New rule - retirement visa only 200K/bank or 20K/month?

[ex-pat]

Has anyone applied or planning to apply under clause 6 A? Will they want to see some proof from us like old passports or just check their own records? Or is that info already in the passport from the Date of Entry notation?

Hmm. Heads up to anyone else that tends not to read the fine print. I totally missed the requirement to show an updated bankbook. Kinda vague.. show to who? On Aug 10th only? Not 9th or 11th? Is everyone getting these or have I raised some flags?

 

 

[Oukiva]

13 minutes ago, ex-pat said:

Has anyone applied or planning to apply under clause 6 A?

A bit late for that . It's nothing of a "New rule" but the grandfathering of a very old rule. To be concerned you must have get a Retirement Extension more than 20 years ago and must have continuously renew it every year since that time. The article 6 didn't change since I know this Police Order, early 2000's.

[ex-pat]

3 minutes ago, Oukiva said:

A bit late for that . It's nothing of a "New rule" but the grandfathering of a very old rule. To be concerned you must have get a Retirement Extension more than 20 years ago and must have continuously renew it every year since that time. The article 6 didn't change since I know this Police Order, early 2000's.

Thanks. OK - I didn't know about it, but I qualify. Well, not exactly as some of those years were non Imm -O based on marriage but leaving that aside for the time being,  Why would it be "too late"?

[Oukiva]

6 minutes ago, ex-pat said:

Thanks. OK - I didn't know about it, but I qualify. Why is it "too late"?

Just that I think that people who qualify and are on Retirement Extension since 1998 already know this rule and never had to show more than 200kB at renewals.

I someone qualifies - but didn't know it during 20 years ! - I see no reason why he couldn't now renew with just 200kB.

If you switch to Marriage for a few extensions it probably will not work, but you can still try 

[ex-pat]

1 minute ago, Oukiva said:

Just that I think that people who qualify and are on Retirement Extension since 1998 already know this rule and never had to show more than 200kB at renewals.

I someone qualifies - but didn't know it during 20 years ! - I see no reason why he couldn't now renew with just 200kB.

If you switch to Marriage for a few extensions it probably will not work, but you can still try 

Thank you. I never knew about it and therefore never had any reason to research the possibility of a grandfathered clause like that. Hopefully someone who has gone thru the process will respond with details on the procedure of how they qualify individuals. Maybe I will slip thru the cracks!

[sexy man]

i qualify and use it my first reirementdates from 1st april 1998 and have used it ever since

[ex-pat]

33 minutes ago, sexy man said:

i qualify and use it my first reirementdates from 1st april 1998 and have used it ever since

What do they look for (if anything from you) when you show that reduced amount? Of course bankbook, etc but I mean specific to you not showing the 800K amount.

[Oukiva]

18 minutes ago, ex-pat said:

What do they look for (if anything from you) when you show that reduced amount? Of course bankbook, etc but I mean specific to you not showing the 800K amount.

After re-reading the rules, I think you must show that last year you get your extension with the 200kB exception, because the year before you got it with the 200kB exception, because … etc.

I think it works only if you were paying 200kB 20 years ago and always renewed your extensions with this exception to the rule. Sorry 

[ex-pat]

1 hour ago, Oukiva said:

After re-reading the rules, I think you must show that last year you get your extension with the 200kB exception, because the year before you got it with the 200kB exception, because … etc.

I think it works only if you were paying 200kB 20 years ago and always renewed your extensions with this exception to the rule. Sorry 

Yeah, I think you are right. Oh, well. I can still qualify with 800K but it would have been nice to have the option.