Form TM28 or Form TM30 required on re-entry?

[siam2007]

On 03/01/2017 at 7:01 AM, JB300 said:

 

.

But they've been a bit lapse around enforcing the rules & now things are changing in some places (Phuket, CM, HH, Patts/Jomtien amongst others)

 

 

as you seem to be in the know, could you please elaborate further WHAT things are changing?

[JB300]

 

as you seem to be in the know, could you please elaborate further WHAT things are changing?

I wouldn't say I was "In the know" but it does seem like there are more & more reports of people being fined when it comes to dealing with immigration if they haven't done a TM28/TM30 when returning to Thailand.

Reports are coming in from all over (with the noticeable exception of CW in Bangkok) so it feels like a crackdown, possibly a result of the terrorist attack last year or a result of the "Good Guys In / Bad Guys Out " drive but they do seem to be enforcing the rules that have been around for a longtime.

[Eff1n2ret]

4 hours ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

 

rather than relying on the Form TM6 arrival card as notification of address on entry.

It does raise  the question as to what happens to all those millions of arrival cards, and how much of the information on them is actually recorded. Perhaps they're all fed through some sort of scanner, but it may just be that the barcode is linked to a scan of the passport on the desk.

That aside, I submitted a TM30 for the first time last year with my retirement extension application in Rayong. I know they have that address recorded because they called it up on computer when I went for a residence letter for driving licence renewal in October. There was no suggestion then that I should have submitted a TM30 on return from my trip to UK in June/July. As I've previously said, there's no reason why I should have done because I notified that address when I applied to the same office for a re-entry permit before I went. I would also suggest that the address on their records stems from the TM30 last Feb, because in October they also linked it with the housholder's (my wife's) name, which they couldn't have got from the landing card.

I do agree that you're a mug if you go submitting forms they haven't asked for, whether it's a TM30 or that foreign national information form - I've never done one of those either.

[dentonian]

21 hours ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

 

I see in the Act that the definition of  "House Master" includes "tenant" so I agree there is a good argument that the obligation under s. 38 of the Act to file a Form 30 would fall on the foreign tenant as well as the owner.  However, I note that in the link you gave further above to the Immigration Bureau website, there is no reference to tenants:

The information is abbreviated on the website, but it makes clear reference to section 38 of the Immigration Act.

 

Completion of a TM6 on arrival is a notification from the alien of his intended dwelling place under section 37.

Section 38 is the responsibility of the 'housemaster' whoever that may deemed to be.

On local Immigration databases, I do know they like to record details of the 'housemaster' on your file, which is usually a Thai wife, g/f or landlord, so in the case of emergency they can contact at least one person who knows you.

I suppose that makes good policing from their point of view.

Edited January 6, 2017 by dentonian

[OJAS]

On 1/3/2017 at 9:22 AM, SaintLouisBlues said:

At Chaeng Wattana?

 

On 1/3/2017 at 9:48 AM, brewsterbudgen said:

 

I've not heard of any reports of TM30 being required for anything at CW.  It's only a few Immigration Offices that require one (particularly Chiang Mai).

 

Things may be changing at Chaengwattana on the TM30 front if the OP's experience as reported in the following thread is anything to go by:-

 

 

[TerraplaneGuy]

7 hours ago, dentonian said:

The information is abbreviated on the website, but it makes clear reference to section 38 of the Immigration Act.

 

Completion of a TM6 on arrival is a notification from the alien of his intended dwelling place under section 37.

Section 38 is the responsibility of the 'housemaster' whoever that may deemed to be.

On local Immigration databases, I do know they like to record details of the 'housemaster' on your file, which is usually a Thai wife, g/f or landlord, so in the case of emergency they can contact at least one person who knows you.

I suppose that makes good policing from their point of view.

