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

[SheungWan]

18 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

BE doesn't make its applicants take an Oath. US and others do and for the US- the oath indicates a criminal penalty if lying- Herein lies the difference with the BE.

 

If the BE really wanted to assist it's citizens it would continue the letter- make their applicants appear in person- have them swear to the letter or have a British Barrister/Lawyer who is in Thailand and still can practice in the UK sign off on the letters as a British Notary.  

According to the BE website there are several British Lawyers in Thai Law Firms who they recommend to do Notarial s.  I am sure British citizens need to have documents notarized while overseas for various UK transactions- If the BE is sending it citizens to these lawyers then they must be accepted back in the UK.

 

The letter can still be issued and the Thai Imm can be told the same indicating that there is no 100% way to ensure  complete accuracy but we encourage the Thai Imm to ask our citizens to provide backup info if needed and leave it at that. Then up toThai Imm to decide to continue the status quo; ignore the BE letter or do like CM is doing with Americans-asking some for proof.

The US Embassy system in Thailand  is much cleaner- the Embassy makes no claim it is check anything- the applicant fills out the form- states their income- the Consul makes the applicant take the Oath- the applicant is aware that once he signs the form  and he lies- he has committed a Federal Offense subject to prison and/or  financial penalty.  It's the same Oath  any US Notary gives; US Courts use to swear in witnesses;  etc.

If I had my druthers- I would imprint on the form or address a statement to Thai Imm that the applicant has sworn under penalty of perjury the info is correct.

If Thai Imm asks for added proof- so be it. If someone lies and cannot provide the proof- notify the Embassy and the FBI or arrest them due to lying to a Thai Police Officer.

If everyone has legal income- it's not that hard to provide Letters of Income Source and Amounts; Bank Statements matching the income; Debit or Cred Cards matching the bank statements.

This is not rocket science- it's simple reasoning/

The mere idea of the British Embassy switching to a system of having British subjects rolling up and taking an oath has me spluttering in my cornflakes.

[AGareth2]

2 hours ago, watso63 said:

It's all well and good showing bank deposits totalling 800.000/400,000 from the previous year but that doesn't guarantee everyone will have that for the upcoming year. At least income verification from a recognised pension agency, especially DWP should be verifiable still. Oh dear what a mess. The "rubber stamp" lady really has been coining it in on behalf of the UK GOV over the years. Nice work if you can get it but now their scam has been rumbled by the Thai authorities. What's next, freedom to marry certificates? Couldn't run a pi$$ up in a brewery????????????

freedom to marry

good point

might as well terminate consular services

[jayboy]

19 minutes ago, Pib said:

What I heard during the radio interview was the BE rep tap-dancing to justify stopping the income letter because:

(1) Thai immigration had asked them to do funds "verification," 

(2) The BE determined Thai immigration really didn't need the letter and the letter was being asked for more out of habit more than anything else,

(3) streamlining efforts within the embassy to reduce workload,

(4) and some new UK law regarding privacy.

I think it is for Thai Immigration to determine whether Thai Immigration needs the letter, not the British Embassy.

 

I think I see what has happened now. The Embassy had an internal audit with inspectors from London. The inspectors quite reasonably questioned whether the Embassy really needed to issue the letters. Presumably, they were told by local consular officials that there were other ways of verifying income through bank statements etc. Brownie points all round for streamlining procedures and ending bureaucratic time wasting. What was overlooked was the awkward fact that Thai Immigration still wanted these letters from the Embassy - even though they served no logical purpose.

 

The inspectors duly returned to London but the low-level consular staff having realised they had screwed up were reluctant to revert to the inspectors to change their recommendations. Maybe the report has already been issued. Therefore we end up in the current absurd position.

 

 

[Thaidream]

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

Thanks for the inside info re the negotiating experience of the BE.

I have no inside info on how the BE negotiates but I listened to the interview and it was obvious to me and others on this board- that the BE spokesperson was tap dancing around the issue and did not give a definitive answer on how it all came down and for sure does not understand how Thai Imm Works and operates.

