Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • This is a ridiculous situation.  The lender has made so many stupid errors of judgement.  I refuse to bow down and willingly 'pay' for their mistakes.  I really want to put this behind me and move on.  I can't yet. 
    • Peter McCormack says he has secured a 15-year lease on the club's Bedford ground.View the full article
    • ae - i have no funds to appoint lawyers.   My point about most caggers getting lost is simply due to so many layers of legal issues that is bound to confuse.  
    • Lenders have a legal obligation to sell the property for the best price they can get. If they feel the offer is low they won't sell it, because it's likely the borrower will say the same.   Yes.  But every interested buyer was offering within a range - based on local market sales evidence.  Shelter site says a lender is not allowed to wait for the market to improve. Why serve a dilapidations notice? If it's in the terms of the lease to maintain the property to a good standard, then serve an S146 notice instead as it's a clear breach of the lease.   The dilapidations notice was a legal first step.  Freeholders have to give time to leaseholders to remedy.  Lender lawyers advised the property was going to be sold and the new buyer would undertake the work.  Their missive came shortly before contracts were given to buyer.  The buyer lawyer and freehold lawyers were then in contact.  The issue of dilapidations remedy was discussed..  But then lender reneged.  There was a few months where neither I nor freeholders were sure what was going on.  Then suddenly demolition works started.   Before one issues a s146 one has to issue a LBA.  That is eventually what happened. ...legal battle took 3y to resolve. Again, order them to revert it as they didn't have permission to do the works, or else serve an S146 notice for breach of the lease   A s146 was served.  It took 3y but the parties came to a settlement.   (They couldn't revert as they had ripped out irreplaceable historical features). The lease has already been extended once so they have no right to another extension. It seems pretty easy to just get the lawyer to say no and stick by those terms as the law is on your side there.  That's not the case   One can ask for another extension.  In this instance the freeholders eventually agreed with a proviso for the receiver not to serve another. You wouldn't vary a lease through a lease extension.  Correct.  But receiver lawyer was an idiot.   He made so many errors.  No idea why the receiver instructed him?  He used to work for lender lawyers. I belatedly discovered he was sacked for dishonesty and fined a huge sum by the sra  (though kept his licence).  He eventually joined another firm and the receiver bizarrely chose him to handle the extension.  Again he messed up - which is why the matter still hasn't been properly concluded.   In reality, its quite clear the lender/ receiver were just trying to overwhelm me (as trustee and leaseholder) with work (and costs) due to so many legal  issues.  Also they tried to twist things (as lawyers sometimes do).  They tried to create a situation where the freeholders would get a wasted costs order - the intent was to bankrupt the freeholders so they could grab the fh that way.   That didn't happen.  They are still trying though.  They owe the freeholders legal costs (s60) and are refusing to pay.  They are trying to get the freeholders to refer the matter to the tribunal - simply to incur more costs (the freeholders don't want and cant's afford to incur)  Enfranchisement isn't something that can be "voided", it's in the Leasehold Reform Act 1967 that leaseholders have the right to.... The property does not qualify under 67 Act.  Their notice was invalid and voided. B petition was struck out. So this is dealt with then.  That action was dealt with yes.   But they then issued a new claim out of a different random court - which I'm still dealing with alone.  This is where I have issues with my old lawyer. He failed to read important legal docs  (which I kept emailing and asking if he was dealing with) and  also didn't deal with something crucial I pointed out.  This lawyer had the lender in a corner and he did not act. Evidence shows lender and receiver strategy had been ....  Redact and scan said evidence up for others to look at?   I could.  But the evidence is clear cut.  Receiver email to lender and lender lawyer: "our strategy for many months  has been for ceo to get the property".  A lender is not allowed to influence the receivership.   They clearly were.  And the law firm were complicit.  The same firm representing the lender and the ceo in his personal capacity - conflict of interest?   I  also have evidence of the lender trying to pay a buyer to walk.  I was never supposed to know about this.  But I was given copies of messages from the receiver "I need to see you face to face, these things are best not put in writing".  No need to divulge all here.  But in hindsight it's clear the lender/ receiver tried - via 2 meetings - to get rid of this buyer (pay large £s) to clear the path for the ceo.   One thing I need to clarify - if a receiver tells a lender to do - or not to do - something should the lender comply? 
    • Why ask for advice if you think it's too complex for the forum members to understand? You'd be better engaging a lawyer. Make sure he has understood all the implications. Stick with his advice. If it doesn't conform to your preconceived opinion then pause and consider whether maybe he's right.
  • 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
      • 161 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

