6 minutes ago, Suradit69 said:

How were they, at least the US Embassy, being dishonest? The form they used made no claim that they did verify income. It was clearly a sworn affidavit that relied on information provided by the applicant. If Thai immigrations refused to accept that, then that would be on them, not the embassy.

 

If some applicants were being dishonest, immigrations could have, at their discretion, asked for some backup evidence. I always had documentary proof for what I claimed. So I benefited from the service and I was not making false claims, but I, along with a lot of other honest people, are being punished.

 

Some people lie when giving testimony in court. The courts know this but don't stop accepting sworn testimony. They punish those who lie.

 

 

When Thai immigration explicitly said at the embassy meeting that these letters were used to verify income and expected the embassys to actually do more to verify said income. The embassy's knew that these letters were not backing up a true verification, so, they stopped them. What is so hard to understand about that?

Embassy's cannot verify incomes. It's not their job and they can't do it anyway.

I have no idea why other embassy's haven't followed the example of the original four.

This could all be a moot point anyway. There are rumours that these letters are not going to be accepted soon. Only cash-in-a-Thai-bank will be acceptable. Sounds very likely and sweeps away all ambiguity.

11 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

Embassy's cannot verify incomes.

It's not their job and they can't do it anyway. //

Not all countries have same laws;

Maybe your embassy can't, but there are other who can.

 

12 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

There are rumours that these letters are not going to be accepted soon.  //

You read too much ThaiVisa forum. 

18 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

You read too much ThaiVisa forum. 

I agree.

33 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

When Thai immigration explicitly said at the embassy meeting that these letters were used to verify income and expected the embassys to actually do more to verify said income.

Was this aimed at just the American and Australian embassies or all embassies? You have no idea.

29 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

Embassy's cannot verify incomes

They can, or better some countries can. You give them your latest pension slip with the same ID data on as in passport. The actual embassies are then linked to the applicants home country`s Governments data system. Same thing will they do with confirmation of address to check that the actual person actually are registered in home country database with address in Thailand.

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

Was this aimed at just the American and Australian embassies or all embassies? You have no idea.

All the embassy's that were at the meeting. No, I don't know which ones they were.

Have grown bored of this topic and Pattaya46 was right. Far more productive to go and have a burger and beer.

Just now, Felt 35 said:

They can, or better some countries can. You give them your latest pension slip with the same ID data on as in passport. The actual embassies are then linked to the applicants home country`s Governments data system. Same thing will they do with confirmation of address to check that the actual person actually are registered in home country database with address in Thailand.

As I've already mentioned. How do embassy's check income from non-governmental sources? 

Short answer, they won't.

Just now, Joe Mcseismic said:

As I've already mentioned. How do embassy's check income from non-governmental sources? 

Short answer, they won't.

They were never asked to.

 

Hurry up, your barstool's waiting for you. Make sure that you've got your best Chang singlet on. 555

1 minute ago, Spidey said:

They were never asked to.

 

Hurry up, your barstool's waiting for you. Make sure that you've got your best Chang singlet on. 555

They were asked to more closely verify the income stated, so, yes, they were asked.

At least my Chang singlet is ironed, though, I suspect you favour wife-beaters and sport a mullet.

Just now, Joe Mcseismic said:

They were asked to more closely verify the income stated, so, yes, they were asked.

At least my Chang singlet is ironed, though, I suspect you favour wife-beaters and sport a mullet.

Who is they? All embassies or just the Aussie and US embassies, who did no real verification?

 

No wifebeater vest or mullet, you're mistaking me for a bogan. I'm not even an Aussie.

5 minutes ago, Spidey said:

No wifebeater vest or mullet, you're mistaking me for a bogan. I'm not even an Aussie.

Pity. They would suit you.

5 hours ago, DPKANKAN said:

Am I thick or is this last bit of info new?? Over 60 you now only need 200,000 a year or 20,000 a month??!?!?! 

Its for they who are grandfathered after old rules and was on extension before 1998....ops just saw that stevenl have answered the question.

All of these posts belong in the Visa sub-forum. Nothing to do with Phuket.

 

Anyway, going to put on my ironed Chang singlet and slip onto a bar-stool for a well deserved burger and San Mig (without the bloody lemon).

19 hours ago, madmitch said:

Why don't they ever get these translations proofread? One of the volunteers could do it. It'd take a few minutes to convert the above into grammatically correct English.

The above is man modified and not the plain Police order....It seems that some offices here tend to make the law adapted to their own short comings and the way they think applicants should be treated ......inf.....or co.....ex

58 minutes ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

All of these posts belong in the Visa sub-forum. Nothing to do with Phuket.

 

Anyway, going to put on my ironed Chang singlet and slip onto a bar-stool for a well deserved burger and San Mig (without the bloody lemon).

EVERYTHING to deal with PHUKET as i stated in the OP, this is what ONE PHUKET volunteer said would happen.

BUT it seems many, as is usual with thai visa, took my post OFF TOPIC and started in with embassy BS

 

 

6 minutes ago, phuketrichard said:

EVERYTHING to deal with PHUKET as i stated in the OP, this is what ONE PHUKET volunteer said would happen.

BUT it seems many, as is usual with thai visa, took my post OFF TOPIC and started in with embassy BS

 

 

NEVER ASK ANYTHING of those volunteers unless its to borrow their pen. 

7 minutes ago, Christophers200 said:

NEVER ASK ANYTHING of those volunteers unless its to borrow their pen. 

LOL:

same could be said for 99.9% of the posters here

4 minutes ago, phuketrichard said:

LOL:

same could be said for 99.9% of the posters here

You can always trust me.  I never lie.  And I give a money back guarantee. 

8 hours ago, jesimps said:

"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?

No specs involved at all- i know the reality of the place.

 

Come the first of March there will be little noticeable impact in Phuket (which is what this thread is about) but the chest beating and wailing will continue. Things will be fudged so that a transition can be made and there will be scarcely a ripple. To suggest things will slam down over night is ludicrous.

 

20 odd threads on one subject- if that isn't hysteria I don't know what is.

 

Maybe we can stick to the core of THIS thread and how people in PHUKET will be affected.

5 hours ago, Joe Mcseismic said:

All of these posts belong in the Visa sub-forum. Nothing to do with Phuket.

 

Anyway, going to put on my ironed Chang singlet and slip onto a bar-stool for a well deserved burger and San Mig (without the bloody lemon).

This was supposed to be a Phuket specific thread and how immigration DOWN HERE were approaching things.

 

Unfortunately the original Op did not include Phuket in the title and is unable to amend it. Therefore it has been hi-jacked, which is what we did not want to happen.

 

As different Immigration Offices take different approaches we just want clarification of procedures in PHUKET, without clutter and 'advice' from other areas of Thailand and outwith the country.

 

Enjoy your beer.

MY bad;

i thought by placing it in the Phuket Forum

ONLY those wishing to comment on PHUKET would read it.

what was i thinking???? LOL

On 2/13/2019 at 11:47 AM, madmitch said:

Why don't they ever get these translations proofread? One of the volunteers could do it. It'd take a few minutes to convert the above into grammatically correct English.

Very simple, The Thai officers think that their English is perfect.

17 hours ago, xylophone said:

HELP NEEDED PLEASE........A RE-POST OF MINE.

 

With respect gentleman, as regards letters from the embassies, it appears to be a done deal and all we can do is to deal with it and move on the best we can.

 

And I'm moving on to something which I need some info on (please) because I have been reading the squillions of posts on other threads about this whole "debacle/fiasco/change" (take your pick) but I am going to be selfish here because I need a couple of things confirmed, so I'm hoping that the knowledgeable folk on the Phuket Forum can help, especially Merijn if he is reading this...........

 

1). As regards all of these changes, I did read and see that they take place on March 1. However another couple of posts have suggested that one will need the requisite amount of funds in the bank starting January 1, that just gone by, so is March 1 still the implementation date and the date from whence my funds will actually be calculated.

 

2). Some posts have suggested that the funds need to be clearly marked as to be from overseas, whereas the letter posted on this thread basically suggests "evidence of adequate finance of more than 65,000 baht monthly" needs to be shown on one's bank statement. If that's the case then all well and good, otherwise many of these companies transferring funds from overseas who do it basically by using a Thai based bank will not show up as "international transfer". So will a total of 65,000 baht transferred into my Bangkok bank here be accepted irrespective from whence it came?

 

3). Following on from the previous paragraph.......my transfers from overseas to cover the 65,000 baht will consist of three separate transfers but adding up to that total amount and more. Is that sufficient?

 

If anyone can throw some light on this, it will be great, as I did post something like it in another thread but obviously it didn't resonate, or someone has stopped reading that thread, and not only that, March 1st is very quickly going to be upon us/me so some action is needed.

 

Thanks in anticipation.

 

As mentioned before it is not clear yet how the PHUKET immigration is going to check the financial requirement for the new application after March.

If the IO don't know it yet you can't get any correct information here on the forum.

I would suggest to send a email to the Phuket Immigration Volunteers ( [email protected]) or monitor their website (www.piv-phuket.com) as that will be updated as soon something is confirmed.

