Source of income refused by immigration

[Joe Mcseismic]

On 1/31/2019 at 1:39 PM, nchuckle said:

When notice of the new arrangements came out I predicted the rules "would be poorly drafted,ill  thought through, open to ambiguity,improperly understood by immigration offices and an opportunity for individual IOs and offices to exercise their egos and strut their stuff. So far 100% correct!

That's like predicting that water will be wet.........

[Tanoshi]

5 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

In point of fact the rules permit showing only three months of deposits, for this one time only, for precisely the reason you complain about.
Remains to be seen how many IOs also fail to read all of the new rules.

Remains to be seen how many expats read the full rules.

Where does it state 3 months of income deposits is acceptable for this year.

 

It's appears clear to me that TI want proof of income for the previous 12 months, except in the case of the very first extension application.

[Danthai]

Has anyone in Chiang Mai been shown Big Joke's  leniency the first year (2019) for not having the full 12 months foreign deposits because they couldn't get a Direct Deposit BKK account open fast enough for SS payments to show 12 months this year?

[Sheryl]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

Remains to be seen how many expats read the full rules.

Where does it state 3 months of income deposits is acceptable for this year.

 

It's appears clear to me that TI want proof of income for the previous 12 months, except in the case of the very first extension application.

The pronblem is the guideance did nto address the issue of those extending during the first year after the new rules came out. There was supposedly some sort of letter sent telling IOs to be "lenient" but for Thai officials that sort of thing is useless as they have no way of knowing exactly what it means and what would be considered acceptable . In the absence of specifics (e.g. "for this year only, X transfers are sufficient") they raen't going to risk being wrong and accepting less in the hopes that that fits the undefined term "lenient".

[Tanoshi]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

The pronblem is the guideance did nto address the issue of those extending during the first year after the new rules came out. There was supposedly some sort of letter sent telling IOs to be "lenient" but for Thai officials that sort of thing is useless as they have no way of knowing exactly what it means and what would be considered acceptable . In the absence of specifics (e.g. "for this year only, X transfers are sufficient") they raen't going to risk being wrong and accepting less in the hopes that that fits the undefined term "lenient".

The amended rules do state;

'Except in a case where the applicants retirement is less than 1 year, the evidence must be from the month of retirement.

For example the retirement is started in October 2018, the applicant must show pension payment evidence from November 2018 and pension payment evidence of the whole 12 months is required for the next year'

 

From reports TI are already requesting evidence from the date the current extension was renewed.

This highlights the fact that those who previously obtained Embassy Income letters, but in fact never transferred the monthly amounts they declared, or at least enough to meet the financial requirements are now being caught out.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

This highlights the fact that those who previously obtained Embassy Income letters, but in fact never transferred the monthly amounts they declared, or at least enough to meet the financial requirements are now being caught out.

Until the new rules were released, there was never a requirement to transfer the amounts declared as one's income - only that one must have that much income.  As well, those who "spent" that much of their income in Thailand every month (never required), might have sent the income in batched-amounts lasting a few months (what I usually did - better ratio of amount-vs-fees), withdrawn it via ATM (which I did sometimes), etc. 

If they are actually doing this (I would not be surprised), and requiring more monthly-transfers than the months since the rule-change was announced (which many would not know about), they are "catching" people for not having a time-machine. 

 

For TI and our embassies not to provide a year minimum, to ensure everyone found out about the changes and had time to react accordingly, was inexcusable.

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

Until the new rules were released, there was never a requirement to transfer the amounts declared as one's income - only that one must have that much income. 

Sure about that Jack.

Did TI state it could be left in a foreign account.

Why have an income requirement to live in Thailand, if the income isn't transferred here.

 

It appears clear to me TI intended and assumed expats were transferring these incomes beforehand.

Is it not simply a case that many expats felt they could live on far less than 65K a month and as the original order didn't specifically state incomes had to be transferred into a Thai bank (funds did) expats assumed they could leave it in their foreign bank and just transfer an amount they felt better suited their needs.

Edited March 11, 2019 by Tanoshi

[KhunFred]

If your embassy still verifies income, why ON EARTH would you try to do it any other way? I liked the routine of getting my Embassy letter, even though it was costly. Much easier than showing bank transfers.  I have sent more document scans to TransferWise than I actually have on my hard drive. New rules are unreasonable. Be happy that your embassy still does things the RIGHT way.

[JackThompson]

8 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

Sure about that Jack.

Did TI state it could be left in a foreign account.

Why have an income requirement to live in Thailand, if the income isn't transferred here.

Why was the income-level set so high?  Because it was not assumed one didn't have any passport-country expenses.

 

TI never stated or Published In The Rules (which is all that matters) that the full minimum-income must be transferred or spent in Thailand - until recently, and even then, just for those who cannot get embassy-letters.  

