Jump to content
BANGKOK 19 July 2019 17:44
ADS1

Refused 1st Retirement extension

Recommended Posts

God these threads bring out the OTT habis drama big time. The best advice for all posters 50 something or less is to save big time when you can and don’t retire at 45 or 55 like sooo many on here brag about and then when you do want to retire to Thailand over 55 or more you easily have a measly 800k in savings. THATS what should be discussed on TVF more!! 

  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Jingthing said:

I predict Thailand is going to lose a fair chunk of expats over these changes, probably more on retirement than marriage.

Well there is always the agent route, 15k and all problems sorted. 

 

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
God these threads bring out the OTT habis drama big time. The best advice for all posters 50 something or less is to save big time when you can and don’t retire at 45 or 55 like sooo many on here brag about and then when you do want to retire to Thailand over 55 or more you easily have a measly 800k in savings. THATS what should be discussed on TVF more!! 

That is the answer for future retirees, unfortunately there are many people who were encouraged to believe that if they could afford to live here, then they could retire here.
The 'agent system' is an example of this pragmatic approach. For those using income, combination of capital and income, you just have to suffer the inconvenience until every office agrees on what the police order says.


Sent from my iPhone using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
As it's blatant corruption, it can be pulled out from under people on a moment's notice. I understand many people say it will never happen. TIT, say no more. Some of us are not comfortable participating with such corruption, especially in a foreign country where our legal rights are limited. 
some may have no choice but to use agency method to get through this transitional period. This highlights a problem of Immigration representatives not talking to falang representatives, not to mention the banks involvement..
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
12 hours ago, longball53098 said:

Until all offices get it straight confusion will be the order of the day. Until all this is sorted those applying for extensions will get the brunt of the confusion

Yes hindsight is 20.20. Should have gone to Specsavers, or rather the Embassy and got a letter! (Unless you are Danish),

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Maestro said:

The Police Order has not been amended.

 

Following the refusal by by some consulates to continue to provide the so-called embassy letter, the Immigration Bureau sent a Memorandum to all immigration offices with information regarding the type of documents that are acceptable as evidence of income from applicants for a retirement or marriage extension extension where the applicant is unable to provide the embassy letter.

Apologies , fail to agree. An examination of the original police order for supporting documentation and the memorandum , it is obvious sections 2.18 and 2.22 have been re written in entirety . Thus these sections supersede the previous sections of the police order.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
51 minutes ago, cleopatra2 said:

Apologies , fail to agree. An examination of the original police order for supporting documentation and the memorandum , it is obvious sections 2.18 and 2.22 have been re written in entirety . Thus these sections supersede the previous sections of the police order.

The memorandum only revises (5) of clause 2.18 and (3) of 2.22 to add what proof income will be accepted since it was not defined before.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
On 1/18/2019 at 8:12 PM, SABloke said:

... It doesn't matter what the law says if the government officials you are dealing with make up regulations as they please. Hell, I'm required to get a police clearance certificate for my extension even though no such regulation exists....

 

13 hours ago, ukrules said:

That's going to be a big problem.

 

When getting your visa becomes a lottery you can no longer rely on the service and all stability breaks down.

For many of us, living in some areas, it has been a lottery - or, at best, a "gauntlet."  Same for those entering the country, since there is no legal-standard or accountability involved at entry-points, either. 

 

Unless you live in an area with an honest immigration office, the only "sure thing" for them not to create a problem in your life, is to pay them their corruption-payment via an agent, or go out for a Visa from the MFA to circumvent immigration to stay (as I did).  Unfortunately, there is recent talk about "cracking down" on Visa-issuance, which would drive more of us into "corruption-gauntlet," as planned.

 

4 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:
8 hours ago, Jingthing said:
As it's blatant corruption, it can be pulled out from under people on a moment's notice. I understand many people say it will never happen. TIT, say no more. Some of us are not comfortable participating with such corruption, especially in a foreign country where our legal rights are limited. 

some may have no choice but to use agency method to get through this transitional period. This highlights a problem of Immigration representatives not talking to falang representatives, not to mention the banks involvement..

And, golly, What A Surprise, surely no one at immigration had that in mind, when they started moaning about how embassies do or do not "verify income" last May.

Edited by JackThompson
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, AAArdvark said:

In the same thread, there is a post where someone was denied an O-A from the same Embassy because he was not yet 65 years old.  So, it looks like relying on the London Embassy for anything is questionable.

I would be rather surprised at that. I find the London Thai Embassy both efficient and helpful. There might be some confusion in the reference above between the O-A and non-immigrant O visa. ME non-immigrant O visa only available to those in receipt of a State Pension, so therefore should be 65 or above. No such restriction for the O-A application.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The Police Order has not been amended.   Following the refusal by by some consulates to continue to provide the so-called embassy letter, the Immigration Bureau sent a Memorandum to all immigration offices with information regarding the type of documents that are acceptable as evidence of income from applicants for a retirement or marriage extension extension where the applicant is unable to provide the embassy letter.  

