Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Please see my comments on your post in red
    • Thanks for your reply, I have another 3 weeks before the notice ends. I'm also concerned because the property has detoriated since I've been here due to mould, damp and rusting (which I've never seen in a property before) rusty hinges and other damage to the front door caused by damp and mould, I'm concerned they could try and charge me for damages? As long as you've documented and reported this previously you'll have a right to challenge any costs. There was no inventory when I moved in, I also didn't have to pay a deposit. Do an inventory when you move out as proof of the property's condition as you leave it. I've also been told that if I leave before a possession order is given I would be deemed intentionally homeless, is this true? If you leave, yes. However, Your local council has a legal obligation to ensure you won't be left homeless as soon as you get the notice. As stated before, you don't have to leave when the notice expires if you haven't got somewhere else to go. Just keep paying your rent as normal. Your tenancy doesn't legally end until a possession warrant is executed against you or you leave and hand the keys back. My daughter doesn't live with me, I'd likely have medical priority as I have health issues and I'm on pip etc. Contact the council and make them aware then.      
    • extension? you mean enforcement. after 6yrs its very rare for a judge to allow enforcement. it wont have been sold on, just passed around the various differing trading names the claimant uses.    
    • You believe you have cast iron evidence. However, all they’d have to do to oppose a request for summary judgment is to say “we will be putting forward our own evidence and the evidence from both parties needs to be heard and assessed by a judge” : the bar for summary judgment is set quite high! You believe they don't have evidence but that on its own doesn't mean they wouldn't try! so, its a high risk strategy that leaves you on the hook for their costs if it doesn't work. Let the usual process play out.
    • Ok, I don't necessarily want to re-open my old thread but I've seen a number of such threads with regards to CCJ's and want to ask a fairly general consensus on the subject. My original CCJ is 7 years old now and has had 2/3 owners for the debt over the years since with varying level of contact.  Up to last summer they had attempted a charging order on a shared mortgage I'm named on which I defended that action and tried to negotiate with them to the point they withdrew the charging order application pending negotiations which we never came to an agreement over.  However, after a number of communication I heard nothing back since last Autumn barring an annual generic statement early this year despite multiple messages to them since at the time.  at a loss as to why the sudden loss of response from them. Then something came through from this site at random yesterday whilst out that I can't find now with regards to CCJ's to read over again.  Now here is the thing, I get how CCJ's don't expire as such, but I've been reading through threads and Google since this morning and a little confused.  CCJ's don't expire but can be effectively statute barred after 6 years (when in my case was just before I last heard of the creditor) if they are neither enforced in that time or they apply to the court within the 6 years of issue to extend the CCJ and that after 6 years they can't really without great difficulty or explanation apply for a CCJ extension after of the original CCJ?.  Is this actually correct as I've read various sources on Google and threads that suggest there is something to this?.
  • 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
      • 161 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
  • Recommended Topics

New Tv Licence Threats


andydd
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4687 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 have received similar to the thread starter letter. However it addressed to my ltd company I use for contracting. My address is not in registered address of the company. I wonder where did they get it? I think Inland Revenue helped brothers :) as I claim £140 allowance for the home office.

 

I pay TVL as an individual living at the address. Company does not have TVs.

 

I am not going to answer this nonsence as I am paying what I have to. However I'd appreciate if anyone point me to a compact FAQ or similar - what one might expect from these vultures what are reasonable means to deal with them and what are the extremes?

 

If I refuse them to enter could they push me? What I am allowed to do in this case? What if someone else open the door and let them in by mistake (son, wife)? How can I make them leave?

 

I would like to excersise every possible legal defense.

 

I dont have anything to hide but people who collects debts, TVL "investigators" and traffic wardens - are closer to jackals than humans - this is my personal reasearch of Darwin theory :)

 

They can only ask to be allowed in, you can simply say no, and if someone else invited them in then ask them to leave, its that simple.

