Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Better version attached with the late appeal explained more clearly for the judge. This will sound silly, but I think it would be a good idea to e-mail it to the court and UKPC on Sunday.  It's probably me being daft, but Sunday is still March, and as it's late, sending it in March rather than April will make it sound like it was less late than it really is.  if you get my drift. You can still pop in a paper version on Tuesday if you want. E-mail address for the court: [email protected] And for UKPC: [email protected]   [email protected] Defendant WS.pdf
    • Update 15th March the eviction notice period expired, and I paid my next month rent along with sending them the message discussed above. After a short while they just emailed me back this dry phrase "Thank you for your email." In two weeks' time I'm gonna need to pay the rent again, and I have such a feeling that shortly after that date the contracts will be exchanged and all the payments will be made.  Now my main concern is, if possible, not to end up paying rent after I move out.  
    • they cant 'take away' anything, what ever makes you believe that?  dx  
    • The text on the N1SDT Claim Form 1.The claim is for breaching the terms and conditions set on private land. 2. The defendant's vehicle, NumberPlate, was identified in the Leeds Bradford Airport Roadways on the 28/07/2023 in breach of the advertised terms and conditions; namely Stopping in a zone where stopping is prohibited 3.At all material times the Defendant was the registered keeper and/or driver. 4. The terms and conditions upon  entering private land were clearly displayed at the entrance and in prominent locations 5. The sign was the offer and the act of entering private land was the acceptance of the offer hereby entering into a contract by conduct. 6.The signs specifically detail the terms and conditions and the consequences of failure to comply,  namely a parking charge notice will be issued, and the Defendant has failed to settle the outstanding liability. 7.The claimant seeks the recovery of the parking charge notice, contractual costs and interest.   This is what I am thinking of for the wording of my defence The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and are generic in nature which fails to comply with CPR 16.4. 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. 1. Paragraph 1 is denied. It is denied that the Defendant ever entered into a contract to breach any terms and conditions of the stated private land. 2. Paragraph 2 and 4 are denied. As held by the Upper Tax Tribunal in Vehicle Control Services Limited v HMRC [2012] UKUT 129 (TCC), any contract requires offer and acceptance. The Claimant was only contracted to provide car park management services and is not capable of entering into a contract with the Defendant on its own account, as the car park is owned by and the terms of entry set by the landowner. 3. It is admitted that Defendant is the recorded keeper of the vehicle. 4.  Paragraph 6 is denied the claimant has yet to evidence that their contract with the landowner supersedes  Leeds Bradford airport byelaws. Further it is denied that the Claimant’s signage is capable of creating a legally binding contract. 5. Paragraph 7 is denied, there are no contractual costs and interest cannot be accrued on a speculative charge.   I'm not sure whether point 4 is correct as I think this side road is not covered by byelaws? Any other suggestions/corrections would be appreciated.
    • Dear EVRi parcelnet LTD t/a evri   evri parcelnet isnt a thing also you say defendant's response which is a bit of a weird format.   Something like   Dear EVRi, Claim no xxxx In your defence you said you could not access tracking. Please see attached receipt and label Regards
  • 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
      • 160 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 and court summons


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

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3865 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

Hi all,

 

Just recently received a court summons from my local magistrates court for not paying TV license.

 

To rewind back to what happened:

 

Received a visit on the 26th of March by an tv license person who told me my property was unlicensed. I had changed bank accounts sometime in January/February and I think this DD must have been forgotten.

 

This person filled in the form, cautioned me that whatever I say could be held against me, assured me this was just a formality and nothing would probably come of it, asked me to sign so that he had proof he had been there, and then we setup a new license with new DD details from my new bank, and off he went.

 

Summons now received saying:

 

Offences: Between 26/02/2013 and 27/03/2013 used a colour television receiver without a license.

(Date probably wrong as new license setup on the 26th of March?)

 

Now ok, yes I was wrong, should have ensured all DD's were up-to-date, but to be honest, with a 5 month old baby in the house, fulltime job and little sleep, this one was a very low priority on my list of things to do.

 

Court date: 4th July.

I plan to plead guilty by post, and in the section where I give details will basically tell them of bank changes, slipped my mind due to newborn baby, etc etc.

 

Bottom of the court summons page it says:

 

Costs: If you are convicted, an application will be made for costs of not less than £60.00 yet at the back of the stack of papers there is a photocopy slip stapled on stating if found guilty the minimum costs will be £90 and not £60 as printed on the summons page.

 

Does anyone have any idea of what will happen, how much I'll be forced to pay, etc. I've never had something like this before and need some advice.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The amount of the fine will depend on the circumstances surrounding the non payment of the licence. The fine can go up to £1000 but it is very rare for that amount to be handed down, and is only used for those that the court think deliberately dont pay.

 

If i were in your shoes, i would go in person and speak to the court face to face, so they can see i am being honest and upfront.

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

I suppose it might help my case that a new license was setup the exact same day by the person, and no payments have been missed since then?

 

In the paperwork it states if found guilty I need to have a payment method with me on the day to make payment. I could argue that I do not have the available amount and ask for a repayment schedule? Or how does it work in these cases at magistrates courts?

Link to post
Share on other sites

The average fine is £175 with £50 costs which go to victim support

 

if there is a next time, slam the door on these wanabe cops

 

your only fault was in conversing with them

 

I hear ya!

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 months later...

I'm just updating this thread as well:

 

I unfortunately could not attend court that day due to work commitments. So I plead guilty through the post and begged the court's mercy on the fine of not having a TV license for 1 month.

 

Received the following:

 

£100 fine

£90 court costs

£20 victim surcharge

 

Spoke to court and am paying £70/month over 3 months.

 

TVL ba$tards

Link to post
Share on other sites

Let this be a lesson. Never open the door to the commission based tv licence muppets.

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

That sounds like a pretty standard penalty to me. They've assumed a relevant weekly income of £200 and given you a fine at the bottom of Band A, no doubt reflecting your early guilty plea. Whenever they impose a fine they have to impose the victim surcharge, which is the greater of either £20 or 10% of the fine value. I was recently in court when someone got a similar penalty for being unlicensed for one week. Makes me think prosecutions are seen as a bit of a cash cow for Capita TVL.

 

I'm just updating this thread as well:

 

I unfortunately could not attend court that day due to work commitments. So I plead guilty through the post and begged the court's mercy on the fine of not having a TV license for 1 month.

 

Received the following:

 

£100 fine

£90 court costs

£20 victim surcharge

 

Spoke to court and am paying £70/month over 3 months.

 

TVL ba$tards

Link to post
Share on other sites

The entire tv licence is a con and is used to garner cash for no reason. There is absolutely no reason whatsoever why BBC cannot have adverts on its programming. The fact that a BUSINESS has a law that forces people to buy a licence, even if they do not watch any of the BBC's content is absurd.

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

The op needed a license though right, at some point he would need to deal with tvl, why would he ignore them?

 

It's funny how you are always on the side of TVL in every single post you make.

 

I changed bank accounts, I got a letter from TVL saying they did not receive the direct debit, and the next day I had TVL banging on my door. so yeah, I would have probably have updated my bank details that day/next day to pay for the license.

 

I still think the TVL is a $cam, disproportionate fines are issued and the public is being $cammed/cash cowed.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm just saying the advice to ignore people from tvl is poor advice and would have probably made your penalty worse id assume, considering you actually need a license. I am surprised that they penalised you so harshly for a simple mistake. Why don't you try appealing it?

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's funny how you are always on the side of TVL in every single post you make.

 

Think about it, it will become very clear.

 

There is no room for error or mistakes when dealing with Capita/TVL/BBC , the collecting of the TVL is out sourced & money / revenue is all they care about. You have learned a lesson, never speak, sign or communicate with them in any way. The law states you need a licence to watch live feeds, if one is required then it should be purchased, don` do business at the door. You always have a choice, stop watching live feeds. The way people now watch TV is changing & i always suggest stopping the licence, stop watching live feeds, everything is available on catch up. Ultimately , we will come to a crossroads with the way the BBC is funded. More & more people are questioning the BBC tax , i would make them a voluntary subscription channel , like Sky. Those that want to pay for their output can fund it. The BBC are trying to bolt the licence tax on to the internet, they are trying to get a private members bill through the house of lords, that will mean a traffic warden type, in a yellow jacket can see your property is unlicensed & issue you with a fine [ again, notice, they will have no proof you need one]. As it stands, i & others are not prepared to fund a private company [ yes they are one] who harbour & cover for, sex predators, finance fat cats, waste millions every year on such schemes as their IT systems, fiddle phone in quizzes, the list goes on . If they were not funded by the TVL, they would have gone bust years ago.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...