BREAKING NEWS British Embassy Bangkok to Stop Certification of Income Letters

[Mark1066]

 

4 hours ago, Spidey said:

The fact that the decision was made by the FCO in London as the result of an audit, the fact that the BE in Bangkok have cut back on a number of other notary services, the fact that they are moving to new smaller premises, the fact that no other embassy has followed suit, does, to any person with a modicum of intelligence, suggest that the statement (and we don't know the wording of that statement) by TI isn't the main reason that BE have discontinued the letters.

So, in light of the recent statement from the US embassy, confirming that they too are ceasing to offer this service, would you care to revise your opinion? Anyone with a modicum of intelligence might have realised that the British Embassy’s stance was a reaction to demands from Thai Immigration and not a thoughtless cost cutting exercise designed to cause maximum inconvenience to British citizens living in Thailand.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Mark1066

[Jip99]

4 minutes ago, Mark1066 said:

 

So, in light of the recent statement from the US embassy, confirming that they too are ceasing to offer this service, would you care to revise your opinion? Anyone with a modicum of intelligence might have realised that the British Embassy’s stance was a reaction to demands from Thai Immigration and not a thoughtless cost cutting exercise designed to cause maximum inconvenience to British citizens living in Thailand.

 

+1

 

I don't accept that it was EVER about cost-cutting.

[Joe Mcseismic]

Gone very quiet from the British Embassy critics.......

[Sheryl]

If applying for a RETIREMENT EXTENSION, yes first time 2 months, subsequent times 3 months.
 
HOWEVER, if applying for a CONVERSION from a 30 day stamp or tourist visa to a 90 day O visa in Thailand (the first step of the famous two step process option to enter the retirement extension system all in Thailand) NO SEASONING is required for the first step, the conversion step.
 
If the person is arriving with an EXISTING O visa then yes the seasoning rules would apply for applying for the first extension.
 
But I'm assuming based on asking for a "retirement visa" that he's entering without an O visa.

He specifically asked if the money has to be in the bank before he arrives in Thailand. The answer to that is no, but it does need to be in the bank 2 months before he can do a 1 year extension of stay for retirement.

It is unclear what type of visa he will enter on.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Sheryl]

The Us Embassy and many others also have a blank affidavit in which a person writes in  a statement and swears to it under Oath just like the income letter.  The income letter was developed as a courtesy to applicants but one could simply use a blank affidavit and write in- I, the undersigned  have a monthly income/yearly of XXX Amount from the following sources (list them)   The embassy signs the form under Oath. One could take this to Thai Imm with  a Pension letter; a social security or Veterans Disability letter and the bank account statement- 3 months printout clearly showing  the amounts in and debits out or if one transfer money where it goes.  A further backup is  ATM cards from your overseas bank as well as ATM slips.
 
I have used the blank affidavit to state income related things and support income for such entities as the US Internal Revenue service; a Private Pension Provider ; a US Court and simply to make a statement under Oath for another matter. All were accepted as genuine and true.  Maybe they checked further on the US end but no matter- simply like the Thai Imm can check further by perusing multiple documents
 
The concept of certification is misunderstood by everyone.  Thai Imm thinks  the Embassy Letter is certification and in a way it is because when you sign under penalty of perjury- if you lie- you have committed a crime.  The back up proof  can be asked for and if one provides what I state above- it has been accepted in the past- so Imm offices understand what these items are.
 
BE's excuse that Thai Imm believes they are certifying income is ridiculous-  an affidavit system sworn to by a participant would suffice as long as an Oath is taken.  Instead BE has found a way out oi having to do the letter instead of simply doing an Affidavit and letting Thai Imm decide if they will continue to accept the letter or change the law and issue a new police order.
 
The  situation can be resolved between any Embassy and Thai Imm by sitting down and explaining the concept of Data Protection and  Privacy Acts of various countries. . Everyone uses printouts of information and then added info on top of that which when taken together come up with  a good amount of certainty.  But when you use an affidavit and have the person sign under Oath- that makes them subject to a crime and that makes those who think about forging documents usually stop.
 

The US Embassy has officially announced it will no longer issue this letter. See other thread.