 

There are FAQ on the TV Licencing site although its often deliberatly vague, although in recent years they have improved it because many people do genuinely use 'TV' sets with no desire to watch 'live' tv,. i.e gaming use, pc use, etc..

 

I used to get letters sent to my work too as being in charge of IT I once bought a DVD Recorder to record Video Conferences.

 

Just ignore the muppets

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 60
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Exactly as Andy says. They have no powers whatsoever unless they have a court warrant of entry in their hand and they have to show they have good reason before one will be issued.

 

There is also the con of 'sign here'. Most will ask you to sign at the bottom of a sheet of paper to say they have visited, don't sign it unless you have had a read right through it as you will find it is not saying they have called, but admitting that you have a television and that you use it for receiving live programs.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Exactly as Andy says. They have no powers whatsoever unless they have a court warrant of entry in their hand and they have to show they have good reason before one will be issued.

 

There is also the con of 'sign here'. Most will ask you to sign at the bottom of a sheet of paper to say they have visited, don't sign it unless you have had a read right through it as you will find it is not saying they have called, but admitting that you have a television and that you use it for receiving live programs.

 

..by signing it you are also admitting to every crime ever commited and that you enjoy dressing up in big fluffy bunny ears.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
It would be interesting to know precisely how often TVL actually apply for search warrants. I've searched, and haven't yet found any cases. I'm sure there are some, but it appears rare.

 

This page has useful information however. Philip Dean: withdrawal of implied right of access

 

 

That's the problem for Capita, to obtain a warrant they have to provide evidence to a judge that your watching a live TV feed & are non licenced.

Most people who get caught have unwittingly hung themselves by giving out information or signing something without reading it first.

 

If they took you to court on the evidence of there supposed " detection equipment" then you would have the right to see if its calibrated properly & question how it works but this equipment doesn`t exist, if it did they could simply sweep the whole country & take every non payer to court.

 

Never sign ANYTHING if asked, don't communicate with them [ legally you don't have to inform them of anything] & if they turn up on your doorstep, tell them to leave the property or you will ring the police.

 

They have no more powers than the milkman

Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the problem for Capita, to obtain a warrant they have to provide evidence to a judge that your watching a live TV feed & are non licenced.

Most people who get caught have unwittingly hung themselves by giving out information or signing something without reading it first.

 

If they took you to court on the evidence of there supposed " detection equipment" then you would have the right to see if its calibrated properly & question how it works but this equipment doesn`t exist, if it did they could simply sweep the whole country & take every non payer to court.

 

Never sign ANYTHING if asked, don't communicate with them [ legally you don't have to inform them of anything] & if they turn up on your doorstep, tell them to leave the property or you will ring the police.

 

They have no more powers than the milkman

 

*NEWSFLASH*

 

To save money, TV Licensing today annouced TV detection to be merged with daily milk deliveries :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 1 year later...

I just received a letter from them saying they have opened an investigation, sounded quite threatening.

 

The thing is I watch TV, but I can't afford a licence and I don't see why I should have to pay as most of the money is spent on nonsense.

 

I believe if you don't sign anything they can't force you to pay as you never agreed to it.

 

The guy came round a while back and he caught me out. I told him I didn't have a TV and he asked to come in my house, so I said no sorry I donot know who you are. Gave me a leaflet and then left.

 

Anyway I have put my TV away in storage and I only watch the occasional program online. If he comes round again and asks to come in and I let him he will see I have a computer attached to the internet and then he'll probably give me a small fine and I'll have to start paying it.

 

So I am just going to continue ignoring them. They don't know my name so I'm guessing they can't apply for a search warrant.

 

Are they able get details of what sites you look at from my internet provider? I'd guess probably not, data protection act and all that. I was just thinking either ignore them, or I could hide my router and just lie to them about not being on the internet, but that's probably not a good idea...

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just would like to point out that you'd only need a licence to watch online if it's a live broadcast - ie watching the programme as it is aired. Someone jump in if that's not right please.

