Jump to content

Proof of retirement - Non imm O - Brit


Recommended Posts

Just thought I'd post this as i gave the British Embassy another shot at providing some form of proof of retirement and the answer is no. So for those of us who are over 50 but below pension age we need to avoid those places that ask for proof of retirement such as Savanaket. It's a daft requirement anyway

Screenshot_20200208-060250_1.png

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Curt1591 said:

Never had to "prove" I am retired.

Just to clarify your response, did you apply in Savannakhet for a 90-day Non Imm O - retirement Visa and were not required to provide some proof of retirement (e.g. pension statements)?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Probably, but this is a problem for those over 50 and not receiving a pension

There was a recent post that Penang did not ask for proof of retirement.

You can also apply for one in Vientiane without it but you need a Thai police clearance and medical certificate.

  • Like 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2020 at 6:04 PM, ubonjoe said:

Savannakhet has accepted pension statements and etc without them being stamped by an embassy.

Everybody does not get pension when they reach the age of 50. So, this is irrelevant

Edited by Vascoda
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/7/2020 at 7:14 PM, Curt1591 said:

Never had to "prove" I am retired.

yeah it is daft, but the latest iteration of requiring monthly deposits if on the income method and then some Thai officials asking about the source of the funds in those transfers, even though they would not understand the nature of ones' investments say, and if one did not have a pension which many USA citizens will not have since so many private pensions are gone, especially in so many major DOD type Aerospace company, Northrop, Lockheed, Boeing, etc. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2020 at 7:04 AM, ubonjoe said:

Savannakhet has accepted pension statements and etc without them being stamped by an embassy.

 

1 hour ago, Vascoda said:

Everybody does not get pension when they reach the age of 50. So, this is irrelevant

It's absolutely relevant to obtaining a Non O based on retirement from Savannakhet, as that is one of their conditions.

If your over 50 but not receiving a Pension or cannot provide proof of retirement, then it may be possible to obtain the Non O elsewhere but with other conditions attached such as financial proof, criminal record checks or medical certificates.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Tanoshi said:

t's absolutely relevant to obtaining a Non O based on retirement from Savannakhet, as that is one of their conditions.

Does US emabassy issue such a note if taken under oath? Somebody told they would issue anything under oath - for example you can say you're from the planet Xanu came to take all Scientologists for their final salvation  ????

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 2/8/2020 at 7:07 AM, scubascuba3 said:

Probably, but this is a problem for those over 50 and not receiving a pension

So if you don't qualify for non O visa requirements because you don't receive a pension, what's wrong with applying for a non O-A visa? The financial proof is similar but you don't need to prove you have an official pension, only proof of income.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

37 minutes ago, john terry1001 said:

So if you don't qualify for non O visa requirements because you don't receive a pension, what's wrong with applying for a non O-A visa? The financial proof is similar but you don't need to prove you have an official pension, only proof of income.

bad move because you'd need health insurance

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

bad move because you'd need health insurance

But aren't they the rules that we should all be abiding by, unless we are married to a Thai national or have Thai dependants of course?

 

I realise that some people have currently got extensions based on non O's they obtained several years ago, when the process was much more lax, but Immigration have been (very slowly) tightening the loopholes and guiding everybody towards non O-A's for some time now, until people not paying medical bills also means we've got to the stage where insurance is now a requirement. And I think the more people try to 'manipulate' the rules the worse it's going to get in the future. 

 

  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, john terry1001 said:

But aren't they the rules that we should all be abiding by, unless we are married to a Thai national or have Thai dependants of course?

 

I realise that some people have currently got extensions based on non O's they obtained several years ago, when the process was much more lax, but Immigration have been (very slowly) tightening the loopholes and guiding everybody towards non O-A's for some time now, until people not paying medical bills also means we've got to the stage where insurance is now a requirement. And I think the more people try to 'manipulate' the rules the worse it's going to get in the future. 

 

 

You have it the wrong way around, Immigration are guiding people to the Non Imm O which is where they make most of their tea money. Not many people want to pay the O-A 200k-300k health insurance a year at 70+ which will exclude things you'll likely claim on

Edited by scubascuba3
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

You have it the wrong way around, Immigration are guiding people to the Non Imm O which is where they make most of their tea money. Not many people want to pay the O-A 200k-300k health insurance a year at 70+ which will exclude things you'll likely claim on

I think you have it the wrong way round. Surely, if Immigration were guiding people towards non O visas, they would be removing the restrictions like 'needing a pension letter' to make it easier for you, not adding restrictions to make it more difficult.

 

If increasing income was the goal they would increase the 1,900 baht 'processing' fee, which would be more profitable because EVERYBODY would be paying. Upping the fees to say 5,000 baht would make far more money.

 

The money immigration make from tea money is insignificant. A few individual IO's might make a small amount in places like Pattaya, Phuket and maybe Chiang Mai and that only goes to those individuals but for IO's over the whole country it's very, very small and immigration itself sees virtually nothing.

