Jump to content
  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Sorry to hear about the "playground insults".    The fact you didn't write "without prejudice" means the letter could be produced in court, not that the PPCs ever seem to do so.  Well, so what?  Minister Baywatch HAVE made up fictitious charges.  Courts HAVE told the PPCs off for this numerous times.  DDJ Harvey DID go ballistic about this.  I don't' see what's wrong in refuting a claim and referring to a persuasive court case to back up your position. 
    • Thanks Dx. I have tidied the defence up with your suggestions amended. Does it look right now? Thanks!   1.    Monies due under current account facility xxxxxxxxxxxx. The claimants claim is for the balance outstanding under the facility provided by Halifax to the defendant. It was a term of the bank account that any debit balance would be repayable by the defendant in full on demand.   2.    The defendant has failed to repay the amount due following the service of a demand.   3.    The debt was assigned to the claimant.   4.    The claimant therefore claims 1. 5k 2. costs   Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.     2. The Claimants statement of case fails to give adequate information to enable me to properly assess my position with regards the claim.    3. The Claimant’s Particulars of Claim fail to state when the agreement was entered into.   4. Paragraph 1, Whilst I accept that I have in the past held a current account with Halifax Bank Plc. I have not serviced this account since 08/07/2016 due to the punitive charges and interest being applied which made the account untenable and impossible to facilitate. The amount claimed is far in excess of any agreed overdraft limit with Halifax Bank. I deny that the account exceeded an agreed overdraft limit due to overdrawing of funds and claim that this is a result of unfair and extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. It is therefore denied that I am indebted for any alleged outstanding residue.    5. Paragraph 2 is denied as the original creditor has failed to serve a Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and the Claimant is put to strict proof to evidence any breach.    6. Paragraph 2 is further denied as i am unaware of Halifax Bank ever providing me with a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand / Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.   7. Paragraph 3 is denied. I am not aware or ever receiving any Notice of Assignment pursuant to the Law of Property Act 1925. It is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82A of the consumer credit Act 1974. The Claimant has yet to provide a copy of the Notice of Assignment its claim relies upon.   8. Paragraph 4 is denied. I refute the claimants claim is owed or payable. The amount claimed is comprised of amongst others default penalties/charges levied on the account for alleged late, missed or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbeyicon National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety.   9. As per Civil Procedure icon Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. The claimant is also put to strict proof to:-.     a. Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and conditions at inception, which this claim is based on. b. Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account with justification. c. Show how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed. d. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim. (f) Show how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.   e. Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.   10. On receipt of this claim I immediately requested documentation by way of a CPR 31.14 request, which was received by the Claimant on the *******. The Claimant has failed to comply with this request. Therefore the claimant in their non compliance to my requests have frustrated my attempts to clarify their claim and against pre action protocol should be considered when the question of costs arise.     11. By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.    
    • MPs are pushing authorities to respond to allegations of potential fraud at certain banks, whereby it’s claimed home repossession documents weren’t actually signed by the authorised signatory View the full article
    • Thanks Dx. Amended defence set out below. Does it look right now?   1. By agreement between the defendant and Halifax on or around the 3/3/2015 (the agreement) Halifax agreed to loan the defendant monies.     2.The defendant did not pay instalments as they fell due.     3.The agreement was terminated following a service of a default notice.     4.The agreement was assigned to the claimant.     5.The claimant therefore claims 1. 4.5k 2. Costs    Defence   1. The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made.     2. The Claimant has not complied with paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) Failed to serve a letter of claim pre claim pursuant to PAPDC changes of the 1st October 2017. It is respectfully requested that the court take this into consideration pursuant to 7.1 PAPDC.     3. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is accepted that I have had financial dealings with Halifax in the past. However I do not recall entering into any financial agreement with Halifax on or around 03/03/2015 and have sought verification from the claimant who has not complied with my request for further information.     4. Paragraph 2 is denied. I am not aware of any payment terms for the stated agreement.     5. Paragraph 3 is denied. It is denied that Cabot Financial served any Default notice on the Defendant pursuant to s87 Consumer Credit Act 1974. The Claimant is required to prove that a compliant Default Notice was served upon the Defendant. The Claimant is required to prove that the any Default notice relied upon complied with the requirements of s88(4A) Consumer Credit Act 1974 and that the notice was in the prescribed form as required by The Consumer Credit Enforcement Default and Termination Notice Regulations 1983.   6. Paragraph 4 is denied as I am unaware of any legal assignment or Notice of Assignment allegedly served by either the claimant or the original creditor.     7. It is therefore denied with regards to the Defendant owing any monies to the Claimant; the Claimant has failed to provide any evidence of credit agreement / assignment / balance / breach requested by CPR 31.14, and remains in default of my section 77 request, therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:   a. Show how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; and   b. Show how the Defendant has reached the amount claimed for; and   c. Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim     8. On receipt of this claim I requested by way of Royal Mail on 13/10/20 a CPR 31.14 request from the claimant’s solicitors and a section 77 requests to the Claimant, for copies of the documents referred to within the Claimant’s particulars to establish what the claim is for. To date the Claimant has failed to comply with my section 77 request and their solicitors, Mortimer Clarke, have refused my CPR 31.14 request.     9. As per Rule 16.5(4), it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed.     10. On the alternative, as the Claimant is an assignee of a debt, it is denied that the Claimant has the right to lay a claim due to contraventions of Section 136 of the Law of Property Act and Section 82 A of the Consumer Credit Act 1974     11. By reasons of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.  
    • I'm generally convinced that there is at least 2 users on MSE that's in my thread that has friends or family or even themselves that have similar line of work to MB or Gladstone.   I don't mind different opinions but they're just throwing out playground insults to me for using that letter saying I'm stupid, prat, idiot etc etc for doing it and not including in the letter without prejudice so it can't be used against me in court. I think I'll leave MSE and just stick with CAG and in this case.    
  • Our picks

