Am I missing some smiley's here? I hope so. I did not say 'selective quoting', I said "selected quote". There is a difference. You selected a quote from my post whilst overlooking that I had already said it was no longer a requirement to give details, then explained how the system worked (past tense) - as opposed to works current tense. If retailers are being paid to collect details. AFAIK, any other topic I posted on was prior to the requirement being removed, hence I would still be right. Again, I was talking past tense, not current. I am correct, given I was describing the system as it worked, not as it does now. At the time. Have I made it sufficiently clear that I was describing a historical system? When it changed, I have no idea, and neither care. And the most legally secure advice is "if you watch broadcast TV, get a licence". If you don't have a licence, they will eventually call. Maybe sooner, maybe later, whether it is still done on a trigger level of 'non-licenced' addresses in a given area I cannot say (but thats easy enough to do). If you don't have a TV, tell them, either at the door or via letter. if you use a TV for non-broadcast uses, ensure it is disconnected from the antenna, and the cable rolled up, taped out of reach of the TV, and the antenna plug (and even sockets) taped over; so if they do obtain a warrant it is obvious the equipment was not used to view broadcast TV. I'm not worried about hurting anyone's feelings. But I was brought up to treat other people in a manner I would expect to be treated. So I do, until such time as someone demonstrates they should be treated different. Much like the way, in times gone by, people would tip their hats to, or open doors for, ladies. Being nice to people can work wonders.

Sorry for the quoted quoting... to address the points s raised 1. I did say that it was no longer a legal requirement prior to the selected quoting, and then used the past tense 'required' 2. Actually, that is correct. There was an obligation to provide details to TV Licencing (or the Beeb, as it was many moons ago). It was one of the system inputs. (edit: I did not mean social landlords - which three decades ago didn't exist, and I'm hazy whether it included private landlords, too much time has passed together with my design notes. IIRCc it was details of an occupied property, not the name of the dweller) 3. Again, it is correct. My 'source' is that I was one of many who validated the SSADM system design. How else do you think TVL (edit: generic term, not the current entity known as TVL) maintained an address database? One of the lacking inputs was a means - other the 10-year aging out - of demolished properties, hence licence reminders being sent to non-existent addresses. 4. Perhaps slightly misphrased on my part. By all means, like any other junk mail bin it. On the other hand, why not have some fun with them? If you don't need a licence, tell them, they will stop hassling you. If you want some fun, waste their time. Dont get me wrong, I think the fee is anachronistic and should be abolished, and I don't agree with some of the methods used to collect it nor the lack of any attempt to stamp them out. By wasting their time you not playing into their hands - either way one day someone may knock at the door anyway. 4. Do you always treat people in such a fashion? I find that being polite and reasonable with people works wonders. Its like demanding a refund, asking for a refund. Option B works wonders. You immediately assume that ALL agents of TVL are liars and cheats? I've dealt with many reasonable honest individuals, and one ignorant prat. He was treated with the same courtesy I would accord any other stranger in life, until they demonstrate they are worth otherwise. Someone stood at your door askign you to fill in a form? Simple "no thank you, goodbye" and close the door. They start to harrass or pester, what a shame my dog was outside at the time - there is a warning of a dog. You wish to obtain a warrant - feel free, I either have a licence, or dont have an antenna connected to the TV. But I won't be rude to someone on the basis of whom they work for, not until they show that they should be treated with the contempt they deserve.

Wait a moment - is the poor signal quality outside the property, or inside? If it is inside, I'm afraid that there is very little you can do (and, regrettably, Vodafone did not force you to take a second and third contract, that was your decision, despite knowing there was a problem. I suspect Vodafone would simply counter that you could have bought a cheap £10 handset and a £4 PAYG SIM card to eliminate the handset as a cause of the problem). If the problem persists outside the property, and in the general area, and the Vodafone in-store map shows that signal coverage is excellent/good, then you may have a case to argue that one contract was entered on the basis of Vodafone providing you with misleading information. if they are adamant that their map is accurate, and that you live in a good signal area, then you could demonstrate (by filming it) otherwise by showing three handsets all experiencing connection issues and call problems in an open area shown as having good coverage. But once again, no phone company makes any statement as to the quality of its network indoors, simply because they know they have no knowledge of the building construction in any given property. When you read their coverage maps, this is highlighted. Perhaps, just perhaps, a politely phrased written request to their UK MD explaining that you have four separate contracts with Vodafone, paying in excess of £££/month but are unable to use them due to coverage issues and would he consider a signal booster as a gesture of goodwill to a loyal customer? I dont know the UK MD, only the Head of IP Operations (formerly VP Network Operations and prior Head of Network Support, Adrian Smith, based at Newbury) None of the mobile companies push these signal boxes (O2 denied theirs exists...!), as often they are more trouble than they are worth. Last time I looked, Vodafone was on V3 of theirs, which tells a story in itself. Box resetting, box not connecting to network, box interfering with adsl line and internet access, and so on.

