Thanks to some excellent advice from these forums I have recently resolved an issue of being expected to pay postage for the pleasure of returning a faulty item. R.14(6) of the Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 places responsibility for bearing said cost upon the seller. I have pointed out the relevant sections of the Sale of Goods Act 1979 and Consumer Protection (Distance Selling) Regulations 2000 with which their Terms and Conditions do not comply in this regard. However, the company in question is still insisting their T&C's comply with all legal requirements but is willing to make a "one time exception" and replace the faulty item without receiving the defective unit (as if they're doing me a favour). My question therefore is: Do 'regulations' count as statutory rights or do they rank lower than Terms and Conditions? Obviously a company's T&Cs cannot circumvent statutory rights so how can they still claim to be abiding by the law?

I have been reading about TV Licensing recently and whether they are lawfully required or not. I have no personal objective here other than enlightenment. I DO have a linence and will contiunue to do so as I can afford it (thankfully I have a job) and I know that I would be harassed if I didn't have one. But that got me thinking....is the main reason that people buy licences because they feel that they would be committing a crime and be threatened/harassed for not having one? When I was at Uni (some time ago now!) I received all sorts of threatening letters (more and more red ink each time) despite not owning a TV or equipment capable of receiving a signal...and this was despite me notifying them of this. Reminds be of DCA threatogram tactics. Churn out 10,000 threatograms, a few will cough up = result for them. I've heard about £1000 fines being threatened, sending enforcement officers round to visit, and even prison! Some arlicles I have read (and youtube vids watched) talk about how, as the TV Licence requirement is based on the Communications Act, it is a 'Statute' and not a 'Law'(Common Law). Not having one does not cause harm or loss to another person so cannot be considered an unlawful act. The case studies suggest that one can 'remove their implied right of access' so that TVL peeps are not allowed to enter one's property and one can refuse to answer any questions to any enforcment agents (normally Capita)....and there is nothing that they can do. The key (apparently) is to avoid engaging with them in any way as they have no right to demand info and enter your property...or even demand your name. People fall foul of this when they fall for the intimidation and sign statements agreeing that they do not have a TVL despite having a TV. As we are talking about an Act/Statute, there has to be an agreement on both sides so unless you agree, they cannot enforce. Correct? or BS?!! So my question is - how does this work out in reality? If someone cancels their licence (or never has had one) will they be 'got' in the end by the TVL people and court system. Can the Police get involved? Will you go to prison? Or is the BBC/TVL hoodwinking us all and with untruths, deliberate misinterpretation of the law, intimidation, threats, harassment and bullying? And should the TVL be abolished? I came here to ask as I very much value the CAG members' opinions and views....