Who did you settle your electricity with?

You will be entitled to ssp at the very least. Like emmzzi said its best to know what their policy is and how it fits into your circumstances. For example have they done all they should, but likewise did you fully comply with their policy. I'm sure your union can clear this up and I'm sure that you'll sort it.

I still think you'll find that you were okay self certifying for the first 7 days of your illness so a sick note wasn't needed, unless you didn't follow their self cert procedures, Did you inform them each day that you were off for?

You can self certify sickness in any company for 7 days. You shouldn't have needed a sicknote, provided you followed their procedures of reporting your sickness to them (usually a phone call to your manager an hour before your start time is normal). You should get any sick pay entitlement as well providing you followed it. (Whether that is full company sick pay or SSP will say in your handbook).

I wasn't using the old contract. In fact, the phone was turned off and in a box. They had "no record" of my phone call asking to cancel. At the time the scare tactics they used frightened me into paying the default amount as I didn't want a bad credit rating but look what's happened anyway. If it was now I would have fought it till I was blue in the face, but I was young and naive

 

Thanks for the reply porkyp x

To contact the Vodafone web team...they left these instructions to follow. Good luck in sorting it.

We thought it would be nice to introduce ourselves and to assure you all that our presence on CAG is with the very best of intentions.

vodafone UK has recently introduced a dedicated Web Relations Team which is keen to seek out customers who’re having difficulties with their accounts and feel that they have no other place to turn to than CAG and other consumer forums and blogs.

Naturally, it’s not possible for us to help directly with account specific queries on CAG and as such we would encourage those members who feel we can help them to contact us privately at eforum.web@help.vodafone. co.uk

quoting ‘WRT135 – CAG Forum’ in the

subject line to ensure that it reaches the Web Relations Team.

When emailing us we would also ask that you either provide us with a link to your post or thread – if you’ve posted in another member’s thread please also provide your CAG username so that we can check what your query is.

why did you pay for an extra 3 months if you had cancelled? surely you could just refer to that conversation and any correspondence that you had confirming the cancellation. It doesn't make sense?

Anyway, vodafone are on-board, so Lee (who is very very good) will be able to help you with our situation and hopefully clarify what has gone on....

Again, you arent answering my question, but repeating what you have been told. Especially given your own opinions throughout this thread.

 

You could be a politician the way you answer questions. Just because there is a "law" about something, doesnt make it right, or just. It just means some pencil pusher in the deep recesses of government managed to push it though. There could be a law that says nobody is allowed a pet dog anymore. Silly example i know, but it's still very very valid.

Do I agree with the law on everything? No. Do I stick to them to avoid punishment? Yes. You can break the law, but if you do the crime, don't moan when you have to do the time. Do I agree with 70mph speed limits on the motorway? No, I think cars can safely handle speeds above this. Do I drive above that limit, no, because I don't want points or a fine. It really is that simple.

I've answered with how I feel on the topic and feel that I've made this quite clear. Call it what you will, I'm happy and have a clean moral slate. Pity some of you can't say the same. I am deffo out of this now, there's nothing more I can add. Life really is too short to be worrying about this.

I know i said id stay out of the thread, but answer this please. Why do you think the licence fee is needed? Why do you think it should be FORCED on anyone who watches the tv, no matter what channel they watch, simply because one channel wants that money?

Because the government that governs my country has said it is law that if I watch live tv (regardless of what I watch) I need a tv license. Do I like it, no. Do I agree with how they currently deal with enforcement, no. But I comply with that law because I want to watch live tv (football, ice hockey, and other sports). If I don't pay the license fee, I risk being fined or imprisoned. Morally, I'm under obligation to follow the rules of the land, and until such time that changes, I will comply.

Some shows that the bbc licensing money has paid for, I have enjoyed. I have enjoyed the office, extras as well as their awesome attenbough documentaries. I listen to bbc five live and my local bbc radio station. I like the way that the bbc can take politicians to task and push them due to their neutral stance on politics. Despite some of the turd the bbc comes up with, they come up with some good stuff too. This is another reason I continue to pay my license.

Call me a sheep if you want, but I don't want visits from tv licensing, nor do I want to risk any of the above punishment. I get benefit from watching and recording live tv. Why wouldn't I pay the license fee? That doesn't mean to say that I don't think they should make changes to the current system, I can see its flawed. But I'm still of the belief that if you watch or record live tv, you should pay for license fee. Otherwise you are breaking the law and are a criminal, no?

You are missing snowy101's point.

 

BBC/TVL assume that people who won't prove they aren't evading, must be evading.

 

Based on that principle, if you won't prove you aren't a BBC Troll, then you must be one.

 

Note that I'm not saying you are. I'm just explaining snowy101's point.

No I understand that. But if bbc or tvl contact you to make enquiries, providing they show you id, you can be quite assured that your data would be protected under the data protection act.

Snowy is a random person on a forum and I have no such guarantees that my data is safe and that it won't be misused. He has already proved to me that he is unstable (paranoid), would you send him your details if you were in my position?

