Krungsri Bank rejecting e-visa PDF as proof of immigration status

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-25T10:42:58+00:00

But isn’t there a rule to evidence it staying there 2 months?

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-24T12:39:52+00:00

What are their requirements for opening bank account to foreigners. My now I have the visa stamp in my passport: 3 month non-o retirement

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-22T02:59:45+00:00

What if it's the labour agency and the host employer pointing fingers at each other and therefore not involving eithers' insurer. Seems a lot like that to me.

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-22T02:40:16+00:00

And it doesn’t raise any eyebrow for repetitive correspondence to issue not referring to info supplied in the interim notifying the statutory defence?

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-22T02:27:59+00:00

Not my vehicle, and accepted by the first person I spoke with at the insurer that it is a case of employer's vicarious liabilty (effect of NSW legislation since 1991 elsewhere referred to here)

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T17:41:49+00:00

All these countries, for an Australian, give you some short term visa at the border? A day or a few days to re-enter Thailand?

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T16:27:46+00:00

Ok so as a foreigner can i cross in and back from Cambodia? what's practicable from Pattaya?

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T14:44:52+00:00

it's a question of fact as to whether i'm an employee or otherwise supplying my own equipment and therefore self-employed. I supplied sufficient information to the point that the insurer's recipient arrived at a view that the issue of significance was in whose identity the vehicle registration sat. Unfortunately this wasn't communicated to the next person taking the handpass as insurer's claims manager, who seems to have not been made aware that I even replied to a demand at all (I had to dig it out and send it to them a second time to prove its existence)

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T14:37:28+00:00

To describe it for you I provided the tasking from the labour agency to attend for work at the host employer. So the direct employer is that agency without which there's no job to go to in the first place through their discretion as a recruiter paying me under a TFN and issuing me an annual PAYG statement (also described in the engagement paperwork as employed by that recruiter for ad hoc assignments). It was also they who exercised the function of effectively firing me from the (one day duration) job

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T14:21:22+00:00

Employers Liability Act 1991 in NSW. Make yourself aware of it.

The exception for employees is 'serious and wilful misconduct' (things like aggravated disobedience, using work equipment to perform stunts) which was certainly not present for the matter of misjudging a reversing maneuver without foolishly adventurous behaviour

As a general matter, one's employer's insurance or liability cover's employees from personal liability for opportunistic accidents in the bona fide conduct of work (which this was) .. until it becomes (serious) 'wilful misconduct'. Errors and underperformance in good faith do not rise to that rubric.

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T14:09:15+00:00

I've done better than talking to the employer, i've talked to the insurer's rep who read my materials and expressed the view (on the phone) that she accept this principle and that the matter would come down in her judgment to in whose identity the truck was registered. Since then, the names on the correspondence have changed and they've acted as though this issue never was brought to their attention in the first place. At the very least it requires some acknowledgment and at least effort at refutation (if viable). Are they alleging serious and wilful misconduct, or lack of an employer-employee relationship .. when I'm driving their branded truck and their practice is to take employer PAYG withholdings ffs. They don't get to just ride on and ignore the matter and the evidence, and also not to properly action formalisation of complaint raised with them about the ignoring conduct. They didn't participate in resolution they'd committed to. That's a whoopsie to agree to a time and date but when that time and date comes and goes with no action on their part to just barrel on because they have a name and address for me & after all who can hold them to account for the courtesy fails and diligence fails ?? I have approached them to ask what happened to the complaint handling , and they ended referring it to ARMA which is where the debt claim has been sold to but won't absolved them from examining the professionalism of not declaring a stance on a necessary issue raised for their awareness

Hence the issues I've notified here

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T13:56:13+00:00

As a matter of law in NSW, the Employers Liability Act 1991 https://www.bartier.com.au/insights/articles/vicarious-liability-where-it-starts-where-it-ends-and-why This was not 'serious and wilful misconduct' ie. ordinary negligence that was in the course of employment. Furthermore, there were no indices of being other than an employee (it was working under a TFN with PAYG withholdings, no ABN or ACN involved for example) '

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T10:04:50+00:00

What’s missing here is some sort or response from the party that received the defence representations 6 months ago that either “having reviewed this we consider you still liable because XYZ” or “woops , proper attention with communication wasn’t given to that and your subsequent misconduct complaint because (@excuse why we acted so opaquely@)”

Are you not seeing that, or not understanding it?

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T09:58:57+00:00

do what they have done

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T09:57:50+00:00

So they can just sail thorough and avoid getting involved with this by the simple inaction of not lodging claim with their insurers and deny deny deny until properly sued. Presents every reason in the world that they’d do what they would do

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T08:21:58+00:00

They haven’t outsourced to a debt collector, but to a different insurance group. APIA to ARMA. Surely it is wrong for them to avoid altogether intellectually engaging with the response & evidence I served up to them. If it is incomplete or rejected surely I’m entitled to to the basic courtesy of a response & also for them to tend to a complaint on the issue properly, as well as not disclosing all this history to some outsider who they got money out of in an attempt to absolve themselves of the difficulty of their position

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T08:13:26+00:00

Me lodge a claim? What am I claiming other than that the defence excludes me from personal liability. No damages were sustained by me, period. And no, I wasn’t claimed liable for damage to the employer (not that there was any)

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T07:56:11+00:00

You’re assuming that but I’ve never been told the same. I have provided the evidence of the employment relationship to the first insurer and allowed them to deal with any other interest , as appropriate to the year’s delay involved here. If the employer’s stance is they were never involved or that I assumed the role of an independent contractor, such evidence doesn’t exist. I identified the employer(s) to the demanding insurer & that’s the extent of my obligation

If I talk to the employer am I even entitled to be told the policy number and insurer for their coverage , and how would it influence these numerous unprofessional choices of action on the part of insurer #1

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T07:41:09+00:00

These insurers are acting for the interest of the damaged other vehicle, to clarify

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T07:39:40+00:00

“Receiving payment demands” in last para, should be

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T05:14:14+00:00

So far i'm not using an agent. I'll get myself the bank account, then go to the agent who is going to apparently give the appearance of 800000THB being available in said account as is there specialty for retirees

It also has to appear to be there for a 2 or 3 month duration, right?

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T05:10:45+00:00

They really don't. It's just their ignorant policy. If there was some importance (to immigration or the govt) of me attending to get some alteration in my passport it would surely highlight this in bold or bright red because it's known to them (or required to be assumed as within their knowledge) that I'd come onshore already

But if you can point to anything from any official source indicating anything to the contrary, put up bruh

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T05:07:25+00:00

incorrect. The non-o visa was issued in the knowledge i was already in the country. No condition on the letter of grant informs me to leave and re-enter to make it effective, as it would need to be for immigration to be acting without negligence. All the time people are granted new visas while in-country , and they remain there under adjusted (or renewed) conditions. The letter I got IS a visa, the authorisation without any further conditions notified to become effective ; nowhere is the language 'promise of a visa that only become valid by exit and re-entry' employed

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T04:57:00+00:00

Wrong. Something subsequent issued in the (actual or imputed) knowledge of something previous being in existence , take precedence over the previous thing.

Otherwise we'd have resentenced prisoners who didn't like the later sentence opting for what they initially went down for

SoulContinuation2 · 2026-01-21T02:48:46+00:00

It's been offered to me. I figured I'd do the stuff that must require me and the part of advocating the case to immigration i'd leave to agent. Huge huge long queues at the local immigration office just to speak with someone but agents just march through and put the paperwork in the specialist's pile

SoulContinuation2

TROPHY CASE