Thank you.  Although as OP I asked people to report only whether the offices are in fact requiring the forms, rather than speculating on the law, I will venture a bit further into the legal side now that we've had a number of reports and Dentonian has helpfully raised the relevant legal provisions.  I've taken another look at both section 37 and section 38 of the Act and would offer the following view:  Section 37 makes clear the intended sequence of events expected of the arriving foreigner.  The foreigner is to notify immigration on arrival of his intended place of stay (that would be Form TM6) and if he "cannot stay at the place as indicated" he must notify immigration within 24 hours (that would be Form TM28).  He must also notify the local police within 24 hours, etc. but that goes beyond this thread.  Then we turn to s. 38.  Here the "house-master" has an obligation to notify immigration within 24 hours of the arrival of the foreigner.  On further review I do not think it is plausible to interpret "house - master" here to include the tenant/foreigner himself, despite the definition of "House Master" in s. 4 of the Act.  My reasons are these.  First, if "house - master" (note the different form used in s. 38 from the defined term, although I wouldn't lay stress on that) were intended to have the defined meaning, there would be no need to follow it with the words "owner or the possessor of the residence, or the hotel manager" since they are already within the definition.  It appears that these words are intended to be an explanation or specification of the term "house - master" as used here.  So this seems not to be the defined term "House Master".  Second, the scheme of the Act doesn't make much sense if s. 38 is read to impose an obligation on the tenant/foreigner.  After all, s. 37, as mentioned, imposes a clear procedure on the foreigner.  He declares an address on TM6, and if he deviates from that he must file a TM28.  Had the legislature wanted the foreigner to also file an intermediary form (Form TM30) the logical place to put that would have been within this section 37 - although the requirement would have been pointless; what additional purpose would it serve to require the foreigner to file a TM30 if he does not deviate from the TM6, already lodged with Immigration?  Third, the Immigration Bureau webpage, noted above,  provides a summary of s. 38 with no mention of an obligation on the tenant.  In short, I think the clear scheme of the Act is that s. 37 is intended to place reporting obligations on the foreigner/tenant (via Forms TM6 and TM28 and ongoing police office notifications) and s. 38 is intended to place reporting obligations on the owner or manager of the premises where the  foreigner stays (via Form TM30).   One can only speculate why some offices and application agents are requiring the form TM30 from expats for ordinary course extensions but I suspect it is likely either a mistake or a fee-grabbing tactic, and personally I would resist it strongly.  

[TerraplaneGuy]

At the risk of boring readers to tears, I should have added one more point to the above post:  Note s. 87 of the Act.  It was transitional and meant as a catch-up when the Act was given effect.  It says that any "house master" (again, as in s. 38, not capitalized and given the same gloss with no mention of "tenant") "who has allowed an alien to remain in the Kingdom ... shall notify the competent official under Section 38 within 30 days from the date that this Act comes into force."  It makes no sense to read "house master" here as including the tenant because a tenant does not "allow" himself to remain in the Kingdom.  The clear intention is to place an obligation on a third party who is harbouring the tenant, not the tenant himself.  And there is no reason to imagine that this would be any different from the intention in s. 38, which only continues this obligation into the future.   I conclude there is no basis for assuming that expats are required to file Form 30's in respect of their own arrival at a Thai residence.

[dentonian]

Immigration websites are for informative purposes, they should be read in conjunction with the laws.

 

If as you say, you believe it is only the owner or manager to file the TM30, why would the Immigration Act, which is law, define a housemaster otherwise.

As a tenant, you are also the possessor of the house, which is mentioned on the Immigration website.

 

There could be many reasons or circumstances why the owner cannot report and I believe it is for that reason the Act allows a variety of options for the most available and person living their to make the report.

[dentonian]

2 minutes ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

   I conclude there is no basis for assuming that expats are required to file Form 30's in respect of their own arrival at a Thai residence.

 

So who in the case of an expat, single, owning his own home or Condo would be responsible to report an alien living at his own place of dwelling, if it is not the expat himself.

 

As already stated the Act is flexible with it's definition of housemaster to cover all situations.

 

[TerraplaneGuy]

1 hour ago, dentonian said:

 

So who in the case of an expat, single, owning his own home or Condo would be responsible to report an alien living at his own place of dwelling, if it is not the expat himself.

