Jump to content

  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Proportional representation would be a start, but I can't see the Conservatives voting for that now they've redrawn the constituency boundaries to suit themselves. Turkeys, Christmas and all that.
    • Sorry to hear about your problem, it's horrible when people take advantage like that.   I don't want to add to your woes, but road tax is not transferrable to a new owner so when he said 'road tax is paid so I have not to worry', he was wrong. See here:   https://www.gov.uk/sold-bought-vehicle   The last thing you need right now is another problem, so I'd either take the car off the road and make a SORN declaration or tax it as soon as possible. If you are planning on making life difficult for the seller then don't be surprised if he reports you for no tax!   I hope it all works out for you.
    • I recently purchased some wheels on eBay which were located at the other end of the country. The seller was happy for me to arrange a courier to collect them and I paid him for them.   I put a request for some quotes on Shiply and accepted one from a company with plenty of positive feedback, who claimed to be insured and would only take payment once the item was delivered. I paid a deposit of £8 immediately via PayPal.   Shortly after this, I recieved a message from the courier saying that because of Coronavirus they were no longer accepting payment at the door on delivery and would instead require payment by bank transfer two days before delivery. I paid the remaining fee of £44 as requested.   The day before delivery, I get a message from the seller say that he thinks the courier has collected the wrong items. I contact them immediately, and yes, they have collected the wrong items. They tell me that the seller was not present when they collected but had left a message at his works reception directing them to collect those items (the wrong ones). After I point out that they are wrong, they stop texting back.   I then get a message from the seller asking for my phone number so that we can figure out what to do. I send it, but have heard nothing from him since.   Today, while I was out, the courier has delivered the wrong items to my house an hour earlier than expected and my son has accepted them.   So, I wonder how to sort this out...   No doubt the courier will argue that they have done as directed and are not to blame. The seller will argue that he did not leave such a message/the courier misunderstood and he is not to blame either. So I get the sinking feeling that I will end up having to foot the bill for the wrong items to be returned AND the right ones to be delivered - only tripling the delivery cost!   Any suggestions??
    • Hi All, before I start I know there are similar threads of the topic I am raising, and each, of course, has its own unique scenario, which may benefit others. My case is as follows: 1. I saw a gumtree ad on the 16th of Oct 2020 for a Mercedes E220 CDI, priced at 7,500 2. I called the seller and said I will come over on the 17th of Oct 2020 to view. 3. On the 17th of Oct 2020 I went to his place where he is working and viewed the car. He is working for a major car rental company. I checked the car and of course asked the normal things to ask e.g. any insurance write-offs, loans, accidents, etc. The seller said the car is clean etc.no loan, he had a loan but all is paid off etc. and he has the papers. 4. I negotiated the car price to 6,800 because the rims were showing some signs of damage, the rear light had a small burst, cosmetics, etc. I checked all but did not see any sign of damage to the car (it's a black car, the car was a bit dirty, and the sun was already setting in) 5. We agreed on 6,800 and decided to purchase the car. We went into his office, where I paid cash, and also got a Car Sales Invoice with all details of the seller, and a V5C green slip 6. I purchased car insurance and drove off. I asked him about Road Tax and he said Road tax is paid so I have not to worry, just need car insurance. 7. On 18th of Oct 2020 I cleaned the car interior because it was really dirty inside - it took me a few hours so decided to clean the exterior the next day 8. On the 19th of Oct 2020 I went to clean the exterior and after the car was clean I noticed some parts were resprayed. I became a bit suspicious; so on the 19th of Oct 2020 in the eve, I went on the internet and run an HPI check. The outcome from the HPI did not show any accidents, insurance write-off but an outstanding Loan with Moneybarn. At this point, I thought maybe the database is not updated, etc. 9. On the 20th of Oct 2020, morning, things were going through my mind; the seller said the car is clean, no issues, no loan since he settled all etc. but the HPI reports say there is still some outstanding loan. So what I did, I called Moneybarn, and explained the situation, and gave them the contract number as well (since it was displayed on the HPI report). They said they will send me a form by email, but they cannot share any information due to Data Protection (GDPR). fair enough I thought, but what made me boil, they said they OWN the car! So, I took the car and drove to the seller where he is working. I confronted him. He said don't worry, I will handle it, he has no time, he is very busy and bla bla bla. I said what reasons do I have to trust you, you lied, and now you say you still have a debt, etc. So I said I will not leave until he has settled the debt, or repay me my money. I also asked what is outstanding, he said around 7,000. Well, since I confronted him at his workplace he may have felt the heat, he assured he will settle all soon, I said sorry, I need a date, so I said you will settle the debt with Moneybarn by 23 Oct 2020, if not, you will refund me my money. He said Ok he will do it, so I said, since I don't trust you, you will sign a piece of paper, and sign it. On the paper, he wrote "I will clear the debt for the Mercedes by Friday" and signed it. I said I am not happy and added the debt details with contract number, and also a clause that if he fails to settle the debt with Moneybarn by Friday the 23rd of Oct 2020, he will refund me my money, 6,800, and sales of the car Mercedes, license plate, will be void. Also, I said to put an initial on each amendment I made with signature. He did, and I left. 10. On 22 Oct I sent him a message, to remind him to settle the debt by Friday 23 Oct 2020 noontime and also I outlined some legal jargon I had to sent that I received from citizensadvice. 