    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies
    • Oven repair. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/427690-oven-repair/&do=findComment&comment=5073391
      • 49 replies
    • I came across this discussion recently and just wanted to give my experience of A Shade Greener that may help others regarding their boiler finance agreement.
       
      We had a 10yr  finance contract for a boiler fitted July 2015.
       
      After a summer of discontent with ASG I discovered that if you have paid HALF the agreement or more you can legally return the boiler to them at no cost to yourself. I've just returned mine the feeling is liberating.
       
      It all started mid summer during lockdown when they refused to service our boiler because we didn't have a loft ladder or flooring installed despite the fact AS installed the boiler. and had previosuly serviced it without issue for 4yrs. After consulting with an independent installer I was informed that if this was the case then ASG had breached building regulations,  this was duly reported to Gas Safe to investigate and even then ASG refused to accept blame and repeatedly said it was my problem. Anyway Gas Safe found them in breach of building regs and a compromise was reached.
       
      A month later and ASG attended to service our boiler but in the process left the boiler unusuable as it kept losing pressure not to mention they had damaged the filling loop in the process which they said was my responsibilty not theres and would charge me to repair, so generous of them! Soon after reporting the fault I got a letter stating it was time we arranged a powerflush on our heating system which they make you do after 5 years even though there's nothing in the contract that states this. Coincidence?
       
      After a few heated exchanges with ASG (pardon the pun) I decided to pull the plug and cancel our agreement.
       
      The boiler was removed and replaced by a reputable installer,  and the old boiler was returned to ASG thus ending our contract with them. What's mad is I saved in excess of £1000 in the long run and got a new boiler with a brand new 12yr warranty. 
       
      You only have to look at TrustPilot to get an idea of what this company is like.
       
      • 3 replies
    • Dazza a few months ago I discovered a good friend of mine who had ten debts with cards and catalogues which he was slavishly paying off at detriment to his own family quality of life, and I mean hardship, not just absence of second holidays or flat screen TV's.
       
      I wrote to all his creditors asking for supporting documents and not one could provide any material that would allow them to enforce the debt.
       
      As a result he stopped paying and they have been unable to do anything, one even admitted it was unenforceable.
       
      If circumstances have got to the point where you are finding it unmanageable you must ask yourself why you feel the need to pay.  I guarantee you that these companies have built bad debt into their business model and no one over there is losing any sleep over your debt to them!  They will see you as a victim and cash cow and they will be reluctant to discuss final offers, only ways to keep you paying with threats of court action or seizing your assets if you have any.
       
      They are not your friends and you owe them no loyalty or moral duty, that must remain only for yourself and your family.
       
      If it was me I would send them all a CCA request.   I would bet that not one will provide the correct response and you can quite legally stop paying them until such time as they do provide a response.   Even when they do you should check back here as they mostly send dodgy photo copies or generic rubbish that has no connection with your supposed debt.
       