 

 

Dentonian, it's a good question and I appreciate your raising it.   There are a number of possible scenarios here.  I'm not quite sure what you mean in your example, so I'll start with one scenario and deal with a second below.   First: if you mean that the alien is the same person as the expat, i. e. you are talking about a simple case where a foreigner owns his condo and leaves and then returns to Thailand, I think the answer is that no one would be responsible to file a Form TM30.  Why assume that in every case of an alien arriving, someone must report via TM30?  The Act does not say that.  I think it's pretty clear that section 38 assumes that the "house-master" is someone other than the "alien" mentioned in the section.  As noted above, Section 87 indicates that the intention was only to require a Form TM30 from someone who "has allowed" an alien to stay in the the Kingdom.  One doesn't allow oneself to stay.    So in this scenario where the foreigner owns the condo and is himself the arriving alien, the Form TM6 is his initial report of address.  There should be no need for any other report except the subsequent 90 day reports.  

 

The key point, in my view, is that the Act distinguishes between the obligations of the arriving foreigner and the person who harbours him.  Section 37 is for the former, section 38 for the latter.  The policy behind these seems plainly to ensure two things:  first, that all arriving aliens state where they are going to be living and keep it correct and updated.  This is done via Form TM6, and if necessary Form TM28 to reflect a change (and local police reports and 90 day reports).  Form TM30 would add nothing here.  But second, the government wanted to impose responsibility on property owners who harbour aliens to help the government keep watch on them.  I think it comes from a similar concern as section 64, which makes it a crime to harbour illegal aliens.  Section 38 gives the government a third-party verification of the whereabouts of aliens.  Making the arriving alien himself file a TM30 doesn't accomplish anything.  If he is trying to hide his true whereabouts (i. e. not honestly reporting his address on the TM6, TM28, 90 day reports, etc.) he will just lie on the Form TM30 as well.  The value of the TM30 comes from the fact that it comes from a different person, who is independently under a penalty for failure to report accurately.  To the extent that some immigration offices are allowing the alien himself to sign it, and even fining aliens for failure to do so, I'm afraid they are just stuffing their files with worthless, redundant paper and imposing unfair penalties.

 

However, there is a second scenario, which may be what you intended in your example:  where a foreigner is himself an owner who rents to or otherwise harbours another foreigner.  In this case, I could see Immigration properly applying s. 37 to the expat landlord.  This would preserve the logic that the "house-master" is not the same as the arriving alien.  And the same policy that is served by requiring a local landlord to file would be served by requiring the foreign landlord to file a Form TM30 when his foreign tenant leaves and then returns to Thailand.  But the key point is that in this case the foreign landlord is not himself the arriving alien. To be clear, I haven't been suggesting that expats can never be under a requirement to file a TM30.  I only argue that they are not under that requirement in respect of their own entry into the country, but rather only in respect of the entry of someone else they harbour, in relation to whom they are a "house-master".  That's why I wrote above, "there is no basis for assuming that expats are required to file Form 30's in respect of their own arrival at a Thai residence." (emphasis added)

 

•  
• Quote

[TerraplaneGuy]

3 hours ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

Final paragraph:

........

However, there is a second scenario, which may be what you intended in your example:  where a foreigner is himself an owner who rents to or otherwise harbours another foreigner.  In this case, I could see Immigration properly applying s. 37 to the expat landlord.  .....

•  
• Quote

Correction:  "In this case, I could see Immigration properly applying s. 38 to the expat landlord ...."

[Maestro]

Interesting interpretation, that Section 38 does not mean that a foreigner must notify his own arrival at a residence he owns or rents.

 

Some thoughts:

 

Quote

...Note s. 87 of the Act.  It was transitional and meant as a catch-up when the Act was given effect.  It says that any "house master" (again, as in s. 38, not capitalized and given the same gloss with no mention of "tenant") "who has allowed an alien to remain in the Kingdom... 

 

As you mention, Section 87 was transitional and the transition period having ended long ago, this section is no longer applicable today.

 

The Thai language has no capitalisation and the fact that in the English translation “house master” is capitalised in Section 4 but not in Sections 30 and 87 is of no significance.

