Absolute latest from Immigration on Insurance...

[saengd]

4 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 You have not held an O-A visa since 2005. You entered on an O-A visa and converted to in-country extensions of stay.

 

No money incountry required for the O-A visa.

 

Funds required for an in-country extension fo stay for retirement, same regardless of visa type.

OK so I didn't include the word "extention", I think it's pretty clear what was intended.

[Sheryl]

2 hours ago, saengd said:

Each to their own of course and you have the right to have done all those things. Personally I'm amazed that anyone would spend 14 years of their retirement living here with that degree of uncertainty and being subject to constant change. ...

 

If there is a way to live here retired without uncertainty and being subject to potential change I'm all ears!!!!

 

No matter how it is done, unless you gain citizenship or permanent residency,  your status is never certain for more than a year and rules regarding it are subject to change.  O, O_A, O-X, in-country extension are all in the "non-immigrant" class with only 1 year permissions to stay at a time and no guarantee beyond that.

 

 

 

 

[saengd]

1 minute ago, Sheryl said:

 

If there is a way to live here retired without uncertainty and being subject to potential change I'm all ears!!!!

 

No matter how it is done, unless you gain citizenship or permanent residency,  your status is never certain for more than a year and rules regarding it are subject to change.  O, O_A, O-X, in-country extension are all in the "non-immigrant" class with only 1 year permissions to stay at a time and no guarantee beyond that.

 

 

 

 

Yes of course, I agree. But there's uncertainty and then there's uncertainty. Uncertainty about what visa I am going to have to use in three months time, uncertainty associated with having to make border runs every 90 days, uncertainty about whether back to back O-A visa's will be allowed, for a retiree I think all those things are too much for most people. My uncertainty max's out with what will happen in twelve months time and for me that's acceptable.

[madmen]

30 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

2 hours ago, saengd said:

 

It wasn't canned at all. Three (originally four) embassies stopped issuing letters following undue pressure from immigration, pressure that was clearly never extended to the other embassie

They threw their people under the bus and panicked!!

 

Why do the other embassies contine to take care of their citizens? and please don't go some conspiracy theory " boo hooo" they don't love me and are doing a cull" nonsense they want you here because extracting money is a sport in this country, how will they do that if you're not here?

[JTXR]

Seems to me that (as with other recent changes imposed by TI) there will be a lot of arguing and bickering about what a new regulation or police order means or doesn't mean for extensions of stay, but we won't really know until people show up at TI to extend and see what TI actually does.  Those who need to extend in November (after the new police order takes effect 31 Oct.) will be the guinea pigs.  Those of us fortunate enough to extend later need to make plans based on the guinea pigs' experiences.

[Jingthing]

I am aware of the income method and I'm also aware it was canned because huge numbers of people were making false declarations to their embassies in order to get the required letter of so called proof, people who once again were gaming the system.
 
And no, I don't condone or support dubious activities by agents although I do support their use for genuine visa related activities where they can save time and avoid frustration for a fairly low fee.
 
Again, if people chose to go the route of back to back O-A's, with the acknowledged higher bar, that's their prerogative. The question in my mind however is why anyone would want to go through that additional aggravation every two years when a much easier option exists in-country. In some cases at least, if not in most, it must surely be related to their unwillingness or inability to prove funds in Thailand, a loop hole we're now seeing closed for many. TBH it's the scammers and gamers who have made this whole business more difficult for everyone else, folks who have done a runner on medical bills; people who have tried to live here on tourist visa's...and every other angle that exists that people dream up.

Income method was not canned.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[saengd]

3 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Income method was not canned.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Effectively canned, for many/most, or so the hundreds of posts on this forum tell us!

[Sheryl]

And what can we interpret from the line: ... "extend 1 year retirement visa, including spouse and children.."

I don't know. Possibly refers to spouse and children who piggyback onto an extension of stay for retirement.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Thaidream]

50 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

The  only relevant question in my opinion is, will Imm do anything to clarify and resolve the very different interpretations now rife at the level of Imm offices in implementing this order.

The best explanation of how things work in Thailand that I have ever heard and in my opinion right on the mark.

 

IMO- the only   thing that cannot be misinterpreted in the police order is that  the order applies ONLY to the O-A Visa as it is explicitly stated in both the English and Thai version of the order. The term ONLY i used in both the English and Thai versions.

