Jump to content



  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Good evening DX100   Here is a draft of my response to the court order.  I would be obliged if you could review it and avise me if I am on the right track.   Defendant Statement of Position in Response to the Order of the Sheriff   The defendant suffered Severe Depression illness almost 12 months prior to the closer of the Bank account. HBOS was made aware of the defendant illness.  A Medical Certificate dated 15 Sept 2017 was handed over to the bank as a proof. (A copy of the report will be submitted exclusively to the court review) The defendant, with the support of her ex-partner, sought a resolution from the OC regarding the escalation of her OD account, which it was mostly formed of extortionate bank charges/penalties being applied to the account. HBOS agreed to reduce the outstand OD sum to £XXX and closed the account. The defendant is confident that her ex-partner has settled the agreed sum with OC, but not absolutely certain, considering her health state at that time. She has been actively trying to reach for her ex-partner for documented evidence, but the fact that, we believe, he is a currently deployed by the UK military forces abroad and communication has been, to put it politely, very difficult due to the nature of his deployment. As the court is aware, the defendant has been trying to retrieve the data of her dealing with/from OC which it should reflect history of the above.  The defendant has already written twice to HBOS, as well as visiting her bank branch, on 01 March 2021, in person demanding the requested data.  HBOS promised to send the data to her as soon as they can. In addition to the above reasoning and contend, the defendant refute the claimants claim is owed or payable.  Due to punitive and extortionate fees the facility became untenable. Any alleged balance  claimed will consist totally of default penalties, punitive charges levied on the account for alleged late, rejected or over limit payments. The court will be aware that these charge types and the recoverability thereof have been judicially declared to be susceptible to assessments of fairness under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations 1999 The Office of Fair Trading v Abbey National PLC and others (2009). I will contend at trial that such charges are unfair in their entirety and any alleged balance was due to punitive and extortionate charges . It is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. Therefore the Claimant is put to strict proof to:-               a.    Provide a copy agreement/facility arrangement along with the Terms and Conditions at inception, which this claim is based on.               b.    Provide a copy of the Notice served under 76(1) and 98(1) of the CCA1974 Demand /Recall Notice and Notice of Assignment.               c.    Provide a breakdown of their excessive charging/fees levied to the account and justify how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed.               d.    Show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim.               e.    Evidence how they have complied with sections III & IV of Practice Direction - Pre-action Conduct.     10.   By reason of the facts and matters set out above, it is denied that the Claimant is entitled to the relief claimed or any relief.
    • Same thing. The fact that you declared £4.99 means that is the extent of any reasonable foreseeably consequence. Just go for that small amount. If they cause any problems then you can have a laugh when they spend many times more than what you're claiming in order to resist you. In future, when you contract with somebody – you need to understand that effectively it is an exchange of the reasonable expectations which you create in each other by your agreement.  
    • Current situation: contacted myhermes website's robot talk about the parcel and waiting for their email response. Thanks @BankFodder   I understand that if I were going to pursue under contract law, £4.99 would be the amount that I am entitled for compensate. How about if I were going to pursue this matter under tort - negligence? Would this allow me to pursue them according the true value of the items?
    • Hi UncleB, thanks for responding. I did call them back and it appears to be hit & miss with Devitt and dependent upon which Customer service agent you get.   Spoke with a very pleasant lady and told her that I, like them recorded all calls and gave date time of call and specific time at which a green card was stipulated in order for me to take out the policy.   *Two days later a hard copy of the green card landed on my doorstep. *Free of charge too.
    • Have you received a Parking Ticket? - Private Land Parking Enforcement - Consumer Action Group   please complete the above then we'll be best placed to advise further but the bottom line is no and don't ever appeal.    
  • Our picks

    • Ebay Packlink and Hermes - destroyed item as it was "damaged". https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/430396-ebay-packlink-and-hermes-destroyed-item-as-it-was-damaged/&do=findComment&comment=5087347
      • 25 replies
    • I sent in the bailiffs to the BBC. They collected £350. It made me smile.
        • Haha
        • Like
    • 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
  • Recommended Topics

TV licensing investigation..


