BREAKING NEWS British Embassy Bangkok to Stop Certification of Income Letters

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, soalbundy said:

I agree there but that can have unforeseen consequences, crows don't pick each others eyes out and sooner or later you land at the same desk with the same official who is having a bad hair day.

That depends on your attitude when dealing with such a problem.

In my experience they actually respect you more when you know the law and facts.

[wayned]

28 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

This is what clause 2.18 of Immigration Bureau Order 138/2557  documents for extension of stay states for an extension of stay based upon marriage or a parent of a Thai child. No mention that it has to be from a government pension.

Have you been able to find the Immigration Bureau order that establishes the requirement for the Income Affidavit fir both marriage and Retirement extensions?  It has to exist somewhere since the IOs all seem to know that it is required.

[Psychic]

It's a little amusing after 171 pages here that when I open TV I see and ad for retiree visas "no 800,000 baht deposit or 65,000 baht income needed."

 

Not sure this sort of thing is helping.

????

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, Psychic said:

It's a little amusing after 171 pages here that when I open TV I see and ad for retiree visas "no 800,000 baht deposit or 65,000 baht income needed."

 

Not sure this sort of thing is helping.

????

It's like the prostitution industry as long as the cops can make money from it who cares about the legality

[davehowden]

28 minutes ago, Psychic said:

It's a little amusing after 171 pages here that when I open TV I see and ad for retiree visas "no 800,000 baht deposit or 65,000 baht income needed."

 

Not sure this sort of thing is helping.

????

I would comment but I would probably get a lifetime ban !!

[ubonjoe]

7 hours ago, wayned said:

Have you been able to find the Immigration Bureau order that establishes the requirement for the Income Affidavit fir both marriage and Retirement extensions?  It has to exist somewhere since the IOs all seem to know that it is required.

I have found nothing. It does appear on some lists of requirements handed out at immigration office.

I would guess it is an order issued back in the early to mid 90's.

It is shown on the Bangkok immigration website as answers in a the FAQ page. http://bangkok.immigration.go.th/en/base.php?page=faq

Number 16. 

 5.3  In case of foreign husband having any other income (not working in Thailand) such as pension,social welfare etc.
        -  Letter from the applicant’s Embassy consulate in Bangkok verified his monthly pension or other income not less than 40,000 Baht per month

Number 22.

2.2  In case of having any other income from abroad such as pension, social welfare
     -  Letter from the applicant’s Embassy or consulate in Thailand verifying their pension or other income of the applicant which must not be less than 65,000 Baht per month.

[PST]

After several more emails back and forth today regarding Income letter etc etc, it seems now they have slightly changed their tune, but basically, they still don't know.

 

"Hopefully this answers your question as we can not provide you with more detailed information for your situation as every application will be assessed on a case by case basis by the officers"

 

"As mentioned before the officer makes the final decision therefore they will need to see the paperwork for the assessment."

 

"Please contact us before doing your extension in December so we can inform you about the latest information."

[fondue zoo]

Why has there been no announcement from the other embassies regarding the verification of income letters?

Spain, Germany, Canada, Russia etc

[Kalasin Jo]

6 hours ago, fondue zoo said:

Why has there been no announcement from the other embassies regarding the verification of income letters?

Spain, Germany, Canada, Russia etc

Good question! 3 Embassies have suddenly announced they will stop because of Thai Immigration expecting them to verify the declared info. So is this just a ruse to reduce work by these Embassies or do the others actually verify the declared info?

[Pattaya46]

32 minutes ago, fondue zoo said:

Why has there been no announcement from the other embassies regarding the verification of income letters? Spain, Germany, Canada, Russia etc

Because nothing change in TI rules and in the issue of income letters by these embassies ?

 

16 minutes ago, Kalasin Jo said:

Good question! 3 Embassies have suddenly announced they will stop because of Thai Immigration expecting them to verify the declared info. So is this just a ruse to reduce work by these Embassies or do the others actually verify the declared info?

