All Non O Visas from Hull now need 800K Bht in the bank

[TexasRanger]

Sadly there are plenty of us with families here who do earn a decent wage but don't fit into neat little boxes which mean a non o are our only means if staying in the country. If you work globally and can't guarantee to be here at a certain time to be able to do an extension of stay that option is out of the question, residency is a ridiculously convoluted process, what other options are available? Have to stick with Non O for now no matter how hard they make it.

[Satcommlee]

Sadly there are plenty of us with families here who do earn a decent wage but don't fit into neat little boxes which mean a non o are our only means if staying in the country. If you work globally and can't guarantee to be here at a certain time to be able to do an extension of stay that option is out of the question, residency is a ridiculously convoluted process, what other options are available? Have to stick with Non O for now no matter how hard they make it.

That is the one thing that worries me, as I often travel but have to be around for the month my extension of stay is under consideration. I came very close this year as I had to fly out the day after I was due to return to get my 1 year stamp.. If they had told me "Not had reply from Bangkok", then I don't know what I would have done. Would probably have to start all over again including getting the Non-O visa.

Then again I wouldn't be able to get it from Hull apparently because my wife kept her maiden name.

I'm wondering if this maiden name issue is just so that people that can't read Thai (typically the UK consulates) can simply check to see that the THAI ID matches up.

If you don't share the same surname then you probably have to apply at the embassy, but Hull are not going to tell you that as they make too much money out of issuing visas.

[tdm]

Without reading the whole 15 pages of outrage; I am assuming that with regard to the equivalent of 800k baht 'lump-sum' in a UK account, that does NOT have the same 'seasoning' stipulations that apply to Thai currency in a Thai bank account? It's a lot easier to wing extra funds into a non-Thai account (and out again) than tying up the funds while watching the clock in an account in LOS.

i have £2500 a month coming in...from pension and property rent..cash in bank not current .. i was rejected..

I read the whole thread and saw your earlier posts. You cannot combine income streams on a visa application. It has to be in a single current account. If you paid the rent into the same account as your pension gets paid into, then it probably would have qualified.

Anyway, what's Birmingham doing these days? Someone posted evidence of their Non-O multiple issued against having a 7-year Thai marriage without financial proof on the last page (late last month). Anyone with more up to date info?

Sent application for non O multi entry by Special delivery on Monday 7/10/13 to Birmingham. Am aged under 50 and included copies of marriage cert in thai and english, copy of wife's passport, fee, and self addressed special delivery envelope. No financial details were included. Passport returned with Visa on Thursday 10/10/13.

[tdm]

Without reading the whole 15 pages of outrage; I am assuming that with regard to the equivalent of 800k baht 'lump-sum' in a UK account, that does NOT have the same 'seasoning' stipulations that apply to Thai currency in a Thai bank account? It's a lot easier to wing extra funds into a non-Thai account (and out again) than tying up the funds while watching the clock in an account in LOS.

i have £2500 a month coming in...from pension and property rent..cash in bank not current .. i was rejected..

I read the whole thread and saw your earlier posts. You cannot combine income streams on a visa application. It has to be in a single current account. If you paid the rent into the same account as your pension gets paid into, then it probably would have qualified.

Anyway, what's Birmingham doing these days? Someone posted evidence of their Non-O multiple issued against having a 7-year Thai marriage without financial proof on the last page (late last month). Anyone with more up to date info?

Sent application for non O multi entry by Special delivery on Monday 7/10/13 to Birmingham. Am aged under 50 and included copies of marriage cert in thai and english, copy of wife's passport, fee, and self addressed special delivery envelope. No financial details were included. Passport returned with Visa on Thursday 10/10/13.

[VBF]

Without reading the whole 15 pages of outrage; I am assuming that with regard to the equivalent of 800k baht 'lump-sum' in a UK account, that does NOT have the same 'seasoning' stipulations that apply to Thai currency in a Thai bank account? It's a lot easier to wing extra funds into a non-Thai account (and out again) than tying up the funds while watching the clock in an account in LOS.

i have £2500 a month coming in...from pension and property rent..cash in bank not current .. i was rejected..

I read the whole thread and saw your earlier posts. You cannot combine income streams on a visa application. It has to be in a single current account. If you paid the rent into the same account as your pension gets paid into, then it probably would have qualified.

Anyway, what's Birmingham doing these days? Someone posted evidence of their Non-O multiple issued against having a 7-year Thai marriage without financial proof on the last page (late last month). Anyone with more up to date info?

Sent application for non O multi entry by Special delivery on Monday 7/10/13 to Birmingham. Am aged under 50 and included copies of marriage cert in thai and english, copy of wife's passport, fee, and self addressed special delivery envelope. No financial details were included. Passport returned with Visa on Thursday 10/10/13.

That would appear to be OK for the married "Multiple Non-O" applications, however it would appear that Birmingham may now be the same as Hull for applications from people over 50 and single.

