Just curious why farangs are getting fined for the TM 30 rule when it's up to the landlord of where they're staying to report. Maybe I'm missing something?

Because it is not 100% their responsibility.

Section 38 of the immigration act states it can be others.

"Section 38 : The house – master , the owner or the possessor of the residence , or the hotel manager
where the alien , receiving permission to stay temporary in the Kingdom has stayed , must notify the
competent official of the Immigration Office located in the same area"

Section 4 defines it further.

"“ House Master ” means any persons who is the chief possessor of a house , whether in the capacity of
owner , tenant , or in any other capacity whatsoever , in accordance with the law on people act."

 

The problem seems to be with the definition of Homeowner which dictates that they are Registered as Citizens which, by definition, foreigners are not. 

Immigration seems to deem it necessary to prove the connection with a citizen because of this definition. 

Simply taking Section 4 item 38 as read, seems to be insufficient in spite of the fact that by submitting a TM30, the foreigner’s place of residence would seem to be proved pursuant to The Immigration Act. 

I think that this is the reason that all manner of evidence such as the existence of such a place, that you rent it from the owner, that the owner sold it to you etc. has to be discovered and this means that documentation is not the same for everyone. 

I don’t doubt that there exists people who will not be telling the truth, we are in the same class as ‘boiler room’ operatives after all,  so immigration, being keen to discover a fraud and at the insistence of some of us that we all be treated equally must treat us all as if we are fraudulent.   

So like Topsy, the system has just growed. 

28 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

The problem seems to be with the definition of Homeowner which dictates that they are Registered as Citizens which, by definition, foreigners are not. 

That is not correct. The reference to the "law on people act" is only for additional definitions.

 

36 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

That is not correct. The reference to the "law on people act" is only for additional definitions.

I agree that is what it appears to say “ or others in accordance with the citizen registration” I seem to have lost my link to the Immigration Act so can not check but who are others and why would they be subject to registration and not owners, renters et al? 

In your quotation you have put a comma after “in any other capacity”.  Capacity is wrong in my opinion, because owners renters et al are people. 

This is a question for the Thai Language forum. 

 

Edited September 27, 20196 yr by tgeezer

5 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

I agree that is what it appears to say “ or others in accordance with the citizen registration” I seem to have lost my link to the Immigration Act so can not check but who are others and why would they be subject to registration and not owners, renters et al? 

The key word in section 38 is possessor. A foreigner can be the possessor.

The possessor of a residence can register as a foreigner for online reporting on the website for it.

 

 

 

54 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

 

I agree that is what it appears to say “ or others in accordance with the citizen registration” I seem to have lost my link to the Immigration Act so can not check but who are others and why would they be subject to registration and not owners, renters et al? 

In your quotation you have put a comma after “in any other capacity”.  Capacity is wrong in my opinion, because owners renters et al are people. 

This is a question for the Thai Language forum. 

 

Section 3 of the immigration act says

 

In lieu all others laws , regulations , or rules witch are provided for in this Act or contradictory hereto or inconsistent herewith , the provision of this Act shall be applied.

 

It doesnt matter what the interpretation or reference to another act, the definition in the immigration act is final.

 

Capacity is "possessor in any other capacity", owner, tenant, caretaker, custodian, ships captain etc , rather than list them all they make a broad statement to cover any possessor in any other capacity.

 

Also a reference to the act that covers registration of people in blue/yellow books, were house master has a narrow definition to do with blue books etc.

Edited September 27, 20196 yr by Peterw42

In my opinion, this is only they dont want Thai people pay money because of a farang. I also think this is something with the person who has name on the blue book.

 

But as Ubon explained, it makes sense. But still i think they are just trying to avoid thai ppl pay money for farangs.

Edited September 27, 20196 yr by problemfarang

While others quibble over legal definitions. I will answer your real question which is why us? Because we have no choice but to pat, we can and we have very little recourse about it. All you can is be vocal and sign the petitions email your embassy and be a bitter farang 55

No, You are not, Farangs are normally not fined, the land lord is

Edited September 27, 20196 yr by Misab

3 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

The key word in section 38 is possessor. A foreigner can be the possessor.