 

I am not British so whatever she says and does should not have any affect- but someone at the BE made a statement that this applied to Americans and I am still pissed off about this and to me it shows a complete lack of diplomatic decorum and a lack of how diplomacy works.

 

 

[SheungWan]

14 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

No they certainly don't nor do they follow the US model.  The BE model while flawed was acceptable to the Thai authorities until someone at the BE saw the chance to do away with the letter instead of trying to accommodate Thai Imm or at least explain in detail what they actually do. I was under the impression diplomats assuaged feelings  and offered to work together to find a solution.

The UK is no longer willing to waive through financial statements, and nor does it consider it has the resources to do so. Motivation is somewhat irrelevant now. And it not the UK's job to accommodate Thai immigration, but rather to consider and respond. The easiest way forward would be for TI to take the process in-house IMHO. In the interim, maybe the UK can extend the deadline, but that has its own set of drawbacks.

Edited October 14, 2018 by SheungWan

[Kadilo]

54 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Not my experience of applying for an O-A at the embassy in London. Reqired 3 bank statements and my P60. No bank letter, no notorisation.

It is a requirement in London that all copied documents are notarised but originals are accepted. 

http://www.thaiembassy.org/london/en/services/7742/84508-Non-Immigrant-visas.html

[AGareth2]

if you use the letter

does that mean you do not need to transfer funds?

[Spidey]

Just now, Kadilo said:

It is a requirement in London that all copied documents are notarised but originals are accepted. 

http://www.thaiembassy.org/london/en/services/7742/84508-Non-Immigrant-visas.html

OK. Got that. Mine were all original documents.

[jimn]

12 minutes ago, jayboy said:

I think it is for Thai Immigration to determine whether Thai Immigration needs the letter, not the British Embassy.

 

I think I see what has happened now. The Embassy had an internal audit with inspectors from London. The inspectors quite reasonably questioned whether the Embassy really needed to issue the letters. Presumably, they were told by local consular officials that there were other ways of verifying income through bank statements etc. Brownie points all round for streamlining procedures and ending bureaucratic time wasting. What was overlooked was the awkward fact that Thai Immigration still wanted these letters from the Embassy - even though they served no logical purpose.

 

The inspectors duly returned to London but the low-level consular staff having realised they had screwed up were reluctant to revert to the inspectors to change their recommendations. Maybe the report has already been issued. Therefore we end up in the current absurd position.

 

 

And you sir have hit the nail on the head. Its similar to what I posted a few days ago. That is exactly what happened. I have seen it many times before when I worked for BT in the UK.

[SheungWan]

10 minutes ago, jayboy said:

I think it is for Thai Immigration to determine whether Thai Immigration needs the letter, not the British Embassy.

I think I see what has happened now. The Embassy had an internal audit with inspectors from London. The inspectors quite reasonably questioned whether the Embassy really needed to issue the letters. Presumably, they were told by local consular officials that there were other ways of verifying income through bank statements etc. Brownie points all round for streamlining procedures and ending bureaucratic time wasting. What was overlooked was the awkward fact that Thai Immigration still wanted these letters from the Embassy - even though they served no logical purpose.

The inspectors duly returned to London but the low-level consular staff having realised they had screwed up were reluctant to revert to the inspectors to change their recommendations. Maybe the report has already been issued. Therefore we end up in the current absurd position.

I agree with your first sentence, but it is not just about wanting a letter, but what that letter represents. The BE has determined that it cannot comply with the Thai requirement. I do not think the current situation is absurd, but it does have consequences for British citizens caught up in the repercussions. Such is life.

[Spidey]

Just now, jimn said:

And you sir have hit the nail on the head. Its similar to what I posted a few days ago. That is exactly what happened. I have seen it many times before when I worked for BT in the UK.

BT as in British Telecom? I left the sinking ship as soon as it was confirmed that it was going to be privatised.

[sambum]

23 minutes ago, jayboy said:

I think it is for Thai Immigration to determine whether Thai Immigration needs the letter, not the British Embassy.