On the home page of the Birmingham website http://www.thailand-visa.com/ it now states:

"With immediate effect all Non-Immigrant Multiple Entry visas can not be issued on the same day, as we require authorisation from the Royal Thai Embassy in London. Once approval has been granted the visa will be issued.

If your application is declined you will be informed.

Please ensure we have your UK contact telephone number.

All other visas will be issued on the same day as usual providing we have all the correct documentation."

One assumes therefore, that a copy of TDM's application as a married man must have been sent to London and they accepted it.

So the big question is "Have any single applicants over 50 been successful at Birmingham in the last month?"

Oh and by the way, Hull now state categorically that “Income through other means such as rented out property is not accepted.”

Edited October 14, 2013 by VBF

[smedly]

So the big question is "Have any single applicants over 50 been successful at Birmingham in the last month?"

without the financial requirements - well the answer seems pretty obvious - no

someone in the PTP government seems to think this is a good idea and we all know how qualified they are - TIT doesn't work anymore for me it's gone beyond that or should I say below that - if you ain't got slanty eyes your not wanted here - are we watching Thailands migration into the United States Of China - I wonder

[NanLaew]

I recall the first government agencies statements regarding attracting a 'better class' of visitor started coming out almost two years ago. These statements were met mostly with hoots of derision from the TV 'perpetual tourist' members. Over the same period, the relative ease of getting pretty much any sort of Thai visa in neighboring countries has been gradually reduced. This has been mostly accepted but did generate a huge amount of righteous indignation from the aforementioned group. The idea of some sort of compulsory insurance for all visitors has been on the radar for about six months at least which was generally met with head scratching on these pages. More recently the Thai press has been reporting on the worrying trend of sick and insolvent foreigners clogging up the public health facilities but the TV'ers opinion on that REALITY is curiously missing.

Now it is getting harder to qualify for a visa in your homeland and if you can't (or are unwilling) to indicate that you have a moderate income or realistic bank balance, there's a good chance your application will be denied.

I mean, it's not as if we haven't been warned is it?

[VBF]

I recall the first government agencies statements regarding attracting a 'better class' of visitor started coming out almost two years ago. These statements were met mostly with hoots of derision from the TV 'perpetual tourist' members. Over the same period, the relative ease of getting pretty much any sort of Thai visa in neighboring countries has been gradually reduced. This has been mostly accepted but did generate a huge amount of righteous indignation from the aforementioned group. The idea of some sort of compulsory insurance for all visitors has been on the radar for about six months at least which was generally met with head scratching on these pages. More recently the Thai press has been reporting on the worrying trend of sick and insolvent foreigners clogging up the public health facilities but the TV'ers opinion on that REALITY is curiously missing.

Now it is getting harder to qualify for a visa in your homeland and if you can't (or are unwilling) to indicate that you have a moderate income or realistic bank balance, there's a good chance your application will be denied.

I mean, it's not as if we haven't been warned is it?

I think it’s fair to say that, despite 16 pages of complaint and discussion about these new measures, we cannot in all honesty blame the Thai government for this action.

I’m as guilty as the next man of using the past generosity of the visa system to get what I want. In particular for effectively using Multiple O visas as “versatile tourist visas”. By getting one of these, a 3-6 month stay in Thailand becomes (or became) more convenient inasmuch as I could leave and re-enter Thailand as often as I chose with the very minor restriction of ensuring that I never stayed more than 90 days.

Now I can show the money going into my current account for 3 months and get the Multiple O – that is until the rules change again! What I fail to understand is the refusal to allow instant-access savings accounts to be used especially as this is allowed for retirement extensions in Thailand itself. After all, if I have had 800,000 Baht immediately available for 3 months, why should they care what the account is called?

As Smedly said in Post 355: “they should have given 3 months notice or at least consider applicants that obviously meet the requirements if they show multiple bank statements in their name showing balances far exceeding what they want but just not all in a current account (who keeps 18k GBP in a current account ????)”

Or I can apply for a double-entry tourist visa and still choose to stay for 3-6 months but it means at least one trip to Immigration for an extension and, more importantly, I shall have less choice of when I travel in and out of Thailand. Plus, if I take too many trips to neighbouring countries, I shall run out of entries for Thailand. This is where the Multiple O is so convenient.

But I suspect that the “bottom line” is that the Multiple O was never INTENDED to be used in that way; rather it was a loophole, coupled with a generous interpretation of the rules by some consulates that allowed this to happen. I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t accept that Thailand has the right to control who is allowed in – I do after all support immigration controls into the UK!

Couple that with the other changes NanLaew has mentioned and one can indeed see that the Thailand with which some of us are familiar is changing.

Then again, if you live in Thailand or spend enough time there, you should be able to see many other fundamental changes in Thailand and there will be more, some of which we will see as progress and others which we won’t. Those are of course another topic but as NanLaew says “It’s not as if we haven’t been warned”. I just wish that we could sometimes be FOREwarned!