With 2 Embassies now having done this I think it is pretty clear that there has been some dialogue between Thai Imm and Embassies to the effect that Imm expects Embassies to certify the accuracy of income statements if they issue a letter. These 2 Embadsies at least have decided thay are unable to and thus will no longer issue letters.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Sheryl]

So someone has mentioned that an immigration officer would not take U.S letters next year but the U.S embassy hasn't ran for the hills and left its citizens high and dry.   

 

I'll believe that when the US embassy and immigration confirms it..... in the mean time our petition shot up to 262 today: https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/230120

They (US) have now officially announced no more income letters after end of this year. See other thread.

 

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

[Mark1066]

It may make life more difficult for some of us in the short term but I’m glad our embassies have basically told TI to get stuffed.

[soalbundy]

16 minutes ago, Mark1066 said:

 

So, in light of the recent statement from the US embassy, confirming that they too are ceasing to offer this service, would you care to revise your opinion? Anyone with a modicum of intelligence might have realised that the British Embassy’s stance was a reaction to demands from Thai Immigration and not a thoughtless cost cutting exercise designed to cause maximum inconvenience to British citizens living in Thailand.

The US may have been dragged along in the keel water of the BE caveat, they too don't verify (do they even look at supporting documents,probably not) The BE rep said herself this was a result of FCO auditing so yes, I still think this is cost cutting, if and when other embassies stop issuing letters (not affidavits) then I will change my mind.

[Jingthing]

23 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

He specifically asked if the money has to be in the bank before he arrives in Thailand. The answer to that is no, but it does need to be in the bank 2 months before he can do a 1 year extension of stay for retirement.

It is unclear what type of visa he will enter on.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

I agree that it was unclear. So I tried to read between the lines and presumed he probably will be arriving without an O visa. 

[Mark1066]

6 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

The US may have been dragged along in the keel water of the BE caveat, they too don't verify (do they even look at supporting documents,probably not) The BE rep said herself this was a result of FCO auditing so yes, I still think this is cost cutting, if and when other embassies stop issuing letters (not affidavits) then I will change my mind.

OK, if you want to cling to that point of view that’s your prerogative; I knew nobody slagging off the BE in this thread would admit they were wrong. Whether other embassies follow suit is besides the point really. It’s not a cost cutting exercise, it’s a statement that they cannot or will not comply with new demands from Thai Immigration to verify income. You could conceivably construe that to be an attempt by the BE not to spend more money than they are at the moment but it’s certainly not a cost cutting move.

[dick dasterdly]

31 minutes ago, Mark1066 said:

 

So, in light of the recent statement from the US embassy, confirming that they too are ceasing to offer this service, would you care to revise your opinion? Anyone with a modicum of intelligence might have realised that the British Embassy’s stance was a reaction to demands from Thai Immigration and not a thoughtless cost cutting exercise designed to cause maximum inconvenience to British citizens living in Thailand.

Yes, I accept that I was wrong in entirely blaming the BE ☹️.

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, Mark1066 said:

OK, if you want to cling to that point of view that’s your prerogative; I knew nobody slagging off the BE in this thread would admit they were wrong. Whether other embassies follow suit is besides the point really. It’s not a cost cutting exercise, it’s a statement that they cannot or will not comply with new demands from Thai Immigration to verify income. You could conceivably construe that to be an attempt by the BE not to spend more money than they are at the moment but it’s certainly not a cost cutting move.

Forgive me if I'm wrong but the BE caveat was new was it not? and this precipitated action by the TI, I don't know because I have never had a BE letter.

[Spidey]

50 minutes ago, Mark1066 said:

 

So, in light of the recent statement from the US embassy, confirming that they too are ceasing to offer this service, would you care to revise your opinion? Anyone with a modicum of intelligence might have realised that the British Embassy’s stance was a reaction to demands from Thai Immigration and not a thoughtless cost cutting exercise designed to cause maximum inconvenience to British citizens living in Thailand.

Others have said that by the British Embassy taking the stance they did, it opened a can of worms for all embassies. The US embassy was on very dodgy ground as, unlike the British Embassy, they required no documented support for the assertions to the incomes of their citizens. Also, people have been reporting that CM immigration have been asking for documentation to prove the assertions of US citizens as to their declared incomes before the BE made its decision.

