Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Monika the first four pages of the Private parking section have at least 12 of our members who have also been caught out on this scam site. That's around one quarter of all our current complaints. Usually we might expect two current complaints for the same park within 4 pages.  So you are in good company and have done well in appealing to McDonalds in an effort to resolve the matter without having  paid such a bunch of rogues. Most people blindly pay up. Met . Starbucks and McDonalds  are well aware of the situation and seem unwilling to make it easier for motorists to avoid getting caught. For instance, instead of photographing you, if they were honest and wanted you  to continue using their services again, they would have said "Excuse me but if you are going to go to Mc donalds from here, it will cost you £100." But no they kett quiet and are now pursuing you for probably a lot more than £100 now. They also know thst  they cannot charge anything over the amount stated on the car park signs. Their claims for £160 or £170 are unlawful yet so many pay that to avoid going to Court. When the truth is that Met are unlikely to take them to Court since they know they will lose. The PCNs are issued on airport land which is covered by Byelaws so only the driver can be pursued, not the keeper. But they keep writing to you as they do not know who was driving unless you gave it away when you appealed. Even if they know you were driving they should still lose in Court for several reasons. The reason we ask you to fill out our questionnaire is to help you if MET do decide to take you to Court in the end. Each member who visited the park may well have different experiences while there which can help when filling out a Witness statement [we will help you with that if it comes to it.] if you have thrown away the original PCN  and other paperwork you obviously haven't got a jerbil or a guinea pig as their paper makes great litter boxes for them.🙂 You can send an SAR to them to get all the information Met have on you to date. Though if you have been to several sites already, you may have done that by now. In the meantime, you will be being bombarded by illiterate debt collectors and sixth rate solicitors all threatening you with ever increasing amounts as well as being hung drawn and quartered. Their letters can all be safely ignored. On the odd chance that you may get a Letter of Claim from them just come back to us and we will get you to send a snotty letter back to them so that they know you are not happy, don't care a fig for their threats and will see them off in Court if they finally have the guts to carry on. If you do have the original PCN could you please post it up, carefully removing your name. address and car registration number but including dates and times. If not just click on the SAR to take you to the form to send to Met.
    • In order for us to help you we require the following information:- [if there are more than one defendant listed - tell us] 1 defendant   Which Court have you received the claim from ? County Court Business Centre, Northampton   Name of the Claimant ? LC Asset 2 S.A R.L   Date of issue – . 28/04/23   Particulars of Claim   What is the claim for –    (1) The Claimant ('C') claims the whole of the outstanding balance due and payable under an agreement referenced xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx and opened effective from xx/xx/2017. The agreement is regulated by the Consumer Credit Act 1974 ('CCA'), was signed by the Defendant ('D') and from which credit was extended to D.   (2) D failed to comply with a Default Notice served pursuant to s87 (1) CCA and by xx/xx/2022 a default was recorded.   (3) As at xx/xx/2022 the Defendant owed MBNA LTD the sum of 12,xxx.xx. By an agreement in writing the benefit of the debt has been legally assigned to C effective xx/xx/2022 and made regular upon C serving a Notice of Assignment upon D shortly thereafter.   (4) And C claims- 1. 12,xxx.xx 2. Interest pursuant to Section 69 County Courts Act 1984 at a rate of 8% per annum from xx/01/2023 to xx/04/2023 of 2xx.xx and thereafter at a daily rate of 2.52 to date of judgement or sooner payment. Date xx/xx/2023   What is the total value of the claim? 12k   Have you received prior notice of a claim being issued pursuant to paragraph 3 of the PAPDC (Pre Action Protocol) ? Yes   Have you changed your address since the time at which the debt referred to in the claim was allegedly incurred? No   Did you inform the claimant of your change of address? N/A Is the claim for - a Bank Account (Overdraft) or credit card or loan or catalogue or mobile phone account? Credit Card   When did you enter into the original agreement before or after April 2007 ? After   Do you recall how you entered into the agreement...On line /In branch/By post ? Online   Is the debt showing on your credit reference files (Experian/Equifax /Etc...) ? Yes, but amount differs slightly   Has the claim been issued by the original creditor or was the account assigned and it is the Debt purchaser who has issued the claim. DP issued claim   Were you aware the account had been assigned – did you receive a Notice of Assignment? Not that I recall...   Did you receive a Default Notice from the original creditor? Not that I recall...   Have you been receiving statutory notices headed “Notice of Sums in Arrears”  or " Notice of Arrears "– at least once a year ? Yes   Why did you cease payments? Loss of employment main cause   What was the date of your last payment? Early 2021   Was there a dispute with the original creditor that remains unresolved? No   Did you communicate any financial problems to the original creditor and make any attempt to enter into a debt management plan? No   -----------------------------------
    • Hello CAG Team, I'm adding the contents of the claim to this thread, but wanted to open the thread with an urgent question: Do I have to supply a WS for a claim with a court date that states " at the hearing the court will consider allocation and, time permitting, give an early neutral evaluation of the case" ? letter is an N24 General Form of Judgement or Order, if so, then I've messed up again. Court date 25 May 2024 The letter from court does not state (like the other claims I have) that I must provide WS within 28 days.. BUT I have recently received a WS from Link for it! making me think I do need to!??
    • Massive issues from Scottish Power I wonder if someone could advise next steps. Tennant moved out I changed the electric into my name I was out the country at the time so I hadn't been to the flat. During sign up process they tried to hijack my gas supply as well which I made it clear I didn't want duel fuel from them but they still went ahead with it. Phoned them up again. a few days later telling them to make sure they stopped it but they said too late ? had to get my current supplier to cancel it. Paid £50 online to ensure there was money covering standing charges etc eventually got to the flat no power. Phoned Scottish Power 40 minutes to get through they state I have a pay as you go meter and that they had set me up on a credit account so they need to send an engineer out which they will pass my details onto. Phone called from engineer asking questions , found out the float is vacant so not an emergency so I have to speak to Scottish Power again. Spoke with the original person from Scottish Power who admitted a mistake (I had told her it was vacant) and now states that it will take 4 weeks to get an appointment but if I want to raise a complaint they will contact me in 48 hours and it will be looked at quicker. Raised a complaint , complaints emailed me within 24 hours to say it will take 7 days till he speaks with me. All I want is power in the property would I be better switching over to EON who supply the gas surely they could sort it out quicker? One thing is for sure I will never bother with Scottish Power ever again.    
  • 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

