O/A visa and insurance experience today

[Peter Denis]

19 minutes ago, Max69xl said:

"They have looked into the insurance coverage"

Who are they? The ones that arrived without any problem? If they weren't denied entry and got their 12 months stamp, then everything is ok. 

No, everything is not OK.

The only way to get their 12 month stamp on entry was to sign up on the spot for a semi-worthless thai-approved health-insurance policy.

The friends of AJ5358 - quite wisely - did not opt for that, but accepted a 30 day Visa-Exempt entry to sort things out later.  

So they are now in Thailand with a pre Oct 31 issued OA Visa that - as things look now - should have been stamped in with a permission to stay till Nov 2020.  And they are now having only a Visa exempt till early December. I presume they will have to go to a provincial IO to get the matter resolved.  But that's exactly what AJ5358 is asking > what recourse do they have?

Note: The situation for those that bought the health-insurance on the spot, is actually even worse. As things look now, they bought the health-insurance while it was - most probably - not required.  Little hope that they will be able to cancel the policy and get their money back... 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Peter Denis

[Thaidream]

7 minutes ago, pookondee said:

With respect, If you are a long term Thaivisa reader, you can understand what he is getting at.

 

We read here many times how people are getting thrown in detention at the airport and sent straight back home...

 

And of course that evokes absolute panic,

BUT usually these people conveniently leave out a crucial part of the puzzle as to why it happened.

 

As the guy said, he is not doubting the poster, but after getting caught out and getting unnecessarily panicked over trolls, understandably, people tend to appreciate something solid they can rely on.

You and the original poster certainly have a valid point.  

[Momofarang]

1 hour ago, vivananahuahin said:

About financial it is not a problem i have all the documentation and i am married in Thailand officialy and retired(73)

 

Since you are married in Thailand, why don't you just get a Non O for marriage in KL or HCMC. I have an initial OA and 5 marriage extensions, so even if I get my next extension without HI, I'll leave without reentry permit for my next holiday to Malaysia and get a Non O. With the added benefit of shifting my renewal date to June/July which is more convenient for me.

Edited November 10, 2019 by Momofarang

[Thaidream]

1 hour ago, AJ5358 said:

decided to travel outside of the country just before Oct 31. When they returned on Nov 3, they were some of the unlucky travelers who were told at Don Mueng Airport that they needed to apply for insurance, leave the country and return to Thailand in order to receive their new 12 month stamp for Nov 2020. However, since then others have arrived in Thailand and have been given there 12 month stamp for Nov 2020 without any insurance requirement. They have looked into the insurance coverage and have received the dreaded expensive quotes for useless coverage. Do they have any recourse, if so what should they do to resolve this? Go to their local Immigration Office, or do they have to go back to Don Mueng airport to get this resolved?

I assume they have a 30 day stamp.

 

IMO- they should go to Chaengwattana Immigration and check in at the info desk and indicate to them that an error has been made on the entry stamp explaining that  the stamp needs to be one year as the Visa class is O-A.  I wouldn't even bring up the subject of insurance untill they did.

 

They should refer you to a section officer who handles 'errors' and hopefully that officer will simply correct the stamp.

 

If insurance is mentioned, I would indicate then that the Visa was obtained prior to 31 October2019 and insurance is not required and if necessary ask to see a supervisor for further discussion.

 

 

 

 

[jackdd]

17 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

that the Visa was obtained prior to 31 October2019 and insurance is not required

But insurance is required if you enter after 31. october, even if you got the visa before, the police order makes this clear.

[saengd]

We're ten days into the new law and hundreds of page on the subject, I have to admit I'm no clearer whether I will be required to show proof of insurance next May or not! But that's OK, we've finally decided to get married and go for an O visa based on marriage which after almost eighteen years is not bad! I'm thankful I have time to be able to sit back and wait for the situation to become more clear, my deepest commiserations to those who don't have that luxury, the uncertainty for the older guys must be horrible, Immi should be ashamed of themselves. In my next life I'm coming back as an IO at Heathrow, heading up the desk that scrutinises Thai visitors, good morning Mr Somchai, up until now how was your trip to the UK?

[Thaidream]

5 minutes ago, jackdd said:

But insurance is required if you enter after 31. october, even if you got the visa before, the police order makes this clear

There have been reports of people holding an O-A dated prior to 31 october 2019 arriving at SUV in November 2019 and being stamped in for 12 months.

