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

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

Inability to present logical reasoning from some certainly risks being shot down in flames

In British law there is the concept of the 'reasonable man' and what he is expected to do, for instance before using public transport the 'reasonable man' would be expected to read through the many volumes of rules and regulations of that particular mode of transport, before using his car, at all times, he would thoroughly check his car as to its roadworthiness, including measuring the tyre pressure, etc, etc, of course nobody is so 'reasonable' otherwise nothing would ever get done, things function on trust and common sense. I don't turn to google or facebook to ascertain if my doctor or pharmacist is qualified, I don't ask the taxi driver if he has a driving license. In the same manner it can be expected that the vast majority of people are being honest with their income declarations. 

[doctormann]

5 hours ago, sambum said:

The British Embassy could put things right by adopting the same system that every other Embassy uses (To my knowledge) But I am afraid that would mean a climbdown/loss of face, and also the fact that the BE have just sold their Embassy for 420 million British Pounds means not that they have more money to play with, but that they will no doubt be moving to  smaller premises with less staff, and they have already got rid of the responsibility of supplying new passports to British citizens, so the move to smaller premises means:- "less staff - less time - less jobs to do"

 

Which makes absolute nonsense of the Ambassador's speech in 2017:-   

"I have  outlined my top three priorities in Thailand, which are about promoting a free and open society; building stronger  partnerships for mutual prosperity; and providing top-notch consular and embassy services to all who avail of them.”   Basically, the Proof of Income letter is another job that they are wanting to get rid of, because in order for them to fall in line with the same format as applied by other Embassies, it would involve having to make provision for people requiring a letter to visit the Embassy and sign statements confirming that their statements regarding their income are truthful, and that false declarations could lead to prosecutions - too much work with a reduced work force and not enough storage space for the paperwork required!

 

If the affidavit method was deemed to be acceptable, as it currently is with other nationalities, the work could be outsourced to VFS, as the Embassy has already done with its passport and visa services.  An Embassy approved lawyer would need to be in residence but that could easily be arranged.  OK, I guess that an appointment system would need to be set up and i realise that anyone not living within easy reach of Bangkok would be inconvenienced but this would be better than having no service at all.

 

However, I think that there is more - or maybe less - behind this than the BE have stated.  It could just be a cost-cutting exercise in response to the FCO audit that happened recently!

 

[certacito]

6 hours ago, sambum said:

they have already got rid of the responsibility of supplying new passports to British citizens,

 

Seriously? That was not a decision taken by the BE, it was taken by the relative rule makers back in the UK. It was not just Thailand that was affected, it was a global change of policy.

[Pattaya46]

1 hour ago, SheungWan said:

10 hours ago, billd766 said:

IMHO I think that this problem lies entirely with the British embassy.

 

No it doesn't. The problem starts with TI requirements. Otherwise horse before cart.

 

And how can you say that for sure ?

No trace of change of the T.I. requirements towards embassies for this letter for more than a decade.

[soalbundy]

5 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

 

And how can you say that for sure ?

No trace of change of the T.I. requirements towards embassies for this letter for more than a decade.

The BE thinks it may be necessary to know how old the horse is, if it's been vaccinated, what its lineage is and who made the cart, nobody else is bothered. 

[Expattaff1308]

7 hours ago, sambum said:

"read post 1805"

 

Rather difficult! I know this is a popular thread but the most recent post that I can see is Post # 1076!!!

Here it is..

Just picked up my letter from my agent for this year's retirement renewal he has told me that the Embassy has been flooded with complaints from UK residents. Apparently they went to a Seminar organised by Immigration who advised them to carefully scrutinise the documents sent to them in support of income certification. They were not asked to verify the documents. Wait a while for a probable clarification from the Embassy/face saving move before the deadline.

[JackThompson]

7 hours ago, sambum said:

too much work with a reduced work force and not enough storage space for the paperwork required! 

The letters earn enough to pay more than the one person needed to witness the signature plus costs.  And based on their claims, the relatively low-volume of requests is such that it would not fill up a small closet for years.

 

15 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

some kind of checking/audit of documents they were producing, and they got a doubt about this letter.