The possessor of a residence can register as a foreigner for online reporting on the website for it.

 

 

 

I recognise the firm from the colour I suppose it was what my host posted on Line to satisfy me that he had registered to report me, I didn’t read it. I tried months ago to convince him that Jow Bahn was not necessarily the owner but failed but in conversation after seeing this form he is now explaining it to me! 

It need not be so complicated section 4 38  doesn’t involve Thai citizens and is provided for by Immigration reporting forms TM 6 and one other. 

My post was an attempt to explain why the system has become so screwed up that is all. 

 

4 hours ago, Peterw42 said:

Section 3 of the immigration act says

 

In lieu all others laws , regulations , or rules witch are provided for in this Act or contradictory hereto or inconsistent herewith , the provision of this Act shall be applied.

 

It doesnt matter what the interpretation or reference to another act, the definition in the immigration act is final.

 

Capacity is "possessor in any other capacity", owner, tenant, caretaker, custodian, ships captain etc , rather than list them all they make a broad statement to cover any possessor in any other capacity.

 

Also a reference to the act that covers registration of people in blue/yellow books, were house master has a narrow definition to do with blue books etc.

Fine language and conclusions, as to “ship’s Captains” being included as “people of other status” not so fine, let us discuss it on the Thai language forum.  

 

What many folk are missing is that this tm30 issue started with new head imm that replaced big joke. Think his nick is big orr or similar.

CW flicked a switch overnight. No warning nothing. They did not enforce it for my previous 7 yr and now its difficult to avoid fine. Im in Saigon as type this, back Monday. My condo is going to file a tm30. First time.

I apply extension the 8th. Will have the 800+ with me for the blood sucking fine for imm here. 

Where was the warning to do your first tm30. Given that the online and postal has been let's face it 3rd world. 

Edited September 27, 20196 yr by DrJack54

1 minute ago, DrJack54 said:

What many folk are missing is that this tm30 issue started with new head imm.

CW flicked a switch overnight. No warning nothing. They did not enforce it for my previous 7 yr and now its difficult to avoid fine. Im in Saigon as type this, back Monday. My condo is going to file a tm30. First time. I apply extension the 8th. Will have the 800+ with me for the blood sucking imm here. 

Where was the warning to do your first tm30. Given that the online and postal has been let's face it 3rd world. 

 There is an example of how the system is made cumbersome. Why would your condo file anything? You live in the place and as people are pointing out to me ad nauseam it is your responsibility to report. 

We can’t own houses, but we can be classed as a ‘possessor’ of a house. No Thai landlord paying 51% of the fine. We can pay 100%. 
 

 

Because they are the ones stood there currently without a passport in need of some service who happen to likely have some money in their pocket!

All of a sudden after 40 years of no enforcement (other that hotels doing it) CW immigration started (and now other divisions) strictly enforcing TM30 on all foreigners and fining. I believe this is malfeasance twisting an ancient law to openly gouge foreigners claiming its for our safety. This is a huge scandal far more damaging than any taxi scam to Thailand's reputation.  

 

I had an IB Visa with a BOI company at Charmchuri Square and my family followed my visa.   No TM30 was required. The second I retired and switched to Changwattana immigration, CW fined me 3,000 baht (no fine receipt) for not having a TM30 for myself and my family. I'm the condo owner. Even though I applied for TM30 online a week beforehand it didn't matter at CW. "Pay fine". I finally got my user name and password after 8 1/2 weeks.  I think this whole TM30 issue is the biggest scandal Thailand has ever seen. 

11 hours ago, rkidlad said:

We can’t own houses, but we can be classed as a ‘possessor’ of a house. No Thai landlord paying 51% of the fine. We can pay 100%. 
 

 

We can OWN houses, we just can't own the land the house is built on. 

21 minutes ago, RBOP said:

All of a sudden after 40 years of no enforcement (other that hotels doing it) CW immigration started (and now other divisions) strictly enforcing TM30 on all foreigners and fining. I believe this is malfeasance twisting an ancient law to openly gouge foreigners claiming its for our safety. This is a huge scandal far more damaging than any taxi scam to Thailand's reputation.  

