Hi there gents.

 

So I sipped a larger whisky than I should have and I have been up all night reading.

 

I found some data which may be old news but maybe to some it is not and may be handy, if true.

 

It goes like this.

 

If you have been on a retirement visa for 20+ years non stop wirh no gaps, in Thailand.

 

Your retirement visa can be extended with just 220k baht.

 

It's out there I'm reading about it. I never heard it mentioned here before.

Police Order 35/2562 Changing 327/2557 Clause 2.22  Changing requirements for an extension based upon retirement.

 

In this file it's mentioned, actually 200k in a bank or 20k income

There are many old grandfathered regulations, not just the extension of stay due to being over 50. Marriage, investment, etc. I am not sure about your 220,000 Baht amount though. That doesn't sound correct.

 

They are well known. Clearly, by definition, new applicants cannot use a grandfathered clause, so those who need to know already know.

I never saw it on here and I been reading this site a while but then again this site is a tad chaotic.

Yep. Those who qualify for this would already know about it as they will already be using it.

It's as though you don't get new members or something. There could be old heads who don't know this. Some grandads been here 30 years and don't know how to count to 10 in Thai so don't kid yourself ladies.

They would know as they would have been getting the Grandfather clause all these years from Immigration.

4 minutes ago, Mikisteel said:

It's as though you don't get new members or something. There could be old heads who don't know this. Some grandads been here 30 years and don't know how to count to 10 in Thai so don't kid yourself ladies.

The qualification is not to be a grandfather. You may have misunderstood the use of the word, "grandfather".

Ok I get it now. So before the deal was 200k or 20k a month income and that deal was changed and changed amd changed but if you were on that deal and stayed on that deal then that is the deal.

 

 

I checked with Chonburi Immigration at my June renewal of my retirement visa and they confirmed that if you have continuous retirement visa since before  Oct 1998 you need either 20,000 per month or 200.000 in bank if you were over 60 or 50,000 per month or 500.000 if you were 55 - 60. In my case 55-60 so 500.000 or 50.000.

So does that all mean if the amount of money you need to have in the bank increases to, say, 1 million Baht, then that would only apply to new applicants for an extension based on retirement? If you currently have to have 800,000 it will remain at that figure forever as long as you renew continuously?

Just now, champers said:

So does that all mean if the amount of money you need to have in the bank increases to, say, 1 million Baht, then that would only apply to new applicants for an extension based on retirement? If you currently have to have 800,000 it will remain at that figure forever as long as you renew continuously?

Only if they include a grandfather clause.... that certainly was not the case wrt keeping all the money for 3 months after, and 400k of it forever in the bank. That change came about in March and applies to all.

7 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Only if they include a grandfather clause.... that certainly was not the case wrt keeping all the money for 3 months after, and 400k of it forever in the bank. That change came about in March and applies to all.

How do people who are grandfathered on 200kB keep 400kB of it on deposit forever?

6 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

Only if they include a grandfather clause.... that certainly was not the case wrt keeping all the money for 3 months after, and 400k of it forever in the bank. That change came about in March and applies to all.

It seems there have been at least 2 instances of a grandfather clause (200,000 & 500,000 Baht) so why not for 800,000 Baht in the future? Is there a rationale or laid out procedure?

4 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

How do people who are grandfathered on 200kB keep 400kB of it on deposit forever?

They (and only they)  were excluded when that change was brought in. 

Edited July 4, 20197 yr by jacko45k

56 minutes ago, Briggsy said:

They are well known. Clearly, by definition, new applicants cannot use a grandfathered clause, so those who need to know already know.

 

If true, even if this is not for me, information like this should be pinned somewhere on the TV homepage instead of having people say, 'Yeah yeah some people know about it already...'. 

 

Info like this, if true, is invaluable and should be out in the open. 

 

I personally am interested in anything having to do with marriage visa. 

 

Anyone have anything about this. I already know the permanent residency thing... anything else?

1 minute ago, jacko45k said:

They were excluded when that change was brought in. 

I thought you said that they didnt include a grandfather clause for that change?

16 minutes ago, KittenKong said:

I thought you said that they didnt include a grandfather clause for that change?

