But you do not have to let a TVL agent into your house unless he has a warrant. He can't get a warrant without first presenting evidence to the magistrate that you are watching TV without a licence. If you do show him your TV and it is not connected to an aerial and is de-tuned, then no offence can be proved.

Not quite. You DO NOT require a licence to watch BBCiplayer, C4's ITV's or Sky's equivalent players because they are not live broadcasts.

Completely disagree. Looking at this weeks TV guide, there is around one hour of BBC programming that might be of interest to me. That is terrible value for money: £11.65 per month for 4 hours or so!!. On the other hand, there is around 50 hours of programming on Sky this week that appeals to me. Around 200 hours for £19.00 per month. So yes. I am happy to pay for it and it is good value compared to the BBC. (Not that I would be able to watch 50 hours of TV, but you get the point) Simple answer to annoying adverts: record everything on a Sky+ (or any hard drive recorder) - fast forward the adverts!

I would accept their offer of a new replacement PC. Although its easy to change a DVD drive, the OP may have problems if another fault develops later and Arbico claim that the warranty has been voided because he opened the case!

Well, I suppose one can only guess at the motivation of the moderators. I have to assume their actions are in the best interests of CAG, which is fair enough, but I think you (and those who have asked for your help) should at least be given the courtesy of an explanation.

Seems a bizarre thing to do in view of all the help you have given to people on here. Have the mods told you why?

First thing I would do is ask the HA to prove the land belongs to them.

1066620599573760-1

Breakfast at 12:03? I wish

He is taking them to court (or at least he was: maybe not in the light of his last post), so you still have no need to worry

Um, white.....

Unfortunately, the fine for watching TV without a licence is a criminal matter, so it seems the bailiff could force entry in your case

Your bay is likely to be a "advisory" bay, meaning that it is not enforceable should a non-disabled motorist park there. Also, any blue badge holder would be entitled to park there. The bay is certainly much smaller than specified in the TSRGD (6.6 metres), but I'm not sure if "advisory" bays must comply with TSRGD though

I'm rather glad the OP is unable to obtain 3000 watts RMS. I'd like the glass to stay in my windows and the tiles on my roof should he drive past my house Ridiculous amounts of sound power to be used in a car (or a house, unless detached in the middle of nowhere)

hev106, thank you. I was aware of the difference. However, I was arrested on each of the three occasions, interviewed under caution, then released with NFA. Yet there is no trace of this on my enhanced disclosure...

But then neither is the slope at the same level as the carriageway. The sloping kerb does not meet the level of the carriageway until the bottom, so I would still think there is some argument in this.

I have been questioned a total of 3 times under caution. Each time there was no further action taken (the allegations were completely untrue, but the police are obliged to investigate). I had a recent enhanced disclosure and it was completely clear. Hope that helps.

Hence my use of the word "usually"

I will try and give you some comfort. First of all, you do not go to prison for unpaid PCNs. You can go to prison for unpaid court fines. However, this usually only happens when you wont pay, not because you cant pay. I believe warrants for PCNs cannot be enforced over a year old. I am not sure of the procedure you need to follow, hopefully someone more knowledgeable will be along soon, but you will definitely need to contact the court again.

The technical issue the OP described is often as a result of faulty microfilters allowing some of the ringing current to pass to the data socket. Could try changing them if you haven't already.

What a great thought! Of course, theres nothing to stop you paying the rest of the installments direct to the council

Good result, except that your council cannot refuse to accept payments direct from you - they are legally obliged to do so.

I corrected my post to say you had already been accused of discussing details with the builder. You say that the bailiff manager backs up your version of events and that the charge payer was lying. Fair enough. I don't have enough details to comment. What I will say, however, is that a bailiff manager would not be my first choice of person to corroberate my story.... Fairplay makes a valid point that the CAB report is most likely only the tip of the iceberg and that the real figures are probably even more damning of the bailiff trade. I have said all along that you might be one of the small minority of decent bailiffs. Of course, you are as welcome on CAG as anyone else, but due to your choice of career, you may find yourself in for a rough ride

Sorry, I'll rephrase: "However, from your last post, I can see that you have already been accused of overstepping the mark!". Agreed.

I agree there are some feckless debtors out there but they are in a very small minority. In much the same way, I agree there are some professional, decent bailiffs, but they too are sadly in a minority. The problem is that most bailiffs lie, cheat, steal, bully and intimidate, relying on peoples ignorance of their rights. Perhaps this is because they assume that all debtors are feckless. This forum hopes to change that by informing people of their rights and giving good advice. Not to mention, bringing down the evil cretins who break the law by preying on the weak. (Form 4 anyone?) This is not a situation of a few bad apples giving all bailiffs a bad name. Unfortunately, MOST bailiffs are the bad apples. Now, Kermit: I don't know you. Maybe you are one of the rare decent, honest bailiffs. However, from your last post, I can see that you have already overstepped the mark!: