New Visa Extension rules

[ocddave]

5 minutes ago, Changoverandout said:

And Transferwise shows as foreign transfer. In bkk bank anyway 

I used the lump sum method of 400K for marriage, actually I think there is 600K in there now, but I know the transfers weren't showing as international from Transferwise to SCB, I believe the letter shows "X1" and "ATS", same as what I was seeing online when viewing my account thru SCB Easy Online.

Edited February 25, 2019 by ocddave

[Changoverandout]

I’m using monthly amount of 40000 averaged over 12 months (480000) and send as and when necessary via TW although my state pension goes directly into my Thai bank 

[ocddave]

5 minutes ago, Changoverandout said:

I’m using monthly amount of 40000 averaged over 12 months (480000) and send as and when necessary via TW although my state pension goes directly into my Thai bank 

If it were me, I would go the lump sum method first (Marriage/Retirement), then verify that monthly transfers were working properly over an extended period (preferably 12 months), at least before ever considering drawing from the lump sum.

[Tanoshi]

24 minutes ago, ocddave said:

I used the lump sum method of 400K for marriage, actually I think there is 600K in there now, but I know the transfers weren't showing as international from Transferwise to SCB, I believe the letter shows "X1" and "ATS", same as what I was seeing online when viewing my account thru SCB Easy Online.

Transferwise have 3 accounts in Thailand with BKK, Kasikorn and TMB.

A wire transfer is sent to one of these local offices to transfer baht into your designated bank account.

Where these requests are sent to their BKK account and deposited in your BKK account they show as FTT.

 

Any other bank such as SCB will not show it as an FTT transfer.

[Tanoshi]

1 minute ago, ocddave said:

If it were me, I would go the lump sum method first (Marriage/Retirement), then verify that monthly transfers were working properly over an extended period (preferably 12 months), at least before ever considering drawing from the lump sum.

If you use the lump sum method, no proof of monthly transfers are required.

[ocddave]

7 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

If you use the lump sum method, no proof of monthly transfers are required.

Yes, but if you want to make sure the Monthly is working first, I think I would keep the Lump Sum in there first to be sure before letting it drop below the minimum. This way, you have an option, because if you fail the monthly because of a screwup, you are going to be out of luck.

[KhunFred]

Does anyone REALLY think that the Thai government cares about farang-supported families "living on the streets"?   They already have a horde of street people and they are not concerned about adding more.  Thailand does NOTHING to care for its people. it is much like many countries were before concepts like the "social contract" and the "safety net" were pioneered by progressive countries. Elite Thais will fight these kinds of ideas to the bitter end, because they threaten the social order that places them at the top and forces others to the bottom.

[Pravda]

7 hours ago, Stuart said:

To arbitrarily make up rules without thinking them through is against the laws of humanity and human rights.

 

Nanny state awaits

[Pattaya46]

1 hour ago, ocddave said:

He even mentioned that the decision was not Thai Immigration's, but instead the fault of each of the Embassy's, so I really don't have the answer....

The fact that the Danish Embassy changed its mind (and provides Embassy Letters anew) could be seen as a proof that the decision to stop these letters was not because of Thai Immigration refusing them.

[DrJack54]

2 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

That being the case get a loan on the house and property from a family member/bank or other and deposit 400k in the bank and have the Farang make the monthly payments on the 400k loan.  Which is really a small amount on a 30 year loan.

That is far too logical. Some folk on Thaivisa have issues. An expat on extensions based on marriage can easily stick 400k in Thai bank and be "done with it" ...what's that 13 large USD. Geezuss. No come the "victims" state....oh I don't have 400k baht. Pathetic

[Tanoshi]

18 minutes ago, Pattaya46 said:

The fact that the Danish Embassy changed its mind (and provides Embassy Letters anew) could be seen as a proof that the decision to stop these letters was not because of Thai Immigration refusing them.

No, it was because after TI requested Embassies to verify incomes and finally understood why after the biggest 3 withdrew their services, TI brought out an amendment requesting only certified letters of income from the Embassies.

 

That was confirmed by my senior IO who mid January could not understand why the US, Australia and the UK had not resumed services, after, as she stated, TI went out of it's way to accommodate them.

[ivor bigun]

I can remember most of the requirements re applying for a UK Visa for my wife way back in 2005.
From what I can gather now..it's a heck of a lot harder in every way now.
The years roll by..countries " tighten up " their respective immigration rules/regs.
Not a lot anyone can do about it.
Chin up troops..you're living..breathing..therefore winning.
Cheers


Sent from my SM-G7102 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Blair was in power then ,labour are big on high immigration ,if Corbyn ever got in it would be easy to take the wife back again.

