How many do you think? thaivisa.com knows the exact figures, and we will publish them at the conclusion of this poll.

 

In the meantime, how many people were affected? @mikebell questioned the British Embassy staff about the income letters here, and the reply seems to be that they will not be coming back.

The answer is 3,138. Below is an nxtract from a Freedom of Information request submitted earlier this year, also giving the numbers for 2016 and 2017:

 

 

FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT 2000 REQUEST REF: xxxx-xx

Thank you for your email of 28 July 2019 asking for information under the Freedom of 
Information Act (FOIA) 2000. You asked: 
I would like to know the number of Income Affadavits (Proof of Income Letters) issued by the British Embassy in Bangkok, Thailand each year for the last five years please.

I am writing to confirm that we have now completed the search for the information which you requested.

I can confirm that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO) does hold information relevant to your request.

The following figures are for the total number of consular fee 2i (preparing a certificate in 
English) issued from 2016 to 2019. We do not hold the information requested prior to 2016.

The vast majority of consular fee 2i are related to the proof of income letter but this consular fee group does include a small number of other certificates. We can not break down the number further because checking through each certificate individually would take us above the cost threshold.

2016: 2211
2017: 2679
2018: 3138
2019: 0

Because I am not british, I voteed that I do not care. However, It might be interesting to know if I can be in the ballpark. I would say, based on how many british expats that live in Thailand, it would be in the range between 15001-20000.

The only number I know for sure is ONE, me!

I seem to recall the Embassy quoted as saying it was about 25/day. That puts it at around 6.5K/year.

 

Actually verifying the income for 25 people everyday from the many different income sources would be an administrative nightmare and often impractical. That being the reason it’s been stopped.

9 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I seem to recall the Embassy quoted as saying it was about 25/day. That puts it at around 6.5K/year.

 

Actually verifying the income for 25 people everyday from the many different income sources would be an administrative nightmare and often impractical. That being the reason it’s been stopped.

At 50 quid a go, that would be a tidy income of 325,000 Great British Pounds.

23 minutes ago, elviajero said:

I seem to recall the Embassy quoted as saying it was about 25/day. That puts it at around 6.5K/year.

 

Actually verifying the income for 25 people everyday from the many different income sources would be an administrative nightmare and often impractical. That being the reason it’s been stopped.

Thats exactly why some Embassies stopped with the Verification on Income letter.

 

It was impossible for them to be able to accurately verify the income of all requests without a larger team, significant leg work and cost. 

 

Too many people were outright lying on their income claims and the Embassies were unwilling to sign off on a legal document they were unable to verify. 

 

Of course, people blamed the Embassies for their change of policy, however, really its the immigration requirement which is awkward for some to meet and when they can't they unfairly complain at their Embassy for not being willing to verify / notaries their spurious income claim. 

 

Basically, some folk are upset they can't use their Embassy to lie for them. 

38 minutes ago, chickenslegs said:

At 50 quid a go, that would be a tidy income of 325,000 Great British Pounds.

Yes, but less the cost of the staff and administrative costs required to carry out the verification.

And just imagine the hassle having to chase up slow replies and the grief from the expats waiting weeks/months for their letters!

FYI.... Following the British Embassy announcement last year that they were going to stop issuing income letters to support their citizens application to Thai Immigration to extend their permission to stay I submitted a number of requests under the provisions of the Freedom of Information Act to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office (FCO).  One of the request was for numbers of British citizens who had applied for the income letter in the following periods:

 

• October 2015 to September 2016
• October 2016 to September 2017
• October 2017 to September 2018

At first they claimed that they did not hold the information, then after an appeal they claimed that the cost of retrieving the information was greater that was allowed under the FOI Act and therefore exempt.  When I threatened to refer the matter to the Information Commissioner, the FCO relented and provided the following information:

 

• From October 2015 to September 2016 the Embassy issued 2222 letters
• From October 2016 to September 2017 the Embassy issued 2604 letters
• From October 2017 to September 2018 the Embassy issued 2804 letters

These figures may come as quite a surprise given that previous posters are estimating 325,000 plus.

 

For your further information:

 

1........  The decision to scrap supplying income letters was not made by the British Embassy in Bangkok, it was made by the legal department of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office in London.

 

2......  The person from Thai Immigration who made the fuss about the income letters during a bilateral meeting in May 2018 was not 'Big Joke', it was a lowly Police Colonel attached to the Immigration Department. 

 

22 hours ago, wgdanson said:

The only number I know for sure is ONE, me!

and me! I applied in December 2018 just before the closure deadline. My application was swiftly and efficiently processed and I was able to retain it until required by Thai Immigration in March 2019. The confirmation letter had a "shelf life" of 6 months. with Immigration. 

21 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats exactly why some Embassies stopped with the Verification on Income letter.

 

It was impossible for them to be able to accurately verify the income of all requests without a larger team, significant leg work and cost. 