Ok, presumably when they agreed to change the term of the finance from 3 years to 2 years, they sent out a revised finance agreement? They ought to have done... You were not naive to expect them to correctly calculate the correct repayment figure and associated monthly sum, you had every right to expect them to correctly calculate it. It might be worth - if you can - scanning the original and revised finance agreements, redacting the personal identifying information (name, address, agreement reference number, bank details, and any barcodes) and posting on here just so the more knowledgable can check it is an enforceable agreement. If you cant find the documents, submit a Subject Access Request (SAR) to them, asking for copies of all documentation, including the agreements. It may be the case that if they said "ok, we'll reduce it to a two year term, so your revised repayment figure is £xyz and your revised monthly payment is £ab", then provided you did repay £xyz (12x£ab) you have grounds to argue that the agreement is satisfied. BUT, I am by no means an expert in this area, you need the input of brigadier2jcs or dx.

Your electric bill should state which tariff you are one, what does it say? Does it state Economy 7?

Provided you really, really, really do not watch live TV (TV as it is broadcast, either by satellite, cable, terrestrial or internet) nor record it, then you are fine. You do NOT need a licence simply because you own a TV, video/DVD recorder, PVR, mobile phone, or computer. You can watch 'catch up TV' such as 4OD, BBC iPlayer, ITV Player, 5 OD, etc to watch TV that has already 'aired'. You watch pre-recorded video (VHS, DVD, Blu Ray etc) and play video games... all without a TV licence. Just do not watch or record TV as it is broadcast, not even using - for example - iPlayer to watch a program from the start x minutes after it started on air. Oh, and as of just before Xmas you no longer have to provide your details when you purchase a TV, ect in a shop. How the system worked: 1. All sales of devices capable of receiving broadcast TV required the seller to record the name and address of the buyer, and provide this information to TVL - (no longer a requirement) 2. All councils and landlords were required to provide TVL with details of new tenants/rate payers/CT payers 3. All councils and homebuilders were required to provide TVL with details of new properties built. 4. TVL ran adverts about Mr Detector Van Man and his detector van... TVL took the information from these three sources to build a database of properties. They then matched each property against licence records to generate the list of "licensed" and "unlicensed" properties. If they had an address with no record of a licence, they sent a letter. An address had to be 'empty' for ten years before it would age out of the database. The detector van was a myth, and always has been. The van held nothing more complicated than a packet of sandwiches and a copy of the Sun (see note below though). So why do TVL come knocking? When a given number of addresses in a given geographical area do not have a licence. It is then economically viable to send a collector to that area, assuming that a certain % of householders will buy a licence. TVL were not entirely cold-hearted; they did understand that people genuinely forgot to renew. But thats an aside. How they catch you out. The first mistake is opening the door with the TV on visible from the open door. That's a bit 'open and shut'. Its also the most honest. They may ask if you have a licence, when you say "no", inform you that you need one and 'mislead' you into buying a colour TV licence - whether you have a TV or not, or even just a B&W set. This has been documented, often in the case of OAPs They will seek a search warrant. This is the one that leaves a bad taste in the mouth, as often the 'proof' provided to the magistrate involves a statement such as "I saw a blue glow from the window". A magistrate - imho - should ask for video or photographic evidence. Regrettably, many do not. Once they have the warrant, they do have the power to enter You may be able to attack the original warrant as being flawed; for example if it was granted because "I saw a blue glow" and the room in which a TV is located is not visible from the public path. AIU, the magistrates in South Cheshire do not grant TVL warrnats as they are not convinced of the standard of proof given when seeking a warrant Simply put, if you do watch broadcast TV, buy a licence. If you don't, do what I did and send letter back asking "exactly what is my premise unlicenced for? I am not serving alcoholic beverages, in the business of taking an accepting bets, nor offering goods of an adult nature". But when a chappie knocks at the door, be polite and pleasant, smile, say "hi", and then "no, I dont have a licence as I do not watch broadcast TV". Then politely decline his request to come in and check. Most of them (most, not all) are just peeps doing a job and will not bother you if you are polite, they are just doing a job. *The detector van legend. Blandford School of Signals is HUGE; the perimeter is 8miles round, the married quarters are inside, there is even a bus route passing though it. 20+ years ago no one bothered buying a TV licence. When TVL wished to come a knocking, they had to provide the camp with advance notice simply to gain access, after an incident when the Guard refused them access. Consequently, the fact that TVL would be on-site was put on Daily Pt 1 orders. Now for the urban myth. Legend is that one day TVL detector van turned up, and was stripped to components. The method that TVL claimed they used to detect TV signals is identical to a method that can be used to evesdop on sensitive communications, and Blandford also houses COMCEM, a comms centre handling military communications traffic classified Secret and above... Its prolly an urban myth, but one that does make for a nice smile. Sorry for long post.