Sent from my SM-A720F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[skatewash]

9 hours ago, Pattaya46 said:

The fact that the Danish Embassy changed its mind (and provides Embassy Letters anew) could be seen as a proof that the decision to stop these letters was not because of Thai Immigration refusing them.

This is new to me.  How do you know this?

[jmd8800]

9 hours ago, KhunFred said:

Does anyone REALLY think that the Thai government cares about farang-supported families "living on the streets"?   They already have a horde of street people and they are not concerned about adding more.  Thailand does NOTHING to care for its people. it is much like many countries were before concepts like the "social contract" and the "safety net" were pioneered by progressive countries. Elite Thais will fight these kinds of ideas to the bitter end, because they threaten the social order that places them at the top and forces others to the bottom.

Not much different than modern day USA as far as I can see.

 

The moral of the story is: never rely on anyone to cover your a**.  So... people need to stop complaining and figure out plans A, B & C. People will need all 3 plans as the goal posts are often changed and life rarely works out as planned.

[jmd8800]

Another aspect I find interesting in some of these threads is the bashing of the 'nanny state'. That nanny state that has rules and regulations that many people believe interferes with their freedoms.

 

Then some move to a non-nanny state with very few rules and regulations and whole lot of corruption and they feel right at home.

 

Until something goes wrong and things stop working for them and they suddenly realize they live in place where there are no rules and regulations to protect them from evils they don't like.

 

Some people who spend time bashing the nanny state might have to move back to said nanny state. Some would call that karma.

[skatewash]

8 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

No, it was because after TI requested Embassies to verify incomes and finally understood why after the biggest 3 withdrew their services, TI brought out an amendment requesting only certified letters of income from the Embassies.

 

That was confirmed by my senior IO who mid January could not understand why the US, Australia and the UK had not resumed services, after, as she stated, TI went out of it's way to accommodate them.

... and so had the UK, US, and Australian embassies not withdrawn their service then the citizens of those countries would have continued to use the letters of income from their embassies and Thai Immigration would have continued to accept them.  I'm glad there finally seems to be agreement on this important point.

 

Those who conjectured that the three embassies who unilaterally discontinued were threatened by Thai Immigration that their income letters would not be accepted simply has no basis in the evidence available to us (given that the BE took no notes of the meetings with Thai Immigration or claims such in a response to the FOIA requests it received).  We are left to conclude that these three embassies screwed up big time for reasons we may never know for certain.  Then upon realizing that they screwed up are too embarrassed to rectify the situation.

 

Compare that miserable response with what Thai Immigration has done: create a method for UK, US, and Australian citizens who were abandoned by their embassies, a way of continuing to meet the requirements for applying for extensions of stay.  However flawed and ill-thought out that may be at least it's evidence that Thai Immigration is more concerned with the plight of these citizens than their own embassies.  That really says a lot, doesn't it?

[onera1961]

17 hours ago, Stuart said:

For those of us who have a Thai wife and children the new Visa Extension rules are unfair. We have invested in our families and our children's education. There should be a 'grandfathering' option so as to ensure families are not forced to live on the streets because there husband is forced to leave the country and is no longer able to support them. To arbitrarily make up rules without thinking them through is against the laws of humanity and human rights.

Thailand needs some structural changes in its immigration policies. The first thing should be to provide path for PR to people who are married to Thai citizens, instead of grandfathering anything. Grandfathering provides a short-cut to the problems and does not require any personal achievement for the privilege.  

Edited February 26, 2019 by onera1961

[onera1961]

10 hours ago, KhunFred said:

Elite Thais will fight these kinds of ideas to the bitter end, because they threaten the social order that places them at the top and forces others to the bottom.

Oligarchs are still fighting in the USA for the same. Why blame Thailand only? Thousands of people are on the streets of LA, does the US government, the richest country in the World by GDP,  cares?

[OJAS]

11 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

I'm waiting for OJAS to tell us, as he believes the Embassies at are fault.

Blindingly obvious, I think, but since you clearly need to have things spelt out to you on this particular issue in words of 1 syllable, here goes:-

 

Allowing for the fact that, as reported by @Pattaya46, the Danish Embassy have now reinstated their service, why are the 81 embassies who still offer income confirmation services able to comply with Immigration Bureau verification requirements, whereas the 3 rogue embassies who have withdrawn theirs are not so able?

 

And, since the British Embassy have claimed to me that they felt constrained by the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation in continuing to provide their service, then why do not the remaining 27 EU embassies in Bangkok (to whom, I gather, this particular Regulation equally applies) feel similarly constrained?

Edited February 26, 2019 by OJAS

[onera1961]

14 hours ago, bkk6060 said:

My favorite one recently was the crybaby who said he owned 3 houses, a farm and 2 newer cars. Then he complains how it is all unfair and he may have to leave the country???

