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.
      • 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
      • 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

I thought there was no confusion in this, the Detector vans DID exist, but the fleet of 28 were retired in the early 70's when the cost of renewing them became untenable. They later became transportation for inspectors (with no technical equipment) for PR purposes.

 

By the end of the 70s private cars were used to ferry inspection staff, and all the vans were scrapped by BT. Since then, all enforcement has been based on witness statements from inspectors, and the admission of the viewer in many cases.

 

BBC later awarded the contract for collection from GPO/PO/BT to Capita outsourcing. No vans were replaced, nor advertised as part of their enforcement programme. The are a footnote to history.

 

As to your later point, iPlayer also provides live streaming, so watch out for this.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 173
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

enforcement has been based on witness statements from inspectors' date=' and the admission of the viewer in many cases.[/quote']

 

and there you have it,people land themselves in the dock through their own doing,a combination of not knowing their rights,capita/tvl implying powers they have not got,you are under no legal obligation to contact capita/tvl,tell them who you are, keep your name from the public electoral roll too,they rely on publicity in newspapers in attempt to influence people and as for no hiding place its called the front door shut in their face but they don't tell you that or have forgotton.they cannot even be sure who you are after a while as letter state legal or present occupier.

Link to post
Share on other sites

But the principal point remains - it is not an issue of identity, more of one that they havew an address that is not licence, and they want you to prove that you do not need one. If you don't then there's no problem. The issues only arise when there is a wilful avoidance of paying what is rightfully required under law. Why should others be forced to pay when certain individuals pride themselves in avoiding it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it would be said it is for them to prove guilt not for you to prove innocence,they have no right of entry at all as we know and they are in reality in a deeply difficult situation because of this and rely on self incrimination/press court cases followed by tvl statements',given the previous exploits of using fictitious names' statements are to be treated with suspicion which really should not happen and dirty tricks' which causes more bad publicity.

bad press is deeply damaging and this has building for some considerable time,even bbc statements are that people who simply own a set are to pay,this all adds to confusion with the public.no one is suggesting breaking the law its tactics used that are under fire,without your name they cannot send any legal documents to an unnamed individual,and they cannot get that from you unless you tell them,thus this all adds to the beginnings of someones self incrimination.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bad press is damaging? To whom? The evader of the TVL? It's water off a duck's back if you mean TVL, and they've been having more 'good press' with their constant press releases of enforcement.

 

The licence terms are clear, if you have the CAPABILITY to vireo terrestrial or satellite/cable broadcasts, it will be up to a judge to decide whether you did or did not break the law. Not having the equipment, or modified to prevent this is the only safe response.

Link to post
Share on other sites

you cannot trust capita/tvl "publicity" they have been caught "misleading" before many times',it is damaging because the bbc cannot claim through output with programs' that expose and be two faced as to its other activities' that are equally appalling.bad publicity is damaging also to tvl because it causes people like myself to become "savy" to what is really happening and stop paying.

 

given the amount of mail and "visits" i would disagree its water off a ducks back to them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The mail is paid for by the other licence holders. As are the visits to enforce (as BBC pay Capita to provide enforcement administration) - what makes you think they (Capita) even care? Do Parking Attendants? I think you are giving them too much intelligence to care one way or another.

Link to post
Share on other sites

This guy seems pretty confused, and this is primarily what I was looking at. His comments on the letters are also a somewhat amusing aside( at least I thought so):-

 

MOD EDIT: Link Removed

It says on my tv licence you do not have to let them in. This being the case, and the detector vans seemingly gone, how can they in fact prosecute anyone? Or is it all done on adimissions?

 

Is it an absolute liability offence? Is there any need to establish intent?

 

Personally I think it would be only fair if the BBC got used to cuts like everyone else but doubt it will happen.

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

The trouble is both the BBC and TVL issue statements as to how they interprete the requirements for a licence should be. Similarly, what it states on the licence itself is pretty irrelevant too, as it is the enabling legistlation (Communications Act 2000) that defines what requires to be done and who needs one. In cases of conflict, then it is a judge that decides, not the BBC or TVL.

