Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • First of all it sounds as if your retailer is very decent and very responsible. This itself is unusual in these kinds of circumstances and I think we need to bear this in mind. The guarantee is not particularly relevant and in fact the dealer had a statutory duty to exercise a certain responsibility for your computer – probably for several years as their obligation under the consumer rights act. The dealer may not have known this and it simply acting out of a sense of moral responsibility and that is even more noteworthy. You've already suggested earlier that you didn't really want to cause problems for your retailer. I think that you will need the help of your retailer as well in order to get information and evidence. I suggest that you proceed against DPD – but before you do that – I suggest that you have a discussion with the retailer. Tell them that this is what you are going to be doing and you would like to have a copy of anything they have which relates to the special instructions which apparently your dealer has already informed you about in relation to where item should be left. Secondly, maybe you should tell your dealer about this site and also about this thread. I can imagine like many dealers who are frequently sending items by means of couriers, they have had things go missing. Tell them that we will be very happy to help them recover money for lost or damaged or stolen items – and that is regardless of whether or not they have purchased insurance. Apart from being very pleased to help your dealer recover items which have been lost by irresponsible parcel delivery companies, I think we need to encourage the complicity between you and them so they will be pleased to support you in your claim against DPD. It will be helpful if you can get a copy of the instructions that you have referred to above, and also if you can get some written evidence of your own instruction that your laptop should be left in a safe place. Have you done the reading on this sub- forum? You will need to do lots of reading of many of the similar stories on this sub- forum. They won't necessarily be against DPD but the principles will broadly be the same. Also read the pinned topics at the top of the sub- forum in order to understand many of the principles involved. Getting your money back but be quick – but your chances of success are better than 90% that you can bank on it taking anything up to a year. Have you got anything in writing from DPD either refusing you or telling you that they won't discuss with you?  
    • Thank you for telling us the text of the letter you had from the police. As we don't seem to have come across this before, it would be really useful for us to see the original please. HB
    • Pasco has recalled 104,000 packs of sliced bread after rat remains were found in at least two packs.View the full article
    • UPDATE I went rooting through an old box of paperwork I have and I've found the original Default Notice. It is dated **/**/201*, however.. The copy of the Default Notice that they sent with the LBC has a completely different date on it 😮 Can they issue 2 default notices for the same debt? Where they have changed the date on the copy, they have also changed the amount owed through failed payments and how much is required to be paid by a certain date. In addition, they sent (with the 1st LBC) a copy of the termination of the agreement, which I cannot find the original. However, the termination date is 3 days after the date given on the (doctored) Default Notice, by which monies are to be paid by. So, they gave until the 'x' date to pay the arrears, then terminated the agreement 3 days later. I bet a dollar to a dime they've doctored the termination date also.
    • Having looked through the paperwork, I note they have sent 3 seperate LBCs. Two are in the name of FCA Automotive (1st one issued 21 Jan 2020, 2nd one 21 Sept 2022) and the last one (issued 12 Sept 2023) is under CA Auto Finance UK Limited. In the first one, they did send a copy of the default notice, but this was not sent with the 2nd LBC and neither was it sent with the last one either. .  A quick look at the default notice and I see it states the agreement start date was not the same day as the original agreement was signed. It's a day different but do not know if that makes any difference. Also, I note we received a letter on the 16 Nov 2023 which states of a 14 day notice of intention to issue claim form. Heard nothing since that, until this court claim arrived. 
  • 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 License Visit


flynnsmum123
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4060 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

  • Replies 216
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

There is no need to go back to basics. There is no need for a tv licence. It is an outdated relic and needs to be scrapped. It was introduced when there was only the BBC around and it was the only way to maintain it. As was previously said, the keyword is in the name British Broadcasting CORPORATION. They are there to make a profit, and they dont have to put any effort into it due to the tv licence TAX.

 

You might be ok with it, but i and many tens of thousands of others are DEFINITELY not.

 

It doesn't matter if you are okay with it or not, it is still a law that you a breaking. Morally, you are in the wrong.

 

When it all gets reviewed in 2016, maybe they will see that there are more alternatives for people on a subscription basis, like Netflix, so might actually change the law or even make freeview a subscription too. I agree it needs brining up to date, with modern times. if you pay your license fee, you get the programmes beamed live and decrypted. Then there would be no need for capita and all these targets and commissions.

 

But until such time, you are still flouting the law and you don't seem to have any moral issues with that. Astonishing.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It doesn't matter if you are okay with it or not, it is still a law that you a breaking. Morally, you are in the wrong.

 

When it all gets reviewed in 2016, maybe they will see that there are more alternatives for people on a subscription basis, like Netflix, so might actually change the law or even make freeview a subscription too. I agree it needs brining up to date, with modern times. if you pay your license fee, you get the programmes beamed live and decrypted. Then there would be no need for capita and all these targets and commissions.