TV Licence debate - Statutes Vs Laws


MrHat
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4245 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 been reading about TV Licensing recently and whether they are lawfully required or not. I have no personal objective here other than enlightenment.

 

I DO have a linence and will contiunue to do so as I can afford it (thankfully I have a job) and I know that I would be harassed if I didn't have one. But that got me thinking....is the main reason that people buy licences because they feel that they would be committing a crime and be threatened/harassed for not having one? When I was at Uni (some time ago now!) I received all sorts of threatening letters (more and more red ink each time) despite not owning a TV or equipment capable of receiving a signal...and this was despite me notifying them of this. Reminds be of DCA threatogram tactics. Churn out 10,000 threatograms, a few will cough up = result for them.

 

I've heard about £1000 fines being threatened, sending enforcement officers round to visit, and even prison!

 

Some arlicles I have read (and youtube vids watched) talk about how, as the TV Licence requirement is based on the Communications Act, it is a 'Statute' and not a 'Law'(Common Law). Not having one does not cause harm or loss to another person so cannot be considered an unlawful act. The case studies suggest that one can 'remove their implied right of access' so that TVL peeps are not allowed to enter one's property and one can refuse to answer any questions to any enforcment agents (normally Capita)....and there is nothing that they can do.

 

The key (apparently) is to avoid engaging with them in any way as they have no right to demand info and enter your property...or even demand your name. People fall foul of this when they fall for the intimidation and sign statements agreeing that they do not have a TVL despite having a TV. As we are talking about an Act/Statute, there has to be an agreement on both sides so unless you agree, they cannot enforce. Correct? or BS?!!