Given Comet ceased trading a year or so ago, you have presumably contacted The Warranty Group who provided Comet's extended warranties, and stated they would continue to honour them? More info in this thread, although you may end up having to contact Panasonic UK http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/showthread.php?377108-comet-extended-warranties&p=4088846&viewfull=1#post4088846

If they adjusted the direct debate mandate without providing 14 days notice that the figure would be varied, then you can reclaim each of the [increased] payments back from the bank. But I'm confused - you say "the current direct debit... no revised direct debit agreement". In your first post you say "they gave me an updated direct debit payment..." Ergo, there were two direct debit 'agreements'; the original mandate, and the adjusted mandate with a revised (presumably higher) monthly payment. The second, revised, mandate must have been notified to you in writing 14 days prior to it being effected at the bank. Lets take it back to basics. Two years ago you took out a three year funeral plan; they gave you a cost (cash price), a finance option, and presumably figures for cost of finance and total repayable, with a breakdown of monthly repayment (36 x ££) One year ago you asked for this to be reduced to a two year repayment plan. They agreed - presumably this meant higher monthly repayments In December you thought you had finished paying, having made 24 repayments. They have now told you that they have made a mistake, and you still owe £1000. Can you confirm/fill in the blanks Was this a finance agreement, and did it show the cost, cost of finance including interest and APR, the repayment period and the monthly payment figure? When you asked to reduce the term to 24 months, did they confirm this in writing and send an amended agreement, including the new monthly payment figure? Did they send you a new Direct Debit mandate to complete? Did they notify you that the direct debit monthly payment would increase? If you add the total paid by you to date, is it £1000 less than the original total to pay? PS am a noob here, but if you can provide as much information as possible it will help the more knowledgeable to help you.

Cheers CB. In essence then, opening the mail to establish exactly who the sender is (which differ from the return address which could be a bulk mailer) is probably reasonable cause; especially after 12months+ of returning mail 'to sender' to no avail, plus the incident with the attempted clamping. Not that any given debt company sending mail establishes a definite link to the individual attempting clamping, of course.

Did they send you a revised agreement showing the updated andrevised repayment schedule? In order to change the direct debit agreement they must have provided something in writing...

Do you have a reference for that, uncleB? The reason I ask is that back in 2001 the company I worked with had a connection with RM, working very closely with their systems. Long story short, in an effort to better understand the customer, we underwent a significant amount working alongside them, including their induction process (odd, but there you go), and I'm sure that I remember that opening mail was a criminal offence - not a civil offence, but criminal, and punishable with a custodial sentence. (No idea why we underwent that given we were providing their network system... but there again, I had to be trackway trained, as my department also provided network services to the Rail operators. Go figure!)

I'm pretty sure it isn't plod - why would they drive an old van? And why would an either a police officer or HCEO refuse to talk to someone... anyway, I look forward to a return visit - unless it happens when I'm not there. Then I just sue for damage caused to a not very cheap 8-series Especially if they try to tow it! Anyway, thanks all. Put my mind at rest regarding 'enforcement' against someone who has no connection to the debt/debtor.

Did Argos provide you with paperwork to go with the cover? This would include any terms & conditions, such as what is and what is not covered - not something that would be included on a receipt.

