BREAKING NEWS Foreigners now need to keep 800k in Thai bank for three months AFTER retirement extension is granted

[brokenbone]

2 minutes ago, Yellowtail said:

Yes, but his statement: ".we'd still be on page 1, not page 176!.." is on page 177, not on page 176. Fact...

time for you to go to bed

[Yellowtail]

1 minute ago, brokenbone said:

time for you to go to bed

Every party has to have a pooper...

[Joe Mcseismic]

7 hours ago, Spidey said:

I've given you the evidence already:

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1084125-regarding-new-extensions-regulations/?do=findComment&comment=13843979

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1084125-regarding-new-extensions-regulations/?do=findComment&comment=13843553

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1084125-regarding-new-extensions-regulations/?do=findComment&comment=13843432

https://forum.thaivisa.com/topic/1084125-regarding-new-extensions-regulations/?do=findComment&comment=13843487

 

I've answered all of your questions umpteen times. If you can't accept the facts, I can't help you.

None of that is evidence. They are just your opinions.

I know you have no evidence because the BE still stands by their original statement as to why they stopped the letters. They have issued no new statement.

You think the other three embassies followed suit because they were lazy, too, or, is it more likely that none of them could do what TI requested?

 

Your so-called "evidence" is a joke.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

None of that is evidence. They are just your opinions.

I know you have no evidence because the BE still stands by their original statement as to why they stopped the letters. They have issued no new statement.

You think the other three embassies followed suit because they were lazy, too, or, is it more likely that none of them could do what TI requested?

 

Your so-called "evidence" is a joke.

There's no helping some people. Of course it's evidence, not "my opinion". Facts.

 

Fact: The BE decision was a result of a Foreign Office Audit. Announced by a BE consul on Pattaya Radio. Posted on TV.

 

Fact: Several US citizens, on TV, reported having to show supporting documents for their affidavits, at CM immigration, post meeting, pre cancellation of affidavits.

 

Fact: Every other embassy using the same method of verification as BE, continues to produce their letters and shows no sign of stopping them.

 

Which of these facts do you dispute?

[jacko45k]

12 hours ago, elviajero said:

I think the embassy letter/affidavit option will eventually go leaving only transfers into the country as the only way to prove income, or 800K.

Is this the Phuket model currently being employed, yet the complete and utter opposite to the Petchabun model, being touted for 2020?

[007 RED]

3 hours ago, Spidey said:

There's no helping some people. Of course it's evidence, not "my opinion". Facts.

 

Fact: The BE decision was a result of a Foreign Office Audit. Announced by a BE consul on Pattaya Radio. Posted on TV.

.......

Which of these facts do you dispute?

Sorry Spidey, but once again you are ‘barked up the wrong tree’ and just regurgitating rumour with no factual basis.

 

The Foreign Office Auditors were never involved in the decision that the BE (Bangkok) should withdraw their letter confirming income for British Nationals.

 

FYI

 

In early May last year (2018) there was a meeting between Thai Immigration and senior consular representatives from the BE.  During that meeting TI expressed several concerns about the income letter which the Embassy were providing to British Nationals.  TI asked the BE to confirm that they (the BE) verified the income which the applicant(s) were claiming.  The BE response was that they did not and that they had no way of doing so.  TI indicated that they assumed that the information contained within the letter was correct and accurate and that the application was supported by the Embassy.

 

Following that meeting, on the 21 May 2018, the Deputy Consul & Head of Operations sent an email to the legal department at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London.  The email summary was as follows:

 

“We explained that the Embassy have no method of confirming/checking that applicants have the amount of income required to apply for this visa, however Thai Immigration confirmed that if we provide a supporting letter they will assume that this information is correct and accurate and that the application is supported by the Embassy.

 

Currently we ask customers to send us evidence of their bank accounts/pension statements etc. to correlate the information which they state, however as you are aware we cannot confirm income in support of the application. Often there are numerous pots of money which contribute to a “monthly income”. The letters we issue do have a disclaimer however the clear statement from the Thai immigration was that they assume that we have supported the persons application.

 

The letter from Thai bank accounts can be applied for FOC and is readily available on request.

We issue a large number of these letters, as do other Embassies, although interestingly they informed us that some Embassies do not issued this letter as they cannot corroborate the information provided. Any change to this process would affect a large number of the retired community here.

