O/A visa and insurance experience today

[UncleMhee]

15 minutes ago, lkv said:

On that logic, anybody that enters with a non O-A after the 31st October will be given a 30 day stamp in lieu of insurance.

Unless of course like the posted photo shows, the visa was issued on 13 Sept, or approx 6 weeks prior to the entry on 31 October, thereby negating the insurance requirements.

[lkv]

44 minutes ago, UncleMhee said:

Unless of course like the posted photo shows, the visa was issued on 13 Sept, or approx 6 weeks prior to the entry on 31 October, thereby negating the insurance requirements.

Well no, because basically, if I follow the above logic, this guy entered on the 31st of October and got 12 months, when instead he should have gotten 30 days.

 

So if I follow the logic of the OP, this guy was stamped in error (and all the rest, including the OP of this thread).

 

And only poster Ellis (that joined this forum Wednesday) was stamped correctly.

 

Supposedly.

 

And some other report poster Ellis seems to have taken a screenshot of, not sure where on Facebook that one is located, I cannot find it physically.

 

This poster also claimed to have seen insurances purchased "earlier that day" on the IO's smartphone. On the spot.

Edited November 11, 2019 by lkv

[brianj1964]

1 hour ago, lkv said:

Ok, I went through all the 59 pages to make sure I understand what each and everyone is saying here.

 

I saw you posted your entry stamp for 1 year also previously.

 

I was referring to the poster that said he did receive the 30 day stamp.

 

He claimed that he got the 30 day stamp, and the IO's showed him pictures on the smartphone "that other people purchased" that previous day.

 

So it's unclear to me how can people purchase insurance on the spot, had they decided to do so (apparently, he is claiming he was shown some did "earlier that day").

 

And i am yet to see a 30 day stamp (visa exempt) next to an O-A visa. If that is indeed the case, we will be seeing these pictures shortly on forums.

 

A 30 day permission of stay is given when the person entering Thailand has no visa, so in other words it's like there was no non O-A sticker in the passport.

 

Trouble is, I am not yet seeing enough reports of people being given a 30 day stamp.

 

On that logic, anybody that enters with a non O-A after the 31st October will be given a 30 day stamp in lieu of insurance.

 

All the others would be stamped in error.

 

So all those people on Facebook have in fact been stamped in error and they should have received 30 days? Including yourself? (you got 1 year with no insurance).

 

Am I understanding this right?

He said he would allow me 30 days tourist stamp, I had to buy insurance in the 30 days, apparently leave the country and re-enter and then they would stamp me in for a year

[brianj1964]

1 hour ago, UncleMhee said:

Unless of course like the posted photo shows, the visa was issued on 13 Sept, or approx 6 weeks prior to the entry on 31 October, thereby negating the insurance requirements.

That scenario was my understanding however the IO said issued date was irrelevant it's the ENTRY date that triggers the insurance, mine was issued 15th and I entered on the 5th, and I have asked for clarification here and I can only guess that some IO,s also think it's the issued date,

[mike787]

NO shock.  Not surprised.  There will always be something.  WHY?  Because Thai immigration is "Consistently Inconsistent"  - PERIOD!  Cannot fix it.  Accept or leave!

[ThailandRyan]

10 hours ago, Sheryl said:

The above is my understanding of how it is suppised to work. Hence the need for the Embassy ir Consulate  notation.

 

It is clear from the police order that you can be stamped in for a period of less than one year if your insurance expiry is in less than one year.  How various Embassies and Consulates will interpret and apply the rules remains to be seen. Certainly most people using their existing foreign insurance will not be fully in sync with their entry date.

Why would a 1 year O-A visa be issued if the insurance requirement as well as all other requirements did not meet the length of the Visa itself, upon application to the Consulate?  I have spoken to the Consulate several times now, and been told that they are not putting any notes on the Visa, as the Insurance at the time of application meets the requirement of 1 year.  My Insurance is a lifetime benefit, which shows N/A in the policy end date Box on the certificate itself.  I understand what some are saying about the IO's requesting to see the certificate, but if they are not accepting foreign insurance then once again, "Why, would the Consulate be approving the Visa in the first Place?" 

Edited November 11, 2019 by ThailandRyan
Update

[LivinLOS]

1 hour ago, brianj1964 said:

That scenario was my understanding however the IO said issued date was irrelevant it's the ENTRY date that triggers the insurance, mine was issued 15th and I entered on the 5th, and I have asked for clarification here and I can only guess that some IO,s also think it's the issued date,

 

[lkv]

Fresh report. Third entry on the visa itself and no insurance requirement.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1395920320731833/permalink/2563545347302652/

 

Edited November 11, 2019 by lkv

[GeorgeCross]

18 minutes ago, lkv said:

Fresh report. Third entry on the visa itself and no insurance requirement.