11. On 23 Oct, morning time, I received a message from the seller, he said he will not/cannot refund me the money, not to visit him at his office or place, and that he feels threatened by me. 12. Now, the dilemma/headache; a). I received the form from Moneybarn on the 20th of Oct 2020 and I have to send it back within 7 days b). the seller send me a message he will not refund the money c). is the seller holding the title with Moneybarn or did he also buy and not knowing there is an outstanding loan on it d). did he sent the V5C to DVLA since I have the green slip? e). Shall I fill in the form and sent it to Moneybarn? f). If Moneybarn has all my details they may send someone to repossess the car? 13. I decided, I will not undertake anything yet, because my mind said, go there, confront him, park the car in front of the company since I purchased it there and signed all paperwork in their office, they will call the police, the police will come and surely will not do anything but will force me to remove the car and park somewhere else, record all on camera, take all evidence, sent to Moneybarn and at the same time to the seller's employer (when I asked him to sign a letter he will settle the debt by Friday 23rd of Oct 2020, he used a paper of the car rental company, and on the back, the logo of the rental company is displayed clearly and he may have acted on behalf of the company to sell me the car, after all, I don't know if he holds the title with Moneybarn - well, this is an excuse for me to even sue the car rental company, or blacklist him with the company he is working for since it seems he is some type of manager there and he may have acted in the capacity as a sales person to sell the car to me on behalf the company....). 14. So on the 23rd of Oct 2020, I didn't do anything like described under 13....it's not my style as such I called AWH solicitors, explained all, and they said one person is specialized in dealing with such cases and will call me back after studying my case and inform me if it is something they can fight or not. So they will call me Monday the 26th of Oct 2020. I also said I want to go now and confront the seller, but she said better wait till Monday, and if they can fight the case, they will tell me the next course of action - but my funds are limited and cannot afford a lengthy battle, because if no case against Moneybarn means I will have to sue the seller to the court which will cost me. The car has comprehensive insurance and with all this saga I added on the 20th of Oct 2020 also legal insurance on top. Lengthy story, but I am trying to be as detailed as I can, and yes I should have done an HPI before buying the car, but I am from Holland and car sales work there a bit different, and this is my first time I buy from a private seller. Well, once I have sent the form to Moneybarn, I will park the car in a garage, and at this stage, I am renting a room in a house (there is one more tenant). Since I am from Holland, I am planning a trip within 2 weeks to visit my family and I will drive down with the car and in the meanwhile wait if the solicitor can be of any help. I need some advice though, I am still planning to drive down to the seller on Tuesday after I talked with the solicitor, park the car in front of the company, and confront the seller, and try to record all. I will also try to make him sign a letter that I purchased the car in good faith from him (regardless if he holds the title with Moneybarn or not but at least I purchased in good faith from him). Evidence that I have: 1. Car sales invoice 2. Paper that I made him sign 3. Gumtree ad; I could retract this from google history, but the original add removed from gumtree. At least I can show it was advertised 4. I tried to create a history of past owners, total owners including me are 5. It seems the car was also posted on gumtree before by a company in Essex (I saw on google). The reason for doing this, it is very likely that the seller purchased the car from someone else with an outstanding loan. Since then I read a lot on the internet, so please any advice is welcome to pursue my case, I paid a lot and at least I want my money back. Also what I read so far, Moneybarn is not easy to deal with...thanks in advance for any advice I can use for my case.
    • Hi   I think you need to check not just the serial number but what Meter Point Reference Number (MPRN) as the MPRN is what is registered and energy supplier go off as well as the serial number.   So you need to see what the MPRN is as well as the energy supplier it is registered with.   If you look at this Ofgem link: https://www.ofgem.gov.uk/consumers/household-gas-and-electricity-guide/connections-and-moving-home/who-my-gas-or-electricity-supplier   In the above link to do this check it gives a link to:   Find My Supplier: https://www.findmysupplier.energy/webapp/index.html (note you may have to complete a captcha, then input your postcode only and click find my address, when the list comes up click on your exact address, you will then see you actual MPRN and the energy supplier linked to your address)   With the above make sure and take the details of the MPRN and the Energy Supplier, better still take a screenshot/pdf the webpage.   Please let use know if on doing the above it matches your current supplier?  
  • 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.
       