It would therefore seem appropriate for us to review the risk that we have in issuing this letter and what evidence we should expect to see in order to provide this letter and would welcome your thoughts/comments on this.

 

(REDACTED)Deputy Consul & Head of Operations, Consular Department, British Embassy | 14 Wireless Road, Lumpini | Pathumwan | Bangkok 10330”

 

On the 22 May 2018 the Notarial and Property Desk Officer, Documentary Policy Team, Consular Directorate, Foreign and Commonwealth Office responded as follows:

 

“Thanks for your email.

Our preference is for you to stop issuing these letters especially in light of the knowledge that the Thai authorities have confirmed that they assume that you have verified and are therefore confirming the income reflected in it. Whilst we may have suspected this in the past the Thai authorities have now confirmed this. We therefore, can’t ignore this fact.

 

We support the proposal to encourage BNs to open a Thai bank account. Whilst we appreciate from previous correspondence with you that BNs have evidence of their income and savings in different places, what would these customers have done if we had never issued this letter? They would have had to have found a way to meet the Thai authorities’ requirements as I assume, those customers do whose Embassies don’t issue a letter. The outcome of posts enquiries with the other Embassies will be helpful.

 

(REDACTED) Notarial and Property Desk Officer

Documentary Policy Team, Consular Directorate, Foreign and Commonwealth Office”

 

The above information was obtained from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office through one of a number of Freedom of Information requests.  This is FACT.

Edited February 20, 2019 by 007 RED

[Tanoshi]

3 hours ago, Spidey said:

Fact: Every other embassy using the same method of verification as BE, continues to produce their letters and shows no sign of stopping them.

Name one Country who's own Data Protection Act allows and qualifies an official of an Embassy to verify personal incomes.

Incomes have never been verified simply because the law doesn't allow third parties access to your personal information. The documentary evidence is taken at face value and the Embassies give a certified letter to that effect.

[Spidey]

7 minutes ago, 007 RED said:

Sorry Spidey, but once again you are ‘barked up the wrong tree’ and just regurgitating rumour with no factual basis.

 

The Foreign Office Auditors were never involved in the decision that the BE (Bangkok) should withdraw their letter confirming income for British Nationals.

 

FYI

 

In early May last year (2018) there was a meeting between Thai Immigration and senior consular representatives from the BE.  During that meeting TI expressed several concerns about the income letter which the Embassy were providing to British Nationals.  TI asked the BE to confirm that they (the BE) verified the income which the applicant(s) were claiming.  The BE response was that they did not and that they had no way of doing so.  TI indicated that they assumed that the information contained within the letter was correct and accurate and that the application was supported by the Embassy.

 

Following that meeting, on the 21 May 2018, the Deputy Consul & Head of Operations sent an email to the legal department at the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London.  The email summary was as follows:

 

“We explained that the Embassy have no method of confirming/checking that applicants have the amount of income required to apply for this visa, however Thai Immigration confirmed that if we provide a supporting letter they will assume that this information is correct and accurate and that the application is supported by the Embassy.

 

Currently we ask customers to send us evidence of their bank accounts/pension statements etc. to correlate the information which they state, however as you are aware we cannot confirm income in support of the application. Often there are numerous pots of money which contribute to a “monthly income”. The letters we issue do have a disclaimer however the clear statement from the Thai immigration was that they assume that we have supported the persons application.

 

The letter from Thai bank accounts can be applied for FOC and is readily available on request.

We issue a large number of these letters, as do other Embassies, although interestingly they informed us that some Embassies do not issued this letter as they cannot corroborate the information provided. Any change to this process would affect a large number of the retired community here.

It would therefore seem appropriate for us to review the risk that we have in issuing this letter and what evidence we should expect to see in order to provide this letter and would welcome your thoughts/comments on this.

 

(REDACTED)Deputy Consul & Head of Operations, Consular Department, British Embassy | 14 Wireless Road, Lumpini | Pathumwan | Bangkok 10330”

 

On the 22 May 2018 the Notarial and Property Desk Officer, Documentary Policy Team, Consular Directorate, Foreign and Commonwealth Office responded as follows:

 

“Thanks for your email.

Our preference is for you to stop issuing these letters especially in light of the knowledge that the Thai authorities have confirmed that they assume that you have verified and are therefore confirming the income reflected in it. Whilst we may have suspected this in the past the Thai authorities have now confirmed this. We therefore, can’t ignore this fact.

