DIY Working in and around own house

[overherebc]

2 hours ago, John Than said:

Giv me your name and address and I will prove it to you that even if I wanted to I CANNOT create trouble for you. You havent lived long enough if you havent understood trouble, my friend. And by long enough I dont mean time-wise. 

Strangest post in the thread, you need to explain in a bit more detail.

[elviajero]

9 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I still do not agree with you, but this will be my last post on this topic. Let us say you wanted to finance your stay here by buying old cars, restoring them and then selling them. I claim that would be against the Immigration Act and Alien Employment Act. You seem to be saying it would be allowed because there is no employer/employee relationship involved. Am I misrepresenting your position?

You are misunderstanding my position.

 

Buying and selling cars would almost certainly require permission because it could easily be considered an "occupation". And carrying out any "occupation" without permission is against the immigration act.

Section 37 : An alien having received a temporary entry permit into the Kingdom must comply with the following :

1. Shall not engage in the occupation or temporary or employment unless authorized by the Director General. or competent official deputized by the Director General .

 

All foreigners are prevented from working (meaning: work as a means of earning income; employment.) by section 37.1 of the Immigration Act.

• "Shall not engage in the occupation (meaning: job, day job, profession, work, line of work, line of business, trade, employment, position, post, situation, business, career, etc)  ... unless authorized". That stops Digital Nomads, remote workers, the bloke that wants to buy and sell cars, etc. Basically no one can carry out their occupation (job, means of earning a living, profession, business, etc.) without permission.
• "Shall not engage in ... employment unless authorized" If an EMPLOYER wants to formally EMPLOY are foreigner that authorisation (permission) comes from the labour office and is usually in the form of a WP. The issuance of that permission (WP) is governed by the Alien Working (Employment) Act as specified in the Immigration Act.

 

You and others need to separate work in everyday life (meaning: activity involving mental or physical effort done in order to achieve a result.) from work (meaning: work as a means of earning income; employment.). It is only the latter form of work that requires permission.

 

The confusion/misunderstanding for many comes from applying the definition of work within the employment act ("means of working by physical strength or knowledge whether or not intended for wages or any other benefits.") to everyday life. However, it should only be read and applied within the context of an employer seeking permission to employ a foreign employee, which is what the act is governing. The definition of work is deliberately broad within the act to stop employers avoiding the need for permission by claiming their employee is an unpaid etc.

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, overherebc said:

If he decides you are working it's up to you to prove you were not.

No it's not. No court would prosecute someone for illegally working without proof!

[overherebc]

12 minutes ago, elviajero said:

No it's not. No court would prosecute someone for illegally working without proof!

Have you ever been to court in Thailand?

[elviajero]

1 hour ago, pearciderman said:

Nowhere does any law/rule or regulation mention "depriving a Thai" of a job ! People still post this myth. There is the list of prohibited professions - no mention of Thais or deprivation!

The list of prohibited jobs is there "to reserve certain occupations for the Thai labour force", thereby not depriving a Thai a job in favour of a foreigner.

 

Alien Employment Act B.E. 2521 (1978) (Department of Employment)

             Alien Employment Act was enacted to control alien employment and the issuance of work permits to aliens and to reserve certain occupations for the Thai labour force. ...

http://www.mol.go.th/en/anonymouse/labour_law#1

[elviajero]

7 minutes ago, overherebc said:

Have you ever been to court in Thailand?

Yes.

 

How about you back up your claim and show evidence of a foreigner being prosecuted for working illegally on the say so of the Labour Department or Immigration Bureau. The law in Thailand works in exactly the same way as it does in Farangland. 

[overherebc]

16 minutes ago, elviajero said:

Yes.

 

How about you back up your claim and show evidence of a foreigner being prosecuted for working illegally on the say so of the Labour Department or Immigration Bureau. The law in Thailand works in exactly the same way as it does in Farangland. 

Basically your guilt has already been decided by the Imm' police. You go to court with quite a few others, some others for various other offences, as the charges are read out, x and x and x etc in groups, after that the judge then states the fine and you go back to IDC unless your 'lawyer' can 'arrange' things so you can fly out and back ASAP.

Cast your mind back to 2003.

In the end it's cheaper and easier to go with the flow.

[John Than]

1 hour ago, overherebc said:

Strangest post in the thread, you need to explain in a bit more detail.

Need to? Oh yeah?

[overherebc]

16 minutes ago, John Than said:

Need to? Oh yeah?