Or, maybe, got some "maybe we can create doubt" about the letter service.  Perhaps, "Golly Mr Thai-counterpart, we have a suspicion that some of these letters may not contain accurate figures.  What do you require in this matter?"  And they knew what the Thais would say in response.  Or some other situation where the opportunity to shed the service came up (seminar, above).  Never mind what was in-place was working - the idea was to torpedo what was in-place and working.

Edited October 20, 2018 by JackThompson

[soalbundy]

2 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The letters earn enough to pay more than the one person needed to witness the signature plus costs.  And based on their claims, the relatively low-volume of requests is such that it would not fill up a small closet for years.

 

Or, maybe, got some "maybe we can create doubt" about the letter service.  Perhaps, "Golly Mr Thai-counterpart, we have a suspicion that some of these letters may not contain accurate figures.  What do you require in this matter?"  And they knew what the Thais would say in response.  Never mind what was in-place was working - the idea was to torpedo what was in-place and working.

correct, 'it wasn't me mummy'. The British are excellent at obscuration, Thatcher after closing many mental health hospitals, ''The patients will be released in to a caring society'', ie. not my problem now, rather like the embassy letters.

[billd766]

17 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I have looked at my Facebook page and so far 6 of my friends have also signed the petition. My mate sent me the link to that radio interview and I haven't heard so much rubbish in ages.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FevITCQ6s-I&feature=share

 

 

Another 5 friends have signed up overnight.

 

I am doing my bit. Come on you guys, do yours as well.

[Kwasaki]

18 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

I have looked at my Facebook page and so far 6 of my friends have also signed the petition. My mate sent me the link to that radio interview and I haven't heard so much rubbish in ages.

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FevITCQ6s-I&feature=share

For many years now I have shown money 3 months for marriage because I found the confirm amount letter way difficult for me, my Gov UK pension is not enough to show monthly income so my problem was that my two other private pension providers said from the start they will not confirm further monthly amounts other than the first letter stating the amount.

 

I didn't see the interview as rubbish because once all Thai immigration offices are informed as I understand it that means I can show 12 months statement amounts from my UK bank and 12 months of amounts paid into my Thai bank and a letter from them confirming this, so that will enable me to use the 400,000 tied up in the Thai bank. 

[SheungWan]

4 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

 

And how can you say that for sure ?

No trace of change of the T.I. requirements towards embassies for this letter for more than a decade.

This is not about a change in the formal requirements. It is a change in the delivery of that service ie the validation of financial docs. The problem starts with what TI wants followed by BE deciding that they are unable to deliver.

[SheungWan]

3 hours ago, soalbundy said:

correct, 'it wasn't me mummy'. The British are excellent at obscuration, Thatcher after closing many mental health hospitals, ''The patients will be released in to a caring society'', ie. not my problem now, rather like the embassy letters.

More blaming and deflection.

[soalbundy]

Just now, SheungWan said:

More blaming and deflection.

It is as it is, take a look at the German embassy website and see what services are on offer and compare it to the British embassy, they even do passports !!

[SheungWan]

3 hours ago, JackThompson said:

The letters earn enough to pay more than the one person needed to witness the signature plus costs.  And based on their claims, the relatively low-volume of requests is such that it would not fill up a small closet for years.

Or, maybe, got some "maybe we can create doubt" about the letter service.  Perhaps, "Golly Mr Thai-counterpart, we have a suspicion that some of these letters may not contain accurate figures.  What do you require in this matter?"  And they knew what the Thais would say in response.  Or some other situation where the opportunity to shed the service came up (seminar, above).  Never mind what was in-place was working - the idea was to torpedo what was in-place and working.

What was in place and working does not work now. Validation process reviewed and found wanting. Demanding the continuation of a Blind Eye process on both sides is what some guys here are really pushing.

[SheungWan]

6 hours ago, soalbundy said:

In British law there is the concept of the 'reasonable man' and what he is expected to do, for instance before using public transport the 'reasonable man' would be expected to read through the many volumes of rules and regulations of that particular mode of transport, before using his car, at all times, he would thoroughly check his car as to its roadworthiness, including measuring the tyre pressure, etc, etc, of course nobody is so 'reasonable' otherwise nothing would ever get done, things function on trust and common sense. I don't turn to google or facebook to ascertain if my doctor or pharmacist is qualified, I don't ask the taxi driver if he has a driving license. In the same manner it can be expected that the vast majority of people are being honest with their income declarations. 