 

Don't fret about it though, as you don't have to deal with them if you choose not to - I never do, preferring instead to to tell them I'm not interested and close the door on them.

 

No other agency in the UK does what they do - which is basically accusing you of an offence and insisting that you prove your innocence. I have been meaning to write a similar letter as a response to the last threatening letter I received from TV Licencing, replacing the words that refer to watching an unlicensed telly with something criminal which the sender may have done - accusing the accuser - just for fun. Maybe someone else with no life might want to give this a try?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just would like to point out that you'd only need a licence to watch online if it's a live broadcast - ie watching the programme as it is aired. Someone jump in if that's not right please.

 

Not quite.

 

 

Meaning of “television receiver”

 

9.—(1) In Part 4 of the Act (licensing of TV reception), “television receiver” means any apparatus installed or used for the purpose of receiving (whether by means of wireless telegraphy or otherwise) any television programme service, whether or not it is installed or used for any other purpose.

 

(2) In this regulation, any reference to receiving a television programme service includes a reference to receiving by any means any programme included in that service, where that programme is received at the same time (or virtually the same time) as it is received by members of the public by virtue of its being broadcast or distributed as part of that service.

[The Communications (Television Licensing) Regulations 2004, s.9(1)]

 

N.B. the term is "installed or used", not installed and used.

 

You would not need a license to watch the iplayer recordings provided by BBC online, subsequent to a live broadcast, but a license is required to install or use a system to receive a broadcast, and the use of your own recording of a broadcast would count as a use, whether or not you watch it immediately. If a broadband cable could convey a BBC broadcast, the installation of that would have to be licensed.

 

The receiver with a purpose is the apparatus, not the person. The offence is absolute.

 

No other agency in the UK does what they do - which is basically accusing you of an offence and insisting that you prove your innocence.

 

:!:

 

Of course they do.

 

This is what happens with any strict liability offence. All they have to prove is the fact of the matter at face value. A classic example of this is driving or being in charge with excess alcohol. Whether or not you intended to be drunk is immaterial, nor is it a defence to plead that you were fit to drive, none the less.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I just received a letter from them saying they have opened an investigation, sounded quite threatening.

 

The thing is I watch TV, but I can't afford a licence and I don't see why I should have to pay as most of the money is spent on nonsense.

 

I believe if you don't sign anything they can't force you to pay as you never agreed to it.

 

The guy came round a while back and he caught me out. I told him I didn't have a TV and he asked to come in my house, so I said no sorry I donot know who you are. Gave me a leaflet and then left.

 

Anyway I have put my TV away in storage and I only watch the occasional program online. If he comes round again and asks to come in and I let him he will see I have a computer attached to the internet and then he'll probably give me a small fine and I'll have to start paying it.

 

So I am just going to continue ignoring them. They don't know my name so I'm guessing they can't apply for a search warrant.

 

Are they able get details of what sites you look at from my internet provider? I'd guess probably not, data protection act and all that. I was just thinking either ignore them, or I could hide my router and just lie to them about not being on the internet, but that's probably not a good idea...

 

The last point has been discussed here before, in theory its possible for TV LIcenencing to apply for (and maybe get) a Norwich Pharmaecutical Order (in the same way they alleged illegal file downloaders are tracked) but it has never been done and would be very unlikley to be done.I would of thought that the number of people watching live TV is going down what with the availabilty of various catch up services which of course don't need a licence.Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks.

 

The way I see it is this. If they don't want folk watching TV live on the internet without paying for a license why don't they set it up so you need an account that can only be set up if you pay a regular installment to cover the license of provide evidence that you already have a license?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The last comment makes sence. The new letters are worded that if you have a computer capable of watching live broadcasts, which to be honest most are arnt they, hahaha, that you are liable for tv licence in same nature as you have a tv, but choose not to watch it, the shear fact you have tv capapble of viewing is enough for a fine, so I have noticed this recent addtion as a change of tack for them.

