Yet more confusion over the removal of Income Certification Letter for British expats

[SheungWan]

9 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

They are not invalid, they serve and served the purpose that they were meant for, regardless of the strict legal meaning. I am not letting them off the hook, on the contrary you are by saying that the letters are worthless, how can they be worthless if they served their purpose? who cares about the legalities, if it's good enough for the IO it is good enough for me, all other embassies go this route what makes the BE so high and mighty?

I'm afraid that the legal implications of financial responsibilities are increasingly coming under review for institutions. The knock-on effect for end-users may be inconvenient but that is not a raison d'etre for continuance of old procedure.

[superal]

2 minutes ago, rickudon said:

How about the new British passports? To be done by a French company ..... and Passport issuing by heaven knows who at the Trendy building ......

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the proposal was met with heavy opposition and was dropped

[ginjag]

10 hours ago, ajnamoon said:

Really    thats strange   as when i first came here  i got a one year retirement extension from Thai  Consulate  in  Hull    UK

2 years ago I got a shock, traveled there, annual visa, they stopped doing them, so did the flight for nothing, 90 day one only,   so every 90 days it was Laos in 3 years my 10 year passport was full of stickers, plus a night in a hotel--------The I only had 1 choice, convert my 0 visa into a retirement one.

[soalbundy]

Just now, wgdanson said:

Nothing in my book explaining BTN, ask the bank. But there is a difference between having you pension sent direct to Bkk Bank and a Transferwise jobby.

It is sent direct from DWP, as far as I know it goes the strange route through the American banking system which is why,when there is an American public holiday on the day you should receive your pension, it arrives a day late.

[SooKee]

I do find it very fishy that the BE discontinues these letters as a result of an audit and then, coincidentally, roughly at the same time, Thai Immigration starts making demands that they say they can't fulfil.  Makes you wonder if there was any pressure from Thai Immigration at all or whether it was just an ill conceived statement that they are finding it hard to back peddle from, much like THEIR announcement of what the US Embassy plans to do and their seeming TOTAL lack of understanding of the extension application process.  It does wreak of incompetence all round.

 

If there had been an approach to the BE over the BE letter (who, needing to see proof of the income rather than someone just swearing they have it, seem to have a more robust approach to these affidavits than some others) why haven't the same approaches been made to embassies with even less robust systems in place?  Can't get my head round that at all.

 

If it's Thai Immigration stirring this up I'd suspect it will affect pretty much every embassy and in that case, unless Thai Immigration plan to do away with the income approach, they'd have to come up with an alternative to the income letter.  If it's just the BE I can't see them changing anything.

 

Wouldn't surprise me at all if the BE claim that income based applicants should just show 65K + come pm coming into a Thai bank was just assumption based on a total lack of knowledge, particularly if the half-soaked drip on the interview is anything to go by, rather than because of any meaningful discussion the BE have had with Immigration.  Maybe I'm doing them an injustice, sincerely hope so!

 

I hope this all gets sorted and ends well, kinda 50/50 thinking it won't unless either the BE reverses it's decision (or adopts a notary type service such as the USA which, given they discontinued for financial reasons, an amended approach to income letters doesn't seem likely) or Thai Immigration come up with some other acceptable method (s) of proving income which they'll only do, IMO, if this problem is going to affect every embassy.

Edited October 14, 2018 by SooKee

[wgdanson]

4 minutes ago, superal said:

Correct me if I am wrong but I thought that the proposal was met with heavy opposition and was dropped

Just as the Thai proposal to ban people travelling in the back of a pick-up, or paying to register your pets ! 

[SheungWan]

27 minutes ago, superal said:

I am surprised that consular/embassy tasks are allowed to be contracted out , especially to a company that is not of the same nationality .  Would have thought that embassy  activities would be sacrosanct  .

There are many consular/embassy tasks. What is/is not contracted out will be considered. However, the current issue even if was contracted out, the legal responsibility would still lie with the Embassy, so room for mischief down the road. Not going there has been the decision.

[habanero]

26 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

They are not invalid, they serve and served the purpose that they were meant for, regardless of the strict legal meaning. I am not letting them off the hook, on the contrary you are by saying that the letters are worthless, how can they be worthless if they served their purpose? who cares about the legalities, if it's good enough for the IO it is good enough for me, all other embassies go this route what makes the BE so high and mighty?

