Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Well barristers would say that in the hope that motorists would go to them for advice -obviously paid advice.  The problem with appealing is at least twofold. 1] there is a real danger that some part of the appeal will point out that the person appealing [the keeper ] is also the driver.  And in a lot of cases the last thing the keeper wants when they are also the driver is that the parking company knows that. It makes it so much easier for them as the majority  of Judges do not accept that the keeper and the driver are the same person for obvious reasons. Often they are not the same person especially when it is a family car where the husband, wife and children are all insured to drive the same car. On top of that  just about every person who has a valid insurance policy is able to drive another person's vehicle. So there are many possibilities and it should be up to the parking company to prove it to some extent.  Most parking company's do not accept appeals under virtually any circumstances. But insist that you carry on and appeal to their so called impartial jury who are often anything but impartial. By turning down that second appeal, many motorists pay up because they don't know enough about PoFA to argue with those decisions which brings us to the second problem. 2] the major parking companies are mostly unscrupulous, lying cheating scrotes. So when you appeal and your reasons look as if they would have merit in Court, they then go about  concocting a Witness Statement to debunk that challenge. We feel that by leaving what we think are the strongest arguments to our Member's Witness Statements, it leaves insufficient time to be thwarted with their lies etc. And when the motorists defence is good enough to win, it should win regardless of when it is first produced.   
    • S13 (2)The creditor may not exercise the right under paragraph 4 to recover from the keeper any unpaid parking charges specified in the notice to keeper if, within the period of 28 days beginning with the day after that on which that notice was given, the creditor is given— (a)a statement signed by or on behalf of the vehicle-hire firm to the effect that at the material time the vehicle was hired to a named person under a hire agreement; (b)a copy of the hire agreement; and (c)a copy of a statement of liability signed by the hirer under that hire agreement. As  Arval has complied with the above they cannot be pursued by EC----- ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- S14 [1]   the creditor may recover those charges (so far as they remain unpaid) from the hirer. (2)The conditions are that— (a)the creditor has within the relevant period given the hirer a notice in accordance with sub-paragraph (5) (a “notice to hirer”), together with a copy of the documents mentioned in paragraph 13(2) and the notice to keeper; (b)a period of 21 days beginning with the day on which the notice to hirer was given has elapsed;  As ECP did not send copies of the documents to your company and they have given 28 days instead of 21 days they have failed to comply with  the Act so you and your Company are absolved from paying. That is not to say that they won't continue asking to be paid as they do not have the faintest idea how PoFA works. 
    • Euro have got a lot wrong and have failed to comply with the Protection of Freedoms Act 2012 Schedule 4.  According to Section 13 after ECP have written to Arval they should then send a NTH to the Hirer  which they have done.This eliminates Arval from any further pursuit by ECP. When they wrote to your company they should have sent copies of everything that they asked Arval for. This is to prove that your company agree what happened on the day of the breach. If ECP then comply with the Act they are allowed to pursue the hirer. If they fail, to comply they cannot make the hirer pay. They can pursue until they are blue in the face but the Hirer is not lawfully required to pay them and if it went to Court ECP would lose. Your company could say who was driving but the only person that can be pursued is the Hirer, there does not appear to be an extension for a driver to be pursued. Even if there was, because ECP have failed miserably to comply with the Act  they still have no chance of winning in Court. Here are the relevant Hire sections from the Act below.
    • Thank-you FTMDave for your feedback. May I take this opportunity to say that after reading numerous threads to which you are a contributor, I have great admiration for you. You really do go above and beyond in your efforts to help other people. The time you put in to help, in particular with witness statements is incredible. I am also impressed by the way in which you will defer to others with more experience should there be a particular point that you are not 100% clear on and return with answers or advice that you have sought. I wish I had the ability to help others as you do. There is another forum expert that I must also thank for his time and patience answering my questions and allowing me to come to a “penny drops” moment on one particular issue. I believe he has helped me