 

Following the definition of “house master” (เจ้าบ้าน) in Section 4 as the “chief possessor of a house, whether in the capacity of owner, tenant, or in any other capacity whatsoever”, there is no need in later Sections of the Act to mention in what capacities a person can be the possessor and therefore the “house master” unless such additional text is intended to be significant.

 

The fact that Section 38 lists “The house – master [เจ้าบ้าน], the owner [เจ้าของ] or the possessor [ผู้ครอบครอง] of the residence” from among whom one must submit the notification of arrival of a foreigner at the residence is puzzling. The inclusion of “possessor” is superfluous because according to the definition in Section 4 the “house master” is always the possessor, in one capacity or another. If the addition of “owner” in Section 38  was made deliberately to give it a particular meaning, it can only mean that if the residence is rented out, thereby making the tenant the “house master”, and this “house master” fails to submit the notification, immigration may instead accept it from the owner even though he is not the “house master”. I doubt, though, that this was the intention of the law makers.
 

[dentonian]

@TerraplaneGuy

I think your assuming too much, rather than just reading the law as it is stated.

 

The problem in my opinion, lies with the poor training Immigration officers receive. If they are told the 'owner' must complete a TM30 then they carry that through. I doubt very few have ever read their own Immigration Act.

 

I have completed several TM30's as the 'tenant' in the absence of my landlord, and submitted them to two different offices without any problems. My circumstances have since changed and I now live with my g/f. She is the owner, however I still completed and submitted my last TM30 as the 'possessor' (a person who takes, occupies, or holds something without necessarily having ownership, or as distinguished from the owner). I personally haven't encountered any problems in respect of filing a TM30 in either capacity.

 

 

[TerraplaneGuy]

5 hours ago, Maestro said:

 

As you mention, Section 87 was transitional and the transition period having ended long ago, this section is no longer applicable today.  ...

 

 

The fact that Section 38 lists “The house – master [เจ้าบ้าน], the owner [เจ้าของ] or the possessor [ผู้ครอบครอง] of the residence” from among whom one must submit the notification of arrival of a foreigner at the residence is puzzling. The inclusion of “possessor” is superfluous because according to the definition in Section 4 the “house master” is always the possessor, in one capacity or another. If the addition of “owner” in Section 38  was made deliberately to give it a particular meaning, it can only mean that if the residence is rented out, thereby making the tenant the “house master”, and this “house master” fails to submit the notification, immigration may instead accept it from the owner even though he is not the “house master”. I doubt, though, that this was the intention of the law makers.
 

Maestro, you make good points, as does Dentonian.  However I'd add this:  yes, s. 87 was transitional, but it was written as part of the Act when it was first proclaimed, and it was clearly aimed, as a catch-up, at the same objective that s. 38 addresses, so I think it is relevant in trying to understand what the drafters were intending throughout.  I think that if their aim was to make aliens (including tenants) self-report on Form TM30 it is hard to see why they would have cast s. 87 to capture only persons who have "allowed" an alien to remain.  

 

As for your point about s. 38, in truth I think it is impossible for us to know with any certainty why they inserted the superfluous terms rather than relying on the definition of House Master in s. 4.  It could have been intentional (and we have offered different interpretations of that intention) but it could also have been just plain sloppy drafting, which is by no means uncommon in legislation, particularly that of emerging countries like our beloved Thailand. (I spent years practising law in such a country - not Thailand - where I often got headaches from incomprehensible statutes that were drafted by people with limited legal training, where you just had to try and "read the tea leaves" to make sense of them, and that was a country where English was the official language!).  That's why I think it's useful to step back and just try to discern, from all the related provisions, what the overall policy goal was (and here I do think the Bureau's own website summary, which excludes tenants, is another relevant - albeit not decisive - indication). But let's agree that none of us can be certain of the precise scope of these provisions.  I doubt that a Thai court, if it ever came to that, would have any better clue.  However, given the uncertainty, and that, as a practical matter, the Form TM30 has not generally been required at most offices for self-reporting arrivals, and that it seems to be an unnecessary exercise even from the government's point of view (given the TM6, 90 day reports, police reports, etc.) I would hope that most of us would resist it rather than legitimize it by signing it when not compelled.  That's the point I tend to come back to because I'm already tired of the outdated paperwork and office visits imposed on expats and would hate to see the burden grow. 

