Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The move marks the first time the country's central bank has raised interest rates for 17 years.View the full article
    • The firm has benefited from the AI boom, making it the third-most valuable company in the US.View the full article
    • Former billionaire Hui Ka Yan has been fined and banned from the financial market for life.View the full article
    • In terms of "why didn't I make a claim" - well, that has to be understood in the context of the long-standing legal battle and all its permuations with the shark. In essence there was a repo and probable fire sale of the leasehold property - which would have led to me initiating the complaint/ claim v SPF in summer 19. But there was no quick sale. And battle commenced and it ain't done yet 5y later. A potential sale morphed into trying to do a debt deal and then into a full blown battle heading to trial - based on the shark deliberately racking up costs just so the ceo can keep the property for himself.  Along the way they have launched claims in 4 different counties -v- me - trying to get a backdoor B. (Haven't yet succeeded) Simultaneously I got dragged into a contentious forfeiture claim and then into a lease extension debacle - both of which lasted 3y. (I have an association with the freeholders and handled all that legal stuff too) I had some (friend paid for) legal support to begin with.  But mostly I have handled every thing alone.  The sheer weight of all the different cases has been pretty overwhelming. And tedious.  I'm battling an aggressive financial shark that has investors giving them 00s of millions. They've employed teams of expensive lawyers and barristers. And also got juniors doing the boring menial tasks. And, of course, in text book style they've delayed issues on purpose and then sent 000's of docs to read at the 11th hour. Which I not only boringly did read,  but also simultaneously filed for ease of reference later - which has come in very handy in speeding up collating legal bundles and being able to find evidence quickly.  It's also how I found out the damning stuff I could use -v- them.  Bottom line - I haven't really had a moment to breath for 5y. I've had to write a statement recently. And asked a clinic for advice. One of the volunteers asked how I got into this situation.  Which prompted me to say it all started when I got bad advice from a broker. Which kick-started me in to thinking I really should look into making some kind of formal complaint -v- the broker.  Which is where I am now.  Extenuating circumstances as to why I'm complaining so late.  But hopefully still in time ??  
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
        • Like
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
        • Like
      • 160 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

stopping tv licence fees


masmit
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4144 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Even then..Its not clear wether you actually have to perform B), I have a TV connected to a PC running Windows Media Center and I legally watch catch up TV without a licence, I have never actually attempted to use the tuner in the TV but dont feel the need to 'de-tune' it or whatever else TV Licensing suggests just to 'prove' my innocence.

 

In the age of Live TV over the internet the whole process of 'de-tuning' TV's is irrelevant now anyway, BBC iPlayer has just been updated and now provides easy to use live TV over the 'net.

 

Andy

whilst there is no real legal basis for this, there are reports on forums that some people have just completely removed the tuner from the TV, other have gummed up the antenna connection socket with gum or mastic, other have just not got an antenna connected to the TV, (by way of cutting the plug of the cable that comes down from the roof.

or just not having a lead that goes from a wall socket to their TV.

 

Of course, all these people don't buy a TV license ,but still have a TV to watch DVD's.

all were visited by the licensing authority and all report that their method was enough to convince the people from TV licensing that no TV was present.

 

 

Which still requires a television license.

interesting, but without a way to prove that you visited the BBC site and watched the Iplayer 'live' there isn't a way that they could prove that you needed a TV license.

else it's just be a broadband tax, with the relevant money going to fund a company that happened to produce some media...

 

or perhaps they'll expect the ISP to fund the TV license and pass the cost onto the customer the same as the government seem to expect with the digital copyright bill...

Link to post
Share on other sites

interesting, but without a way to prove that you visited the BBC site and watched the Iplayer 'live' there isn't a way that they could prove that you needed a TV license.

else it's just be a broadband tax, with the relevant money going to fund a company that happened to produce some media...

 

or perhaps they'll expect the ISP to fund the TV license and pass the cost onto the customer the same as the government seem to expect with the digital copyright bill...