TV licensing investigation..


Consumer dude
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2396 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

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

I am assuming you have received a letter from TVL stating that your property is under investigation. These letters are deliberately worded to put the fear of god into people . TVL will send out letters on a monthly cycle to all property`s that are not licenced & are computer generated , they go in cycles of threats.1st you will get the low[ish] level , then the medium level, then they will put you under investigation & when no one responds, the cycle then starts again.

 

If you are watching live feeds then you do need to purchase a TVL, if you`re not watching live feeds then either bin the letters or if you keep rabbits or hamsters, they make good bedding. Never ever phone them or go online to explain your situation. If you don`t need a licence & are civil enough to inform them, they will still keep hounding you . In their eyes you are an evader even if you don`t legally require a TVL..... so what`s the point in engaging with them!.

If you get a visit from a TVL inspector [ Capita salesman] you are under no legal obligation to furnish him / her with any personal information. Don`t engage with them in any way, tell them to leave your property & carry on with your life. Certainly don`t let these cycle of letters worry you. If i have assumed wrongly then we would need further information & can then advise accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them the doorstep collectors letter. This will stop them coming to your home. Then basically just ignore them or send them a covering letter stating clearly that you do have a tv, but only use it to watch DVD's or play a console game. Since you removed their right to come to your house, they wont find out any different. It's a loophole in the law. It may be immoral to use it, but its also immoral to be forced under penalty of large fines or imprisonment to subsidise a private company such as the BBC. Even if you never watch BBC tv or listen to BBC radio, they still try and say you have to pay it.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them the doorstep collectors letter. This will stop them coming to your home. Then basically just ignore them or send them a covering letter stating clearly that you do have a tv, but only use it to watch DVD's or play a console game. Since you removed their right to come to your house, they wont find out any different. It's a loophole in the law. It may be immoral to use it, but its also immoral to be forced under penalty of large fines or imprisonment to subsidise a private company such as the BBC. Even if you never watch BBC tv or listen to BBC radio, they still try and say you have to pay it.

 

I very strongly disagree with this kind of advice. I also think it is very dangerous too.

The best & most effective way is the " no contact " rule. You immediately flag yourself up as a target if you use the WOIRA / doorstep collectors . There has recently been a spate of search warrants issued to people using WOIRA as a method of trying to keep the TVL out.

 

There is absolutely no " loophole" in the law either. You are not legally required to inform or contact TVL & furnish them with any information. It really is that simple. I have had 2 visits in 5 years. I just don`t answer the door to them. I throw the letters in the bin & don`t waste time or energy on the subject.

 

The " advice" in your post is absolutely guaranteed to flag yourself up to TVL as a person who wants to " take them on".

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

I very strongly disagree with this kind of advice. I also think it is very dangerous too.

The best & most effective way is the " no contact " rule. You immediately flag yourself up as a target if you use the WOIRA /

doorstep collectors . There has recently been a spate of search warrants issued to people using WOIRA as a method of trying to keep the TVL out.

 

There is absolutely no " loophole" in the law either. You are not legally required to inform or contact TVL & furnish them with any information. It really is that simple. I have had 2 visits in 5 years. I just don`t answer the door to them. I throw the letters in the bin & don`t waste time or energy on the subject.

