Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • 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
  • Recommended Topics

BBC using new detectors hokum


style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 2754 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

But the IP address is unique at the point it is used ? And surely they can identify which internet provider, what device is being used etc. They might then apply to court on a list of say BT customers, asking the court for an order that BT must provide the customers details. They then match the list against addresses that don't have licences and investigations are started.

 

It would not be easy and as it is still a criminal offence i believe Magistrates would require proof that satisfies that Mrs X committed an offence.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

In a way I suppose your are correct, but even with this information they then have to prove that the particular IP address actually accessed programs via iPlayer. Its made even more complicated because a single IP address may be used by several devices for example my router has the following devices attached - my laptop, my wife's laptop, my eldest son's desktop, my youngest son's laptop, my youngest son's iPad, my mobile phone, my wife's mobile phone, my wife's tablet, my kindle, my work phone, my work laptop, a backup drive, so that's 12 devices, now prove which one is accessing iPlayer as all are capable of doing so, all that capita (or whoever) would have is the IP address of the router, the IP address they have does not identify which device! Nor can they prove which device is accessing iPlayer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is where i think you need to know all of the legislation and i don't. I think they could look to prosecute whoever pays for the internet connection, if there is a legal basis for this. Are they legally responsible for any criminal acts committed on their paid for internet connection ? I can't see how they would be responsible. If someone in a family home downloaded something illegal or commits fraud, it is the person who commits the illegal act that would face prosecution, not the bill payer who might not be aware. If the bill payer admitted knowing that someone in their house was watching BBC iplayer, then i suspect they could well face prosecution using that admission.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

That is where i think you need to know all of the legislation and i don't. I think they could look to prosecute whoever pays for the internet connection, if there is a legal basis for this. Are they legally responsible for any criminal acts committed on their paid for internet connection ? I can't see how they would be responsible.

 

If you have an unsecured WiFi hub, anyone passing by could use your connection for nefarious purposes, including viewing iPlayer content. Alternatively, you could wander in to your local Starbucks, plug in to their WiFi hotspot and download all sorts of illegal content (I'm betting the average coffee house won't have a TV licence for the building).

 

I doubt very much that a prosecution would stand up in court if they tried to hold the registered account holder liable for the activities of an unidentified third party. Even if the account holder did admit to allowing someone to download iPlayer content, that individual may well be covered by a TV licence at another property if he/she was using a mobile device.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING

EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 

No... you can't eat my brain just yet. I need it a little while longer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

every single BT home hub has free Wi-Fi to other BY users

with a simple email log in.

 

 

so how the beep can they police that and find whos done it?

 

 

within less that 5 mins you can search and find 1000's of BT email address with passwords online that can be used to login...

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

But the IP address is unique at the point it is used ? And surely they can identify which internet provider, what device is being used etc. They might then apply to court on a list of say BT customers, asking the court for an order that BT must provide the customers details. They then match the list against addresses that don't have licences and investigations are started.

 

It would not be easy and as it is still a criminal offence i believe Magistrates would require proof that satisfies that Mrs X committed an offence.

 

Don't think they could just apply to a court with just a list of Bt ip addresses so they can go on a fishing expedition as to what ip addresses have a to license or not so they can start an investment gathering on. No court would sanction that. If they had a list of ip addresses that they reasonably suspected of not having a tv license that they had somehow determined then a court would allow that.

In any event using a vpn or ip changer would make it fruitless for them anyway.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Don't think they could just apply to a court with just a list of Bt ip addresses so they can go on a fishing expedition as to what ip addresses have a to license or not so they can start an investment gathering on. No court would sanction that. If they had a list of ip addresses that they reasonably suspected of not having a tv license that they had somehow determined then a court would allow that.

In any event using a vpn or ip changer would make it fruitless for them anyway.

 

It would be similar to internet copyright claimants using NPO's. They apply to a court in London that deals with them, but of course you are correct that TVL would have to evidence to a court that they had reasonable belief that live TV or I player was being viewed at an address without a licence.

 

As it concerns a criminal matter, are Judges more or less likely to agree an NPO ?

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be similar to internet copyright claimants using NPO's. They apply to a court in London that deals with them, but of course you are correct that TVL would have to evidence to a court that they had reasonable belief that live TV or I player was being viewed at an address without a licence.

 

As it concerns a criminal matter, are Judges more or less likely to agree an NPO ?

 

They would agree an npo if bbc could show reasonable proof that a specific IP address was illegally using iplayer. And then they would probably risk having to disclose how they obtained the reasonable proof at a later court hearing if they decided to prosecute based on that so that the defendant could challenge the accuracy of IP address etc

Link to post
Share on other sites

Been trying to find the actual legislation that has been passed closing the iplayer loophole. Hard to find

 

It was done as a statutory instrument, which was not debated or subject to any vote. They just get nodded through parlament.

 

There are links on some CAG posts, if you search.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

 Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...