Edited October 14, 2013 by VBF

[Patronus]

I recall the first government agencies statements regarding attracting a 'better class' of visitor started coming out almost two years ago. These statements were met mostly with hoots of derision from the TV 'perpetual tourist' members. Over the same period, the relative ease of getting pretty much any sort of Thai visa in neighboring countries has been gradually reduced. This has been mostly accepted but did generate a huge amount of righteous indignation from the aforementioned group. The idea of some sort of compulsory insurance for all visitors has been on the radar for about six months at least which was generally met with head scratching on these pages. More recently the Thai press has been reporting on the worrying trend of sick and insolvent foreigners clogging up the public health facilities but the TV'ers opinion on that REALITY is curiously missing.

Now it is getting harder to qualify for a visa in your homeland and if you can't (or are unwilling) to indicate that you have a moderate income or realistic bank balance, there's a good chance your application will be denied.

I mean, it's not as if we haven't been warned is it?

I think it’s fair to say that, despite 16 pages of complaint and discussion about these new measures, we cannot in all honesty blame the Thai government for this action.

I’m as guilty as the next man of using the past generosity of the visa system to get what I want. In particular for effectively using Multiple O visas as “versatile tourist visas”. By getting one of these, a 3-6 month stay in Thailand becomes (or became) more convenient inasmuch as I could leave and re-enter Thailand as often as I chose with the very minor restriction of ensuring that I never stayed more than 90 days.

Now I can show the money going into my current account for 3 months and get the Multiple O – that is until the rules change again! What I fail to understand is the refusal to allow instant-access savings accounts to be used especially as this is allowed for retirement extensions in Thailand itself. After all, if I have had 800,000 Baht immediately available for 3 months, why should they care what the account is called?

As Smedly said in Post 355: “they should have given 3 months notice or at least consider applicants that obviously meet the requirements if they show multiple bank statements in their name showing balances far exceeding what they want but just not all in a current account (who keeps 18k GBP in a current account ????)”

Or I can apply for a double-entry tourist visa and still choose to stay for 3-6 months but it means at least one trip to Immigration for an extension and, more importantly, I shall have less choice of when I travel in and out of Thailand. Plus, if I take too many trips to neighbouring countries, I shall run out of entries for Thailand. This is where the Multiple O is so convenient.

But I suspect that the “bottom line” is that the Multiple O was never INTENDED to be used in that way; rather it was a loophole, coupled with a generous interpretation of the rules by some consulates that allowed this to happen. I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t accept that Thailand has the right to control who is allowed in – I do after all support immigration controls into the UK!

Couple that with the other changes NanLaew has mentioned and one can indeed see that the Thailand with which some of us are familiar is changing.

Then again, if you live in Thailand or spend enough time there, you should be able to see many other fundamental changes in Thailand and there will be more, some of which we will see as progress and others which we won’t. Those are of course another topic but as NanLaew says “It’s not as if we haven’t been warned”. I just wish that we could sometimes be FOREwarned!

A good post.

However, just reading it reinforces the message that Thailand is becoming less welcoming.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that there should be financial criteria for a visa to Thailand. I believe there should be TOTAL consistency, transparency, logic, commonsense and fairness in applying visa rules. Somebody who cannot meet SENSIBLE financial criteria should not be permitted to stay - irrespective of bleating from married Farangs who claim their family can live on 20,000 Baht a month. This may be the case but is clearly not what the Thai authorities want. Of course, that in itself is unfair because they are suggesting that a Thai couple can live on the bread line but a Farang/Thai couple cannot. As some posters have pointed out, no account is taken of what a Thai spouse may earn.

I am OK, I can meet the visa and extension requirements from income or capital - but only just because of the rule that disallows rental income. That is patently stupid and shows a total lack of understanding of an applicants income and expenditure. That same level of stupidity allows a pensioner in the UK to obtain a visa just by showing receipt of a state pension of an unspecified amount.

I am not married but I have been with my partner for 7 years. I live virtually full-time in Thailand and have preferred to use Non Immigrant 'O' visa system. Like many posters, I have "improved the life" of my partner and her family - to a level that would not have been possible without my involvement. If Thailand really wants to make it increasingly difficult for people like me to stay here then I would certainly consider alternatives.

[AYJAYDEE]

I recall the first government agencies statements regarding attracting a 'better class' of visitor started coming out almost two years ago. These statements were met mostly with hoots of derision from the TV 'perpetual tourist' members. Over the same period, the relative ease of getting pretty much any sort of Thai visa in neighboring countries has been gradually reduced. This has been mostly accepted but did generate a huge amount of righteous indignation from the aforementioned group. The idea of some sort of compulsory insurance for all visitors has been on the radar for about six months at least which was generally met with head scratching on these pages. More recently the Thai press has been reporting on the worrying trend of sick and insolvent foreigners clogging up the public health facilities but the TV'ers opinion on that REALITY is curiously missing.

Now it is getting harder to qualify for a visa in your homeland and if you can't (or are unwilling) to indicate that you have a moderate income or realistic bank balance, there's a good chance your application will be denied.

I mean, it's not as if we haven't been warned is it?

I think it’s fair to say that, despite 16 pages of complaint and discussion about these new measures, we cannot in all honesty blame the Thai government for this action.

I’m as guilty as the next man of using the past generosity of the visa system to get what I want. In particular for effectively using Multiple O visas as “versatile tourist visas”. By getting one of these, a 3-6 month stay in Thailand becomes (or became) more convenient inasmuch as I could leave and re-enter Thailand as often as I chose with the very minor restriction of ensuring that I never stayed more than 90 days.

Now I can show the money going into my current account for 3 months and get the Multiple O – that is until the rules change again! What I fail to understand is the refusal to allow instant-access savings accounts to be used especially as this is allowed for retirement extensions in Thailand itself. After all, if I have had 800,000 Baht immediately available for 3 months, why should they care what the account is called?

As Smedly said in Post 355: “they should have given 3 months notice or at least consider applicants that obviously meet the requirements if they show multiple bank statements in their name showing balances far exceeding what they want but just not all in a current account (who keeps 18k GBP in a current account ????)”

Or I can apply for a double-entry tourist visa and still choose to stay for 3-6 months but it means at least one trip to Immigration for an extension and, more importantly, I shall have less choice of when I travel in and out of Thailand. Plus, if I take too many trips to neighbouring countries, I shall run out of entries for Thailand. This is where the Multiple O is so convenient.

But I suspect that the “bottom line” is that the Multiple O was never INTENDED to be used in that way; rather it was a loophole, coupled with a generous interpretation of the rules by some consulates that allowed this to happen. I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t accept that Thailand has the right to control who is allowed in – I do after all support immigration controls into the UK!

Couple that with the other changes NanLaew has mentioned and one can indeed see that the Thailand with which some of us are familiar is changing.

Then again, if you live in Thailand or spend enough time there, you should be able to see many other fundamental changes in Thailand and there will be more, some of which we will see as progress and others which we won’t. Those are of course another topic but as NanLaew says “It’s not as if we haven’t been warned”. I just wish that we could sometimes be FOREwarned!

A good post.

However, just reading it reinforces the message that Thailand is becoming less welcoming.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that there should be financial criteria for a visa to Thailand. I believe there should be TOTAL consistency, transparency, logic, commonsense and fairness in applying visa rules. Somebody who cannot meet SENSIBLE financial criteria should not be permitted to stay - irrespective of bleating from married Farangs who claim their family can live on 20,000 Baht a month. This may be the case but is clearly not what the Thai authorities want. Of course, that in itself is unfair because they are suggesting that a Thai couple can live on the bread line but a Farang/Thai couple cannot. As some posters have pointed out, no account is taken of what a Thai spouse may earn.

I am OK, I can meet the visa and extension requirements from income or capital - but only just because of the rule that disallows rental income. That is patently stupid and shows a total lack of understanding of an applicants income and expenditure. That same level of stupidity allows a pensioner in the UK to obtain a visa just by showing receipt of a state pension of an unspecified amount.

I am not married but I have been with my partner for 7 years. I live virtually full-time in Thailand and have preferred to use Non Immigrant 'O' visa system. Like many posters, I have "improved the life" of my partner and her family - to a level that would not have been possible without my involvement. If Thailand really wants to make it increasingly difficult for people like me to stay here then I would certainly consider alternatives.

if u can meet the requirements by income OR capital, why do you say "only just"??

[smedly]

I personally don't have an issue generally with these rule introductions, I do however have an issue as to how they were implemented and the obvious lack of planning and also what exactly they are trying to achieve, I know of many people in the past and present that have come to Thailand on VOA and remained here for years living on a shoestring - working illegally - selling drugs etc etc, these people never applied for a visa like I have done for almost 9 years, I never had a gripe having to show income or funds in my bank which has been ongoing now for the last 3 years

I do however have a serious gripe concerning the limitation now placed on these rules, it maybe doesn't matter so much right now with interest rates being as they are but lets for a moment imagine that interest rates are at 5-6% as they were in the past and may be going forward, that is a whole different scenario, expecting people to keep as much as 20k sterling in a no interest account is quite frankly Ludacris and ill thought out and exceptional especially when these rules don't line up with those of their own country regarding retirement extentions

But of course we are talking about uneducated government officials in Thailand so I guess it is no surprise how they dream these things up and the level of planning and professionalism that is very obviously lacking

I have always paid my hospital bills on the rare occasions I needed treatment, perhaps I will revise going forward - having the ability to pay and actually admitting to it are two different things entirely - over the years I have contributed a considerable amount of money to the Thai economy including taxes

[lastbastion]

I recall the first government agencies statements regarding attracting a 'better class' of visitor started coming out almost two years ago. These statements were met mostly with hoots of derision from the TV 'perpetual tourist' members. Over the same period, the relative ease of getting pretty much any sort of Thai visa in neighboring countries has been gradually reduced. This has been mostly accepted but did generate a huge amount of righteous indignation from the aforementioned group. The idea of some sort of compulsory insurance for all visitors has been on the radar for about six months at least which was generally met with head scratching on these pages. More recently the Thai press has been reporting on the worrying trend of sick and insolvent foreigners clogging up the public health facilities but the TV'ers opinion on that REALITY is curiously missing.

