Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Is the letter headed Letter of Claim/before Claim or similar? If not, it sounds like more of the threatogram chain. If you're not sure, post up an anonymised copy of the letter and we'll check. HB
    • So guess what, we have received a final demand letter for £100. It states if payment is not made by 11/06 they will have no option but to forward the case to their litigation dept with a view to commence County Court Proceedings. So just wondering if anyone has any advice. Do we ignore this? or do we need to take action? Thanks 
    • hi dx, thanks for helping just re-reading everything this morning and I must have missed this one from uncle in his thread "What you should not do, is not contact the Banks and simply default on payments. "  are you in disagreement with this based on your last sentence?
    • Thanks for the reply and clarification, that might just explain why in my case contact has pretty much ceased. Though with such companies it doesn't mean they won't ever threaten to return to court as a tool to force one's hand if they feel they are not self informed on their chances etc.  But concerning how last year they tried to use the CCJ to get a charging order and the court granted an intirum order on our mortgage using the CCJ that would have been a good 2-3 months beyond the 6 years, should the court not have checked the age of the CCJ in the first case or would they always grant an interim order simply off the back of a CCJ being produced without even checking the age of it?.  Had I not defended that action at the time they may well have got a default using a CCJ older than 6 years which could be a concern going forwards. At the time when I contacted the court to question the paperwork for a final order application the clerk suggested people don't get informed when companies apply for interim charging orders, they are automatic if a claimant has a CCJ and people only get contacted once a date for a final order application goes through. kind of begs the question if such companies can continue a seemingly backdoor method to attempt default action if un-defended if the initial application doesn't need to check the age of a CCJ?.
    • Hello!  Wondering if someone can help with this.  I suspect not but worth a go.  I appreciate the "contract is with the seller" line, which is what Evri has fed me but wanted to see if someone with experience in these things could suggest anything else I could do here.  I appreciate there are many topics about lost parcels - My parcels weren't lost, until the driver walked up to my door with them and then decided to make them lost/stolen... I'll summarise what has happened.  Wednesday of last week - Evri delivery driver stole / walked off with 3 of my parcels.  -  Arrived outside my properly, took photos (3 separate photos as its 3 separate deliveries) of the tops of the parcels (pointlessly zoomed in on just the labels, couldn't see anything else, other than a small piece of the pavement and a little weed, which doubly confirms it was outside my door as I can see the same plant), marked the order as delivered and walked off with them.  He's marked on the Evri GPS marked that he was outside.   -  3 different deliveries, from the same company (same boxes etc.), but 3 separate tracking numbers. -  Went through the Evri bot which opened a case on each tracking number.  I then phoned them and left a voicemail explaining what had happened. -  24 hours later had a canned response asking me if the packages had turned up and to check around etc..  I responded explaining again what happened and that they've definitely been taken. -  4 days later,  this morning, I get a response telling me to ask the merchant to refund me. I've responded to this message with a long email, repeating what I said, that I believe the driver has stolen these packages and that he took those suspicious top down shots of the packages, marked them as delivered without ringing or knocking etc.  I've said that I expect them to investigate further, but I gather they won't. In my several messages to them initially and later, I told them I don't care about a refund and wanted the parcels.  They contain some sentimental stuff, nothing of high monetary value, hence me going to this trouble.  I only paid £25 for the contents. I did contact the merchant when this first happened and they asked me to wait a few days.  They ended up refunding me despite me asking them not to and that I wanted them to escalate it with Evri because this appears to be a case of theft.  They didn't seem bothered - Refunded me and told me to go back to Evri and escalate it with them? So - Is there any way to compel Evri to conduct a proper investigation with this driver?  Search for my parcels? I have quite a lot of deliveries handled by Evri (not out of choice) - They used to have a fantastic chap and I rarely had any issues.  He has been replaced by a new guy and I believe the route is handled by this same guy who I believe has taken my packages.  Naturally, I fear this is going to happen again in the future if no investigation occurs. Appreciate any assistance - Thanks for reading. Al.  
  • 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

TV licensing in student accommodation


Kim131
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4862 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

Not sure where to put this...