[Maestro]

18 hours ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

...yes, s. 87 was transitional, but it was written as part of the Act when it was first proclaimed, and it was clearly aimed, as a catch-up, at the same objective that s. 38 addresses, so I think it is relevant in trying to understand what the drafters were intending throughout.  I think that if their aim was to make aliens (including tenants) self-report on Form TM30 it is hard to see why they would have cast s. 87 to capture only persons who have "allowed" an alien to remain...  

 

"trying to understand what the drafters were intending" is made difficult because the English translation is sloppy. For example, two Thai expressions using the verb รับ (receive; get; accept; take; obtain), used both in in Section 38 and Section 87, are translated differently in the two sections.

 

In one place it is used in the present tense (รับ) with reference to the person (house master, owner, possessor, hotel manager) who receives a foreigner, ie allows him to stay at his residence or hotel, in the other place it is used in the past tense (ได้รับ) with reference to the foreigner who has received temporary permission to stay in the Kingdom.

 

In the translation of Section 87 the two instances of the use of รับ  have been mashed into one to produce the nonsensical text “The house master, owner, or possessor of a dwelling place, or a hotel manager, who has allowed an alien to remain temporarily in the Kingdom...”. Obviously, it is not the house master of the residence or hotel where the foreigner arrives who gives or has given the foreigner permission to stay in Thailand. An immigration officer has given the foreigner that permission.

 

[chang50]

I entered Thailand with a re entry permit in October 2016 and haven't filed a TM30 yet Immigration didn't say anything at my recent 90 day report.Guess I'll head down Jomtien tomorrow and see if they require one.Also when I moved house March 2016 I went to report this and they gave me a TM 30 only which I filled out although I thought a TM 28 was also required they insisted no.

I have an extension of stay coming up soon so I want everything in order prior to this even if I might be inviting a fine.

[Eff1n2ret]

32 minutes ago, chang50 said:

I entered Thailand with a re entry permit in October 2016 and haven't filed a TM30 yet Immigration didn't say anything at my recent 90 day report.

Same here, came back on a re-entry permit in July and did a second 90-day at Rayong a couple of weeks ago, no mention of a TM30. If you got the re-entry permit at the same office (when you declared your address) and have returned to that same address, there's no earthly reason why you should need to submit a TM30 before your next extension application. Your re-entry (if not your address) will have been recorded on arrival on the central database.

Edited January 8, 2017 by Eff1n2ret

[thai3]

I have read through the whole thread and am still confused. I always have to fill out a TM30 when renewing extension, do I now have to go to immigration and fill out another the day after returning to the country on a re entry permit?

Edited January 8, 2017 by thai3

[TerraplaneGuy]

On 1/7/2017 at 8:43 AM, dentonian said:

@TerraplaneGuy

 

The problem in my opinion, lies with the poor training Immigration officers receive. If they are told the 'owner' must complete a TM30 then they carry that through. I doubt very few have ever read their own Immigration Act.

 

I agree.  Few of the officers would have read the Act and even fewer would be able to sort through it if they did.  They just do what their superiors tell them to do, or rely on some checklist that may or may not properly reflect the Act, or make it up on the spot.  I've had a situation a couple of years ago at Chaeng Wattana where the officer demanded something from me that I thought was unreasonable, and I insisted on seeing the boss, who over-ruled the officer.  I'm sure many have experienced that (and that's not to say that the superiors always know the law either).  I'm heading to CW for my annual extension next week and if they ask for TM30 I'm going to resist.  I'll let the group know if I run into difficulty.

[TerraplaneGuy]

4 minutes ago, thai3 said:

I have read through the whole thread and am still confused. I always have to fill out a TM30 when renewing extension, do I now have to go to immigration and fill out another the day after returning to the country on a re entry permit?