 

Also, don't you think it odd that although all embassies, including the US Embassy have known about the TI stance since last May, they waited for the British Embassy to change it's stance and for the s**t to fly before changing their stance?

[OJAS]

18 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

Yes, I accept that I was wrong in entirely blaming the BE ☹️.

Me too. Even so, I don't think that they are totally above criticism. I get the impression from the USA thread that our American cousins who have hitherto used the monthly income method have each received individual notifications from their Embassy. Not so in the case of the British Embassy, though - I wonder how many Brits out there are still blissfully unaware that the income confirmation service is being pulled and wlll thus have an unpleasant surprise sprung on them when the expiry of their current permission to stay date draws near?

 

38 minutes ago, Mark1066 said:

It may make life more difficult for some of us in the short term but I’m glad our embassies have basically told TI to get stuffed.

Could turn out to be more a case of the Immigration Bureau telling us all to get stuffed if they were steadfastly to refuse to make any official announcement on this whole matter - which, by default, would mean that the only way forward for retirement extensions would be 800k in the bank seasoned for 3 months, and for marriage extensions 400k in the bank seasoned for 2 months.

[soalbundy]

5 hours ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

And yet, the embassy official has stated that the reason they don't issue the letter is because it doesn't prove, or, verify income as requested by Thai IO.

Nobody can verify 100%,  a letter given on the basis of documents can provide some certainty, an affidavit where no documents are required offers no certainty ( ever heard of someone being prosecuted for giving up a false affidavit ? ) A certain amount of reasonable trust is needed by IO and the embassy, show the letter, show back up documents, more can't be expected or given.

[kannot]

15 minutes ago, OJAS said:

Me too. Even so, I don't think that they are totally above criticism. I get the impression from the USA thread that our American cousins who have hitherto used the monthly income method have each received individual notifications from their Embassy. Not so in the case of the British Embassy, though - I wonder how many Brits out there are still blissfully unaware that the income confirmation service is being pulled and wlll thus have an unpleasant surprise sprung on them when the expiry of their current permission to stay date draws near?

 

Could turn out to be more a case of the Immigration Bureau telling us all to get stuffed if they were steadfastly to refuse to make any official announcement on this whole matter - which, by default, would mean that the only way forward for retirement extensions would be 800k in the bank seasoned for 3 months, and for marriage extensions 400k in the bank seasoned for 2 months.

Not last year but the year before an  immigration officer tried very hard to get me to swap from 400k married to 800k retired extension of stay, not  wishing to tie up 800 k I declined and last year did the normal 400k with no mention.

I decided at that previous time it was a lot more work for  immigration to do than the  Supporting a  Thai wife  extension than retirement extension and thats why they mentioned it.

Makes me wonder whats coming next, maybe theres  going to be an increase in the amount coming soon from 400k to 800k?

Or as someone else mentioned theyll actually  want to see this  money coming from  overseas instead of just sitting there  like mine does for 5  years now. 

We live off my Wifes income which is plenty i rarely bring money in, cant be arsed with the pallavar of  shuffling it  all around.

[007 RED]

5 hours ago, Spidey said:

And the decision was made by the FCO, not the BE, and was the result of an audit. Agreed?

You repeatedly insisted that the BE decision to withdraw issuing letters confirming income was made by the FCO as a result of an audit.  Although I accept that the BE representative alluded to this possibility during her radio interview, as you yourself have also stated, "she very quickly ‘back-peddled’ and indicated that the situation was brought about as a result of a meeting which a number of Consulates attended with Immigration".

 

It seems strange that the US Embassy has today announced that it is also stopping notarizing affidavits confirming their citizen’s income. https://th.usembassy.gov/news-events/ for exactly the same reason (and the same date) as that given by the BE.

 

So did the US Embassy just happen to also be told by their auditors that they can’t notarize an affidavit confirming income, or is it possible that the FCO (audit department) is in communications with their US counterparts, I doubt it.  The most logical explanation as to why two Embassies (so far) are about to withdraw issuing letters or notarizing affidavits is as the BE representative said "that it was brought as a result of a meeting which a number of Consulates attended with Immigration".

 

At this moment in time we don’t know the reasons for Immigrations concerns regarding the letters or notarizations, but that may be revealed by my Freedom of Information Request seeking the reasons for the withdrawal of the letters by the BE.  The FCO should respond to my request by the 7/11/18.

