Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • The 1st 2 calls were the normal scam calls. get a truecall box   the PDC stuff you ignore their letter States our client three whom if you wanted too you deal with directly.   Until/unless whenever it gets sold on too and they eventually send a letter of claim you maintain radio silence    
    • hi all. bit of advice please. I had a Three contract up until November last year. At £11pcm for 24mths. Paid every month on time via their online portal. When I ported over, I received a letter from Three thanking me for being a customer blah blah blah.. It also said IF I owed anything a final bill will be sent. No final bill ever received - I get a phone call around the first week in December form an Indian sounding man who was extremly difficult to understand. Said he was calling from Three, and wanted me to confirm my details - something of which I didnt as something didnt sit right. He said I could log into my account and review my bill as I owed money and then hung up. After the call I thought I'd best log into my account just in case.  Couldnt log in. Account access denied. Logged on to chat - they said as I ported over and I was no longer a customer my access was suspended. Couple of weeks later I had another call from a local area number and answered again it was some Indian guy telling me I owed money, wanting me to confirm details. I refused and he said details will be sent out to me to my email on account and my home address as it was important. Once again nothing.. 15th Dec I received an email from PastDue in my name RE Three. Email stated they were contacting me about Three an I should receive a letter soon regards to this matter. Says about visiting their website.  22nd Jan another email form Pastdue. Stating they have yet to receive a response to the letter, and they had already sent me an email about this. We will continue to contact you until this matter is resolved. Again asks me to login. 23rd Jan letter received dated 13th Jan. Titled "We are here to help keep your Three Services"  Claiming I owed "Airetime Balance £201.43" and contract period was 26/11/2019 to 25/11/2020 States "We have been appointed by Three to recover the amount of £201.43. If you pay this amount in full Three may be able to waive the cancellation fee and reconnect their service for you" - what cancellation fee / re connection??? I ended the contract giving the 30days notice and paying the last bill.. Then the normal crap about its important to pay. If I'm experiencing difficulties etc. Now both December and  January Credit reports from ClearScore, Credit Karma, Credit Expert, Totally Money and Equifax all show Three as Closed and balance as Zero. (Date Satisfied /closed 17th Nov, bal 0, last updated 30th Nov) I've had nothing from Three. As far as I'm concerned I owe nothing as no final bill and no access to the portal. Should I email PastDue and do a prove it & attach proof of Credit Reports being £0 or do I do something else?  
    • Hi she did say she was cancelling and returned the equipment. It looks like they put her on a rolling contract for 24 months when she phoned before trying to reduce her payments as they kept going up. I know Sky haven't done that to me. She didn't see that email as she's had lots of stressful situations. No.letter in post or when she originally phoned about reducing her bill well over £100 they didn't tell her about this contract. Like you say there should be recordings. BT mobile contract is separate to broadband and the cancellation fee is for the broadband. They have blocked her mobile so she can't use it and that is a contract. She is phoning CAB in the morning and checking through her paperwork. I'm quite happy with Sky as they tell you upfront what is happening and have never rolled over my contract. Thanks for taking time to reply it is much appreciated. 
  • Our picks

    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
    • Hi @BankFodder
      Sorry for only updating you now, but after your guidance with submitting the claim it was pretty straight forward and I didn't want to unnecessarily waste your time. Especially with this guide you wrote here, so many thanks for that
      So I issued the claim on day 15 and they requested more time to respond.
      They took until the last day to respond and denied the claim, unsurprisingly saying my contract was with Packlink and not with them.
       
      I opted for mediation, and it played out very similarly to other people's experiences.
       
      In the first call I outlined my case, and I referred to the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 as the reason to why I do in fact have a contract with them. 
       
      In the second call the mediator came back with an offer of the full amount of the phone and postage £146.93, but not the court costs. I said I was not willing to accept this and the mediator came across as a bit irritated that I would not accept this and said I should be flexible. I insisted that the law was on my side and I was willing to take them to court. The mediator went back to Hermes with what I said.
       
      In the third call the mediator said that they would offer the full amount. However, he said that Hermes still thought that I should have taken the case against Packlink instead, and that they would try to recover the court costs themselves from Packlink.
       
      To be fair to them, if Packlink wasn't based in Spain I would've made the claim against them instead. But since they are overseas and the law lets me take action against Hermes directly, it's the best way of trying to recover the money.
       
      So this is a great win. Thank you so much for your help and all of the resources available on this site. It has helped me so much especially as someone who does not know anything about making money claims.
       
      Many thanks, stay safe and have a good Christmas!
       
