BREAKING NEWS British Embassy statement on income letters: Officials knew about problems in May and say that US nationals will also be affected

[soalbundy]

3 hours ago, Just Weird said:

For those Thaivisa posters who demonstrate so often that they cannot read, this development is nothing to do with the Embassy refusing to provide a service any longer, it is Thailand's Immigration asking the Embassy to do something that is impossible for them to do, something that the Embassy has never done before! 

 

The British Embassy has never confirmed or guaranteed that any incomes shown by British citizens are genuine.  Read your previous income letters if you don't believe me.   How can the Embassy provide a service that they cannot fulfill?

Doesn't the embassy believe a statement of pension letter by their own pension people or a bank statement from a British bank ? Sometimes you just have to believe what is put in front of you, what else should they do?

every year my German pension increases, I get a letter informing me by how much, I make a print out from my internet banking side showing this amount going into my German account, together with my passport, yellow book, the pension letter and the account printout I get my letter from the German embassy (I always go in person), how hard can this be to say this is a verification ?

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

5 minutes ago, Issanjohn said:

Actually check out this email he just responded to me AGAIN from the United States Embassy!  And I confirmed that it’s the same embassy employee signed AB see for yourself.  He says the SAME SENTENCE at the end of the email “no plans to stop providing the proof of income affidavit at anytime in the foreseeable future”!!!! 

 

John, I already sent my 3rd email to ACS some hours ago after you received your second response from them. I haven't received any response to MY latest email asking them to resolve the disparities.

 

Part of the problem is, when you or I send them an email and they reply, we have no way of knowing whether the same person or a different person is responding, and who that is. The "AB" signature has been the same, but no way to know if that ties to a particular person or is just some code they use.

 

Thanks for continuing to try to get some clarity from ACS.

 

[watcharacters]

16 hours ago, blackhorse said:

17 hours ago, watcharacters said:

 
Father, rather than make a claim without any substantiation whatsoever, can you provide some reliable links to support your post?
 
Thanks for that.
 

If you mean Cambodia then they most certainly have made changes recently

 

555

 

R U 2 busy to explain the changes you perceive?

 

[xr399]

23 hours ago, smedly said:

too expensive on transfer fees

Not too expensive if your 800k disappears from your account (as I read happens all too often here) I only bring over as much as I need to live... On married to Thai Visa and am a Canuk so, for the time being I still can get pension amounts that are kept in a Canadian Bank notarized at CDN Embassy but even that is a pain in the backside when you don't live in BKK.

[dick dasterdly]

58 minutes ago, ukrules said:

The way I see it is Thai immigration have proposed a change and told the British Embassy and probably many of the other embassies about it.

 

The British embassy decided to make a stand and refuse to play ball with this new change, hence the announcement about no longer offering the yearly statements of income.

 

Now they're waiting to see what the Thais do in response to this. If I know Thais they will probably do nothing, they generally wait until things blow up in their face before backtracking on so many things.

 

I see this move by the British Embassy as an attempt to bring the Thai backtracking forward before it does some real damage as they can see what will happen before it happens, it is obvious this will cause problems and the people who work in the embassy are not stupid.

 

This forthcoming change hasn't been announced by immigration yet so we don't know exactly what it is but from the statement made we do know that one part of whatever is changing requires verification of income, a service which is not provided by some embassies.

 

I wonder what else they're (Thai Immigration) changing in addition to this.

 

So why is the Brit. Embassy the only one to announce that it isn't prepared to issue the REQUIRED proof of income letters?

 

Additionally, why do they think it acceptable to 'play games' with Thai Immigration - knowing that their unilateral decision affects a number of their citizens in this country?

 

Attempting to drag the US into the 'game' by saying that they will follow suit, suggests that they really couldn't give a damn about the problems they are causing.

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

9 minutes ago, flipside555 said:

 

If they have told the British Embassy that they must change the letter and actually verify the information, then presumably they will tell other embassies the same thing. The letter from the American Embassy, for example, say pretty much exactly the same thing as the letter above. The main difference is that American one doesn't even state that they have seen any documentation.

 

 

I agree. I'm glad someone finally posted an actual version of the UK Embassy letter.

 

As an American, I was surprised to read it and see that it very much resembles the current U.S. Embassy letter, EXCEPT two things:

 

1. As you pointed out, the UK letter references the UK Embassy official as having reviewed documentation of the applicant's income sources. (That's not part of the U.S. Embassy letter).