[OJAS]

2 minutes ago, kannot said:

Makes me wonder whats coming next, maybe theres  going to be an increase in the amount coming soon from 400k to 800k?

Plus maybe from 800k to 1,600k for retirement extensions? And possibly no grandfathering?? ????

 

Seeing as Immigration have now been clearly identified as the villains of the piece here, at least the knowledge that they would be put to increased effort overall as a result any consequential wholesale switch from retirement to marriage at extension of stay time would, I think, be poetic justice! 

[soalbundy]

7 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

You repeatedly insisted that the BE decision to withdraw issuing letters confirming income was made by the FCO as a result of an audit.  Although I accept that the BE representative alluded to this possibility during her radio interview, as you yourself have also stated, "she very quickly ‘back-peddled’ and indicated that the situation was brought about as a result of a meeting which a number of Consulates attended with Immigration".

 

It seems strange that the US Embassy has today announced that it is also stopping notarizing affidavits confirming their citizen’s income. https://th.usembassy.gov/news-events/ for exactly the same reason (and the same date) as that given by the BE.

 

So did the US Embassy just happen to also be told by their auditors that they can’t notarize an affidavit confirming income, or is it possible that the FCO (audit department) is in communications with their US counterparts, I doubt it.  The most logical explanation as to why two Embassies (so far) are about to withdraw issuing letters or notarizing affidavits is as the BE representative said "that it was brought as a result of a meeting which a number of Consulates attended with Immigration".

 

At this moment in time we don’t know the reasons for Immigrations concerns regarding the letters or notarizations, but that may be revealed by my Freedom of Information Request seeking the reasons for the withdrawal of the letters by the BE.  The FCO should respond to my request by the 7/11/18.

In short I would say that the caveat on the BE letter made it insufficient proof of income and the affidavit without documental proof made it just as unreliable for the Americans, how wise of the BE to move to a smaller embassy, they don't need much staff now as they have cut their service to the bare minimum.

[soalbundy]

2 minutes ago, OJAS said:

Plus maybe from 800k to 1,600k for retirement extensions? And possibly no grandfathering?? ????

 

Seeing as Immigration have now been clearly identified as the villains of the piece here, at least the knowledge that they would be put to increased effort overall as a result any consequential wholesale switch from retirement to marriage at extension of stay time would, I think, be poetic justice! 

For me the villains are still the BE, their caveat made the letter unexceptable, Baldricks cunning plan.

[OJAS]

Just now, soalbundy said:

For me the villains are still the BE, their caveat made the letter unexceptable, Baldricks cunning plan.

In that case I think that they're joint villains.

[soalbundy]

11 minutes ago, OJAS said:

Plus maybe from 800k to 1,600k for retirement extensions? And possibly no grandfathering?? ????

 

Seeing as Immigration have now been clearly identified as the villains of the piece here, at least the knowledge that they would be put to increased effort overall as a result any consequential wholesale switch from retirement to marriage at extension of stay time would, I think, be poetic justice! 

always looking on the bright side of life. I'm married to a Thai but I haven't lived with her for 12 years, instead I live with the mother of my 11 year old son, maybe I'll get a rebate for living like a Thai.

[White Tiger]

59 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

You repeatedly insisted that the BE decision to withdraw issuing letters confirming income was made by the FCO as a result of an audit.  Although I accept that the BE representative alluded to this possibility during her radio interview, as you yourself have also stated, "she very quickly ‘back-peddled’ and indicated that the situation was brought about as a result of a meeting which a number of Consulates attended with Immigration".

 

It seems strange that the US Embassy has today announced that it is also stopping notarizing affidavits confirming their citizen’s income. https://th.usembassy.gov/news-events/ for exactly the same reason (and the same date) as that given by the BE.

 

So did the US Embassy just happen to also be told by their auditors that they can’t notarize an affidavit confirming income, or is it possible that the FCO (audit department) is in communications with their US counterparts, I doubt it.  The most logical explanation as to why two Embassies (so far) are about to withdraw issuing letters or notarizing affidavits is as the BE representative said "that it was brought as a result of a meeting which a number of Consulates attended with Immigration".