 

Don't worry, they will log your IP address and if they want your name and address can ask your ISP who will give it under orders from the court.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All IP's are logged with all sites visited. If viewing simulcasts reaches a peak and the BBC want's to know who by checking the IP, they can.

 

It's no different than the thousands who have received summonses for downloading pirate movies and music.

 

I'm not saying it is done at present, but it is available should they feel the need.

 

If you want to ghost your IP you will find the stream not fast enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

All IP's are logged with all sites visited. If viewing simulcasts reaches a peak and the BBC want's to know who by checking the IP, they can.

 

It's no different than the thousands who have received summonses for downloading pirate movies and music.

 

I'm not saying it is done at present, but it is available should they feel the need.

 

If you want to ghost your IP you will find the stream not fast enough.

 

Quite clearly it 'could' be done, but it isn't and it would be a huge invasion of privacy and very controversial, the BBC T&C's are quite clear on what information is collected and how it is used, and snooping to detect wether people are viewing live TV without a licence is not one of them.

 

I serioulsy doubt wether the BBC/TV Licencing would ever go down this route of using IP information to start legal proceedings against people, one only has to pop over to the ACS Law thread on this site to see how problematic trying to pursue people for illegal downloading is.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I don't own a TV, it's all propoganda crap and bubble gum for your brain. If you have equipment that is capable of recieving a signal then you need a licence for it. You can have a TV adjusted by an engineer so that it is incapable of recieving a BBC signal and getting a written report, this, then you can present to the TV licencing authority. Bet they will be a pain about it though.

TV licence inspectors have no right to enter your home without a court order and a police officer. I pointed this out when I got a threatening letter saying that their "Enforcment team" were in my area because no licence is registered at my address. My very strongly worded letter got a response from there head of public relations pointing out why they had to word there letters in a threatening way.

 

God I hate bullying tactics!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really concerned about what appears to be a misunderstanding here.

 

A visit to the TV licensing site states quite clearly that a licence is required if one 'receives TV signals as they are broadcast' (or words to that effect as ICBA to look it up again.

 

I received my standard threatening letter, adressed to the new occupier and replied at length advising the 'authorities' that.

1, I have a TV but use it as a computer monitor.

2, My TV/Monitor is capable of receiving a signal.

3, I do not, will not and have not used it to watch TV as it is broadcast.

4, That I will not permit anyone to enter my property without obtaining a warrant and that to get a warrant they would have to advise me under the Human Rights Act and that I would defend most vigorously my right to privacy.

 

I then received a reply which stated they would send someone anyway as 1 in 4 of the people who claim not to need a licence in fact do need one. I ignored this letter as I did not want to enter a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

 

Curiously the TVLA visited my area last week while I was at home, called on my neighbours about their licence but completely ignored me.

 

I am more than happy for them to waste their resources as, at the end of the day, I am innocent as I do not, have not and will not watch contemporaneous TV until April 16th 2025 - as I understand I may have a free licence then!

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am really concerned about what appears to be a misunderstanding here.

 

A visit to the TV licensing site states quite clearly that a licence is required if one 'receives TV signals as they are broadcast' (or words to that effect as ICBA to look it up again.

 

I received my standard threatening letter, adressed to the new occupier and replied at length advising the 'authorities' that.

1, I have a TV but use it as a computer monitor.

2, My TV/Monitor is capable of receiving a signal.

3, I do not, will not and have not used it to watch TV as it is broadcast.

4, That I will not permit anyone to enter my property without obtaining a warrant and that to get a warrant they would have to advise me under the Human Rights Act and that I would defend most vigorously my right to privacy.

 

I then received a reply which stated they would send someone anyway as 1 in 4 of the people who claim not to need a licence in fact do need one. I ignored this letter as I did not want to enter a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.

 

Curiously the TVLA visited my area last week while I was at home, called on my neighbours about their licence but completely ignored me.

 

I am more than happy for them to waste their resources as, at the end of the day, I am innocent as I do not, have not and will not watch contemporaneous TV until April 16th 2025 - as I understand I may have a free licence then!