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 1250 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

  • Replies 79
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

A few more details would be handy, why are they carrying out an investigation?

 

I've just done some digging around, do some googling.

Edited by rebel11
Link to post
Share on other sites

You own a TV but use it only for Playstation, Netflix and other on demand services. You do not watch live broadcasts.

Ash.

 

If you think I have helped you, please add to my reputation by clicking the star button to the left.

Thankyou.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I am assuming you have received a letter from TVL stating that your property is under investigation. These letters are deliberately worded to put the fear of god into people . TVL will send out letters on a monthly cycle to all property`s that are not licenced & are computer generated , they go in cycles of threats.1st you will get the low[ish] level , then the medium level, then they will put you under investigation & when no one responds, the cycle then starts again.

 

If you are watching live feeds then you do need to purchase a TVL, if you`re not watching live feeds then either bin the letters or if you keep rabbits or hamsters, they make good bedding. Never ever phone them or go online to explain your situation. If you don`t need a licence & are civil enough to inform them, they will still keep hounding you . In their eyes you are an evader even if you don`t legally require a TVL..... so what`s the point in engaging with them!.

If you get a visit from a TVL inspector [ Capita salesman] you are under no legal obligation to furnish him / her with any personal information. Don`t engage with them in any way, tell them to leave your property & carry on with your life. Certainly don`t let these cycle of letters worry you. If i have assumed wrongly then we would need further information & can then advise accordingly.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Send them the doorstep collectors letter. This will stop them coming to your home. Then basically just ignore them or send them a covering letter stating clearly that you do have a tv, but only use it to watch DVD's or play a console game. Since you removed their right to come to your house, they wont find out any different. It's a loophole in the law. It may be immoral to use it, but its also immoral to be forced under penalty of large fines or imprisonment to subsidise a private company such as the BBC. Even if you never watch BBC tv or listen to BBC radio, they still try and say you have to pay it.

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
Send them the doorstep collectors letter. This will stop them coming to your home. Then basically just ignore them or send them a covering letter stating clearly that you do have a tv, but only use it to watch DVD's or play a console game. Since you removed their right to come to your house, they wont find out any different. It's a loophole in the law. It may be immoral to use it, but its also immoral to be forced under penalty of large fines or imprisonment to subsidise a private company such as the BBC. Even if you never watch BBC tv or listen to BBC radio, they still try and say you have to pay it.

 

I very strongly disagree with this kind of advice. I also think it is very dangerous too.

The best & most effective way is the " no contact " rule. You immediately flag yourself up as a target if you use the WOIRA / doorstep collectors . There has recently been a spate of search warrants issued to people using WOIRA as a method of trying to keep the TVL out.

 

There is absolutely no " loophole" in the law either. You are not legally required to inform or contact TVL & furnish them with any information. It really is that simple. I have had 2 visits in 5 years. I just don`t answer the door to them. I throw the letters in the bin & don`t waste time or energy on the subject.

 

The " advice" in your post is absolutely guaranteed to flag yourself up to TVL as a person who wants to " take them on".

  • Confused 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
I very strongly disagree with this kind of advice. I also think it is very dangerous too.

The best & most effective way is the " no contact " rule. You immediately flag yourself up as a target if you use the WOIRA /

doorstep collectors . There has recently been a spate of search warrants issued to people using WOIRA as a method of trying to keep the TVL out.

 

There is absolutely no " loophole" in the law either. You are not legally required to inform or contact TVL & furnish them with any information. It really is that simple. I have had 2 visits in 5 years. I just don`t answer the door to them. I throw the letters in the bin & don`t waste time or energy on the subject.

 

The " advice" in your post is absolutely guaranteed to flag yourself up to TVL as a person who wants to " take them on".

 

I agree with you. I might start collecting the letters again though..