 

I think I see what has happened now. The Embassy had an internal audit with inspectors from London. The inspectors quite reasonably questioned whether the Embassy really needed to issue the letters. Presumably, they were told by local consular officials that there were other ways of verifying income through bank statements etc. Brownie points all round for streamlining procedures and ending bureaucratic time wasting. What was overlooked was the awkward fact that Thai Immigration still wanted these letters from the Embassy - even though they served no logical purpose.

 

The inspectors duly returned to London but the low-level consular staff having realised they had screwed up were reluctant to revert to the inspectors to change their recommendations. Maybe the report has already been issued. Therefore we end up in the current absurd position.

 

 

"were reluctant to revert to the inspectors to change their recommendations."

 

Face?

[jayboy]

7 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

The UK is no longer willing to waive through financial statements, and nor does it consider it has the resources to do so. Motivation is somewhat irrelevant now. And it not the UK's job to accommodate Thai immigration, but rather to consider and respond. The easiest way forward would be for TI to take the process in-house IMHO. In the interim, maybe the UK can extend the deadline, but that has its own set of drawbacks.

Er, not really.

 

Nobody expects the Embassy to waive through statements or attempt verification where this is not possible.Some form of legal caveat is therefore required.

 

The Embassy's duty in respect of the Thai Government and its agencies is to adhere to its regulations. It is not for the Embassy to decide what rules it can "accommodate" and what it cannot.

 

I can very much see why the Embassy wants to duck out of all this but it should not until an alternative system is agreed and running. I think this will need intervention at an Ambassadorial level possibly in concert with other Embassies.

 

Whichever way one looks at it the Embassy/FCO has screwed up.No need to agonise about this but definitely a need to take action to sort this out for the thousands (?) of Brits affected.

 

Maybe cut down on the diversity workshops for a few months to free up resources.

[sambum]

25 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I have no inside info on how the BE negotiates but I listened to the interview and it was obvious to me and others on this board- that the BE spokesperson was tap dancing around the issue and did not give a definitive answer on how it all came down and for sure does not understand how Thai Imm Works and operates.

 

I am not British so whatever she says and does should not have any affect- but someone at the BE made a statement that this applied to Americans and I am still pissed off about this and to me it shows a complete lack of diplomatic decorum and a lack of how diplomacy works.

 

 

I can't recall anyone saying that it applied to Americans - someone said that the Americans were looking at the situation which is completely different. 

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, sambum said:

"were reluctant to revert to the inspectors to change their recommendations."

 

Face?

More like fear. F.O. mandarins vs minor consular officials from some backwater embassy.

[Thaidream]

2 minutes ago, sambum said:

I can't recall anyone saying that it applied to Americans - someone said that the Americans were looking at the situation which is completely different. 

It was said when the story first broke but has never been repeated.  The US Embassy has indicated that the letters will continue but the issue is being looked into.

 

The Australian Embassy has placed  a notice on their website that it does not due Income Letters but statutory declarations/Affidavits that are sworn to and they will continue as such

The Aussie statement is the most logical one yet- Status Quo.

[Esso49]

6 minutes ago, sambum said:

I can't recall anyone saying that it applied to Americans - someone said that the Americans were looking at the situation which is completely different. 

I have asked under the FOI act for various information regarding this matter from the UK FCO.  Let's see in about 3 weeks time what exactly they have recorded in their memos/discussions with Thai Immigration on this matter.

 

By the way any other TV members requested this ? 

[55Jay]

4 hours ago, SooKee said:

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.

That's a good point about "audits". 

 

A necessary beast, good to have another sets of eyes on things from time to time, but the outsiders and their recommendations, must be calibrated to local issues and nuances.  That's where the local BE Diplodunks had an opportunity to either shine, or cut and run. 

 

The uber safe recommendation to protect the client (UK) against an obvious, but probably unlikely, risk of legal accountability, would be to get rid of the letters altogether. 

 

From the BE's perspective, it gets the Thais off their back, to whatever extent they were.  Removes the slightest, unnecessary risk and accountability ~ Cover Your A** (CYA).  Reduces the amount of contact, even via post, they must endure with the unwashed masses, and sheds an annoying paper tiger courtesy program, which they probably despised and resented all along.  Win Win².