That is now the best post of the thread.

[BritTim]

40 minutes ago, overherebc said:

You go to court with quite a few others

If it is too much trouble for the authorities, it is by no means certain that you will even be taken to the court that convicts you.

 

The notion that Thai courts work the same way as, say, courts in Germany is frankly hilarious. Unless you are seriously wealthy, you had better plead guilty (even if completely innocent and with no real evidence against you). The failure to plead guilty will lead to you being severely dealt with. The authorities do not want others getting any funny ideas.

[bluesofa]

8 minutes ago, overherebc said:

That is now the best post of the thread.

You're not the only one who can't follow the thread as to what wanting a name and address is to do with not causing trouble?

I'm completely baffled. Perhaps I should have ordered a bottle of whatever it was that poster must have had to drink?

(Just my sense of humour!)

Edited December 9, 2017 by bluesofa
misprit

[overherebc]

11 minutes ago, bluesofa said:

You're not the only one who can't follow the thread as to what wanting a name and address is to do with not causing trouble?

I'm completely baffled. Perhaps I should have ordered a bottle of whatever it was that poster must have had to drink?

(Just my sense of humour!)

Careful mate. Let the dogs out and sleep with one eye open.

 

[berybert]

I had to change a couple of light bulbs a few weeks ago, went to Home pro to get new bulbs. 

Did I break the law by going shopping for the bulbs, did I break the law by fitting them myself.

Is the shop breaking the law by selling the bulbs to me. 

I just do what I need to get on with my life here. Why worry about so much small stuff.

 

[overherebc]

1 hour ago, overherebc said:

Basically your guilt has already been decided by the Imm' police. You go to court with quite a few others, some others for various other offences, as the charges are read out, x and x and x etc in groups, after that the judge then states the fine and you go back to IDC unless your 'lawyer' can 'arrange' things so you can fly out and back ASAP.

Cast your mind back to 2003.

In the end it's cheaper and easier to go with the flow.

Forgot to add the labour department don't get involved..

Kind of obvious really because you won't have a work permit.

[John Than]

32 minutes ago, overherebc said:

That is now the best post of the thread.

Thanks

[Dumbastheycome]

Pottering   about   "doing  things" whilst  keeping  a low  profile would  ordinarily  be  no problem. But  anything  that is  obviously beyond  a  days  work  could  create  some  questions. If  neighboring  individuals  are  on  good  terms  then  the   majority  would be  understanding. But  at the same  time  a  single  anonymous  complaint has  the  potential  to  cause   issues. So  not a  good  idea  to be  heard  to  justify your  DIY for  the  reason that  you  have  little  regard  for  Thai  workmanship.

So  beyond  that asking  this  question has  no definitive  answer in   individual  situations.

[overherebc]

38 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

Pottering   about   "doing  things" whilst  keeping  a low  profile would  ordinarily  be  no problem. But  anything  that is  obviously beyond  a  days  work  could  create  some  questions. If  neighboring  individuals  are  on  good  terms  then  the   majority  would be  understanding. But  at the same  time  a  single  anonymous  complaint has  the  potential  to  cause   issues. So  not a  good  idea  to be  heard  to  justify your  DIY for  the  reason that  you  have  little  regard  for  Thai  workmanship.

So  beyond  that asking  this  question has  no definitive  answer in   individual  situations.

Sums the whole thing up.

??

[tryasimight]

Seems like all the para legal experts on this thread are breaking the law!!!!!  Quite ironic. 

[stud858]

I've never heard of an owner getting in trouble for DIY but friends helping have been arrested. Having said that, there are unruly officials so be safe everyone.

[bandito]

On ‎12‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 12:30 AM, elviajero said:

No that's complete nonsense.

 

There is no law against you doing any of those things on your own property. You are not being employed by anyone or carrying out a business/job/occupation etc.

 

 

 

Wrong, You're working and on your own property or not makes no difference.

You can get an exemption at the relevant department and have to state what you will do (on your property)and how long time it will take and you will get a permit for this. I settled here in 1976 and the Law was already in place that time.

 That said, I don't nobody who ever did apply.

Me? I just do what I want to do, is it painting or any other thing in full view.

[thailand49]

Personally as noted it really depends where you are and the neighbors around you.

I do what comes natural to me, I do the majority of work myself what I can't do I look try to find a decent worker and cross my finger it works out.