The requirement for embassy letters "verifying the income" is an old one. So the answer to your question could be: Yes.

[pontious]

The 'other embassies' issue them [ at the moment ] but will Thai immigration accept them.? That is the 64000  Baht question.

{ or to be pedantic 65000 Baht question. } 

 

 

[wayned]

5 hours ago, fondue zoo said:

Why has there been no announcement from the other embassies regarding the verification of income letters?

Spain, Germany, Canada, Russia etc

Most likely as long as Immigration continues to accept the letter that they are generating in it's current format, they think that what they are doing meets the current requirements so why fix something that is working for them.  I think that the US and AUS should have taken the "wait and see" posture like they did when the BE started the same BS back in 2014 and everything blew over, but the Vice Consular twits got together at a "coffee clutch" and decided to provide better support for us expats!

[Maestro]

15 hours ago, wayned said:

Have you been able to find the Immigration Bureau order that establishes the requirement for the Income Affidavit fir both marriage and Retirement extensions?  It has to exist somewhere since the IOs all seem to know that it is required.

For the marriage extension it is there in clause 2.18 of the Immigration Bureau Order 138/2557, but between the lines: "documents proving" means documents that in the eyes of the competent immigration official handling your application for extension of stay constitute proof, for the retirement extension it is in clause 2.22 where  "evidence of income" is interpreted the same way.

 

P.S. Ubonjoe gave a more specific answer here.

[wayned]

1 hour ago, Maestro said:

For the marriage extension it is there in clause 2.18 of the Immigration Bureau Order 138/2557, but between the lines: "documents proving" means documents that in the eyes of the competent immigration official handling your application for extension of stay constitute proof, for the retirement extension it is in clause 2.22 where  "evidence of income" is interpreted the same way.

 

P.S. Ubonjoe gave a more specific answer here.

I understand what you are saying and am aware of what the police order says.  BUT, all of the Immigration offices want an income letter from your Embassy and they did not just dream up that requirement from the police order.  I discussed this briefly with the IO at Nakhon Sawan when I did my extension on 16 October and she said that the "law required her to get an income affidavit" and that she could not accept "proof" without the letter.  She's been there since the office opened and is the only one that does extensions.  I w2as going to ask her to show me the Immigration Order that established the requirement, but she was very busy, the day after a 3 day weekend and 7 in line for extensions.  I will try to go back when it's not so busy and have the discussion with her, but the office is 100 kilometers away and I will only do it if I am in the area, not very often.

[soalbundy]

10 hours ago, fondue zoo said:

Why has there been no announcement from the other embassies regarding the verification of income letters?

Spain, Germany, Canada, Russia etc

They seem quite happy with the word 'certify' and ignore the impossible 'verify' since they make an effort to show that the applicant does have the required income the IO goes along with it. The BE also made an effort but being PC they had to issue a caveat as well which didn't go down too well.

[Sheryl]

They seem quite happy with the word 'certify' and ignore the impossible 'verify' since they make an effort to show that the applicant does have the required income the IO goes along with it. The BE also made an effort but being PC they had to issue a caveat as well which didn't go down too well.

We need (more accurately the Embassies need) to understand that the distinction between "certify" and "verify" does not translate into Thai. Nor does Western legalese (particularly the nit-picking precision) correspond to the thinking of Thai officials.

It is clear to me that what TI meant/wants is that Embassies which issue income letters do so based on a review of substantiating documentation and the reason for wanting Embassies to do this in the first place arose because it is very difficult for TI to make sense out of foreign financial documents. They (reasonably IMO) expect an Embassy income letter to mean that you were able to show documents which, to the Embassy's best knowledge, confirmed the income you claim. BE was doing that. US and Oz were not, and it is not surprising that once TI understood this they were not satisfied with the arrangement.

BE is IMO splitting hairs over meaning of a term used by Thais -- not Brits -- in strict British legal sense. And concluded it has a precise and draconian meaning that I very much doubt was intended.