For a meaningful participation in this topic, it is essential to understand and accept the aforementioned facts 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

The effective meaning of what I was saying is essentially similar in practice but fair enough not to say the police order amendment. What shorthand phrase would you suggest people use to briefly describe that memo? The description you gave was very good but it's too lengthy to state every time to refer to it. Not just asking you. Anybody with a good idea?  

 

To add I saw this issue coming a mile away. Months ago when I saw the writing on the wall about a change to required monthly import for income methods I posted several times about concern about preservation of the combo method.

 

I felt it was in danger.

 

The fact is some reports of early enforcement without embassy letters is unfortunately showing signs my concerns were valid.

 

When I saw the text of the memo as you put it I was even more concerned.

 

Yes I do suspect immigration offices are reading that as superceding the validity of the combo method at least for income applications without embassy letters.

 

Yes I understand that they shouldn't but that's rather irrelevant if they are.

 

It seems to me they should have included language in the memo to clarify that the combo method is preserved in applications without embassy letters.

 

I can understand why officers might read that memo and conclude that it is not preserved.

 

 

Sent from my Lenovo A7020a48 using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
18 hours ago, nchuckle said:

While smoothly extending my retirement visa yesterday at Korat with embassy income letter I asked about going forward . I showed an audit trail comprising uk bank statement with funds departing ,World first currency document confirming trade and destination ,MT103 (from intermediary bank) and arrival in Thai baht  from Kasikorn bank statement which shows up as 'domestic transfer' from a recent transfer I made using an fx company to my Kasikorn account . Understandably I may just as  well been speaking Greek. All they could say was they would want a bank letter written on the day of my next application!  How is the Phimai Kasikorn branch going to do that when I present the same 12 monthly audit trails ?! They don’t even understand their own codes in the bank book. 

 

I predicted chaos when the new directive came out and this just confirms it.

I predicted people will need to use a transfer method that creates an "international transfer" record in their Thai bank account.  Otherwise, they could reject, and off you go to an agent/"fixer" to pay them off - at which point you might as well not have bothered with those transfers / complying with the financials at all.

 

Quote

I will be returning to marriage visa and 400k seasoned for 2 months next year.

For others without that option......

I hope whoever processes "family-based extensions" in you office is friendly.  It's a nightmare in some offices, but no big deal in others. 

 

Using a transfer-method that shows up international - switching banks if necessary - might be less trouble, and less expensive than an "extra fee" paid though your IO's agent-buddy.  Best to make your case as air-tight as possible, so the IO cannot find a way to squirm out of giving you your extension for the sticker-price of 1900 Baht.

 

17 hours ago, DJ54 said:

Seems regulations 101 is needed for all locations to be on the same page. 

Yes - definitely.  This confusion is not surprising, because they issued the "new rules" without reference to the rules that did not change.  Many folks here were confused, since no mention of "money in the bank" or "combo" was given.  What is needed is to publish "new rules" which includes ALL Methods in One Document - like the old rules were formatted.

 

14 hours ago, davhend25 said:

I think the "income" method is going to be a virtual nightmare going forward. Too many parts to a moving puzzle for many of the local immigration offices. Too many little things to go wrong, i.e., short amount transferred, transfer code wrong, etc. For some IO's it will be okay, but for many it won't. If you can't afford either the 400K or 800K seasoned Thai bank account, you probably should start looking for another country....or settle in for a lot of headaches!    

This wasn't an accident - it was designed so that it would be a PITA that could "go wrong" easily.  Guess what happens when it "goes wrong" (i.e., they can find wriggle-room to deny your extention)?  The IO gets a bonus-payment!

 

The only folks who have it easy/easier now, are those with a state-pension(s) which reaches the min income-level by itself, and when transferred directly to one's Thai bank, shows up as an International Transfer.  Everyone else (who lost income-letters) must work out a monthly transfer system.

Edited by JackThompson
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

At sriracha immigration Thursday as i need to transfer stemples from old to new passport.
I ask about what do later on, When i do my Extension, As i turn 50 years this year, i am going for Retirement-Extension.

As my incomes is a little under 65.000 baht i was told no problem at all, Combo option still good.

sriracha immigration do want my bank to make a statment about about 12 month transfer, and one for money in the bank (3 month).

 

So i only need to talk to my bank about it, But hope no problem from my bank.

 

Kindly.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, ubonjoe said:

The memorandum only revises (5) of clause 2.18 and (3) of 2.22 to add what proof income will be accepted since it was not defined before.

The clauses specified have been amended, but the memorandum itself re writes the two sections of orders for supporting documents.

 

Currently the financial requirements for retirement are 

65k income per month

800k in bank

combination of annual earnings and savings

 

The supporting documentation as revised 

Income of 65k transferred into bank

Letter from bank showing 800k

 

There is no provision for showing annual earnings.

  • Confused 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...