Fined 800 baths for 30 days extension of Tourist Visa

[jollyhangmon]

• Hotel and guesthouse managers are responsible for the TM30 not the foreigner (guest).
• No the tourist cannot be fined for not submitting a TM30 if staying in a hotel

You are still spreading this misinformation. The foreigner is never responsible for filing a TM30 unless he is the master on the housebook. Certainly not when he's renting. Fining the foreigner is just an abuse plain and simple.

According to a lawyer i asked about this irritating matter & who checked the Thai-version of that law you are dead right.

Nobody who is just 'renting' is responsible for submitting this TM-30.

Go figure!

Of course lawyers and Paz are never wrong!

Anyone renting can be considered the Possessor of the property regardless of nationality. A possessor of a property can be fined if either the owner or the possessor fail to submit the TM30 because the law says so. Try speaking to immigration officers.

Yeah, well, you're kickin in open doors.

I'm well aware that immi does as they please here, obviously everyone just as they go along, nothing new there.

Doesn't make it right either.

[Maestro]

According to a lawyer i asked about this irritating matter & who checked the Thai-version of that law you are dead right.

Nobody who is just 'renting' is responsible for submitting this TM-30.

Go figure!

Looking at the Thai text of the Immigration Act is the right thing to do. Did your lawyer tell you how he arrived at that conclusion?

Did he only look at Section 38, or also at the definition of House-Master in Section 4?

[jollyhangmon]

According to a lawyer i asked about this irritating matter & who checked the Thai-version of that law you are dead right.

Nobody who is just 'renting' is responsible for submitting this TM-30.

Go figure!

Looking at the Thai text of the Immigration Act is the right thing to do. Did your lawyer tell you how he arrived at that conclusion?

Did he only look at Section 38, or also at the definition of House-Master in Section 4?

Dunno what & where all he exactly looked up but will forward your suggestion.

However, he said it makes no sense at all (as in zero) if a foreigner - by himself & for himself - does make this 'report', contradicting it's meaning and purpose entirely which is just logical.

Yes, well, agreed, at least half what's going down here hasn't any relation to logic, on a good day that is - the definition of T.I.T. i guess.

What i just found myself (in the English version) is the 'House Master'-Definition in section 4 => 'CHIEF POSSESSOR' !? Really? J.H. Christ, that's a good one indeed.

So, if you are the sole tenant of an apartement, house, whatever - with your name (and only your name) on the rent-contract then you would be the 'chief possessor' i guess, no? Your own chief in fact and as such responsible for the matter in question - and not the OWNER of the property??

Really, again ...??

So far so good. Or rather not good as that is the area where it gets superweird, contradicting & perfectly useless to say the least ...

Let's say - for the sake of argument - i'm a falangoid terrorizer planning to bomb a few Somtam-shacks around here.

Being nasty as i am i would state my - naturally false - address

1. on the visa application (if there is any),

2. on my entry-card (correspondingly false of course),

3. in my SELF-SUBMITTED (!) TM30 - needless to say false again. Just great, makes sense.

NOT, as that is the point of total & utter derailment where the meaning or signification of TM30 is concerned.

Furthermore - again if there is any -

4. bogus address once more in a TM7 for a possible extension of stay in case i haven't bombed enough yet & still some explosives left.

So all the time they would be looking for me at the entirely wrong place, just as planned - if looking for me at all.

Adios and see you when i see you - with a fresh stash of Semtex.

I'd guess you get my drift, the self-submittet usage of TM30 as described above - give or take - and obviously intended by immigration (?, not really sure about that) is certainly somewhat around 101% use- and senseless. Well, just as the lawyer said.

Now look, i've never claimed immi could't/wouldn't fine you for not submitting that (in that case perfectly absurd) piece personally & by yourself for yourself, but - as already figured by others - it's an abuse of it in itself and therefore nothing but the 795th scam if they fine the renter. Period.

[elviajero]

According to a lawyer i asked about this irritating matter & who checked the Thai-version of that law you are dead right.

Nobody who is just 'renting' is responsible for submitting this TM-30.

Go figure!

Looking at the Thai text of the Immigration Act is the right thing to do. Did your lawyer tell you how he arrived at that conclusion?

Did he only look at Section 38, or also at the definition of House-Master in Section 4?

Dunno what & where all he exactly looked up but will forward your suggestion.

However, he said it makes no sense at all (as in zero) if a foreigner - by himself & for himself - does make this 'report', contradicting it's meaning and purpose entirely which is just logical.

Yes, well, agreed, at least half what's going down here hasn't any relation to logic, on a good day that is - the definition of T.I.T. i guess.

What i just found myself (in the English version) is the 'House Master'-Definition in section 4 => 'CHIEF POSSESSOR' !? Really? J.H. Christ, that's a good one indeed.

So, if you are the sole tenant of an apartement, house, whatever - with your name (and only your name) on the rent-contract then you would be the 'chief possessor' i guess, no? Your own chief in fact and as such responsible for the matter in question - and not the OWNER of the property??

Really, again ...??