 

All it costs is a few thousand Brits thrown under the bus, then weather the shit storm for a while, until it fades away.  

 

The manner in which BE handled this, and their churlish, impersonal attitude afterward, really rubs your nose in it though.  ????

[SooKee]

23 minutes ago, 55Jay said:

That's a good point about "audits". 

 

A necessary beast, good to have another sets of eyes on things from time to time, but the outsiders and their recommendations, must be calibrated to local issues and nuances.  That's where the local BE Diplodunks had an opportunity to either shine, or cut and run. 

 

The uber safe recommendation to protect the client (UK) against an obvious, but probably unlikely, risk of legal accountability, would be to get rid of the letters altogether. 

 

From the BE's perspective, it gets the Thais off their back, to whatever extent they were.  Removes the slightest, unnecessary risk and accountability ~ Cover Your A** (CYA).  Reduces the amount of contact, even via post, they must endure with the unwashed masses, and sheds an annoying paper tiger courtesy program, which they probably despised and resented all along.  Win Win².

 

All it costs is a few thousand Brits thrown under the bus, then weather the shit storm for a while, until it fades away.  

 

The manner in which BE handled this, and their churlish, impersonal attitude afterward, really rubs your nose in it though.  ????

Indeed, responses from staff to these inspections / audits will also be used to inform the final report and results and those answers depend on the competence of the interviewee which, as has been ably demonstrated, can't always be relied on.  It's not hard to image one scenario:

 

Auditor "So, these 3,000 applications, if you discontinued them, are citizens able to use other means to prove their income?"

 

Interviewee " Oh yah, yah, no problem.  They can use their bank statements".  Omitting the all too important "oh, by the way, I don't have a freaking clue about the process or what I'm talking about".

 

Report: 'Given that citizens are able to prove their income by reference to bank statements we recommend the Embassy ceases the processing and issuing of income certification letters'.

 

At first I was inclined to adopt a less sceptical view of how the BE has handled this; given the competence demonstrated by the radio interviewee (unless there have been more meaningful discussions with Thai Immigration that we are not priyy to) I'm finding hard to adopt a charitable view of it. Be great if I was doing them a grave injustice and that there is much more going on behind the scenes that will result in a positive resolution, at the moment, I'm fearful there isn't.

Edited October 14, 2018 by SooKee

[NanLaew]

2 hours ago, mfd101 said:

They said, that to save resources, the consulate should cease doing for customers what the latter can do by other means.

This.

 

The BE and FCO can save money by eliminating one of the alternative ways a retiree or married person can prove they have enough money to legally stay in Thailand.

 

When it comes to the agents, or the providers of money that doesn't belong to the applicant or those simply approving the locally generated paperwork that says it does belong to the foreign applicant, that will most assuredly go on and on.... and on.

 

End of.

Edited October 14, 2018 by NanLaew

[Spidey]

Just now, NanLaew said:

This.

 

The BE and FCO can save money by eliminating one of the alternative ways a retiree or married person can provide they have enough money to legally stay in Thailand.

 

When it comes to the agents, or the providers of money that doesn't belong to the applicant or those simply approving the locally generated paperwork that says it does belong to the foreign applicant, that will most assuredly go on and on.... and on.

 

End of.

You may be underestimating Big Joke.

[jimn]

1 hour ago, Spidey said:

BT as in British Telecom? I left the sinking ship as soon as it was confirmed that it was going to be privatised.

Lol. Yes it was. I left in 2013 after 40 years 

[Esso49]

21 minutes ago, jimn said:

Lol. Yes it was. I left in 2013 after 40 years 

In the days when it was "Good to Talk".

 

Now its email, Facebook and other anti social forms of communication.   Much like the way the British Embassy has communicated on this issue initially and when they did give a verbal response it appears to have doubt ridden aspects.

[joebrown]

2 hours ago, jayboy said:

I think it is for Thai Immigration to determine whether Thai Immigration needs the letter, not the British Embassy.

