Regarding new Extensions $$$ regulations

[vogie]

4 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

I believe that the four embassy's that stopped the letters did the right thing. Obviously, you would rather they were dishonest as long as it benefits you.

If you were to dismount from your high horse occasionally, it may be that some people just want their life to be made easier, not more complicated.

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

You misunderstand me.

Thai immigration wanted the letters as proof that the embassy had verified the income claimed.

The embassy's told them that that wasn't possible as they cannot perform a verification of the claimed income. Therefore, they did the honest thing and stopped the letters.

The British Embassy did verify income in the same way as all the other embassies that continue to provide the letters.

 

You may be correct in your assumption regarding the US and Australian embassies who didn't verify income. Incorrect regarding the British Embassy.

[Joe Mcseismic]

3 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

I dont think you will find anything that shows any of the embassies were ever dishonest, most just witnessed a signature on a personal statement or verified they had been shown documents.

 

Yes, true. But, when they were told that this letter was "proof" that the income claimed was true, then, it would have been dishonest to continue them. Everything was fine when the policy was don't ask, don't tell, but immigration upset that apple-cart.

[Joe Mcseismic]

5 minutes ago, vogie said:

If you were to dismount from your high horse occasionally, it may be that some people just want their life to be made easier, not more complicated.

Horses nothing to do with it. Facts are all.

Yes, I'm sure people would love to have their lives made easier..........especially those people that can't meet the new requirements.

[Dumbastheycome]

17 hours ago, phuketrichard said:

of course

BUT now how will they check and what about the issues i raised?

There is nothing in the hand out reprinted above that deals with my questions.

Many people believe that they will NOT check the 800,000 is in the bank 3 months after the extension.

NOR will they check you keep 400,000 in the bank the renaming 6 months

UNTIL your next extension is due

 

What the vol is staying is EVERYONE now needs visit immigration 4x /year to have your bank book checked.

 

Anyone else want put in their $.05 worth?

 

 

I would agree with you about checking on next extension. A relatively simple  visual check on  any submitted account details comparing  dates and  deposit amounts.

As  is with the initial proof of  deposit the onus will be on the applicant.

It also is the answer  to the issue of  being out of Thailand and returning on a re-entry permit.

I did  my 90 day report about 1 month ago. At that time I was asked if I intended  to  renew  my extension due  18th Feb. The  answer being yes  I was  given a new  90 day report slip  for that  date.

I renewed  my extension  3  days ago with another 90 day report slip. Immediately  after  asked  for and got a re entry permit. The same IO  did all of it. 

Not one word was said about the latest requirements. Not even if an exit and re entry  would knowingly alter the 90 day report.

I seriously  doubt Imm. want people to be charging in and out just to wave paper proof evry 3 months.

Especially when it  would require computer entries in acknowledgement.

So I  believe it will come down to  the next application for an extension. At that time they  can nobble anyone same as if not being able to show evidence  of adequate monthly income or combination as they do now.

Assuming that the new information will be well known it will be up to the applicant to comply.

 

[Spidey]

1 minute ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

Yes, true. But, when they were told that this letter was "proof" that the income claimed was true, then, it would have been dishonest to continue them. Everything was fine when the policy was don't ask, don't tell, but immigration upset that apple-cart.

How do you know what was said at the meeting in May, or who the target audience was? What we do know is, that every other embassy who verified income in the same way as the British Embassy, continues to issue the letters.

[Joe Mcseismic]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

The British Embassy did verify income in the same way as all the other embassies that continue to provide the letters.

 

You may be correct in your assumption regarding the US and Australian embassies who didn't verify income. Incorrect regarding the British Embassy.

No, they could NOT verify. Verification needs the embassy to contact all the banks and institutions that issued those documents.

As has been mentioned many times before, with today's technology, fake documents are not hard to make.

[digger70]

19 hours ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

OK, I can see why they want to extend the period you have 800k in the bank, but, why can we only spend 400k? Why do we have to always have a minimum of 400k in the account.

Immigration keep banging on about wanting to see money spent, but, now they are stopping us doing that.

That's what you get when uneducated people that have good connections are put into positions of authority. Nothing is thought through.....

It's All  crap Marriage extension should be THB 800K that's for 2 or more people ,

                  Retirement extension should be THB 400K that's for 1 person. To me that make sense but this is Thailand  we got to do what we gotta do.  ????

[Joe Mcseismic]

Just now, Spidey said:

How do you know what was said at the meeting in May, or who the target audience was? What we do know is, that every other embassy who verified income in the same way as the British Embassy, continues to issue the letters.