 

Thanks for your post.  To help us answer, please tell us:  Are you a foreigner?  What office do you go to? What kind of extension are you renewing?

[TerraplaneGuy]

Just to add:  I know you it seems obvious you're a foreigner if you're applying for an extension, but your username and pic just suggest you could be a Thai national

[dentonian]

6 minutes ago, thai3 said:

I have read through the whole thread and am still confused. I always have to fill out a TM30 when renewing extension, do I now have to go to immigration and fill out another the day after returning to the country on a re entry permit?

 

There has always been a requirement for the person deemed the 'housemaster' to file a TM30 when an alien takes up residence in their dwelling place. It was however rarely enforced, but since the new 'Good Guys In, Bad Guys Out' policy was adopted, it appears Immigration offices have been instructed to enforce the laws in certain areas.

 

Each Immigration office appears to have developed it's own strategy on just how to enforce filing TM'30's.

Some appear still not to enforce the rule.

Some require a new filing when taking up residence again after a trip out of the Country.

Some appear to request a new filing when doing a new extension (just to check their records)

One at least appears to have gone completely overboard and request filings of new TM28's and TM30's when filing extensions, 90 day reports, or returning from abroad.

 

I don't think anyone on the forum can answer individual questions.

Only your local Immigration office can inform you of how they are enforcing their expectation of when to file a TM30.

[TerraplaneGuy]

5 hours ago, Maestro said:

 

"trying to understand what the drafters were intending" is made difficult because the English translation is sloppy. For example, two Thai expressions using the verb รับ (receive; get; accept; take; obtain), used both in in Section 38 and Section 87, are translated differently in the two sections.

...

 

 

Maestro, thanks.  I wish I knew Thai as well as you do.  This is a reminder that we can't rely too much on our own reading of the statutes, especially if we aren't fluent in Thai.  Not only can we expect that the original drafting is sloppy, but the translation messes it up even more.   As was shown by a recent international ranking, Thailand continues to lag far behind much of the world in education.  Young Thais (including law students and future government officials) simply don't get the kind of training they would in developed countries. We can only hope that in time things will improve.

[thai3]

delete

Edited January 8, 2017 by thai3

[thai3]

31 minutes ago, TerraplaneGuy said:

 

Thanks for your post.  To help us answer, please tell us:  Are you a foreigner?  What office do you go to? What kind of extension are you renewing?

Foreigner, samut prakan, retirement 

[TerraplaneGuy]

I agree with dentonian's answer.  I'd only add once again that I hope people will push back against these superfluous requests for TM30s and TM28s.  I suggest people ask to speak to the boss before giving in.  It usually only takes a few extra minutes and it may succeed.  Let's not help legitimize this nonsense.

[TerraplaneGuy]

8 hours ago, thai3 said:

Foreigner, samut prakan, retirement 

I'd add this:  If you haven't changed your place of residence in the interim, and especially if you or your landlord have already in the past filed a TM30 for that residence, I think it's pretty clear the Act does not require an additional TM30 on an ordinary-course re-entry (or extension, for that matter).  However, as dentonian wrote above, some offices have recently started asking for them anyway.  Most of the technical discussion on interpreting the Act in this thread has been as to whether, in any circumstances at all, even when taking up a new residence, an expat tenant (rather than his landlord) can or must file a TM30.  There are different views on that, but your question is more focused.  If you haven't changed your residence since your last extension and they've got a TM30 already, the answer is you don't have to go back and file another one every time you return.  

[chang50]

Well I went down to Jomtien today to ask about this and the young girl on the desk was amazed I was even asking,at first she thought I wanted to do a 90 day report which I had done earlier.With my Thai wife's help we got her to understand and she said if I already have lodged a TM30 and not moved there was no need for another..

[thai3]

Bet she never wanted 5 passport pages copied for a 90 day report either- but some offices do. That's the problem, inconsistency. 

[chang50]

25 minutes ago, thai3 said:

Bet she never wanted 5 passport pages copied for a 90 day report either- but some offices do. That's the problem, inconsistency. 

 

Ain't that the truth..