TI can hardly expect that detailed at source documentation verification is done and they certainly cannot and do not do this themselves. They can expect that documents will have been seen by Embassy Officers, looked OK on inspection (i.e. no obvious sign of forgery) and supported the income being declared. All of which was already being done by the Brits.




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

[Spidey]

26 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

BE is IMO splitting hairs over meaning of a term used by Thais -- not Brits -- in strict British legal sense. And concluded it has a precise and draconian meaning that I very much doubt was intended.

If they are splitting hairs then it's obviously a deliberate act to hide their real reason for stopping the income letters.

 

Remember, by their own admission, the decision wasn't made by the British Embassy in Bangkok but by the FCO (British government department responsible for embassies abroad) as a result of their audit of the BE in Bangkok.

[OJAS]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

They can expect that documents will have been seen by Embassy Officers, looked OK on inspection (i.e. no obvious sign of forgery) and supported the income being declared. All of which was already being done by the Brits.

But the British Embassy application form does include the following words (and in red, to boot):-

 

"Please note we will use the financial figures provided on this form and will not check or amend any financial amounts."

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/746575/Pension_application_form_October_2018.pdf

[soalbundy]

2 hours ago, Sheryl said:

We need (more accurately the Embassies need) to understand that the distinction between "certify" and "verify" does not translate into Thai. Nor does Western legalese (particularly the nit-picking precision) correspond to the thinking of Thai officials.

It is clear to me that what TI meant/wants is that Embassies which issue income letters do so based on a review of substantiating documentation and the reason for wanting Embassies to do this in the first place arose because it is very difficult for TI to make sense out of foreign financial documents. They (reasonably IMO) expect an Embassy income letter to mean that you were able to show documents which, to the Embassy's best knowledge, confirmed the income you claim. BE was doing that. US and Oz were not, and it is not surprising that once TI understood this they were not satisfied with the arrangement.

BE is IMO splitting hairs over meaning of a term used by Thais -- not Brits -- in strict British legal sense. And concluded it has a precise and draconian meaning that I very much doubt was intended.

TI can hardly expect that detailed at source documentation verification is done and they certainly cannot and do not do this themselves. They can expect that documents will have been seen by Embassy Officers, looked OK on inspection (i.e. no obvious sign of forgery) and supported the income being declared. All of which was already being done by the Brits.




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

Agree with everything you say but the Thai language does make a distinction verify and certify

[Sheryl]

If they are splitting hairs then it's obviously a deliberate act to hide their real reason for stopping the income letters.
 
Remember, by their own admission, the decision wasn't made by the British Embassy in Bangkok but by the FCO (British government department responsible for embassies abroad) as a result of their audit of the BE in Bangkok.

I doubt it.

FCO staff are UK based and likely oriented to UK law without much understanding of how things work in other cultures. This sounds to me like something someone worried about legal liability under UK law would cook up.

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

[soalbundy]

3 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

I doubt it.

FCO staff are UK based and likely oriented to UK law without much understanding of how things work in other cultures. This sounds to me like something someone worried about legal liability under UK law would cook up.

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

Looking at pounds and pence, not looking or caring about consequences. English based FCO auditors looked at the TI regulations only  with no understanding of how things really work here made a decision but one could have expected the embassy staff to explain the nuts and bolts to them (assuming they had any knowledge)

[Esso49]

2 hours ago, Spidey said:

If they are splitting hairs then it's obviously a deliberate act to hide their real reason for stopping the income letters.

 

Remember, by their own admission, the decision wasn't made by the British Embassy in Bangkok but by the FCO (British government department responsible for embassies abroad) as a result of their audit of the BE in Bangkok.

I have had 2 out of 3 responses from the FCO regarding my requests under the FOI act.  Although I orignally said that I would publish the replies, given the current regime within TV for publishing some factual items I felt it more appropriate to publish those replies on another forum which I shall not name, but a Google search should find them for those interested.  Needless to say the actual data provided by the FCO, throws much , if not all of the TV conjecture as to the cessation of income letters from the BE,  into the  bin. It is obvious as to why the BE took such actions and the information/requests highlighted the major issues which triggered such actions.