 

14 hours ago, Psimbo said:

This was supposed to be a Phuket specific thread and how immigration DOWN HERE were approaching things.

 

Unfortunately the original Op did not include Phuket in the title and is unable to amend it. Therefore it has been hi-jacked, which is what we did not want to happen.

 

As different Immigration Offices take different approaches we just want clarification of procedures in PHUKET, without clutter and 'advice' from other areas of Thailand and outwith the country.

 

Enjoy your beer.

Agree and was rather hoping it would be just Phuket specific!! That is why I re-posted the policy form that Phuketrichard obtained from Phukey Immigration because as you alluded to, "they do things differently down here".

 

Anyway para 3 still gives me some hope as I do not want to bring over 800k (can but don't want to) AND Merijn has replied so I will contact those he has suggested...........as for "evidence", well I would have thought that a minimum of 65k going into my bank account here, along with the bank statement print-out and bank book, would be enough (what else is there??) but then again TIT and in particular TIP (as in Phuket).

 

17 hours ago, phuketrichard said:

MY bad;

i thought by placing it in the Phuket Forum

ONLY those wishing to comment on PHUKET would read it.

what was i thinking???? LOL

Don't worry- someone has just opened yet ANOTHER thread about this in Phuket in the Visa section.

 

Give me strength. ????

MORE confusion from PHUKET

 

Quote

 

Overall, the three main financial categories that applicants can apply under mandate that the applicant must prove that that all monies in hand – either received as income throughout the year or already in the bank, or a combination of both – totals at least B800,000.

“Under the income requirement, applicants must receive at least B65,000 per month,” Col Acheep explained.

As many embassies no longer issue affidavits confirming income, this is no longer required, he said, noting that letters from governments and pension fund providers will be accepted along with other forms of evidence to prove the income pending.

“Of course any financial statements from banks and copies of bankbook records proving this income already being received should be provided,” he said.

Alternatively, applicants can show they have B800,000 in Thai bank account.

“Under the new rules, the B800,000 must be in the account at least two months before applying for the visa (permit to stay) and must remained in the account for at least three months after the visa has been issued,” Col Acheep said.

"After three months the foreigner can start withdrawing from the account, but under the new rules the balance in the account must not go below B400,000 at any time throughout the year,” Col Acheep explained.

Asked what happens to applicants who are discovered next year dipping into the account, bringing the balance below B400,000, Col Acheep said, “Just don’t do it. Keep it at B400,000.”

https://www.thephuketnews.com/holding-the-balance- phuket-immigration-clarifies-new-rules-on-retirement-visas-to-start-march-1-70401.php?fbclid=IwAR03Z02_cIgkRGCTY33rg34DGpAT7rQvUJPdK229EAaVJHCgLYchqev-Z0w#Qxz46cDed1Fi7T00.97

 

so everywhere else 3 months before, Phuket   2 months before>  ???

and NOTHING about if they will check if the Money is there thru the year or what will happen if its not...

5 minutes ago, phuketrichard said:

so everywhere else 3 months before, Phuket   2 months before>  ???

and NOTHING about if they will check if the Money is there thru the year or what will happen if its not...

It's "2 months before" everywhere (from march 1st). "3 months" was in previous rules.

If you don't keep enough money all year long, you will just not get your next extension.

 

Quote

Stunningly, under the new order the old provisions that people who have been living in Thailand for continually on a retirement visa since before Oct 21, 2008 can still apply under the exact same conditions that they were first approved.

Under this “grandfather rule”, applicants who are over 60 still only need to show that they either have B200,000 in a Thai bank, or receive at least B20,000 income per month.

Likewise, applicants under the same grandfather rule who are 55-60 years old can apply showing that they have B500,000 in Thai bank account or an income of B50,000 a month.

and this,

before it was "on a retirement visa since before dec 2000" as in the quote above.
now oct 21, 2008 .. or just a misprint?

33 minutes ago, phuketrichard said:

MORE confusion from PHUKET

 

so everywhere else 3 months before, Phuket   2 months before>  ???

and NOTHING about if they will check if the Money is there thru the year or what will happen if its not...

I think this is about applying for the INITIAL Retirement Permit, not extensions. This has always been the case here of 2 months (and elsewhere) for the first seasoning then three months after. Down to arriving, setting up a Bank Account, etc. Won't affect the likes of us anyway methinks.

1 hour ago, phuketrichard said:

and this,

before it was "on a retirement visa since before dec 2000" as in the quote above.
now oct 21, 2008 .. or just a misprint?

Obviously a misprint as the financial rules in 2008 were the same as they are now.