 

At this moment in time we don’t know the reasons for Immigrations concerns regarding the letters or notarizations, but that may be revealed by my Freedom of Information Request seeking the reasons for the withdrawal of the letters by the BE.  The FCO should respond to my request by the 7/11/18.

If your FOI requests do not give us more info, maybe mine will.  In total there are now 3 FOI requests in the system, all worded differently & asking slightly different questions but essentially pushing in the same sirection, so hopefully more background info to this decision at the BE will be revealed by them.  

[Mark1066]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

Others have said that by the British Embassy taking the stance they did, it opened a can of worms for all embassies. The US embassy was on very dodgy ground as, unlike the British Embassy, they required no documented support for the assertions to the incomes of their citizens. Also, people have been reporting that CM immigration have been asking for documentation to prove the assertions of US citizens as to their declared incomes before the BE made its decision.

 

Also, don't you think it odd that although all embassies, including the US Embassy have known about the TI stance since last May, they waited for the British Embassy to change it's stance and for the s**t to fly before changing their stance?

I don’t really move in the right circles to comment on whether the way it’s panned out is odd but going purely on what I’ve read, I think it’s simply a reaction to being asked to do something that would be too time consuming for them to undertake. The USA never follows the UK’s lead in anything else so I’m not sure why they would start now (I don’t mean that in an offensive way). Maybe I didn’t quite understand the point you were making? What alternatives were open to the embassy?

Edited October 26, 2018 by Mark1066

[Spidey]

13 minutes ago, Mark1066 said:

Maybe I didn’t quite understand the point you were making? What alternatives were open to the embassy?

The obvious thing to do is what other embassies appear to be doing. Keep issuing the letters until such time that Thai Immigration refuse to accept them. This puts the ball back in TI's court and it's possible that the whole issue would have blown over as these things usually do in Thailand. I've lost count of the number of times that drastic changes have been announced by one authority or another, only for them to come to nought with the passage of time.

 

In recent times the authorities, here in Pattaya, announced that the sea side of Walking Street was illegally constructed and would have to be torn down. It's still there.

 

No more short time rooms in bars - most bars on Soi 6 and the darkside still have them.

 

It's the way it is in Thailand, all mouth and trousers as we say up North.

[Mark1066]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

The obvious thing to do is what other embassies appear to be doing. Keep issuing the letters until such time that Thai Immigration refuse to accept them. This puts the ball back in TI's court and it's possible that the whole issue would have blown over as these things usually do in Thailand. I've lost count of the number of times that drastic changes have been announced by one authority or another, only for them to come to nought with the passage of time.

 

In recent times the authorities, here in Pattaya, announced that the sea side of Walking Street was illegally constructed and would have to be torn down. It's still there.

 

No more short time rooms in bars - most bars on Soi 6 and the darkside still have them.

 

It's the way it is in Thailand, all mouth and trousers as we say up North.

We used to say that down south too. At least my dad did anyway - said it to me a number of times.

Edited October 26, 2018 by Mark1066

[Pattaya46]

9 minutes ago, Spidey said:

I've lost count of the number of times that drastic changes have been announced by one authority or another, only for them to come to nought with the passage of time.

Uh? Maybe? But here they didn't make any announce; didn't make any change.

 

Does anyone asked his bank if they heard about the possibility of "monthly income proof" letters ?

[007 RED]

50 minutes ago, White Tiger said:

If your FOI requests do not give us more info, maybe mine will.  In total there are now 3 FOI requests in the system, all worded differently & asking slightly different questions but essentially pushing in the same sirection, so hopefully more background info to this decision at the BE will be revealed by them.  

Unfortunately there may only 2 FOI requests in the system.  Yours and mine.  Another TV member (who shall remain nameless) copied my request (including a typo) and submitted it a day later as a new request.

 

I hope that we both get a positive response to our requests.

[Spidey]

13 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

Uh? Maybe? But here they didn't make any announce; didn't make any change.

 

Does anyone asked his bank if they heard about the possibility of "monthly income proof" letters ?

They made the announcement of their change in requirements to the embassies in May. Thus far I have seen no indication that TI will ever stop accepting the letters.

 

[Pattaya46]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

They made the announcement of their change in requirements to the embassies in May.

Where did you see that ?

Another source said that TI just replied to BE question, confirming that they wanted income verified, as they always had! Nothing changed.