Pass ...... the telecommunications act 2003 changed a lot of things...... Communications Act 2003 (c. 21) mainly this one.........> http://www.opsi.gov.uk/ACTS/acts2003/ukpga_20030021_en_34#pt4 have a look Dave

NO.....if you recorded it you must have received it.... or if someone else recorded it there my be copyright issues..... however it is perfectly legal (I think) to use a tv NOT connected to an aerial or with the receiving part disabled to play pre recorded tapes and dvd's or to use it for gaming, wii, xbox etc However when the switch over to digital is complete you can use a tv without fear because you are unable to receive TV broadcasts......what I mean by that is you wont have to disable the receiving circuit because the terrestrial signal will be switched off......not true for newer integrated sets with digi onboard though but they will soon put an end to that by bringing in smart cards to pay or the digi signal will be switched off.... Dave

Hi guys..... While I waiting to see if Barclays are going to put in a defence in time (17th Nov I think) I started to have a go a TV licensing. I didnt renew my license (again) on the correct date and they wrote to me and told me what a bad boy I had been and that they had the power to re-date the license to show the "correct" date. ok....I am not advocating tv license evasion, but the tone of this letter rubbed me up the wrong way so I wrote......>. ------------------------ Dear Sir, With regard to your recent query regarding my television licence renewal, could you please direct me to the current legislation that states that….. 1.I am required by law to have a television 2.I am required by law to use a television even if I have one 3.I am required by law to inform anyone that I am NOT using a television. As I am in fact NOT required by law to have a television or use one even if I do have one, or in fact to inform anyone that I am not using a television, then when I choose to get a licence is my own business, and I do not need to explain myself to anyone. You should be grateful that I do choose to obey the law and get a license when I feel I need one. As strange as it may seem to you, some people do not NEED a television at all times. As far as I am aware even in current legislation it is not an offence to own a television, the only offence that I can see is if you use a television to receive broadcast signals via an aerial without purchasing the required licence. It is not for me to “prove my innocence”, but for you to prove any wrongdoing For your information and to expedite matters, any television set owned by me was not used to receive TV broadcasts during any period not covered by a relevant license. Please restore my licence to its original date Thank you........ ------------------------------- Then they wrote back with some crud absolutely refusing to re-date the license, including the the line "in cases where a customer has asked for the expiry date to be amended on a license we require adequate proof that the license was not required” I swiftly replied with a rather sharp and pointed letter copied here ----------------------- Thank you for writing to me and explaining why you won't re-date my tv license. Firstly I would like you to climb down of your high horse, and remember that you are, or are working on behalf of public servant (whether a private company or not), and that as the law now stands you are required to issue me with a license if I have paid for it. I should not have to explain my reasons as to why I didn't renew on the correct anniversary, all you are required to know is that I have paid for and require my FULL license There are many and varied reasons for not requiring a TV license not least of which is not having a TV. As far as I am aware the purchase of a TV license seems to me to be wholly dependant on the ability or need to receive TV broadcasts, but even so it is not a requirement under British law (yet) that you are required to purchase a license for something that you don't use. For example it is perfectly legal to OWN as many TV sets as you wish without a license...as long as you don't use them. Until the law is changed I will continue to purchase a TV license when I am required to. I fully support the funding of the BBC and have no wish to deprive them of funds, similarly I am sure that the government / BBC would not want me to pay for something that I don't use. If for example I didn't want to use my car for 3 – 6 months I wouldn't have to tax it, however there IS a legal requirement to inform them of such. There is no such requirement as yet to inform anyone that you don't require a TV license, nor should there be. Believe it or not not everyone requires or uses a TV all the time Further your letter states.....” in cases where a customer has asked for the expiry date to be amended on a license we require adequate proof that the license was not required”............WTF ????? Have you ever tried proving a negative...............attached is a blank sheet of paper not showing a picture of the television that I didn't have, and one not showing another with the plug removed and not in working condition. There is also not attached a cheque not to the value of twenty pounds, could you please confirm that you didn't see it. Try answering this question at the airport...” has anyone put anything into you case without your knowledge ?”............how would you know ??? You have already had my statement that I did not require a license for the given period that should be sufficient. It is not my responsibility to prove that I did not require a TV license, It is yours to prove that I did! I am sorry but “we can change it if we feel like” is not good enough and if you think it is then you have the option of taking me to court. Does the phrase “innocent until PROVEN guilty” have any meaning. We are not under a fascist regime yet so don't act like we are. I have the receipt that shows that I paid for my license and that will be sufficient for 12 months If I require it that long. I shall not be renewing it BEFORE that date and if it should ever get as far as a court case I will explain my reasons to the judge, and then ask for damages and compensation, your call!! PLEASE ISSUE THE FULL LICENSE ------------------------ lets see what happens Dave

no matter ......I'm going for them in a big way soon and RBS Then its Barclays........ Dave