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, john terry1001 said:

I think you have it the wrong way round. Surely, if Immigration were guiding people towards non O visas, they would be removing the restrictions like 'needing a pension letter' to make it easier for you, not adding restrictions to make it more difficult.

 

If increasing income was the goal they would increase the 1,900 baht 'processing' fee, which would be more profitable because EVERYBODY would be paying. Upping the fees to say 5,000 baht would make far more money.

 

The money immigration make from tea money is insignificant. A few individual IO's might make a small amount in places like Pattaya, Phuket and maybe Chiang Mai and that only goes to those individuals but for IO's over the whole country it's very, very small and immigration itself sees virtually nothing.

 

Bless you, you don't seem to have a feel for what's going on, if they made it easier to get the retirement extension then the IOs would not get their large cuts of the 12,500 baht which is the current charge for a back door one. As to making it 5,000 that means the govt\country would make more money, that's not what they want, they want more money for the IOs for cars, mia nois, giks etc etc

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Bless you, you don't seem to have a feel for what's going on, if they made it easier to get the retirement extension then the IOs would not get their large cuts of the 12,500 baht which is the current charge for a back door one. As to making it 5,000 that means the govt\country would make more money, that's not what they want, they want more money for the IOs for cars, mia nois, giks etc etc

And do you really believe that the powers that be don't know whats going on. If there was any significant amounts floating around for IO's those in power would be the first in line. The individual IO's would be at the back of the queue literally picking up peanuts.

 

Just how many people do you think are paying 12,500 baht + (minus the agents fee of course) in tea money to obtain a Dodgy visa and how many are totally legit? 

  • Sad 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, john terry1001 said:

And do you really believe that the powers that be don't know whats going on. If there was any significant amounts floating around for IO's those in power would be the first in line. The individual IO's would be at the back of the queue literally picking up peanuts.

 

Just how many people do you think are paying 12,500 baht + (minus the agents fee of course) in tea money to obtain a Dodgy visa and how many are totally legit? 

the powers that be know exactly what's going on, they are getting the biggest cut. As for numbers i have no idea, only Immigration know that. What i do know is they all get a cut and are embroiled in it which is the key to corruption. Moving people from OA to O is a good move by them, even more tea money all round. You get treated like a VIP when you become part of it i.e. go through an agent or just direct

  • Confused 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, scubascuba3 said:

the powers that be know exactly what's going on, they are getting the biggest cut. As for numbers i have no idea, only Immigration know that. What i do know is they all get a cut and are embroiled in it which is the key to corruption. Moving people from OA to O is a good move by them, even more tea money all round. You get treated like a VIP when you become part of it i.e. go through an agent or just direct

Just my opinion but I think you must be dreaming.????

 

 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

53 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Bless you, you don't seem to have a feel for what's going on, if they made it easier to get the retirement extension then the IOs would not get their large cuts of the 12,500 baht which is the current charge for a back door one. As to making it 5,000 that means the govt\country would make more money, that's not what they want, they want more money for the IOs for cars, mia nois, giks etc etc

Where do you get that figure of 12,500 from.  Is that what you are paying for your "back door" one. or is that another of the "friend of a friend" gets his illegal visa that way story?

 

Or is someone paying over the odds for an Agent to save them all the time and hassle and is overcharging for the service.

In CM an Agent charges 7900 for the legit  visa, 90 days etc and all you do is spend 10min at CM IO (ZOO) getting your photo taken rather than one or two days depending on the mood of the IO's/queues.

Edited by scottiejohn
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

bad move because you'd need health insurance

 
1 hour ago, john terry1001 said:

But aren't they the rules that we should all be abiding by, unless we are married to a Thai national or have Thai dependants of course?

 

I realise that some people have currently got extensions based on non O's they obtained several years ago, when the process was much more lax, but Immigration have been (very slowly) tightening the loopholes and guiding everybody towards non O-A's for some time now, until people not paying medical bills also means we've got to the stage where insurance is now a requirement. And I think the more people try to 'manipulate' the rules the worse it's going to get in the future.

 

Having health insurance is a very good idea, 

But subscribing to the thai-approved health-insurance scam just to meet the mandatory HI-requirement for your OA-retirement extension is probably the worst decision you can make.

 

Guiding everybody towards non OA's?  That might have been the intention.

But by imposing the mandatory HI-requirement when applying for a Non Imm OA, the thai authorities made it very difficult (and sheer impossible) to apply for such a Visa anymore in your home-country.

I would be very interested to see the statistics of OA applications since Oct 31 > must be close to zero.

And by not allowing foreign often far superior insurance policies, when applying for an OA - retirement extension of stay, they chased away all OA Visa holders to other extensions or to the Non Imm O Visa that does not require the bogus thai-approved health-insurance scam.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Peter Denis said:
 

 

Having health insurance is a very good idea, 

But subscribing to the thai-approved health-insurance scam just to meet the mandatory HI-requirement for your OA-retirement extension is probably the worst decision you can make.