 

The problem is that the information on the TV Licensing site is not the law, it is a their vague interpertation of it, you could follow all the advice on there but still find yourself prosocuted, this was discussed mostly by me and Buzby in another thread somewhere.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Me too.

 

Any suggestions as to how the law should be enforced?

 

 

Certainly not by sending threatening letters, I was furious when I got one. I genuinley don't own a television and see nothing wrong with that. I see it wrong that it is just assumed that I do have one and they are going to bring there wrath down on me with there "Enforcment team" (images come to mind of an SAS style swoop on me!).

I see that as no difference to getting a threatening letter from a debt collection agency telling me they are going to give a doorstep visit when, under common law, they have no right to.

 

I would have one if there wasn't the ridiculous licence fee, and then you only get the basic channels. My mother has a freeview box and thats not a lot better. For any TV I would like to watch I would have to pay and additional fee to sky for satalite, and to be honest, after spending 3 months last year in India and having that, it all got same same after 3 weeks. There is plenty of informative stuff (my fodder) to be found on the net. :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

As I don’t work in law enforcement, no, I don’t have any suggestions.

 

Although, as we have been led to believe in the past, the technology is their for someone to sit outside in a van and tell if I am watching TV?

 

Do you have a better suggestion other than sending red letters to people telling them “We have reason (?) to believe you are breaking the law”? When in fact, there is no reasonable ground for such an accusation/assumption?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it like this:

 

People wish to be treated as if they are honest. Nothing wrong with that. However, it starts to get problematic if you insist on being trusted, but are unwilling to afford to the enforcement authorities ready access to satisfy themselves that you are indeed honest, standing on your right to insist that a court order be obtained.

 

I am all in favour of the awkward squad, but what does being awkward for its own sake really achieve apart from feeling you have got one over on the powers that be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment the licence fee is well and truly overpriced. Perhaps for every repeat they shoudl give us a %5 discount! At least in the sixties and severnties you had excellent programs and good clean comedy not like some of the smut shown these days never mind over paid prats like Ross.

Link to post
Share on other sites

At the moment the licence fee is well and truly overpriced. Perhaps for every repeat they shoudl give us a %5 discount! At least in the sixties and severnties you had excellent programs and good clean comedy not like some of the smut shown these days never mind over paid prats like Ross.

 

Plenty of good TV on the beeb if you look hard enough.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I see it like this:

 

People wish to be treated as if they are honest. Nothing wrong with that. However, it starts to get problematic if you insist on being trusted, but are unwilling to afford to the enforcement authorities ready access to satisfy themselves that you are indeed honest, standing on your right to insist that a court order be obtained.

 

I am all in favour of the awkward squad, but what does being awkward for its own sake really achieve apart from feeling you have got one over on the powers that be?

 

 

I would be interested to hear you expand on your “Awkward squad”, not a reference I’ve heard of before. I hear where you are coming from but think your information on making this assumption is incorrect if you have any interest in your own rights (the whole point of this forum for my thinking).

 

The TV licensing authority are in fact a private company, Consignia (customer management) LTD, trading under the name TV Licence.

As a private company they are in no way an enforcement agency and such, have no right to enforce any law. They have connections with the government and the attorney general for enforcement of the law but they, in no way, are an enforcement agency and as such, have no right to accuse an individual of committing an offence (as they did when they sent me a threatening letter).

This was proven to me when I received a reply with an apology and a reference to them in no way showing any threatening behaviour or insinuation that I had committed an offence.

They did insinuate that I was committing an offence, wish I had kept the letter so I could post it up on here. I have since received two letters, spat out of their automated records system which is obviously not kept updated. I have duly ignored them.

 

Do you work for this company?? Or do you just think it is fine and dandy for them (as a private company) to act in such a way?

I have no problems if legitimate authorities contact me with reference to my legal behaviour when I have done nothing wrong. I do. However, question anything to make sure I know my rights. As a free man in a democracy that is my right and I like to exercise that and see nothing wrong with it, even if it does make me “Awkward” to them.