For those that can get embassy letters, some offices will not even allow the transfer-method, preferring the gross-income statement.

 

8 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

It appears clear to me TI intended and assumed expats were transferring these incomes beforehand.

Is it not simply a case that many expats felt they could live on far less than 65K a month and as the original order didn't specifically state incomes had to be transferred into a Thai bank (funds did) expats assumed they could leave it in their foreign bank and just transfer an amount they felt better suited their needs.

This is exactly what the case was, and what many/most people were doing - and those with embassy-letters are still permitted to do. 

Immigration moved the goalposts on people who were already retired here - who came here with the promise of different rules.

[jimn]

9 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

Sure about that Jack.

Did TI state it could be left in a foreign account.

Why have an income requirement to live in Thailand, if the income isn't transferred here.

 

It appears clear to me TI intended and assumed expats were transferring these incomes beforehand.

Is it not simply a case that many expats felt they could live on far less than 65K a month and as the original order didn't specifically state incomes had to be transferred into a Thai bank (funds did) expats assumed they could leave it in their foreign bank and just transfer an amount they felt better suited their needs.

You are obviously right. They assumed people would move the money here. Personally because I only spend 7 months a year here I never have. I just bring enough cash with me and spend in larger shops on my no fee credit card. Works for me. After this renewal though I have to change the way I operate. The problem a lot of people have is that when the 400/800k and 40/65k amounts were set they were reasonable for most people. What with the strength of the baht and the weakness of say the £££, it is tough for a lot of people.

[graemeaylward]

this is all retrospect this 40/65000 came about only recently, i bet no one has 12 months back transactions to show, because we would NOT have been unaware of it (unless you have physic powers) as it was not even thought about 12 months ago. i personally send top up money about every 3 months, can be here in 2 days.but now that option is no more. 

I'm not psychic, but I have Bangkok Bank statements for the last 6 years showing over ฿65,000 going into my account each month, all shown as International transfers (FTT). The 40/65,000 rule has been in existence for many years, but it is only since Dec 12th last year that the UK Embassy has stopped issuing confirmation letters. Those of us who actually live here in Thailand, 365 days a year every year need the money in a Thai bank account in order to pay our bills!


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Sheryl]

If your embassy still verifies income, why ON EARTH would you try to do it any other way? I liked the routine of getting my Embassy letter, even though it was costly. Much easier than showing bank transfers.  I have sent more document scans to TransferWise than I actually have on my hard drive. New rules are unreasonable. Be happy that your embassy still does things the RIGHT way.

Problem some are having is that their Embassies while still issuing lettets are now doing so only fpr government pensions, probably a respinse to TI request for vetification. So those whose income is all or in part from other sources cannot use Embassy letter but IOs aren't letting them use documentation of fund transfer either.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[Sheryl]

Sure about that Jack.
Did TI state it could be left in a foreign account.
Why have an income requirement to live in Thailand, if the income isn't transferred here.
 
It appears clear to me TI intended and assumed expats were transferring these incomes beforehand.
Is it not simply a case that many expats felt they could live on far less than 65K a month and as the original order didn't specifically state incomes had to be transferred into a Thai bank (funds did) expats assumed they could leave it in their foreign bank and just transfer an amount they felt better suited their needs.

In some cases yes, some people needed less than 65k.

Also it seems many never even opened Thai bank accounts but rather relied on ATM withdrawals.

While others relied on transfer services that did not result in the required bank coding, which they at that time had no reason to be concerned with.

A fair number of people spend time out of Thailand and these would obviously not need or want to transfer 65k here every single month even if they wete spending 65k when here.

And many people, even if they transferred what would average out to 65k a month, did not do so monthly. Some retirement fund sources come quarterly; some preferred to save on transfer costs by making fewer, larger teansfers.


Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[graemeaylward]

How would you instruct a UK bank to ensure that, or any other, coding would appear on a Thai bank statement?
I use online banking and transfers from my UK account show up on my Thai statements as "Transfer via EXIM" - EXIM being the Export Import Bank of Thailand.

I too, have UK State Pension and separate work pension. Both of these are paid into my Lloyds Bank account in UK at different times of the month. I make 2 transfers a month each costing £9.50 plus ฿200 added by Bangkok Bank and they show up as International transfers. I have been doing this for 6 years now and it suits me just fine, although, I could transfer the total of over 65,000 in one go. I understand that DWP (UK Pensions service) uses an American bank, (Citi Bank? ) to pay UK pension direct to Thai account, which could account for lack of international code, and delays in payment!


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

[stevenl]

23 hours ago, Bill Miller said:

The difference, as I understand it, is that the NO LETTER embassies cannot by the subject nation's law actually verify the individual's incomes. Many posters have waffled on about "Oh, they could." Not without changing the subject nation's laws intended to protect privacy. That is simply not done to save inconvenience for a limited number of citizens.
Some nations do permit official reporting of citizen's retirement/pension income.