        • Thanks
      • 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

TV License fines....BBC responsible for over 10% of all criminal prosecutions in Magistrates Courts


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2402 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

So am i correct in saying that if they are denied entry to your house, they have no proof of a tv device being used =no proof to show to a magistrate to gain a warrant, meaning they are stuffed either way?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

.Predictably this crazy bill has seen the end of "cowboy clampers" and now....we have private parking companies issuing claim forms at a rate never ever seen before with Parking Eye issuing 1,000 county court claims in ONE DAY !! A brilliant way to encourage the public to abandon the internet and shop instead at retail parks. Again...you couldn't make it up !!

 

I wonder how many Coalition MPs are affiliated with these parking companies. This is overt rent-seeking, opportunistic milking of the public. It'll go on till there's civil unrest. I don't think that's good enough, myself, the polticians involved need to be punished.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So am i correct in saying that if they are denied entry to your house, they have no proof of a tv device being used =no proof to show to a magistrate to gain a warrant, meaning they are stuffed either way?

 

They have to prove every element to the required standard - which for a criminal case is beyond reasonable doubt.They need the results of that interview under caution.

 

Even without it they have been known to press ahead (against the more high profile/vociferous 'troublemakers') using 'flickering light that had to be from a TV' or 'I heard what I believe to be a TV.'. Hardly the required standard. I believe these are private prosecutions. Does anyone ever get a copy of the complaint (THE INFORMATION See the CPR part 7) that was filed against them ?

 

I suggest they seek it out ! The court has duties. Granting process When an information is laid before a magistrate, he must go through the judicial exercise of deciding whether a summons or warrant ought to be issued or not: in other words, whether process should be granted.

 

The discretion to grant process is not an unlimited one: the general principle is that the magistrate ought to issue a summons or warrant pursuant to a properly laid information unless there are compelling reasons not to do so, for example if impropriety or an abuse of process is involved.

 

While recognising that “it would be inappropriate to attempt to lay down an exhaustive catalogue of matters to which consideration should be given”, case law has established the matters that the magistrate should consider as a bare minimum: It would appear that he should at the very least ascertain: (i) whether the allegation is of an offence known to the law and if so whether the essential ingredients of the offence are prima facie present; (ii) that the offence alleged is not 'out of time'; (iii) that the court has jurisdiction; (iv) whether the informant has the necessary authority to prosecute. A magistrate who issues a summons or warrant without applying his mind to the information and completing this judicial exercise will be “guilty of dereliction of duty”. * * R v Brentford Justices, ex parte Catlin [1975] QB 455, at 464 BUT the court will not like any potential failing on their part seeing the light of day.

 

Consider this. Call the informant as a witness. Ask "Did you file a valid cause of action ?" they will say yes. So ask "How many elements are there in a valid cause of action ?" This is where the prosecution will leap up and say the witness is not qualified to answer. (Leaving aside for now that the Information IS a legal determination) they just disqualified their own witness ! It the court still presses ahead and allows then testify then the defendant calls someone (anyone) from the gallery to testify for them.

 

Prosecution (or the Legal Adviso) will leap up and say the person isn't qualified to testify. So shine this light "The court has already determined that not being qualified to testify is not a bar to giving testimony. What has happened to the quest for equality in this case ?" Be aware that the court will not like this at all. Also consider that the complaint (The Information) isn't evidence. So where is the evidence, where is the proof ? When tasked about this the court may say the Information is the proof ! (which is of course an absolute lie).