Any other path, for me, would be just acting as a sheep and accepting all that is told me as fact. And a lot of it is not. I will carry on questioning as should everyone else. Let’s keep these private corporations on their toes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I expect "awkward squad" means different things to different people. I use it to mean those who insist on reminding "the powers that be" what there rights are and stand on those rights to the letter even when it serves no useful purpose. They are very useful as an irritant to keep bureaucrats on their toes. They can though be annoying even to people who are on their side. Not to be confused with the awkward squad are the too-clever-for-their-own-good squad. They can be difficult to tell apart, but the main difference between them is their motivation.

 

I have no idea what the powers of Consignia are, but whatever they are they have been assigned to them by Parliament. I do not think they should send threatening letters whatever their powers. Of course what amounts to a threatening letter depends on opinion and people are often quick to take offence where none is intended. I think we also need to take into account what Consignia and everyone knows and that is that something like 99% of households have equipment "installed or used" for "receiving a television programme at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public". It is therefore understandable, if not excusable, if Consignia proceeds on the assumption that a household without a TV licence should have one.

 

Since 1946 there has been a consensus that the UK should have public service broadcasting and that it should be funded by a licence. Such a system needs to have mechanisms for enforcement. Clearly a lot of people are uncomfortable with some of the methods used. For myself I am inclined to think that the criminal law ought to play no part in it. However the system is not oppressive. Those who do not pay increase the price for those who do and the interest of the individual needs to be balanced against those of society. Whilst vigilance is required to protect rights lest they are lost through apathy, no right we enjoy can be absolute.

 

And no I do not work for Consignia.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

Think of it as a license fee for the RF range used to transmit the signals. Most of the RF Spectrum is liccensable and a license is required to use it (Hence a license is required to use a CB Radio)

 

 

The CB radio license was abolished in December 2006.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just noticed this - boy is this way off - Consignia? This was a name Royal Mail used for a period of 18 months, like the CB Licence, it is no more, the old name was restored.

 

However, it is still wrong, as Royal Mail are NOT responsible for TV Licencing, this is run by an outsourced outfit called Crapita (sic) who do the same for TFL and other firms who can't be bothered having control of their enterprise. This is the reason you can no longer buy a TV Licence from Post Offices, and changed in 2004-5 I believe.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

This is equipment capable of receiving live TV signals and the way you use it the equipment is irrelevant.Of course we should have the option of not watching BBC and not paying but TV licensing is treated like a tax and you can be prosecuted for not paying. I understand that in fact a good many prisoners often female in this country are locked just because they have failed to pay the fines incurred from TV licensing. I think this is vile. A waste of prison resources and an insult to those who foolishly believe they live in a civilised society. The BBC itself should prevent this out of decency

 

My second point is what live TV??? repeats and shows that just show clips while a few celebrities witter on about how good programmes used to be and news programmes repeating themselves every 5 minutes. Its cheap nasty and not worth having. Many programmes are repeated 3or 4 times in one week and often they have been on in the past.

 

The first point though I feel is the most important. TV licensing would probably die a death anyway if it had to compete in the market without the criminal debt advantage. Many people would just not pay anyway. I don't believe they should, we shpuld take the big stick away and see what happens.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Having looking into this online somewhat I have come to the conclusion that the detector vans do not exist, at least not in the form that the BBC would have you believe they do. There are blokes in vans I believe but no fancy detection equipment. If there was there would be no need for a bloke to pop round, burst in (which they have no right to do but they blag that) and start writing a statement they get people to sign.

 

Even if the alledged vans DO exist as they refuse to explain how they work I doubt the evidence would be accepted in court.

 

They claim to have an implied right of access which means they can knock on your door - just as I can knock on any door in the street and they can choose to open it, or not; or slam it in my face or not.

 

I am currently experimenting to see how much TV I watch and will cancel if it reaches zero. IPlayer does not count, it is only for veiwing TV as it is broadcast. Oh BTW I believe it even says on the back of the tv licence they can send staff but you do not have to let them in.

The views I express here are mere speculation based on my experience. I am not qualified nor insured to give legal advice and any action you take will be at your own risk.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...