I wrote it badly. Previous grandfather clauses were catered for and included. No new one handling those on money in the bank retirement extensions post 1998. My only point was no new one in March to assist for the extra financial burden of keeping the money in the bank all year round.

 

Further in the future, if the financial requirement is increased, we shall have to see.

 

 

Edited July 4, 20197 yr by jacko45k

54 minutes ago, LazySlipper said:

 

Info like this, if true, is invaluable and should be out in the open. 

You may be missing the point. If you didn't take advantage of this prior to the law being changed in 2001, you have missed the opportunity. I see little point in pinning it as people tend to get very confused and storm into their immigration offices demanding to be grandfathered!

The allowance for those that were on extensions of stay based upon retirement in October of 1998 has been in every police order issued since then. Most people did not know about it since they never looked at clause 2.22 of the police order for extensions of stay based upon retirement.

Just now, Briggsy said:

You may be missing the point. If you didn't take advantage of this prior to the law being changed in 2001, you have missed the opportunity. I see little point in pinning it as people tend to get very confused and storm into their immigration offices demanding to be grandfathered!

More fool them for not doing their duedil then. Get a grip Briggsy!

7 minutes ago, Mikisteel said:

Get a grip Briggsy!

Are you sure you have understood the meaning of this phrase? I thought I had a firm hold of reality. Perhaps I don't. Maybe you know something I don't. 

6 hours ago, fishtank said:

Yep. Those who qualify for this would already know about it as they will already be using it.

I wouldn't say that.  Next year I will be on my 20th consecutive. Therefore, according to this, I would qualify for this either next year or the year after. It's news to me and had I not read this I would have carried on none the wiser?

8 minutes ago, dotpoom said:

I wouldn't say that.  Next year I will be on my 20th consecutive. Therefore, according to this, I would qualify for this either next year or the year after. It's news to me and had I not read this I would have carried on none the wiser?

You need the rules again.

You had to be on a extension of stay based upon retirement in October of 1998 and remained on them since then.

From clause 2.22 of the police order.

 

As mentioned in topic #10 Chonburi Immigration confirmed the grandfathering rules to me exactly as ubonjoe has recorded above clause 2.22

8 hours ago, Mikisteel said:

So don't kid yourself ladies.

 

8 hours ago, Mikisteel said:

Ok I get it now. So before the deal was 200k or 20k a month income and that deal was changed and changed amd changed but if you were on that deal and stayed on that deal then that is the deal.

 

 

So now that you finally get it does that mean the "ladies" can kid themselves?

 

8 hours ago, Mikisteel said:

I never saw it on here and I been reading this site a while but then again this site is a tad chaotic.

And yet it's been mentioned a number of times .

 

Blaming it on the website ... don't kid yourself lady.

Edited July 4, 20197 yr by Suradit69

There was also a marriage extension that was originally for 200K (or 250K) I cannot remember exactly but it changed to the 400K round about 2003 or 2004 - I know because I expected to need 200K but was told it had just recently changed. I have asked a few times here but never had an answer as to whether there is anyone still here that has had this grandfathered on a marriage extension.

8 hours ago, jackdd said:

Police Order 35/2562 Changing 327/2557 Clause 2.22  Changing requirements for an extension based upon retirement.

 

In this file it's mentioned, actually 200k in a bank or 20k income

You have to have done your first extension on or before 20 October 1998

1 hour ago, dotpoom said:

I wouldn't say that.  Next year I will be on my 20th consecutive. Therefore, according to this, I would qualify for this either next year or the year after. It's news to me and had I not read this I would have carried on none the wiser?

That's not how it works. You don't qualify for it after doing a certain number of extensions. The only way to be eligible for the grandfather clause now, is by having been included in it when it started and continued on it ever since.

 

In which case, as various people have stated, you would already know about it because you've been on it the whole time.

9 minutes ago, Formaleins said:

There was also a marriage extension that was originally for 200K (or 250K) I cannot remember exactly but it changed to the 400K round about 2003 or 2004 - I know because I expected to need 200K but was told it had just recently changed. I have asked a few times here but never had an answer as to whether there is anyone still here that has had this grandfathered on a marriage extension.

No. This was never Grandfathered.

I have no idea why not when retirement extension was.