So far so good. Or rather not good as that is the area where it gets superweird, contradicting & perfectly useless to say the least ...

Let's say - for the sake of argument - i'm a falangoid terrorizer planning to bomb a few Somtam-shacks around here.

Being nasty as i am i would state my - naturally false - address

1. on the visa application (if there is any),

2. on my entry-card (correspondingly false of course),

3. in my SELF-SUBMITTED (!) TM30 - needless to say false again. Just great, makes sense.

NOT, as that is the point of total & utter derailment where the meaning or signification of TM30 is concerned.

Furthermore - again if there is any -

4. bogus address once more in a TM7 for a possible extension of stay in case i haven't bombed enough yet & still some explosives left.

So all the time they would be looking for me at the entirely wrong place, just as planned - if looking for me at all.

Adios and see you when i see you - with a fresh stash of Semtex.

I'd guess you get my drift, the self-submittet usage of TM30 as described above - give or take - and obviously intended by immigration (?, not really sure about that) is certainly somewhat around 101% use- and senseless. Well, just as the lawyer said.

Now look, i've never claimed immi could't/wouldn't fine you for not submitting that (in that case perfectly absurd) piece personally & by yourself for yourself, but - as already figured by others - it's an abuse of it in itself and therefore nothing but the 795th scam if they fine the renter. Period.

This is how it was explained to me by immigration.

House-master = The person named in the Blue Tabien Baan or Yellow Tabien Baan (foreigner). They could be an owner, tenant, relative or whatever.

Owner = The owner whether Thai or foreigner. They may or may not be named in a Tabien Baan.

Possessor = Anyone considered to be in possession of the property that doesn't qualify as a house-master or owner. e.g a foreign tenant, Thai wife not named in the Tabien Baan or the owner.

You have to understand that the immigration act is over 30 years old and probably not written with foreign property owners and tenants in mind. But it does not discriminate nationality so a foreigner renting a condo can be considered the possessor of the property and fined. Probably not it's original intention but nonetheless the result of changing times.

The owner is always responsible and most likely the person that immigration will fine, but a house-master or a possessor (of any nationality) have an equal responsibility to make the report.

It is possible that a foreigner renting a property invites another foreigner to stay. The (Thai) owner of the property would have no idea (unless informed) that the second foreigner was staying at their property. The tenant foreigner is the possessor of the property and responsible, with the owner, to submit a TM30 for the visiting foreigner. If no report is made either the foreign tenant or the owner can be fined. Basically someone must make a report and I think the law is written the way it is to ensure someone is always responsible in the absence of the owner. The end result being that immigration are informed that a foreigner is living at the address.

[jollyhangmon]

....

I'd guess you get my drift, the self-submittet usage of TM30 as described above - give or take - and obviously intended by immigration (?, not really sure about that) is certainly somewhat around 101% use- and senseless. Well, just as the lawyer said.

Now look, i've never claimed immi could't/wouldn't fine you for not submitting that (in that case perfectly absurd) piece personally & by yourself for yourself, but - as already figured by others - it's an abuse of it in itself and therefore nothing but the 795th scam if they fine the renter. Period.

This is how it was explained to me by immigration.

House-master = The person named in the Blue Tabien Baan or Yellow Tabien Baan (foreigner). They could be an owner, tenant, relative or whatever.

Owner = The owner whether Thai or foreigner. They may or may not be named in a Tabien Baan.

Possessor = Anyone considered to be in possession of the property that doesn't qualify as a house-master or owner. e.g a foreign tenant, Thai wife not named in the Tabien Baan or the owner.

You have to understand that the immigration act is over 30 years old and probably not written with foreign property owners and tenants in mind. But it does not discriminate nationality so a foreigner renting a condo can be considered the possessor of the property and fined. Probably not it's original intention but nonetheless the result of changing times.

The owner is always responsible and most likely the person that immigration will fine, but a house-master or a possessor (of any nationality) have an equal responsibility to make the report.

It is possible that a foreigner renting a property invites another foreigner to stay. The (Thai) owner of the property would have no idea (unless informed) that the second foreigner was staying at their property. The tenant foreigner is the possessor of the property and responsible, with the owner, to submit a TM30 for the visiting foreigner. If no report is made either the foreign tenant or the owner can be fined. Basically someone must make a report and I think the law is written the way it is to ensure someone is always responsible in the absence of the owner. The end result being that immigration are informed that a foreigner is living at the address.

Well, all clear where more than one tenant (or rather inhabitant) is concerned - somebody should have made a rent-contract, so he/she's the posessor & therefore responsible for submitting.

For his/her spouse, boy- or girlfriend, guest, whatever ... roger all that.

But the OP seems to be - and i am 4 sure - a sole tenant and in this case it is just senseless to hold the (again: sole) renter responsible for an owner not submitting TM30.

I state my address - as described above, just without the fake thing, well, so far - 2 times at least and where is any sense in a TM30 as it is if not submitted by ANOTHER, a second person responsible for it - hotelmanager or owner, tenant only if sublet or as you said for a guest ... so it could be counterchecked?