 

Too many people were outright lying on their income claims and the Embassies were unwilling to sign off on a legal document they were unable to verify. 

 

Of course, people blamed the Embassies for their change of policy, however, really its the immigration requirement which is awkward for some to meet and when they can't they unfairly complain at their Embassy for not being willing to verify / notaries their spurious income claim. 

 

Basically, some folk are upset they can't use their Embassy to lie for them. 

"Too many people were outright lying on their income claims and the Embassies were unwilling to sign off on a legal document they were unable to verify."

 

Grateful for some verifiable examples, or are you just making it up as you go along? I think too many people are tending to make this statement just to make Thai immigration look blameless for some reason. Rose-colopured specs maybe?

4 minutes ago, jesimps said:

"Too many people were outright lying on their income claims and the Embassies were unwilling to sign off on a legal document they were unable to verify."

 

Grateful for some verifiable examples, or are you just making it up as you go along? I think too many people are tending to make this statement just to make Thai immigration look blameless for some reason. Rose-colopured specs maybe?

Do you want to see MY application from last year !   LOL

7 minutes ago, jesimps said:

"Too many people were outright lying on their income claims and the Embassies were unwilling to sign off on a legal document they were unable to verify."

 

Grateful for some verifiable examples, or are you just making it up as you go along?

It doesn’t take a genius to work out that an affidavit requiring no actual proof is a worthless piece of paper and wide open to fraud.

 

7 minutes ago, jesimps said:

I think too many people are tending to make this statement just to make Thai immigration look blameless for some reason. Rose-colopured specs maybe?

Why are immigration to blame? They still accept ‘income letters’. The UK/US embassies have chosen to stop issuing them.

22 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats exactly why some Embassies stopped with the Verification on Income letter.

 

It was impossible for them to be able to accurately verify the income of all requests without a larger team, significant leg work and cost. 

 

Too many people were outright lying on their income claims and the Embassies were unwilling to sign off on a legal document they were unable to verify. 

 

Of course, people blamed the Embassies for their change of policy, however, really its the immigration requirement which is awkward for some to meet and when they can't they unfairly complain at their Embassy for not being willing to verify / notaries their spurious income claim. 

 

Basically, some folk are upset they can't use their Embassy to lie for them. 

" Embassies were unwilling to sign off on a legal document they were unable to verify"

So the Embassies lied to the Thai Government about their citizens income for 40 years right?

The Immigration Act, 1979 - Thai visas, residency and work permits ...

https://forum.thaivisa.com › ... › Thai visas, residency and work permits

Jan 24, 2004 - For the benefits of all who are interested. Hope it clears up some doubts. And ... it will stir up more doubts, no doubts ...

If the British Embassy were able to issue income letters for circa 40 years, having verified the submissions or not, what was the reason for the change of heart NOW? Speculation and reasons put forward so far do not really hold water.

23 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats exactly why some Embassies stopped with the Verification on Income letter.

 

It was impossible for them to be able to accurately verify the income of all requests without a larger team, significant leg work and cost. 

 

Too many people were outright lying on their income claims and the Embassies were unwilling to sign off on a legal document they were unable to verify. 

 

Of course, people blamed the Embassies for their change of policy, however, really its the immigration requirement which is awkward for some to meet and when they can't they unfairly complain at their Embassy for not being willing to verify / notaries their spurious income claim. 

 

Basically, some folk are upset they can't use their Embassy to lie for them. 

I contacted the British Embassy and asked if I got my legitimate pension letters notarized under oath that they were correct, it took away their responsibility and they were then covered.

Just got the standard response 'we are canceling these from blah, blah, blah'. They did not even consider a proper, alternative, legal way of helping their Taxpaying countrymen out.!!! Typical!!

On 11/16/2019 at 3:06 PM, elviajero said:

I seem to recall the Embassy quoted as saying it was about 25/day. That puts it at around 6.5K/year.

 

Actually verifying the income for 25 people everyday from the many different income sources would be an administrative nightmare and often impractical. That being the reason it’s been stopped.

Would it really be so difficult to look at the bottom line of a pension statement and verify the number matches what you put in the letter??

23 hours ago, richard_smith237 said:

Thats exactly why some Embassies stopped with the Verification on Income letter.

 

It was impossible for them to be able to accurately verify the income of all requests without a larger team, significant leg work and cost. 

 

Too many people were outright lying on their income claims and the Embassies were unwilling to sign off on a legal document they were unable to verify. 

 

Of course, people blamed the Embassies for their change of policy, however, really its the immigration requirement which is awkward for some to meet and when they can't they unfairly complain at their Embassy for not being willing to verify / notaries their spurious income claim. 

 

Basically, some folk are upset they can't use their Embassy to lie for them. 

That really depends on what constitutes 'verification '. I had to send in 3 months bank statements which clearly documented my monthly rental income and pension payments. Yes you say they could be forged ,but no more than any document could and most organisations accept bank statements as proof. So do you think all the other embassies still providing letters are doing much more than that?