Now it is getting harder to qualify for a visa in your homeland and if you can't (or are unwilling) to indicate that you have a moderate income or realistic bank balance, there's a good chance your application will be denied.

I mean, it's not as if we haven't been warned is it?

I think it’s fair to say that, despite 16 pages of complaint and discussion about these new measures, we cannot in all honesty blame the Thai government for this action.

I’m as guilty as the next man of using the past generosity of the visa system to get what I want. In particular for effectively using Multiple O visas as “versatile tourist visas”. By getting one of these, a 3-6 month stay in Thailand becomes (or became) more convenient inasmuch as I could leave and re-enter Thailand as often as I chose with the very minor restriction of ensuring that I never stayed more than 90 days.

Now I can show the money going into my current account for 3 months and get the Multiple O – that is until the rules change again! What I fail to understand is the refusal to allow instant-access savings accounts to be used especially as this is allowed for retirement extensions in Thailand itself. After all, if I have had 800,000 Baht immediately available for 3 months, why should they care what the account is called?

As Smedly said in Post 355: “they should have given 3 months notice or at least consider applicants that obviously meet the requirements if they show multiple bank statements in their name showing balances far exceeding what they want but just not all in a current account (who keeps 18k GBP in a current account ????)”

Or I can apply for a double-entry tourist visa and still choose to stay for 3-6 months but it means at least one trip to Immigration for an extension and, more importantly, I shall have less choice of when I travel in and out of Thailand. Plus, if I take too many trips to neighbouring countries, I shall run out of entries for Thailand. This is where the Multiple O is so convenient.

But I suspect that the “bottom line” is that the Multiple O was never INTENDED to be used in that way; rather it was a loophole, coupled with a generous interpretation of the rules by some consulates that allowed this to happen. I would be a hypocrite if I didn’t accept that Thailand has the right to control who is allowed in – I do after all support immigration controls into the UK!

Couple that with the other changes NanLaew has mentioned and one can indeed see that the Thailand with which some of us are familiar is changing.

Then again, if you live in Thailand or spend enough time there, you should be able to see many other fundamental changes in Thailand and there will be more, some of which we will see as progress and others which we won’t. Those are of course another topic but as NanLaew says “It’s not as if we haven’t been warned”. I just wish that we could sometimes be FOREwarned!

A good post.

However, just reading it reinforces the message that Thailand is becoming less welcoming.

Don't get me wrong, I believe that there should be financial criteria for a visa to Thailand. I believe there should be TOTAL consistency, transparency, logic, commonsense and fairness in applying visa rules. Somebody who cannot meet SENSIBLE financial criteria should not be permitted to stay - irrespective of bleating from married Farangs who claim their family can live on 20,000 Baht a month. This may be the case but is clearly not what the Thai authorities want. Of course, that in itself is unfair because they are suggesting that a Thai couple can live on the bread line but a Farang/Thai couple cannot. As some posters have pointed out, no account is taken of what a Thai spouse may earn.

I am OK, I can meet the visa and extension requirements from income or capital - but only just because of the rule that disallows rental income. That is patently stupid and shows a total lack of understanding of an applicants income and expenditure. That same level of stupidity allows a pensioner in the UK to obtain a visa just by showing receipt of a state pension of an unspecified amount.

I am not married but I have been with my partner for 7 years. I live virtually full-time in Thailand and have preferred to use Non Immigrant 'O' visa system. Like many posters, I have "improved the life" of my partner and her family - to a level that would not have been possible without my involvement. If Thailand really wants to make it increasingly difficult for people like me to stay here then I would certainly consider alternatives.

if u can meet the requirements by income OR capital, why do you say "only just"??

Should I choose to change from Non Imm 'O' to an extension then I do not want to arse about with evidencing bank deposits in Thailand.

I would take the income option and obtain an income certificate from the British embassy. At an exchange rate of 49 THB/GBP my current pension (only) just meets the retirement extension criteria.

With rental income from 3 properties and annual dividends from a private investment I am comfortably in excess of the 65,000 Baht per month - my point is that Hull (or any other consul) would not take the additional income into account.

[Maestro]

...

But of course we are talking about uneducated government officials in Thailand so I guess it is no surprise how they dream these things up and the level of planning and professionalism that is very obviously lacking

...