 

The " advice" in your post is absolutely guaranteed to flag yourself up to TVL as a person who wants to " take them on".

 

I agree with you. I might start collecting the letters again though..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree if you want. its not actually illegal ( unless you are watching tv programs ( even then its TECHINCALLY illegal). It also isnt FOTL stuff. It's stuff used from actual law ( not the made up stuff FOTL uses) and is used by people who refuse to be forced to pay a corrupt and private company.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them the doorstep collectors letter. This will stop them coming to your home. Then basically just ignore them or send them a covering letter stating clearly that you do have a tv, but only use it to watch DVD's or play a console game. Since you removed their right to come to your house, they wont find out any different. It's a loophole in the law. It may be immoral to use it, but its also immoral to be forced under penalty of large fines or imprisonment to subsidise a private company such as the BBC. Even if you never watch BBC tv or listen to BBC radio, they still try and say you have to pay it.

 

To be honest, I'd rather watch paint dry then contact them..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to send that letter. Then there is no chance of them bothering me ever again.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree if you want. its not actually illegal ( unless you are watching tv programs ( even then its TECHINCALLY illegal). It also isnt FOTL stuff. It's stuff used from actual law ( not the made up stuff FOTL uses) and is used by people who refuse to be forced to pay a corrupt and private company.

 

 

OK let me explain, if you watch live TV feeds... you need a TV licence

 

If you don`t watch live TV feeds... you don`t need a TV licence.

Simple to understand ?.

 

If you don`t legally require a TVL , don`t bother communicating with TVL / Capita / BBC.

 

People come to this site to get clear, concise & accurate legal advice . I think if we post advice , then it should be with a good degree of knowledge & a duty of care to the recipient . Yours, is at best, wibble wobble nonsense & could potentially get people into very deep water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too disagree with Renegadeimp's advice, withdrawing permission to visit may seem like a 'clever' idea but it can backfire, I believe it isnt wise to 'flag yourself' up in this way, there have been documented cases where once flagged up in this way, a warrant is sought for and granted, TVL (maybe accompanied by the Police) then have a legal right to enter the premises.

 

The best advice is IMO to do nothing, there is no legal onligation to inform TVL if you don't need a licence and writing withdrawing notice to visit isnt neccassary and provocative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too agree that it is best NOT to withdraw your permission for them to visit.

 

I'd suggest saying they can try to visit anytime, as whatever time they try they won't find you watching live (or 'almost live') TV, but equally you know you are under no obligation to answer or in any way engage with their staff.

 

You don't watch live (or 'almost live') TV, and have no more to add.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its not the best idea. But until they actually caution you or get in your house, theyre the same as a dca.

 

All ill say is it worked for me and they sent me a letter saying they acknowledge I dont watch live tv and nobody will ever call.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

If anyone has any doubts about how Capita /TVL / BBC, love to get issued with a WIROA . Here is a link about a current Face Book page that is strongly suspected to be have been set up for the sole purpose of mis information & catching people after they have been encouraged to go down the WIROA route. It is a very long topic but well worth the effort & should open a few eyes as to how devious & untrustworthy the whole TVL collection business is.

 

Secondly , i would like to apologise to Renigadeimp for my " wibble wobble " comment . It is not helpful or harmonious to the site & although i strongly disagree with his / her views, i should know better than to resort to silliness. My sincere apologises to you Renigadeimp.

 

The back story , these 2 people have set up a FB group with virtually the same name as a well known TVL resistance site. Despite repeated requests to change the name they have refused, this makes very interesting & disturbing reading.

 

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php/topic,8603.0.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its not the best idea.

 

And yet you`re still advising others to follow that route, unbelievable IMO. I would also be interested in seeing a scan of this letter , because at best, TVL will only give any property that is not licenced a 2 year window of non contact & that is after they have inspected the property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested it. Not directly advised it. However, i understand the concerns which is why im not mentioning anymore.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...