 

But until such time, you are still flouting the law and you don't seem to have any moral issues with that. Astonishing.

 

Then law is wrong !

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you seem to have skipped the ENTIRE reasonings in this thread along witht the legal reasonings why you should not pay nor can you be forced to.

You seem to be hung up on the simple fact that because others pay it and some no name idiot tells you to pay it, that you have no alternative but to comply.

Ive spoken to around 8 "inspectors" in the last 10 years and NOTHING has happened. That says it all.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you seem to have skipped the ENTIRE reasonings in this thread along witht the legal reasonings why you should not pay nor can you be forced to.

You seem to be hung up on the simple fact that because others pay it and some no name idiot tells you to pay it, that you have no alternative but to comply.

Ive spoken to around 8 "inspectors" in the last 10 years and NOTHING has happened. That says it all.

 

 

I would skip what this poster is doing just forget it

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ill agree with you there matt. Not worth the effort anymore.

Any advice i give is my own and is based solely on personal experience. If in any doubt about a situation , please contact a certified legal representative or debt counsellor..

 

 

If my advice helps you, click the star icon at the bottom of my post and feel free to say thanks

:D

Link to post
Share on other sites

Again you seem to have skipped the ENTIRE reasonings in this thread along witht the legal reasonings why you should not pay nor can you be forced to.

You seem to be hung up on the simple fact that because others pay it and some no name idiot tells you to pay it, that you have no alternative but to comply.

Ive spoken to around 8 "inspectors" in the last 10 years and NOTHING has happened. That says it all.

 

It's not like somebody has just made up this rule and applied it and tried telling everyone it is right. If you are proved to be in breach of the law on this matter, do you not end up in court and get fined or imprisoned if you are found to be guilty? If you are comfortable risking this punishment, go ahead. You face the consequences if you do get caught and if you believe in karma I'm sure it will be applied. You will have no one to blame but yourself.

 

I thought I was dealing with people who don't need a license and were arguing against being assumed guilty, but its clear from some of these postings that there are examples of persons that should be paying for license, but don't. I'm not going to argue that anymore as this is a totally different situation and not one that is defensible.

 

Some people on here have said no one is justifying tv licence evasion, well it seems some are. I'm outta here now guys, it's been emotional.

Edited by porkyp1g
Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like somebody has just made up this rule and applied it and tried telling everyone it is right. If you are proved to be in breach of the law on this matter, do you not end up in court and get fined or imprisoned if you are found to be guilty? If you are comfortable risking this punishment, go ahead. You face the consequences if you do get caught and if you believe in karma I'm sure it will be applied. You will have no one to blame but yourself.

 

I thought I was dealing with people who don't need a license and were arguing against being assumed guilty, but its clear from some of these postings that there are examples of persons that should be paying for license, but don't. I'm not going to argue that anymore as this is a totally different situation and not one that is defensible.

 

Some people on here have said no one is justifying tv licence evasion, well it seems some are. I'm outta here now guys, it's seen emotional.

 

 

I would skip what this poster is doing

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not like somebody has just made up this rule and applied it and tried telling everyone it is right.

The BBC has done exactly that - the legislation makes no mention of inspectors or letters or any of the main process of TV Licence enforcement. That's all been created by someone (probably the GPO as was) and is now the property of the BBC.

 

If you are proved to be in breach of the law on this matter, do you not end up in court and get fined or imprisoned if you are found to be guilty?

Law enforcement does not give the Law enforcer complete freedom to do whatever they want. We have laws that apply to them, too.

Link to post
Share on other sites

You don't get imprisoned.

 

 

HE BBC and Home Office faced sustained criticism after the Prison Service revealed yesterday that 845 people were jailed last year for not having a television licence and paying the fine imposed by the courts.

Link to post
Share on other sites

HE BBC and Home Office faced sustained criticism after the Prison Service revealed yesterday that 845 people were jailed last year for not having a television licence and paying the fine imposed by the courts.

 

And I thought he was meant to be an expert on this topic?

 

I'm still waiting to see this video for ****s and giggles. We've already had one admit he watches tv but doesn't pay for a license, your guys refusal to answer the question makes me think your in e same boat (but too ashamed to say) and are hiding behind your rights. None of you have my sympathy if the day comes and your found out to be a tv license evader.

Link to post
Share on other sites

please list your questions PORKYP1G

 

for my education of course

 

Nah I just asked these guys if any of them actually watch live tv (or record it) regardless of any channel despite not paying for a tv license. Renegade has already admitted he does, but these are choosing their right to remain silent. Says it all to me really.

Link to post
Share on other sites

People are of the opinion that the TV licence is their to fund the BBC. The BBC receives a budget each year as to its charter from the government, irrespective on how much has been collected from subscribers.

 

The TV licence fee is nothing more than a licence to receive live TV broadcasts

Link to post
Share on other sites

style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 4060 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

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...