I have a retirement visa that expires on 14th November 2012. Last Wednesday 11th July I returned from a trip to UK, for which I obtained a re-entry visa and had my Passport stamped. I asked the official at passport control if she was going to give me 90 days until I had to go to the immigration in Jomptien and she said she had given me until 14th November. I thanked her but I think I'll still go on about 7th October, just to be on the safe side but is there any need for me to go to Jomptien any earlier for anything. I'm paranoid about turning up late and getting fined for something avoidable.

Moved to visa forum.

She was talking about your permitted to stay stamp - no change for that from what you had prior to travel. But you must report address 90 days from day of return (that being day 1 of count) so yes you need to report in October.

I think you'll find that your 90 day reporting is not specifically visa related, but rather how long you have been in the country. Although not on a retirement visa, if I haven't left the country within a 90 day period, then I have to report (currently on a Non-O). That has happened during visa extention renewal periods

90 days would be around the 11th October.

Suspect it would be closer to 8 October. But there is a 15 days early until 7 days late window if doing in person.

lopburi, one question to you: what is the risk of not / far too late reporting (besides the fine)???

None, it only carries a fine.

But why would you not report? At most offices it can be done by mail.

None, it only carries a fine.

But why would you not report? At most offices it can be done by mail.

I forgot and as the fine is the same I thought "OK, than better late®". To be honest I'm also a bit bua to make the trip through BKK to their office! About your mail suggestion I wasn't informed (farang baba.......)

Thanks for your answer!

If you are already late mail reporting is not an option however.

Info on mailing in your report here: http://bangkok.immigration.go.th/en/base.php?page=90days

If you are already late mail reporting is not an option however.

No, not (yet) but than I wait until I have to renew my visa lop!

Thanks for your answers!!!

Just FYI the fine can be up to 5,000 baht plus 200 baht per day. Normal fine is 2,000 for simple late and doing report or 4,000 if found in on a check. The 200 baht per day is not defined but suspect would be if told of fine and not able to pay each day would add 200 baht (just as each day in jail removes 200 baht).

Just FYI the fine can be up to 5,000 baht plus 200 baht per day. Normal fine is 2,000 for simple late and doing report or 4,000 if found in on a check. The 200 baht per day is not defined but suspect would be if told of fine and not able to pay each day would add 200 baht (just as each day in jail removes 200 baht).

Oh, ouch I think I better go!

I have a slightly similar thing - I arrived in Thailand on a non-immigrant B visa on 11th (approx) of June. 90 days from then is 9th September. I then got my work permit & extension of stay on 5th July, and this was accompanied with a slip of paper stapled in my passport saying that my next reporting date is 3rd October, i.e. 90 days after the date I got my extension stamp. Is this normal, i.e. does the extension stamp re-set the clock, or is this more likely a mistake by the official at the One Stop Visa Centre?

The first extension resets the clock.

OK thanks for confirming.

Out of curiosity, why does the first extension reset the clock but not subsequent extensions?

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect App

This is on their website in FAQ

. Question : What is the punishment in case of late/not notifying of residence every 90 days ?

Answer : -In case notifying in person, the alien will be punished with a fine of 2,000 Bath.

- In case of being arrested for not notifying on the due date, the fine is 4,000 Bath and with an additional fine of 200 Bath for each day which passes until the law is complied with.

http://bangkok.immigration.go.th/en/base.php?page=faq

Out of curiosity, why does the first extension reset the clock but not subsequent extensions?

Sent from my GT-I9300T using Thaivisa Connect App

Because it is the rule issued by Immigration. It does not reset - it starts the first count as you do not report unless you extend your stay.

It does not reset - it starts the first count as you do not report unless you extend your stay.

OK thanks. Also (again, just out of curiosity), what's the reasoning behind leaving and re-entering the country starting the clock again? And, to be clear, I know it's because that's the rule set by immigration, my question is why is this the rule - if anyone knows...???

I better don't take the risk but I think the "case of being arrested for not notifying on the due date" is not big. Anyway Baht 2.000 after one week delay or after six months is earned money.......

It does not reset - it starts the first count as you do not report unless you extend your stay.

OK thanks. Also (again, just out of curiosity), what's the reasoning behind leaving and re-entering the country starting the clock again? And, to be clear, I know it's because that's the rule set by immigration, my question is why is this the rule - if anyone knows...???

The Immigration department have made this a part of their legislation. To find out what there reasoning is they would have to explain.

It does not reset - it starts the first count as you do not report unless you extend your stay.

OK thanks. Also (again, just out of curiosity), what's the reasoning behind leaving and re-entering the country starting the clock again? And, to be clear, I know it's because that's the rule set by immigration, my question is why is this the rule - if anyone knows...???

Because you are notifying Immigration that you have been in Thailand for 90 days, if you leave then it must follow that the clock is reset when you return.

That and to avoid having to report when you are not actually here. The report is for being in Thailand 90 days without leaving so logic says you would not report otherwise. Some rules are actually logical.

Yeah makes sense (within the context of this rule being there in the first place, that is). Thanks.