 

We support the proposal to encourage BNs to open a Thai bank account. Whilst we appreciate from previous correspondence with you that BNs have evidence of their income and savings in different places, what would these customers have done if we had never issued this letter? They would have had to have found a way to meet the Thai authorities’ requirements as I assume, those customers do whose Embassies don’t issue a letter. The outcome of posts enquiries with the other Embassies will be helpful.

 

(REDACTED) Notarial and Property Desk Officer

Documentary Policy Team, Consular Directorate, Foreign and Commonwealth Office”

 

The above information was obtained from the Foreign and Commonwealth Office through one of a number of Freedom of Information requests.  This is FACT.

Which confirms that the FO made the decision not the embassy. During an interview on Pattaya radio, a consular official stated that the decision was made as a result of a FO audit of the embassy.

 

This is also a FACT.

 

No other embassy, carrying out the same level of verification as the BE has withdrawn their letters.

 

This is also a FACT.

[Spidey]

7 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Name one Country who's own Data Protection Act allows and qualifies an official of an Embassy to verify personal incomes.

Incomes have never been verified simply because the law doesn't allow third parties access to your personal information. The documentary evidence is taken at face value and the Embassies give a certified letter to that effect.

All true, which is why BE and a number of other embassies, who haven't withdrawn their letters, verify incomes by perusing the documents sent to them. This has always been accepted and still is by the majority of embassies.

[007 RED]

28 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

.....

Incomes have never been verified simply because the law doesn't allow third parties access to your personal information. The documentary evidence is taken at face value and the Embassies give a certified letter to that effect.

Not strictly correct.  It is possible for an organisation, such as a government body, to access a person’s personal information if:

 

They (the organisation) has the legal basis/power to do so (there is a law which gives the organisation the legal ability to access that information), or

 

The person concerned has been given comprehensive details as to why the information is needed, how it will be used, who else it may be shared with, how long it will be retained and that the individual concerned has given their explicit consent for the organisation to access that information for the purpose(s) stated.

 

In the case of the BE being able to validate the applicant’s income, they do not have the legal powers to access such information and the bank/pension provider etc would quite rightly refuse to disclose any information. 

 

The only way that the BE could verify the income of the applicant is if the applicant gave their explicit consent for their bank/pension provider etc to make such a disclosure.

 

The use of explicit consent may be feasible if there is only one bank/pension provider etc involved but would be an administrative nightmare if there were several sources of income each of which needed to be verified.

[Tanoshi]

10 minutes ago, Spidey said:

No other embassy, carrying out the same level of verification as the BE has withdrawn their letters.

 

This is also a FACT.

Verify is the wrong word.

No other Embassy, carrying out the same level of processing as the BE has withdrawn their letters.

 

Interestingly after the BE, US, Australian and Denmark Embassies all announced withdrawal of the service, TI issued an amendment  in December clearly stating 'Income certification certified by the Embassy or Consulate' as an acceptable method of proof of income.

What happened to their insistence of 'verification' after the biggest 3 Embassies pulled out.

An attempt to lock the stable doors after the horses have bolted.

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Verify is the wrong word.

No other Embassy, carrying out the same level of processing as the BE has withdrawn their letters.

 

Interestingly after the BE, US, Australian and Denmark Embassies all announced withdrawal of the service, TI issued an amendment  in December clearly stating 'Income certification certified by the Embassy or Consulate' as an acceptable method of proof of income.

What happened to their insistence of 'verification' after the biggest 3 Embassies pulled out.

An attempt to lock the stable doors after the horses have bolted.

Up to the horses, whether they have bolted or not. Nothing to stop them from re-starting the issuance of the letters.

[Tanoshi]

1 minute ago, 007 RED said:

Not strictly correct.  It is possible for an organisation, such as a government body, to access a person’s personal information if:

 

They (the organisation) has the legal basis/power to do so (there is a law which gives the organisation the legal ability to access that information), or

 

The person concerned has been given comprehensive details as to why the information is needed, how it will be used, who else it may be shared with, how long it will be retained and that the individual concerned has given their explicit consent for the organisation to access that information for the purpose(s) stated.

Correct, they need your permission or a Court Order.

Even with your permission, it wasn't a viable option for the Embassies to follow, due to time and cost factors.

