Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Hi slick!    On 22 July they said they would refund me £74.07 Theres no DD in place as my membership was a once off payment in November last year. 
    • I'm trying to understand it all but I certainly tend to agree with my colleague @dx100uk that it looks as if you may have been taken for a ride. You found an advertisement for a bag on an online sales site. Instead of going through the established procedure of that site, which presumably allows them to recover a commission from the seller you started dealing directly with the seller who is an unknown person to you and of course that allowed the seller to avoid paying the commission. At whose suggestion was it that you went off-site? You then pay by PayPal but instead of logging it with PayPal as a payment for a purchased item, you tell PayPal that it was actually simply a gift or transaction between friends and family. This also allowed the seller to avoid paying a PayPal fee on the money. At whose suggestion was it that you paid in this way?       I don't say that you definitely have been scammed, but it doesn't look very good. This is how it might have happened: after you agreed to take the transaction off-site, so you lost the protection of the established system – and the seller avoided the commission and also avoided the sales site knowing that they had sold their item, you then agreed to pay the seller some money – but not for a purchase – simply as a gift. This has two consequences. Firstly, the seller avoids a PayPal fee and secondly, because PayPal has been misled as to the purpose of the payment, you lose the protection of PayPal if it turns out that you've been scammed or there is some other problem with the transaction. The seller then apparently sent you the parcel and they sent you pictures of a package with your address on it. Separately they sent you a Hermes tracking number – but there is no evidence that the package was actually posted to your address. The seller might simply have taken a picture with your address and sent that to you by way of reassurance – and then changed the label and posted the parcel to themselves but sent you a tracking number which is inaccessible to you and in respect of which you will be prevented from getting any information. All you've seen is a parcel with your address on it. All you've been given is a tracking number which satisfied you for a while until the parcel did not arrive and then when you started to make enquiries, you found that you were unable to access any details referring to the tracking number. Of course the tracking number says that the item was delivered – because maybe it was – but in that case it was delivered to the address on the parcel which might have been the seller's own address – or the address of a friend. I don't want to say that this is definitely how it happened, but it is a plausible scenario. Of course Hermes is an awful lot of parcels – but on the other hand I expect that most of the parcel is that going to Hermes hands are delivered successfully. We only get the bad stories on this forum. I can imagine that Hermes rate of successful deliveries is better than 97% because otherwise people wouldn't simply just hate them, they would go out of business.   We can help you bring a complaint against Hermes if you want. However, on the basis of what you say, the odds are stacked against you but it would be useful to try and find out the address which was associated with tracking number. As far as your apparent willingness to travel hundred and 50 miles to ask for your money back, don't bother. If you did actually go there, are you sure that the seller actually lives at the address that you have been given? What evidence do you have that? Of course if you found that the seller didn't reside at that address then it is slamdunk that you have been scammed. But then what are you going to do? You can try to inform the police but of course it won't get you anywhere. You can inform the sales website – but they will say that you brought it on yourself because you agreed to go off-site. You can inform PayPal – that they will say that because you sent the money which was calculated to avoid their fees, you have lost the protection. If you travelled the 150 miles and found that the seller did reside at that address, do you really think that they are going to hand your money over to you? If they are acting dishonestly then they will simply say that it is nothing to do with them, that they addressed it all correctly and they don't understand what has happened and that this is simply Hermes up to their old tricks. What are you going to do? You simply risk getting into a very nasty argument and depending on how bad it went, you might even find that the police are called and I'm afraid that they would be looking at you – not the seller. Maybe you can answer the questions that I've post above as to who it is who initiated the various ways of doing business.    
    • The legal campaign's going well then. The recount in Wisconsin gave Trump more votes but Biden even more, at a cost of $3m. And a donor to the organisation bringing the failed cases is suing to get his $2.5m back.   https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/28/joe-biden-gains-votes-in-wisconsin-county-after-trump-ordered-recount
    • Yes Unicorn feed tax again, can't sue the keeper for more than the Original Charge, so any additional Debt Collection fees aka the £60 they add is abuse,iof process as per HHJ Harvey at Lewes county Court What lookedinfroinfo is indicating is that the main signage on entry and dotted around is merely an " Invitation to Treat", not the offer, the Offer and Acceptance occurs at the payment machine, so wording there is key.
  • Our picks

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 2437 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...