TM30: Thai immigration act - section 77

[Sunderland]

I am curious. Have immigration officials at Chaengwattana read sections 38 and 77 of the immigration act of 1979?

 

Section 38 : The house–master, the owner or the possessor of the residence, or the hotel manager where the alien, receiving permission to stay temporary in the Kingdom has stayed, must notify the competent official of the Immigration Office located in the same area with that hours , dwelling place or hotel, within 24 hours from the time of arrival of the alien concerned. If there is no Immigration Office located in that area, the local police official for that area must be notified.

In case the house, dwelling place, or hotel where the alien has stayed under provision of Para.1 is located within the Bangkok area, such notification must be reported to the competent official at the Immigration Division.

Making notification, in reference to the Para 1 and 2 of this Section, must comply with regulations prescribed by the Director General.

 

Section 77: Whoever fails to comply with the provision of Section 38, shall be punished with a fine not exceeding 2,000 Baht. If said person is a hotel manager, he shall be punished with a fine from 2,000 Baht to 10,000 Baht.

I see nothing in those 2 sections that states that foreigners must a fine at immigration. It definitely refers to the house-master, owner or the possessor of the residence, or the hotel manager.

Not that I wish to argue with an immigration officer, but the law seems to be clear enough. I am sure a 5th grader could understand the above paragraphs without the need for extra interpretation.

[DrJack54]

Possessor can mean you ( the alien)

[Matzzon]

Right, the possessor is to be seen as the one that has the name on the contract. For us that is usually our own name, or a Thai wife or girlfriends name.

That gives you the simple choice of paying the fine yourself, or transfer the fine to your wife or girlfriend. (The second will probably be the same as paying yourself.)

[Sunderland]

2 minutes ago, Matzzon said:

Right, the possessor is to be seen as the one that has the name on the contract. For us that is usually our own name, or a Thai wife or girlfriends name.

That gives you the simple choice of paying the fine yourself, or transfer the fine to your wife or girlfriend. (The second will probably be the same as paying yourself.)

That is fine and understood.

Following on from that, what is a foreigner supposed to do when the owner refuses to provide the documentation that immigration requires? Should the possessor (person leasing a property) then report the owner to the police if the immigration officials insist on having the required documentation such as I.D. card, papers showing ownership of the property, etc.? 

[DrJack54]

2 minutes ago, Sunderland said:

That is fine and understood.

Following on from that, what is a foreigner supposed to do when the owner refuses to provide the documentation that immigration requires? Should the possessor (person leasing a property) then report the owner to the police if the immigration officials insist on having the required documentation such as I.D. card, papers showing ownership of the property, etc.? 

Personally I would do it myself by mail as possessor. You have a lease? 

[sumrit]

14 minutes ago, Sunderland said:

That is fine and understood.

Following on from that, what is a foreigner supposed to do when the owner refuses to provide the documentation that immigration requires? Should the possessor (person leasing a property) then report the owner to the police if the immigration officials insist on having the required documentation such as I.D. card, papers showing ownership of the property, etc.? 

Don't know if it's acceptable in all Immigration Offices but, as I understand it, the possessor (person leasing a property) can just supply a copy of the rental agreement if the owner is either unable or refuses to supply his/her documents then file the TM30 as the possessor themselves.

[Matzzon]

35 minutes ago, Sunderland said:

That is fine and understood.

Following on from that, what is a foreigner supposed to do when the owner refuses to provide the documentation that immigration requires? Should the possessor (person leasing a property) then report the owner to the police if the immigration officials insist on having the required documentation such as I.D. card, papers showing ownership of the property, etc.? 

If you have a contract, there is no need for more than your passport and rental agreement. Here you are just making it more complicated than it really is.

If you provide rental agreement and your passport as well as explain why it is like it is. 99% of all Immigration Offices will accept your registration of address.

Edited June 17, 2019 by Matzzon

[KiChakayan]

Well, if they fined my wife it wouldn't make much of a difference.

 

At least she knows how to bargain with the b......ds.

[jackdd]

1 hour ago, Sunderland said:

Following on from that, what is a foreigner supposed to do when the owner refuses to provide the documentation that immigration requires? Should the possessor (person leasing a property) then report the owner to the police if the immigration officials insist on having the required documentation such as I.D. card, papers showing ownership of the property, etc.? 

When signing the lease you should insist on getting signed copies of these documents, also for your own safety. Then you can take a copy of them when doing the TM30 (at least a copy of the signed copy was ok for them in Chiang Mai).

[Maestro]

From the opening post of this topic:

Quote

I see nothing in [sections 38 and 77] that states that foreigners must a fine at immigration. It definitely refers to the house-master, owner or the possessor of the residence, or the hotel manager.