      The money you are paying them should, as far as you are able, be put to a savings account for yourself and as a means of paying of one of these fleecers should they ever manage to get to to the point of a successful court judgement.  After six years they will not be able to start court action and that money will then become yours.
       
      They will of course pursue you for the funds and pass your file around various departments of their business and out to third parties.
       
      Your response is that you should treat it as a hobby.  I have numerous files of correspondence each faithfully organised showing the various letters from different DCA;s , solicitors etc with a mix of threats, inducements and offers.   It is like my stamp collection and I show it to anyone who is interested!
        • Thanks
        • Like

Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2122 days.

If you are trying to post a different story then you should start your own new thread. Posting on this thread is likely to mean that you won't get the help and advice that you need.

If you are trying to post information which is relevant to the story in this thread then please flag it up to the site team and they will allow you to post.

Thank you

Recommended Posts

Before I begin I feel I should say that I am a bit surprised that there is no separate section for TV License issues.

 

That said, I don't have a television and I haven't had one for about eight years.

I realise that probably makes me look quite peculiar to most people but I used to watch about an hour a week on a Friday night

and then realised how much that was costing me per hour and decided that it wasn't worth it

- something like £2.00 per hour, if I remember correctly, and asked my then landlord to take it away.

 

He refused and I put the television in my wardrobe and wrote to TV Licensing explaining what I had done - they seemed happy with the situation.

 

Since then, I am so accustomed to my blissful TeeVeeFree life that I would not have one if Jonathan Ross personally installed

a gold plated 3D 60" 5.1 Dolby 8 valve organic FairTrade™ gluten-free Yamahonduki if the license fee was payable to me as reward simply for having the junk in my house.

 

I actually feel physically sick when I visit other people and their televisions are on - they never have the manners to switch them off when they have company.

 

Plus, I live in a rented unfurnished house with an aerial on the roof which drives me insane when it is windy.

 

That all said, I do have an HD projector and a Blu-Ray player because I enjoy occasionally watching my own choice of films.

And it is not a requirement to have a license unless you watch television programmes on any device, as they are being shown on TV' - their words.

 

But I still get regular letters from TV Licensing which border on intimidating.

I have written to them to tell them how I feel about the stupid things and invited them to come at their convenience to inspect my house.

But instead they keep sending me letters threatening with 'a visit' and to treat my address as 'unlicensed'. It is unlicensed! For a very good reason.

 

Surely, the license fee constitutes a service charge and the onus is on them to prove that I am using the service - not vice-versa.

 

Sure, I could simply play their game and fill in their forms every time I get a letter or phone the non-free phone number which does not have any indication of the call rates

- but I fail to see why I should simply to assert that my ownership of a television should not be taken for granted.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The Ferguson v British Gas is a landmark ruling where it was concluded an individual can sue a company who pursue her with unwarranted demands for payment bordering on intimidation.

 

In theory it may be possible to pursue similar action against TV Licencing especially given the intimation and threatening tone of the letters AND the fact you have invited them round.

 

Alas in the real world it would take money and time, and whilst the Judge commended Mrs Ferguson comparing it to the little man (or woman) fighting back, the way the legals system works with high costs makes it almost impossible for anyone to do this and as a result the Judges opening comments do make him look a bit out of touch.

 

Perhaps if TVL were to be sued and start paying out large sums might make them rethink their approach which as we move into the age of Digital Tv and Tv over IP is becoming increasingly out dated.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

I colleague of mine had similar problems and he

stopped the threats by making a declaration to

a notary public saying that he did not own orr

use TV receiving apparatus.

Cost £25.

Any Letters I Draft are N0T approved by CAG and no personal liability is accepted.

Please Consider making a donation to keep this site running!

Nemo Mortalium Omnibus Horis Sapit: Animo et Fide:

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've just been to my girlfriend's house. She is in a similar position to me except that she has been at the same address for over eight years and has not had a television in all that time and has told TV Licensing so. But like me, she is sick of telling them. Somewhat co-incidentally, she had a letter from them this morning as well - but hers is considerably more threatening.

 

It says:

 

You have not responded to our previous letters. We want to ensure that you have the information you may need before a hearing is set at your local court.

 

Please read the information below carefully and keep for your records. You will be allowed to take it into court with you.

 

Yours faithfully,

 

Sarah Armstrong

Enforcement Division

 

----------------------------------------------------

 

What to Expect in court

 

If you are asked to appear in court, this is what you can expect to happen:

 

• You can appoint a lawyer to represent you, or you may represent yourself.