It could take weeks to request information to verify your incomes and the costs associated would be reflected in the increased costs of obtaining an Embassy letter.

[007 RED]

25 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Which confirms that the FO made the decision not the embassy. During an interview on Pattaya radio, a consular official stated that the decision was made as a result of a FO audit of the embassy.

 

This is also a FACT.

Spidey, you are correct in saying that it was the Foreign Office that was responsible for the BE decision to withdraw the income letter, but unfortunately once again your are wrong when you insist that it was the auditors.

 

In your post #2648 you specifically stated that the BE decision was as a result of a Foreign Office audit Announced by a BE consul on Pattaya Radio. Posted on TV.   I recorded that interview and have listened to her comments many times and nowhere during that interview did she mention that the Foreign Office auditors were involved in the BE's decision to withdraw the income letter.

 

The information which I gave in my post #2650 is based on factual information obtained under the Freedom of Information Act 2000 and very clearly shows that it was the Legal Department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office who recommended that the BE cease issuing the income letter.

[Tanoshi]

11 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Nothing to stop them from re-starting the issuance of the letters.

What after probably redeploying staff to alternative positions, you expect them to resume service as normal because TI got their nickers in a twist. TI quickly announced an alternatively acceptable method as proof of income through a Thai bank, something the Embassies maintained had always been an alternative.

 

If you were submitting genuine proof of income to the Embassy, then it shouldn't be a problem to provide that proof through a Thai bank account.

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

What after probably redeploying staff to alternative positions,

All staff involved in verifying incomes were Thai. Even the person signing my last letter was Thai. You have hit the nail on the head, the BE needed to downsize staff/accommodation in order to move to a new, much smaller, embassy.

[Tanoshi]

48 minutes ago, Spidey said:

All true, which is why BE and a number of other embassies, who haven't withdrawn their letters, verify incomes by perusing the documents sent to them. This has always been accepted and still is by the majority of embassies.

Spidey, they don't verify the incomes, they just certify the letter.

That is all they have ever done and ever will do.

They don't pursue the information compiled in the income letters the applicant supplies.

The Embassy letters are often completed while you wait after submitting your documents.

[NotYourBusiness]

Wow, on page 178 of this thread, 2660 replies, amazing. I was lucky enough to renew my one year extension based on retirement on Jan 4, before the new rules went into effect. So since I renewed under the old rules, I do not need to keep 800K in the bank for two months past the date of application. That part is crystal clear I think.

 

Now, here is where it gets murky. I assume I do not need to keep 400K in the bank for the entire time either? It means when I renew again NEXT year, will IO be checking for 400K in the bank for the entire previous extension? You could see how they could expect that. I am assuming I renewed under the old rules, correct?

Edited February 20, 2019 by NotYourBusiness

[Olmate]

1 hour ago, PST said:

My letter was refused because the IO said that from Jan 1st, NO letters were being accepted, and anyone who had used them since that date would need to re-sumbmit their applications( confirmed also to me after by the tourist volunteer, who also asked the same senior IO) I questioned this, and my IO then went across to see the boss ( a woman from Had Yai), and came back and said it can't be used as it was 'not valid". I had all the proof with me, which is the same proof that I used to get the letter, and the amount on my letter was almost double the requirement needed in my case for marriage extension (40k per month). I then showed the IO a copy of the amended police order which clearly states that a certified letter of income CAN be used. All to no avail.

 

As previously mentioned, it's not a huge deal for me, I simply keep leaving every 90 days, and we mainly take a holiday as a family then anyway a few times a year, but at the end of the day Phuket are making up their own rules, nothing we can do.

 

PST.

Whilst currently talking of letters and embassies ,verification etc, can you comment on the situation in Phuket where the letter from BE with back up was rejected.

[Joe Mcseismic]

4 hours ago, Spidey said:

There's no helping some people. Of course it's evidence, not "my opinion". Facts.

 

Fact: The BE decision was a result of a Foreign Office Audit. Announced by a BE consul on Pattaya Radio. Posted on TV.

 

Fact: Several US citizens, on TV, reported having to show supporting documents for their affidavits, at CM immigration, post meeting, pre cancellation of affidavits.

 

Fact: Every other embassy using the same method of verification as BE, continues to produce their letters and shows no sign of stopping them.

 

Which of these facts do you dispute?