"if it's good enough for the IO it is good enough for me, all other embassies go this route what makes the BE so high and mighty"?

  I totally agree with you on this point.

[SheungWan]

Just now, wgdanson said:

Just as the Thai proposal to ban people travelling in the back of a pick-up, or paying to register your pets ! 

In the context of the current issue, there is no new proposal. Whether there is one re Embassy letters requirement we shall see.

[SheungWan]

Just now, habanero said:

"if it's good enough for the IO it is good enough for me, all other embassies go this route what makes the BE so high and mighty"?

  I totally agree with you on this point.

Nothing to do with high and mighty, but rather review of sovereign responsibility concerning said matter.

[soalbundy]

6 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

I'm afraid that the legal implications of financial responsibilities are increasingly coming under review for institutions. The knock-on effect for end-users may be inconvenient but that is not a raison d'etre for continuance of old procedure.

If the machine works don't meddle with it. We aren't on the stock market here, we aren't talking high finance, there may be a few foreigners fiddling their income, I don't know anybody that does, what's the big deal? what financial damage has this caused? the limits set by IO are arbitrary, if someone is cooking the books because he gets 55,000 instead of 65,000 he is still spending. The whole IO procedure is mere theatrics, they need the white wash to function.

[SheungWan]

14 minutes ago, ginjag said:

2 years ago I got a shock, traveled there, annual visa, they stopped doing them, so did the flight for nothing, 90 day one only,   so every 90 days it was Laos in 3 years my 10 year passport was full of stickers, plus a night in a hotel--------The I only had 1 choice, convert my 0 visa into a retirement one.

Non-imm O annual m/e visa still available in UK but now from London Thai Embassy. But yes, must exit every 90 days. Just get tickets now entering HK, no stamps, so passport just filling up with Thai visas and stamps.

[soalbundy]

5 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

Non-imm O annual m/e visa still available in UK but now from London Thai Embassy. But yes, must exit every 90 days. Just get tickets now entering HK, no stamps, so passport just filling up with Thai visas and stamps.

expensive way of doing things isn't it? flying to London and presumably staying a few nights then every 90 days fly to HK and then also staying a few nights must cost you a packet.

[Thaidream]

19 minutes ago, SooKee said:

ouldn't surprise me at all if the BE claim that income based applicants should just show 65K + come pm coming into a Thai bank was just assumption based on a total lack of knowledge, particularly if the half-soaked drip on the interview is anything to go by, rather than because of any meaningful discussion the BE have had with Immigration.  Maybe I'm doing them an injustice, sincerely hope so!

You can't have a meaningful conversation with Thai Imm if you don't know the current Thai Imm policies and you have no knowledge of what the Thai Imm Act of 1979 says or the current Police Order of 2014.  The BE rep exhibited no knowledge of the situation.  If I was the BE-0 I would discuss the issue with long term British subjects who live in Thailand and have used the l;etter and understand the History of Thai Imm/  There are probaly British Barristers working with Thai Law Firms who actually handle Immigration issues.  Why not call them?

 

In fact- if I was the BE and didn't want to do this anymore- I would outsource the issue to a British citizen- give them 250  number BE Forms- let them handle the  whole issue.  If you're going to trust local Lw Firms to notarize your citizens financial documents- or outsource Passport issuance- you can certainly do the same with this issue.  You cannot use the excuse the Thai Imm won't accept this because all the other Embassies are taking the stance it's business as usual.

 

It is only the BE- that is intent on 'throwing out the baby with the bath water' and why- so many ways the letters could still be issued.  A nice earner at 52 Pound per letter x 3000 per year.  I/m sure any legit Law Firm would take this on.

[Kinnock]

If the immigration services (in any country) worked like a well oiled machine with perfect internal comms, then the decision by the British Emvassy may make sense.  Meanwhile in the real world ....   

[SheungWan]

4 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

If the machine works don't meddle with it. We aren't on the stock market here, we aren't talking high finance, there may be a few foreigners fiddling their income, I don't know anybody that does, what's the big deal? what financial damage has this caused? the limits set by IO are arbitrary, if someone is cooking the books because he gets 55,000 instead of 65,000 he is still spending. The whole IO procedure is mere theatrics, they need the white wash to function.