 

Surely it is time for them to set up some system liased to number of tv liecence for house to allow viewing in only authorised households for live broadcasts, but of course they will not do this as it costs money !!!!!!! adn are more likely to choose to harass instead as they normally do.

 

I have a licence but would soon jump at the chance say if sky could allow choice of block bbc etc.......but again it wont happen as bbc probably know a lot of people would choose to leave them :)

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Surely it is time for them to set up some system liased to number of tv liecence for house to allow viewing in only authorised households for live broadcasts, but of course they will not do this as it costs money !!!!!!! adn are more likely to choose to harass instead as they normally do.

 

+ even less people would pay for a license - everyone would just stream or download the shows they wanted to see

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to know precisely how often TVL actually apply for search warrants. I've searched, and haven't yet found any cases. I'm sure there are some, but it appears rare.

 

 

 

i had one on myself, i think i've still got the warrant somewhre:-) it is rare as far as i can gather though, bullet point being don't p off an "inspector" they Do lie and cheat to get a warrant...especially when you tell them to get off your property.....BTW i asked for what evidence he used to gain warrant, still waiting now for court to reply.. 11 months and counting:)

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would be interesting to know precisely how often TVL actually apply for search warrants. I've searched, and haven't yet found any cases. I'm sure there are some, but it appears rare.

 

 

 

i had one on myself, i think i've still got the warrant somewhre:-) it is rare as far as i can gather though, bullet point being don't p off an "inspector" they Do lie and cheat to get a warrant...especially when you tell them to get off your property.....BTW i asked for what evidence he used to gain warrant, still waiting now for court to reply.. 11 months and counting:)

 

Holy ....

 

How does that work then, do they just turn up at your door with a piece of paper, any coppers?

 

I've only had one visit and they don't know my name so I'm guessing I've not gone near down that road yet?

 

Do they search your whole house or just come into the living area? I've got the TV in one of the rooms, but it's unconnected and I don't use it. As for hiding my laptop when they come, that's not so easy as I have it connected up to ext drives and that.

Link to post
Share on other sites

WELL heres a good laugh my eldest son answered his door today to 2 people from the licensing place, they asked why he hadnt got a license he said well come in, so they did he took them to his lounge and said i dont need a license because i havent got a television hahaha then told them to get lost, wish i had been there

Link to post
Share on other sites

sorry for the late reply, internet problems..

 

they turned up 2 hours after i had been in, i saw the pair of them watching near my house when i was walking the dog, and to be honest i didn't have a licence at the time (i do now though) went to bed around 9.30pm (was on earlys the next day) then bang bang bang...man and woman, behind them 2 very p'd off coppers.

 

told who they were and given search warrant......bloddy hell.....anyway had to let them in so i did. warrant let them able to test and look for TV equipment. only have one TV so they asked me to turn it on didn't check any other room as i guess they had me with the one TV anyway.

 

cops also did a name check on me. and told me that they were here to keep the peace only and the other said we have better things to do than this hence the p'd off look when i opened the door....

 

all the TVL want is to catch you in the act, so one TV is all it takes. anyway i went to court, sent a letter in explaining things, i got a 148 pound fine payable at 20 quid a month breakdown was:

 

fine for not being licenced = £33.00

court costs = £100.00

victims surcharge = £15.00

Link to post
Share on other sites

Very interesting and slightly alarming.

 

My question is: What do you think would have happened if you simply never let any of them in? If the cops were there only as peace keepers, then would the TVL inspectors have had to break down the door? I did not think that was allowed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

hmmmm not sure mate, will try and find my warrant to see what it says but i do remember it is for once only and within one month of warrant to be used. i don't think that it allowed them to gain entry by force, there are a number of warrants on the net as they are a standard form, will find a link to one so you can take a look

Link to post
Share on other sites

yeah i think not for forced entry, but it does say with or without constables so i would guess the cops are there as they say for breach of peace so if you opened door then you said no to coming in then you would get nicked and the TVL would then enter your property. and i suppose that with a warrant and refusal to let them enter would result in a trip to the beak the next day!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...