 

IMO  it is worth the trip to see if they will indeed correct the  alleged error

[Sheryl]

32 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

I assume they have a 30 day stamp.

 

IMO- they should go to Chaengwattana Immigration and check in at the info desk and indicate to them that an error has been made on the entry stamp explaining that  the stamp needs to be one year as the Visa class is O-A.  I wouldn't even bring up the subject of insurance untill they did.

 

They should refer you to a section officer who handles 'errors' and hopefully that officer will simply correct the stamp.

 

If insurance is mentioned, I would indicate then that the Visa was obtained prior to 31 October2019 and insurance is not required and if necessary ask to see a supervisor for further discussion.

 

 

 

 

 

the above is what I would do if in this situation.  Exactly as described.

 

And please report back the outcome.

 

 

[kingofthemountain]

13 minutes ago, saengd said:

We're ten days into the new law and hundreds of page on the subject, I have to admit I'm no clearer whether I will be required to show proof of insurance next May or not! But that's OK, we've finally decided to get married and go for an O visa based on marriage which after almost eighteen years is not bad! I'm thankful I have time to be able to sit back and wait for the situation to become more clear, my deepest commiserations to those who don't have that luxury, the uncertainty for the older guys must be horrible, Immi should be ashamed of themselves. In my next life I'm coming back as an IO at Heathrow, heading up the desk that scrutinises Thai visitors, good morning Mr Somchai, up until now how was your trip to the UK?

Immigration is just a tool trying to do his job as best as they can.

You must blame the power to be (Aka the junta and the governement, and of course the ''leader'')

they are the only responsables for this mess

[saengd]

3 minutes ago, kingofthemountain said:

Immigration is just a tool trying to do his job as best as they can.

You must blame the power to be (Aka the junta and the governement, and of course the ''leader'')

they are the only responsables for this mess

I don't, this is an execution failure.

[kingofthemountain]

22 minutes ago, saengd said:

I don't, this is an execution failure.

Yes the execution is a failure

because it was not prepared and the law was badly writed

and it's the fault of the lazy and corrupt politicians, who have let

an insurance lobby group doing what should be their job.

I am pretty sure all the immigration officers (Like us but not for the same reasons)

prefer something easy to understand and not this text as clear as a mud

Edited November 10, 2019 by kingofthemountain

[brianj1964]

50 minutes ago, jackdd said:

But insurance is required if you enter after 31. october, even if you got the visa before, the police order makes this clear.

You are correct, they made an error in leaving, even if you go out for 1 day they are caught in the bizarre trap

[Sheryl]

56 minutes ago, jackdd said:

But insurance is required if you enter after 31. october, even if you got the visa before, the police order makes this clear.

 

The order does nto make this at all clear.

 

It states effective date October 31st with niot further detail.  This  could be -- and has been -- taken different ways, including by Imm officials.

 

Note that Embassies and Consulates were all told to start requiring it for visa issuance from the 31st...not that it would be necessary for entry after the 31st in which case they would have needed to have required it for visas well before that date (indeed, probably well before the police order was even issued...).

 

You don't make an entry requirement of something on the same day it starts to be a requirement for visa issuance.

[pookondee]

-Double entry tourist visa..gone.

-ED visa..made complicated.

-SE tourist visa..2 per year ONLY.

-Income letters..gone.

-money in Thai account..made complicated.

 

- OA visa..mandatory insurance + absolute mayhem.

- OA (extension of stay)..?? yet more mayhem.

 

what next??

 

[brianj1964]

7 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

The order does nto make this at all clear.

 

It states effective date October 31st with niot further detail.  This  could be -- and has been -- taken different ways, including by Imm officials.

 

Note that Embassies and Consulates were all told to start requiring it for visa issuance from the 31st...not that it would be necessary for entry after the 31st in which case they would have needed to have required it for visas well before that date (indeed, probably well before the police order was even issued...).

 

You don't make an entry requirement of something on the same day it starts to be a requirement for visa issuance.

That's exactly the way I thought it was being introduced, when I applied in London they asked what date I intended to travel, I put in a proposed date of 28th Oct however if I had put down Nov 1st I still don't believe they would have rejected the application for lack of insurance nor changed the application documents I was asked to submit

[mfd101]

Blaming the Thai government is, in some ways, like a conspiracy theory. It presupposes a level of competence which is seldom on display in this country.

 

If in doubt between conspiracy or stuffup, it's pretty clear where to look.

[brianj1964]

17 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

 

The order does nto make this at all clear.