I might have sympathy with what you are saying but what was acceptable to be waived through in the past is increasingly not. All government departments are increasingly being subject to the financial constrictions fallout and Embassies included it appears. They are no longer willing to sign off on something that the Thai government requires.

[SheungWan]

duplicate.

Edited October 14, 2018 by SheungWan

[Cricky]

42 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

51 minutes ago, VYCM said:

  7 hours ago, inThailand said:

Then why are so many complaining? They are upset they can no longer falsify their income? 

 

I think your right in the above, the statement will only reflect their falsely declaring.

Are you dyslexic ? No it won't suffice because up to this time the IO still demand the embassy letter regardless of the incoming money in your Thai bank book and as yet they have shown no sign of deviating from this practise.

I might be dyslexic but you’re delusional.

What are you talking about?

Your statement has nothing to do with my post.

[Kwasaki]

If someone is in this position after 12th Dec 2018 why not go enquire at their immigration office now and see if they are aware of your situation.  

[Burma Bill]

At my last retirement visa extension I was SPECIFICALLY asked "have you got your income letter from your Embassy" - I had, then.

[Expattaff1308]

1 hour ago, VYCM said:

  7 hours ago, inThailand said:

Then why are so many complaining? They are upset they can no longer falsify their income? 

 

I think your right in the above, the statement will only reflect their falsely declaring.

I have my State Pension paid direct to my Thai Bank the rest I bring over as required from my Civil Service Pension via my UK Bank (sometimes more sometimes less depending on exchange rates and my needs) and I would be happy showing 800k+ (on my statements or Bank Book) coming into the account over the year that equates to the 65k, However Immigration to date wont accept that, despite what the Notary Officer at the BE says they still want an Embassy Letter. It is this that is leaving us in No Mans Land.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Expattaff1308

[SheungWan]

5 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

You can't have a meaningful conversation with Thai Imm if you don't know the current Thai Imm policies and you have no knowledge of what the Thai Imm Act of 1979 says or the current Police Order of 2014.  The BE rep exhibited no knowledge of the situation.  If I was the BE-0 I would discuss the issue with long term British subjects who live in Thailand and have used the l;etter and understand the History of Thai Imm/  There are probaly British Barristers working with Thai Law Firms who actually handle Immigration issues.  Why not call them?

In fact- if I was the BE and didn't want to do this anymore- I would outsource the issue to a British citizen- give them 250  number BE Forms- let them handle the  whole issue.  If you're going to trust local Lw Firms to notarize your citizens financial documents- or outsource Passport issuance- you can certainly do the same with this issue.  You cannot use the excuse the Thai Imm won't accept this because all the other Embassies are taking the stance it's business as usual.

It is only the BE- that is intent on 'throwing out the baby with the bath water' and why- so many ways the letters could still be issued.  A nice earner at 52 Pound per letter x 3000 per year.  I/m sure any legit Law Firm would take this on.

The answer to that might be that if the Thai IO allowed certification by a law firm without Embassy Letter, then yes, OK. Comparable with application for an O-A visa in London with notarisation/certification. However, the UK government department/Embassy may still wish to decline such a proposal with Embassy Letter as they might consider themselves still on the hook.

[Thaidream]

7 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The answer to that might be that if the Thai IO allowed certification by a law firm without Embassy Letter, then yes, OK. Comparable with application for an O-A visa in London with notarisation/certification. However, the UK government department/Embassy may still wish to decline such a proposal with Embassy Letter as they might consider themselves still on the hook

No Embassy is on the hook - if the Thai Imm wants added support from the individual and the numbers don't match- then the individual may have lied and presented that lie to Immigration-   Thai Law- like most other countries legal system- makes lying or committing perjury a crime.  The Us Embassy  will not sign the form until the citizen takes an Oath- The Oat indicates one is swearing under the penalty of perjury which is a felony under US Federal Law.  I have to believe the UK has something similar. You place your disclaimer in the signed doc quoting your law- there is no legal liability  except for the person- if they do lie.