At this point we do not know at what level in the bureaucracy and by a person with what level of education "these things", ie the new requirements for the multiple-entry non-O visa posted on the websites of the Thai consulate in Hull and the Thai embassy in London, were "dreamt up".

[Mario2008]

I can only advise to inform the Thai foreign ministry about the strange new rules being enforced.

[kannot]

Many here need to learn the rules and the differences between Thai Immigration and Thai Embassies and Consulates. Immigration and Embassies are not remotely related ran by two different ministers so different rules. I agree with an earlier poster the few who have been thumbing there noses at Thai law have affected many who follow the law. Every time we have had one of these changes it has been the slackers who cry the loudest.

I have never understood how someone married could support there family on less money than a single retiree needs to live on about time they raised the amount.

How about MY WIFE supports ME in Thailand then??? she earns way more than the amount asked for.

Separation rates in the general population, let alone in foreigner-Thai marriages, are high. why should Thailand live in hope that when you get sick your wife and not the state will look after you?

How exactly will the Thai state look after me???? They wont ,so I cannot be a drain on Thai society.

[Maestro]

I can only advise to inform the Thai foreign ministry about the strange new rules being enforced.

That would indeed be the logical course of action to take for anyone wishing to inquire about the big difference between the requirements given on the website of the embassy in London and those on the Director General, Department of Consular Affairs, 123 Chaengwattana Rd., Tungsonghong, Laksi, Bangkok 10212, Thailand

[steve187]

VBF

could you not get a re-entry permit on your permission to stay stamp and that way avoid using one of you limited entries, just thinking,

I am flying next week and I'm going to hull tomorrow for a double entry tourist to allow my stay this winter, i normally get a non 'o'

[AYJAYDEE]

VBF

could you not get a re-entry permit on your permission to stay stamp and that way avoid using one of you limited entries, just thinking,

I am flying next week and I'm going to hull tomorrow for a double entry tourist to allow my stay this winter, i normally get a non 'o'

does hull give out triple entries??

[VBF]

VBF

could you not get a re-entry permit on your permission to stay stamp and that way avoid using one of you limited entries, just thinking,

I am flying next week and I'm going to hull tomorrow for a double entry tourist to allow my stay this winter, i normally get a non 'o'

Steve187,

Well at present, I'm in UK with no plans to go anywhere for at least 3 months, therefore I have no visa at all until I next apply. (My current "O" expires in about 3 weeks) My comments were based on what I have done in the past and what I might have to do in the future.

So are you suggesting that I can get a double or triple entry Tourist Visa and apply for a re-entry permit to avoid using one of the entries?

To be honest, that thought hadn't crossed my mind but I don't know if a re-entry permit is possible on a Tourist Visa - do you?

If not, maybe one of the Mods knows the answer - I bet Maestro does! If it is possible, it gives back a little freedom albeit at the expense of another visit to Immigration to get the permit, so thanks for the suggestion

Oh and Yes - apparently Hull will issue Triple Entry Tourist Visas, (75UKP) but of course the last entry must be used within 6 months of the issue date.

Edited October 15, 2013 by VBF

[AYJAYDEE]

VBF

could you not get a re-entry permit on your permission to stay stamp and that way avoid using one of you limited entries, just thinking,

I am flying next week and I'm going to hull tomorrow for a double entry tourist to allow my stay this winter, i normally get a non 'o'

Steve187,

Well at present, I'm in UK with no plans to go anywhere for at least 3 months, therefore I have no visa at all until I next apply. (My current "O" expires in about 3 weeks) My comments were based on what I have done in the past and what I might have to do in the future.

So are you suggesting that I can get a double or triple entry Tourist Visa and apply for a re-entry permit to avoid using one of the entries?

To be honest, that thought hadn't crossed my mind but I don't know if a re-entry permit is possible on a Tourist Visa - do you?

If not, maybe one of the Mods knows the answer - I bet Maestro does! If it is possible, it gives back a little freedom albeit at the expense of another visit to Immigration to get the permit, so thanks for the suggestion

Oh and Yes - apparently Hull will issue Triple Entry Tourist Visas, (75UKP) but of course the last entry must be used within 6 months of the issue date.

and wouldnt that give you about 260+ days with extensions? sounds pretty good.

[fredob43]

I haven't gone through all the post's. But for my three pence worth Birmingham is still issuing single entry 0 visa if your married, you need copy marriage paper if in Thai translation copy ID no need to show any monies. Cost £50 £60 if you want to wait take's about 15 min: got mine yesterday.

[VBF]

VBF

could you not get a re-entry permit on your permission to stay stamp and that way avoid using one of you limited entries, just thinking,

I am flying next week and I'm going to hull tomorrow for a double entry tourist to allow my stay this winter, i normally get a non 'o'

Steve187,

Well at present, I'm in UK with no plans to go anywhere for at least 3 months, therefore I have no visa at all until I next apply. (My current "O" expires in about 3 weeks) My comments were based on what I have done in the past and what I might have to do in the future.