 

You are correct that there is no right of entry to a TVL agent. However, with a previously obtained warrant for the subject address, they have their ability to enter. In this case they do not need anyone to be watching, just that there is a viable TV set 'installed'. Whether a judge would be happy with this is anyones case, but the AoP allows for this and makes to requirement to have anyone watching a live programme.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the trouble is both the BBC and TVL issue statements as to how they interprete the requirements for a licence should be

 

this again very true,the bbc continues to live in a previous century where the sole entertainment was a unreliable tv which was plugged directly into an aerial watching the generation game and a choice of three channels',if an organisaton is receiving eight or so million a day they would be very concerned a threat to this emerging,the television licence is overpriced outdated and increasingly becoming scrutinised for its unfairness,today we live in a world of no guarantees,however the bbc has failed to grasp this and continues high level waste,it cannot be allowed to continue this while alternative non subscription channels content suffers'.tvl is only a name the company contracted to carry out collection is as we know capita,as for the tv detector van the inside of one has been photographed and is little more then a seated minibus.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/7889470/The-real-rate-of-BBC-licence-fee-evasion-is-shocking.html

Link to post
Share on other sites

One clarification - this is not a 'BBC' licence (a mechanism to permit BBC broadcasts to be viewed), but a 'Broadcast Receiving Licence' that is required irrespective of the channels viewed. The money may go to the BBC, but under the legislation this is irrelevant - the payment is required to view all UK terrestrial/satellite/cable channels licenced for UK delivery.

Link to post
Share on other sites

the basis for licence fee is to fund the bbc while it could be justified when two out of three channels in to days modern world it cannot,its undemocratic to pay the bbc if someone whats to watch news from another country until 2003, one was not required to watch foreign broadcasts from outside the uk.

 

the bbc attempts to dictate its course and the latest attemps to involve broadband and catch up tv the answer is simple enter the license number to enable content instead,however the greed of this corporation knows no bounds involving unsubstantiated threats through the post,employing dubious individuals who have no rights and rely on public ignorance,the bbc is a matter of opinion however when the facts are studied and any attempt to just walk from tv away the true face quickly emerges.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The basis for the licence fee is to permit the reception of TV broadcasts. The fact the BBC is funded from it is irrelevant, as you could not escape prosecution by stating you do not watch the BBC. Further, you cannot be serious about requiring a licence number to provide access to their services - apart from the obvious ease at distributing cracked codes, ITV, SKY, CH4 & 5, and ITV wouls similarly have to arrange conditional access - who would pay for that?

 

They would need to repeal the Communications Act and the basis of TV licencing, and institure some replacement that removes the obligation to pay sinply to 'receive' transmissions (as it is at present).

Link to post
Share on other sites

Further, you cannot be serious about requiring a licence number to provide access to their services - apart from the obvious ease at distributing cracked codes, ITV, SKY, CH4 & 5, and ITV wouls similarly have to arrange conditional access -

 

You forgot the bit about waking up bleary eyed at 5 in the morning trying to find your license and then enter the number, with a coffee in one hand, just to watch the News headlines.

Link to post
Share on other sites

its not irrelevant bbc contracts to capita to collect this fee by any means as we have seen,you dont hear other broadcasters shouting about it and how it should be extended to include all electronic media.

its archaic to many as the pc has taken over in many homes,as for cracking codes i doubt their would be many that would be bothered for catch up tv,it offers nothing of real interest to many,people would be more interested in other broadcasters it shows how little the bbc is in terms of premium content so where is the money going?.

at least its not coming from me.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Where have you been? The other broadcasters HAVE been shouting about it! They WANT to 'topslice' the licence fee and get money allocated to them for their broadcasts, ITV News and CH4 to name but two. Since the whole point of the licence is based on the ability to receive said broadcasts, the Govt could keep the money and distribute it however they like. The fact the BBC administer the collection at the moment is neither here not there. They didn't used to, and they may not down the line.

Link to post
Share on other sites

it was suggested that the licence fee could be "top sliced" an interesting term however the bbc has continually objected calling it a slush fund.the bbc continues expenditure on a vast scale.

 

The BBC has run up an £18.2million expenses bill for taxis and hire cars in the past year, the Sunday Express can reveal.

 

It means licence payers are forking out £50,000 a day for the transport. The bulk of the bill, £13.2million, went on taxis for Corporation business.

 

The astonishing figures are revealed as director general Mark Thompson battles to head off a strike over his plan to slash the pensions of the BBC’s 19,000 employees.

 

Staff will be furious that they remain in the firing line when promised savings in other areas have not been made. Despite repeated pledges to cut excess, Mr Thompson has shaved just £710,000 – or four per cent – from the car bill, which was £19million in 2008/09 – less than his own salary of £831,000.

 

Last night Gerry Morrissey, general secretary of media union Bectu, said he was stunned that so little had been saved as thousands of his staff are poised to strike over pension cuts.

 

Mr Morrissey said: “At a time when staff pensions are being cut and salaries have been frozen for two years this is unacceptable.

 

“Mark Thompson’s salary is larger than the amount of money he has saved on taxis, yet he keeps making statements about how everyone has to cut back.