immensely to understand and to strengthen my own case. I shall not mention who it is here at the moment just in case he would rather I didn't but I greatly appreciate the time he took working through that issue with me. I spent 20+ years of working in an industry that rules and regulations had to be strictly adhered to, indeed, exams had to be taken in order that one had to become qualified in those rules and regulations in order to carry out the duties of the post. In a way, such things as PoFA 2012 are rules and regulations that are not completely alien to me. It has been very enjoyable for me to learn these regulations and the law surrounding them. I wish I had found this forum years ago. I admit that perhaps I had been too keen to express my opinions given that I am still in the learning process. After a suitable period in this industry I became Qualified to teach the rules and regulations and I always said to those I taught that there is no such thing as a stupid question. If opinions, theories and observations are put forward, discussion can take place and as long as the result is that the student is able to clearly see where they went wrong and got to that moment where the penny drops then that is a valuable learning experience. No matter how experienced one is, there is always something to learn and if I did not know the answer to a question, I would say, I don't know the answer to that question but I will go and find out what the answer is. In any posts I have made, I have stated, “unless I am wrong” or “as far as I can see” awaiting a response telling me what I got wrong, if it was wrong. If I am wrong I am only too happy to admit it and take it as a valuable learning experience. I take the point that perhaps I should not post on other peoples threads and I shall refrain from doing so going forward. 🤐 As alluded to, circumstances can change, FTMDave made the following point that it had been boasted that no Caggers, over two years, who had sent a PPC the wrong registration snotty letter, had even been taken to court, let alone lost a court hearing .... but now they have. I too used the word "seemed" because it is true, we haven't had all the details. After perusing this forum I believe certain advice changed here after the Beavis case, I could be wrong but that is what I seem to remember reading. Could it be that after winning the above case in question, a claimant could refer back to this case and claim that a defendant had not made use of the appeal process, therefore allowing the claimant to win? Again, in this instance only, I do not know what is to be gained by not making an appeal or concealing the identity of the driver, especially if it is later admitted that the defendant was the driver and was the one to input the incorrect VRN in error. So far no one has educated me as to the reason why. But, of course, when making an appeal, it should be worded carefully so that an error in the appeal process cannot be referred back to. I thought long and hard about whether or not to post here but I wanted to bring up this point for discussion. Yes, I admit I have limited knowledge, but does that mean I should have kept silent? After I posted that I moved away from this forum slightly to find other avenues to increase my knowledge. I bought a law book and am now following certain lawyers on Youtube in the hope of arming myself with enough ammunition to use in my own case. In one video titled “7 Reasons You Will LOSE Your Court Case (and how to avoid them)” by Black Belt Barrister I believe he makes my point by saying the following, and I quote: “If you ignore the complaint in the first instance and it does eventually end up in court then it's going to look bad that you didn't co-operate in the first place. The court is not going to look kindly on you simply ignoring the company and not, let's say, availing yourself of any kind of appeal opportunities, particularly if we are talking about parking charge notices and things like that.” This point makes me think that, it is not such a bizarre judgement in the end. Only in the case of having proof of payment and inputting an incorrect VRN .... could it be worthwhile making a carefully worded appeal in the first instance? .... If the appeal fails, depending on the reason, surely this could only help if it went to court? As always, any feedback gratefully received.
    • To which official body does one make a formal complaint about a LPA fixed charge receiver? Does one make a complaint first to the company employing the appointed individuals?    Or can one complain immediately to an official body, such as nara?    I've tried researching but there doesn't seem a very clear route on how to legally hold them to account for wrongful behaviour.  It seems frustratingly complicated because they are considered to be officers of the court and held in high esteem - and the borrower is deemed liable for their actions.  Yet what does the borrower do when disclosure shows clear evidence of wrong-doing? Does anyone have any pointers please?
  • 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 
        • 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