So are you suggesting that I can get a double or triple entry Tourist Visa and apply for a re-entry permit to avoid using one of the entries?

To be honest, that thought hadn't crossed my mind but I don't know if a re-entry permit is possible on a Tourist Visa - do you?

If not, maybe one of the Mods knows the answer - I bet Maestro does! If it is possible, it gives back a little freedom albeit at the expense of another visit to Immigration to get the permit, so thanks for the suggestion

Oh and Yes - apparently Hull will issue Triple Entry Tourist Visas, (75UKP) but of course the last entry must be used within 6 months of the issue date.

and wouldnt that give you about 260+ days with extensions? sounds pretty good.

It is, but still not as convenient as having the Multiple O and being able to come and go as you please which is how it's been up to now.

[Pattaya Pat]

Just so I have this clear, Hull (and probably the other consults) stopped handing out 1 year NON 'O' visas to every Tom, Dick and Harry some time ago..this will only effect folk who are married to Thai nationals but now need to show 800k in the bank or monthy income, is that correct?

If so, I believe to get an visa extension based on Marriage in Thailand you have to show 400k not 800k?

If I am correct, then the folk who are married here must have been showing 400 or 800k previously anyway if they had an extension based on marriage? And if you are living here with your wife why then would you want to go to Hull to get your visa? Bit confusing this.

If this has screwed anyone (and I don't see how it would be that many) then a triple entry tourist visa will have to suffice?

PP

[Pattaya Pat]

I think some of you need to do some homework on Thailand and its obsure nationalistic rules that are anti-foreigner.

Firstly, under Thai law, any Thai female who marries a foreigner MUST change her name to her husbands name by registering the marraige officially.

This is to stop Thai females from marrying foreigners and then buying land and houses in her maiden name. The fact that she HAS TO change her name and make this record enables tracking to "prevent" her from officially then buying Thai land or Thai houses - or allowing the state at a later date to "claim back" all land and houses in her maiden name if she has not changed it.

Any Thai female who is "married to farang" and has not changed her surname to her hubands has :

Broken the law.

Will automatically lose any land or house she has in her name if caught - or if some snooping neighbour reports her.

Is not "married" under Thai law.

To be honest anyone who thinks that Thai law which adamently prohibits the wives of foreigners to own land or houses would not enforce her to change her family name - well, I do not know.

Secondly - if she has not changed her family name you are not actually married in the eyes of the Thai legal system - the whole process is not formally complete until she changes her name. So it seems many out there are not actually formally married - they have bits of paper saying the ceremony has been done, but you are not legally in Thai married.

So now you understand why Thai Embassies have started asking for marraige certs and ALSO her passport or ID to PROVE she has changed her name and is therefore on record as being married to a foreigner - and so loses her rights to own land or houses in Thailand.

If she has not changed her name - you are not married and you will not be issued with a Non-Imm O visa - cause you are not married in Thailand according to the letter of the law.

Totally false information - name change is not required and a Thai can always buy land regardless of name used - the only restriction is if married to a foreigner the money must be hers and not marriage income (husband has no claim over land).

So if you (a farang) are married to a Thai, he cannot buy his wife a house? If so, as a foreigner cannot own a house, how would a family ever be able to buy/own a house?

What about if you are not married and a foreigner uses his own funds to buy a house and is put in a Thai name (his partner/future wife) that's ok, right??

All this is mind blowing.

[smedly]

Just so I have this clear, Hull (and probably the other consults) stopped handing out 1 year NON 'O' visas to every Tom, Dick and Harry some time ago..this will only effect folk who are married to Thai nationals but now need to show 800k in the bank or monthy income, is that correct?

If so, I believe to get an visa extension based on Marriage in Thailand you have to show 400k not 800k?

If I am correct, then the folk who are married here must have been showing 400 or 800k previously anyway if they had an extension based on marriage? And if you are living here with your wife why then would you want to go to Hull to get your visa? Bit confusing this.

If this has screwed anyone (and I don't see how it would be that many) then a triple entry tourist visa will have to suffice?

PP

if you took the time to read the thread then you'd find you are partly right

This also affects single retires over 50

My main issue as an over 50 retiree is -

1. how it was implemented - 3 months bank statements required meeting the criteria without giving 3 months notice.

2. That some people will have to have as much as 18k gbp in a current account - believe it or not that could amount to as much as 50 quid a month in lost interest and double that if interest rates return to 5-6% levels - 100 GBP a month, no small amount

3. The type of income required (different from retirement visa app in Thailand)

What exactly is the justification for doing this as it doesn't make any sense and appears to be very poorly thought out

Apart from the above I agree in principle to what they are doing - everyone should have to prove their means before going to Thailand for extended periods of time that would generally not be classed as a vacation

It's just a shoddy ill thought out implementation

[lopburi3]

So if you (a farang) are married to a Thai, he cannot buy his wife a house? If so, as a foreigner cannot own a house, how would a family ever be able to buy/own a house?