 

So my question is - how does this work out in reality? If someone cancels their licence (or never has had one) will they be 'got' in the end by the TVL people and court system. Can the Police get involved? Will you go to prison?

 

Or is the BBC/TVL hoodwinking us all and with untruths, deliberate misinterpretation of the law, intimidation, threats, harassment and bullying?

 

And should the TVL be abolished?

 

I came here to ask as I very much value the CAG members' opinions and views....

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

The TV License is a tax levied by the Goverment so non payment is a criminal act of which you can be imprisoned.

 

The BBC who are the main recipients of the money collected have been given the task of collecting it on behalf of the Government, they in turn have farmed the collection to a civil contractor.

 

A license, as you point out, is only required to receive 'live' broadcasts by any means, television receiver, computer or mobile phone.

 

The collection companies do not have any legal powers and you don't have to respond to them either by letter or in person, but they can apply to a court for a warrant of entry if they have good reason to believe the above is taking place and they are entitled to be accompanied by the police if they fear for their safety or a breach of the piece may take place.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Conniff.

 

SO I guess they would need to convince a court to give them a warrant to search the premises. I wonder how easily these are granted and how much 'evidence' is needed?

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Thanks Conniff.

 

SO I guess they would need to convince a court to give them a warrant to search the premises. I wonder how easily these are granted and how much 'evidence' is needed?

Think the numbers granted to my recollection is very minimal
Link to post
Share on other sites

You maybe interested to know that FOI requests have been made before for this information and it should be made available but the Beeb are being obtrusive, see the PDF of their response for this. See here for previous requests.

 

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/tv_licensing_search_warrants

 

http://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/number_of_warrants_granted_in_re

Link to post
Share on other sites

very interesting post transient and very relevant to my question about 'hoodwinking'. Not that it answers that one though of course!

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

Hello All... I became at the start of this year Legally Licence Free ... I did not renew my TV Licence due the dismal droos that was aired over the festive season .. so what happens when you do not renew your licence, they try to harass you by telephone and postal mail, infact one letter per month getting stronger in tone and threats and harassment.

 

Have a search for TV Licence resistance on the net .. very very informative, the best course of action is no communication with crapita/bbc what so ever, if they chap your door, do as I did .. close it .. and go and read a book.

Link to post
Share on other sites

MrHat, have you by any chance been reading the websites and information of the self styled "Freemen of the Land" and "Lawful Rebellion" etc? If so, please be very careful, as a lot of what they claim is wrong, and some actions they advice could land you in serious trouble.

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

please be very careful, as a lot of what they claim is wrong, and some actions they advice could land you in serious trouble

 

Could you highlight which information you think is wrong? I can then investigate it further and either have it corrected or clarified.

 

Correct, lawful & legal are two completely different things.

 

The fact that the BBC uses them in the same sentence on their threat letters demanding you gift them money, is indicative of their lack of understanding of the to words.

 

I am also licence free, and the cycle of letters they spit out arrive on the same day every month, and they are now on their fourth cycle the purpose of these threats and imminent legal action is psychological rather than actual, once this is realised, just like DCA's letters, cease to have any credibility or effect.

 

Non communication is the best way to deal with them.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

If a person has not converted over to digital, does this mean that no more letters from Tv license will happen as a signal is no longer possible..

 

No, they assume that every address in the country needs a Licence, regardless if you do or don't.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

MrHat, have you by any chance been reading the websites and information of the self styled "Freemen of the Land" and "Lawful Rebellion" etc? If so, please be very careful, as a lot of what they claim is wrong, and some actions they advice could land you in serious trouble.

 

Caledwich - I read a lot of stuff and am familliar with the above. However, as I said, I posted this to stimulate debate on CAG as thought it was a good place to do so. I take anything I read online with a pinch of salt. On CAG, we see how things play out in reality so a good forum to raise this.