TV LICENSING left me flabbergasted :(


loopinlouie
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4990 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

Last week rang them up as had to make two payments on their payment scheme. When about to pay the 11.00 I was told oh, youve only got one installment to pay due end of next week(that being 16/01/10 of 5.50) and would you like to pay it to save you ringing up again.

 

I thought good idea and did so paying now 16.50 out of my benefits, thinking that would save me doing it the following week. My license does not expire till 1/6/2010 and I realise I pay half up front before that date for the convinence of not worrying about the big bill:) and then pay the other half after that date in installments fortnightly.

 

Any how was told they would then send me my new schedule for the new license starting 1/6/2010, fair enough and as havnt been well for a while thought it would save me some hastle this week.

 

Today I get the new schedule through with the usual you must keep to this etc and notice the ammount has increased to 6.50, fair enough, but the first payment is due, yes you guessed it the 16/01/2010:evil: The same date of the last payment from the previous license which is still valid.

 

I rang them to ask them to reschedule it for two weeks as it would have been had I not paid the additional 5.50 as I was on benefits and had to budget carefully and would not have paid the extra had I been warned they would expect another payment so soon.

 

I was basically put down and told well we will not be able to do it so cheaply:confused: I replied well surely the licensce is the same cost:confused: just a little extra as in 6.50 devided by the other payments that of 21 so surely there is nothing to be concerned about on their part. I was then given a lecture about having signed up to it 9 or 10 years ago that I would have been given information about how the payments are expected and I said I dont see that as relevant because it was them who encouraged an extra payment out of me in advance.

 

She was annoyed, I was polite and I found myself point out to her that whilst I realise the scheme helps those on benefits, wouldnt it have been shear courtesy to start the new schedule two weeks after the due date of the last payment as it would have been had they left me alone with what I was doing.

 

She told me they regulary advise a payee to pay the last installment with a prior one when doing it over the phone and I said its not fair not to warn a person over the phone that although I am aware payments from license to license is continous that does not make me wanting to pay more than once in a fortnight.

 

She said they were told to do this and as gesture would reschedule as I asked in the first place but proceded to lecture me further of the rules of the plan and that I should have known and I told her you are getting half your money upfront of the license date and should bear this in mind when dealing with people so rudely that as well as doing me a favour spreading payments, they are earning interest on my money.

 

She was rude so I told her poliitely to cancel the arrangement and I will pay my license on the due date 1/6/2010. As long as I am careful and plan weekly I can do this and feel it would cut down the stress from me of having to get the kids to pay it or ring them up.

 

I just feel they want their money and more so, bbc has gone down hill, we are forced to buy their license when I prefer itv and they treat us like poop.

 

So stu*f them:D

Edited by loopinlouie
some bloopers of spelling mistakes
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Replies 62
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

ps. I realise I will have to put away more weekly till June and this might come accross as causing myself more hastle, but its in my bank account and I can in June pay them and then plan to put it away ammount divided by 12:)for the 2011 license.

 

Of course I also will not have to deal with the tvl numptie=less stress.

 

Its just the bbc seem to spending millions on so called modern art when the could have said hey, lets give you a license fee freeze for 1 year, they would have shot up in the ratings then, but hey ho:D

Edited by loopinlouie
altered from numpties, after all it was just this woman who was rude.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Decided to ring them up again briefly and ask them to listen to the call between me and the woman.

 

This time I rang the same number but arrears choice on the phone and the man happily let me complain and ask for the manager. He said he will get him to ring me back.

 

Have been told I should not have received schedule payment due this week and he could see it should have been for two weeks later, due 30/1 and said it would have been no hastle for the woman to do as I requested and it would still be 6.50. Not at an inflated price like she chastised me. Made me wonder do they get paid a bonus?:rolleyes:

 

Going to wait for call as cant understand why this woman on an ego trip of lecturing me can be allowed to be so rude, whilst so wrong at the same time. Alright it may have not been her error the schedule was wrong, but she wouldnt listen. Also told that it is not their policy to encourage extra payments and send out wanting more payments for the same week. They realise peole might be on benefits.

 

Have been put back on schedule as suits me with no hastle of paying this week and waiting call back. I wonder how many others she has insulted to the extent they leave the scheme and whilst will plan to put the money away, might end up putting it towards their huge heating bill which is bound to arrive.

 

Anotherwords the tv license will get ignored, he was pleased to get me back on it, nothing personal to him, but I bet they want people back on it;)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Lovely man rang me back. Explained why the computer had done what it did, which was fine and clear and told me it would have been no problem at all to do as I asked. He explained If I was someone with arrears or regulary ignoring paying they would have to act a little more keenly to get the money, but that their staff should know the difference between customers and treat them accordingly.

 

Anotherwords she was way out of order and they will deal with her.

 

As it is alls well that ends well, just seem to have had a little bad luck with getting this woman. I think the fact she kept stating I should remember and I should know etc when I have memory problems on daily basis due to the damage epilepsy has done, it hit a nerve with me obviously.

 

Just think loopinloue has been going round in circles , letting myself get upset too easily. I may be in the right on something or think I am, but have problems dealing with it at the mo. Never mind Ive cheared up and another crisis over, thank god:D:D:D:D:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

My friend had problems with TV Licensing when his wife left. The TV licence had always been in his name but since he was paying all the bills his wife said she would put the TV Licence in her name and make the payments.