Based on paperwork they can verify.

[stevenl]

36 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Problem some are having is that their Embassies while still issuing lettets are now doing so only fpr government pensions, probably a respinse to TI request for vetification. So those whose income is all or in part from other sources cannot use Embassy letter but IOs aren't letting them use documentation of fund transfer either.

Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

You have any links for that, I don't recall seeing that here.

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

TI never stated or Published In The Rules (which is all that matters) that the full minimum-income must be transferred or spent in Thailand - until recently, and even then, just for those who cannot get embassy-letters.  

Immigration also never stated or published in the rules that the required income could be left in a foreign bank or varying amounts of income could be transferred to suit the individual.

The limit was set for a reason.

Reading the old rule although TI never stipulated the income must be transferred, it's then followed by funds requirement that must be deposited in a Thai bank. It appears clear to me that TI intended those incomes to be transferred for use in Thailand, but it was expats who assumed from lack of confirmation in the order that they could do as they wish.

 

2 hours ago, JackThompson said:

For those that can get embassy letters, some offices will not even allow the transfer-method, preferring the gross-income statement.

And at some offices their randomly requesting Thai bank statement as supporting evidence to their Embassy letters.

[Sheryl]

22 minutes ago, stevenl said:

You have any links for that, I don't recall seeing that here.

 

I don't recall which iof the countless threads but there has been more than one such report.  Either German or Scandinavian.

 

 

[Tanoshi]

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

In some cases yes, some people needed less than 65k.
Also it seems many never even opened Thai bank accounts but rather relied on ATM withdrawals.

And they now have major problems.

 

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

While others relied on transfer services that did not result in the required bank coding, which they at that time had no reason to be concerned with.

Agreed, but they can backtrack and get Credit Advices etc as supporting evidence.

 

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

A fair number of people spend time out of Thailand and these would obviously not need or want to transfer 65k here every single month even if they wete spending 65k when here.

But the requirement was always 65K per month.

What they want or need is immaterial. They are a foreigner obtaining extension with minimum financial requirements.

 

1 hour ago, Sheryl said:

And many people, even if they transferred what would average out to 65k a month, did not do so monthly. Some retirement fund sources come quarterly; some preferred to save on transfer costs by making fewer, larger teansfers.

I also have quarterly paid pension.

It only requires financial management of your pensions in that case to meet the monthly requirement.

Edited March 12, 2019 by Tanoshi

[Tanoshi]

48 minutes ago, stevenl said:

Based on paperwork they can verify.

Pray tell how!

[Sheryl]

27 minutes ago, Tanoshi said:

...I also have quarterly paid pension.

It only requires financial management of your pensions in that case to meet the monthly requirement.

Yes, of course. But there was no reason  previously to do so. You can expect people to do so from hereon, but to blame them for not having done so prior to issuance of the new guidelines is OTT IMO.

[Tanoshi]

2 minutes ago, Sheryl said:

Yes, of course. But there was no reason  previously to do so. You can expect people to do so from hereon, but to blame them for not having done so prior to issuance of the new guidelines is OTT IMO.

From my personal experience Sheryl, when Immigration regardless of Country change rules, they immediately become effective and apply to existing foreigners under Immigration control.

The exception is when Immigration publish an interim period of change.

 

Unfortunately Immigration haven't published any such interim period of change.

Does anyone have a copy of this so called memorandum requiring officers to be lenient this year.

[JackThompson]

1 hour ago, Tanoshi said:

Immigration also never stated or published in the rules that the required income could be left in a foreign bank or varying amounts of income could be transferred to suit the individual.

The limit was set for a reason.

We are attempting to say "What they really meant was" - no way for either of us to prove anything.  But we are only bound by what is written and has been consistently enforced.

 

Quote

Reading the old rule although TI never stipulated the income must be transferred, it's then followed by funds requirement that must be deposited in a Thai bank. It appears clear to me that TI intended those incomes to be transferred for use in Thailand, but it was expats who assumed from lack of confirmation in the order that they could do as they wish.

We assumed because the rules didn't say otherwise.  If the requirement was "must be deposited monthly," then they would have required showing monthly deposits from everyone from the beginning.  Yet, they are still not doing this - except for those whose nations had a spat over the letters.

 

Quote

And at some offices their randomly requesting Thai bank statement as supporting evidence to their Embassy letters.

Reports I have read (Chiang Mai) indicate the supporting info can be pension-letters and/or showing deposits into foreign-accounts.

 

If they want that to be the rule going forward for NEW Retirees, that is one thing (I think a bad-idea, unless set to a more appropriate level) - but it is unconscionable to apply this standard to people who are already retired here and have been qualifying legally for years according to their original standard.

