Jump to content

Recommended Posts

16 minutes ago, Neeranam said:

Does anyone know if I can enter the UK with an expired UK passport, leaving Thailand with a Thai passport?

 

Theoretically you are British, so they can’t refuse you entry. 

 

 

  • Like 1
  • Sad 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

You will only be able to leave with a Thai passport if you have a visa for the UK in the passport. This is because Thai citizens need some form of prior permission to enter the UK.

 

However, as a UK national you are technically not permitted to receive a visa as no limitation can be placed on the duration of your stay.

 

Instead it is your expired UK passport that will grant you permission to travel to and enter the UK.

 

Your Thai passport will allow you to travel back to Thailand without a visa.

  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I believe that the official requirement is that you have to prove your identity at UK border.  Until we get UK Identity cards your passport is the best way.  I seem to remember that some years ago some journalists managed to travel about the EU only using some form of identity card/UK driving licence.  UK was in EU then.

Quite honestly, unless you have some type of UK passport I would not like to bet on your being allowed to board your flight at BKK.

Can you  not get something from UK embassy, if not a replacement passport?  They must be used to sorting out tourists who have lost their passport when on holiday.

Do you have details of your old passport?  Number, date of issue, expiry?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your UK passport is proof of your citizenship and your absolute right to enter the UK unhindered, whilst your passport may have expired your citizenship hasn’t and you can use your expired passport to enter the UK.

 

At check-in, you should show your Thai passport, assuming the names coincide with the ticket, but be prepared to show them your UK passport proving that you have the right of entry into the UK, they should be aware of the rules but may need to double check, as will the gate staff and any staff if you have a non direct flight.

 

it is correct that as a British Citizen you cannot be issued with a UK Visa. 

 

You should clear Thai Immigration using your Thai passport, I’m assuming you entered Thailand using your Thai passport, they will not be concerned about the entry requirements for your destination.

 

Another option is to buy an Emergency Travel Document from the British Embassy., and whilst it’s an easy option, it might not be required.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Dont Forget the negative PCR test and possible quarantine. Britain is in a very bad spot at the moment . It’s also confinement there. 

  • Like 2
Link to post
Share on other sites
21 hours ago, theoldgit said:

At check-in, you should show your Thai passport, assuming the names coincide with the ticket, but be prepared to show them your UK passport proving that you have the right of entry into the UK, they should be aware of the rules but may need to double check, as will the gate staff and any staff if you have a non direct flight.

It is of course, correct that a British Passport holder cannot be denied entry (a British Overseas Territory Passport holder can though)........but:

 

Many airlines outsource their check-in services, the outsourced staff don't seem to be too clued up on any rules.  For example - I'd heard of Thai citizens that didn't have a return ticket being refused boarding bound for the UK, even though there is no requirement for Visitor Visa holders to have a return ticket.  I checked with Finn Air and they told me they don't operate such a policy and they know there is no such requirement.  I still had a nagging doubt so I purchased a (cancellable) return flight on Etihad, even though at that time, I knew my wife would not be allowed to use it.  Sure enough, on arrival at check-in my wife was asked to show a return ticket. The outsourced check-in staff were adamant that she would not have been allowed to fly if she hadn't provided the return ticket.  I reported the matter to Finnair who said they would take the matter up with their ground manager in Bangkok (Finnair staff) - I never heard back from them.

 

So, I wish you the best of luck with this - at the very least I would make sure you arrive at check-in very early so the staff have time to check if they don't know the rules. The timing of your flight could also have a bearing on matters - if the check-in staff do need to call someone, they have to be able to contact whoever and wherever - which could be in a different time zone or the office closed.  If you're not too far from Suvarnabhumi, it might be an idea to go check things before your travel date or apply for an emergency travel document at the British Embassy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
11 hours ago, Tony M said:
  • And this is why airlines are reluctant to carry people without valid passports.

Irrelevant, the OP is not traveling without a valid passport.

As already pointed out, citizenship has not expired and the question is over proof of citizenship not the ability to travel.

If the OP is British by birth then a birth certificate would be the obvious answer, otherwise some other document as an expired passport would not be considered as legal proof.

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

Irrelevant, the OP is not traveling without a valid passport.

As already pointed out, citizenship has not expired and the question is over proof of citizenship not the ability to travel.

If the OP is British by birth then a birth certificate would be the obvious answer, otherwise some other document as an expired passport would not be considered as legal proof.

 

Sorry but it's not irrelevant at all, Tony M has kindly attached the relevent section from the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which clarifies why some airlines are reluctant to carry what might be properly undocumented passengers, carriers are liable for a penalty of £2,000, yes it's still £2,000 Tony, and also the cost of flying the passenger back to their departure point along with cost of any detention which may be deemed necessary if the UKBA refuse to land the passenger.