Link to post
Share on other sites

Disagree if you want. its not actually illegal ( unless you are watching tv programs ( even then its TECHINCALLY illegal). It also isnt FOTL stuff. It's stuff used from actual law ( not the made up stuff FOTL uses) and is used by people who refuse to be forced to pay a corrupt and private company.

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
Send them the doorstep collectors letter. This will stop them coming to your home. Then basically just ignore them or send them a covering letter stating clearly that you do have a tv, but only use it to watch DVD's or play a console game. Since you removed their right to come to your house, they wont find out any different. It's a loophole in the law. It may be immoral to use it, but its also immoral to be forced under penalty of large fines or imprisonment to subsidise a private company such as the BBC. Even if you never watch BBC tv or listen to BBC radio, they still try and say you have to pay it.

 

To be honest, I'd rather watch paint dry then contact them..

Link to post
Share on other sites

I prefer to send that letter. Then there is no chance of them bothering me ever again.

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
Disagree if you want. its not actually illegal ( unless you are watching tv programs ( even then its TECHINCALLY illegal). It also isnt FOTL stuff. It's stuff used from actual law ( not the made up stuff FOTL uses) and is used by people who refuse to be forced to pay a corrupt and private company.

 

 

OK let me explain, if you watch live TV feeds... you need a TV licence

 

If you don`t watch live TV feeds... you don`t need a TV licence.

Simple to understand ?.

 

If you don`t legally require a TVL , don`t bother communicating with TVL / Capita / BBC.

 

People come to this site to get clear, concise & accurate legal advice . I think if we post advice , then it should be with a good degree of knowledge & a duty of care to the recipient . Yours, is at best, wibble wobble nonsense & could potentially get people into very deep water.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too disagree with Renegadeimp's advice, withdrawing permission to visit may seem like a 'clever' idea but it can backfire, I believe it isnt wise to 'flag yourself' up in this way, there have been documented cases where once flagged up in this way, a warrant is sought for and granted, TVL (maybe accompanied by the Police) then have a legal right to enter the premises.

 

The best advice is IMO to do nothing, there is no legal onligation to inform TVL if you don't need a licence and writing withdrawing notice to visit isnt neccassary and provocative.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I too agree that it is best NOT to withdraw your permission for them to visit.

 

I'd suggest saying they can try to visit anytime, as whatever time they try they won't find you watching live (or 'almost live') TV, but equally you know you are under no obligation to answer or in any way engage with their staff.

 

You don't watch live (or 'almost live') TV, and have no more to add.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I know its not the best idea. But until they actually caution you or get in your house, theyre the same as a dca.

 

All ill say is it worked for me and they sent me a letter saying they acknowledge I dont watch live tv and nobody will ever call.

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

If anyone has any doubts about how Capita /TVL / BBC, love to get issued with a WIROA . Here is a link about a current Face Book page that is strongly suspected to be have been set up for the sole purpose of mis information & catching people after they have been encouraged to go down the WIROA route. It is a very long topic but well worth the effort & should open a few eyes as to how devious & untrustworthy the whole TVL collection business is.

 

Secondly , i would like to apologise to Renigadeimp for my " wibble wobble " comment . It is not helpful or harmonious to the site & although i strongly disagree with his / her views, i should know better than to resort to silliness. My sincere apologises to you Renigadeimp.

 

The back story , these 2 people have set up a FB group with virtually the same name as a well known TVL resistance site. Despite repeated requests to change the name they have refused, this makes very interesting & disturbing reading.

 

http://www.tvlicenceresistance.info/forum/index.php/topic,8603.0.html

Link to post
Share on other sites
I know its not the best idea.

 

And yet you`re still advising others to follow that route, unbelievable IMO. I would also be interested in seeing a scan of this letter , because at best, TVL will only give any property that is not licenced a 2 year window of non contact & that is after they have inspected the property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I suggested it. Not directly advised it. However, i understand the concerns which is why im not mentioning anymore.

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

 

 

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

:D

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

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...