Not a single one of these so called facts supports your conspiracy theory that the embassy's cancelled the letter due to laziness.

They cancelled them due to being unable to comply with TI wishes. You could use these same "facts" to back up MY position.

 

I asked for proof that the embassy cancelled the the letters for the reason you stated. Laziness. You have been unable to supply any evidence whatsoever to back up your assertion.

[Yellowtail]

I'm guessing it would cost the US State Department more to verify my income than it would cost them to just put 800K in the bank for me...

[rott]

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

No I haven’t. 

Yes you have.

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

 

Yes I defend it’s use because, agents, lawyers, immigration, reporters, virtually every expat you'll ever meet, call it a visa. In immigration terms a permit is a form of visa.

What goes in the passport does not say retirement visa. That is what counts.

11 hours ago, elviajero said:

 

That’s wrong too. He usually just makes it clear they are asking about their extension of stay and not a visa. He is not on a mission — like some — to change terminology used by everyone listed above.

Nowadays perhaps.

But I said "in the past". I feel that he was worn down by the know nothings who insisted on calling it a visa so he got fed up educating them.

 

[Tanoshi]

49 minutes ago, rott said:

But I said "in the past". I feel that he was worn down by the know nothings who insisted on calling it a visa so he got fed up educating them.

Same reason Immigration, lawyers, agents, call it a Retirement Visa because they can't be bothered explaining the differences to foreigners whom they regard as to ignorant to understand regardless of an explanation.

[PST]

1 hour ago, Olmate said:

Whilst currently talking of letters and embassies ,verification etc, can you comment on the situation in Phuket where the letter from BE with back up was rejected.

I just have done, above

[BertM]

2 hours ago, NotYourBusiness said:

Wow, on page 178 of this thread, 2660 replies, amazing. I was lucky enough to renew my one year extension based on retirement on Jan 4, before the new rules went into effect. So since I renewed under the old rules, I do not need to keep 800K in the bank for two months past the date of application. That part is crystal clear I think.

 

Now, here is where it gets murky. I assume I do not need to keep 400K in the bank for the entire time either? It means when I renew again NEXT year, will IO be checking for 400K in the bank for the entire previous extension? You could see how they could expect that. I am assuming I renewed under the old rules, correct?

Yes, you renewed before the new rules took effect, but more likely than not, when you renew next year, they will want to see the 400k in the bank since your last extension and 800k in the bank 2 mths prior to your application. It's up to you as some say in Thailand. I renewed under the old rules too, but I'm not risking it. Already put the 400k in the bank. Remember, it's the IO's interpretation of the law that counts, not yours. Good luck if you risk it...

Edited February 20, 2019 by BertM

[jacko45k]

2 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

No other Embassy, carrying out the same level of processing as the BE has withdrawn their letters.

 

Is that because they don't?

[Tanoshi]

27 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Is that because they don't?

They do, the applicant supplies documentary evidence of their incomes, then the Embassy supplies the letter for Immigration in English regardless of their nationality.

The letters clearly state Mr X has supplied documents showing an income of X then the letter is certified by an Embassy official. 

 

[wayned]

11 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

They do, the applicant supplies documentary evidence of their incomes, then the Embassy supplies the letter for Immigration in English regardless of their nationality.

The letters clearly state Mr X has supplied documents showing an income of X then the letter is certified by an Embassy official. 

 

All that the freaking letter certifies is that they have received the documents, it in no way certifies that the documents are true.  The US Embassy would never look at any documentation, you had to put the amount that you received on the form and come in in person and raise your hand under threat of purgery that the information was true.  Which is better?  Neither country certified that the actual amount that you were receiving and it would be doubtful that any other country's embassy does a check either as it would take a long time to verify private pensions and other sources even if it were legal in those countries.

[Joe Mcseismic]

9 minutes ago, wayned said:

All that the freaking letter certifies is that they have received the documents, it in no way certifies that the documents are true.  The US Embassy would never look at any documentation, you had to put the amount that you received on the form and come in in person and raise your hand under threat of purgery that the information was true.  Which is better?  Neither country certified that the actual amount that you were receiving and it would be doubtful that any other country's embassy does a check either as it would take a long time to verify private pensions and other sources even if it were legal in those countries.

Love it!

Finally some one that understands.

[Somrak]

@mcseismic 

other embassys can do it without any problems! 

Edited February 20, 2019 by Somrak