13 hours ago, evadgib said:

'The Embassy aint doing Nuffink' rolls off the keyboard a little too easily whenever expectation exceeds reality.

I see. It's all highly "hush-hush." Actions being taken to improve our lot that we are not in a position to understand or we are too dense to understand. Alright, then, can someone please name something that our embassies have done over the past five to ten years to make our lives easier, either with Thai Immigration or dealing with the embassies themselves? 

1 hour ago, DrJack54 said:

Aside from that I do not believe that embassies are equipped or qualified to check and verify incomes. 

Well, I'm sure that you'll find the 80+ embassies in Bangkok who still offer an income confirmation service to their nationals disagreeing with you! And, if the Immigration Bureau had any doubts about their income checking and verification capabilities, they would surely have pulled the embassy income confirmation option altogether in issuing Police Order 35/2561 and instead made everyone using the 65k method go down the monthly Thai bank account transfer route instead regardless of nationality, wouldn't they?

Just now, OJAS said:

Well, I'm sure that you will find the 80+ embassies in Bangkok who still offer an income confirmation service to their nationals disagreeing with you! And, if the Immigration Bureau had any doubts about their income checking and verification capabilities, they would surely have pulled the embassy income confirmation option in issuing Police Order 35/2561 and instead made everyone using the 65k method go down the monthly Thai bank account transfer route instead regardless of nationality, wouldn't they?

What do the embassies check? How do they confirm it? Verify it?.

Oh I forgot, they have a stamp.

On 11/15/2019 at 8:07 PM, mikebell said:

I should also note that there has been no change in the financial requirement for Thai visa applications and extensions since this aspect of the Immigration Act came into effect in 2006.

I think it is a thoughtful letter and kind of surprising you got this response from them.  The only thing I think is wrong is this one sentence I have quoted from it.  But I suppose he only meant the monthly income method.

3 minutes ago, DrJack54 said:

Oh I forgot, they have a stamp.

Which seems perfectly acceptable to the Immigration Bureau in the case of at least 80 embassies at any rate!

On 11/16/2019 at 11:58 AM, MRToMRT said:

They care only about their little diplomatic world of privilege and associated people. They don't want to deal with the likes of me.

 

______________

 

Saying that, in this particular case, I would have done the same thing in their shoes. The Thais wanted a credible document and it is too hard to provide it for everyone. Its the Thais at fault - and we are all now living through the tightening of their system because it was made too easy for undesirables. Lets be honest Thailand is full of dodgy foreigners whether they be Brit ex crims, Amercian con artists, Pakistani forgers, Indian mafia, Iranian scammers, Australian hells angels, etc, etc and the changes to the Thai system made by Imm don't really bother the undesirables because they are used to getting around these things.

 

I would think the fault lies with the people who abused the system. The result of that abuse is the tighting of the requirements for proof of income and requirements for deposits of lump sums. But I guess it is easier to fault the Thais as opposed to putting the blame where it really belongs.

1 hour ago, DannyCarlton said:

British Embassy income letters were verified. US affidavits and Aus stat decs weren't.

Not doubting you, but just wondering exactly how did the British Embassy verify income? Did they contact the private pension providers? Did they contact the gov't pension agencies or the financial institutions? Or, did they only review the pension & income documents that was provided by the expats requesting the income letters?

 

The US embassy never verified income and refused to even look at the pension letter issued by my employer. They only notarized an affidavit which was just a sworn statement.

3 minutes ago, BertM said:

Or, did they only review the pension & income documents that was provided by the expats requesting the income letters?

 

This. Same as most other embassies that continue to provide income letters. They were never specifically asked to do any more than this by TI.

 

There was always the option for them to delve deeper if they had any suspicions about a particular application.

 

Contrary to what some people on this thread claim, I have never heard of anyone providing false income documents to the British Embassy. Zero evidence that this ever took place.

I have not read all of the posts, just first and last 2 pages, but it seems to me that the OP has a valid reason to go back again for a further 'bite at the cherry'.

 

The letter from the Embassy states: "..........the drivers for the decision to cease providing income verification letters was that the British Embassy is unable to verify the various incomes of British Nationals......"

 

I believe that the response to that statement by the Embassy can be as follows:  "Please advise what documentation and/or information does the Embassy require in order to verify the income of a British National".  Perhaps a letter from the UK Pension Department? A statement from a Bank? A statement from a Superannuation/Pension fund?