Do we really need this simplistic guff?

Edited October 20, 2018 by SheungWan

[Kadilo]

39 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

 

 

I didn't see the interview as rubbish because once all Thai immigration offices are informed as I understand it that means I can show 12 months statement amounts from my UK bank and 12 months of amounts paid into my Thai bank and a letter from them confirming this, so that will enable me to use the 400,000 tied up in the Thai bank. 

You’re just not getting it are you. 

[Kwasaki]

11 minutes ago, Kadilo said:

You’re just not getting it are you. 

Well please inform me what I do get at this early stage, the BE radio interview made sense to me.

[HHTel]

There are more and more posts on this forum and others that have said that their embassies, on latest renewals, have been informed that discussions are in progress as to whether they will still be able to issue letters in the future.  Seems that the BE is just the first to respond!

[soalbundy]

1 minute ago, SheungWan said:

In the same manner it can be expected that the vast majority of people are being honest with their income declarations.  The reasonable guy....vast majority theory of validation!

you've missed the point, British law uses the extreme. The monty python 'reasonable man' absolves government and insurance companies of responsibility, ''what, you didn't read rule number 4,778 in the regulations, you should have done, then you would have known that.........''. Here we have, the 'reasonable man'at the BE cant issue an embassy letter unless there is absolutely no possibility of fraud, the perfect world, it isn't possible, fraud is always possible, your uncle could be a JP or work at a bank and issue a false original statement, the real world works with a reasonable amount of trust and expectation. Perhaps my passport is false, get that checked first, maybe the embassy official is an imposter, is the IO a real office, are the regulations real or made up. The 'reasonable man' is an excuse to do nothing and/or be responsible for nothing.

[Kadilo]

3 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Well please inform me what I do get at this early stage, the BE radio interview made sense to me.

That was some time ago. Some members have had emails from the BE where the lady states there is “an” appropriate alternative already in place to the income statement method, the 400/800,000 bank letter method so appears to be a climb down by BE of the monthly income/bank letter being allowed by TI

 

This email has been generally construed, although not categorically confirmed by BE,   that at present going forwards this is the only method that will be available. 

 

There is a lot of discussion and 74 pages on here plus 100+on the other thread, it’s not surprising people are struggling to keep up. If I’m out of date with what I’ve said above I’m sure someone will put me straight and give you the latest latest. 

 

[SheungWan]

Just now, soalbundy said:

you've missed the point, British law uses the extreme. The monty python 'reasonable man' absolves government and insurance companies of responsibility, ''what, you didn't read rule number 4,778 in the regulations, you should have done, then you would have known that.........''. Here we have, the 'reasonable man'at the BE cant issue an embassy letter unless there is absolutely no possibility of fraud, the perfect world, it isn't possible, fraud is always possible, your uncle could be a JP or work at a bank and issue a false original statement, the real world works with a reasonable amount of trust and expectation. Perhaps my passport is false, get that checked first, maybe the embassy official is an imposter, is the IO a real office, are the regulations real or made up. The 'reasonable man' is an excuse to do nothing and/or be responsible for nothing.

Theories of British Law and Monty Python. Sounds like a good idea for a book.

[soalbundy]

11 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Well please inform me what I do get at this early stage, the BE radio interview made sense to me.

Not however to the IO who DEMAND an embassy letter and don't give two figs for your bank letter, REAL WORLD.

[doctormann]

As it stands at the moment, as we all know, the Immigration Act provides for three methods of obtaining extensions to 'permission to stay', viz, (1) seasoned money in the bank, (2) sufficient income, or (3) a combination of (1) and (2).