If he feels that I am not here posting as just another user with a view on tv licensing, then he can still complain and enquiries from organisations with valid credentials can get the information that they need to conduct an investigation. I would not be posting the views i have if I was working for any of the companies he has accused me of.

As a tv license payer, it's just my view on the matter. In 2016 I hope it, changes I really do. For the benefit of people who don't need licenses, but also so that the focus is on catching people who don't pay when they should.

In other words snowy101, as BBC/TVL expect us to surrender our privacy, to prove our innocence, porkyp1g should surrender his privacy, to prove his innocence?

It's not the same at all. What organisation is snowy a part of that will keep the information safe and ensures it won't be used for any other purpose?

If you read my posts properly, you will see I don't agree with capita being involved in the process and how they go about trying to catch tv licence evaders (targets and commission etc). I also don't agree with how the bbc acted in light of the jimmy saville scandal. But because I believe people who need a tv license should pay for one, that makes me a bbc troll.

Believe what you want. It really doesn't bother me now. We've already uncovered that there is at least one on here who should be paying for a license but doesn't, yet someone who agrees with you said they don't agree with license evasion? Which is it? I wonder how many of you guys who claim not to need a license tuned in when the World Cup/Euros or Olympics were on? Hmmmmm....

Snowy, you've proved to me to be a paranoid poster, so your credibility has gone for me. Do you care if I feel that way, I'm sure you don't. Do I care if you think that I am employed by either the bbc or capita, no I don't. Cest la vie.

Exactly how I feel about giving information to BBC/TVL.

That's fine if you genuinely don't need a tv license. Fair play. With all due respect though, they are at least an official company who must comply with the data protection act. Paranoid snowy isn't and if I gave him that information, he could do anything with it, so it's not really the same.

You don`t need to worry on my behalf, as i have already told you, i don`t suffer from paranoia

You clearly do, as you think I am an insider when you are very wrong.

The site team can pass on details on my IP address if either organisation requests it should they feel that an investigation needs to take place. This will give them details of my location and ISP. This should be enough to satisfy the companies if they have an employee on their hands. I'm not going to send my personal details to you as I don't know what else you would use them for. I don't know you and I'm sure you wouldn't send me all the details you requested from me.

To be fair, I don't really care what you think. You can believe what you like for me. If you want to take it further, you can still make a complaint to any of the companies associated with tv licensing.

He is, certainly one of them.

If you truly feel that I work within either the bbc or capita, why don't you report me to one or both of them? I've already posted my views on the matter, that it should be taken back in house and not run by capita for personal gain. If its a government decision to make everyone pay in this way, then it should be run the same as the DVLA is. If I do work for either of the companies, surely they will take exception to my comments and I would be in trouble.

This view on this is my own and I do not work with anything at all to do with tv licensing. Call my bluff on the matter and put your money where your mouth is. I assure you that you have this wrong, and are a very, very paranoid person. I worry for you in everyday life.

please list your questions PORKYP1G

 

for my education of course

Nah I just asked these guys if any of them actually watch live tv (or record it) regardless of any channel despite not paying for a tv license. Renegade has already admitted he does, but these are choosing their right to remain silent. Says it all to me really.

HE BBC and Home Office faced sustained criticism after the Prison Service revealed yesterday that 845 people were jailed last year for not having a television licence and paying the fine imposed by the courts.

And I thought he was meant to be an expert on this topic?

I'm still waiting to see this video for ****s and giggles. We've already had one admit he watches tv but doesn't pay for a license, your guys refusal to answer the question makes me think your in e same boat (but too ashamed to say) and are hiding behind your rights. None of you have my sympathy if the day comes and your found out to be a tv license evader.

And you keep repeating your self

Lol, the irony....

I would skip what this poster is doing

What am I doing?

Again you seem to have skipped the ENTIRE reasonings in this thread along witht the legal reasonings why you should not pay nor can you be forced to.

You seem to be hung up on the simple fact that because others pay it and some no name idiot tells you to pay it, that you have no alternative but to comply.

Ive spoken to around 8 "inspectors" in the last 10 years and NOTHING has happened. That says it all.

It's not like somebody has just made up this rule and applied it and tried telling everyone it is right. If you are proved to be in breach of the law on this matter, do you not end up in court and get fined or imprisoned if you are found to be guilty? If you are comfortable risking this punishment, go ahead. You face the consequences if you do get caught and if you believe in karma I'm sure it will be applied. You will have no one to blame but yourself.

I thought I was dealing with people who don't need a license and were arguing against being assumed guilty, but its clear from some of these postings that there are examples of persons that should be paying for license, but don't. I'm not going to argue that anymore as this is a totally different situation and not one that is defensible.

Some people on here have said no one is justifying tv licence evasion, well it seems some are. I'm outta here now guys, it's been emotional.

There is no need to go back to basics. There is no need for a tv licence. It is an outdated relic and needs to be scrapped. It was introduced when there was only the BBC around and it was the only way to maintain it. As was previously said, the keyword is in the name British Broadcasting CORPORATION. They are there to make a profit, and they dont have to put any effort into it due to the tv licence TAX.