Cheers Brassnecked. I've got some IP security cameras I've been meaning to put up, and a NAS to connect them to... with a bit of bad luck they will be installed prior to any return visit, and there will be a video of "unwelcome intruder vs German Shepherds" to post I'm absolutely not fussed about taking the 'appropriate' action when I know I have a leg to stand on (at least, in terms that any warrant cannot be executed against an unconnected party). Which makes me wonder why some DCAs (generic term) DO clamp vehicles belonging to other people? Does an unconnected third party have any legal recourse, such as claim for damages, tort, implied defamation of character? You might get the impression I'm annoyed. You might even speculate that I want to be bullish - I couldn't possibly comment

Folks, for the avoidance of doubt, and to narrow the replies (I am thankful for them, honestly, but I don't want people to waste their time on areas that are irrelevant): The vehicles are mine, there was no finance involved. One bought from a BMW dealer on debit card, the other two paid cash to private buyers after an HPI check was done (clean). This is not a repossesson issue. I have no parking ticket fines (never had a parking ticket). I pay my council tax, utility bills etc by direct debit (simply because I get cashback from Satans-derr). Credit card is paid in every month via direct debit. Why ask here and not a solicitor? In my experience, most solicitors are 'not great' outside their area of expertise, and the folks on here tend to know the law better - probably as most solicitors do not want anything to do with debt issues. The last solicitors I used - one for a car accident and one for child access - were, imho, as useful as tits on tarzan. regards opening mail, that's a little tricky as although it might reveal whom, isn't it an offence to open mail addressed to someone else... The only mail I opened was inadvertent, from Satans Bank, who helpfully brand there envelopes... the letter thanked a previous occupant for informing them of their change of address - and still sent mail to the old one. Only opened as I use the same bank... The underlying question is, is it possible for a warrant to be executed against the goods of an unconnected party who happens to live at that address?

Thanks for replies Well that's the point that worries me; IF they have, or obtain, a warrant of execution, even though I am not the debtor can they execute it and remove my goods? I don't know which company the individual was from (to answer Bazooka's comment - it wasn't the Police unless they have taken to ditching uniforms and driving unmarked hatchbacks and bedford vans). My vehicles are all taxed and insured, except for one which is SORN over winter. I'm quite sure there is no finance owing on them - as none was ever taken to buy them! My only direct experience with a bailiff was 20 years ago, in the Forces, when we had moved back from Germany. Previous occupant of the MQ (Forces housing) had ignored a parking ticket and then a summons, thinking being posted abroad they would never catch him. A certificated bailiff visited the MQ with a warrant, but was quite happy to leave without taking anything when he found we were not the debtor. He explained - and I have no idea if this is true - that some of his colleagues in the industry would be less 'scrupulous' and would not hesitate to enforce given they had a warrant to remove goods from an address... I'm not 'panicking worried', just concerned whether it is legally possible for the situation to arise whereby my[/i]goods can be taken as a result of someone else's debt? Is this situation possible, and if so, what legal measures are available to me to prevent this? I have no idea whether a warrant even exists; I'm not troubled by the lack of one... I'll fight my own battle in court if my dogs were to bite someone on 'my' land who shouldn't have been there, or if I remove an individual by force and they raise a complaint. I am concerned if I do something such as remove a clamp when a warrant does exist - do I have a legal leg to stand on!

