30 minutes ago, PAWNEESE said:

 My cunning plan .. I guess will be move said sum 3 months before .. and start to spend it only after visa obtained. Top up 3 months b4 next visa.  

A plan many have been using for years.

I think that this will be an advantage to most UK citizens receiving a monthly pension.  I transfer my pension into my BKK Bank account every month and my State Pension every 4 weeks so it will show in my Bank book.  And I will save 52GBP every year. ????

4 minutes ago, Mark1066 said:

Exactly. The only people who will be affected by this rule change are those who do not have the income or money in the bank to qualify for a visa based on marriage or retirement (or who do have the money but refuse to transfer enough of it to a Thai bank account).

These people will be driven into the arms of the dodgy visa agents at 30k each year.

In Thailand, where there's a will, there's a way and a Thai business that will make money from it.

I have been using the income letter and already bring in an average of more than 65K a month. If there is no certainty on the acceptable proof for funds remitted I will look at opening a foreign currency account as I do not like depending on the vagaries of the exchange rates if I set up a standing transfer to my Thai Baht account.

Just now, Joe Mcseismic said:

These people will be driven into the arms of the dodgy visa agents at 30k each year.

In Thailand, where there's a will, there's a way and a Thai business that will make money from it.

That's up to them isn't it? But anyone who's paid 30k for that service in the past is paying twice as much as they needed to.

17 minutes ago, graemeaylward said:

I think that this will be an advantage to most UK citizens receiving a monthly pension.  I transfer my pension into my BKK Bank account every month and my State Pension every 4 weeks so it will show in my Bank book.  And I will save 52GBP every year. ????

Only problem with that is that inevitably you'll be getting a poor exchange rate if your UK bank is converting sterling to baht.   I prefer to transfer a lump sum when the exchange rate is reasonably high (or at least not when it's really low) and have my Thai bank convert from sterling.     With HSBC in the UK, an on-line transfer up to 40,000 pounds costs 4 pounds, with no charges from my SCB account.

9 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

These people will be driven into the arms of the dodgy visa agents at 30k each year.

In Thailand, where there's a will, there's a way and a Thai business that will make money from it.

If Big Joke has his way that loophole will soon be closed as well.

Let's face it, the letter of income, or signing a statutory declaration, as is the case with the Aussie embassy, in a lot of cases is a scam, and taking advantage of a loophole which allows those with insufficient funds or income to remain in Thailand.

Last year the oz embassy made the same statement and then did a 180 on it

But if the brits are right then all embassies will follow

t seems the main problem with the 800 kBaht in the bank is the extreme reluctance of Thai banks to do a transfer back to one's home country.  However a Thai Visa card will work abroad with no problems at all, So make sure your heir has a duplicate card and starts clocking up 20k withdrawals before the bank realises you are dead. 

13 minutes ago, giddyup said:

If Big Joke has his way that loophole will soon be closed as well.

Never. Too much money to be made by Immigration officials.

14 minutes ago, anterian said:

It seems the main problem with the 800 kBaht in the bank is the extreme reluctance of Thai banks to do a transfer back to one's home country. 

There is no such reluctance. If the money came from abroad, you 100% can send every penny of it back out and this takes 5 minutes at the bank. 400B SWIFT transfer fee. You can even do it yourself through online banking even quicker and that is 300B. Over $50,000 US (1,650,000) there needs to be a notification to the Bank of Thailand. Anything under that there are no formalities whatsoever.

You can send the 800,000 straight back out the day after you get your extension, if you want to. Additionally, immigration will accept Foreign Currency Deposits in Thai banks for this, so you can even leave the money in GBP or USD or EUR if you prefer, and send it back after without even ever converting it into THB. Although the banks will take a small percentage in this case, in lieu of conversion. Bangkok Bank is 0.25% on USD for this, I think 0.5% on GBP- so there would be a bank fee of 2,000-4,000 on 800,000 equivalent if you were sending it back without conversion.

10 minutes ago, anterian said:

t seems the main problem with the 800 kBaht in the bank is the extreme reluctance of Thai banks to do a transfer back to one's home country.  However a Thai Visa card will work abroad with no problems at all, So make sure your heir has a duplicate card and starts clocking up 20k withdrawals before the bank realises you are dead. 

We've been using TransferWise into Thailand and my mate sent money out last week using Dee, worked like a charm & much much cheaper than bank charges.

 

https://www.dee.money/en/

1 minute ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

Never. Too much money to be made by Immigration officials.

Border immigration were charging an extra 300 baht to allow entry, that little earner has now been stopped. Just because they have been getting away with it for years doesn't mean it will continue. Time will tell.

20 minutes ago, pagallim said:

Only problem with that is that inevitably you'll be getting a poor exchange rate if your UK bank is converting sterling to baht. 

There is no reason why you would have to have your UK bank do the conversion. You can send the money in GBP through SWIFT and your Thai bank will convert it.