 

• If you are found guilty, evidence collected during an enforcement visit to your property could be used by the court to decide the penalty for TV License evasion.

 

• The court has the power to impose a fine of up to £1,000, plus legal costs.

 

• If your property needs a TV License, you will still need to buy one.

 

How to avoid a court summons

It is illegal to watch television programmes as they are being shown on TV without a TV License - no matter what device you use. The only way to stop this investigation from going any further is to do one of the following:

 

• Buy a TV License at
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/pay
or by calling 0300 790 6097.

A colour license costs £145.50.

 

• Let us know you don't need one at
http://www.tvlicensing.co.uk/noTV
or by calling 0300 790 6097. We may visit to confirm this.

 

 

Like me she has told them she has not got an idiot box and like me she has invited them to come and check for themselves.

 

She intends to ignore the letter and hope that they follow up on the threat of court action in order to make a point. And I shall do the same.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It would appear nothing you do will keep them at bay, if you dont have a licence, they write asking why you havnt replied (even though they admit there is no obligation to do so), if you write and tell them you dont need a licence, they will write to you, (in case you are lying !).

 

I note they are recently telling companies that they shouldnt let employees watch live olympics on PC's this summer if the company has no licence, although its unclear how they would ever check this, how many licences would be needed and exactly who would be responsible for buying them.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I ask a stupid question?

 

Have they completely shut down analogue television broadcasts? I only ask because I do have a high end VHS VCR which I use for video transfers of old material - I sometimes edit video in my spare time. I'm aware that the VCR has a TV tuner in it but it is not and has never been connected to the aerial - it's actually in the opposite corner of the room to the aerial socket. I ask just in case they do accept my invitation to call round and find it. But in some ways, it would make an interesting court hearing if they were forced to concede that owning a VCR with a built in analogue receiver would not enable anybody to watch or record television programmes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Not fully yet, in my South east region I think its tommorow, and then people need to re-tune their freeview boxes, etc.

 

Your question is good though, I suspect that TVL havnt got a clue, as far as im aware there have been no prosecutions for watching live TV on PC's and Phones and the law is hopelessly outdated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Before I begin I feel I should say that I am a bit surprised that there is no separate section for TV License issues.

 

That said, I don't have a television and I haven't had one for about eight years.

I realise that probably makes me look quite peculiar to most people but I used to watch about an hour a week on a Friday night

and then realised how much that was costing me per hour and decided that it wasn't worth it

- something like £2.00 per hour, if I remember correctly, and asked my then landlord to take it away.

 

He refused and I put the television in my wardrobe and wrote to TV Licensing explaining what I had done - they seemed happy with the situation.

 

Since then, I am so accustomed to my blissful TeeVeeFree life that I would not have one if Jonathan Ross personally installed

a gold plated 3D 60" 5.1 Dolby 8 valve organic FairTrade™ gluten-free Yamahonduki if the license fee was payable to me as reward simply for having the junk in my house.

 

I actually feel physically sick when I visit other people and their televisions are on - they never have the manners to switch them off when they have company.

 

Plus, I live in a rented unfurnished house with an aerial on the roof which drives me insane when it is windy.

 

That all said, I do have an HD projector and a Blu-Ray player because I enjoy occasionally watching my own choice of films.

And it is not a requirement to have a license unless you watch television programmes on any device, as they are being shown on TV' - their words.

 

But I still get regular letters from TV Licensing which border on intimidating.

I have written to them to tell them how I feel about the stupid things and invited them to come at their convenience to inspect my house.

But instead they keep sending me letters threatening with 'a visit' and to treat my address as 'unlicensed'. It is unlicensed! For a very good reason.

 

Surely, the license fee constitutes a service charge and the onus is on them to prove that I am using the service - not vice-versa.

 

Sure, I could simply play their game and fill in their forms every time I get a letter or phone the non-free phone number which does not have any indication of the call rates

- but I fail to see why I should simply to assert that my ownership of a television should not be taken for granted.

 

For everyone who thinks I am the only person in the world to hate the TV, I am going to show them this as proof that there is at least one other. I am a 39 year old woman and only use the TV for my games consoles and the odd cheesy zombie flick. I am so happy to find I am not alone, in fact, tbh, my husband and daughter aren't keen either on the old tellybox. Around 10 years ago, I suddenly woke up to the fact that TV programmes either depressed me or attempted to brainwash me and influence my choices and opinions. I have never felt freer since getting rid.

