Notification of returning home

[Ivor the Engine]

So.... I am fairly certain that you will have reported a change of address (TM28) each time you have moved. That satisfies your responsibility and keeps you clear of any fines.

The housemaster reporting via TM30 is another matter. It only really becomes relevant (as in most long-term expat cases) where the housemaster is your missus.

I took a rental agreement with me to the local IO, to notify my changed residential accommodation and was told ‘Not your problem’.
The old biddy who owned the house will not report my presence despite being asked by me many times. She says she’s scared that it might make her pay tax on rental income! WTF!!!


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rice]

The most practical point made was that if a TM30 has not been filed, at the time you are applying for your extension, the problem most certainly becomes yours.
/

Yes you you get a problem. Still does not change the facts. But you still cannot file a TM 30. What are you suppose to do? to the landlord then. It is still not your responsibility. It is up to immigration to prosecute your landlord.
Your recourse is to move residence. The landlord now does now not get prosecuted and you may get a new landlord that files TM 30. So it is all your fault. so you are right @CO-CO. It is the Farangs fault!
as always. THIS IS THAILAND!

Bye the way which part of my post was incorrect?

 

[Ivor the Engine]

Yes you you get a problem. Still does not change the facts. But you still cannot file a TM 30. What are you suppose to do? to the landlord then. It is still not your responsibility. It is up to immigration to prosecute your landlord.
Your recourse is to move residence. The landlord now does now not get prosecuted and you may get a new landlord that files TM 30. So it is all your fault. so you are right @CO-CO. It is the Farangs fault!
as always. THIS IS THAILAND!

Bye the way which part of my post was incorrect?

I have gone through 2 court cases in Isaan and won both.
I am presently going through another, as a witness for a friend who was nearly killed by a young Thai thug. The way things are going, is he will be in the monkey-house for many years and face a huge fine/legal expenses bill.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CO-CO]

Yes you you get a problem. Still does not change the facts. But you still cannot file a TM 30. What are you suppose to do? to the landlord then. It is still not your responsibility. It is up to immigration to prosecute your landlord.
Your recourse is to move residence. The landlord now does now not get prosecuted and you may get a new landlord that files TM 30. So it is all your fault. so you are right @CO-CO. It is the Farangs fault!
as always. THIS IS THAILAND!

Bye the way which part of my post was incorrect?

As possessor, the occupier can file a TM30.......... That is where your post was incorrect.

Have a read of the oracle (Thai Visa.com). There are a few current threads and several people have reported taking responsibility themselves to file TM30 simply to avoid any future issues.

As said, Chonburi may welcome that action and Sisaket may tell you to f**k off. The fact remains that an occupier can submit a TM30 by signing as possessor.

 

[Rice]

As possessor, the occupier can file a TM30.......... That is where your post was incorrect.

Have a read of the oracle (Thai Visa.com). There are a few current threads and several people have reported taking responsibility themselves to file TM30 simply to avoid any future issues.

As said, Chonburi may welcome that action and Sisaket may tell you to f**k off. The fact remains that an occupier can submit a TM30 by signing as possessor.

English was never my strongest subject but to use the word "Possessor" as meaning an occupier of the dwelling is a far stretch. Have you ever heard an occupier of a dwelling refereed to as the "Possessor" before in an English speaking country? As meaning not the owner but somebody that lives there. Anyway what ever! It is open to interpretation and places interpret as such.
Why don't they just say occupier then? My guess is that it is not suppose to mean occupier at all.

Hell I won't delete what I just wrote. BUT!
I just reminded myself. What the fork am I doing discussing this at all. I have proved my self Thai law has no basis in logic at all, as it is so weakly put together it is all flawed.
Every thing is your responsibility and all your fault. Yep that's right. I almost forgot about my Changwattana incident where I asked them to prove the law lunacy.
THEY BLOODY DID! I will shut up now and will never comment on such matters again. If I do somebody just post the name Changwattana. It will shut me up.

 

[gotlost]

English was never my strongest subject but to use the word "Possessor" as meaning an occupier of the dwelling is a far stretch. Have you ever heard an occupier of a dwelling refereed to as the "Possessor" before in an English speaking country? As meaning not the owner but somebody that lives there. Anyway what ever! It is open to interpretation and places interpret as such.
Why don't they just say occupier then? My guess is that it is not suppose to mean occupier at all.

Hell I won't delete what I just wrote. BUT!
I just reminded myself. What the fork am I doing discussing this at all. I have proved my self Thai law has no basis in logic at all, as it is so weakly put together it is all flawed.
Every thing is your responsibility and all your fault. Yep that's right. I almost forgot about my Changwattana incident where I asked them to prove the law lunacy.
THEY BLOODY DID! I will shut up now and will never comment on such matters again. If I do somebody just post the name Changwattana. It will shut me up.

