BREAKING NEWS British Embassy Bangkok to Stop Certification of Income Letters

[mfd101]

1 hour ago, pontious said:

So what does a British citizen living in Thailand do when, for whatever purpose, he needs to make a statdec for use back in Britain? He has to fly back to UK? Or to Singapore? Or KL? Or Delhi? ... (Surely not!)

[anon537687643]

The more we read about this ONLY applying to UK retirees it’s clear it’s cost cutting by the UK foreign office, which is disgraceful since they sold the UK embassy site on wireless road for how many billion baht ?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[mfd101]

1 hour ago, dick dasterdly said:

More than a few of us (I suspect) would find it v. difficult to travel to Bangkok to have our signatures witnessed - making this possible 'solution' far from ideal.  Consequently, I'm going to have to pay an agent to get my passport renewed ☹️.

 

The postal service worked well previously, and the BE stands alone in deciding to stop issuing proof of income letters.

 

 

I wonder how all the elderly Aussies have been coping all this time.

[Jip99]

6 minutes ago, markaoffy said:

The more we read about this ONLY applying to UK retirees it’s clear it’s cost cutting by the UK foreign office, which is disgraceful since they sold the UK embassy site on wireless road for how many billion baht ?


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

 

 

Nonsense.

 

The move was prompted by Thai Immigration’s demand for “verification” vs “certification”.

 

 

Even the British embassy would not decline 52 Quid, for doing bugger-all, on “cost cutting “ grounds.

[NanLaew]

1 hour ago, Pattaya46 said:

Not if they are serious about the "crackdown" already started on the Agents helping to get illegal Extensions... 

What ""crackdown" already started on the agents helping to get illegal Extensions..." are you talking about?

 

Sorry if I've missed something.

[NanLaew]

25 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

So what does a British citizen living in Thailand do when, for whatever purpose, he needs to make a statdec for use back in Britain? He has to fly back to UK? Or to Singapore? Or KL? Or Delhi? ... (Surely not!)

Maybe Brits don't do the 'statdec' as such?

 

Pretty much the same as a Notary Public is a fairly unique American legalization.

[anon537687643]

 
 
Nonsense.
 
The move was prompted by Thai Immigration’s demand for “verification” vs “certification”.
 
 
Even the British embassy would not decline 52 Quid, for doing bugger-all, on “cost cutting “ grounds.

Nonsense ! If they weren’t verifying correctly before they could introduce a system that did so ! So it’s about saving money or not spending money !


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[dick dasterdly]

35 minutes ago, ukrules said:

I suspect the British Embassy is attempting to persuade immigration into accepting the same document they've always accepted.

 

They're pushing back.

In other words,  you think they're 'playing games' - regardless of the affect this has on Brits. reliant on the 'proof of income' letter from their embassy ☹️.

 

You may find this acceptable, I do not.

[dick dasterdly]

14 minutes ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Nonsense.

 

The move was prompted by Thai Immigration’s demand for “verification” vs “certification”.

 

 

Even the British embassy would not decline 52 Quid, for doing bugger-all, on “cost cutting “ grounds.

So why is the Brit. Embassy the only one to make this decision?

 

Surely ALL embassies should have agreed that they were unable to verify the information provided, and therefore made the same announcement?

[Expattaff1308]

1 hour ago, evadgib said:

...or tactfully telling then to trust the likes of paperwork presented from DWP and bang up/deport  anyoone found to be deliberately taking the p...

One would like to think so but for the moment I'm not holding my breath ????

[mfd101]

27 minutes ago, NanLaew said:

Maybe Brits don't do the 'statdec' as such?

 

Pretty much the same as a Notary Public is a fairly unique American legalization.

Doesn't matter what its NAME is. The concept is the same: A citizen wants to make an important statement that requires his or her signature, and the signature has to be witnessed by a nominated person in authority, which requires the citizen's & the nominated authority figure's physical presence in the same place at the same time.

 

So the question is: How do Brits manage this when they live in Thailand and their Embassy (apparently) doesn't do the witness bit? Are there Brit Justices of the Peace available here?

[mfd101]

21 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Surely ALL embassies should have agreed that they were unable to verify the information provided, and therefore made the same announcement? 

No, not all. Only those Embassies that had hitherto pretended to verify or perhaps in some cases had even indeed verified a citizen's income. In the case of those Embassies that don't do this, there's no change.

[ukrules]

6 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Doesn't matter what its NAME is. The concept is the same: A citizen wants to make an important statement that requires his or her signature, and the signature has to be witnessed by a nominated person in authority, which requires the citizen's & the nominated authority figure's physical presence in the same place at the same time.

 

So the question is: How do Brits manage this when they live in Thailand and their Embassy (apparently) doesn't do the witness bit? Are there Brit Justices of the Peace available here?

I can't think of a single scenario where a declaration like this needs to be signed and witnessed for a UK citizen.

 

For legal documents you can have a lawyer witness and countersign a signature like a will or something.