Hmm, buy three houses without keeping at least 800K in the bank so that he can stay here legally. Why his family cannot raise 800K for him as loans with three houses and a farm. OK, one has to be pay 20% interest may be. That is same as US credit cards. 

[scubascuba3]

SO..,
now its UNFAIR because for years and years these guys been using visa agents to fraudulently get around financial requirements.
 
now Immigration actually asking for real proof.
 
yeah..SO unfair
5555

I haven't seen any proof yet agents have stopped

[scubascuba3]

And Transferwise shows as foreign transfer. In bkk bank anyway 

sometimes? how about if they use Kasikorn or TMB as local partner?

[onera1961]

12 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

And why did those 4 stop the service?

And why do the other 80 continue the service?

After reading 1000s of posts on the subject, I think ignorance is bliss. I have noticed an increasing amount of smugness and a sense of privilege posted in numerous posts. 

[JackThompson]

13 hours ago, marcusarelus said:

That being the case get a loan on the house and property from a family member/bank or other and deposit 400k in the bank and have the Farang make the monthly payments on the 400k loan.  Which is really a small amount on a 30 year loan.

That's quite the risk.  Although the expat-husband may have paid for home-construction, the land has likely been the family homestead for generations.  Although not in this situation myself (I rent), and though healthy (for now), I would not bet my wife's family land on my future well-being and ability-to-pay on a loan, which the family might not be able to cover in the future.

[Tanoshi]

37 minutes ago, OJAS said:

Allowing for the fact that, as reported by @Pattaya46, the Danish Embassy have now reinstated their service, why are the 81 embassies who still offer income confirmation services able to comply with Immigration Bureau verification requirements, whereas the 3 rogue embassies who have withdrawn theirs are not so able?

 

And, since the British Embassy have claimed to me that they felt constrained by the requirements of the General Data Protection Regulation in continuing to provide their service, then why do not the remaining 27 EU embassies in Bangkok (to whom, I gather, this particular Regulation equally applies) feel similarly constrained?

Perhaps you missed the post by @007 RED obtained under the FOI Act, relating to the reason of withdrawal of the service.

 

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 a request under the Freedom of Information Act 2000.

………………………………………………………………………………...

After 5 months of negotiations, the BE stopped the service for legal implications, not financial constrictions.

The BE issued a notice to cease the service on Oct 8th, with last applications being Dec 12th 2018.

It was also the BE who stated their had always been an alternative method, not TI.

Once the decision had been taken the BE made staff changes, some being redeployed to other areas.

It was widely expected that other Embassies would follow suit shortly thereafter also being unable to comply with TI's request to verify incomes, which they couldn't do.

 

Then on Dec 18th, TI announce an amendment, acceptance of Thai bank statements and most importantly a complete U-turn of their previous requests to verify incomes, with the statement 'Income certification certified by the Embassy or Consular.

That's a climb down from their previous request to verify and only issued after the BE had made the decision.

It's only because of that change in request to 'certify' Embassy letters that the other Embassies are able to continue.

 

Could the BE reintroduce the service …….. possibly.

Will the BE reintroduce the service ……. highly unlikely.

After months of frustrating negotiations with TI, planning and making necessary adjustments within the Embassy and an alternative method to prove income now in place, do you seriously expect them to revaluate their position.

 

You cannot compare the services offered by the Danish Embassy with it's small contingency of citizens residing in Thailand, with the services of the British Embassy with a large contingency of expats living here.

[tingtongtourist]

1 hour ago, scubascuba3 said:

12 hours ago, tingtongtourist said:

SO..,
now its UNFAIR because for years and years these guys been using visa agents to fraudulently get around financial requirements.
 
now Immigration actually asking for real proof.
 
yeah..SO unfair
5555

I haven't seen any proof yet agents have stopped

 

Well, the first report i read says that the IMMs knew what is going on about agents giving applicants the "one day loan" deposit, to fix up the financial requirements.

They said the requirement of having the money seasoned for another 3 months after would stop that, so the intention was always to stop the agents doing it.

So surely Imms are not so stupid that they wont check the bank accounts and just let the agents deposit the amount again on the 2 month 29th day before the 3month check?

Or is the agent gonna leave that money in the accounts for 3 months?
and loose a lot of investment income..very VERY unlikely!!

But now I heard of agents are telling people "dont worry about it...nothing changes"

So either the agents price is gonna go WAY UP as there will be a bigger (ahem) "costs" involved in getting it to go through smoothly.

So if the next hike they are talking fees around 30-40k +
a fellow might as well just fly back home and apply for visa in his own country.

can either get ME visa from a consulate or maybe show the money requirement in his home currency bank for retirement visa

 

 

 

[JackThompson]

 

11 hours ago, Pravda said:

19 hours ago, Stuart said:

To arbitrarily make up rules without thinking them through is against the laws of humanity and human rights.