 

https://www.facebook.com/groups/1395920320731833/permalink/2563545347302652/

 

 

its a good post and he makes some interesting points. if it is an application issue thats great news for anyone thats currently on an OA as they can come and go at their pleasure with no requests for insurance at the border.

 

it would seem someone at border immigration got a "tap on the shoulder" from higher up!

 

the one question remaining then would be whether an extension would be considered a fresh application and will a "tap" in that case be forthcoming too.

 

fingers crossed guys!

 

 

[ukrules]

Sounds like there was some initial confusion (isn't there always), now one of the big bosses has woken up and realised big problems are coming for their masters in government - diplomats from various different and big countries are already working on this based on a few things I've read in various places over the last week.

 

They've done what they do best, they've backpedaled on their overzealous interpretation and someone with authority appears to have 'put the foot down' which is why we're now seeing different outcomes compared to the first few days.

 

 

 

[UncleMhee]

Caloo callay......a visa application issue. Nothing to do with immigration. I like the sound of that!

[Ellis]

After an inconclusive trip to Chaengwattana, I tried the airport yesterday evening and without any fuss an officer took my passport away and came back a few minutes later with it altered to one year. I mentioned to the officer that several people in recent days have reported getting in with a one year stamp, and he confirmed that this was what they were now doing after a meeting of immigration heads at the airport on 7th November. Reading other people's reports it seems that the period of stamping in people for 30 days and asking for insurance lasted for a few days only. 

[GeorgeCross]

13 minutes ago, Ellis said:

After an inconclusive trip to Chaengwattana, I tried the airport yesterday evening and without any fuss an officer took my passport away and came back a few minutes later with it altered to one year. I mentioned to the officer that several people in recent days have reported getting in with a one year stamp, and he confirmed that this was what they were now doing after a meeting of immigration heads at the airport on 7th November. Reading other people's reports it seems that the period of stamping in people for 30 days and asking for insurance lasted for a few days only. 

 

very very clear back pedal and sets a good precedent for future expat/immigration relations.

 

now regional immigration offices, over to you

 

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by GeorgeCross

[Sheryl]

10 hours ago, UncleMhee said:

Unless of course like the posted photo shows, the visa was issued on 13 Sept, or approx 6 weeks prior to the entry on 31 October, thereby negating the insurance requirements.

 

Actually that (OAs issued prior to 31 October) is the issue which gave rise to this specific thread. 

 

It is a given that an entry on an OA visa issued after the 31st not only requires insurance but will have had to show proof of same to the issuing Embassy or Consulate.

 

However much to my surprise, at least, there was a flurry of reports on I think the 5th November of people entering Suvanabhumi on OAs issued before the effective date being required to have it.

 

Unless I have missed it there have been no such reports since. And several confirmed reports to the contrary.

 

So I think what most likely happened was IOs in at least 1 terminal of Swampy were initially given wrong instructions which led to a brief period of chaos and wrongful denials until it got straightened out by higher ups. Which unless I have missed something seems to have been done by late on the 5th or first thing 6th morning.

[ubonjoe]

15 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

However much to my surprise, at least, there was a flurry of reports on I think the 5th November of people entering Suvanabhumi on OAs issued before the effective date being required to have it.

Unless I have missed it there have been no such reports since. And several confirmed reports to the contrary.

Here is one of those 30 day entries that was corrected by immigration at Suvarnabhumi yesterday.

 

The officer that did it told the person that whose it was that there was a meeting on the 7th and it resulted in the officer being informed they were wrong.

 

[jackdd]

39 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Here is one of those 30 day entries that was corrected by immigration at Suvarnabhumi yesterday.

 

The officer that did it told the person that whose it was that there was a meeting on the 7th and it resulted in the officer being informed they were wrong.

 

Denying him the entry on the OA visa because he didn't have insurance is as stipulated in the police orders which we have seen here Thaivisa.

So there might be a new police order which exempts visas issued before 31st October from the insurance requirement, which we just didn't see yet.

Edited November 12, 2019 by jackdd

[Sheryl]

7 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Denying him the entry on the OA visa because he didn't have insurance is as stipulated in the police orders which we have seen here Thaivisa.

So there might be a new police order which exempts visas issued before 31st October from the insurance requirement, which we just didn't see yet.

I think that was the intent all along when they stated effective 31 October.  They just failed to word it clearly.

[jacko45k]

21 hours ago, Jingthing said:

I think you are very mistaken about what he thinks. Yes he now thinks those on O based extensions won't need insurance. But he does think those on OA based extensions including existing ones will need the insurance. 

Since domestic immigration are very much in the business of issuing Non-Imm-O 'conversions' to facilitate a path to a retirement based extension, I struggle to agree with this lawyer's statement that ...

Quote

He also thinks that it will become increasingly difficult to get an O for anything other than marriage, (or other family relationship), and that people wishing to retire here will be obliged to get an OA.