[soalbundy]

2 minutes ago, ukrules said:

I can't think of a single scenario where a declaration like this needs to be signed and witnessed for a UK citizen.

 

For legal documents you can have a lawyer witness and countersign a signature like a will or something.

An embassy is an embassy is an embassy, except if you're a Brit then it's a joke.

[Thaidream]

3 hours ago, JimGant said:

ubbish. Thai Immigration isn't stupid enough to believe the fear of committing perjury is a much stronger deterrent to providing false income figures than by sending an email with photoshopped forms. In fact, as someone has already pointed out, the BE's asking for any kind of income proof is a far superior speedbump to having some American vagrant -- who's never heard of photoshop, but who also has no need to have heard of it -- raise his right hand and swear he's telling the truth.

 

But this is where Thai Immigration is finally saying 'enough is enough' of allowing farong keynoks, with false income statements, however obtained, from clogging up civilized venues -- and unpaid for hospital beds. If the creep with the income statement has a lewd tattoo on his cheek, and an exposed navel piercing, by golly, Thai Immigration please thoroughly vet his proof of income. And, by some reports, this seems to be where we're heading.

 

But what we may see even more of is a requirement for a combo method, if one is to use the income method. Yes, no need for the 800k requirement -- but maybe a year of never going below 300k would 'show the cash" to Immigration -- while appeasing somewhat those who want no more than necessary of their cash in a Thai bank. Plus, you could label such accounts as collateral accounts, allowing hospitals to collect from deadbeat farangs without insurance.

 

No, not sure where the BE is coming from -- if Immigration is allowing the Yanks to still issue "questionable" income statements, as long as it is disclaimed, what's with the Brits? Not a cash cow? Christ, raise the fees. You weren't very clever to raise taxes on tea in Boston -- 200 plus years ago. Somehow I see the same bureaucratic mindset still in

My, My  such an enlightened post!.  I never said people would not lie- I did say that making an applicant come into an Embassy- and receiving an embossed stamp on a document with a date and time plus the consul's signature would cut down on fraud.  

 

I have no problem bringing a Embassy Letter along with income documentation to Thai Immigration. Let them peruse away!!

 

<removed a off topic comment>

 

Edited October 11, 2018 by ubonjoe

[Spidey]

Just now, ukrules said:

No, it involved proving that you have 800k in the bank. In which case you don't need to go to the embassy do you?

No, I know that this happens on a daily basis. Getting a letter from the British Embassy by providing them with false information would be far more risky and I've never heard of that happening.

 

Also, presenting a forged embassy letter to immigration would also be risky. It's embossed with a red seal and printed on not commonly available paper. As IO handle these every day, usually the same IO, I would imagine that they would quickly spot a forgery produced on the Kao San Road.

[dick dasterdly]

17 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

No, not all. Only those Embassies that had hitherto pretended to verify or perhaps in some cases had even indeed verified a citizen's income. In the case of those Embassies that don't do this, there's no change.

The Brit. Embassy never "pretended to verify" a citizens' income....

 

I'm assuming this is a troll post or, to be more charitable, you clearly haven't read that the Brit. Embassy at least demanded proof of income in support of the application.

[gentlemanjackdarby]

2 hours ago, tropo said:

Let's say Malaysia's requirements were as low as Thailand's, would expats be rushing to move there?  

I don't think it's possible for anyone to definitively answer that.

 

Of course, if Thailand made it so onerous to hold a retirement visa that most folks had to, I think they would strongly consider it.

 

There has been talk that other 'go-to' destinations, such as Cambodia and the PI, have begun, ever so slightly, to tighten their visa requirements and scrutinize 'border runs', albeit not nearly so noticeably as Thailand. 

 

I will say that when I first began to try to answer the question 'Could I retire outside the U.S.?' and taking into account my personal circumstances and what I want from my retirement home, Malaysia was at the top of the list and Thailand was at the bottom.

 

Malaysia has a lot going for it as a retirement destination, not least of which is English is an official language and the language of government and business (although I know from experience the advantages of learning a host country's language -  I was a Chinese linguist in another life), once one gets a retirement visa, one is pretty much left alone for a very long period of time, the weather and cost of living is very similar to that of Thailand, and Kuala Lumpur is a great base for regional travel.

 

One of the things that I think would keep most Americans from considering Malaysia as a retirement choice is the incessant fear-mongering by the U.S. lamestream media, Ike's 'military - industrial complex', and certain minority tribal interests about Muslims and Islam - I'm from the U.S. Great Lakes region and most of the folks I come in contact with on a daily basis have likely never even seen a Muslim and if they have, it's from a distance; forget about having talked to one. 

[Spidey]

Just now, gentlemanjackdarby said:

 

One of the things that I think would keep most Americans from considering Malaysia as a retirement choice is the incessant fear-mongering by the U.S. lamestream media, Ike's 'military - industrial complex', and certain minority tribal interests about Muslims and Islam - I'm from the U.S. Great Lakes region and most of the folks I come in contact with on a daily basis have likely never even seen a Muslim and if they have, it's from a distance; forget about having talked to one. 