 

I personally do not believe the order applies to any O-A Visa that were issued prior to 31 October 2019 or any extensions of  stay.  the exception would be  an O-A Visa isued after 31 October 19 and  an extension of stay based  on the original O-A . Thai Immigration has a history of 'grandfathering' major changes and not applying the change retroactively.

 

  However, I expect various Immigration offices to apply the extension rules differently- at least in the beginning.  That would be in the same manner that various Immigration offices are applying  rules under the income method; the money in the bank method;  seasoning time frames; and under consideration times and keeping money in the bank.

 

What is difficult for us is that it will take time to come to an understanding  of what is really needed at what offices.  It has been my experience that I can ask a question at the same office to 2 separate people and get  different answers- at least at the onset of a regulation change.  I tend to depend more on actual first person reports from those whp go to Immigration for an extension and when a series of those reports- to include the office involved- start to match- I become more certain of the truth.

[Martyp]

20 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

The best explanation of how things work in Thailand that I have ever heard and in my opinion right on the mark.

 

IMO- the only   thing that cannot be misinterpreted in the police order is that  the order applies ONLY to the O-A Visa as it is explicitly stated in both the English and Thai version of the order. The term ONLY i used in both the English and Thai versions.

 

I personally do not believe the order applies to any O-A Visa that were issued prior to 31 October 2019 or any extensions of  stay.  the exception would be  an O-A Visa isued after 31 October 19 and  an extension of stay based  on the original O-A . Thai Immigration has a history of 'grandfathering' major changes and not applying the change retroactively.

 

  However, I expect various Immigration offices to apply the extension rules differently- at least in the beginning.  That would be in the same manner that various Immigration offices are applying  rules under the income method; the money in the bank method;  seasoning time frames; and under consideration times and keeping money in the bank.

 

What is difficult for us is that it will take time to come to an understanding  of what is really needed at what offices.  It has been my experience that I can ask a question at the same office to 2 separate people and get  different answers- at least at the onset of a regulation change.  I tend to depend more on actual first person reports from those whp go to Immigration for an extension and when a series of those reports- to include the office involved- start to match- I become more certain of the truth.

I totally agree. Fortunately my current extension runs until November 2020 so I have plenty of time to see how this plays out in real life. Sorry to all those who go before me.

[Jingthing]

Effectively canned, for many/most, or so the hundreds of posts on this forum tell us!

Changed considerably for those that can't get embassy letters but not canned.
Lets keep this real.
For some offices the combo method without embassy letters has been canned though.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[john terry1001]

24 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Changed considerably for those that can't get embassy letters but not canned.
Lets keep this real.
For some offices the combo method without embassy letters has been canned though.

I think he probably meant the process was caned, in that there were many many people who used fictitious income figures because they didn't have to provide proof in order to get an affidavit.

 

That sort of advice was posted regularly over the years on various threads on this forum, and usually by the more senior members here. 

[saengd]

37 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Changed considerably for those that can't get embassy letters but not canned.
Lets keep this real.
For some offices the combo method without embassy letters has been canned though.

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Playing word games doesn't alter the affect!

[Jingthing]

8 minutes ago, saengd said:

Playing word games doesn't alter the affect!

Someone here Is playing games.

The full income 65K baht per month still exists.

Before it was based on income letters for all.

Now it's based on income letters for most embassies and nationals of a few countries must now import the full 65K every month going back a year and usually need to be able to prove it's a foreign transfer.

That is a big difference because with the embassy letters there is no requirement to import even one baht over the entire year.

[Jim P]

I`m six months into my first O-A visa which I acquired in London. Will I need insurance on my first extension application next April? I actually have 5m baht insurance and a relatively comprehensive policy but I have forgone outpatient cover in return for a 20% discount. One of the requirements is that outpatient is covered and therefore I would lose that discount. I`m wondering how they will police it, will they be able to read my full policy at immigration ?

[mngmn]

3 hours ago, domdom said:

Hello

 

If their idea is to have a 440.000 bahts warantee from farangs, why not ask them to deposit 440.000 bahts more into one account.. ?? at least this money would be here and not subject to disclaimer of waranties.. At least the money would be here and would not be spent in a low warantee insurance duplicating with your home country insurance

Have a nice day

Baht it is baht. No such thing as bahts!

Edited October 18, 2019 by mngmn

[Jingthing]

7 minutes ago, Jim P said:

I`m six months into my first O-A visa which I acquired in London. Will I need insurance on my first extension application next April? I actually have 5m baht insurance and a relatively comprehensive policy but I have forgone outpatient cover in return for a 20% discount. One of the requirements is that outpatient is covered and therefore I would lose that discount. I`m wondering how they will police it, will they be able to read my full policy at immigration ?