 

Guiding everybody towards non OA's?  That might have been the intention.

But by imposing the mandatory HI-requirement when applying for a Non Imm OA, the thai authorities made it very difficult (and sheer impossible) to apply for such a Visa anymore in your home-country.

I would be very interested to see the statistics of OA applications since Oct 31 > must be close to zero.

And by not allowing foreign often far superior insurance policies, when applying for an OA - retirement extension of stay, they chased away all OA Visa holders to other extensions or to the Non Imm O Visa that does not require the bogus thai-approved health-insurance scam.

 

I do agree with you Peter, both with the intention of guiding towards non O-A's and the lack of quality regarding the overpriced health insurance on offer. But, in my opinion, it's the non O visa that has become increasingly difficult to obtain in your home country over recent years unless you are married to a Thai national or have Thai national dependants (children). When I first started coming to Thailand in 1994 literally anybody who wanted to stay for more than a month were offered a non O visa as a first option. But open abuse in the UK (especially Hull) put a stop to that and, at least the consulate in Birmingham, were instructed to 'push' the non O-A visa. I believe an O-A visa in your home country is still just as available as long as you abide by the similar rules. Yes the rules are more strictly enforced now and the health insurance requirements are an added burden, but that applies wherever you obtain an O-A visa from. By contrast, the non O visa is now much more difficult/restricted from your home country so I don't hold your argument that the authorities have chased applicants away from (easier to obtain) non O-A's towards (the more difficult) non O's in your home country.

 

I believe (some) people are doing at the moment are using loopholes in the present system to try and obtain a non O locally (Savannakhet, HCMC, etc) purely because they can't/won't/refuse to pay the health insurance. In my opinion this increased change in visa status these people are looking to achieve will (eventually) encourage Immigration to close those loopholes and (unfortunately) at the same time it will make it increasingly more difficult for applicants to apply for non O's they are genuinely entitled to.

 

I do think we should pay the total cost of our health care and Thailand should not have to pick up our medical bills. The restrictions in place at the moment though are only going to increase scams so I agree with your argument you've highlighted in other threads about superior foreign policies, plus the excessive cost of Thai policies for the over 70's, is a sound one and should be pursued to try and bring about a change............... but encouraging people to cross borders to change from non O-A's to non O's purely to get out of having health insurance weakens that argument greatly and, in my opinion, should not be encouraged.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 hours ago, scubascuba3 said:

Bless you, you don't seem to have a feel for what's going on, if they made it easier to get the retirement extension then the IOs would not get their large cuts of the 12,500 baht which is the current charge for a back door one. As to making it 5,000 that means the govt\country would make more money, that's not what they want, they want more money for the IOs for cars, mia nois, giks etc etc

They only got a cut from 1900 baht off me, not much to go round. 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

19 hours ago, Peter Denis said:

 

Guiding everybody towards non OA's?  That might have been the intention.

 

Clearly that wasn't the intention. Let's think it through, they add on mandatory health insurance, how is that guiding people to the OA? makes no sense. They were guiding people away from the OA and if some suckers get the thai insurance it's a bonus

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 minutes ago, scubascuba3 said:

Clearly that wasn't the intention. Let's think it through, they add on mandatory health insurance, how is that guiding people to the OA? makes no sense. They were guiding people away from the OA and if some suckers get the thai insurance it's a bonus

In some Western home-country thai embassies/consulates (most notably US) it's not possible anymore to apply for the Non Imm O - retirement Visa as they ceased issuing them.  So, wanting to retire and applying in your home-country, the Non Imm OA (long-stay) Visa would normally be your natural choice.  And for sure it was before Oct 31, 2019.

But by imposing the health-insurance requirement thai authorities made it - unintentionally - difficult and almost impossible to apply for that OA Visa.  Hence my remark that it would be very interesting to see the statistics of OA Visa issued after that date, I guess it would be close to zero.

So people wanting to retire in Thailand, are now almost forced to enter Thailand VisaExempt or on a Tourist Visa, and then apply for a Non Imm O - retirement Visa at the local IO of the place where they want to stay.  And that Non Imm O - retirement Visa does - in contrast with the Non Imm OA - NOT require the thai-approved health-insurance.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:

So people wanting to retire in Thailand, are now almost forced to enter Thailand VisaExempt or on a Tourist Visa, and then apply for a Non Imm O - retirement Visa at the local IO of the place where they want to stay.  And that Non Imm O - retirement Visa does - in contrast with the Non Imm OA - NOT require the thai-approved health-insurance.

And the position is, of course, further complicated by a handful of rogue offices which flatly refuse to process non-O conversions under any circumstances whatsoever (including mine at Rayong).

  • Thanks 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Peter Denis said:


But by imposing the health-insurance requirement thai authorities made it - unintentionally - difficult and almost impossible to apply for that OA Visa. 

Most of what you say we all know already, it's the point above that's contentious, I don't think it was unintentional at all

  • Like 1
Link to comment
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...