 

2. As I've noted before, the UK letter is a statement and declaration made by the UK Embassy staff, whereas the U.S. version is only a statement written and made by the U.S. citizen extension applicant, and only certified by the Embassy officer as having been made by that U.S. citizen.

 

It's that latter difference that seemingly would get the UK Embassy off the verification hook... unless.... Thai Immigration is no longer willing to accept the U.S. version.

 

[JAS21]

23 hours ago, cardinalblue said:

Transfer it every 3 or 6 months to reduce fees 

Use TransferWise and there is little difference in the total cost when sending monthly or six monthly ...

[richiejom]

14 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

Doesn't the embassy believe a statement of pension letter by their own pension people or a bank statement from a British bank ? Sometimes you just have to believe what is put in front of you, what else should they do?

every year my German pension increases, I get a letter informing me by how much, I make a print out from my internet banking side showing this amount going into my German account, together with my passport, yellow book, the pension letter and the account printout I get my letter from the German embassy (I always go in person), how hard can this be to say this is a verification ?

So UKVI accept our bank statements as genuine when we apply to take our Thai partners back to the UK but the BE won't testify they are genuine for our visa's here?

[zzaa09]

55 minutes ago, Issanjohn said:

I spoke with immigration this morning in person and they said that the policy hasn’t changed on their part and that information came directly from the immigration supervisor.  This has nothing to do with immigration except that they maybe starting to enforce the rule that embassies are required to actually verify our income which I have no problem with.  But apparently the British Embassy is refusing to cooperate with immigration and outright refusing to do their job.  Basically the British Embassy is saying “the heck with our citizens living in Thailand” and that’s egregiously wrong.  Not only that then they flat out lie and say that the United States Embassy is doing the same thing which is absolutely not true.  I’ve already confirmed that the United States Embassy will continue to provide this service.  

Actually, I'm surprised that more reasonable folks are not looking down upon the British authority's highly irresponsible suggestion [as in a factual news report] and gestures on the assumption that others - namely, the American officialdom - are following suit regarding their in-house policies as such applies to British residents in Thailand. 

 

A shameful display.....as all the petty and pedantic bickering continues.

[onera1961]

If US embassy stops issuing income letter (though I highly doubt it), I will keep on getting a new O-A visa every two years from Washington Thai embassy. I refuse to submit to the demand of  immigration for money in the Thai bank and season it for three months. 

[flipside555]

3 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

2. As I've noted before, the UK letter is a statement and declaration made by the UK Embassy staff, whereas the U.S. version is only a statement written and made by the U.S. citizen extension applicant, and only certified by the Embassy officer as having been made by that U.S. citizen.

 

It's that latter difference that seemingly would get the UK Embassy off the verification hook... unless.... Thai Immigration is no longer willing to accept the U.S. version.

I'm not actually seeing the difference that you refer to. The British letter states "Mr X has stated that he receives...He has also shown letters that state...".  The British Embassy isn't confirming the veracity of the statements. It's just saying that it has seen them. As I see it, that's the same as the American affidavit, excluding the part about seeing the letters.

[soalbundy]

9 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Actually, I'm surprised that more reasonable folks are not looking down upon the British authority's highly irresponsible suggestion [as in a factual news report] and gestures on the assumption that others - namely, the American officialdom - are following suit regarding their in-house policies as such applies to British residents in Thailand. 

 

A shameful display.....as all the petty and pedantic bickering continues.

We have learnt from experience that they don't give a toss if we complain. The only hope is this going public in the UK press and maybe complaints being made on the foreign office facebook site, maybe they don't know they have a maverick in Bangkok. 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 minutes ago, onera1961 said:

If US embassy stops issuing income letter (though I highly doubt it), I will keep on getting a new O-A visa every two years from Washington Thai embassy. I refuse to submit to the demand of  immigration for money in the Thai bank and season it for three months. 

 

I'm just glad I got my new extension recently, and so have most of the coming year to sit here and watch in befuddlement as this farce plays itself out:

 

--the UK Embassy saying what the U.S. Embassy intends to do, and then the U.S. Embassy seemingly contradicting that.

 

--the U.S. Embassy providing myself and another member here with two very different answers to the question about future issuance of income affidavits, and then doubling down to each of us a second time and repeating the same two different answers.

 

--the UK Embassy creating the impression that extension applicants will be able to satisfy the income requirement of Thai Immigration by showing Thai bank deposits, whereas nothing Immigration has ever said or done in the past supports that notion.