2 hours ago, giddyup said:

You do realise that Thailand makes it's own rules and it's not a British colony?

Yes, and the Embassy is here to represent the British Government and its citizens. Its simple really. 

2 minutes ago, giddyup said:

Border immigration were charging an extra 300 baht to allow entry, that little earner has now been stopped. Just because they have been getting away with it for years doesn't mean it will continue. Time will tell.

They also just moved two Bangkok immigration officials to inactive posts for falsifying documents to help visa applicants who didn't actually meet the income/bank deposit requirements.

1 hour ago, PAWNEESE said:

I stopped keeping 800k in my Thai bank and opted for the embassy letter "proof" of income.  I guess I will have to move a lump sum back.

 

My only objection to having nearly £20,000 here is how hard it will be for my grown up son to get it when I go off to the big Go Go bar in the sky. A Thai lawyer needed to do a will and process it when I go. I guess the bank keeps the money if no arrangement made. 

 

My cunning plan .. I guess will be move said sum 3 months before .. and start to spend it only after visa obtained. Top up 3 months b4 next visa.  

 

Not my problem I guess if £20k lost if I "go" whilst account has a big sum in. But its best to make things easy as possible. Oh well ... maybe a will needed. Im not sure if I decide Ive had enough ... and just to go home if its easy to take out my 800,000 baht.  

 

Im ok this year .. my renewal in very early December .. the question of whether they take regular movement into my Thai bank will be sorted for future years .. but the banks will need to do lots of work certifying by letter it is genuine incoming funds from abroad not just moved from person A account to person B account .. if that makes sense.

I think the proof of income will be money into your Thai bank account over 12 months so if you make 1 or 2 transfers a year they will add them up and divide by 12, so little has changed except it has become easier - no need for an embassy letter, just a letter and passbook from Thai bank showing the annual transfers from outside Thailand, I can't see it working any other way

Just now, Pilotman said:

Yes, and the Embassy is here to represent the British Government and its citizens. Its simple really. 

Exactly, not dispute or challenge any rules that Thailand chooses to introduce.

21 minutes ago, blackhorse said:

Last year the oz embassy made the same statement and then did a 180 on it

But if the brits are right then all embassies will follow

Called the British Consulate today and they said it is the Thai authorities who have done this, not the Brits.

1 minute ago, Pilotman said:

Yes, and the Embassy is here to represent the British Government and its citizens. Its simple really. 

It's here to represent the government/country, not it's citizens. The consular section provides assistance to citizens, ostensibly, but that is not the primary purpose of an embassy and never has been.

Just now, giddyup said:

Exactly, not dispute or challenge any rules that Thailand chooses to introduce.

Representation means exactly that sometimes.  Otherwise whats the point of having an Embassy here at all. 

35 minutes ago, graemeaylward said:

I think that this will be an advantage to most UK citizens receiving a monthly pension.  I transfer my pension into my BKK Bank account every month and my State Pension every 4 weeks so it will show in my Bank book.  And I will save 52GBP every year. ????

And the transfer charges............more than 52 quid.

1 minute ago, wgdanson said:

Called the British Consulate today and they said it is the Thai authorities who have done this, not the Brits.

Don't believe it. 

Ironically they are saving me money. I won’t be paying the British Embassy. 

I will just transfer money every month, same as I have done for years. 

1 minute ago, Mark1066 said:

It's here to represent the government/country, not it's citizens. The consular section provides assistance to citizens, ostensibly, but that is not the primary purpose of an embassy and never has been.

Not the primary purpose no, but its in their Charter. 

Just now, Pilotman said:

Not the primary purpose no, but its in their Charter. 

Yes but you are asking what's the point of having an embassy if it doesn't represent you and I'm saying that's not their priority. An embassy is here to maintain diplomatic relations and to promote the interests of the country it represents. That's its primary purpose.

 

I really don't see the problem with this new regulation and wonder why you refuse to believe it was instigated by the Thai authorities?

2 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Representation means exactly that sometimes.  Otherwise whats the point of having an Embassy here at all. 

Certainly not to challenge every regulation that Thailand introduces that doesn't suit a very small proportion of retirees. Sounds like you may be one of those affected.

3 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Don't believe it. 

Why would you not believe it? With the reported changes affecting US embassy declarations and earlier in the thread someone reporting the Canadian embassy said the same thing, this is clearly coming from Thai immigration, not a change in policy for the UK embassy.

3 minutes ago, Pilotman said:

Don't believe it. 

Well you call 02030508333, 1 for English, 2 for Consular, 3 for Notary. And YOU can tell them they are liars.

The British government would only have leverage over Thai immigration rules if it had a bilateral treaty with Thailand allowing Thai people to immigrate to the UK under similar rules. In that case, under the principle of reciprocity, governments do have leverage over immigration policy and will actually raise these issues.

 

Unfortunately the UK does not grant similar access to Thai citizens or have any such treaty, so there isn't really much the embassy can do.