 

At this moment in time, I would keep paying the licence fee even if it was very clear that I could get away without doing so. I really cannot be doing with the hassle and don't have time to fight them if it got nasty. Besides, one of the people in my household works for the BBC and it is in his contract that not having a TV license is grounds for dismissal (this was stated upon joining 3 years ago, long before I became more enlightened into TVL practices).

CAG has helped me so much since I joined. Based on what I have learnt from others on here and my own experiences, I try to chip in and help others from time to time. I am not an expert and give my opinion only. Always check with the more experienced CAG members before making important decisions.

:-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

BBC was suppose to originally been a no profit organisation, they are not, as anybody who views abroad will note adverts on their site, so where is the no profit area?

 

It has been said that no vans around anymore, I have not seen any for decades?

 

Law & legislation 2 different areas???

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites

Caledwich - I read a lot of stuff and am familliar with the above. However, as I said, I posted this to stimulate debate on CAG as thought it was a good place to do so. I take anything I read online with a pinch of salt. On CAG, we see how things play out in reality so a good forum to raise this.

 

At this moment in time, I would keep paying the licence fee even if it was very clear that I could get away without doing so. I really cannot be doing with the hassle and don't have time to fight them if it got nasty. Besides, one of the people in my household works for the BBC and it is in his contract that not having a TV license is grounds for dismissal (this was stated upon joining 3 years ago, long before I became more enlightened into TVL practices).

 

Bloody hell - do they mean if you have a television, or is he actually contractually obliged to OWN a television?, ie if he doesnt have a television, he does not need the licence, but the BBC could sack him anyway?

[sIGPIC][/sIGPIC]

Link to post
Share on other sites

Bloody hell - do they mean if you have a television, or is he actually contractually obliged to OWN a television?, ie if he doesnt have a television, he does not need the licence, but the BBC could sack him anyway?

 

Now that would be interesting!!

 

On acceptance of your employment, you a contractually obliged to purchase a full colour TV licence every year.............surely even the BBC is not that daft? Then again!

 

Yes even if you don't own a TV and don't have a signal, your address is marked as 'unlicensed' don't forget they have that fantastic database.

 

As for their so called TVdetector vans, it's a load of psychological mumbo jumbo, at the most TVL, which is a trading name of the BBC, possibly own 24 'detector' vans. However under a FOI request they decline to answer the actual figure, and don't deny or confirm if they actually exist.

 

But they do have a contract for 24 'Vans' which are liveried up with TVL and detector van all over them, this then gives the impression, if you were ever to see one driving around your area, that they do exist..

 

The BBC is a corporation, all corporations are run for profit, just like the Government is run for profit, Police Forces, Councils, Courts, are a;; run for profit, even United Kingdom PLC.

 

That is a very good point you made Caledflwch, they seriously couldn't expect employees to do that??

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could you please enounce the legal codes where you base what you're saying?

 

 

Communications Act 2003

 

Part 4 Licensing of TV reception

 

363 Licence required for use of TV receiver

 

(1)A television receiver must not be installed or used unless the installation and use of the receiver is authorised by a licence under this Part.

 

(2)A person who installs or uses a television receiver in contravention of subsection (1) is guilty of an offence.

 

(3)A person with a television receiver in his possession or under his control who—

(a)intends to install or use it in contravention of subsection (1), or

(b)knows, or has reasonable grounds for believing, that another person intends to install or use it in contravention of that subsection,

is guilty of an offence.

 

(4)A person guilty of an offence under this section shall be liable, on summary conviction, to a fine not exceeding level 3 on the standard scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Law = no harm or loss to an individual. common law.

 

Legal = legislation, or statutory law which has been made, or 'enacted' by a government, these are NOT laws, they are ONLY given the force of law with your consent (the governed) We are policed and governed by consent.

 

If that helps??

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Law = no harm or loss to an individual. common law.

 

Legal = legislation, or statutory law which has been made, or 'enacted' by a government, these are NOT laws, they are ONLY given the force of law with your consent (the governed) We are policed and governed by consent.

 

If that helps??

 

 

Where did you get that from??!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...