       
        • Thanks
    • Hermes and mediation hints. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428981-hermes-and-mediation-hints/&do=findComment&comment=5080003
      • 1 reply
    • Natwest Bank Transfer Fraud Call HMRC Please help. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/428951-natwest-bank-transfer-fraud-call-hmrc-please-help/&do=findComment&comment=5079786
      • 31 replies

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 2494 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

Question-- When is a television not a television ? Answer-- When you don't have one..

 

Won't stop TVL demanding you buy a license for the non existent TV, or trying to get the non TV owner from confessing to not having a license during that "doorstep interview under caution" which the goon will use to ground a prosecution, even though they aren't guilty of any offence. TVL Capita goons are as bad as a rogue bailiff. It is high time they were stopped.

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
  • Replies 214
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Won't stop TVL demanding you buy a license for the non existent TV, or trying to get the non TV owner from confessing to not having a license during that "doorstep interview under caution" which the goon will use to ground a prosecution, even though they aren't guilty of any offence. TVL Capita goons are as bad as a rogue bailiff. It is high time they were stopped.

 

Been through it all. Got the T shirt. I used to ignore there demands. They never stopped but they still got nothing out of me. Since it went digital I get no more letters. Am curious about that..

Link to post
Share on other sites
Been through it all. Got the T shirt. I used to ignore there demands. They never stopped but they still got nothing out of me. Since it went digital I get no more letters. Am curious about that..

 

Perhaps you have an analogue letter box and it won't accept the letters TVL send out "requesting" you furnish them with details of the householder? :D

 

On a more sensible level, it's a possibility that if you hadn't obtained a digibox of any description before the change through "official" channels (ie got one second hand) then you wouldn't be logged on the system as having any digital recieving kit. As such maybe they decided to stop bothering you. If you have since bought anything new, chances are your name/address will be passed to TVL.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Pity it is ALL repeats day and night and old 50/60/70/80s TV Crap.

 

That's because the crap produced in the 90's/00's is even worse and they would be totally ashamed to broadcast it! Trouble is when you produce a licence from the relevant period they don't seem to understand!

Link to post
Share on other sites
That's because the crap produced in the 90's/00's is even worse and they would be totally ashamed to broadcast it! Trouble is when you produce a licence from the relevant period they don't seem to understand!

 

 

 

Good point there

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites
You only get one email per several posts on a busy topic and if, like myself, you wait a while to check the thread then you'll have missed what was going on as the posts in question have been removed.

 

Funny,I get Emails ever time someone replies to a thread !

Please use the quote system, So everyone will know what your referring too, thank you ...

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

It always makes me giggle just how worked people get over £12 or so a month. There's far more to be proud of the beeb than there isn't.

 

I, for one, quite like being able to avoid advertising.

 

That said the TV licensing thing IS massively outdated and needs an overhaul.

Link to post
Share on other sites
It always makes me giggle just how worked people get over £12 or so a month. There's far more to be proud of the beeb than there isn't.

 

I, for one, quite like being able to avoid advertising.

 

That said the TV licensing thing IS massively outdated and needs an overhaul.

 

 

While i understand what you're saying, i think it's grossly unfair that the people (like myself) that rarely, if ever watch the BBC are FORCED to buy a licence to view ALL tv programmes as they are broadcast.

I made this point to a friend the other day (and i think on this thread in an earlier post) that it's akin to doing your shopping in Sainsburys, Asda or Morrisons then Tesco turning up and demanding payment for the right to go shopping regardless of where you shop.

I also feel it's highly unfair to criminalise using a tv without a licence.

 

There is of course a very easy way round all this. Add the licence fee to the subscription packages provided by the likes of Sky, Virginmedia, Talk-talk etc and encrypt the BBCs broadcasts. In this way those that want to watch the BBCs products pay the subscription to the BBC, no more "criminals" are created and it releases a LOT of valuable court time to deal with things the courts should be dealing with such as paedophiles, rapists, murderers, drug dealers etc.

Naturally free to air and catch-up/on-demand internet services would not be effected by this so everyone's a winner. Except Crapita of course - all they get is the sack! Yay-ay-ay!!!

Link to post
Share on other sites

It certainly needs to change, that's for sure.

 

I'm happy to pay £12 a month just for 6music and not watch a TV show at all (although Sherlock is worth the fee alone IMO). I used to like the news but its gone down hill ever sicne the Hutton enquiry etc.

 

I wonder how else they could do it?

Link to post
Share on other sites
It certainly needs to change, that's for sure.

 

I'm happy to pay £12 a month just for 6music and not watch a TV show at all (although Sherlock is worth the fee alone IMO). I used to like the news but its gone down hill ever sicne the Hutton enquiry etc.

