Appointment Letter for Showing 800,000 after 90 Days

[KhunKenAP]

On December 17, 2019, I submitted my 1-year Retirement Visa application. Noted a sign hanging off the back of one of the Desk 8 computers. It listed documents required to show 800,000 still in Thai bank after 90 Days.

 

The list included:

1) Appointment letter for the 90 day report;

2) Copy of passport photo page and latest visa

3) Copy bank book with account identification page and page(s) showing 800,000 during the 90 day period.

 

On December 18, in the afternoon, I picked up my passport and got my picture taken. I realized after I left, I never got the "Appointment Letter".

 

My question, has anyone gotten one since December 18?

 

I will still go in with all the copies requested on the 90th day, but I wonder if they now only require the report for first timers, or have some other unknown criteria to determine who must report. I have been doing visas, since 2000 with work permits and the last 2 years on retirement. Perhaps the girl just forgot, but she never gave any out to those in front of me in the queue.

 

Another Immigration mystery.

[ubonjoe]

Not sure what you mean by a appointment letter. Do you mean the receipt for a 90 day report?

Your 90 day reporting date does not change when you apply for an extension. Your next report is still due on the date shown on your last 90 day report receipt.

[KhunKenAP]

I am talking about the 90- day report to show still 800,000 in bank after getting 1-year retirement extension. That is a document on the list shown at Desk 8 in the Jomtien office.

 

[ubonjoe]

It was not really a letter. Just a copy of the rules with a date to do it in 90 days.

Just go in 90 days from the day you applied for the extension. That is March 16th according to my calculator.

[tgeezer]

I think that if the police order were read carefully there would be no reason to check cash holding after 90 days because it is one of three conditions which need to be fulfilled at renewal. If when checking after 90 days the 800,000THB were not in the account then you have nine month’s notice that the subsequent extension would not be granted.   

[ubonjoe]

3 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

I think that if the police order were read carefully there would be no reason to check cash holding after 90 days because it is one of three conditions which need to be fulfilled at renewal. If when checking after 90 days the 800,000THB were not in the account then you have nine month’s notice that the subsequent extension would not be granted.   

Correct the 3 month check is not required.

But if the 800k baht was not there they could cancel the extension and grant you 7 days to leave the country.

[allane]

So, for anyone who is unable to maintain the required B 800,000/400,000 for ninety days post extension, the choices appear to be:  a) do nothing, and be allowed to remain until the expiry of your extension

                                 b) go in to Immigration, and be told to leave within 7 days, or,

                                 c) do nothing, and hope that Immigration doesn't notice at the time of your next                                            extension, or notices, but forbears refusal in return for a small fine.

[tgeezer]

36 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

Correct the 3 month check is not required.

But if the 800k baht was not there they could cancel the extension and grant you 7 days to leave the country.

That might be possible but if the check was not required what grounds would they use to withdraw permission to stay? Inevitably there would be an appeal during which one is allowed to remain and if the appeal were to fail, then one would be given seven days to leave.  

Edited December 24, 2019 by tgeezer

[tgeezer]

20 minutes ago, allane said:

So, for anyone who is unable to maintain the required B 800,000/400,000 for ninety days post extension, the choices appear to be:  a) do nothing, and be allowed to remain until the expiry of your extension

                                 b) go in to Immigration, and be told to leave within 7 days, or,

                                 c) do nothing, and hope that Immigration doesn't notice at the time of your next                                            extension, or notices, but forbears refusal in return for a small fine.

‘a’ 

You certainly will not do ‘b’

c. Is ‘a’ but knowing how punctilious Immigration is in checking you will be refused. As to bribing the IO , my experience of CW says that will not be happening either. .  

[tgeezer]

I just need to convince Immigration that if my presence here was conditional on maintaining the balances required at all times, then the balances have to be checked at all times, not just once after 90 days. 
immigration know that “past performance is no guarantee of future performance” so they accept past performance in all cases of granting extensions for the future.  The Chief of Police was not unreasonable in making the new conditions because I think that he intended to give people a year’s warning. 

[ubonjoe]

1 hour ago, tgeezer said:

That might be possible but if the check was not required what grounds would they use to withdraw permission to stay? Inevitably there would be an appeal during which one is allowed to remain and if the appeal were to fail, then one would be given seven days to leave.  

For not meeting the condition of their extension of stay. That was mentioned in the cover letter for the immigration order.

Applicants are required to sign this form. Acknowledgement of conditions for a permit to stay.pdf

It states this.

 

 

[tgeezer]

36 minutes ago, ubonjoe said:

For not meeting the condition of their extension of stay. That was mentioned in the cover letter for the immigration order.

Applicants are required to sign this form. Acknowledgement of conditions for a permit to stay.pdf

It states this.

 

Perhaps someone who has signed this can translate it into English.