What about if you are not married and a foreigner uses his own funds to buy a house and is put in a Thai name (his partner/future wife) that's ok, right??

All this is mind blowing.

Your wife can buy a house and land - all she has to do is say the money is hers (not yours or joint marriage) and for you to sign you understand this is being bought with her funds.

If you gave money to a GF she could also buy a house/land as it would not be considered joint marriage income as no marriage.

[laolover88]

Yes. And then she can go to the bank with the Chanoot, have them value the 'property' and borrow xmillion Baht secured on the house and land and you will know nothing

[Pattaya Pat]

Just so I have this clear, Hull (and probably the other consults) stopped handing out 1 year NON 'O' visas to every Tom, Dick and Harry some time ago..this will only effect folk who are married to Thai nationals but now need to show 800k in the bank or monthy income, is that correct?

If so, I believe to get an visa extension based on Marriage in Thailand you have to show 400k not 800k?

If I am correct, then the folk who are married here must have been showing 400 or 800k previously anyway if they had an extension based on marriage? And if you are living here with your wife why then would you want to go to Hull to get your visa? Bit confusing this.

If this has screwed anyone (and I don't see how it would be that many) then a triple entry tourist visa will have to suffice?

PP

if you took the time to read the thread then you'd find you are partly right

This also affects single retires over 50

My main issue as an over 50 retiree is -

1. how it was implemented - 3 months bank statements required meeting the criteria without giving 3 months notice.

2. That some people will have to have as much as 18k gbp in a current account - believe it or not that could amount to as much as 50 quid a month in lost interest and double that if interest rates return to 5-6% levels - 100 GBP a month, no small amount

3. The type of income required (different from retirement visa app in Thailand)

What exactly is the justification for doing this as it doesn't make any sense and appears to be very poorly thought out

Apart from the above I agree in principle to what they are doing - everyone should have to prove their means before going to Thailand for extended periods of time that would generally not be classed as a vacation

It's just a shoddy ill thought out implementation

All pie in the sky to me.

People that previously had marriage visas had to show funds in the bank if getting an extension of stay here in Thailand anyway. Just means you need to do the same when applying in the UK now. That's it, right?

As a footnote, I spoke to someone at Hull around 4 or 5 months ago to ask about getting a NON 'O' based on marriage. She said that you only need to show your marriage certificate but did say she had heard they may be changing the rule to soon to show funds as well. So it was in the works a while back.

[Pattaya Pat]

So if you (a farang) are married to a Thai, he cannot buy his wife a house? If so, as a foreigner cannot own a house, how would a family ever be able to buy/own a house?

What about if you are not married and a foreigner uses his own funds to buy a house and is put in a Thai name (his partner/future wife) that's ok, right??

All this is mind blowing.

Your wife can buy a house and land - all she has to do is say the money is hers (not yours or joint marriage) and for you to sign you understand this is being bought with her funds.

If you gave money to a GF she could also buy a house/land as it would not be considered joint marriage income as no marriage.

Ok, thanks, Lops.

[thaiexpat21]

Just so I have this clear, Hull (and probably the other consults) stopped handing out 1 year NON 'O' visas to every Tom, Dick and Harry some time ago..this will only effect folk who are married to Thai nationals but now need to show 800k in the bank or monthy income, is that correct?

If so, I believe to get an visa extension based on Marriage in Thailand you have to show 400k not 800k?

If I am correct, then the folk who are married here must have been showing 400 or 800k previously anyway if they had an extension based on marriage? And if you are living here with your wife why then would you want to go to Hull to get your visa? Bit confusing this.

If this has screwed anyone (and I don't see how it would be that many) then a triple entry tourist visa will have to suffice?

PP

if you took the time to read the thread then you'd find you are partly right

This also affects single retires over 50

My main issue as an over 50 retiree is -

1. how it was implemented - 3 months bank statements required meeting the criteria without giving 3 months notice.

2. That some people will have to have as much as 18k gbp in a current account - believe it or not that could amount to as much as 50 quid a month in lost interest and double that if interest rates return to 5-6% levels - 100 GBP a month, no small amount

3. The type of income required (different from retirement visa app in Thailand)

What exactly is the justification for doing this as it doesn't make any sense and appears to be very poorly thought out

Apart from the above I agree in principle to what they are doing - everyone should have to prove their means before going to Thailand for extended periods of time that would generally not be classed as a vacation

It's just a shoddy ill thought out implementation

it is all very simple!

An over 50 retiree only needs a single entry "O" visa , a tourist visa or visa exempt entry. All can be used to secure an extension of stay based on retirement .

Follow the process , prove the funds (by income or money in the bank)

Easy

Why all the drama ?