Jump to content
BANGKOK
weegee

Absolute latest from Immigration on Insurance...

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, saengd said:

I don't know why you think O-A visa holders are not required to have money deposited in LoS. I've had my O-A visa since 2005 and every year I've been required to prove I have at least 800,000 on deposit in a Thai bank, for the required period and to produce a Thai bank letter and along with copies of bank passbooks.

They aren't. O-A visa holders just need to provide evidence of the monies in their home country bank and this will suffice for the full two year potential validity of the visa, after which they can either get a new visa, or convert the O-A to an extension of stay. Even this doesn't necessarily require the monies to be in-country, if the person's embassy still provides income letters, or if an agent is used. Your 800k on deposit is only one of several options. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
3 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

They aren't. O-A visa holders just need to provide evidence of the monies in their home country bank and this will suffice for the full two year potential validity of the visa, after which they can either get a new visa, or convert the O-A to an extension of stay. Even this doesn't necessarily require the monies to be in-country, if the person's embassy still provides income letters, or if an agent is used. Your 800k on deposit is only one of several options. 

Hmm, well, if folks really are gaming the system by getting back to back two year O-A access entitlements, just to avoid having proven funds available in country, especially when they are retired and living here with families etc., they deserve to get clobbered, IMHO.

  • Sad 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, LivinLOS said:

they will see that as avoiding the rule and the spirit of the law. 

And? This is commonplace, no different than agent obtained retirement extensions. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
14 minutes ago, saengd said:

Hmm, well, if folks really are gaming the system by getting back to back two year O-A access entitlements, just to avoid having proven funds available in country, especially when they are retired and living here with families etc., they deserve to get clobbered, IMHO.

I'm here on an O-A and I'm not trying to game the system. I've been here 14 years on a variety of visas, most of which are no longer available. Now I'm here on a O-A issued last month.

i would gladly have converted any of my prior visas to to an O and then went for a Retirement Extension but there is no way to do that at Chiang Mai Immigration without paying an additional 15,000 baht to an agent, in addition to all the other fees.
I'll gladly put 800k baht in a Thai bank rather than pay for insurance I don't need.

If the rules don't change when my 2 years are up and I can't get a second O-A visa, I'll go back to METV's. If I can no longer get those either, I'll get a SETV and pack up and leave at the end of my permission to stay.
Meanwhile, I'll be one of the first to test the new requiremnts. I'm leaving next week and come back the first week in Nov. I don't have time to investigate the useless insurance before I go. According to everything I've read (I read every post in this thread) I won't have a problem re-entering on my O-A issued last month, but no one really knows.

Edited by el jefe
  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, el jefe said:

I'm here on an O-A and I'm not trying to game thesystem. I'e been here 14 years on a variety of visas, most of which I are no longer available. Now I'm here on a O-A issued last month.

i would gladly have converted any of my prior visas to to an O and then went for a Retirement Extension but there is no way to do that at Chiang Mai Immigration without paying an additional 15,000 baht to an agent, in addition to all the other fees.
I'll gladly put 800k baht in a Thai bank rather than pay for insurance I don't need.

If the rules don't change when my 2 years are up and I can't get a second O-A visa, I'll go back to METV's. If I can no longer get those either, I'll get a SETV and pack up and leave at the end of my permission to stay.
Meanwhile, I'll be one of the first to test the new requiremnts. I'm leaving next week and come back the first week in Nov. I don't have time to investigate the useless insurance before I go. According to everything I've read (I read every post in this thread) I won't have a problem re-entering on my O-A issued last month, but no one really knows.

Each to their own of course and you have the right to have done all those things. Personally I'm amazed that anyone would spend 14 years of their retirement living here with that degree of uncertainty and being subject to constant change. You've gone from METV's (which are not intended for retirement in the first place), to an O-A but you say you would want to get a new O-A when the first one expires hence there's an avoidance issue in there somewhere. But then you say you would gladly put 800k in the bank here but you don't want to spend 15k on an agent to do that (or presumably, spend the money to travel overseas to get an O visa and then come back and extend it). Maybe you are not gaming the system but your strategy seems odd to me when you have the agent option or a return trip overseas to get an O. Up to you as they say.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

Nonsense. Repeat Non O-A's have always been fully acceptable to immigration, and often work better for people who continue to spend some time back in their home country, or prefer or need to keep some of their income there. New visas require bank statements along with a medical certificate and a police report, stamped, signed and notarised - a higher bar than anything you have to provide here with your bank letter. I'm fully aware of the differences myself having done both Non O-A applications and in-country extensions. Obtaining a new visa has never been "gaming the system" and involves quite a bit of effort, far more than my last extension did.

 

As far as having the money in Thailand for extensions goes, income has always been verifiable via embassy letters until this year (and remains so for all but three nationalities). For most countries in the world they do not need to bring this money in if they wish not to.