1. I can’t make head nor tail of it. 
2. Seems to refer to an extension based on a relationship to a Thai national.  
There is no mention of consequences. 

[ubonjoe]

3 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

Perhaps someone who has signed this can translate it into English.

1. I can’t make head nor tail of it. 
2. Seems to refer to an extension based on a relationship to a Thai national.  
There is no mention of consequences. 

This means every type of extension except those mentioned.

No need to mention the consequences. if you do not meet the requirements your extension ends.

 

[Kaptain Asia]

4 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

Correct the 3 month check is not required.

But if the 800k baht was not there they could cancel the extension and grant you 7 days to leave the country.

Is this 3 month check not a compulsory requirement ? I don't have a problem maintaining the required cash balances but want to avoid making an additional trip to Chaengwattana if at all possible.

 

 

 

[ubonjoe]

3 minutes ago, Kaptain Asia said:

Is this 3 month check not a compulsory requirement ? I don't have a problem maintaining the required cash balances but want to avoid making an additional trip to Chaengwattana if at all possible.

It is not compulsory. Chaeng Wattana and many other immigration offices do not require it.

[ubonjoe]

1 hour ago, tgeezer said:

Perhaps someone who has signed this can translate it into English.

1. I can’t make head nor tail of it. 
2. Seems to refer to an extension based on a relationship to a Thai national.  
There is no mention of consequences. 

Perhaps this from police order 35/2562 changing the requirement for the extension is a little clearer.

 

 

[DrJack54]

Again to underline how crazy it all is you have fella of Ubonjoe experience stating that a certain thing is required at certain imm office but not required at several others....! 

Not just in relation to the "show bank book post 3 months" , but so many other things. Jomtien in particular seems to make their own rules. Yes I'm here as a guest but you can't make this stuff up. 

[tgeezer]

Sorry Joe but it still doesn't make sense. One just needs to ask a few simple questions. For example what is a reason of necessity ?

Does it say that if the financial conditions on which permission to stay are not maintained then permission to stay will be cancelled? 

If that is what it means then it can only happen if tally is made daily of the bank accounts.  We both know that this is not going to happen so Immigration would be better off saying nothing.  I would ask for the rules in Thai but they are likely to be just as bad as the English. 

It is no wonder that everything Immigration does turns out to be a dog’s breakfast. 

[DrJack54]

11 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

Sorry Joe but it still doesn't make sense. One just needs to ask a few simple questions. For example what is a reason of necessity ?

Does it say that if the financial conditions on which permission to stay are not maintained then permission to stay will be cancelled? 

If that is what it means then it can only happen if tally is made daily of the bank accounts.  We both know that this is not going to happen so Immigration would be better off saying nothing.  I would ask for the rules in Thai but they are likely to be just as bad as the English. 

It is no wonder that everything Immigration does turns out to be a dog’s breakfast. 

Geezus. What is your question. Fact is stupid imm office such as Jomtien require 90 day show of bank book. Most other imm office do not. eg CW 

So your point? Jomtien is stuffed up imm office? We all know that.. 

If someone decides not to attend bank check then they will need start over in 12 months. 

[Kaptain Asia]

5 hours ago, ubonjoe said:

It is not compulsory. Chaeng Wattana and many other immigration offices do not require it.

Noted - Thanks for the clarification.

[jacko45k]

16 hours ago, tgeezer said:

That might be possible but if the check was not required what grounds would they use to withdraw permission to stay?

The fact that you broke the terms of your Extension, that is more relevant than the fact that they did not make any checks during the running of the extension, but waited until your subsequent application. It is very likely you signed a paper confirming you understood the terms. (And possibly the consequences of not adhering to them). 

 

Sorry to be scaremongering, but at this time nobody knows. 

Edited December 24, 2019 by jacko45k

[tgeezer]

10 hours ago, DrJack54 said:

Geezus. What is your question. Fact is stupid imm office such as Jomtien require 90 day show of bank book. Most other imm office do not. eg CW 

So your point? Jomtien is stuffed up imm office? We all know that.. 

If someone decides not to attend bank check then they will need start over in 12 months. 

My point is..... 

 

Take your ’rule’ which I have highlighted in bold type. Can you show the order published by Jomtien Immigration which says this? 

 

I report to CW from where there have been no reports of the 90 day check to include a financial check but I can not state that such a check is not required in some cases. In my case I report 90 days after returning which is one month before I renew my extension fulfilling the cash deposit condition and don’t do another before leaving the country. If I were reporting to Jomtien I would miss the next 90 day check, when I renew my extension in January I do not believe that I will need to “start over”. 

 

As you have accepted Jomtien has messed up, my point is that they should be challenged.  I suspect that the reason they are not is because those who could, either, do not find it a problem or they are not being asked to report. 