 

She never made any payments and got fined for not having a TV Licence not long after she packed her bags and left.

 

My friend emailed TV Licensing explaining he needed a licence to let his son watch TV. They emailed back saying he had to pay the arrears off the previous licence (in his wifes name) and pay the full year upfront. He was not happy so i told him to leave it with me (I am already dealing with his paperwork) and i would sort it.

 

I logged into my Tv Licensing account and requested a calll back. A lovely lady called me back within 5 minutes, i explained the situation and she said that my friend is not liable for the TV Licence that was in his wifes name. She said she could set up a payment plan for my friend so i gave her his details and it is all sorted.

 

Different people in the company say different things. Makes me think that the left hand has no idea what the right hand is doing.

:cool::cool: Blondmusic :cool::cool:
Link to post
Share on other sites

They cut their noses off to spite their faces. It seems those who go out of their way to pay get a telling off or hastle depending on the mood of the operative

 

Does make me still wonder wether they get some sort of bonus.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 4 weeks later...

Rang them to make payment and they went through security, fair enough. Untill:shock:

 

Asked me for my mobile phone number, fair enough you think, I just need to remind them they dont have my mobile number and I dont give it out.

 

To get told but they need it. What for I reply, you may need it, but I wont give it. To which he gets hoyty toyty and goes into, well are you making a payment then, duh duh I think, isnt that why I rang and decide to put the phone down.

 

Rang back to ask why when a customer does say no I dont want to give my number,it is my right to say no, are we treat as an awkward pain in the bott, to be told, we have to ask it, they want us to get as many numbers as possible.

 

So I said please put a note on my file not to harass me for my mobile number when I ring, cant do that I am told. So told them to cancel payment card and that I will reknew license in full end of may.:-x

 

Then I get thinking, do I really need a tv license, can I manage without it and I talk to my kids and we decided yes we are happier with radio, games console etc iplayer.....

 

I would much prefer putting the money away for the license and saving it maybe.:D

Edited by loopinlouie
Link to post
Share on other sites

Found a link to a website somewhere on here today, cant remember where :oops: and found out what to do to make sure they tvl know I do not intend to use live tv as of 1/6/2010.

 

For instance get rid of satellite box, easily done as it is on its last legs and will probably die before june, keeps going to standby:confused:

 

There is an old aeriel on the roof with wire through to front, but is already cut, but just to make a point there is a huge visible brown wire outside my house leading into front from it which if cut could be visibley a sign not used. etc etc anyhow you get my point.

 

Any how decided to ring tvl head office as they oik at card payment services went straight into a threat when I said I wouldnt be using live tv from june and how do I go about informing you of that, as in will watch it till license ends and then not reknew.

 

He proceded to tell me threatening letters would appear and a man would come in my house to check on me. Now having mental health problems maybe I overeact at that a little, but take from that that they are threatening me.

 

The head office listened to me and said yes the letters will arrive saying this house has no license etc and its ilegal to blah blah blah without a license and I told her I am ringing you to find out what I need to do. I said I did not appreciate a man was going to come in my house, it wasnt as if I would be proved breaking the law, a reason which would validate a visit, and said he shouldnt have said that. The man then told me if I would not let the man in my house then I would have to argue my case with the courts.:-x

 

Hang on I thought, what wrong have I been proved to be doing in advance of doing it to warrant such a threat?:confused:

 

She said I had every right to refuse entry and that once I had written to them telling no licence needed as no live tv, then they would update their systems and leave me alone.:D

 

However I have been warned they dont leave you alone, but instead barrad you with threatening letter.

 

If this is not the experience of others I would be interested to know:)

 

I have warned them I taped the call and that if I am intimidated after saying I will not allow a stranger into my house 'to check'and not left alone as promissed, I will sue for harrassment.

 

Apparantly according to the call centre man if you do not let them in they(well him in this case representing tvl) take as an implied admission of guilt and go to court, I see it differently, dont they have to prove you are commiting an offence and isnt it my right to politely say foxtrot oscar.

 

BBC Your tv is rubbish and customer services rank and the ammount you waste at head office on so called modern art according to the papers in my opinion is rank also. I dont want to watch the tv anymore:cool:

 

What do you think of the way they try to scare us into buying a license when not needed?

