Tanoshi

That's because after the biggest 3 Embassies pulled out, TI appear to have changed their minds, or the messages sunk in and they only request certification in the orders. The Embassies never even considered changing their methods of issuing Income letters because they couldn't comply with TI's request to 'verify' the incomes. Had the orders stated ' a certification certified and verified by the Embassy/Consulate' we'd by now see every Embassy withdraw the service.

Permit is an acronym of permitted. 'Permitted of or by permit'

She could have been granted FLR or ILR and it could be a residency card. They had a Visa, it isn't valid any longer if they have an extension. Colloquialism doesn't answer a specific question when the term Retirement Visa is used. Did you obtain this 'Visa' from an Immigration office. Then it certainly isn't a Visa, it's a permit. Did you obtain this 'Visa' from a Thai Embassy/Consulate. Is it a Non Imm O SE Visa. Is it a Non Imm O ME Visa. Is it a Non Imm O-A Visa. The above Visas may be issued on the basis of, or purpose of retirement, but they could equally be issued for other reasons, which is why the term 'Retirement Visa' is so misleading. The 'O' stand for 'other' reasons not defined in the list of activities allowing entry under 1-14 of section 34 of the Immigration act. If a 'Retirement Visa' was offered as such I would expect it to be defined as an activity under the IA and have a separate category pertaining to it's reason of issuance on the Visa. Call me pedant if you wish, but if you want to give a precise answer it's important to know exactly what they have in their passport, being colloquial can lead to an incorrect answer.

Except conditions of Visas are Country specific. visa an endorsement on a passport indicating that the holder is allowed to enter, leave, or stay for a specified period of time in a country. A Visa for the UK typically allows you to enter, leave or stay within the validity of the Visa. A Visa for Thailand typically allows you to enter or leave, but the permission to stay is granted by the entry clearance officer. It's not semantics, a permit to stay and a Visa have very separate conditions. Different Visas also have their own conditions. Agree, the Visa or Permit should be described as it is. Retirement Visa is the most confusing incorrect term used on here.

Absolutely correct Jack. Embassy letters only confirm that you had declared an income to meet the financial requirements. There is still no requirement to prove those incomes are being transferred to Thailand if you can still obtain an Embassy letter. In the original order however I believe the intention was that you were transferring such funds for living expenses. I know many expats who live very comfortably on 40-50K per month.

They do, the applicant supplies documentary evidence of their incomes, then the Embassy supplies the letter for Immigration in English regardless of their nationality. The letters clearly state Mr X has supplied documents showing an income of X then the letter is certified by an Embassy official.

Same reason Immigration, lawyers, agents, call it a Retirement Visa because they can't be bothered explaining the differences to foreigners whom they regard as to ignorant to understand regardless of an explanation.

Spidey, they don't verify the incomes, they just certify the letter. That is all they have ever done and ever will do. They don't pursue the information compiled in the income letters the applicant supplies. The Embassy letters are often completed while you wait after submitting your documents.

What after probably redeploying staff to alternative positions, you expect them to resume service as normal because TI got their nickers in a twist. TI quickly announced an alternatively acceptable method as proof of income through a Thai bank, something the Embassies maintained had always been an alternative. If you were submitting genuine proof of income to the Embassy, then it shouldn't be a problem to provide that proof through a Thai bank account.

Correct, they need your permission or a Court Order. Even with your permission, it wasn't a viable option for the Embassies to follow, due to time and cost factors. It could take weeks to request information to verify your incomes and the costs associated would be reflected in the increased costs of obtaining an Embassy letter.

Verify is the wrong word. No other Embassy, carrying out the same level of processing as the BE has withdrawn their letters. Interestingly after the BE, US, Australian and Denmark Embassies all announced withdrawal of the service, TI issued an amendment in December clearly stating 'Income certification certified by the Embassy or Consulate' as an acceptable method of proof of income. What happened to their insistence of 'verification' after the biggest 3 Embassies pulled out. An attempt to lock the stable doors after the horses have bolted.

Name one Country who's own Data Protection Act allows and qualifies an official of an Embassy to verify personal incomes. Incomes have never been verified simply because the law doesn't allow third parties access to your personal information. The documentary evidence is taken at face value and the Embassies give a certified letter to that effect.

A lot of expats aren't IT literate. They don't own a PC. Don't have internet banking. With the new requirements they've now been thrown into the 21st century, which is akin to living on Mars for them.

I've also witnessed an annual pension statement letter, entered as x 12 on the application form. A difference of some 16K a year in the stated income as opposed to the actual income. Been doing the same thing for the last 17 years.

Which you claim back, so no loss.