 

This method can be used against all kinds of mass production cases. However it shines a very bright light on what is actually going in the court and the court will (for reasons I leave to the reader) not liike it all. they will probably react in a 'spectacular fashion'. This needs an agile and prepared defendant. The most peaceable reaction I have seen is to postpone that case until the end of the day when there are no others left to see. However well its done it could still end up with a railroad decision.

 

These case are not about the law or justice. I hold back from expressing my full opinion of what is happening in these cases. Instead I will merely note that Magistrate's Court proceedings are not recorded for a multitude of reasons and leave to the reader to consider what those reasons may be. If anyone reading this feels they have the chutzpah to go this route then they need to think carefully if they are up to it and its potential consequences.

 

And to take their own independent note taker/recorder/shorthand exponent.

Edited by citizenB
formatted for easier reading
Link to post
Share on other sites

@ lamma above, as has been indicated before Crapita TVL is running a kangaroo court.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
HMCS runs the court....

 

Yes they do, but TVL Crapita basically run the bulk process and prosecute, so as they are a private company initiating criminal prosecutions, they are a kangaroo court imho

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes they do, but TVL Capita basically run the bulk process and prosecute, so as they are a private company initiating criminal prosecutions, they are a kangaroo court imho

 

I think that you will also find that under the Contracting out of Council Tax regs Capita also represent the Local Authority at the "bulk application" hearings in the Magistrates Court for Liability Orders......

Link to post
Share on other sites
I think that you will also find that under the Contracting out of Council Tax regs Capita also represent the Local Authority at the "bulk application" hearings in the Magistrates Court for Liability Orders......

Yes Indeed they do TT, again a kangaroo court that nods through bulk orders for peanuts then charges maybe 500% extra or more to the debtor a real cash raiser for the LA and their tame bailiffs, against people who maybe cannot afford the original bill.

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yes they do, but TVL Crapita basically run the bulk process and prosecute, so as they are a private company initiating criminal prosecutions, they are a kangaroo court imho

We agree. See my points about The Information and the duty of the JP.

Link to post
Share on other sites
We agree. See my points about The Information and the duty of the JP.

We most definitely do, these kangaroo proceedings, take a waggon and team of six through procedural fairness, and due process. perhaps they actually breach the European Convention on Human Rights, as in" Right to a fair trial"

We could do with some help from you.

PLEASE HELP US TO KEEP THIS SITE RUNNING EVERY POUND DONATED WILL HELP US TO KEEP HELPING OTHERS

 

Have we helped you ...?         Please Donate button to the Consumer Action Group

 

If you want advice on your thread please PM me a link to your thread

 

The bailiff: A 12th Century solution re-branded as Enforcement Agents for the 21st Century to seize and sell debtors goods as before Oh so Dickensian!

Link to post
Share on other sites
Questions to anyone viewing this thread.

 

If an Inspector visits...does anyone know how long the debtor is given to purchase a TV Licence

 

 

Secondly, does anyone know the approx length of time from when the inspector visits to the matter being heard in court?

 

I know the answer to both of those.

 

1. If a "visiting officer" calls and establishes that an offence is being committed (e.g. the occupier admits or is seen using a TV receiver) then a Record of Interview form (TVL 178 form) is completed, which would form the basis of Capita's subsequent prosecution evidence (assuming they decided to prosecute in that case). The occupier is not given the option of buying a licence, although some of them tender the fee there and then in the hope it will undo their "misdeed". If the visiting officer accepts the fee then they do so on the understanding that it does not prejudice any subsequent prosecution case (e.g. even if the occupier pays for the licence, they could still be prosecuted for the offence).

 

2. TV licence evasion is a summary offence, which means it is only dealt with by the Magistrates' Court. The prosecution must lay its case to the court (e.g. set the legal wheels in motion) within 120 days of the commission of the offence. If they miss this deadline then the case cannot proceed. Quite often cases are brought to court close to that deadline, so their is less "wiggle room" for the defendant to consider their options. A typical case might be heard before the court 4 or 5 months after the commission of the offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Correction, my bad: The times limit for laying information to the court, as set out in section 127 of the Magistrates' Court Act 1980, is 180 days.

 

I know the answer to both of those.