It was in one of the early threads where an embassy official said so.

If other embassy's are still issuing the letters, but, are not verifying the info, then what would you call that?

[Joe Mcseismic]

2 minutes ago, digger70 said:

It's All  crap Marriage extension should be THB 800K that's for 2 or more people ,

                  Retirement extension should be THB 400K that's for 1 person. To me that make sense but this is Thailand  we got to do what we gotta do.  ????

Yes, and if my Auntie had balls, she'd be my Uncle.

[Spidey]

Just now, Joe Mcseismic said:

No, they could NOT verify. Verification needs the embassy to contact all the banks and institutions that issued those documents.

As has been mentioned many times before, with today's technology, fake documents are not hard to make.

The documents that I provided to the British Embassy would be extremely difficult to fake. I have never heard of any Brit faking documents to provide to the British Embassy. An urban myth. Much easier, as a couple of my friends have always done, to pay an agent to "create" a bank account for you with 800k baht in it.

 

Rather than suppressing dishonesty amongst British expats, the discontinuation of the letters has increased the customer base for dishonest agents.

[Spidey]

7 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

It was in one of the early threads where an embassy official said so.

If other embassy's are still issuing the letters, but, are not verifying the info, then what would you call that?

It was the British Embassy official and she gave no details as to what was said in the meeting or to whom.

 

The British Embassy used the meeting as an excuse to discontinue the letters for their own selfish motives. Something that the dumb embassy official alluded to when she stupidly admitted that the decision was not made by the British Embassy in Bangkok but as a result of a Foreign office audit.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Spidey

[Psimbo]

3 hours ago, madmitch said:

By far the most logical method but I don't think it matters what we've read or heard; nothing regarding the procedure has been announced yet. Guess we'll have to wait until after March 1st when people start renewing.

I concur- instead of speculating lets see what happens and wait for Merjin to give an update with clarification.

 

20 odd threads of 'what ifs' and 'buts' all over the forums already! It will settle down once all the riff-raf (30-50% of them depending on online polls of facebook!) have fled in disgust. Lets not forget according to mos of them who haven't been here Phuket is expensive and sh1t anyway ????

[Joe Mcseismic]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

The documents that I provided to the British Embassy would be extremely difficult to fake. I have never heard of any Brit faking documents to provide to the British Embassy. An urban myth. Much easier, as a couple of my friends have always done, to pay an agent to "create" a bank account for you with 800k baht in it.

 

Rather than suppressing dishonesty amongst British expats, the discontinuation of the letters has increased the customer base for dishonest agents.

You're missing the point. The embassy is not in the business of true verification of documents for other, foreign entities. It's immigration's job to verify what they want verified. So that there was absolutely no confusion about what these letters represented, the embassy discontinued them.

[Joe Mcseismic]

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

It was the British Embassy official and she gave no details as to what was said in the meeting or to whom.

 

The British Embassy used the meeting as an excuse to discontinue the letters for their own selfish motives.

That's just your opinion and you know what they say about opinions......

[Psimbo]

11 minutes ago, Dumbastheycome said:

I would agree with you about checking on next extension. A relatively simple  visual check on  any submitted account details comparing  dates and  deposit amounts.

As  is with the initial proof of  deposit the onus will be on the applicant.

It also is the answer  to the issue of  being out of Thailand and returning on a re-entry permit.

I did  my 90 day report about 1 month ago. At that time I was asked if I intended  to  renew  my extension due  18th Feb. The  answer being yes  I was  given a new  90 day report slip  for that  date.

I renewed  my extension  3  days ago with another 90 day report slip. Immediately  after  asked  for and got a re entry permit. The same IO  did all of it. 

Not one word was said about the latest requirements. Not even if an exit and re entry  would knowingly alter the 90 day report.

I seriously  doubt Imm. want people to be charging in and out just to wave paper proof evry 3 months.

Especially when it  would require computer entries in acknowledgement.

So I  believe it will come down to  the next application for an extension. At that time they  can nobble anyone same as if not being able to show evidence  of adequate monthly income or combination as they do now.

Assuming that the new information will be well known it will be up to the applicant to comply.

 

No reason they should have said anything- this takes effect from 1 March. Even they don't know the full ins and outs of things yet.

 

Its just the usual Thaigeezer hysteria kicking in (I do not include you personally in that statement).

[Peterw42]

4 minutes ago, digger70 said:

It's All  crap Marriage extension should be THB 800K that's for 2 or more people ,

                  Retirement extension should be THB 400K that's for 1 person. To me that make sense but this is Thailand  we got to do what we gotta do.  ????