Furthermore i would like to witness the chaos all over immigration offices or - where lacking - in police stations if that really happened in each & every case ... so there's the absolutely practical reason why never really enforced - up to now, well partially, as the mood strikes them as it seems!

30 years old wish-wash, yes, but then it's utter humbug to 'enforce' it as ist is at all ...

I figure the (theoretical) reason to dig that antique out now is (possible) 'terrorism', not without reason as we know - hence my example above.

And exactly then and therefore it's ridiculous to relay (and insist) on a (sole) tenant to do the task - may he be foreign or local btw., again as in my example ... and as the lawyer figured also, but that's just too logical probably ...

Exept for one reason, & so i have to stay with my opinion that - in the described situation - to fine a (sole ...) renter is nothing but money-grabbing, as usual.

[Maestro]

Dunno what & where all he exactly looked up but will forward your suggestion.

However, he said it makes no sense at all (as in zero) if a foreigner - by himself & for himself - does make this 'report', contradicting it's meaning and purpose entirely which is just logical.

Yes, well, agreed, at least half what's going down here hasn't any relation to logic, on a good day that is - the definition of T.I.T. i guess.

What i just found myself (in the English version) is the 'House Master'-Definition in section 4 => 'CHIEF POSSESSOR' !? Really? J.H. Christ, that's a good one indeed.

So, if you are the sole tenant of an apartement, house, whatever - with your name (and only your name) on the rent-contract then you would be the 'chief possessor' i guess, no? Your own chief in fact and as such responsible for the matter in question - and not the OWNER of the property??

Really, again ...??

So far so good. Or rather not good as that is the area where it gets superweird, contradicting & perfectly useless to say the least ...

...

It makes eminent sense that the possessor, in his capacity as tenant, should do the TM.30 report. If the owner who rents his property to the tenant has to do it, how is he supposed to know when a foreigner, be it the tenant himself or another foreigner whom the tenant allows to stay at his place, arrives at the property? The only way the owner could discharge this responsibility would be to station a watchman at the residence to record all arrivals, check their ID documents to see it they are foreigners, and record the details of foreigners on the TM.30. This would drive up the rent, I should think.

Remember that it is your, the tenant and possessor rolled into one, who decides who gets to stay at your place, not the owner.

I find it strange that a lawyer doesn't see this.

[jollyhangmon]

Dunno what & where all he exactly looked up but will forward your suggestion.

However, he said it makes no sense at all (as in zero) if a foreigner - by himself & for himself - does make this 'report', contradicting it's meaning and purpose entirely which is just logical.

Yes, well, agreed, at least half what's going down here hasn't any relation to logic, on a good day that is - the definition of T.I.T. i guess.

What i just found myself (in the English version) is the 'House Master'-Definition in section 4 => 'CHIEF POSSESSOR' !? Really? J.H. Christ, that's a good one indeed.

So, if you are the sole tenant of an apartement, house, whatever - with your name (and only your name) on the rent-contract then you would be the 'chief possessor' i guess, no? Your own chief in fact and as such responsible for the matter in question - and not the OWNER of the property??

Really, again ...??

So far so good. Or rather not good as that is the area where it gets superweird, contradicting & perfectly useless to say the least ...

...

It makes eminent sense that the possessor, in his capacity as tenant, should do the TM.30 report. If the owner who rents his property to the tenant has to do it, how is he supposed to know when a foreigner, be it the tenant himself or another foreigner whom the tenant allows to stay at his place, arrives at the property? The only way the owner could discharge this responsibility would be to station a watchman at the residence to record all arrivals, check their ID documents to see it they are foreigners, and record the details of foreigners on the TM.30. This would drive up the rent, I should think.

Remember that it is your, the tenant and possessor rolled into one, who decides who gets to stay at your place, not the owner.

I find it strange that a lawyer doesn't see this.

Well, turn it to whatever angle you want, it's exactly as elviajero said, a good 35 years old outdated scribbling and in no way practicable nowadays. Wasn't even decades ago & that's why basically nobody did it (and wasn't fined for either).

I - as a sole renter - see my responsibility perfectly fulfilled in stating my address repeatedly on visa, arrivalcard, TM7 etc. and there is no 'eminent sense' in - again - the same person doing that TM30-thingy. Me for myself ??! ... idiocy that begs belief.

Because if they need to countercheck my stated address they better get their onwners on track, their problem how exactly, 'cause to rely on the renter is entirely useless leading to them searching for a person for ever if needed (bad intentions of the renter assumed, naturally) - happened often enough already anyway & is just happening as we speak.

How about a chip implanted on arrival, tattoo on the forehead maybe ...??

That - again - some do enforce it (the cashing in mainly of course) and most don't says it about all ...

So basically the only useful info to take out of here is like JLCrab-mon stated in a similar thread:

==> Stay well clear of immigration-offices by any means - if you can at all - use visa & avoid extensions if anyway possible ... worked fine for me for 6 or 7 years on Non-O-multiple, best thing you can do, not depending on some officials mood!

If someone likes to take chances go and play lottery or bet on their - otherwise entirely dispensable - cockerels if you really must!