 

“We know that many of the senior executives use taxis as a matter of course and they are not making programmes or on a deadline. What is their excuse? I really would like to know.”

 

The BBC’s taxi bill caused controversy recently after it was revealed that Match Of The Day pundits Alan Shearer, Alan Hansen and Mark Lawrenson are regularly chauffeured home to the North-east and Merseyside at licence payers’ expense.

 

In April it was disclosed that three top BBC bosses spent £12,000 on taxis in 12 weeks. This included £4,862 racked up in fares – £75 per day – by its £515,000 director of Vision, Jana Bennett.

 

Mr Thompson is attempting to plug the Corporation’s £2billion pension fund deficit. He has admitted that fewer programme hours are already being made. Staff are angry that hundreds of thousands are spent on unofficial business and ferrying senior staff and show business stars around London.

 

They claim executives believe having a taxi on call is their “birthright” and so they make little effort to use public transport.

 

One said: “There is enormous pressure from the top for the journalists and programme-makers to account for and justify every penny spent on cars and taxis but the feeling persists that huge amounts are still spent on limos for people who quite frankly act as if they are royalty.”

 

The TaxPayers’ Alliance said of the expenses bill: “This is an enormous amount of money and really shows how important it is that the BBC tightens its belt. Though some of these journeys would have been unavoidable, in many cases public transport must have been an alternative.

 

“This sort of extravagant spending needs to be reined in to make savings and out of respect for struggling taxpayers”.

 

The Corporation’s news and current affairs operation accounted for £8.4million of the taxi bill, £1.2million more than in 2008-09. Its news operation alone spends £23,000 a day ferrying guests and staff.

 

Much of the cost is incurred taking celebrities to and from news studios and driving presenters home when public transport has stopped for the evening.

 

A BBC spokesman said: “The way that we report the divisional spends was streamlined at the beginning of the 2009-10 financial year when World Service Broadcasting and BBC Monitoring taxi costs were added to the journalism division’s numbers.

 

“This means that the total journalism taxi bill has actually reduced from 2008/09, as has the BBC’s total taxi spend. We have a rigorous expenses policy in place and the bulk of the journalism cost is programme-related.

 

“Guests form an integral part of any 24-hour news broadcaster’s output and audiences expect to hear from a range of expert voices.”

 

The spokesman added: “The BBC is a global media organisation and senior executives need to travel when necessary as part of their roles.

 

“The BBC has a rigorous expenses policy in place to ensure we provide value for money and total taxi spend is down 12 per cent on last year.”

 

If industrial action goes ahead there could be disruption to the coverage of major events including the Ryder Cup, party political broadcasts and the Pope’s visit to Britain later this month.

 

also the "stig" fiasco

 

"it is understood, after the dispute which cost the corporation up to £100,000."

 

as far as i an concerned they can "stig" the licence fee.

Link to post
Share on other sites

None of which is relevant when you're standing in the dock admitting not to have paid your licence fee, and in much the same way as Council Tax protesters are treated when their Council does something they object to. If you're liable - you pay. The reasons for not doing so are not listed as exception in the Act of Parliament authorising it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

i dont know what the council tax protesters has to do with it certainly capita dont have any legal right on the doorstep,there is no need to stand in any dock with capita/tvl they like a quick process as this keeps costs down and plasters over the illegalities of their behaviour,just have nothing to do with them,they claim its all in the database however this is not true,after around four months the "letters" refer to the present/legal occupier and all previous details are erased they seem to be fond to of the term "action required immediately" another misleading statement there is none ,they then rely on contact to update or send a powerless goon around,i have had corsa boy the lot.anyone could do that job and by the looks of some of them they certainly are not fussy who they employ, but any honest person would have anything to do with this scandal.the bbc should be ashamed of itself for its self indulgence and authorising disgraceful deceitful behaviour and thinking every household should pay up by sending threats though the royal mail.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow, this is something that you're very passionate about. I honestly don't mind paying £12 a month, it's hardly going to break the bank and every now and then the beeb pull out the stops and put something amazing on! Also, no adverts. Brilliant.

 

I assume you're aware that non-payment of the fee could potentially result in Magistrates' Court action?

Link to post
Share on other sites

it is an emotive subject not just for myself but for many others too,its not simply a case of walk away and when anyone does the bbc's true face comes to the surface,the license fee is law and that is a fact however it does not justify the lies'/deceit/deception and threats' that are of a concern to many these are groundless unjustified.

 

this page is long winded but this author made the simple mistake of dealing with this group,and this is the result.

 

MOD EDIT: Link removed

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...