 

Thai Immigration seems to have a problem with honest-dealing on many fronts - the "TM-30" law being suddenly "re-enforced" with fines being a clear case demonstrating this.  They had a "not necessary" policy for decades on this, and people followed IOs instructions.  Then, they decided to change that policy, and began fining those who did what they have always done Without Warning - often fining a party who was not even responsible, and withholding service unless they paid-up.  This was a disgusting display of disrespect and lack of basic-decency, and shows the perpetrators to be dishonorable, to say the least.  In any decent system/country, those ordering this would have been fired, public apologies made, and the agency sued for cost + damages.

 

To "re-invent" what Immigration "really wanted before" for income, is another version of the same.  These are (colorful adjective)s shafting people who did nothing wrong and did what they were asked to do - for many years, in many cases.  There is no excuse for this.

Edited March 12, 2019 by JackThompson

[Bill Miller]

19 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

Remains to be seen how many expats read the full rules.

Where does it state 3 months of income deposits is acceptable for this year.

 

It's appears clear to me that TI want proof of income for the previous 12 months, except in the case of the very first extension application.

You answered your own question. If you have gotten this far, "...except in the case of the very first extension application.", then you have already read "Where does it state 3 months of income deposits is acceptable for this year."
It does not have to be the "very first extension application", just the first one under the new rules, where people using the affidavit letter method may not have established a reporting history yet with their Thai bank, i.e. they have been taking cash as needed from an ATM.
Yes, read the full rules, follow the many, many suggestions by others who have read the rules, or failing one of these rather simple solutions, see ya later! ????

[Tanoshi]

55 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

You answered your own question. If you have gotten this far, "...except in the case of the very first extension application.", then you have already read "Where does it state 3 months of income deposits is acceptable for this year."

No idea which order your reading.

I don't find any wording to match your quote.

 

57 minutes ago, Bill Miller said:

It does not have to be the "very first extension application", just the first one under the new rules, where people using the affidavit letter method may not have established a reporting history yet with their Thai bank, i.e. they have been taking cash as needed from an ATM.

Wrong.

If you already have an extension, then it's not your first application.

The effective date of the rules apply to anyone extending thereafter, unless it is your very first extension application.

[jimn]

4 hours ago, Sheryl said:

In some cases yes, some people needed less than 65k.

Also it seems many never even opened Thai bank accounts but rather relied on ATM withdrawals.

While others relied on transfer services that did not result in the required bank coding, which they at that time had no reason to be concerned with.

A fair number of people spend time out of Thailand and these would obviously not need or want to transfer 65k here every single month even if they wete spending 65k when here.

And many people, even if they transferred what would average out to 65k a month, did not do so monthly. Some retirement fund sources come quarterly; some preferred to save on transfer costs by making fewer, larger teansfers.


Sent from my SM-J701F using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app
 

Very well summed up. I do not want too, nor am I in a position too, transfer 65k a month or leave 800k in my Thai bank account. I am doing my extension next month with my British embassy income letter, I proved my income based on funds going into my UK bank account. This will be my last year with a retirement extension. Next year I intend to obtain a NON OA visa from the Thai embassy in London.

[sandyf]

4 hours ago, graemeaylward said:

I understand that DWP (UK Pensions service) uses an American bank, (Citi Bank? ) to pay UK pension direct to Thai account, which could account for lack of international code, and delays in payment!


Sent from my iPad using Thailand Forum - Thaivisa mobile app

Thai retail banking uses 8 character Swift codes so an international payment cannot be made direct to a personal account, payments are routed through the head office.

Prior to the referendum I had my state pension paid paid to my Thai account and there were never any delays other than a Thai bank holiday. I always received the payment at around 08.30 on the morning it was due. If there was a UK bank holiday I got paid a day early. The payment came via the Thai Bahtnet system and was coded BNET.

[JeffersLos]

On 1/30/2019 at 7:22 PM, phutoie2 said:

This is ridiculous, Big Joke needs to sort it, you cannot have rules for 4 embassies and rules for others. 

Sure you can. It's pretty straight forward.

 

If your embassy provides the letter. Go and get it.

 

If they don't, use the bank details. 

 

Pretty straight forward and easy. 

[Tanoshi]

3 hours ago, sandyf said:

Thai retail banking uses 8 character Swift codes so an international payment cannot be made direct to a personal account, payments are routed through the head office.

Prior to the referendum I had my state pension paid paid to my Thai account and there were never any delays other than a Thai bank holiday. I always received the payment at around 08.30 on the morning it was due. If there was a UK bank holiday I got paid a day early. The payment came via the Thai Bahtnet system and was coded BNET.

Citibank route the payment through Bank of Thailand to your local account, as do many other foreign financial institutions.

The method of transaction is known as the BAHTNET system. Coded BNT in a passbook.

It is a foreign transaction.

[balo]

Just use an agent instead, still working according to my sources.