I have already mentioned that the check-in staff will need to check the status of the passenger, as might the staff en-route, Tony also mentioned that it wouldn't be a problem for the passenger on arrival at the UK Border, but the airline staff might not know that and be ultra cautious.

Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, sandyf said:

Irrelevant, the OP is not traveling without a valid passport.

As already pointed out, citizenship has not expired and the question is over proof of citizenship not the ability to travel.

If the OP is British by birth then a birth certificate would be the obvious answer, otherwise some other document as an expired passport would not be considered as legal proof.

How do you consider his passport to be valid ?  It establishes identity and nationality, but it has expired, and therefore cannot be valid. That's like saying that an expired driver's licence is valid.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
3 hours ago, theoldgit said:

 

Sorry but it's not irrelevant at all, Tony M has kindly attached the relevent section from the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999, which clarifies why some airlines are reluctant to carry what might be properly undocumented passengers, carriers are liable for a penalty of £2,000, yes it's still £2,000 Tony, and also the cost of flying the passenger back to their departure point along with cost of any detention which may be deemed necessary if the UKBA refuse to land the passenger.

I have already mentioned that the check-in staff will need to check the status of the passenger, as might the staff en-route, Tony also mentioned that it wouldn't be a problem for the passenger on arrival at the UK Border, but the airline staff might not know that and be ultra cautious.

Of course it is irrelevant, the OP has already indicated he is British citizen and as such wouldn't be subject to said Act. He has also indicated that he is in possession of a valid travel document so as said, to avoid any misunderstanding, all he needs is legal proof of UK citizenship.

It is a myth that airlines are responsible for the cost of returning passengers refused entry, you will find in the Standard Conditions of Carriage that airlines have the right to reclaim the costs involved plus expenses from the passenger. The airline may be inconvenienced but not necessarily financially.

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

How do you consider his passport to be valid ?  It establishes identity and nationality, but it has expired, and therefore cannot be valid. That's like saying that an expired driver's licence is valid.

Unless I am mistaken the OP indicated that he held a valid Thai passport. This was my reference to the UK passport.

"If the OP is British by birth then a birth certificate would be the obvious answer, otherwise some other document as an expired passport would not be considered as legal proof."

Link to post
Share on other sites
25 minutes ago, sandyf said:

Unless I am mistaken the OP indicated that he held a valid Thai passport. This was my reference to the UK passport.

"If the OP is British by birth then a birth certificate would be the obvious answer, otherwise some other document as an expired passport would not be considered as legal proof."

 

 With a Thai passport he requires a visa to enter the UK. The airline would be faced with a passenger who doesn't hold a valid passport or visa to enter the UK. Therefore they are obeying the law in not allowing him to travel.  They are, according to the law, liable to a "charge" if they carry him to the UK, as the 1999 Act does not say anywhere that it doesn't apply to British citizens. A valid Thai passport without a UK visa does not allow him to board an aircraft, and as he cannot obtain a UK visa in a Thai passport (being a British citizen), he does not hold a document of any kind that allows him to travel to the UK.  

 

Where did you find that it is a myth that airlines are responsible for the cost of removing passengers who have been refused entry ?  That is covered by paragraph 8(1) of Schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 :


Removal of persons refused leave to enter and illegal entrants

 

8(1)Where a person arriving in the United Kingdom is refused leave to enter, an immigration officer may, subject to sub-paragraph (2) below—

 

(a)give the captain of the ship or aircraft in which he arrives directions requiring the captain to remove him from the United Kingdom in that ship or aircraft; or

(b)give the owners or agents of that ship or aircraft directions requiring them to remove him from the United Kingdom in any ship or aircraft specified or indicated in the directions, being a ship or aircraft of which they are the owners or agents; or

(c)give those owners or agents directions requiring them to make arrangements for his removal from the United Kingdom in any ship or aircraft specified or indicated in the directions to a country or territory so specified, being either—

(i)a country of which he is a national or citizen; or

(ii)a country or territory in which he has obtained a passport or other document of identity; or

(iii)a country or territory in which he embarked for the United Kingdom; or

(iv)a country or territory to which there is reason to believe that he will be admitted.

 

(2) No directions shall be given under this paragraph in respect of anyone after the expiration of two months beginning with the date on which he was refused leave to enter the United Kingdom (ignoring any period during which an appeal by him under the Immigration Acts is pending) except that directions may be given under sub-paragraph (1)(b) or (c) after the end of that period if the immigration officer has within that period given written notice to the owners or agents in question of his intention to give directions to them in respect of that person].

 

Yes, an airline can try to reclaim the costs of any flight from the UK, but good luck to them when the passenger says no. Do you really think that the only way that a person could be removed from the UK after being refused entry would be for them to pay for own ticket ?  The airline is responsible for those costs and also any detention costs (as theoldgit said above). 

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...