 

1. If a "visiting officer" calls and establishes that an offence is being committed (e.g. the occupier admits or is seen using a TV receiver) then a Record of Interview form (TVL 178 form) is completed, which would form the basis of Capita's subsequent prosecution evidence (assuming they decided to prosecute in that case). The occupier is not given the option of buying a licence, although some of them tender the fee there and then in the hope it will undo their "misdeed". If the visiting officer accepts the fee then they do so on the understanding that it does not prejudice any subsequent prosecution case (e.g. even if the occupier pays for the licence, they could still be prosecuted for the offence).

 

2. TV licence evasion is a summary offence, which means it is only dealt with by the Magistrates' Court. The prosecution must lay its case to the court (e.g. set the legal wheels in motion) within 120 days of the commission of the offence. If they miss this deadline then the case cannot proceed. Quite often cases are brought to court close to that deadline, so their is less "wiggle room" for the defendant to consider their options. A typical case might be heard before the court 4 or 5 months after the commission of the offence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

tvlb1

 

Excellent information.

 

You say that the prosecution needs to lay their case in court "within 120 days" (ie 4 months) of the "commission of the offence" and that a typical case will heard approx 4-5 months after the "commission of the offence".

 

So, are you saying that the "prosecution" have a maximum of 4 months to "lay their case" in court and if so what is the starting date ( commission of the offence"). Is this taken as being the date that the visiting officer established that a TV was being used?

 

It would seem from your answer that the court will hear the case very shortly after the prosecution have laid their case in court. I am correct?

 

Last two questions: Who prosecutes.....BBC or Capita?

 

From the example of the court hearing given it is clear that no defendants attended. Are any checks made to establish whether the "prosecution" have abided by the 120 day deadline?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I had a TV License rep keep coming around and kept getting letters addressed to "the occupier". I rang the licensing authority and told them i didn't want anyone visiting my property ever again, and they said OK. Then a few weeks later another visit. So I rang again demanding that they never ever visit me again and was told OK again.

 

I also told them I dont watch anything apart from CATCH UP tv, and they said therefore I didnt need a license.

 

The main thin is they NEVER had my name (hence always writing to "the occupier") and they cannot summons to court "the occupier". only "mr smith". Therefore I NEVER EVER gave my name to either the doorstep muppet, or anyone on the telephone at the licensing authority.

 

A few days later I got this:

 

photo.jpg

Link to post
Share on other sites

TT, six months to lay the information is standard as per the MCA and not just applicable to this 'activity'.

The summons may be generated later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

lamma,

 

This would explain why I have received so many enquiries from "debtors" who had not received a summons as they had moved address. I hadn't realised until today that TV Licensing have 6 months in which to "lay the complaint".

 

Very grateful indeed for the information. Thank you everyone.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I was mistaken on the 120 days - it's actually 180 days (see my earlier post a few above).

Capita bring the prosecutions on behalf of the BBC (who are the "Television Licensing Authority"). As long as the information is laid before the court within 180 days of the offence then Capita can proceed with the prosecution. What usually happens is that Capita inform the court, a summons is issued within about a fortnight, and the first hearing is scheduled about 4 or 5 weeks after that. They have to allow a reasonable length of time between the summons and hearing, as the defendant might wish to seek legal advice. If the defendant fails to reply to the summons then the hearing will still go ahead and they'll be found guilty and sentenced in their absence. Similarly if they plead guilty they will normally be sentenced in their absence, although they could attend if they wanted to. If they submit a plea of not guilty in response to the summons then at the first hearing their plea will be submitted and the court will adjourn matters for trial. The trial is usually about 6-8 weeks after the initial hearing.

 

tvlb1

 

Excellent information.

 

You say that the prosecution needs to lay their case in court "within 120 days" (ie 4 months) of the "commission of the offence" and that a typical case will heard approx 4-5 months after the "commission of the offence".

 

So, are you saying that the "prosecution" have a maximum of 4 months to "lay their case" in court and if so what is the starting date ( commission of the offence"). Is this taken as being the date that the visiting officer established that a TV was being used?

 

It would seem from your answer that the court will hear the case very shortly after the prosecution have laid their case in court. I am correct?

 

Last two questions: Who prosecutes.....BBC or Capita?

 

From the example of the court hearing given it is clear that no defendants attended. Are any checks made to establish whether the "prosecution" have abided by the 120 day deadline?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I've jumped from the first page of this thread to here, so apologies if i'm duplicating anything already said.