 

It states effective date October 31st with niot further detail.  This  could be -- and has been -- taken different ways, including by Imm officials.

 

Note that Embassies and Consulates were all told to start requiring it for visa issuance from the 31st...not that it would be necessary for entry after the 31st in which case they would have needed to have required it for visas well before that date (indeed, probably well before the police order was even issued...).

 

You don't make an entry requirement of something on the same day it starts to be a requirement for visa issuance.

I have to presume the embassy website application has now been altered

Edited November 10, 2019 by brianj1964

[jackdd]

47 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

The order does nto make this at all clear.

 

It states effective date October 31st with niot further detail.  This  could be -- and has been -- taken different ways, including by Imm officials.

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B2icrv51NImXmu-QrsEvLG6jbh2Ulwl8/view

 

For me this is quite clear, if you enter after 31.10. with an OA visa these rules apply.

If they wanted to make OA visas issued before 31.10. exempt from this they would have stated this either somewhere there, or maybe in this police order in the section where they say that current permissions to stay are not affected: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ynNUtZj4uGrdcKAt-4r8DjxNR_7XwbOI/view

But as we can see it's stated in neither, so the rules which i quoted above just apply to any OA visa upon entry (re-entry permit is exempt, because this is an existing permission to stay and not a new one)

Edited November 10, 2019 by jackdd

[Thaidream]

3 minutes ago, jackdd said:

For me this is quite clear, if you enter after 31.10. with an OA visa these rules apply.

If they wanted to make OA visas issued before 31.10. exempt from this they would have stated this either somewhere there, or maybe in this police order in the section where they say that current permissions to stay are not affected: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ynNUtZj4uGrdcKAt-4r8DjxNR_7XwbOI/view

But as we can see it's stated in neither, so the rules which i quoted above just apply to any OA visa.

Just the opposite- if they were attempting to apply the change retroactively, they would have specifically stated  it applies to all O-A Visa issued regardless of date and any susequent extensions.

The confusion appears to be in the wording. It could be interpreted either way depending on how it is read.

 

IMO- no law can or should be applied retroactively-  the concept is ex post facto. If something was not a crime 10 years ago- it can't be applied to what happened 10 yearss ago even if today it is a crime. 

  If I obtained an O-A Visa 10 years ago and there was no requirement for insurance and you kept succesively extending- the  rule should not logically be applied.  It should only be applied on or after the effective date.

 

 

[sappersrest]

12 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

Just the opposite- if they were attempting to apply the change retroactively, they would have specifically stated  it applies to all O-A Visa issued regardless of date and any susequent extensions.

The confusion appears to be in the wording. It could be interpreted either way depending on how it is read.

 

IMO- no law can or should be applied retroactively-  the concept is ex post facto. If something was not a crime 10 years ago- it can't be applied to what happened 10 yearss ago even if today it is a crime. 

  If I obtained an O-A Visa 10 years ago and there was no requirement for insurance and you kept succesively extending- the  rule should not logically be applied.  It should only be applied on or after the effective date.

 

 

Try telling that to the IO in Chiang Mai who is refusing extensions for such as a case you have mentioned.That is a fact not hearsay.

[jackdd]

22 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

IMO- no law can or should be applied retroactively-  the concept is ex post facto.

I agree that this should not be, but i guess there is no law prohiting it.

I completely agree that they should have added a sentence like "these rules only apply to OA visas issued after 31.10.", but this would probably mean less money so they didn't do it.

 

Changing laws retroactively also happens in other countries, this isn't limited to Thailand. Quite some years ago driving licenses in Germany (probably similar in other European contries), were issued without expiry date. But they changed the laws, so that these old driving licenses will expire in a few years. If you continue to use this driving license after the cut off date you are actually breaking the law. You have to get the new version of the driving license, which will then have an expiry date.

[brianj1964]

1 hour ago, jackdd said:

https://drive.google.com/file/d/1B2icrv51NImXmu-QrsEvLG6jbh2Ulwl8/view

 

For me this is quite clear, if you enter after 31.10. with an OA visa these rules apply.