 

 

[tgeezer]

40 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

The fact that you broke the terms of your Extension, that is more relevant than the fact that they did not make any checks during the running of the extension, but waited until your subsequent application. It is very likely you signed a paper confirming you understood the terms. (And possibly the consequences of not adhering to them). 

 

Sorry to be scaremongering, but at this time nobody knows. 

As I have pointed out what we may have signed is probably meaningless and nobody has addressed that. 

This Looks like a case of the cart driving the horse; a superfluous check has become the issue.  

[jacko45k]

4 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

As I have pointed out what we may have signed is probably meaningless and nobody has addressed that. 

This Looks like a case of the cart driving the horse; a superfluous check has become the issue.  

I don't know how you determine that an agreement you signed was 'meaningless'.... (well yes it was to me at the time as I believe it was in Thai)... but pretty sure it was supposedly making me aware of the terms of the Extension and the consequences of not adhering to them. 

I was actually surprised more IOs didn't require this check... but of course it is not stipulated in a police order.

Quite wrong to be leaving it until the next year, and making it a requirement for a subsequent extension, it certainly  isn't written that way. 

 

 

[tgeezer]

51 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

I don't know how you determine that an agreement you signed was 'meaningless'.... (well yes it was to me at the time as I believe it was in Thai)... but pretty sure it was supposedly making me aware of the terms of the Extension and the consequences of not adhering to them. 

I was actually surprised more IOs didn't require this check... but of course it is not stipulated in a police order.

Quite wrong to be leaving it until the next year, and making it a requirement for a subsequent extension, it certainly  isn't written that way. 

 

 

Are you like me in that you keep 800.000THB in a fixed account which is added to annually in the sum of 10,000THB?  

If so why do you find it quite reasonable to have to prove it 90 days after extending?   

Extensions are given based on the past year’s performance, income at monthly checkpoints, and now, money in the bank at more than just three months prior, why is it surprising or quite wrong for this to continue? 

Edited December 25, 2019 by tgeezer

[tgeezer]

43 minutes ago, jacko45k said:

I don't know how you determine that an agreement you signed was 'meaningless'.... (well yes it was to me at the time as I believe it was in Thai)... but pretty sure it was supposedly making me aware of the terms of the Extension and the consequences of not adhering to them. 

 

 

 

Need I point out that if you didn’t understand what you signed then  you made up the terms of the extension and the consequences of not adhering to them. 

 

[jacko45k]

6 hours ago, tgeezer said:

Are you like me in that you keep 800.000THB in a fixed account which is added to annually in the sum of 10,000THB?  

If so why do you find it quite reasonable to have to prove it 90 days after extending?   

Extensions are given based on the past year’s performance, income at monthly checkpoints, and now, money in the bank at more than just three months prior, why is it surprising or quite wrong for this to continue? 

I keep the money in a Savings acct and no need to add to it... but I do, as I draw money to live off from it. 

As the police order and conditions of my Extension require I do not go below 800k, I see no problem with having to prove it at that time. We do not live in a society where one's word is trusted. What I would find unreasonable, is being tufted out of the country at next renewal because I was unable to prove it. 

The police order conditions say absolutely nothing wrt 'past year's performance' whatsoever for money in a bank, other than the 800k has to have been seasoned for 2 months. As to 'continue', it has not even happened yet! That will be apparent after March 2020. 

[jacko45k]

6 hours ago, tgeezer said:

Need I point out that if you didn’t understand what you signed then  you made up the terms of the extension and the consequences of not adhering to them. 

 

The content of those papers has been posted here and I assumed were the same, I was not given much opportunity to peruse them. So everything I do not read is 'made up'? I have read the terms of the Extension as written in the police orders. Making requirements for after the extension is issued, and presuming they will be checked at the next extension, is also made up. 

[mekongjim]

Today I extended my non-O retirement visa at Mukdahan IO using the 800K method; submitted the proper bank documents.  No TM30 required, but I had to submit a Thai guarantor (= new requirement this time); when I showed the IO my TM30 docs, he accepted the signed photocopy of my landlord's house book and Thai ID, and then he returned the TM30 docs to me.  I had to sign that I was aware of the 800K must remain in the account for 90 days; they gave me that signed document.  In my passport they stapled a report back date of Mar 22 to prove the funds remained intact.  Attached photo.  Additionally, the IO supervisor verified that their office doesn't require submitting TM30s for travel within Thailand.

[tgeezer]

I have posted several times on this topic and if you read all of them I think that you will see that my arguments are consistent and reasonable. 

Read the one where I point out that the 800,000THB is not the only future condition on which the extension depends so I ask, if they feel compelled to check one, then why not the others?  

I see that Mukdahan requires a check after 90 days so perhaps the question should be asked of them. 

I have some pride I am afraid and I believe that if I collude with stupidity I am stupid, I shall fall foul of the hate speech laws at home one day! 

.