 

[Ivor the Engine]

In that context, I have never heard that word used in the same way, including many years dealing with properties placed as security for bank lending.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Rice]

And you, just pipe down.

 

[CO-CO]

English was never my strongest subject but to use the word "Possessor" as meaning an occupier of the dwelling is a far stretch. Have you ever heard an occupier of a dwelling refereed to as the "Possessor" before in an English speaking country? As meaning not the owner but somebody that lives there. Anyway what ever! It is open to interpretation and places interpret as such.
Why don't they just say occupier then? My guess is that it is not suppose to mean occupier at all.

Hell I won't delete what I just wrote. BUT!
I just reminded myself. What the fork am I doing discussing this at all. I have proved my self Thai law has no basis in logic at all, as it is so weakly put together it is all flawed.
Every thing is your responsibility and all your fault. Yep that's right. I almost forgot about my Changwattana incident where I asked them to prove the law lunacy.
THEY BLOODY DID! I will shut up now and will never comment on such matters again. If I do somebody just post the name Changwattana. It will shut me up.

It's nothing about English - other that comprehending that the word possessor applies to the occupier in the context of the TM30.

Deny it or argue as much as you like but step off your soapbox because that is how Thai immigration interpret it. The fact that the expats of Surin or Sisaket have avoided any issues is fortuitous............... you will find that a few residents in Buriram have been less fortunate.

I once tried to tell an IO in Buriram that the Thai Immigration Bureau rules stated that I would apply for an extension 45 days before the due date. He simply said "Not in Buriram....30 days". Only a fool would take on Thai immigration on points of legality.......... it rarely ends well for the Farang.

 

[CO-CO]

In that context, I have never heard that word used in the same way, including many years dealing with properties placed as security for bank lending.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

So despite performing a securities clerk role you were unfamiliar with Possessory Title ?

 

[Ivor the Engine]

So despite performing a securities clerk role you were unfamiliar with Possessory Title ?

Yes I am, but I am unsure about it’s relevance to this topic here in Thailand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CO-CO]

Yes I am, but I am unsure about it’s relevance to this topic here in Thailand.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Because YOU posted about it !!!!!

 

[Ivor the Engine]

Because YOU posted about it !!!!!

Please read all of my post, especially the first part.
What I’m trying to say is, if somebody is residing in a property (whatever the title situation), I have never heard them described as a ‘possessor’.
Maybe it wasn’t in the ‘Brixton/Streatham’ lingo? 555


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[CO-CO]

Please read all of my post, especially the first part.
What I’m trying to say is, if somebody is residing in a property (whatever the title situation), I have never heard them described as a ‘possessor’.
Maybe it wasn’t in the ‘Brixton/Streatham’ lingo? 555


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

What has Brixton got to do with Thai Immigration forms TM30 ?

 

[Ivor the Engine]

What has Brixton got to do with Thai Immigration forms TM30 ?

It was a joke and this is becoming tiresome now. As you suggest, let’s stay more on-topic.

Since the discussion about ‘the future of SF’ I have tried to post more, to generate discussions but maybe I won’t bother.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[nomad97]

Please read all of my post, especially the first part.
What I’m trying to say is, if somebody is residing in a property (whatever the title situation), I have never heard them described as a ‘possessor’.
Maybe it wasn’t in the ‘Brixton/Streatham’ lingo? 555


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Maybe they are talking about Phi's (ghosts) and of being possessed. That would explain a lot.

 

[Rice]

It's nothing about English - other that comprehending that the word possessor applies to the occupier in the context of the TM30.

Deny it or argue as much as you like but step off your soapbox because that is how Thai immigration interpret it. The fact that the expats of Surin or Sisaket have avoided any issues is fortuitous............... you will find that a few residents in Buriram have been less fortunate.

I once tried to tell an IO in Buriram that the Thai Immigration Bureau rules stated that I would apply for an extension 45 days before the due date. He simply said "Not in Buriram....30 days". Only a fool would take on Thai immigration on points of legality.......... it rarely ends well for the Farang.

Leave over already, I said "this discussion is a waste of time and energy". I had already given up.

 

[Yorky]

I remember Gollum and "The Ring".

 

[CO-CO]

Leave over already, I said "this discussion is a waste of time and energy". I had already given up.

There are others who are prepared to learn.

Education is never a waste time.

 

[CO-CO]

It was a joke and this is becoming tiresome now. As you suggest, let’s stay more on-topic.

Since the discussion about ‘the future of SF’ I have tried to post more, to generate discussions but maybe I won’t bother.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

That would be good............ or perhaps use the jokes section ?

Feel free to report any posts that you consider inappropriate.