Edited by loopinlouie
Link to post
Share on other sites

I will move this thread to the appropriate forum as there are more people around who know about this. :)

HOW TO...DUMMIES GUIDE TO CAG...Read here

STEP BY STEP GUIDE...Read here

F&Q's... Read here

EVERYTHING YOU NEED THE A~Z GUIDE...Read here

 

Go to our Cag Toolbar Download page here

 

Please don't forget this site is run on DONATIONS If this site has helped in any way, then please give a little back. ;-)

Any opinions are without prejudice & without liability. All I know has come from this site. If you are unsure, please seek professional advice. .

Link to post
Share on other sites

ps telly pushing nine years old, dont have remote anymore, so cant be tuned in, only works via scart leads to external dvd etc or satelliite box, which as said will be binned.

 

Surely they could not take me to court when not using live tv.

 

Have asked them what need to do to tv and not told anything necessary to what I stated I would do. Anothewords if the tv needs something taking out of it, they dont tell us.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Written a letter to head office customer relations basically above and asking them to put in writing and confirm dont need license and can refuse entry without being found guilty just because of that. Buzby a very helpful cagger has confirmed to me that my opinion of them and their information is correct. I Dont trust them.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't need a licence if you don't use any of these devices to watch or record television programmes as they're being shown on TV - for example, if you use your TV only to watch DVDs or play video games, or you only watch programmes on your computer after they have been shown on TV. If this is the case, please let us know, as this helps us to keep our database up to date and means you won't receive the standard letters we send to unlicensed addresses.

 

 

Hi there, have posted this TVLA quote on my thread too

Link to post
Share on other sites

We were paying by DD and then decided to rather pay upfront for the year. They refused. We were told that the DD woudl eb cancelled and we woudl need to wait 2 months before being able to buy a new licence. All we wanted to do is pay off the current year! We asked if we could pay for the licence a year in advance at that point instead of waiting 2 months and the answer again was "NO"! Plonkers.

Link to post
Share on other sites

What gets me is their enforcers seem to have rules of their own as in own a tv, slapped with fine. I dont think its acceptable to be put in the well you are likely to use it bracket. Surely they have to be very careful that they have evidence or couldnt they be sued for defamation.:cool:

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 3 months later...

Right tv is dead. Apart from a few jumpy pictures of arnies bum in red heat and a bit of britains got talent waving around its not worth watching anymore. Sound speakers blew and with wavey screen it has died. Feel like brass band should walk down the street very slowly as I dont want to buy another, NNNOOOOOOOOOO, apart from my harassing sone who says YYYeeessssss.

 

Anyhow seriously, rang them prior to license expiring telling them going to have to buy new telly and therefore would need new license to start as of old one and could I set up monthly payment card.

 

Begrudgingly I add, I dont want it:mad:

 

All goes fine untill asked for card details, apologise that as waiting new card cant do over phone till get new one with new security digits as old one stopped.

 

THE TONE CHANGED SINISTER and I am not exagerating. Now told could not have a license that simply run on and I said why I am ringing you in advance and by the time the tvl payment card arrives I will have new bank card able to ring you with first payment etc etc etc......Told not good enough:rolleyes: I had to make payment now, or if I didnt risk the dreaded tv inspector. I said surely thats not relevant as you can see I am awaiting payment card you set payment schedule which i will adhear to by the time card arrives. Told NO are you ready, MY LICENSE CANNOT START UNTILL FIRST PAYMENT RECEIVED BY THEM anotherwords in the meantime still at risk of fine if use telly.

 

Dont worry I finally got in, telly is bust and more than not I use iplayer to catch up as telly is now caput. I will buy my new telly when payment card allows me to make payment and therefore not risk being unlicensed for even one second........

 

So I confirmed in that case when will my license start and he repeats from the date we receive your first payment, not from the 31st or 1st of month as I had hoped.

 

So rather than get new telly in bank holiday sales I decided to leave it another week and as the telly started to smell funny recently decided not risk even listen to it with no sound and wavey lines.......destined for the tip, but as weighs the same as a small family car, very oldfashioned one, then I will need to hire a jcb just to get the bleeding thing out of my house, now I am exagerating......:D

 

Point is the tvlicense people today confrimed something I suspected all along, they lay it on thick or could be said to tell porkies or even some of their people to put it bluntly BLEEDING LIE.

 

Received the card and schedule which asked for payment by 8/6 but suprisingly after the lecture I got prevously the license said it carried on from the old one as in 31/5.