Hi I made a payment by debit card of £2.00 over the internet (which was authorised and cleared and paid on a saturday) , the following monday they took out a charge of £30 which put me over the limit....then decided to charge me a card referral fee for the £2.00 the upshot of that is that I got charged £28 "maintenance fee" + £35 card referral fee that's £63 for a £2.00 payment that went through and was authorised. ?????? wrote a disgusted letter and got back the usual guff about fair and transparent. swiftly followed by me telling them what I thought about their "thievery" and for them to make a note that I would be reclaiming all charges when the OFT case was finally decided.....(was going to do that in any case ) its maddening on a further point a friend of mine has his business account with Nastywest and a business mortgage for his building........never gone over the overdraft limit ...never missed a mortgage payment......and they called both in with no notice :O :O barstewards Dave

hmmmm term 8 of the original agreement (which I have) .................... 8 optional payment protection insurance...... 8.1 if you exercise your right to cancel this agreement or if you repay the loan early in full, any payment protection insurance which you have taken through us for this agreement will be cancelled 8.2 If you repay any insurance advance early in full it is your decision whether to exercise any right you may have to end the related payment the related payment protection insurance early. 8.3 Moneys payable by the insurer under the payment protection insurance in satisfaction of a claim will be credited back to the account 8.4 where there is an insurance advance, moneys payable by the insurer under the payment protection insurance by way of a refund of the premium will be credited to the account.......................... ................. it says optional but I dont recall it that way I dont ever remember asking for it or being asked did I want it. It was just on the agreement when I signed it....being naive and not realising the implications. I was self employed at the time .......and did actually claim on it it was like trying to pull teeth though, talk about jumping through hoops. I needed references from the queen and the pope..... still its one more avenue to explore Dave

nope..it can be 12 years for a mortgage or interim charging order........personal experience Dave

hmmmm they dont look like the same docs to me either but interestingly they dont give any default charges......ie £20 for missing a payment etc, if they dont declare it then they cant charge it also they only say that they will hold data on their computers....nothing to say that you agree to them sharing such data with anyone else especially the cra's just my two pennorth Dave

BTW the install went well........I'm a very happy bunny Dave

WOW....... you know when you are not really concentrating and something just jumps up and hits you the agreement in post 1..... MBNA I have been working on a strategy to deal with this for a while and it was all rather up in the air well I just looked at it again......and nowhere does it say that the ppi is optional this means that it shouldbe classed as a charge for credit......totally screwing the whole agreement up :) what do you think Dave

Hi an application form can be both application / agreement........as long as all the required terms are there....... and it is in the proper format. this has been done to death in various threads, but i dont see a problem with discussing it again for anyone who missed it the first time around have a look at this old thread http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/general-debt-issues/74733-credit-agreement-application.html Dave

depends on the cca, if its enforceable and how you go about it. first and foremost ....get the cca, post it here and we'll have a look. we can argue the toss all day, the cca is what we need to see. all decisions can then be made. but I will say one thing, it is "unlikely" but not impossible that you'll get any money already paid, back. there are precedents that would allow it, but thats for the future. Dave

Hi Trout yes ....nothing to worry about here.....as the previous poster said misspelt names are common. my missus had an account under the name chirstina...her name was christina....its what you put on the application form that matters. CCA them and see what turns up Dave

hellsbells in a perfect world you may be right, but this site is littered with people who had "an iron clad case" and lost. the lenders and dca's are a bunch of %&??!! and bend the law to suit themselves, and we have very little recourse. things arent always black and white, a lot depends on what judge you get and his or her predujices a case in point -------> http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/legal-issues/191784-shakespeare62-nastybank.html Masamps a simple letter to moorcroft, or any of the other dca's will send them packing, or just ignore them is fine too they usually wont do anything let alone make a personal call. you need to concentrate on the main creditor. Barclaycard are one of the more difficult ones, they prevaricate and send you the bare minimum of information. I am in the middle of a battle with them at the moment, however......that said I have won twice with them PPI and charges on another Credit card....(they must hate me by now) The thing is BC have to send you a copy of the the agreement. what you will get though may not be what you expected. ie not a photocopy of it but a "reconstructed version" or a simple card carrier. while they are in default you may with-hold payments....but they will still report this to the cra's (unlawfully) have a look at ----> why you shouldnt use section 77/78 CCA 1974 if you want the signed agreement - The Consumer Forums but before you do anything make sure you understand what you are doing. rgds Dave