[Sheryl]

After several more emails back and forth today regarding Income letter etc etc, it seems now they have slightly changed their tune, but basically, they still don't know.
 
"Hopefully this answers your question as we can not provide you with more detailed information for your situation as every application will be assessed on a case by case basis by the officers"
 
"As mentioned before the officer makes the final decision therefore they will need to see the paperwork for the assessment."
 
"Please contact us before doing your extension in December so we can inform you about the latest information."

Can you clarify who this email exchange was with?

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

[soalbundy]

2 minutes ago, Esso49 said:

I have had 2 out of 3 responses from the FCO regarding my requests under the FOI act.  Although I orignally said that I would publish the replies, given the current regime within TV for publishing some factual items I felt it more appropriate to publish those replies on another forum which I shall not name, but a Google search should find them for those interested.  Needless to say the actual data provided by the FCO, throws much , if not all of the TV conjecture as to the cessation of income letters from the BE,  into the  bin. It is obvious as to why the BE took such actions and the information/requests highlighted the major issues which triggered such actions.

perhaps you could explain a little more, a preci without publishing the replies would be helpful.

[mfd101]

10 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Looking at pounds and pence, not looking or caring about consequences. English based FCO auditors looked at the TI regulations only  with no understanding of how things really work here made a decision but one could have expected the embassy staff to explain the nuts and bolts to them (assuming they had any knowledge)

Yes, the auditors I have known cared only about (1) money and (2) 'efficiency' [ie economic inputs and useful outputs - not even outcomes]. They would have little or no comprehension of other cultures or priorities and no ability to deal with the notion that someone might not speak English or that concepts do not translate one-on-one across languages.

[Esso49]

12 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

perhaps you could explain a little more, a preci without publishing the replies would be helpful.

Sorry but not on this forum.

[davehowden]

1 hour ago, Esso49 said:

I have had 2 out of 3 responses from the FCO regarding my requests under the FOI act.  Although I orignally said that I would publish the replies, given the current regime within TV for publishing some factual items I felt it more appropriate to publish those replies on another forum which I shall not name, but a Google search should find them for those interested.  Needless to say the actual data provided by the FCO, throws much , if not all of the TV conjecture as to the cessation of income letters from the BE,  into the  bin. It is obvious as to why the BE took such actions and the information/requests highlighted the major issues which triggered such actions.

The two requests identified on the "whatdotheyknow" site shows both rejected as they would take more than 3.5 hours/ cost more than £ 600 to respond to, in essence "get stuffed".

[PST]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

Can you clarify who this email exchange was with?

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

Phuket immigration Volunteers in response to me asking them if they would accept my letter of income from BE to extend based on marriage. This was after them telling me in previous emails that the letter would only be accepted if I have a Government pension, which i'm not old enough to have yet. The previous replies are posted a few pages back

[soalbundy]

1 hour ago, davehowden said:

The two requests identified on the "whatdotheyknow" site shows both rejected as they would take more than 3.5 hours/ cost more than £ 600 to respond to, in essence "get stuffed".

just got to love democracy

[dick dasterdly]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

4 hours ago, Spidey said:

If they are splitting hairs then it's obviously a deliberate act to hide their real reason for stopping the income letters.

 

Remember, by their own admission, the decision wasn't made by the British Embassy in Bangkok but by the FCO (British government department responsible for embassies abroad) as a result of their audit of the BE in Bangkok.

 

2 hours ago, OJAS said:

But the British Embassy application form does include the following words (and in red, to boot):-

 

"Please note we will use the financial figures provided on this form and will not check or amend any financial amounts."

 

https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/746575/Pension_application_form_October_2018.pdf

It would probably take 10 minutes (at most) for a brit. employee to reasonably ascertain whether or not the documentary evidence provided was genuine, and to use a calculator.....