 Neither do I see any mention of a foreigner having to be fined, but who is the house-master? See the definition in section 4 of the English translation of the Immigration Act used by the Immigration Bureau:

 

Quote

“ House Master ” means any persons who is the chief possessor of a house , whether in the capacity of
owner , tenant , or in any other capacity whatsoever , in accordance with the law on people act.

 

For a rented residence, this means:

House Master = tenant

Chief possessor = tenant

Owner = owner

[Maestro]

From the opening post of this topic:

Quote

Section 77: Whoever fails to comply with the provision of Section 38, shall be punished with a fine not exceeding 2,000 Baht. If said person is a hotel manager, he shall be punished with a fine from 2,000 Baht to 10,000 Baht.

 

Section 77 is for the guidance of the judge when a case goes to court.

 

The summary fines, as I call them for short, which immigration officials are allowed to issue are covered by section 84 of the English translation of the Immigration Act used by the Immigration Bureau:

 

Quote

Section 84 : In all offences under this Act, except the provisions of Section 62 Para.1 Section 63 , 64, 71
and 82 Para.2. The settlement Commission, consisting of the Police Department’s Director General or
Representative, the Public Prosecution Department’s Director General or Representative, and the
Immigration Division’s Commander or Representative, as the, members shall have the authority to assign
duty of settlement to the Inquiry Official or the competent official by fixing a settlement rule or any
conditions as the Settlement Commission my deem proper.
When the offender has paid the fine as stipulate, the case shall be deemed settled under the
Criminal Procedure Code.

 

The above translation may be a bit difficult to digest. I find this other translation I have on file easier to read:

 

Quote

 

Section 84. For all offences under this Act, except for offences under
Sections 62 paragraph one, 63, 64, 71, and 82 paragraph two, there shall be established a
Settlement Committee comprising of the Police Director-General or representative, the
Public Prosecutor Director-General or representative, the Commander of the Immigration
Division or representative, as members. The Settlement Committee shall have power to
compound the matters and to authorize the inquiry official or the competent official to
carry out settlement on its behalf. The Settlement Committee may prescribe criteria for
settlement or any conditions as deemed fit.

Upon payment of fine as compounded for settlement, it shall be deemed

that the case has been settled in accordance with the Criminal Procedure Code.

 

 

[elviajero]

6 hours ago, Sunderland said:

I see nothing in those 2 sections that states that foreigners must a fine at immigration. It definitely refers to the house-master, owner or the possessor of the residence, or the hotel manager.

The law, written 40 years ago, was clearly written so that a third party report the stay of a foreigner. But these days the foreigner is often the “owner” or “possessor” (tenant) of the property they stay at. And as such immigration sometimes accept the foreigner self reporting and fine them, as owner or possessor, if they don’t.

[stubuzz]

17 hours ago, Sunderland said:

Following on from that, what is a foreigner supposed to do when the owner refuses to provide the documentation that immigration requires? Should the possessor (person leasing a property) then report the owner to the police if the immigration officials insist on having the required documentation such as I.D. card, papers showing ownership of the property, etc.?

I was told to move house.

 

17 hours ago, Matzzon said:

If you provide rental agreement and your passport as well as explain why it is like it is. 99% of all Immigration Offices will accept your registration of address.

I tried, but they wanted the owner to come to immigration in person.

[habanero]

18 hours ago, Sunderland said:

That is fine and understood.

Following on from that, what is a foreigner supposed to do when the owner refuses to provide the documentation that immigration requires? Should the possessor (person leasing a property) then report the owner to the police if the immigration officials insist on having the required documentation such as I.D. card, papers showing ownership of the property, etc.? 

As the possessor, you can fill out and file the form yourself.  Easy. 

 

Who Needs to Be Registered?

 

Note, however, if you are on a long-stay visa and plan on extending (a retirement extension, for example), immigration require you to have submitted a TM30 within 24 hours, whether on your behalf by a landlord or yourself as a property owner. So do make sure it is done.

The TM30 is divided into two separate forms, and the second form allows the landlord to register multiple people. So if you are staying in a group at non-licensed accommodation, your landlord can report you all on the same form.

Some of you might wonder, should I still report myself if I have a yellow house book (tabien baan) or co-own the property I’ll be staying in?

The answer is yes.

Even if you own or co-own the house, you must complete the form within 24 hours of arriving at the property – be it online or at immigration.

If you are staying in a friend’s house, your friend still needs to submit the TM30 form. The same applies to any foreigner who is married to a Thai and carries a Thai visa.

In recent times, expatriates who have been living in Thailand for many years fallen foul of a fine for failing to re-register their home addresses when leaving and returning to their residence.