[SheungWan]

17 minutes ago, soalbundy said:

expensive way of doing things isn't it? flying to London and presumably staying a few nights then every 90 days fly to HK and then also staying a few nights must cost you a packet.

It does add up! To be fair I don't come to London just to pick up a visa. And the trips to HK suit what I want to do. So its a fit for me. Quick in and outs to HK quite possible. I have sometimes been known to arrive early morning and back to BKK later the same day. A bit exhausting though. PS, after 90 days I need a break from the place anyway.

[SheungWan]

Just now, Thaidream said:

No Embassy is on the hook - if the Thai Imm wants added support from the individual and the numbers don't match- then the individual may have lied and presented that lie to Immigration-   Thai Law- like most other countries legal system- makes lying or committing perjury a crime.  The Us Embassy  will not sign the form until the citizen takes an Oath- The Oat indicates one is swearing under the penalty of perjury which is a felony under US Federal Law.  I have to believe the UK has something similar. You place your disclaimer in the signed doc quoting your law- there is no legal liability  except for the person- if they do lie.

For the UK I can surmise that this is not about taking an oath subject to penalties, it is about validation. And the UK has determined that it cannot/will not validate the process required by the Thai IO. Financial procedures are about process, not oaths.

[Spidey]

Just now, SheungWan said:

For the UK I can surmise that this is not about taking an oath subject to penalties, it is about validation. And the UK has determined that it cannot/will not validate the process required by the Thai IO. Financial procedures are about process, not oaths.

What puzzles me is that, as some have mentioned, it's possible to obtain a Non O-A retirement visa at the Thai Embassy in London. The financial requirements are the same and the Thai Embassy requires the same evidence of income as the British Embassy do to issue income letters.

 

The Thai Embassy in London accept this evidence with no further verification, yet the British Embassy are telling us that it won't satisfy Thai Immigration.

 

Methinks somebody is telling porkies...…...and it ain't Thai Immigration.

[evadgib]

41 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

You can't have a meaningful conversation with Thai Imm if you don't know the current Thai Imm policies and you have no knowledge of what the Thai Imm Act of 1979 says or the current Police Order of 2014.  The BE rep exhibited no knowledge of the situation.  If I was the BE-0 I would discuss the issue with long term British subjects who live in Thailand and have used the l;etter and understand the History of Thai Imm/  There are probaly British Barristers working with Thai Law Firms who actually handle Immigration issues.  Why not call them?

 

In fact- if I was the BE and didn't want to do this anymore- I would outsource the issue to a British citizen- give them 250  number BE Forms- let them handle the  whole issue.  If you're going to trust local Lw Firms to notarize your citizens financial documents- or outsource Passport issuance- you can certainly do the same with this issue.  You cannot use the excuse the Thai Imm won't accept this because all the other Embassies are taking the stance it's business as usual.

 

It is only the BE- that is intent on 'throwing out the baby with the bath water' and why- so many ways the letters could still be issued.  A nice earner at 52 Pound per letter x 3000 per year.  I/m sure any legit Law Firm would take this on.

How will a law firm provide the necessary proof if the embassy can't?

[superal]

Thinking the whole scenario through . So if nothing changes and the only way to gain the extension is the 4/800k in the Thai bank. .

What will happen to the folk who are unable to meet the criteria and are stranded here without visas and sufficient funds to fly home .  Free stay at the Bangkok Hilton ? but the UK Embassy will not let that happen as they care for their fellow countrymen .  ????

[Spidey]

Just now, superal said:

Thinking the whole scenario through . So if nothing changes and the only way to gain the extension is the 4/800k in the Thai bank. .

What will happen to the folk who are unable to meet the criteria and are stranded here without visas and sufficient funds to fly home .  Free stay at the Bangkok Hilton ? but the UK Embassy will not let that happen as they care for their fellow countrymen .  ????

They can pay 20k to a dodgy visa agent to "magic" the 800k into a bank account.

[bkkcanuck8]

9 hours ago, moe666 said:

If I ly when I raise my hand and swear that my statement is true I am subject to criminal prosecution

You are subject to criminal prosecution for many things... but... like many... the odds of being criminally pursued... is zero... with no likelihood of prosecution ... a large number of people that would otherwise not be able to stay legally would not give a second thought to lying.  (just think of how many people pirate stuff)