DCA's are usually only AGENTS acting for the original creditor. Unless there has been an assignment they cannot act on their own behalf, Most of them are pussies, especially moorcroft. i could build a rather nice bonfire with all the various threats of legal action I've had from them ignore them and go for the original creditor. or the cycle will continue Dave

good news....... The new UBUNTU is out (Karmic Koala 9.10) So i will be re-installing. For those of you that dont know what UBUNTU is its a totally FREE operating system and does most things that windows does.....but better!!!. all the applications are free as well office suite etc. You can even choose to try before install......ie run it off the cd without installing (not as fast though) I have chosen to re-install rather than upgrade because I want the new filesysytem on my nice new 250gb sata drive. I used to "dual boot" into XP but have long since deleted it as I found I didnt need it. I need to make all sorts of backups first in case disaster befalls so may be otherwise occupied for the next N number of hours......... sorry for the shameless ad ....but it is a non commercial concern fully committed to free software for everyone use and share, and worth a look at rgds Dave

Hi Shadow its about 1999-2000 from memory there should be an image on here somewhere (I think). I can post it up again if you want. there is also the original MSDW t&c's which look contemporary with it rgds dave

Yeah, in common with a lot of other credit providers they only release the bare minimum, but barclays seem to be quite a problem (reading other posts). The only real way of getting a result would be the CPR route.... I was fortunate in that my agreement was supplied by Morgan stanley in 2007. and yes it is unenforceable without any prescribed terms anywhere near it, but that is for later........ rgds Dave

Hi guys for further information...... This latest attack on barclaycard is for a CC originally issued by Morgan Stanley. they were then taken over by Goldfish and then by BC. At sometime while Goldfish had it, and while it was still in dispute they sold it (in my opinion unlawfully) to HFO services who have been extremely quiet since about 18 months ago when I told them to "go fish" I have since written to hfo regarding the unfair charges and threatened them with court action and they replied that they would have to talk to their clients (BC). So it seems as though it wasnt a full assignment and that the responsibility still lies with BC. So a few letters later and the paid me £627 as a "goodwill" gesture. And thats where we're upto at the moment. I asked for the charges and compound contractual totalling nearly £1800 and the gave me £627...hmmm game on Dave

got the Notice of Service through in this mornings post.....and they say they are going to defend......ho hum quite honestly I cant see what they are going to defend, and I can't wait to see the defence. I suppose my putting on compound contractual interest has rattled them. I really cant wait to see if this ACTUALLY gets into court. rgds Dave

thanks for the kind comments I'll keep you updated Dave

Hi guys I'm back again...... (never really been away....just lurking) decided to finally get to grips with things after all the pratting about. Sent Barclaycard a demand for unlawful charges + contractual interest totalling £581 + £1200 in interest (compounded) This must have woken them up and they credited my bank account with £621 with no ties (this was always the stumbling point) they had previously always wanted to tie me into a confidentiality agreement and agreement never to sue them again........I wasnt having that £627........?????? it works out that this is the £581 + 8% on the whole. This was not what I had asked for......nowhere near...they had originally agreed to £750 and then £800...... Even at 8% from the date of each charge this now comes to about £831 so why would I accept £627 ? I wrote to them (once the money was safely in the account) and thanked them for the deposit, and politely asked when I could expect the balance They then wrote a rather short letter telling me to go forward and procreate, and that I could take the matter up with the FOS If I wanted. I went one better and issued an N1 for the balance. they have until Nov 2 to acknowledge service. The battle is joined. These are just the opening shots I have bigger plans for this motley crew. rgds dave

As advised before I strongly suggest that you read the above links........he seems to know what he is doing. Dave

not so much of a victory then....more like a consolidation of facts we already knew, or assumed to be true. It does seem though that there is a major effort by the lenders to cover their own A***s and to report every minor "victory" as though it was something important. there seems something wrong about this judgment....if it was argued correctly, the fact that there was no agreement would mean that there was no contract or no contract that could be proved. It would also mean that the terms and conditions had no effect and so as was reported in wilson that "the money could be looked on as a gift" (paraphrasing). these cmc's are going off half cock with little or no knowledge and are muddying the waters........hmmm isnt that what the creditors would like ???? makes you think doesnt it. It would be worth it for a major lender to set up a cmc and lose a few cases to get some sort of precedent set....or is that me just being paranoid rgds dave

Unfortunately, I'll bet that there is a get-out..... if you were to quote from the whole of the text........> ---------------------------------------------- It seems as though they "might" be able to use the term debt collection agency ..or such like. we need to be very carefull when selectively quoting...people might not research it too fully and go off half cock. but it does give a new angle to be investigated and is certainly worth a look at rgds Dave