For instance, an expat who lives permanently in Thailand and travels to other places within the country needs to re-register once returning from travelling.

Your latest place of residence must be reported and logged in the immigration database, in accordance with Section 37 (2) of the Thailand Immigration Act of 1979.

Edited June 18, 2019 by habanero

[edwardflory]

19 hours ago, Sunderland said:

I see nothing in those 2 sections that states that foreigners must a fine at immigration. It definitely refers to the house-master, owner or the possessor of the residence, or the hotel manager.

OR the ""POSSESSOR"" of the residence.  If you:

1) have a lease or rental agreement, or,

2) pay utility bills / paid a utility deposit at the residence - electric, water, cable TV, internet service, or,

3) receive mail or package deliveries, or,

4) have keys to locks, or,

5) have personal property there, or,

6) legally reside ( TM-47 and other TM's ) on the property / in the residence.

 

[   Section 38 : The house–master, the owner or the ... possessor... of the residence, ........etc....... ]

 

Are you not in "POSSESSION" of the property, therefore the "POSSESSOR" of the property.

 

I agree that the 'landlord' is responsible for a TM-30, BUT, YOU are responsible to make sure ALL YOUR paperwork is in order per the regulations.

Edited June 18, 2019 by edwardflory
information

[Matzzon]

1 hour ago, stubuzz said:

I tried, but they wanted the owner to come to immigration in person.

If they said that, then I would actually ask to speak with a superior as a first try to a resolution.
 

If that fail, I would inform them about that i was not going to move, and that you have done all that is requested and in your power to do as possessor of the residence. I would also inform them, that it´s their work to find and fine the owner. Not mine.

[PingRoundTheWorld]

Assuming you have no intention of dealing with immigration anytime soon (tourist visa), would it be better to report late, or not report at all and just leave the country and come back later (and report then)? Would you be fined for late reporting if you did it voluntarily?

 

I wasn't even aware you had to report every time you enter the country. I thought my owner reported me when we signed the lease and that took care of it.

[edwardflory]

As we all know the TM-30, and the fines associated with a failure to have on file has been a hot topic, and has cost "extension or stay" as well as "TM-47" people grief, fines, and a ding on the immigration file.

 

//Edit by Maestro: deleted off-topic comment about TM.28

 

 

Edited June 18, 2019 by Maestro
see edit note

[Maestro]

Removed an off-topic post.

[HHTel]

I've lived here for 20 years and until recently, I didn't know what a TM30 was.  I have never submitted one in all that time and I've traveled the country and been abroad several times.

 

My extension is due in August and I guess with all this hype, I'll need to submit one for the first time.  Although it's an old regulation, it's never been a problem (for me) in the past but as usual, if a reason is needed by immigration to be difficult, then they'll use it. 

[jacko45k]

1 hour ago, HHTel said:

I've lived here for 20 years and until recently, I didn't know what a TM30 was.  I have never submitted one in all that time and I've traveled the country and been abroad several times.

 

My extension is due in August and I guess with all this hype, I'll need to submit one for the first time.  Although it's an old regulation, it's never been a problem (for me) in the past but as usual, if a reason is needed by immigration to be difficult, then they'll use it. 

I take a completed one with me when I renew my extension, in fact last year it was the old one with the date crossed out and ready to be written in. Never needed it. So I say carry on. One day they will hassle you over it and gleefully fine you, suck it up and mend your ways as I will. 

[elviajero]

3 hours ago, Matzzon said:

4 hours ago, stubuzz said:

I tried, but they wanted the owner to come to immigration in person.

If they said that, then I would actually ask to speak with a superior as a first try to a resolution.
 

If that fail, I would inform them about that i was not going to move, and that you have done all that is requested and in your power to do as possessor of the residence. I would also inform them, that it´s their work to find and fine the owner. Not mine.

555, I admire your resolve, but extensions of stay are not a right. They, by law, are granted completely at the discretion of immigration.

 

Unless the senior officer agreed to waive whatever was being asked for, they would inform you that you’re not getting an extension of stay; and you’d have to leave the country or overstay. A sit-in or dummy-spit isn’t going to help!

 

It would be your problem, not there’s.

[Matzzon]

42 minutes ago, elviajero said:

555, I admire your resolve, but extensions of stay are not a right. They, by law, are granted completely at the discretion of immigration.

 

Unless the senior officer agreed to waive whatever was being asked for, they would inform you that you’re not getting an extension of stay; and you’d have to leave the country or overstay. A sit-in or dummy-spit isn’t going to help!

 

It would be your problem, not there’s.

I am well aware of that you and everybody else speak about the discretion of Immigration, and also almost always about the discretion of a single specific officer. There is nothing in the good olé book, that states any right for an immigration officer to force you to move to another home or adress to get your extension.