 

I live in halls of residence and my flat has been getting a lot of letters from the tv licencing people. When we got the first one addressed to the commual area (the kitchen is the only communal area) my flatmate said that she knew people who had received the same letter and to ignore it because nothing ever came of it. We left it but had another one when we got back from christmas, asking those who didn't need a licence to complete an online declaration and that if we needed a licence, to buy one or risk court proceedings. Letters then started to be addressed to individual rooms, and it seemed that they were only going to those that didn't have a licence for their room or hadn't responded to the other letter by declaring that they didn't need a licence. I thought that would be the end of the matter but now they've sent a letter saying we haven't responded (making out there were loads of letters when there were only two to the communal area) and they have no choice but to pursue the final stage of investigation and come round. It said on the bottom of the letter that we can still either pay for a licence or complete an online declaration, which is where I'm a bit unsure.

 

I would complete an online declaration form as I haven't been watching live TV in the kitchen, but I can't speak for anyone else. If I did that and they established that someone had been watching live TV in there, would I be committing an offence? Also, if they come round and find that someone's been watching TV in the kitchen, can they actually establish who it was? Any fines for the communal area from the university go to everyone but I don't want a fine off of the tv licencing people when I have a licence for my room and have only been watching live tv in my room.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If it is communal and assuming you don't own the building then I wouldnt worry about it.

 

The only time you need a license is if you watch TV in your flat behind your door, if not then no license is needed.

 

Read this site, it's very amusing and you will see that these threat letters are nothing to be concerned with http://www.bbctvlicence.com/

Link to post
Share on other sites

I live, during the week, in military mess accommodation, and TV Licencing consider each room as a separate dwelling - even though the Mess has a licence for the television in the communal tv room. I suspect that they will view student halls of residence in the same way.

 

I imagine that even the terminally dull Crapita will know that students do not have time to watch television, since they are either sleeping or throwing fire extinguishers at the police. :evil:

Link to post
Share on other sites

You are under no obligation to write and tell them anything and they are well aware of this, even if they did want to start legal action they would need people's names, you cant bring legal action against 'Room 4' for example, even then they normally only bring proceedings against someone who has been niave/foolish enough to admit watching tv/signing their form/telling them your name and address, I suspect your student accomadtion has some sort of security so the likelyhood of a 'TV Licence Officer' or whatever dumb name they call themselves these days actually getting anywhere near your room is very unlikely.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Your hall may already have a licence to cover communal areas. http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/check-if-you-need-one/for-your-home/students-aud1/?WT.mc_id=r107

The Consumer Action Group is a free help site.

Should you be offered help that requires payment please report it to site team.

Advice & opinions given by Caro are personal, are not endorsed by Consumer Action Group or Bank Action Group, and are offered informally, without prejudice & without liability. Your decisions and actions are your own, and should you be in any doubt, you are advised to seek the opinion of a qualified professional.

Link to post
Share on other sites

:wave:

 

 

 

 

I imagine that even the terminally dull Crapita will know that students do not have time to watch television, since they are either sleeping or throwing fire extinguishers at the police. :evil:

 

 

 

 

:jaw: That is giving terminally dull Crapita a touch of logic. :scared:

 

 

 

:rofl::bounce::rofl:

 

 

:wave:

 

dk

Link to post
Share on other sites

n this digital age we should have the option to subscribe to the BBC rather than be forced to pay for it, especially since my American friends seem to have watched everything I ever have on the BBC! If it were any other company it would be an outrageous [problem].

Link to post
Share on other sites

When i was at uni you were covered by your parent's tv licence, so long as the tv was defined as portable and in your own room.

 

With regard to iplayer etc- you do not need a licence unless the broadcast is live- dunno if you can argue that the latency online means there is a slight delay and thus not live- mind you the same could apply to the delay in digital or BBC over sattelite....

Link to post
Share on other sites

When i was at uni you were covered by your parent's tv licence, so long as the tv was defined as portable and in your own room.

 

With regard to iplayer etc- you do not need a licence unless the broadcast is live- dunno if you can argue that the latency online means there is a slight delay and thus not live- mind you the same could apply to the delay in digital or BBC over sattelite....

 

Yep..The TV has to be battery powered, the latency excuse has been dismissed before, I believe they use the comments live or almost live somewhere, but people are of course free to use the catch up service without a licence.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...