 

Unless and until the Immigration Act is amended - as it might be - these three methods will remain extant.  All that is required, therefore, is for Immigration to agree to what constitutes sufficient proof, in their eyes, of the amount being declared as income.  A letter or affirmation from an Embassy is one way but not the only way.  Proof of deposits into a Thai bank account should be another.  I know that this possibility doesn't please everyone but would be better than no way at all, apart from the seasoned money option.  Thai Immigration just have to agree to it.

 

Previous posters have made a point that the regular income method could be open to fraud because switching money around between accounts and effectively depositing the same 65/40 kBaht several times might be done.  I don't believe this to be realistic as transfers would need to be shown to originate from abroad - and the bank codes would show this.  Repatriating the cash every month, only to redeposit it the following month, is hardly viable - the losses that would be incurred on the exchange rate would see to that!

[soalbundy]

40 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

What was in place and working does not work now. Validation process reviewed and found wanting. Demanding the continuation of a Blind Eye process on both sides is what some guys here are really pushing.

They are still working for other embassies who use the real world principle and not the 'reasonable man', I just checked the German embassy website, no change, Sunday evening I take the night train to Bangkok and expect to get my letter as usual on monday for my extension end of November and I expect to do the same next year.

[JackThompson]

48 minutes ago, SheungWan said:

What was in place and working does not work now. Validation process reviewed and found wanting. Demanding the continuation of a Blind Eye process on both sides is what some guys here are really pushing.

The question is, did the BE look for a way to discontinue and deflect to the Thais as fall-guy (possibly stirring up a hornet's nest for other nationalities), or did TI inform all embassies of a new demand - and the BE was simply the first to respond to this?

 

As yet, we don't know the answer.  But unless/until we hear that Stat-Decs will be rejected across-the-board, that would be the logical thing for the BE to offer its citizens in Thailand.  So far, the only response on that question from the BE was, essentially, "We don't offer this because we don't offer it," - not "TI has told us they won't accept this even if we offered it."

[soalbundy]

3 minutes ago, JackThompson said:

The question is, did the BE look for a way to discontinue and deflect to the Thais as fall-guy (possibly stirring up a hornet's nest for other nationalities), or did TI inform all embassies of a new demand - and the BE was simply the first to respond to this?

 

As yet, we don't know the answer.  But unless/until we hear that Stat-Decs will be rejected across-the-board, that would be the logical thing for the BE to offer its citizens in Thailand.  So far, the only response on that question from the BE was, essentially, "We don't offer this because we don't offer it," - not "TI has told us they won't accept this even if we offered it."

yes, we cant because we wont

[jimn]

55 minutes ago, Kwasaki said:

Well please inform me what I do get at this early stage, the BE radio interview made sense to me.

Kwasaki. Sorry mate you do not have a clue do you. Thai Immigration want to see an embassy letter from the embassy, no matter what the BE may say on their website or in a radio interview. Full stop discussion over.

[sambum]

8 hours ago, SheungWan said:

Doing the same thing as other embassies does not make things right whatsoever. Don't confuse what you want with what is right. Otherwise reductio ad absurdum.

Other Embassies do not seem to have a problem with  Immigration - or maybe I should say Immigration do not seem to have a problem with other Embassies letters!

[Kwasaki]

31 minutes ago, jimn said:

Kwasaki. Sorry mate you do not have a clue do you. Thai Immigration want to see an embassy letter from the embassy, no matter what the BE may say on their website or in a radio interview. Full stop discussion over.

Full stop discussion over it seems I am confused in how I see the situation after Dec deadline believing that UK bank statements for 1 year will be accepted by Bkk immigration head office instead of a British Embassy letter.

 

At the moment Thai immigration want a letter from British Embassy and if the British Embassy is to finish this letter supply and the Thai immigration will not accept applications from Brits with no letter then there's no alternative but to use the other method. 

[sambum]

22 hours ago, billd766 said:

 

Did they tell every other embassy as well and are ALL the embassies following the British embassy path?

As far as I know (because I don't know about ALL other Embassies) other Embassies letters have the applicants' signatures on them, and stating under oath that the details are correct. This seems to be acceptable to Immigration. The British Embassy letter does NOT have the above, and is NOT acceptable to Immigration.

 

So WHY should the other Embassies "follow the British Embassy path"?

Edited October 20, 2018 by sambum