 

--and lastly, the past two days of B.S. passing, and AFAIK, no public statement from Thai Immigration at all clarifying any of this, or what they're up to re income letters.

 

[Huayrat]

On 10/10/2018 at 3:46 PM, smedly said:

too expensive on transfer fees

1000 baht a month ain't that expensive..

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

10 minutes ago, flipside555 said:

I'm not actually seeing the difference that you refer to. The British letter states "Mr X has stated that he receives...He has also shown letters that state...".  The British Embassy isn't confirming the veracity of the statements. It's just saying that it has seen them. As I see it, that's the same as the American affidavit, excluding the part about seeing the letters.

 

The writer of the UK affidavit is the UK Embassy person. The writer of the U.S. letter is the U.S. applicant, not Embassy staff. U.S. BKK version below:

 

 

[imaderbyfan]

16 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

So why is the Brit. Embassy the only one to announce that it isn't prepared to issue the REQUIRED proof of income letters?

 

Additionally, why do they think it acceptable to 'play games' with Thai Immigration - knowing that their unilateral decision affects a number of their citizens in this country?

 

Attempting to drag the US into the 'game' by saying that they will follow suit, suggests that they really couldn't give a damn about the problems they are causing.

Ask yourself this then....

Do the American, Aussie embassies currently show proof, or do they just accept under affirmation, what their customers tell them?

[dick dasterdly]

4 minutes ago, zzaa09 said:

Actually, I'm surprised that more reasonable folks are not looking down upon the British authority's highly irresponsible suggestion [as in a factual news report] and gestures on the assumption that others - namely, the American officialdom - are following suit regarding their in-house policies as such applies to British residents in Thailand. 

 

A shameful display.....as all the petty and pedantic bickering continues.

To look on the bright side, I'm sure the Brit. Embassy/FO has received more than a few harsh words from the American Embassy/FO ????!

 

They may or may not have intended to do the same thing, but (if they were) it's probably less likely now that the Brit. Embassy stated their position for them!

 

What on earth were they thinking?  My mistake - clearly they don't think and don't care much either....

[flipside555]

6 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

The writer of the UK affidavit is the UK Embassy person. The writer of the U.S. letter is the U.S. applicant, not Embassy staff.

 

 

Both documents are written by the citizen and stamped by the embassy. I don't see any difference between the two.

 

[dick dasterdly]

15 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

 

I agree. I'm glad someone finally posted an actual version of the UK Embassy letter.

 

As an American, I was surprised to read it and see that it very much resembles the current U.S. Embassy letter, EXCEPT two things:

 

1. As you pointed out, the UK letter references the UK Embassy official as having reviewed documentation of the applicant's income sources. (That's not part of the U.S. Embassy letter).

 

2. As I've noted before, the UK letter is a statement and declaration made by the UK Embassy staff, whereas the U.S. version is only a statement written and made by the U.S. citizen extension applicant, and only certified by the Embassy officer as having been made by that U.S. citizen.

 

It's that latter difference that seemingly would get the UK Embassy off the verification hook... unless.... Thai Immigration is no longer willing to accept the U.S. version.

 

"the UK letter references the UK Embassy official as having reviewed documentation of the applicant's income sources."

 

No it doesn't - it says the applicant has "stated" that they receive income totalling 'x', and "shown" letters (or other forms of proof) from 'x, y and z'.

[Ban Phe Dezza]

21 hours ago, smew said:

So retirees without 800k, or verified letter will be kicked out. Hence removing huge amount of money out of Thai business circulation and Thais profits. Say one million total retirees, possibly 20% get kicked out: 200k out, spending approximately 60k baht per month total: 120000000000 baht not spent in this country per month: HUGE 

does Thai immigration understand the economic impact of their silly enforcement when everything was moving on smoothly before?!

Hi folks just my two cents worth  I have not seen any posts about what Thai families and others in a relation being support by Expats In my Soi alone  there are two expats who support Thai families indeed perhaps their only form of Income EG I family of Farrang Dad Wife and 3 Kids  I pose the Question of what happens to these Families Surely The Thai Govt will step in to help 55 55  Yep sure they will 

This could be repeated in many homes bye bye Farrang By bye Baht

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

8 minutes ago, flipside555 said:

 

Both documents are written by the citizen and stamped by the embassy. I don't see any difference between the two.