Which office will you be extending at? 

[Jim P]

5 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

Which office will you be extending at? 

Jomtien

[Jingthing]

6 minutes ago, Jim P said:

Jomtien

Maybe bad news then as I recall someone posted a notice that they will be enforcing this on O-A based extensions and I think they want the Thai insurance. That could change tomorrow and it isn't even 31 October yet. You'll have to follow that. Also I'm surprised more people aren't mentioning this problem. Insurance policies are usually written based on ONE YEAR terms right? So your proof of insurance almost definitely won't be for the exact dates of your next extension unless you take great pains to make sure that it is. Seems to me a huge issue. 

[Sheryl]

14 minutes ago, Jim P said:

I`m six months into my first O-A visa which I acquired in London. Will I need insurance on my first extension application next April? I actually have 5m baht insurance and a relatively comprehensive policy but I have forgone outpatient cover in return for a 20% discount. One of the requirements is that outpatient is covered and therefore I would lose that discount. I`m wondering how they will police it, will they be able to read my full policy at immigration ?

 

No. And neither Immigration nor Thai Embassies/consulates are going to even try.

 

You have to get a signed certificate from the insurer stating that your policy meets Immigration requirements including the outpatient cove. You can see the form on the longstay.tgia website, go to O-A visa then guidelines.  A similar form will be issued to people buying policies from the Thai companies listed.

 

People newly applying for an O-A visa after the 31st will need to show this form to the Embassy or Consulate where they apply. The Embassy/Consulate will make a notation of some sort next to the visa and that is what the Immigration officer will look for when stamping you in the first time.  At the second entry it appears you will need to show the certificate at the airport or border crossing. It remains to be seen how they will set that up to (hopefully) avoid long delays for the entire line of people.

 

The Police Order clearly says that any-one already entered on an O-A visa is exempted for the length of permission to stay so you are good through then but the rest is unclear.

 

It is unclear at this point whether people making second entries (which is not an extension application, it is an entry under a still valid visa that will trigger an additional one year permission of stay)  under O-As issued before the effective dateof Ocotber 31  will be required to show proof of insurance, some think yes, some no and what the Imm officers at airports and border crossings will think we don't yet know. . Watch this forum for reports after 31 October.  (people making second entry under an O-A issued after 31 October there is no question, they will need to show proof of insurance).

 

If it is your intention to apply for an in-country extension of stay after the visa expires, rather than leave and come back in just before that time to get another 12 months,  (1) you will have to show either 800,000 baht in a Thai bank seasoned for 2 months before you apply or transfer if 65,000 baht from abroad monthly and (2) there is complete lack of clarity across Immigration offices as to whether in that case you need insurance, best to ask at the office involved (and ask again closer to the date as this is an evolving situation).

[Jim P]

1 minute ago, Jingthing said:

Maybe bad news then as I recall someone posted a notice that they will be enforcing this on O-A based extensions and I think they want the Thai insurance. That could change tomorrow and it isn't even 31 October yet. You'll have to follow that. Also I'm surprised more people aren't mentioning this problem. Insurance policies are usually written based on ONE YEAR terms right? So your proof of insurance almost definitely won't be for the exact dates of your next extension unless you take great pains to make sure that it is. Seems to me a huge issue. 

That`s the way I understand it too, my extension is in April but my policy will only have 6 months to run at that time. Not worried about the provider it is with Pacific Cross, one of the quoted companies. Guess we will just have to wait and see what happens over the next few months.

[TSF]

On 10/17/2019 at 11:35 AM, Pedrogaz said:

Seems like good news. I had decided to leave LOS because of the insurance requirement effected to enrich the hospitals and insurance industry....a sledgehammer to crack a $10-15 million problem, which is a drop in the ocean compared to the size of the tourist industry. 

It now makes sense....if you are here on marriage or retirement, you need money in the bank or an income. If you are on a non-OA visa from abroad you need nothing in a Thai bank, and so need insurance.

Yes, for the first time that does make sense. Fingers crossed it stays this way and doesn't get incorrectly enforced by some IO.

[Sheryl]

15 minutes ago, Jim P said:

Jomtien

 

Sorry, just saw this.

 

Why will you extend rather than make a second entry? That's what people usually do on a new O-A visa, re-enter just before the visa expires and you get an additional 12 month stay. No need to meet the extension financial requirements.