That, my dear friend is something that can be taken much higher, and will result in another movement to inactive post and a possible charge for abuse of power. that, on the other hand, they will not let it evolve into, due to it will also get on Facebook and be a negativ effect on the reputation of the country.
 

Section 38 : The house–master, the owner or the possessor of the residence, or the hotel manager where the alien, receiving permission to stay temporary in the Kingdom has stayed, must notify the competent official of the Immigration Office located in the same area with that hours , dwelling place or hotel, within 24 hours from the time of arrival of the alien concerned. If there is no Immigration Office located in that area, the local police official for that area must be notified.

In case the house, dwelling place, or hotel where the alien has stayed under provision of Para.1 is located within the Bangkok area, such notification must be reported to the competent official at the Immigration Division.

Making notification, in reference to the Para 1 and 2 of this Section, must comply with regulations prescribed by the Director General.

 

As you can clearly see they are defining this as a notification, that can be done by the possessor. of course according to the regulations prescribed by the Director General. So, the leaves all into the regulation prescribed, and that there is a point there that clearly states that a single immigration officer have the right to refuse your extension because that specific person du not get as he/she wants.

That is not called a sit in or dummy-spit, as well as what ever you would like to call it. it´s called looking out for that the rules and regulations is followed. Of course there are always going to be persons in, what they look at as a "powerful position", but even they have to act accordingly. As with airport arrivals on 30 days exempt entry. there they have been given the free rights to refuse entry if you can not provide ticket, money or hotel booking when asked. They have also been given the right to refuse entry if they consider a person living in Thailand on tourist visas.

There is nothing, though, that will give an Immigration Office or a single Officer the right to refuse extension on the basis of a not present landlord.

[Fairynuff]

1 hour ago, Matzzon said:

There is nothing, though, that will give an Immigration Office or a single Officer the right to refuse extension on the basis of a not present landlord.

And yet, whatever you say, however many times you quote the law or slap them around the face with it, you will never come out on top, and therefore your extension will be gone.

Like it or not, and I really really DON'T like it, we are stuck with this nonsense and have to put up with the lack of respect.

[Fairynuff]

So, for example a condo is jointly owned by 2 foreigners, both names on the title deed, both names in the yellow book but one presumably is registered as house master, the other presumably as resident. How would TM30 be done for both? Would one person have to register and report the other?

[Tanoshi]

On ‎6‎/‎17‎/‎2019 at 1:02 PM, Sunderland said:

I see nothing in those 2 sections that states that foreigners must a fine at immigration. It definitely refers to the house-master, owner or the possessor of the residence, or the hotel manager.

Do you see anything in those two sections that states Thais!

[Tanoshi]

2 hours ago, Matzzon said:

There is nothing, though, that will give an Immigration Office or a single Officer the right to refuse extension on the basis of a not present landlord.

As I sat waiting to do my extension renewal recently, the guy next to me, who had just returned from a trip abroad and filed his TM30 as the possessor, was telling me his landlord had always refused to give him a copy of his Tabien Baan and ID card.

Immigration wanted the landlords details to enter on the system as a Thai 'contact' for emergencies.

Apparently they'd rung and spoken to the landlord, who gave Immigration verbal obscenities.

He'd been sat there some 40 minutes.

As he told the story, two Police officers entered marching a Thai guy into the office.

'That' said the man 'is my landlord'.

[Maestro]

Removed a troll post and the replies to it.

[tgeezer]

On 6/17/2019 at 1:02 PM, Maestro said:

From the opening post of this topic:

 Neither do I see any mention of a foreigner having to be fined, but who is the house-master? See the definition in section 4 of the English translation of the Immigration Act used by the Immigration Bureau:

 

 

For a rented residence, this means:

House Master = tenant

Chief possessor = tenant

Owner = owner

The only problem is The registration of citizens. If that doesn’t mean that you need to be registered as a citizen for this law to apply to you, what does it mean? 

[Maestro]

19 minutes ago, tgeezer said:

The only problem is The registration of citizens. If that doesn’t mean that you need to be registered as a citizen for this law to apply to you, what does it mean? 

 

It means that if you are not the House-Master (เจ้าบ้าน) as "the chief possessor of a house, whether in the capacity of owner, tenant" as defined in section 4 of the Immigration Act, go and check the "law on people act", better known as the Civil Registration Act B.E. 2534, to see if you are the chief possessor "in any other capacity whatsoever" listed as part of the definition of House-Master in that law.

 

I don't have an English translation of the Civil Registration Act but here is a link to the Thai original:

https://drive.google.com/open?id=1ZsiihhtkjhLCf-j4kS04XUxOx9N-z5JN