 

My point is that the Embassy has unilaterally decided that all UK Nationals have been lying in their Statutory Declaration Letters that the Embassy signed/witnessed.  That in itself should result in a formal complaint to the UK Foreign Affairs Department, but in the meantime I think it is a valid question to ask what they need to verify any UK National's Statement of their annual income.  To state unilaterally that all UK Nationals are liars and therefore they refuse to sign/witness any 'Income Letter' statement, is unacceptable in my opinion and should be challenged.

 

Clearly the Thai Government has pressured the UK, USA and Australian Embassies into stopping the signing of statutory declarations made by their Nationals/Citizens that they cannot verify.  OK then - what do they need to verify those Statements is the next question.

 

I do not know about UK Laws, but in Australia it is a Federal Offence to lie in a Statutory Declaration. But also, the Laws clearly stated to a JP that: "If you have personal knowledge that material in the document is false, then you should decline to witness it. Remember that you may not refuse to witness a document simply because you do not agree with the contents or the law under which the document is framed."  An Australian JP is not allowed to refuse to witness a statement, just because they do not agree with the contents of the statement.

 

I do not need these 'income letters' anymore, but if I did I would certainly be taking the matter further and higher.

 

 

2 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Please advise what documentation and/or information does the Embassy require in order to verify the income of a British National".

The British Embassy always provided this information and British citizens complied with it.

I am waiting to see the results of the forthcoming GE before deciding on my next move one thing is for sure I will be moving to another country once I have tied all the loose ends up .Thailand has lost the appeal it once had .

6 minutes ago, crazykopite said:

I am waiting to see the results of the forthcoming GE before deciding on my next move one thing is for sure I will be moving to another country once I have tied all the loose ends up .Thailand has lost the appeal it once had .

Name that country.

11 minutes ago, DannyCarlton said:

The British Embassy always provided this information and British citizens complied with it.

Interesting - they stated in the letter that they cannot veriofy the information is correct, but they required proof of some sort.  So I guess the question is - can a British JP at the British Embassy refuse to sign a Stautory Declaration.

 

4 minutes ago, AussieBob18 said:

Interesting - they stated in the letter that they cannot veriofy the information is correct, but they required proof of some sort.  So I guess the question is - can a British JP at the British Embassy refuse to sign a Stautory Declaration.

 

It wouldn't be accepted by Thai Immigration. Also the British embassy discontinued a bunch of other notary services at the same time. Coincidence that they were also downsizing to a new, much smaller embassy with fewer staff at the same time?

20 hours ago, elviajero said:

It doesn't really matter what the letters say. The arrangement immigration have with the embassies is that they "verify" the income. The only way to truly verify the income is to get confirmation direct from the source of the income.

That's not what TI asked for and it's not what other embassies that still provide letters do.

 

 

On 11/16/2019 at 12:49 PM, zydeco said:

Was it? Why? The UK, as well as the US and Australia, could have simply continued issuing the letters and leave it up to Thai Immigration to accept them or not. What were the "Thai authorities" going to do? Launch an invasion of the embassies? Are the Canadian and New Zealand embassies continuing to issue letters that are accepted by Thai Immigration? If so, are they substantially different from those issued by the US, UK, and Australia? Do they not have privacy laws, too? 

Mmm. What shall we do boys keep accepting these letters or stop accepting them from everybody.???? 

20 hours ago, elviajero said:

It doesn't really matter what the letters say. The arrangement immigration have with the embassies is that they "verify" the income. The only way to truly verify the income is to get confirmation direct from the source of the income.

Surely, an equally verifiable way would be to use original statements from a UK bank, showing all income into one's account?    This is what I used to do and would seem quite legitimate for an Embassy to verify this without going back to every single pension provider.   

 

Rather than just issue a blank decree, saying they will not confirm anybody's request, surely, they could have refused requests which they were 'unsure' of, whilst still endorsing the reputable one's.   

 

Why was such a 'broad brush' blanket approach needed.    A bit of commercial, logical sense should have been used and still could, if they REALLY wanted to help their nationals.

2 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

What do the embassies check? How do they confirm it? Verify it?.

Oh I forgot, they have a stamp.

The Canadian Embassy always and still requires bank statements for the last 3 months showing various pension incomes being deposited into your account. Where the trouble arose is that the American  Embassy only required its citizens swear without showing proof.

3 minutes ago, Greenhill said:

Surely, an equally verifiable way would be to use original statements from a UK bank, showing all income into one's account?    This is what I used to do and would seem quite legitimate for an Embassy to verify this without going back to every single pension provider.   

 

Rather than just issue a blank decree, saying they will not confirm anybody's request, surely, they could have refused requests which they were 'unsure' of, whilst still endorsing the reputable one's.   

 

Why was such a 'broad brush' blanket approach needed.    A bit of commercial, logical sense should have been used and still could, if they REALLY wanted to help their nationals.