Not getting the logic. If you are married then all your expenses are essentially halfed, you have 2 incomes/pensions/contibutions etc. Why would you need twice the money for half the expenses.

In theory 2 people renting a house, running a car, buying groceries are splitting the cost, not doubling the costs.

You are presuming anyone who marries a Thai is fully supporting them, not everyone pays a salary to a BG.

[Spidey]

18 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

You're missing the point. The embassy is not in the business of true verification of documents for other, foreign entities. It's immigration's job to verify what they want verified. So that there was absolutely no confusion about what these letters represented, the embassy discontinued them.

Complete rubbish. It's the embassies job to verifying income by receiving documented evidence from the applicant and examining that documentation. It was not their job to verify the documentation by contacting banks, pension providers etc. This is why most embassies have no problem in continuing to provide income letters. How do you know that immigration was asking for any more than this? Their announcement to an audience of embassy officials, at the meeting in May, was probably aimed solely at the American and Australian embassy officials, but being Thai they didn't name names to avoid loss of face to said officials.

 

This is backed up by the fact that post meeting and pre cessation of the letters, some American citizens and only American citizens were asked by CM immigration to provide backup documentation to their affidavits. When said citizens provided bank statements, pension evidence etc. CM immigration were satisfied. They didn't attempt to contact the persons bank or pension provider.

 

It was probably just a "you know who you are" statement which was jumped on by the British Embassy and used for it's own purposes.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Spidey

[Joe Mcseismic]

2 minutes ago, Spidey said:

Complete rubbish. It's the embassies job to verifying income by receiving documented evidence from the applicant and examining that documentation. It was not their job to verify the documentation by contacting banks, pension providers etc. This is why most embassies have no problem in continuing to provide income letters. How do you know that immigration was asking for any more than this? Their announcement to an audience of embassy officials, at the meeting in May, was probably aimed solely at the American and Australian embassy officials, but being Thai they didn't name names to avoid loss of face to said officials.

 

It was probably just a "you know who you are" statement which was jumped on by the British Embassy and used for it's own purposes.

As I said, just your opinion.

 

People check on the contents of CV's. That's true verification. Taking the word of someone that all their documentation is true and genuine seems rather naive, amateurish and does not deserve the word verification. Nothing has been verified. 

Seems the four embassy's agree with me.

[Vacuum]

15 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

Not getting the logic. If you are married then all your expenses are essentially halfed, you have 2 incomes/pensions/contibutions etc. Why would you need twice the money for half the expenses.

In theory 2 people renting a house, running a car, buying groceries are splitting the cost, not doubling the costs.

You are presuming anyone who marries a Thai is fully supporting them, not everyone pays a salary to a BG.

That's only true if the wife makes minimum 400K/year on her salary.

Edited February 14, 2019 by Vacuum

[luckyluke]

Letter of Income from the Austrian Consulate Pattaya dated 28 January 2019 :

 

" We hereby confirm that Mr. LuckyLuke, Belgium citizen with Passport No BE123456, upon request of the above mentioned citizen and on basis of the documents shown to the Consulate, it is hereby certified that 

 

Mr. LuckyLuke receive a monthly pension of EUR 1234,56 equivalent of approximately

ThB 98765.

 

Kind regards,

S. J.

Honorary Vice Consul. "

 

Went the day after to Immigration Jomtien, when it was my turn, verifications of documents took ca. 5 minutes, no questions or additional documents were asked.

 

My next extension based on retirement is due 09.02.2020.

 

23 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

The embassy is not in the business of true verification of documents for other, foreign entities. It's immigration's job to verify what they want verified.

 

 

 

 

[Spidey]

4 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

As I said, just your opinion.

 

People check on the contents of CV's. That's true verification. Taking the word of someone that all their documentation is true and genuine seems rather naive, amateurish and does not deserve the word verification. Nothing has been verified. 

Seems the four embassy's agree with me.

I don't think that the British Embassy agrees with you. As I said I have neve3r heard of a British citizen providing false documentation to the embassy.

 

I have edited my previous post to include this:

 

13 minutes ago, Spidey said:

This is backed up by the fact that post meeting and pre cessation of the letters, some American citizens and only American citizens were asked by CM immigration to provide backup documentation to their affidavits. When said citizens provided bank statements, pension evidence etc. CM immigration were satisfied. They didn't attempt to contact the persons bank or pension provider.

A fact, not an opinion. Do you have any facts?

[Peterw42]

2 minutes ago, Vacuum said:

That's only true if the wife makes minimum 400K/year on her salary.

