If a foreigner legally owns a condo or a leasehold on property, is there a special visa for a person in that category?
If would seem perhaps illegal not to grant a person like that as many tourist or non-immigrant visas as he/she would want. Otherwise, they would be restricting the person from visiting/occupying what is legally and rightfully theirs. Pete
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Source
I'm not 100% sure about this, but I don't think such a visa/extension exists anymore. There used to be an investment visa/extension which required 3 million THB of investment to qualify. People who weren't 50 or married to a Thai, but had money, would buy a condo for that amount upwards and get their annual extensions on that basis.
However, I think that avenue was closed some 3-4 years ago. Those who already had one were probably grandfathered into the system, but no new applications were allowed.
There certainly was quite a stink about it at the time. I just can't remember the final outcome. I've a feeling that new investment extensions required more money put into government bonds and not property.
I've just taken a look and the above would appear to be correct. If you Google "investment visa+thailand", you'll get the results. It was discontinued some time ago for condos. I don't think leasehold houses ever came into the equation.
Interesting Lomu, thanks. Of all the things we've talked about concerning visas, this particular subject I believe could be successfully challenged in court, either here or internationally. That is of someone has the hootspa to do it.
You can't allow a person to buy property, then deny them access to it. Pete
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Source
But is this no different from the US, where as a UK citizen I could own a house there but still be required to leave the US after six months, unless I was able to go down the Green Card route.
Governor wrote:But is this no different from the US, where as a UK citizen I could own a house there but still be required to leave the US after six months, unless I was able to go down the Green Card route.
I'm actually not familiar with my own country's immigration rules but I think it is different to an extent. With a UK passport you just have to step across a border then step back in again I assume and your 6 months starts all over again. I'm familiar with a few Thais who have 10 year USA visas but I don't know how long that allows them to stay. Honestly, I really don't know if the USA has some special provision for property owners.
Here a homeowner is at the mercy and discretion of some embassy or consulate and what kind of mood they're in on a particular day whether to grant any visa or extension at all.
At the very least I think Thai application forms should have an area to indicate/prove if you own a home, and if so take that into consideration to some degree when granting a visa/extension. Pete
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Source
lomuamart wrote:I'm not 100% sure about this, but I don't think such a visa/extension exists anymore. There used to be an investment visa/extension which required 3 million THB of investment to qualify. People who weren't 50 or married to a Thai, but had money, would buy a condo for that amount upwards and get their annual extensions on that basis.
However, I think that avenue was closed some 3-4 years ago. Those who already had one were probably grandfathered into the system, but no new applications were allowed.
There certainly was quite a stink about it at the time. I just can't remember the final outcome. I've a feeling that new investment extensions required more money put into government bonds and not property.
I've just taken a look and the above would appear to be correct. If you Google "investment visa+thailand", you'll get the results. It was discontinued some time ago for condos. I don't think leasehold houses ever came into the equation.
You are correct, Lomu. I tried this route a few years ago and was denied. According to my Lawyer there was no "Grandfather" clause, the option was simply revoked.
And to add to Petes comments: how is it that H.H. Immigration can ask for home "ownership", with their 24 hour reporting crap?
May you be in heaven half an hour before the devil know`s you`re dead!
prcscct wrote:
Here a homeowner is at the mercy and discretion of some embassy or consulate and what kind of mood they're in on a particular day whether to grant any visa or extension at all.
Even worse than that is the fact that a couple can purchase property/land together while happily married, but the alien has to sign away his rights and is entitled to sweet FA if they split up in the future. You've got better chances at a casino!
Who is the happier man, he who has braved the storm of life and lived or he who has stayed securely on shore and merely existed? - Hunter S Thompson
Another odd twist to this is that if a person has to apply for a visa to enter lets say the UK or the USA, getting the first visa is a hard and difficult process. After the first one is issued, getting subsequent visas is easy and straight forward from what I'm told.
Here, getting the first visa is usually quite easy as your passport and record are not filled with previous entries. The more you enter the more difficult it seems to be to get renewals, and it's those people who would own property here.
I'm not really talking about over 50, retired, married etc., but anyone who owns property here should have some special consideration. Age, retirement status, marital status should be secondary IMO. I know, no one is home or listening in the halls of government. Feels good to at least voice an opinion though. Pete
Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. Source
buksida wrote:Even worse than that is the fact that a couple can purchase property/land together while happily married, but the alien has to sign away his rights and is entitled to sweet FA if they split up in the future. You've got better chances at a casino!
This is an important issue Buksi, worth expanding on. If advised well the foreigner only needs to sign away his rights to the land, and not house, which generalsing is approx. 25% of the overall property value. There has however been divorce cases where the judge has awarded a 50/50 split of the land value.
The house can be registered 100% in the foreigners name and then the Thai has no claim over this purchase value, bar the 50/50 award example above. If the funds can only be shown as joint marital funds, and not yours prior to marriage then the house value would be a 50/50 split from the start.
All foreigners with money before marriage would be advised to have an agreement made that their pre-marriage money was used to purchase the house (excl. Land), so that you have similar protection as your spouse has with the land offices 'sign off declaration'.
Sorry off-topic but important for foreigners protection.
but I think it is different to an extent. With a UK passport you just have to step across a border then step back in again I assume and your 6 months starts all over again. I'm familiar with a few Thais who have 10 year USA visas but I don't know how long that allows them to stay. Honestly, I really don't know if the USA has some special provision for property owners.
Pete 