Hi all, not sure if this is the right sub-forum, so mods please move as appropriate. Just over a year ago I moved to the country, renting a very little house. As is usual, I received mail for several previous tenants, some of whom had moved several years ago. These were all returned to sender. After a while, I started googling some of the return addresses - yep, debt collection agencies. Subsequent letters were returned with a "the addressee has moved, further returned mail will incur a £10 admin fee". Ignored, but was only half serious anyway. I had a visit from a DCA, whom when I informed him I was not the individual he sought became a little irate and demanded I prove I am who I stated I am. My reply was to the effect 'would you like to talk to my Alsatians?" and he left. Two weeks ago the dogs were barking (normal when someone approaches the house), I looked out, a van had pulled up behind my cars and a bloke was getting a wheel clamp out. When asked what he was doing, he essentially replied he was clamping my cars as security against a debt, and they would be taken and sold. I owe NO money to anyone. Not credit cards, loans, utilities, council tax, NO-ONE. So I let the dog outs... which had the desired effect that he dropped the clamp and got back into van. Through his window, he refused to tell me whom the debt was for, what it was for, nor had any paperwork (that he would show me) regarding a warrant of execution/distress. Apparently as I was not the debtor I couldn't see it.. . yeah, if he knew I was not the debtor, why try to clamp the cars? After returning his clamp to him (via the window...) he left... after I argued that if he didn't move I'd call the Police as he was obstructing access to the highway. I'm concerned that 'they' - whomever 'they' are - may try this again. I am absent for half the week, and moving the other two cars 'somewhere' else really isn't an option (one is SORN for the winter anyway) as this really is the country - 4 neighbours within a one mile radius. What can I do to determine whom the DCA is/are? Does a DCA - or a bailiff/HCEO - with a warrant of execution against an address, have the right to remove my goods even though I am not the debtor - he told me that he could do that and I would have to take the original debtor to court to recover my losses. The Police haven't arrived - he swore black and blue he'd be calling them due to the dogs being 'set on him' - as far as I'm concerned he wasn't invited, was asked to leave, and if I want to let the dogs out on my [rented] property I will... Any advice how I can resolve this? Can one issue a 'John Doe' injunction against unknown parties to stop harrassment? Can they take my cars? Worst case, could they use a locksmith to enter in my absence on a warrant with an address, regardless of the name? What can I do if they DID remove property?

Unless they apply for a warrant of execution to enforce a county court judgement...?

It will shift the evidential level down from "beyond reasonable doubt" to balance of probabillity. At which point, it is reasonable for a magistrate to assume the if you own a TV, it is reasonable to believe that you watch it... Even more, could make it easier to obtain a warrant. A the moment, TVLA have to produce evidence to support application. This may make it easier; they have the returned form from Currys, Argos, etc that you bought equipment that can receive, their is no record of a licence at the address, ergo there is grounds to believe that TV is being watched.

That's not quite what the statement said, it said "working is beneficial for many people with a health condition": ie not everyone with a condition, not everyone who is in pain, but simply many people, without including or excluding specific groups. That said, it does sound like someone with common sense trying to repair the damage done by ATOS's "medical examiners"

Why? What has this got to do with the current Conservative Govt? Nothing - as ATOS were appointed under the last Labour Govt to provide this assessment service to DWP.

Many thanks people

Looking for clarification concerning how banks handle customer complaints. 1. Am I correct in believing that a bank has to acknowledge a complaint, in writing, within 5 working days, regardless of whether that complaint is made in writing or verbally (e.g. during a call to phone banking)? If so, where can I find the relevant regulation or code of practice? Looking about online I can only find reference to the bank having to investigate and respond to a complaint within 8 weeks.

But we aren't using what we use! PF do NOT have to supply the service. When they negotiated the contract with HMRC they should have identified the costs, and charged HMRC accordingly. If there contract doesnt cover "cash remitting, banking, cash transferring and all the piddling bits required to get the money to the government", that is not my fault, or yours, it is *their* bid teams failure. I suspect that PF and HMRC came to a figure that was acceptable to each, and a "nod and a wink" that the contract cost would be lower if PF were allowed to charge Joe Public an "admin fee". Here's a test. Go ask your MP if he is aware of the change, and his view on it, and whether he debated it in Parliament. If you are perfectly happy to pay for a service that you have not asked for, then please allow me to send a few invoices. Prompt payment is appreciated. I take it that you run a business, and know the basic economics of costing a product or service?

You have provided the answer to your own questions... change supplier, or negotiate that you will pay the bill, but not an inflated charge for using cheque/cash/whatever. Or, you are within your rights to vary any terms of service - especially on a contract proposal, to add a charge for . You do have control over a DD. The presenter must give you 28days notice of variation. Failure to do so means you contact the bank who immediately return the money to your account. Not remembering to tell DVLA - well, frankly, that is your/mine/our fault! Yes, I agree that there are other examples where the /consumer/ has been manipulated into paying. The difference here is that in those cases I am a consumer, and can vote with my wallet, or protest in other ways. This is different; it is an overlap between the Govt and a semi-private (or state-controlled) organisation. I have zero recourse, and it appears to have been sneaked in through Parliament. SHOULD further parts of the taxation system be privatised/outsourced, I would hope that it receives much greater Parliamentary study, and very public scutiny; and that you do not blindly accept that shifting cost from Govt to the individua, or profiteering on the part of the outsourcer,l is necessary or acceptable.