I agree; however, their nationals only have to transfer the funds each month to Thailand to satisfy the financial requirements.

 

Those with a genuine income exceeding the minimums presumably transfer funds to Thailand. I appreciate doing it every month can be a pain, but it’s not a deal breaker for most.

 

IMO all applicants using income should have to actually send the required income to Thailand in the same way that someone using the bank deposit method has to actually deposit 400/800K in a bank in Thailand.

 

It’s crazy that applicant A can claim in a letter they have x income that never has to reach Thailand; whereas, applicant B has to prove they’ve actually got the cash in Thailand.

1 hour ago, moe666 said:

I would think the fault lies with the people who abused the system. The result of that abuse is the tighting of the requirements for proof of income and requirements for deposits of lump sums. But I guess it is easier to fault the Thais as opposed to putting the blame where it really belongs.

So, it was ONLY UK, US & Aus nationals who abused the system?    They are the only embassies who have stopped verifying income.

Maybe they are the only nationalities with integrity 

 

I'm going to burn in hell for that one 555

The embassy should be able to confirm your income as paid by the government, if nothing else, and that would be enough for most expats, including those doing a combination SS and retirement income.

Brits, you have been sunk by your own.

Very sad.

6 minutes ago, Mac98 said:

The embassy should be able to confirm your income as paid by the government, if nothing else, and that would be enough for most expats, including those doing a combination SS and retirement income.

From which countries? Certainly not for Australians who would be on around 35,000 Bht per month on a full pension (single) at todays exchange rate.

On 11/16/2019 at 1:39 PM, sqwakvfr said:

How about this;  I waive my rights under the Data Privacy Act in order for the British Embasay in Bangkok to confirm my income?

How about this...you can't.

21 hours ago, elviajero said:

It doesn't really matter what the letters say. The arrangement immigration have with the embassies is that they "verify" the income. The only way to truly verify the income is to get confirmation direct from the source of the income

Actually the word used in the police order is to certify  incomewhich can be done by an applicant self certifying that the information they are attesting to is correct.  The other approximate 80 Embassies who provide letters normally view a few documents the applicant presents and has the applicant take an Oath that it is true under penalty of perjury.

 

It appears this is enough for Thai Immigration as they continue to accept these letters from the 80 countries.

 

IMO, if the UK, US and AUS  would follow the same scenario as the other Embassies, Thai immigration would accept them right now. No Embassy can go back to the original source-Everyone has Data Protect  Laws 

 

These Embassies are simply being stubborn; have cost their countries needed income; have irritated Thai immigration and cause hardship for many of their citizens. IMO they have presented  flawed arguments to their Home Offices in the hopes they wouldn't have to  issue the letters. Even the original statements they issued were similar in nature and show a type of collaboration in the decision to stop these letters.

 

All the infamous 3 had to do was keep issuing the letters and put the onus on Thai immigration whether to accept them or not.  Thai Immigration could have easily asked for any added proof to support the letters- such as foreign bank statements; ATM cards and receipts; or letters from pension providers supporting the amount claimed.

 

Let's now see what the  Thai powers will do with the Diplomatic Notes- the US Embassy and the EU  countries have sent requesting an explanation regarding the medical insurance requirement.   Maybe the Embassies can do some good for their citizens.

 

 

 

 

 

21 hours ago, Mr Smithy said:

It is interesting that only four embassies refuse to certify income. The others continue to provide letters.

What's more interesting is that they didn't refuse to certify income, the issue was that they cannot certify all income, that's their point! 

 

Maybe the other embassies can certify income or they're prepared to lie and claim that they can.

4 hours ago, sniggie said:

Exactly. Though I think that what appears to be a dislike by the Thai authorities for english speaking nationals may have had something to do with it. After all, there does appear to be other embassies still relying on stat decs. 

Written in what language?

(????????????????????????????)

data protection laws are not the same throughout Europe although there is a minimum EU requirement.   I fail to see why the embassy or consulate cannot provide a letter certifying that a persons p60 or P60's is genuine and should be taken as proof of income. This wiill get around the Data Protection requirement, It is not true that government departments cannot access other departments when they have permission from the individual, Inland revenue do this anyway and  it should not be hard for the revenue to send proof to the embassy on request so that they can verify. a fee may have to be charged but it is a simple admin change.

19 hours ago, Mr Smithy said:

Mmm -- My income comes from two, legitimate easily verified UK government sources - The DWP and the NHS pension scheme. 

Mmmm, you missed the part where it was clearly explained that data protection laws prevent the sharing of that "verifiable" information!