 

I had an IB Visa with a BOI company at Charmchuri Square and my family followed my visa.   No TM30 was required. The second I retired and switched to Changwattana immigration, CW fined me 3,000 baht (no fine receipt) for not having a TM30 for myself and my family. I'm the condo owner. Even though I applied for TM30 online a week beforehand it didn't matter at CW. "Pay fine". I finally got my user name and password after 8 1/2 weeks.  I think this whole TM30 issue is the biggest scandal Thailand has ever seen. 

I was fined 800. But don’t forget, it’s for our safety!

19 hours ago, tgeezer said:

e with the definition of Homeowner which dictates that they are Registered as Citizens which, by definition, foreigners are not. 

Immigration seems to deem it necessary to prove the connection with a citizen because of this definition. 

You seem to be confusing house with home.

 

i owned a condo for twenty years. It was my home. No connection with a Thai citizen. 

It doesn't matter what the law descriptions state. What only matters is what the immigration officials say at your local IO. If you're searching for logic-don't bother. TIT

35 minutes ago, Sydneyboy1 said:

We can OWN houses, we just can't own the land the house is built on. 

So you don’t really own the house then, do you. 

3 hours ago, jacko45k said:

Because they are the ones stood there currently without a passport in need of some service who happen to likely have some money in their pocket!

You do have a choice when asked for a TM30 form.

If they allow you to one yourself you can do it and pay the fine to get whatever you want to do done while you are at the office. 

Or you could get your passport back and try to get the owner, housemaster and etc to do it a pay the fine.

I don't have a TM30 receipt receipt in my passport since one has never been asked for due to one not being required under the my local offices requirements. No new entries to the country for a few years now and since earlier this year staying someplace that reported me. I assume they checked to see if I had stayed someplace that reported me when I applied for my 12th extension last month.

My wife would be the one needing to the report as the possessor since her name is on the rental agreement where we are staying now or the owner when I was using the address for our house in the village.

1 hour ago, bronzedude said:

It doesn't matter what the law descriptions state. What only matters is what the immigration officials say at your local IO. If you're searching for logic-don't bother. TIT

Exactly

If you want to dump the responsibility for reporting on your landlord, I cannot see how that would be beneficial for a copacetic relationship.  I prefer to have a good relationship with my landlords which is why they have always returned my full deposit (less a small cleaning fee) and never raised my rent.

10 minutes ago, Airalee said:

If you want to dump the responsibility for reporting on your landlord, I cannot see how that would be beneficial for a copacetic relationship.  I prefer to have a good relationship with my landlords which is why they have always returned my full deposit (less a small cleaning fee) and never raised my rent.

The landlady who was a complete bitch, gave me all my deposit back.

The landlady who was sweet and friendly kept the lot.

It appears to me the TM30 is nothing but a make work exercise.  Since it is done all hard copy there is no way it is all being input.  Even if the immigration office is inputting a portion of the data at the time of filing, there is no way that someone who wishes to change addresses would be located using the TM30.  I suppose if and when they get the app to report there would  be some functionality but it seems like a lot of paperwork and effort for very little in tangible benefits. 

On 9/27/2019 at 11:13 AM, ross163103 said:

Just curious why farangs

Who you calling a farang? I take offense to that, and being fined the one and only time when I signed up years ago.

On 9/27/2019 at 11:13 AM, ross163103 said:

Just curious why farangs are getting fined for the TM 30 rule when it's up to the landlord of where they're staying to report. Maybe I'm missing something?

In my case it happened when I wanted to change my address.

They said I was unable to change my address until someone paid the fine. That someone was me.

 

I needed to change the address to be able to get other documents correctly etc. 

What Ubon Joe said.........yes it’s landlord responsibility but still yo a not exempt where u can say........well my landlord didn’t do it, it’s your responsibility to get the landlord to do it and to follow up with Immigration and not wait until it’s time for a fine