[pearciderman]

12 hours ago, elviajero said:

The list of prohibited jobs is there "to reserve certain occupations for the Thai labour force", thereby not depriving a Thai a job in favour of a foreigner.

 

Alien Employment Act B.E. 2521 (1978) (Department of Employment)

             Alien Employment Act was enacted to control alien employment and the issuance of work permits to aliens and to reserve certain occupations for the Thai labour force. ...

http://www.mol.go.th/en/anonymouse/labour_law#1

 

I understand your above quote, but that is different to " you can't do anything a Thai can do - you will deprive them of a job", that is what I am saying is a myth, not the fact there there are some restricted occupations.

[Peterw42]

What constitutes work is "not" defined because the day the Thai authorities define an activity as not being work, is the day someone will open a business doing that activity.

 

If the authorities declared painting your house is not work, a westerner will open a house painting business. The day the authorities declare washing your car is not work is the day someone will start a car washing business. Its not a hard concept to understand. 

 

Nobody has ever been fined for washing there own car, painting their own house, driving friends to the airport etc. anyone who who tells you these stories (always 2nd hand) is leaving out the details that they were in fact washing 10 cars a day for money, doing up houses for money, owned a minivan taking people to the airport for money.

 

As per the OP,  working on anything other than a foreign title condo would technically be work, as houses/land belong to Thai companies or girlfriends etc, you are fixing it for someone else..

 

 

 

 

Edited December 10, 2017 by Peterw42

[Peterw42]

Thai authorities reserve the right to call anything work, not to fine the guy painting his front fence, to fine the guy doing up 6 houses for profit using the "I was painting my front fence" excuse.

 

People always start quoting the boat guys in phuket, They were not giving the hobby runabout a coat of paint, they were building and repairing boats (plural), for profit. But of course their argument was working on their own boat.

Edited December 10, 2017 by Peterw42

[stevenl]

16 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

But it was 'his boat'.. You would assume a house would be sold later also. 

 

Fact is it was his own possession, and he was charged for working on it (sale or not).. How is that different from owning any other form of property ??

I am not saying the law is right, or the chance of being charged is high, I am pointing out that it has actually happened. The law is open to abuse on both sides due to its utterly ridiculous definition and reach.

The definition even uses the word it is attempting to define, in the definition "work is work" total logic fail from the outset. 

If buying or building a house to sell it, it clearly is work, no different from building a boat with the purpose to sell it.

 

Completely different in its purpose than building a boat with the purpose of using it yourself.

[BritTim]

1 hour ago, stevenl said:

Completely different in its purpose than building a boat with the purpose of using it yourself.

I agree with you, but I am not sure the law makes a distinction, and think it would be difficult to word the law to allow such a distinction. In the example you give, let's say you use the completed boat for a month, then decide it is not really what you want, and you sell it. Have you at that point retrospectively "worked", even though it was originally personal DIY?

[bluesofa]

15 minutes ago, BritTim said:

I agree with you, but I am not sure the law makes a distinction, and think it would be difficult to word the law to allow such a distinction. In the example you give, let's say you use the completed boat for a month, then decide it is not really what you want, and you sell it. Have you at that point retrospectively "worked", even though it was originally personal DIY?

I was thinking exactly the same thing.

Even if there was a clearly defined time period from when you completed your personal repairs to when the boat was sold, there will no doubt be someone who might try to take advantage of it.

[berybert]

Work in Thailand for Thais is defined as something a Thai can do badly whilst sleeping. 

So just work around that and you will be fine.

[stevenl]

3 hours ago, BritTim said:

I agree with you, but I am not sure the law makes a distinction, and think it would be difficult to word the law to allow such a distinction. In the example you give, let's say you use the completed boat for a month, then decide it is not really what you want, and you sell it. Have you at that point retrospectively "worked", even though it was originally personal DIY?

The law does not make the distinction, but in application of the law the distinction is made.

[BritTim]

21 minutes ago, stevenl said:

The law does not make the distinction, but in application of the law the distinction is made.

That is my opinion also. The literal meaning of the law would make almost everything illegal, but many things are tolerated. For the most part, it is possible to guess what might get you into trouble. Some grey areas have been clarified by announcements or enforcement history

• Participating in business meetings: announced as permitted without a work permit
• Attendance at trade shows, including negotiating purchases: announced as permitted without a work permit
• Long term stay here as a digital nomad: known to be tolerated based on lack of enforcement
• Any assistance, however minimal, in a retail business, even one owned by your wife: known not to be permitted based on previous enforcement