 

So I thought what was the purpose in them making me feel like a bleeding crim ringing them in advance trying to set up new license for telly I dont want to buy and throw in bullsh** instead of the facts I would expect.

 

So told today when said surely the license starts when first payment received and as not bought new telly yet, want it to start the day I buy it. TOLD NO has to start on first of the month or 15th of the month.:confused:

 

Told them previoulsy given duff informaition and annoyed and suspected a couple of weeks ago that they were just being funny because I couldnt make the first payment there and then due to not having valid bank card and as license still valid what they hell were they playing at.

 

Passed to supposed manager, who I must admit, didnt souldn like a manager, sounded confused and as if just passed to next station. Told has to start on first of the month, so I said I dont think thats fair, I have been led to believe at risk of fine, so left the purchase and now told have to pay for prevous week anyhow, gggrrrrrr. I then said well start it on the 15/6 as just told and I will buy telly then.

 

ARE you ready for this told cant do it on the 15/6 not allowed. Hang on man just spoke to said 1st or d1`5th, OOOHHHHH hes made a mistake.

 

I asked who they were and was told I think IQOR does that make sence, if not happy to edit.

 

Point is these people are borderingon intimidation and allowing people to feel vulnerable to fine when not the case. Either they dont know what they are talking about or just there to get as much money and as early as possible from members and why just to add does it feel like you are talking to a bailiff whenever you ring as if going to jump down the throat.

 

I WAS JUST TRYING TO REKNEW MY LICENSE WHICH HADNT EVEN RUN OUT AFTER CONSIDERING FOR SOME TIME DO I WANT ANOTHER TELLY. AFTER DOING THE RIGHT THING FIND THEY LIED TO ME MORE THAN ONCE.

 

What the hell is the bbc doing dealing with these people?

Edited by loopinlouie
Told not telco as one man said but IQOR very different names, odd.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Could also anyone else confirm some information they told me. I said well if I therefore buyit from the post office on the day I buy the telly surely it will start that date and told no. If for instance buy a telly end of june but prior to july you still have to pay for june even though didnt have telly then, I FEEL SOMETHINGS NOT RIGHT HERE.:mad:

 

Are they telling the truth or just trying to get me to buy if from them?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Have asked them due to their deception to do either of two suggestions. one to give me june free or two to give me 100.00 that I lost by putting of purchase of telly want as sale not now on, which do they prefer for being lieing gets.....

 

Waiting for call back, but thought worth a try. Its alright to say a person has to backdate a license based on duff information, but they dont like the idea of backdating a telly offer for me, arrhhh diddums.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I dont know what it is about me, due to my illness I go through periods where well can we say not with it, in fairly land. I have for a long time took what told as the law and not questioned anything. Since shall we say becomming a little less niave I have made sure i do my best to at least only ring these firms when more alert, common sence.

 

Lately I seem to have a red flag indicator that appears in my head when people lie, I seem to pick it up quite quickly, lets call it the bu** ***t indicator and i get very upset not rude, but cant seem to tolerate liers.

 

I am just shocked how many companies mislead people and would have thought that even the bbc would want to make sure people are encouraged to buy their license not pushed away from them or intimidated when not even unlicensed yet.

 

No exageration they clearly told me I was in trouble for not giving my bank card details to them prior to old one expiring as would take a few days for the payment card to arrive and therefore inspector could call. I rang just under two weeks before expiry of license why were they intimidating me to make payment there and then, bit like start of this thread encouraging payments stating one thing and then trying for more moeny contradicting what said. LIEING to me

Link to post
Share on other sites

Panic this comapny dealing on behalf of tvl taking payment license plans have said they are called IQOR.

 

ARNT THEY A DEBT COLLECTOR ALSO DOESNT THAT MEAN THE DEBT INDUSTRY NOW HAS MY NUMBER DUE TO TVL?

 

If so would explain keeness to get money, must be on commision and secondly confusion on information, they said they were first telco then iqor are they multipurpose for different companies, I dont know, but dodgy the bbc would be involved with them unless a debt was involved, but scaring the hell out of me.

 

IQOR the man said, dca that speaks to me. I had to push him and dont know if he was allowed to say this, he said tvlicensing is the company and I said you operate on their behalf what is your company and he again said IQOR

Edited by loopinlouie
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...