 

I think I see what has happened now. The Embassy had an internal audit with inspectors from London. The inspectors quite reasonably questioned whether the Embassy really needed to issue the letters. Presumably, they were told by local consular officials that there were other ways of verifying income through bank statements etc. Brownie points all round for streamlining procedures and ending bureaucratic time wasting. What was overlooked was the awkward fact that Thai Immigration still wanted these letters from the Embassy - even though they served no logical purpose.

 

The inspectors duly returned to London but the low-level consular staff having realised they had screwed up were reluctant to revert to the inspectors to change their recommendations. Maybe the report has already been issued. Therefore we end up in the current absurd position.

 

 

I used to work as an Internal Auditor for a large UK banking group, and this is where the majority of my pension income comes from.

I agree, the change might have been the result of an audit, but then I ask myself how many audits have been carried out in Bangkok since the BE started issuing income letters.

Either the auditors weren't doing there job on previous visits and/or there has been a change policy by FO or a unilateral decision has been taken by BE Bangkok.

It would be very useful if the Thai Immigration came out with a clear policy statement to either confirm or dismiss the BE statement(s).

Edited October 14, 2018 by joebrown
Add final paragraph

[kensisaket]

20 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Have you ever looked into the exchange rate you are getting for your over the counter withdrawl, it will be very poor compared to the daily TT rate or even the ATM rate. 

The exchange rate is the daily TT rate for that day. If you are getting something different you need to change banks.

 

[Peterw42]

21 minutes ago, kensisaket said:

The exchange rate is the daily TT rate for that day. If you are getting something different you need to change banks.

 

Why would you be getting the TT rate, its not a telegraphic transfer (account to account), it would be the ATM rate or the credit card cash advance rate. 

If you use an ATM or over the counter, its the ATM rate or you can elect to (if the counter withdrawal offers) continue without the ATM conversion rate, then its the credit/debit card provider rate. Either way its a very low rate compared to TT rate or cash rate. A payment or a withdrawal with a credit/debit card is never the TT rate. Yes its convenient and you save the ATM fees but on a large withdrawal you are probably a few thousand baht worse off ,due to the low exchange rate.

Edited October 14, 2018 by Peterw42

[Orac]

I used to work as an Internal Auditor for a large UK banking group, and this is where the majority of my pension income comes from.
I agree, the change might have been the result of an audit, but then I ask myself how many audits have been carried out in Bangkok since the BE started issuing income letters.
Either the auditors weren't doing there job on previous visits and/or there has been a change policy by FO or a unilateral decision has been taken by BE Bangkok.
It would be very useful if the Thai Immigration came out with a clear policy statement to either confirm or dismiss the BE statement(s).

The impression I got from the interview was that it was not just a compliance audit but one to evaluate where costs could be cut and downsizing take place. Needs to be remembered this is all taking place at the same time as they move from a large site of prime real estate into a condo or such like in the CBD.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Spidey]

16 minutes ago, joebrown said:

I agree, the change might have been the result of an audit, but then I ask myself how many audits have been carried out in Bangkok since the BE started issuing income letters.

Either the auditors weren't doing there job on previous visits and/or there has been a change policy by FO or a unilateral decision has been taken by BE Bangkok.

Probably significant that they are downsizing to the new, smaller embassy. Probably the thrust of the audit.

[sfokevin]

4 minutes ago, Orac said:

 

The impression I got from the interview was that it was not just a compliance audit but one to evaluate where costs could be cut and downsizing take place. Needs to be remembered this is all taking place at the same time as they move from a large site of prime real estate into a condo or such like in the CBD.


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

Given the reported 250 people a month that they charge 2,300 baht means they’re walking away from almost 7 million baht in annual revenue... Good way to cut costs!... 

[Spidey]

Just now, sfokevin said:

Given the reported 250 people a month that they charge 2,300 baht means they’re walking away from almost 7 million baht in annual revenue... Good way to cut costs!... 

It's not how accountants think. It's probable that on paper (accountants paper) that the service didn't make much of aprofit and accountants see a net positive by ceasing the service.