 

 

The UK version posted above shows that their version is written by, and signed by, the Embassy staff. Totally different than the U.S. version where the writer is the applicant, and the Embassy is just certifying their identify.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

13 minutes ago, dick dasterdly said:

"the UK letter references the UK Embassy official as having reviewed documentation of the applicant's income sources."

 

No it doesn't - it says the applicant has "stated" that they receive income totalling 'x', and "shown" letters (or other forms of proof) from 'x, y and z'.

 

The UK version posted above, with the writer as Embassy staff, says the applicant has "shown to us letters from" the applicant's various income sources. So clearly, that means the Embassy staff has at least SEEN documentation letters of the income.

 

 

[flipside555]

2 minutes ago, TallGuyJohninBKK said:

The UK version posted above shows that their version is written by, and signed by, the Embassy staff. Totally different than the U.S. version where the writer is the applicant, and the Embassy is just certifying their identify.

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Leaving aside the issue of the supporting documentation, which we agree is the main difference between the embassies, I see it that both embassies are simply attesting that citizen X states that he receives a certain income. Neither embassy is attesting to the truth of the statement. They are simply attesting to the identify of the person making the statement.

[blackhorse]

Ask yourself this then....
Do the American, Aussie embassies currently show proof, or do they just accept under affirmation, what their customers tell them?

Oz does but it's different. It's a statutory deceleration and a legal document. The embassy only verifies the signature after the person has written it. The embassy is not held liable in anyway using that method it falls back on writer.

[thailand49]

8 hours ago, OJAS said:

No, this is all a pathetically unfunny joke from the bungling incompetent penny-pinching UK government whose sole and avowed aim is to make life for us long-suffering Brits living in LOS as miserable as is humanly possible.

You got it right and wrong at the same time.  Yes they have no problem spending as they say like drunken sailors but when the shit hits the fan they have no problem pointing the finger back at the common people that it must be our fault. Meantime those in office have no intend of cutting back I guarantee the butt kisser in the Bangkok British Embassy and the British government are still enjoying themselves at the citizen expense.

 

 

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

2 minutes ago, flipside555 said:

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Leaving aside the issue of the supporting documentation, which we agree is the main difference between the embassies, I see it that both embassies are simply attesting that citizen X states that he receives a certain income. Neither embassy is attesting to the truth of the statement. They are simply attesting to the identify of the person making the statement.

 

Not sure what's hard to follow or understand...

 

This is the UK Embassy writing, not the applicant:

 

This is the U.S. applicant writing, not the Embassy:

 

 

The UK version appears to be ONLY signed by the U.K. Embassy staff.

 

The U.S. version is signed first by the citizen applicant, and then certified/signed by the Embassy staff confirming the person's identity.

 

[flipside555]

8 hours ago, OJAS said:

No, this is all a pathetically unfunny joke from the bungling incompetent penny-pinching UK government whose sole and avowed aim is to make life for us long-suffering Brits living in LOS as miserable as is humanly possible.

Looks like it's working then ????

[TallGuyJohninBKK]

3 minutes ago, blackhorse said:

33 minutes ago, imaderbyfan said:

Ask yourself this then....
Do the American, Aussie embassies currently show proof, or do they just accept under affirmation, what their customers tell them?

Oz does but it's different. It's a statutory deceleration and a legal document. The embassy only verifies the signature after the person has written it. The embassy is not held liable in anyway using that method it falls back on writer.

 

And that's exactly the same process/method that applies for the U.S. citizens and their Embassy.

 

[blackhorse]

 
And that's exactly the same process/method that applies for the U.S. citizens and their Embassy.
 

Which makes you wonder why the brits didn't adopt this simple work around instead of throwing their citizens under the bus

[imaderbyfan]

2 minutes ago, flipside555 said:

I think we'll have to agree to disagree on this one. Leaving aside the issue of the supporting documentation, which we agree is the main difference between the embassies, I see it that both embassies are simply attesting that citizen X states that he receives a certain income. Neither embassy is attesting to the truth of the statement. They are simply attesting to the identify of the person making the statement.

The issue of supporting documentation that you wish to leave aside, I would suggest makes the Brit letter a surer indicator of the applicants income.

So where does that now leave other nationalities who use the American method of attestation.

Surely if Immi will still accept those, then they should rightly accept the way that the Brits currently operate.

That or a total ban on any nation not PROVING income.

Or a total rehash of Immi regs...