 

On another note, I have to say I have not had many problems with TVL. I just informed them of my situation and they never got in touch again, I have been at my current address for 8 years.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I have no TV and took flack off the TV tax people.

 

I initially let them in to show them the flat was empty, and I was planning on using it for only short visits.

 

Some time later they appeared again claiming I may have bought a TV - I told them to go away.

 

Anyway all the harassing activity followed - so here was what I did...

 

Use the link on their site to tell them you have no TV.

 

Send them an email (same as for DCAs) telling them you are removing their implied right of access.

 

Do not tell them your name at any stage, and just use "the legal occupier" which was how they addressed me. They initially emailed a couple of times "for my name to confirm it matched their records" - but as they had no records this was just fishing - and I declined stating why. Fair enough - if they have your name - I see little point in not using it.

 

I also told them I found their letters harassing - I have a collection and some state the only way of avoiding prosecution is to pay them! So with each letter I complained and submitted a FoI request. Then another. Then another... They furnished most FoI requests with replies, which must have cost far more in man hours than any licence - but it seems to appeal a FoI refusal, you need to use your real name.

 

The last thing between us was they said they would need to check at some time in the future, as when I move they would need to check if there was a TV with the next people living here.

 

I have no idea what it would cost to sue them - but I keep thinking their letters fall into the criteria described in the Protection from Harassment Act - and probably some time in summer will get round to framing a complaint to them based upon that legislation.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Excluding the "Renewal Overdue" letter, I've have 25 letters from them.

 

Additionally, I've had 5 "We said we'd call" message through the door, and 2 visits while I was in.

 

If they want to waste their time, and LF money, that's fine by me. :biggrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Funnily - I am in the flat I mentioned sorting through papers. I have a bundle of 13 letters from the TV tax people that I have sorted through so far. If I can get a scanner to connect I will scan it as it sounds unlikely.

 

In the past they used to have a reply paid envelope included, and you could fold up a box of breakfast cereal to get it well over the paid weight - and then send it back to them.

 

Sadly they stopped doing this years ago. I wonder why!

 

Here's a summary...

 

1.Warning against unlawful action...

 

2.We catch around 1000 evaders every day...

 

3.Warning - you may be breaking the law...

 

4.This address is unlicensed - your details are being passed to enforcement officers...

 

5.Important - please call by 22 of June or passed to enforcement...

 

6.Official Warning

 

7.Official warning - this property is unlicensed...

 

8.We catch (same as 2)...

 

9. This address is unlicensed...

 

10. Important (22nd of June again)...

 

11.(yet another) Official Warning!...

 

12.We catch around 1000 a day...

 

13. (another) Official Warning...

 

There are still more in the bundle of unsorted things.

 

There's also a tonne of debt letters for previous tenants - most threatening visits and court, yet no DCAs have visited when I have been here - and no court papers either yet.

 

What's the sentence for opening old tenant's mail? :D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Since my licence expired, I've had:-

 

Renewal Overdue

 

YOU ARE HEREBY GIVEN OFFICIAL NOTICE: THIS PROPERTY IS UNDER INVESTIGATION.

 

FINAL NOTIFICATION

 

(From this point, the letters were no longer addressed to me, but rather to "Current/Legal Occupier")

 

ENFORCEMENT OFFICERS HAVE NOW BEEN AUTHORISED TO VISIT BS98 1TL

 

***URGENT*** WATCHING TV ILLEGALLY AT THIS PROPERTY COULD LEAD TO SEVERE PENALTIES.

 

THIS PROPERTY IS STILL UNLICENSED. BE PREPARED FOR THIS INVESTIGATION TO LEAD TO COURT.

 

OFFICIAL WARNING: WE HAVE OPENED AN INVESTIGATION

 

IMPORTANT INFORMATION ENCLOSED - It's a criminal offence to watch TV without a TV Licence.