Firstly, if Capita TVL are now responsible for "Licence Enfarcement" then how can they actually sue anyobdy for not having a TV licence? I bet NOBODY has EVER signed a contract with Capita to agree to pay for a TV licence!

Secondly, the BBC should themselves be in court for obtaining money by deception. As i understand it, the Licence Fee was meant to go to the general running, upkeep etc of the transmitters but more importantly to making NEW programs! If that's the case, why are they doing re-runs of Only Fools & Horses during wekkday daytime tv?

Granted it was a fantastic series but the emphasis is on the "was". While that alone may have been worth the licence fee in 1983, would Capita accept the licence from 1983? After all, you're only watching what was on in that year! Put another way, if the BBC keep showing repeats, how come we are not allowed to use the licence repeatedly?

Thirdly and as far as i'm concerned, the licence fee should be abolished as an outdated, illegal, ownership tax.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Before posting any more, let me explain that I have a close interest in the topic of TV Licensing.

 

The licence fee is taxation that the BBC is responsible for enforcing and collecting by law (the Broadcasting Act 1990). The BBC chooses to contract that function out to Capita and all of the BBC's TV licence enforcement powers are delegated to Capita for that purpose. Capita do not sue anyone, but they do prosecute people who use a TV receiver without a licence. As I said, that responsibility has been delegated to them by the BBC. The is nothing in law that says how the BBC has to spend the licence fee.

 

As for the amount of repeats, you're absolutely right that it's farcical.

 

I've jumped from the first page of this thread to here, so apologies if i'm duplicating anything already said.

Firstly, if Capita TVL are now responsible for "Licence Enfarcement" then how can they actually sue anyobdy for not having a TV licence? I bet NOBODY has EVER signed a contract with Capita to agree to pay for a TV licence!

Secondly, the BBC should themselves be in court for obtaining money by deception. As i understand it, the Licence Fee was meant to go to the general running, upkeep etc of the transmitters but more importantly to making NEW programs! If that's the case, why are they doing re-runs of Only Fools & Horses during wekkday daytime tv?

Granted it was a fantastic series but the emphasis is on the "was". While that alone may have been worth the licence fee in 1983, would Capita accept the licence from 1983? After all, you're only watching what was on in that year! Put another way, if the BBC keep showing repeats, how come we are not allowed to use the licence repeatedly?

Thirdly and as far as i'm concerned, the licence fee should be abolished as an outdated, illegal, ownership tax.

Edited by ims21
Link to post
Share on other sites

Sadly i don't know (or pretend to know) all the laws regarding tv licencing. However, there are now hundreds of broadcasters of one form or another and to give the BBC a monopoly on collecting ilcence fees is tantamount to theft in my book.

For example, if you shopped at Sainsburys and were then told by a representative of tescos you had to pay a licence fee for shopping there regardless of whether you entered a tesco store or not, you'd soon tell tescos where to go!

Maybe that's simplifying it too much but i hope you get the point i'm trying to make?

Link to post
Share on other sites
Very hard to prove though that you watched a live broadcast. In any case these are usually provided with a fee attached via your service provider. e.g If it is live via Sky, then you would have to have a license anyway because Sky notifies the TV license people as soon as you sign up to them, as with the other providers.

 

Just wondering, do they still use TV detectors to see what you are watching, you dont see them about anymore. Be interested to know how reliable these were.

 

I remember being told years ago by a GPO electronics wizz that detector vans didn't really work, they just drove abrround with a list of unlicenced addresses and knocked on any doors that had an arial and no licence.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I remember as a kid asking my dad how tv detector vans worked and he explained it picked up on the "Front End" oscillations in the tv tuner. Without going into an electronics lecture, tv's of today and even of 30 years ago gave out much fewer emissions from their front ends and these days because of digital tuners would be very hard to identify, especially if there were more digitally tuned devices in the house such as mobile phones, Wi-fi devices, cordless phones - the list is potentially very long.

So it would seem the detector vans were simply a psychological threat with no real teeth behind the threat.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My son doesnt watch mainstream TV any more and watches it via the internet so hasn't paid for a TV license for over 2 years.

 

I haven't watched live TV (and hence not paid for a licence) for nearly 4 years, and I know people who have been Licence Free for a lot longer than that.

 

He lets them know every year that he is not watching mainstream TV and he doesn't have to pay for his license.

 

He's wasting his time, because they won't believe him.

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...