 

As above might or might not need insurance doing that but this fact will becomke evident pretty soon.

[lupin]

24 minutes ago, Jim P said:

I`m six months into my first O-A visa which I acquired in London. Will I need insurance on my first extension application next April? I actually have 5m baht insurance and a relatively comprehensive policy but I have forgone outpatient cover in return for a 20% discount. One of the requirements is that outpatient is covered and therefore I would lose that discount. I`m wondering how they will police it, will they be able to read my full policy at immigration ?

The bottom line is we cant answer that yet... How this is being applied from one office to another is different and although Jomtien is one of the offices that has said you will need insurance for your situation, that may very well change.

 

You're in the lucky position right now that you can wait till after the 31st and see how this is going to be applied over the next few months.

 

Perhaps more importantly, anything anyone says now is likely going to be irrelevant by the time you have to start looking into this.... your best course of action is contact/visit Jomtien a month or 2 before you are due to extend... by which time this lunacy will at least have some historical continuity for each office.

[Sheryl]

1 minute ago, TSF said:

Yes, for the first time that does make sense. Fingers crossed it stays this way and doesn't get incorrectly enforced by some IO.

 

I take it you haven't been reading the reports.

 

Chiang Mai, Jomtien, Koh Samui, Prachinburi and I think a few others are reported to say it applies for any extension of stay of someone who entered under an O-A.

 

Other IOs in other places say differently.

 

remains to be seen if central Imm will do anything to clarify matters.

 

[Jim P]

2 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

Sorry, just saw this.

 

Why will you extend rather than make a second entry? That's what people usually do on a new O-A visa, re-enter just before the visa expires and you get an additional 12 month stay. No need to meet the extension financial requirements.

 

As above might or might not need insurance doing that but this fact will becomke evident pretty soon.

You right Sheryl, it will in fact be April 2021 as I will be doing exactly that. Things should be pretty clear by then. I can`t see immigration asking for insurance at the airport or border.

Edited October 18, 2019 by Jim P

[Jingthing]

Just now, Sheryl said:

 

Sorry, just saw this.

 

Why will you extend rather than make a second entry? That's what people usually do on a new O-A visa, re-enter just before the visa expires and you get an additional 12 month stay. No need to meet the extension financial requirements.

 

As above might or might not need insurance doing that but this fact will becomke evident pretty soon.

That's a very good point but my understanding is that immigration's intention is to enforce the insurance requirement on such entries. So if they do if such a person has one month left on their complying policy, they would only get a one month stay rather than a year. It's hard to imagine that border officers would have the bandwidth to really enforce that but like you say, wait and see!

[lupin]

6 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's a very good point but my understanding is that immigration's intention is to enforce the insurance requirement on such entries. So if they do if such a person has one month left on their complying policy, they would only get a one month stay rather than a year. It's hard to imagine that border officers would have the bandwidth to really enforce that but like you say, wait and see!

My understanding of this was that the second entry on an OA (bounce before actual visa expiration date) will require insurance only if the VISA was issued after oct31st, in contrast to those offices mentioned already that will enforce for all subsequent extensions after oct31st if underpinned by a previous OA

 

but again, all anyone can do is wait to see how in fact this will be applied

Edited October 18, 2019 by lupin
correction

[Jingthing]

1 minute ago, lupin said:

My understanding of this was that the second entry on an OA (bounce before actual visa expiration date) will require insurance only if the VISA was issued after oct31st, in contrast to those offices mentioned already that will enforce for all subsequent extensions after oct31st if underpinned by a previous OA

Where did you get that understanding? I didn't see that clarified either way in the police order, did you?

[Sheryl]

4 minutes ago, Jingthing said:

That's a very good point but my understanding is that immigration's intention is to enforce the insurance requirement on such entries. So if they do if such a person has one month left on their complying policy, they would only get a one month stay rather than a year. It's hard to imagine that border officers would have the bandwidth to really enforce that but like you say, wait and see!

 

The part that is unclear is if they will enforce for entries on O-A visa issued before Oct 31 effective date.  We will soon find out.

 

They will definitely enforce for entries on visas issued after then,  and it is clear they will stamp people in only for the duration of their insurance so people will need to renew policies before making last entry on the visa.  Most insurers will  allow renewal a month or two before policy expiration date.

 

Doesn't really take much bandwidth to ask for a single sheet of paper and check the name and dates on it.

 

However Jim P does not currently have a compliant policy