New Requirement for Retirement Visa?

[Jdkbkk]

A friend recently sent this attached document from Immigration. It seems to indicate that if you are older than 65 and have been in Thailand since before October 1998, you only need to have 200,00 baht in a bank account rather than 800,000. There are also details in the document for those under 60 years old who have been in Thailand since before 1998. I have not had this document confirmed by Immigration itself. Anyone familiar with this?

Retirement Visa requirement.pdf

[overherebc]

I'm sure that only applies if you have been on retirement extensions continually since/before that date.

I've been here since early 90's but never on retirement extensions so I would have to comply with the rules since 1/3/2019.

[jacko45k]

Yes, grandfathering of an old arrangement. You have to have been continuously on a retirement ext since 1998. Likely if so would be aware of this facility but not achievable retroactively.

[kokesaat]

I have been here on the same non-o visa since 1996.  I came here when I was 46.  I stopped by the Udon office to inquire.....and after a short discussion between 3 officials, they said the grandfathered rule would apply to me.

There are folks who believe the grandfathering applies to those who 'came here at age 60' which would mean they'd be into the middish 80's.  I'm old....but don't look 80.  I have several months before I renew....so we'll know by then.

 

[jacko45k]

5 minutes ago, kokesaat said:

There are folks who believe the grandfathering applies to those who 'came here at age 60'

I am not sure at what age the retirement extension was obtainable in 1998, but would suspect 50. Did you get one younger?

So currently a minimum of 71 yo. 

[overherebc]

25 minutes ago, kokesaat said:

I have been here on the same non-o visa since 1996.  I came here when I was 46.  I stopped by the Udon office to inquire.....and after a short discussion between 3 officials, they said the grandfathered rule would apply to me.

There are folks who believe the grandfathering applies to those who 'came here at age 60' which would mean they'd be into the middish 80's.  I'm old....but don't look 80.  I have several months before I renew....so we'll know by then.

 

I've been on O and B visas since early 90's but I've never managed to make each one last more than 17 months, usually only 12 months.

You may have been on retirement extensions all this time but 100% not on the same visa, it died when you got your first extension.

[ubonjoe]

45 minutes ago, kokesaat said:

I have been here on the same non-o visa since 1996.  I came here when I was 46.  I stopped by the Udon office to inquire.....and after a short discussion between 3 officials, they said the grandfathered rule would apply to me.

There are folks who believe the grandfathering applies to those who 'came here at age 60' which would mean they'd be into the middish 80's.  I'm old....but don't look 80.  I have several months before I renew....so we'll know by then.

 

The rules state you had be from 55 to 60 years old an on an extension of stay based upon retirement in October of 1998.

It appears you do not qualify since you could not of been on a extension of stay based upon retirement in 1998.

[tgeezer]

My favorite topic!
It doesn't make sense now but it did once. I suspect the translation.


Sent from my iPhone using Thaivisa Connect

[ubonjoe]

3 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

It doesn't make sense now but it did once. I suspect the translation.

It has been the same wording in the last 3 police orders going back to 2006 that I can find.

[tgeezer]

Thanks.
Let us assume that it wasn’t “Must be” a certain age, but ‘Must have been’ a certain age when you started your retirement before 1998.
So, if aged over 60 (a) applied to you.
If you were less than 60 but over 55 (b) applied to you.

It still doesn’t work because there should be a provision for someone who started in the system before 1998 who was aged between 50 and 55.

It is so badly written that imagining circumstances to which it could apply I find impossible.


Can no one else see this? I implore anyone to correct me and show me when or where this order can apply because I am beginning to doubt my sanity.



Sent from my iPad using Thaivisa Connect

[JimMorris]

What I am wondering about, in regards to the requirement to keep at least the 800,000 Baht in the account for the first 3 months during the extension, and at least 400,000 Baht in the account for the entire 12 months of the extension, is how will proof of fulfilling this requirement need to be provided when applying for the next extension?

 

I think the only way to prove it will be to show monthly bank statements for the 12 months following the last extension and up until the time when applying for the next extension.

 

But I don't see any wording to that effect. So I was wondering if anyone knows how many monthly bank statements may be required to renew in 2020 to show that these requirements have been fulfilled?

Attached is a scan of a document recently given to me by the immigration office in CW pertaining to my question.

 

It has just slightly different wording than the document posted by the OP, but it seems the meaning is the same.

 

You can also download the scan from the following link: https://postimg.cc/4HsMTfqM

 

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, JimMorris said:

What I am wondering about, in regards to the requirement to keep at least the 800,000 Baht in the account for the first 3 months during the extension, and at least 400,000 Baht in the account for the entire 12 months of the extension, is how will proof of fulfilling this requirement need to be provided when applying for the next extension?

 

I think the only way to prove it will be to show monthly bank statements for the 12 months following the last extension and up until the time when applying for the next extension.

 

But I don't see any wording to that effect. So I was wondering if anyone knows how many monthly bank statements may be required to renew in 2020 to show that these requirements have been fulfilled?

Attached is a scan of a document recently given to me by the immigration office in CW pertaining to my question.

  

It has just slightly different wording than the document posted by the OP, but it seems the meaning is the same.

There was never a formal announcement of how this "post extension seasoning" would be enforced, but some offices are now demanding recent applicants return in 3 mo with their bank-books.  We still don't know what happens if you fall below the limits - are on overstay from the date the balance is insufficient, or what?