chosen. It means that no Zimbabwean dollars and alike can ever appears among those dollar currencies under consideration, if the contract has no link to Zimbabwe.

If no link to any dollar currency can be reasonably established, then it is, again reasonable, to say that most used dollar currency - US dollar to be used in the settlement.

If you read the original post. The settlement isn't his priority, its to mess the guy around by giving him the least possible amount but in dollar denomination.

The op obviously has a good sense of humor.

Yes, I did. But as far as I can see there are real legal issues involved as papers have been signed. So to give the least possible amount in dollars probably was meant to be done within a legal framework.

Indeed, quoting just in Dollars, Pounds, Franks etc. in a contract occasionally brings some savings for a debtor, but these are exceptional cases.

It's not that simple as you suppose that you are left with real choice of currency in this case:

First, you need to understand which laws governs your legal relationships, under which your obligations and a contract exist.It is quite difficult legal task, if such governing law was not apparently specified in written form. The place were litigation took a place or if this is mentioned in the contract. does not define applicable laws.

Second, let's assume that the contract is governed by laws of civil law country like continental Europe or Thailand or Scotland. Then you need to look whether those laws prefer so called objective or subjective interpretation of will and contractual terms.

If that is a subjective interpretation, then it means true will of the parties need to be identified regardless of what is written in the contract. It is that all pre-contractual, as well as pots-contractual communication in any form can be used to recognize what exactly parties meant. If parties written in the contract dollars but meant actually say British pounds, and it can be proven, then so it be GBP.

In case an objective interpretation method is to be used, then it is vice versa, it doesn't matter what is the true will of the parties, but how the text of contract can be understood by impartial third party.

Still, if it can be proven that in fact no consensus between parties has been reached on fundamental conditions of contract, then the whole contract can be declared void.

If that particular condition is not fundamental, then only that contract's clause can be declared void, but the contract itself stays put.

Under either of interpretations methods above, most laws stipulate, that such interpretation of the contract to be preferred, that keeps the contract valid., and if contract conditions are unclear, then such conditions to be interpreted for the benefit of a debtor.

This is probably the clause which you are going to invoke here.

Currency of course is the fundamental clause. Therefore for the fundamental clauses the rule of interpretation for the benefit of debtor can not be applied, as fundamental clause is inseparable part of the contract, it should be either agreed and have particular meaning, and then contract is valid, or not, then no consensus, no valid contract.

But it will be difficult for you to prove that you didn't come to the consensus.

Even if both of you didn't pay any attention to what dollar to be used in settlement, then, even under subjective interpretation method, the choice of what is more beneficial for debtor is limited to business practice in the area where contracts was concluded, or in the country which laws are to be applicable to the contract. In case of objective interpretation, then it is modelled on abstract impartial third party, again with reference to business practice in any of above areas. Business practice would include how people usually denominate the currency in contract, how detailed contracts are usually drawn, and what means what is some particular points are not apparently discussed in the contract.

In practical terms, it will be analysed which dollar currency has any link with the particular contract. E.g. if the contract has been negotiated at the dollar's country soil, like NZ/AU, the it can be used as a link. If there are various leads, then most closest and reasonable link is chosen. It means that no Zimbabwean dollars and alike can ever appears among those dollar currencies under consideration, if the contract has no link to Zimbabwe.

If no link to any dollar currency can be reasonably established, then it is, again reasonable, to say that most used dollar currency - US dollar to be used in the settlement.

I am temporary out of money and would like to pledge some my electronics like photo camera/laptop for the week. Does anyone knows pawn shop in Phuket, that takes electronics? I heard there is a municipal shop in Phuket town - any information about location?