 

I looked at Malaysia as a retirement choice, in fact it was the first place I looked at in SE Asia. Having lived in a Moslem country for a year previously, I found it to be a typical Moslem country, anti non-Moslem and particularly anti Brits. I wouldn't recommend it as a retirement destination for anyone other than a Moslem.

[OJAS]

49 minutes ago, mfd101 said:

Doesn't matter what its NAME is. The concept is the same: A citizen wants to make an important statement that requires his or her signature, and the signature has to be witnessed by a nominated person in authority, which requires the citizen's & the nominated authority figure's physical presence in the same place at the same time.

 

So the question is: How do Brits manage this when they live in Thailand and their Embassy (apparently) doesn't do the witness bit? Are there Brit Justices of the Peace available here?

In the case of the life certificates which those of us who are in receipt of the UK State Pension are periodically required to have witnessed in order to reassure those back in the UK who are responsible for paying our pensions that we are still in the land of the living, the witnessing bit is performed locally by someone who is deemed to have a good standing in the community in the eyes of the pension payers.

Edited October 11, 2018 by OJAS

[blackhorse]

Getting a beer everywhere is not easy and go go dancers wearing a burka just doesn't appeal so count me out

[billd766]

2 hours ago, dick dasterdly said:

 

 

Good point, but I expect that particular 'crackdown' will only last a short while....

 

I hope so but I have until August 2019 to renew my extension and long before then I hope that some measure of sanity and order will have been implemented.

[davehowden]

I see the "Affirmation of Marital Status" booking slots are going fast !!

 

https://www.consular-appointments.service.gov.uk/fco/#!/british-embassy-bangkok/oaths-affirmations-and-affidavits-/slot_picker

[billd766]

2 hours ago, Expattaff1308 said:

I didnt, but the point I was trying to make is the advise given to us by the BE, you would think if this advise has been agreed a statement to that effect would be made...ie we have been in negotiations with the Thai authorities and they have agreed etc etc and a statement will be issued in the coming months confirming this change by the Imm dept.....

 

Arrrghhhhhh Please stop bringing common sense into the equation. This is after all the BE we are talking about.

[Spidey]

1 hour ago, Jip99 said:

 

 

Nonsense.

 

The move was prompted by Thai Immigration’s demand for “verification” vs “certification”.

 

 

Even the British embassy would not decline 52 Quid, for doing bugger-all, on “cost cutting “ grounds.

The British Embassy did more than most other embassys to verify income, so why has no other embassy been affected by this? They have publicly lied twice over this issue. I believe that the "verification vs certification" issue is a smokescreen, to hide the real motive which is cost cutting. Move to smaller accommodation, cut down on staff salaries and office accommodation by cutting a net zero service. An accountants dream.

[dick dasterdly]

Just now, OJAS said:

In the case of the life certificates which those of us who are in receipt of the UK State Pension are periodically required to have witnessed in order to reassure those who are responsible for paying our pensions that we are still in the land of the living, the witnessing bit is performed locally by someone who is deemed to have a good standing in the community in the eyes of the pension payers.

Yes, I had to get a friend to witness my signature on a 'proof of life' form a couple of years ago for a company pension.

[blackhorse]

The British Embassy did more than most other embassys to verify income, so why has no other embassy been affected by this? They have publicly lied twice over this issue. I believe that the "verification vs certification" issue is a smokescreen, to hide the real motive which is cost cutting. Move to smaller accommodation, cut down on staff salaries and office accommodation by cutting a net zero service. An accountants dream.

That's the irony of the situation. By being so involved they put themselves at risk.

The others like oz and USA provide zero involvement with proving anything so there is no comeback

You would think under that system they would leave the brits alone but TIT assuming they did in fact pressure them but no proof of that either

[OJAS]

12 minutes ago, billd766 said:

 

I hope so but I have until August 2019 to renew my extension and long before then I hope that some measure of sanity and order will have been implemented.

Same here, although I have started to pave the way towards seeking my next extension of stay on the basis of marriage/400k in the bank (instead of retirement/65k monthly income), in case the worst does come to the worst.

[Pattaya46]

1 hour ago, NanLaew said:

What ""crackdown" already started on the agents helping to get illegal Extensions..." are you talking about?

 

Sorry if I've missed something.

 

I think the starting point was here:

 

[Mark1066]

22 hours ago, Spidey said:

I have done a SWIFT transfer from my UK bank on numerous occasions. Quickest 3 days. Mostly 5 days. Cost=£9.60.

 

Using the method I described, 5 minutes from leaving my UK bank to being shown in my Thai bank.

Cost=£0

What banks are you using at either end? My SWIFT transfers have come from HSBC and RBS to Bangkok bank and took 1-2 days. HSBC did manage to stitch me up though, as they used an intermediary bank who exchanged the money into THB before forwarding it, despite the person making the transfer stipulating it should be sent in GBP. Will never get involved with that bank again.