Just now, jackdd said:

I guess in the same way how an IO might refuse to process an extension if the landlord of the foreigner didn't submit a TM30. They just tell you they can't do it and refuse to change their stance.

Never had an extension refused for lack of TM30 ... just a fine.

3 minutes ago, kurtmartens said:

Never had an extension refused for lack of TM30 ... just a fine.

I don't know your circumstances, but we had many reports of people who had no obligation to submit a TM30 but were asked to pay a fine. If they had refused to pay the fine (which had no legal grounds), then the IO would not have processed their extension.

Edited November 19, 20196 yr by jackdd

3 minutes ago, jackdd said:

I don't know your circumstances, but we had many reports of people who had no obligation to submit a TM30 but were asked to pay a fine. If they had refused to pay the fine (which had no legal grounds), then the IO would not have processed their extension.

Then pay the fine and move on.  Making a stand against an IO (in any country) is ... mind boggling to me. 

 

I'm not looking for a heated discussion on the merits of TIT or "no legal grounds" issues (since non of us are Thai lawyers), I was just curious about the ampurs and the marriage issue.  

2 hours ago, jackdd said:

Would you agree to this?

They appear to change the rules as they see fit.

If they ever seek to ask me first, I will let you know.

On 11/19/2019 at 11:58 AM, jackdd said:

I don't know your circumstances, but we had many reports of people who had no obligation to submit a TM30 but were asked to pay a fine. If they had refused to pay the fine (which had no legal grounds), then the IO would not have processed their extension.

In August I (along with dozens of other foreign workers) was told by the head of our provincial immigration police that TM30 was the obligation of the landlord and would have no bearing on our ability to extend, renew, etc., anything. Given that we had heard some disturbing stories from colleagues (e.g., at Chaengwattana) and elsewhere (e.g., here), we kept following up on the Q&A when he initially told us that TM30 obligation/fines were the landlord's problem. I flat-out asked him about the stories we had heard and for clarity on whether a stubborn/careless landlord could jeopardize an extension (or something like that). He plainly stated that they'd notice that the TM30 hadn't been filed and go after the landlord, but wouldn't punish the worker. 

 

Obviously, YMMV and every little fiefdom is different here, etc.