Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi all, We bought a part to fix our washing machine approx 13 months ago direct from the manufacturer of the washing machine via phone. This part then failed 13 months later, as confirmed by their own engineer, who was sent by the manufacturer (who is also the retailer for the part) FoC. The engineer actually installed a replacement part, the machine came back to life, but they then removed the part used for testing (and ours reinstalled) as "we would be charged for it". The retailer are refusing to replace the part, stating that they only warranty parts for 90 days. When I stated that I believed the Consumer Rights Act gives me longer than that, they insinuated that it did not, and this was repeated by many representatives. AIUI for goods bought more than 6 months ago, I need to get an engineers report to confirm the part has failed? Or that it has failed due to manufacturing issues? Or would the companies own engineers report suffice? Also, does anyone have any other decent contact details for Hotpoint (or the Whirlpool group)? Thanks, GH
    • Thank you for that "read me", It's a lot to digest, lots of legal procedure. There was one thing that I was going to mention to you,  but in one of the conversations in that thread it was mentioned that there may be spies on the Forum,  this is something that I've read quite some time ago in a previous thread. What I had in mind was to wait for the thirty days after their reply to my CCA request and then send the unenforceable letter. I was hoping that an absence of signature could be the Silver Bullet but it seems that there are lot of layers to peel on this Onion.  
    • love the extra £1000 charge for confidentialy there BF   Also OP even if they don't offer OOC it doesn't mean your claim isn't good. I had 3 against EVRi that were heard over the last 3 weeks. They sent me emails asking me to discontinue as I wouldn't win. Went infront of a judge and won all 3.    Just remember the law is on your side. The judges will be aware of this.   Where you can its important to try to point out at the hearing the specific part of the contract they breached. I found this was very helpful and the Judge made reference to it when they gave their judgements and it seemed this was pretty important as once you have identified a specific breach the matter turns straight to liability. From there its a case of pointing out the unlawfullness of their insurance and then that should be it.
    • I know dx and thanks again for yours and others help. I was 99.999% certain last payment was over six years ago if not longer.  👍
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

Watching TV through a computer


Guest harveysfurnitureUK Official Company Rep
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3149 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

Guest harveysfurnitureUK Official Company Rep

This isn't always an option for people and to be honest, I'm not sure about the electricity costs of this one, but rather than pay for a digital tv provider like virgin or sky and if you can't afford a freeview box, just watch TV through your computer.

There is a site called TV catchup where you can watch most freeview channels live. Yes you have to put up with adverts but saves a monthly tv package fee.

Obviously if you don't have good braodband, this wouldn't be so good, but it worked for us in the past. (P.S, you still need your TV license for this)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 5 weeks later...
  • 3 weeks later...
  • 4 weeks later...
Point to remember>>> you still need a TV License if there is any TV in your home even if it is permanently turned off.

 

Rubbish !. You can clearly own a TV (although the line of whether it is actually capable of reciveing TV signals or is just a monitor is becoming blurred).

 

You can own a 'TV' if it isnt used to view live TV programs, some suggest that to be extra careful, make sure it is detuned and isnt capable of receiving TV signals and of course isnt connected to an aerial.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish !. You can clearly own a TV (although the line of whether it is actually capable of reciveing TV signals or is just a monitor is becoming blurred).

 

You can own a 'TV' if it isnt used to view live TV programs, some suggest that to be extra careful, make sure it is detuned and isnt capable of receiving TV signals and of course isnt connected to an aerial.

 

Andy

Rubbish? is it? I was informed by the TV Licensing Authority that if there is even a sniff of a TV being in your property then you need a License whether you use it or not. Don't take my word for it find out for yourself. This is what they told me!

Link to post
Share on other sites

...it is detuned and isnt capable of receiving TV signals and of course isnt connected to an aerial.
When digital switchover is completed, old style tv's without built-in freeview wont be able to receive any live broadcasts.

 

Will the TV Licence rules be updated to take this into account ?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Rubbish? is it? I was informed by the TV Licensing Authority that if there is even a sniff of a TV being in your property then you need a License whether you use it or not. Don't take my word for it find out for yourself. This is what they told me!

 

Will do..and heres the answer.

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ8/

 

The law (as quoted by TV Licencing) is here > http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/legislation-and-policy-AB9/#link1

 

The actual law is here > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363 which could be read as the simple act of owning a TV is an offence BUT if you read here > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/regulation/9/made it goes on to give meaning to TV Receiver

 

Meaning of “television receiver”9.—(1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose

 

(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service

 

The law has been messed around with so much that it is certainly hard to understand.

 

Andy

Edited by andydd
Link to post
Share on other sites

When digital switchover is completed, old style tv's without built-in freeview wont be able to receive any live broadcasts.

 

Will the TV Licence rules be updated to take this into account ?

 

I doubt..they are fast becoming overtaken by technology, for example has anyone been prosecuted for watching live TV on a computer or phone ?. I doubt it. In fact it will make it harder to prosecute people,becuase they could say, yes i own a TV but it is physically impossible for it to pick up any analouge TV signals.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Will do..and heres the answer.