 

You might be ok with it, but i and many tens of thousands of others are DEFINITELY not.

It doesn't matter if you are okay with it or not, it is still a law that you a breaking. Morally, you are in the wrong.

When it all gets reviewed in 2016, maybe they will see that there are more alternatives for people on a subscription basis, like Netflix, so might actually change the law or even make freeview a subscription too. I agree it needs brining up to date, with modern times. if you pay your license fee, you get the programmes beamed live and decrypted. Then there would be no need for capita and all these targets and commissions.

But until such time, you are still flouting the law and you don't seem to have any moral issues with that. Astonishing.

I don't know, and I don't care.

 

It is not up to the accused to assist the accuser.

 

All I require of them, is that they act within the law.

 

Actually, when you think about it, they have no reason to want to prove you aren't watching live TV, and every reason to try to prove you are, which means there is an incentive for them to be anything but impartial.

That's where I agree with you there. The focus should be taken off making people pay for licenses if they genuinely don't need them, it should solely be about catching people who choose to flout the law just because they have an issue with the bbc or capita. I think in 2016 we could see big shakeups and I hope it is taken back in house and the objective of the tv license enforcement go back to basics.

DOesnt matter what his views were, there is no need to bring him into this. You also seem to be evading my question. Even given all the logical reasoning in this thread. You seem to be set on the "it's the law" point, when actually it isnt.

So the legislation on this matter doesn't say that if you watch live broadcasts or record them, you need a license?

Again, i couldnt care less if it was a legal requirement. The money goes to the BBC. Nobody else. I do not watch or care to watch or listen to anything the BBC puts out, so why should i get a licence? Nobody has ever given me a straight answer. They always sidestep it or state as i said before.

 

And bringing the late Martin3030 into this? Seriously? I think its time you left the thread.

Because the government have deemed it a requirement if you watch live tv, bbc or otherwise. You do, so you need a license but choose to claim that you don't need one, when you are in breach of legal guidelines. You have just as much to do with people getting bothering house calls from tvl than capita does. If I didn't agree with a certain legal guideline that applied to me, I'd take this up with my mp, not break the law by disagreeing with it.

Yes I did bring Martin into this, if you see the posts he made on the matter you'd see he had a similar view on the matter. He wouldn't want the site having users that admitted and agreed with breaking the law to justify their point of view.

I've already stated that i only watch the channels with adverts (and thats rarely), and listen to the local radio which is also a commercial station, yet you and others seem to think i should still pay the licence fee... "just because everyone else does".

It's a legal requirement to own a tvl whether you watch bbc channels or not. You've already stated that you've not owned a licence for over 10 years, yet you have admitted to watching channels with adverts. That still doesn't mean you don't need a licence. I think from the answers given on here, your not on your own and a few more always require a license but choose to exercise their rights to avoid paying. Well it doesn't wash, claiming that the rest of us who do comply with legal requirements are sheep. I pay my licence as I know it's a legal requirement given i choose to watch and record live tv. Should I choose not to want to do this and no longer require a license ill stop paying. I do not want the hassle of visits, potential search warrants and possible days out in court,Mao I'd never try tvl evading.

I used to think that this place was purely about helping people in innocent situations. I seems that people are using it now to share which rights they can use to evade legal requirements, something that would have Martin3030 turning in his grave.

Your only angry because your being conned into paying for a TV licence.

 

You've made that assumption, I never said I watch live TV, I can also have my own opinions on whoever I choose thank you.

 

I also knowingly don't pay for the following licences, Car, Firearms, Pilots, Fishing, Rod, Wildlife or even a consumer credit licence, do you think they send me threatening letters every month?

 

It's just a con, a farce, just like this bedroom tax.

It's still my opinion that genuine evaders exists and while they do tvl inspectors will come a knocking. It's people that do evade their license fee, whether they watch bbc programming or not, that cause innocent people to get harassed along with the rest as tvl have no way of knowing it the person is just an evader or or not,

People on here call them goons or cretins. Maybe their incentive is personal gain, but they are doing a job that evaders create a meaning for. If people want to get mad they are being harassed, don't blame the tvl folk, blame the blatant evaders who break the law and ruin it for everyone else.

I was once told this by trading standards during a battle with Comet over a faulty in warranty TV. They said that if Comet couldn’t repair it they could only replace it with a used TV of similar age and not new.

 

Again late last year, Ebuyer only partially refunded me for a faulty in warranty iPad, deducting 8 months use from the refund. This was despite me having written proof from Apple that it was a manufacturing defect.

 

As others have said you’ll be lucky to walk away with anything after all this time. Move on, you could replace it for a far better spec’d machine now for £250.

That is odd, comet gave me new warranty on a replaced item, not once but twice, as I posted above.

I am normally alive when I watch it yes, depends if the cork has fell out of the vin rouge?

 

This is quite an emotive subject which is going off in tangents, I know what I know, and I am quite happy to be licence free, and more than happy to put any footage of their failure to force me to contract with them, on tinternet as and when, but as a rule of thumb, no contact is the preferred method.

nice one, but I didn't type alive. I typed live.