There are more ways to contribute to to finances than just money, if one of the parties is mowing the lawn then the marriage isn't paying for a lawn-mowing guy.

[jesimps]

26 minutes ago, Psimbo said:

No reason they should have said anything- this takes effect from 1 March. Even they don't know the full ins and outs of things yet.

 

Its just the usual Thaigeezer hysteria kicking in (I do not include you personally in that statement).

"Its just the usual Thaigeezer hysteria kicking in....."

 

With good reason too. Some will be coming up to seasoning time and aren't sure that when they turn up to immigration that they are going to meet the new criteria. By then it'll be too late to arrange a different means of extending. Perhaps if you took your rosey specs off for a few minutes, you'd be able to see this. I suppose you think that one month's notice of this new rule is sufficient?

[Spidey]

2 minutes ago, Peterw42 said:

There are more ways to contribute to to finances than just money, if one of the parties is mowing the lawn then the marriage isn't paying for a lawn-mowing guy.

This is exactly how I see it. I don't have to pay 1000 baht per pop to some random bargirl.

[Joe Mcseismic]

8 minutes ago, Spidey said:

I don't think that the British Embassy agrees with you. As I said I have neve3r heard of a British citizen providing false documentation to the embassy.

 

I have edited my previous post to include this:

                                             

A fact, not an opinion. Do you have any facts?

Oh.....didn't know that when documents are found to be fake there are standing instructions at the British embassy and Thai immigration to immediately contact you so that you are constantly up-to-date with this info.                                                                                                    

[Joe Mcseismic]

14 minutes ago, luckyluke said:

Letter of Income from the Austrian Consulate Pattaya dated 28 January 2019 :

 

" We hereby confirm that Mr. LuckyLuke, Belgium citizen with Passport No BE123456, upon request of the above mentioned citizen and on basis of the documents shown to the Consulate, it is hereby certified that 

 

Mr. LuckyLuke receive a monthly pension of EUR 1234,56 equivalent of approximately

ThB 98765.

 

Kind regards,

S. J.

Honorary Vice Consul. "

 

Went the day after to Immigration Jomtien, when it was my turn, verifications of documents took ca. 5 minutes, no questions or additional documents were asked.

 

My next extension based on retirement is due 09.02.2020.

 

 

 

 

 

.......and what about non-governmental agencies that give pensions. Or, how about stock accounts, bank accounts, stuffed mattresses? Does your embassy truly verify those, too?

Edited February 14, 2019 by Joe Mcseismic

[jesimps]

17 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

As I said, just your opinion.

 

People check on the contents of CV's. That's true verification. Taking the word of someone that all their documentation is true and genuine seems rather naive, amateurish and does not deserve the word verification. Nothing has been verified. 

Seems the four embassy's agree with me.

I used to submit my UK govt p60 and my state pension document to the British Embassy. Both genuine official documents. Where do you recommend they draw the line on accepting documents? Why should one official document be accepted over another ie passport? It's a govt document, stamped and signed the same as an official govt letter. If the world wanted verification of every single document it'd come to a grinding halt.

The four embassies agreet with you because they can't be arsed to argue with the Thais, the rest cared more about their passport holders.

[HHTel]

I'm sure what the OP posted is true regarding Phuket Immigration.  However, it'll never work like that.

 

You are granted an extension of stay based upon your activity in the previous year, never granted on what may or may not happen  in the future!!

When you renew your extension to stay,  you are stamped and approved to remain in the country for a further 12 months.  That cannot be revoked unless you commit a crime or something similar.

When you renew your permission to stay in 2020, conditions will be checked over the previous 12 months.  i.e. 800K in the bank after your previous extension, 800K in the bank prior to the current application and not less than 400K in between.  Failure to do so may result in your application being rejected.  

It should be noted that the IO ultimately has the discretion to grant or refuse your application regardless of stated rules.

 

Some IO's have great difficulty in understanding something that is quite simple and just like posters here, will invent all sorts of hurdles!!

 

That's how it'll work.  Anyone want to put a side bet on??

[DPKANKAN]

1 hour ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

You misunderstand me.

Thai immigration wanted the letters as proof that the embassy had verified the income claimed.

The embassy's told them that that wasn't possible as they cannot perform a verification of the claimed income. Therefore, they did the honest thing and stopped the letters.

No they just washed their hands of doing a simple task for which they, the UK anyway, were the most expensive in BKK!! I emailed their consul and asked them if I get my legitimate papers notarized under oath then it takes away their responsibility.

No!!! All they did was reiterate they were not providing them anymore. A typical civil servant attitude.