If they wanted to make OA visas issued before 31.10. exempt from this they would have stated this either somewhere there, or maybe in this police order in the section where they say that current permissions to stay are not affected: https://drive.google.com/file/d/1ynNUtZj4uGrdcKAt-4r8DjxNR_7XwbOI/view

But as we can see it's stated in neither, so the rules which i quoted above just apply to any OA visa upon entry (re-entry permit is exempt, because this is an existing permission to stay and not a new one)

What you say me true however if someone arrives before 31/10  with a fresh O-A they don't require insurance, a fortnight later they take a day trip to Laos/Cambodia and upon arrival back to a land border they are suddenly told, you can't come back unless you have insurance, How can that be fair? They should allow them the 1 year they were entitled to with the original stamp

Edited November 10, 2019 by brianj1964

[Max69xl]

30 minutes ago, sappersrest said:

Try telling that to the IO in Chiang Mai who is refusing extensions for such as a case you have mentioned.That is a fact not hearsay.

It doesn't make it right when/if an IO interprets the police order in a wrong way. 

[Martyp]

People can argue forever about how to interpret the various written pronouncements about the insurance policy. The only interpretation that counts is its application post Oct 31. Now. That appears to me to be a retroactive application to all OAs in the past but really remains to be seen. I’m a little surprised at how few reports we have seen so far but that is what it is. Parsing the text is really only useful if you plan to challenge the order legally. 

Edited November 10, 2019 by Martyp

[Thaidream]

42 minutes ago, jackdd said:

agree that this should not be, but i guess there is no law prohiting it.

I completely agree that they should have added a sentence like "these rules only apply to OA visas issued after 31.10.", but this would probably mean less money so they didn't do it.

The Thai Constitution  and Thai law recognize the concept of ex post facto and do not apply laws retroactively.    I do know that when they changed the Immigration police order in 1998 from required income of 200K to 500K and then 800K-  they did  grandfather everyone who was already here  so those in power at the time recognized the concept.

 

I don't believe  what Germany is doing with drivers licenses is actually legal but I am not familiar with German law. I do remember reading that ex post facto may be waived for public safety.

 

I have no legal training but I remember studying the concept in University  while discussing the US Civil Rights movement.

 

If  Thai Immigration  continues to apply  the police order retroactively- it will take a lot of work to get them to back down.  My hope is that they will do the right thing and apply the rule in the right and fair manner.  

 

We, as expats have no real advocacy groups in Thailand like immigrants do in the Western World but I would still write a nice polite letter to the Embassies of our respective countries explaing what we believe is happening and ask for their advocacy.

 

 

I 

[Pib]

Keep in mind the Thai govt cabinet "Resolution", Immigration Police "Orders," and Ministry of Public Health "Regulations" are not "Laws." 

 

Laws are passed by the Parliament and then additional guidance/clarification usually come in the form of regulations/orders issued by the ministry/agency/department charged to administer and implement the law.

 

With a law there is less wiggle room.....with resolutions, orders, regulations which can carry almost the same weight as a law there can be wiggle room....and that wiggle room can change on a whim....change in a major way and quickly.

 

 

[britishjohn]

A friend recently gave me contact details for a lawyer who helped him several times extend his visa. I won't mention the firms name but they seem to be one of the largest.

So I had a brief exchange of emails with this lawyer, specifically told him I had an OA and raised the issue of health insurance. He replied he can get my extension and multi entry re entry permit without insurance, no problem.

Mind you given what he charged my friend, I may as well just buy the insurance !

[La Migra]

Question for all: Have their been reports of anyone actually signing up/buying the insurance at the airport/port of entry?

I have read of those given a choice of 30 day visa exempt entry or buy - but no one opting to buy. (Plus the original post being given the option then being stamped in for 12 months).

So again, any reports of someone signing up/buying insurance at the airport?

[Thaidream]

17 minutes ago, Pib said:

and Ministry of Public Health "Regulations" are not "Laws." 

 

Laws are passed by the Parliament and then additional guidance/clarification usually come in the form of regulations/orders issued by the ministry/agency/department charged to administer and implement the law.

 

With a law there is less wiggle room.....with resolutions, orders, regulations which can carry almost the same weight as a law there can be wiggle room....and that wiggle room can change on a whim....change in a major way and quickly.

You make a valid point.  the whole concept of what is legal and not legal are what courts are for but I am hopeful as  they did grandfather the  income raise in 1998.

 

To me  applying a regulation retroactively  in a case like this makes no sense and is unfair.

 

Eventually, we're all goning 'kick the bucket'/  Whate's the rush!!!

[Pib]

3 minutes ago, Thaidream said:

...and is unfair.

 

 

Govts do unfair things all the time....preaching to the choir I know. 

 

In their mind some greater good (or political or personal gain agenda) is achieved.