 

[Peter Denis]

15 hours ago, Jingthing said:

Well actually people have been obtaining 90 day O visas IN THAILAND for many many years as part of the two step process where the second step is the first retirement extension.

It was reported that the advice given by IO to Non Imm OA holders whose application for extension of stay was denied because of no health-insurance was 'Leave the country - return on Visa Exempt - apply for Non Imm O based on retirement'.

The reason for having to leave the country being that that would 'kill' their present permission to stay (which is already in its final month, as they were applying for extension).  Once abroad they can then either:

- apply for a Non Imm O at a local thai Embassy/consulate, or

- return on Visa Exempt and apply in Thailand for a Non Imm O.

Note: Those OA holders who earlier got a Multiple Re-Entry Permit, will have to let the Re-Entry permit expire while abroad.

 

[brianj1964]

2 hours ago, ukrules said:

Sounds like there was some initial confusion (isn't there always), now one of the big bosses has woken up and realised big problems are coming for their masters in government - diplomats from various different and big countries are already working on this based on a few things I've read in various places over the last week.

 

They've done what they do best, they've backpedaled on their overzealous interpretation and someone with authority appears to have 'put the foot down' which is why we're now seeing different outcomes compared to the first few days.

 

 

 

Ubonjoe told me from day 1 it was the application date and he got slated for it

[Jingthing]

Look folks it's only been some days since October 31. It is way too early to determine whether or not there is going to be tightening on getting 90 day O visas based on retirement either abroad or in Thailand. Because of the possibility that it might be tightening I would suggest expats that want to go that route consider speeding up that action. But be careful. There was a report from Penang saying they told an applicant that first time retirement extension applicants with O rather than OA would no longer be accepted. So at this point the only honest answer is that this is yet another area of uncertainty going forward. 

[brianj1964]

So is clarification now issued before 31/10 no insurance, issued after 31/10 yes insurance? And ALL extensions yes insurance?

[ubonjoe]

7 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

And ALL extensions yes insurance?

No

[JTXR]

Given how police orders are structured and worded, it's only to be expected that it takes a while for things to shake out and settle down in TI after a big new change.  I'm glad my next extension isn't due until July 2020.  By then maybe everyone will be on the same page.

[jackdd]

10 minutes ago, brianj1964 said:

So is clarification now issued before 31/10 no insurance, issued after 31/10 yes insurance?

Unless we see a police order clearly stating that visas issued before 31.10. are exempt the situation isn't clear.

All we have is some evidence that IOs might treat it this way now, we don't know if this is based on a written order, or they just handled it like this. In the latter case we might see a report of somebody else who was denied entry on his OA visa issued before 31.10. due to a lack of insurance.

[GeorgeCross]

9 minutes ago, jackdd said:

Unless we see a police order clearly stating that visas issued before 31.10. are exempt the situation isn't clear.

All we have is some evidence that IOs might treat it this way now, we don't know if this is based on a written order, or they just handled it like this. In the latter case we might see a report of somebody else who was denied entry on his OA visa issued before 31.10. due to a lack of insurance.

 

i agree and any calls to the contrary are irresponsible no matter how much face needs to be saved. 

 

clear details need to be clarified directly by immigration or in a new memorandum, as signs like this are still up at immigration offices (jomtien)

 

 

source: 

 

 

Edited November 12, 2019 by GeorgeCross

[Langsuan Man]

The most worrisome aspect of this whole situation is the decision by the MFA that Immigration Officers in Thailand would be double checking Thai Embassies and Consulates to insure that they were following the new rules on health insurance

 

The MFA can't even mandate which offices require notarization of documents in the US ! (LA and Chicago, Yes, Washington and New York , No)

 

What next ?  Are we going to have to travel with our original criminal records check for an IO to review ? Or our Medical Certificate ? or proof of funds in a foreign bank ? 

[Andrew Dwyer]

1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

Here is one of those 30 day entries that was corrected by immigration at Suvarnabhumi yesterday.

 

The officer that did it told the person that whose it was that there was a meeting on the 7th and it resulted in the officer being informed they were wrong.

 

Where would go at Suvarnabhumi exactly to correct this stamp.

 

Asking for a friend.

Edited November 12, 2019 by Andrew Dwyer

[AJ5358]

On 11/10/2019 at 1:37 PM, AJ5358 said:

We have friends that were in Thailand on OA'a issued in April of 2019. They 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?

Thank you to @Sheryl and @Thaidream for your replies and advice. Our friends were able to obtain new 12 month stamps in their passports today at their local immigration office which happens to be in Hua Hin. So happy for them. No insurance required at this time, nor any need to leave the country and return.

Edited November 12, 2019 by AJ5358
Forgot last sentence.

[ubonjoe]

1 minute ago, Andrew Dwyer said:

Where would go at Suvarnabhumi exactly to correct this stamp.

Immigration has an office in the terminal that a person can go to.