 

WARNING: THIS PROPERTY IS UNLICENSED

 

WARNING: YOU MAY BE BREAKING THE LAW

 

What to expect in court

 

What you need to know about the enforcement process

 

OFFICIAL WARNING: WE HAVE OPENED AN INVESTIGATION

 

WARNING: YOU MAY BE BREAKING THE LAW

 

What to expect in court

 

What you need to know about the enforcement process

 

OFFICIAL WARNING: WE HAVE OPENED AN INVESTIGATION

 

WARNING: YOU MAY BE BREAKING THE LAW

 

What to expect in court

 

What you need to know about the enforcement process

 

OFFICIAL WARNING: WE HAVE OPENED AN INVESTIGATION

 

WARNING: YOU MAY BE BREAKING THE LAW

 

What to expect in court

 

What you need to know about the enforcement process

 

OFFICIAL WARNING: WE HAVE OPENED AN INVESTIGATION

 

WARNING: YOU MAY BE BREAKING THE LAW

 

 

 

I wonder what the next one will be? :biggrin:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Maybe they will threaten to detain you under Section 2 of the Mental Health Act 1983. Clearly, anybody who does not watch television is mentally ill and needs locking up for their own protection as per Soviet Russia.

 

It just occurred to me how similar this is to the ubiquitous ownership of cars in America, the lack of footpaths and the crime of jaywalking.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 11 months later...

My Great Aunt keeps being threatened with these letters. She is 86, its on her second home with no tv viewing equipment and no occupier.

 

I have escalated the issues as far as the BBC Executives as of this week. If this is not successful then i will be pursuing legal avenues despite the cost. I have already started consulting with legal departments.

 

The letters have been coming for over 2 years and they have been informed multiple times of the distress they are causing. They keep saying we are sorry but we failed to update our records correctly.

 

Age UK and the Local MP are aware of the situation. Safe to say i am furious.

 

Anyone else have any suggestions?

Link to post
Share on other sites

All they are doing is checking, people do change their minds and install TVs where there wasnt one previously if you havent got one ignore the letters.

If I have been of any help, please click on my star and let me know, thank you.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd re-read the Ferguson v British gas case to see if there are comparisons, in that case the answer could of been simply 'throw them in the bin' but thats not the point, if someone is genuinelly suffering distress and anxiety as a result of the letters then the damage is done and following the prescedent set in F V BG, it is possible to sue for damages especially IF you have notified the company time and time again, but personally I dont believe a case against TV Licensing would be succesful and bear in mind Mrs Ferguson did spend/risk a lot of money, this was very brave of her and commented upon by the Judge as a David v Goliath type battle.

 

Andy

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 8 months later...
Can I ask a stupid question?

 

Have they completely shut down analogue television broadcasts? I only ask because I do have a high end VHS VCR which I use for video transfers of old material - I sometimes edit video in my spare time. I'm aware that the VCR has a TV tuner in it but it is not and has never been connected to the aerial - it's actually in the opposite corner of the room to the aerial socket. I ask just in case they do accept my invitation to call round and find it. But in some ways, it would make an interesting court hearing if they were forced to concede that owning a VCR with a built in analogue receiver would not enable anybody to watch or record television programmes.

 

This is the reason that I will *not* allow an inspector to come into my home. Most homes have any number of gadgets (computer, iPad, mobile phone, etc.) that theoretically could be used to watch TV. I can't see any up side to letting an inspector in to see what gadgets you've got. I would anticipate that they would see the gadgets and use them as ammunition to shift the burden of proof onto you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My Great Aunt keeps being threatened with these letters. She is 86, its on her second home with no tv viewing equipment and no occupier.

 

I have escalated the issues as far as the BBC Executives as of this week. If this is not successful then i will be pursuing legal avenues despite the cost. I have already started consulting with legal departments.

 

The letters have been coming for over 2 years and they have been informed multiple times of the distress they are causing. They keep saying we are sorry but we failed to update our records correctly.

 

Age UK and the Local MP are aware of the situation. Safe to say i am furious.

 

Anyone else have any suggestions?

 

Did you proceed with your legal action? I would be most interested to hear how it progressed.

 

Have you considered contacting trading standards? I'm not sure if this is within their remit or not.

Link to post
Share on other sites
All they are doing is checking, people do change their minds and install TVs where there wasnt one previously if you havent got one ignore the letters.

 

That's fair enough if you are secure in your innocence and you are smart enough to see through the weasel words. However, the letters are quite aggressive and clearly designed to intimidate and you can see from other posts in this forum and elsewhere that they really do cause some people a lot of anxiety. That's not really something we should be prepared to put up with.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Have you considered contacting trading standards?

 

I tried that. They weren't interested.

 

The lady I spoke to read the back of one of the Threat-O-Grams, then said:-

 

"It says here, we'd like to stop writing to you, so it you contact them they'll visit and then stop bothering you, so they're giving you a way out".

 

Giving me "a way out" :roll:

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...