 

http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/faqs/FAQ8/

 

The law (as quoted by TV Licencing) is here > http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/about/legislation-and-policy-AB9/#link1

 

The actual law is here > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/2003/21/section/363 which could be read as the simple act of owning a TV is an offence BUT if you read here > http://www.legislation.gov.uk/uksi/2004/692/regulation/9/made it goes on to give meaning to TV Receiver

 

Meaning of “television receiver”9.—(1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose

 

(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service

 

The law has been messed around with so much that it is certainly hard to understand.

 

Andy

It is certainly all very conflicting evidence! I know when i moved to my present address i wasnt using at any time, day or night TV. I would be at work all day and not get home until about 10pm so never ever had time to watch TV. Yet when they contacted me and a guy came out, (i had been so busy I forgot to give my new address) i explained there was a TV there but was perm turned off and i never ever watched it so the TV was there but nothing else. he told me even if there was any sign of a TV in the premises i would still need a license (got one now but still never watch TV) I called at the time and spoke to a couple of managers who confirmed this. Are they lying then? :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

...I called at the time and spoke to a couple of managers who confirmed this. Are they lying then? :-)

Errr....YES!

 

From their own website:

 

If the licence was bought in error as a result of advice given by the Licensing Authority or its agent, the customer can claim up to six years' worth of refund
Link to post
Share on other sites

Errr....YES!

 

From their own website:

 

Its been pointed out a few times on this forum before that thje 'advice' given by TV Licencing in person oftyen differs from their website and in turn that law differs from the actual legislation, on first read it appears that simply owning a TV Receiver (a description thjat could include phone, pc, tv set, video, freeview, dongle, etc) means a licvence must be purchased but further reading of the descriptions implies (to me anyway) thats its only when used as an actual reciever that a licence is needed.

 

Bear in mind TV Oiks who knock at your door are not lawyers and I doubt they have a full understanding of the law.

 

Check out this gobodygook ..!!

 

Meaning of “television set”11.—(1) In Part 1 of the Wireless Telegraphy Act 1967, “television set” means any apparatus which (either alone or in association with other apparatus) is capable of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service but is not computer apparatus.(2) In this regulation, “computer apparatus” means apparatus which—(a)is designed or adapted to be used (either alone or in association with other apparatus) for storing or processing data, but not for doing so in connection with the reception by means of wireless telegraphy of television programme services; and

(b)is not offered for sale or letting as apparatus for use (either alone or in association with other apparatus) primarily for or in connection with the reception (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) of such service

 

 

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

you only need a license if you watch live tv

 

the myth of owning a tv requires one is rubbish and always was

 

as were detector vans

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I certainly did not take this guys word for it which is why i called them on 2 separate occasions and spoke to the Managers who confirmed what he had said to me.

 

I have Sky (Phone broadband and TV) Obviously have the phone for the internet as i do not want to use a stupid dongle:lol: i have seen them in use. Otherwise i wouldn't have the phone as i do not use the phone either. (if i need to make any calls i use my mobile(s)) and like i have mentioned the TV is NEVER on so really i am paying for a License for nothing simply because i have a TV at my property.

I think i will just contact them and tell them i have been lied to and i want a refund of what i have paid for the last 6 years:-D

Link to post
Share on other sites

you only need a license if you watch live tv

 

the myth of owning a tv requires one is rubbish and always was

 

as were detector vans

 

dx

 

True..but on reading the actual law it does mention the act of installing a tv receiver is an offence without a licence so it is conceivable that it could be read in the way.."if you own TV you must have licence", Im clear that is NOT the case but the law is rather messy.

 

As for Detector Vans, they clearly did exist at some point but its doubtful they were ever actually used much, the simple financial implications of running one compared to employing clueless door to door muppets means thjey were a non starter.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

the vans existed by were a spoof

 

i cant tell youy why but lets just say i know!!

 

there is a long thread somewhere on this here

 

dx

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Easy way to look at it, if you have a tv and a DVD player and only ever watch DVDs then you never need a licence.

 

Reason - when you buy a DVD you also without realising get a licence to view said DVD as much as you like so you've covered yourself. I've argued it with tv licensing and they backed down and admitted I was rite and they couldn't argue it.

 

Tv detector vans, pretty much all of them were empty inside and were only used as a scare tactic. All they used to do in the back of the van was eat lunch.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Tv detector vans, pretty much all of them were empty inside and were only used as a scare tactic. All they used to do in the back of the van was eat lunch.

 

Ive got an amusing image of someone opening up the back expecting to see vast banks of technology only to find a poor guy huddled over his lunchtime ham sarnie :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...
he told me even if there was any sign of a TV in the premises i would still need a licence

 

Of course he told you that.

 

You don't think he's going to let the truth get in the way of his £20 commission, do you. :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 months later...
I certainly did not take this guys word for it which is why i called them on 2 separate occasions and spoke to the Managers who confirmed what he had said to me.

 

Of course they confirmed it.

 

They're in the business of flogging TV Licences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

already been said

 

this thread is 2mts old now

please don't hit Quote...just type we know what we said earlier..

DCA's view debtors as suckers, marks and mugs

NO DCA has ANY legal powers whatsoever on ANY debt no matter what it's Type

and they

are NOT and can NEVER  be BAILIFFS. even if a debt has been to court..

If everyone stopped blindly paying DCA's Tomorrow, their industry would collapse overnight... 

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...