Perhaps you meant to write that they always were tolerated by Immigration, until now! Objectively, do you really think that back to back O-A's for two years each at a time is the spirit of what was intended, especially when there is an extension option that is readily and easily available? This whole issue is about the reluctance or inability of people to bring 800k into the country and the ways they have found to avoid having to do so.

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, saengd said:

Perhaps you meant to write that they always were tolerated by Immigration, until now! Objectively, do you really think that back to back O-A's for two years each at a time is the spirit of what was intended, especially when there is an extension option that is readily and easily available? This whole issue is about the reluctance or inability of people to bring 800k into the country and the ways they have found to avoid having to do so.

You seem to be unaware of the income methods available, which don't require money in excess of a person's needs to be brought in to the country for those countries where embassy letters are still provided. These, along with new visa applications (with their more stringent hoop jumping than anything you have to bother with) have always been fully acceptable to immigration. The only thing that might be considered to be legally dubious is agent assisted extensions, which ironically you seem to be condoning in your post above this one (#261). 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, lamyai3 said:

You seem to be unaware of the income methods available, which don't require money in excess of a person's needs to be brought in to the country for those countries where embassy letters are still provided. These, along with new visa applications (with their more stringent hoop jumping than anything you have to bother with) have always been fully acceptable to immigration. The only thing that might be considered to be legally dubious is agent assisted extensions, which ironically you seem to be condoning in your post above this one (#261). 

I am aware of the income method and I'm also aware it was canned because huge numbers of people were making false declarations to their embassies in order to get the required letter of so called proof, people who once again were gaming the system.

 

And no, I don't condone or support dubious activities by agents although I do support their use for genuine visa related activities where they can save time and avoid frustration for a fairly low fee.

 

Again, if people chose to go the route of back to back O-A's, with the acknowledged higher bar, that's their prerogative. The question in my mind however is why anyone would want to go through that additional aggravation every two years when a much easier option exists in-country. In some cases at least, if not in most, it must surely be related to their unwillingness or inability to prove funds in Thailand, a loop hole we're now seeing closed for many. TBH it's the scammers and gamers who have made this whole business more difficult for everyone else, folks who have done a runner on medical bills; people who have tried to live here on tourist visa's...and every other angle that exists that people dream up.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
42 minutes ago, saengd said:

Personally I'm amazed that anyone would spend 14 years of their retirement living here with that degree of uncertainty and being subject to constant change.

 what certainty exists, over the past year every thing appears to be in a state of flux!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
4 hours ago, saengd said:

I don't know why you think O-A visa holders are not required to have money deposited in LoS. I've had my O-A visa since 2005 and every year I've been required to prove I have at least 800,000 on deposit in a Thai bank, for the required period and to produce a Thai bank letter and along with copies of bank passbooks.

 

 

 You have not held an O-A visa since 2005. You entered on an O-A visa and converted to in-country extensions of stay.

 

No money incountry required for the O-A visa.

 

Funds required for an in-country extension fo stay for retirement, same regardless of visa type.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello

 

If their idea is to have a 440.000 bahts warantee from farangs, why not ask them to deposit 440.000 bahts more into one account.. ?? at least this money would be here and not subject to disclaimer of waranties.. At least the money would be here and would not be spent in a low warantee insurance duplicating with your home country insurance

Have a nice day

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
9 minutes ago, lamyai3 said:

It wasn't canned at all. Three (originally four) embassies stopped issuing letters following undue pressure from immigration, pressure that was clearly never extended to the other embassies. Regarding sworn affidavits, the British Embassy never provided them, and had always required documentation. For most countries income letters continue to be available, exempting their nationals from the need to bring in income above their personal requirements.

 

Those who have their money in better performing investments or funds in their own countries, or who use part of their income for responsibilities back home, or who are in the home country often enough to make getting a new visa a viable alternative? It's ridiculous and ill informed to suggest such people are scammers or gamers. Just as it is to condemn people who lived here on tourist visas in the past, and did so just as legitimately as you do on your retirement extension. People who do a runner on medical bills are most certainly scammers and should be caught and prosecuted, but there's no evidence whatsoever that this is connected to O-A visa holders. 

 

In the current immigration witch-hunt era, any of yesterday's good guys is just a hair's breadth away from becoming one of today's bad guys. I'm surprised anyone who's been here 15 years and enjoyed consistent and reliable rules over a protracted period could seriously applaud immigration's antics in the last year. 

I don't applaud Immigrations actions at all, I'm merely suggesting why the action is being taken and that I understand why.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Based on the video posted recording an officer saying it was applicable to extensions of permission of stay !! 

 

Saying it was applicable to O-A visa only.

 

 

  • Like 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...