If you are basing your conclusion on what the British Embassy official said on Pattaya radio, forget it. She was obviously clueless and lied through her teeth.

On 11/16/2019 at 8:06 AM, elviajero said:

I seem to recall the Embassy quoted as saying it was about 25/day. That puts it at around 6.5K/year.

 

Actually verifying the income for 25 people everyday from the many different income sources would be an administrative nightmare and often impractical. That being the reason it’s been stopped.

Not true. It was a simple process of checking the the documentation you sent with your application and processing the letter. Done by a team of Thai admin staff. Latterly even the letter itself was signed by a Thai on behalf of the vice consul. The reason that they ceased the letters was to get rid of the Thai staff and free up office space in prperation for moving to a new smaller embassy. Other notary services were discontinued at the same time. The £52 fee more than paid for the Thai admin costs.

On 11/16/2019 at 8:35 AM, richard_smith237 said:

Too many people were outright lying on their income claims and the Embassies were unwilling to sign off on a legal document they were unable to verify. 

From the British Embassy's POV that's just false and slanderous. I have never heard of a case of anyone submitting forged documents to verify their incomes. Can you quote one?

 

 

10 minutes ago, nchuckle said:

hat really depends on what constitutes 'verification '. I had to send in 3 months bank statements which clearly documented my monthly rental income and pension payments. Yes you say they could be forged ,but no more than any document could and most organisations accept bank statements as proof. So do you think all the other embassies still providing letters are doing much more than that?

Completely agree- even in the US right now- it is imposible to go back to the source and gat a response.  Must companies that require proof of income use a primary, secondary and tertiary way of  checking.

 

Primary-  pay stub or letter from source on letterhead- indicating amount

Secondary-  A bank statement or other showing the same amounts as on primary letter

Tertiary-  ATM slips or other documentation such as copies of ATM cards which relate to how one's money is obtained.

 

The 3 Embassies simply did not want to do this anymore and used the Thai immigration request as an excuse to get out of it.  They convinced their home offices to drop the requirment as a money saving plan falling back on the premise that citizens could use other ways to prove their income to Thai Immigration.  That allows Embassy staff to be cut; assign people to other duties and not have to deal with a public that complained about Embassy letters being over priced.

 

I maintain that Thai Immigration today would accept these letters as is with minor word changes.

 

Kudos to the other 80 Embassies who saw no need to stop the letters and simply check a few documents such as overseas bank deposits or pension letters and indicate the amounts match what is being attested.

23 hours ago, elviajero said:

Yes, but less the cost of the staff and administrative costs required to carry out the verification.

And just imagine the hassle having to chase up slow replies and the grief from the expats waiting weeks/months for their letters!

Replies from whom? Staff checked the documents and processed the letters. Didn't communicate with anyone.

Too many low life Brits trying to con the embassy and causing a lot of trouble. Sadly the straight guys now paying the price.

6 minutes ago, Thingamabob said:

Too many low life Brits trying to con the embassy and causing a lot of trouble. Sadly the straight guys now paying the price.

Any evidence of this? All the "low life Brits" I know have always paid an agent 15k baht to get their visa extensions and still do. Cessation of letters didn't affect them. Only affected the "good guys".

On November 16, 2019 at 3:35 PM, richard_smith237 said:

 

Too many people were outright lying on their income claims and the Embassies were unwilling to sign off on a legal document they were unable to verify. 

And yet for many years that's exactly what they and the US and Australian embassies did. One wonders what coincidental concern for integrity made them simultaneously change policy while most embassies did not feel compelled to follow suit.

 

As to the number who made fraudulent claims, that resulted in collective punishment. We suspect some of you are lying, so we're going to punish you all. 

 

 

I voted I don't care but really I'm dying to know how many British expats caught out and prolly homeward bound. Or illegal agent route because they never had the dosh in the first place.

 

Not nearly the backlash from the Americans. Practically nill.

Suffering Nora!

 

A gratuitous Thaivisa exercise in dragging out that hackneyed old subject and the same old opinions ad infinitum.  Why? Oh, yes...that's why. 

 

How long do we have to be subjected to it?  It's over, drop it!

6 minutes ago, Just Weird said:

Suffering Nora!

 

A gratuitous Thaivisa exercise in dragging out that hackneyed old subject and the same old opinions ad infinitum.  Why? Oh, yes...that's why. 

 

How long do we have to be subjected to it?  It's over, drop it!

Well you've made enough replies to the thread, including perpetuating urban myths that were debunked long ago.

1 hour ago, 5633572526 said:

Would it really be so difficult to look at the bottom line of a pension statement and verify the number matches what you put in the letter??

No it wouldn't. The issue appears to be that it doesn't satisfy the embassy that they have verified the income which would involve a lot more work.