 

I wonder how else they could do it?

 

As I posted further back on the thread, the BBC could easily use digital encryption with the licence being the key.

Anyone watching live BBC programmes has to pay by default.

Obviously with that system in place customers would have the option of deciding whether the subscription was worth it.

I suspect quite a few would decide that £12 per month isn't.

Which is why digital encryption of BBC channels is not likely to make an appearance anytime soon.

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
As I posted further back on the thread, the BBC could easily use digital encryption with the licence being the key.

Anyone watching live BBC programmes has to pay by default.

Obviously with that system in place customers would have the option of deciding whether the subscription was worth it.

I suspect quite a few would decide that £12 per month isn't.

Which is why digital encryption of BBC channels is not likely to make an appearance anytime soon.

 

I think you're right.

 

It's an interesting idea for sure. It could that the key is attached to a device which you travel with - thus allowing access to TV + radio anywhere you go.

 

But, as you say, I can't see it working out.

 

I guess at some point the beeb are likely to have to start considering advertising. And that would be awful.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I like watching some of that crap :lol:

 

 

LOL:-D Not all of it was crap. Mind you figital encryption ( figital because the BBC would play around with it as in figit with encryption keys, stress about someone cracking it like DVDCSS Jon, bork it and it would never work right ) and £2 per month as an add on to Sky, or BT Vision or whatever is about right, £12 is too dear for the TV content at least.

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

I have recently heard that there is no longer any legal requirement when being sold a television to request and send details to tv licensing. On the issue of the license fee what is it being used for ? and if all that is required for the fee to be paid is a signal that is capable of being received then is there any other obligation to produce quality programmes other than just keep on repeating the same old rubbish..

Link to post
Share on other sites
LOL:-D Not all of it was crap. Mind you figital encryption ( figital because the BBC would play around with it as in figit with encryption keys, stress about someone cracking it like DVDCSS Jon, bork it and it would never work right ) and £2 per month as an add on to Sky, or BT Vision or whatever is about right, £12 is too dear for the TV content at least.

 

I have to agree £12.00 per month is far too much, especially when I can go for weeks without watching anything on the beeb. Its like having broadband and not using it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

My main issue with the TV licence is it's a criminal offence not to have one which I find absurd to the extreme.

 

I can understand licensing for broadcast equipment which could interfere with essential services communication, an issue as I recall with the old CB craze. Viewing a broadcast is a passive activity that harms no one.

Edited by osdset

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My main issue with the TV licence is it's a criminal offence not to have one which I find absurd to the extreme.

 

I can understand licensing for broadcast equipment which could interfere with essential services communication, an issue as I recall with the old CB craze. Viewing a broadcast is a passive activity that harms no one.

Ahh the good old CB era, did we need a license for a CB? I dont ever remember having one.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Ahh the good old CB era, did we need a license for a CB? I dont ever remember having one.

No one did! I didn't realise that CB was only legal in the UK from 1981, so everyone was breaking the law before that.

There was controversy over the 'aunty mary' or AM frequency which supposedly interfered with a lot of other stuff, but as I recall I 'got out' much further on AM mind you running four watts into an 85 watt set of 'boots' probably helped a bit!

 

I wonder if anyone still goes on it?

 

"side slide with your handle and twenty!"

 

Edit

 

I remember getting my hands on an Astatic Eagle base rig mike, the creme de la creme of CB mikes, cost me a bomb at the time, but a more crystal clear microphone could not be had anywhere, and identified the world over by the distinctive metallic 'clunk' when yer keyed up, luverly!

Edited by osdset

 

Corruptissima re publica plurimae leges

 

Being poor is like being a Pelican. No matter where you look, all you see is a large bill.

Link to post
Share on other sites
My main issue with the TV licence is it's a criminal offence not to have one which I find absurd to the extreme.

 

I can understand licensing for broadcast equipment which could interfere with essential services communication, an issue as I recall with the old CB craze. Viewing a broadcast is a passive activity that harms no one.

 

I totally agree it is obsurd that it constitutes a criminal offence, they should reserve that for

Actual crimes that hurt people.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Well yes but, they get away with it. Which makes me sick. But what can ya do?

Answer the door with a box made to resemble a TV over your head, and ask the goon if he has a license to watch you, and remind him he is under caution.

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
I have recently heard that there is no longer any legal requirement when being sold a television to request and send details to tv licensing. On the issue of the license fee what is it being used for ? and if all that is required for the fee to be paid is a signal that is capable of being received then is there any other obligation to produce quality programmes other than just keep on repeating the same old rubbish..

 

 

 

We wish!

:mad2::-x:jaw::sad:
Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...