Nanny state awaits

2 hours ago, jmd8800 said:

Some people who spend time bashing the nanny state might have to move back to said nanny state. Some would call that karma.

I also dislike such 'nanny' type systems / economics - but no one is asking for a handout from the Thai govt - just to be left alone to care for our families here. 

 

Our presence actively-reduces  pressure from the poor to introduce nanny-state policies by funding jobs into existence, and directly supporting families - both being solutions which do not require any state-welfare taxation/spending.

[JackThompson]

13 hours ago, Changoverandout said:

For an extension based on marriage it’s an ‘average’ of 40000/month from abroad going into your Thai bank so you don’t have to have 40000 coming in EVERY month.

I have a biannual private pension.

Are you aware of which offices agree with that interpretation?  Mine says I can only qualify for mo-income if I can prove a govt-pension paid monthly - my income thereby being useless to qualify (even if I parse it out monthly). 

 

Other reported interpretations state that the income must be deposited monthly, with the only use of "average" applying to varying exchange-rates.

 

12 hours ago, tingtongtourist said:

now its UNFAIR because for years and years these guys been using visa agents to fraudulently get around financial requirements.

That hasn't changed.  I checked last week on options - no problem at all getting an agent to pay off immigration - which is the Primary Goal of these "new rules" in the first place.  It's more expensive by 10K Baht if you want it to be based on marriage, though - evidently to cover an additional envelope of money for the district-office approver. 

 

ONLY the Honest are being harmed by these changes - exactly as intended by immigration's chosen alternations to the prior rules - and are working their way through us progressively, starting from the least-wealthy (easiest targets).

 

12 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

Then on Dec 18th, TI announce an amendment, acceptance of Thai bank statements and most importantly a complete U-turn of their previous requests to verify incomes, with the statement 'Income certification certified by the Embassy or Consular.

That's a climb down from their previous request to verify and only issued after the BE had made the decision.

Yes, because the goal had been accomplished, as sufficient numbers of expats who could not "transfer" the minimums from their incomes, and on a monthly basis, would now be forced to immigration's agent-partners.  Then, the seasoning change was added, such that those with annual disbursements cannot live on the money transferred annually. 

 

Corrupt personnel will now roll in that agent-laundered money, laughing about the foreigners who were forced-out, and caring not a whit about all the Thais harmed.  They only care about "them and theirs" - not the well being of Thailand or the Thai people (and certainly not us).

 

I think it was a General Motors chairman who said they were not in the business of "making cars," but rather of "making money".  Immigration is similarly not in the business of "processing immigration requests for validity," but rather of "ensuring a significant percentage of applications include payoff-money," while maintaining a cover of providing a legitimate govt service by processing the other applications more-or-less "by the rules" (varying by office).

[JackThompson]

18 minutes ago, tingtongtourist said:

Well, the first report i read says that the IMMs knew what is going on about agents giving applicants the "one day loan" deposit, to fix up the financial requirements.

The "one day" bit was not included in the statement.  BJ's remarks pretended that their IOs were "tricked" by agents, as if they were not ignoring the existing seasoning requirements - which they were and still are. 

 

26 minutes ago, tingtongtourist said:

So surely Imms are not so stupid that they wont check the bank accounts and just let the agents deposit the amount again on the 2 month 29th day before the 3month check?

They are not stupid - they are corrupt.  Adding more seasoning will not affect how the existing agent-immigration partnership racket functions.

 

27 minutes ago, tingtongtourist said:

So either the agents price is gonna go WAY UP as there will be a bigger (ahem) "costs" involved in getting it to go through smoothly.

Almost certainly these changes will be used to increase corruption-profits for immigration and their agent-partners.

 

27 minutes ago, tingtongtourist said:

So if the next hike they are talking fees around 30-40k +
a fellow might as well just fly back home and apply for visa in his own country.

If this becomes a significant competitor to their agent-racket, perhaps they will add idiotic forms of "insurance" requirements or other hoops, to make sure that paying them off via agents is the "least expensive" option.   Keep in mind - they don't have to catch everyone in their net - just enough to keep the money flowing - until they inevitably start wanting more, at which point the rules will be "tightened" again, to stop the supposed "bad guys" (sic).

[tingtongtourist]

well if whats said above us true it sounds like the "BIG JOKE" is on us.

 

but those agents are greedy cockroaches i know for sure, so who is really to know who gets what slice of the pie.

 

To say Immigration set it all up to get more tea money sounds a bit paranoid tho.

 

I think theres high-up guys in IMMs thats honestly trying to fix things, but they will never stop the troops on the ground finding a way to get some tea money.

 

Many farnangs will keep complaining hard about how bad Thailand is and how they are leaving, 

but still they will keep paying nearly ANY amount to stay here.

the mind boggles.5555