Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for posting the CPR contents. i do wish you hadn't blanked out the dates and times since at times they can be relevant . Can you please repost including times and dates. They say that they sent a copy of  the original  PCN that they sent to the Hirer  along with your hire agreement documents. Did you receive them and if so can you please upload the original PCN without erasing dates and times. If they did include  all the paperwork they said, then that PCN is pretty near compliant except for their error with the discount time. In the Act it isn't actually specified but to offer a discount for 14 days from the OFFENCE is a joke. the offence occurred probably a couple of months prior to you receiving your Notice to Hirer.  Also the words in parentheses n the Act have been missed off. Section 14 [5][c] (c)warn the hirer that if, after the period of 21 days beginning with the day after that on which the notice to hirer is given, the amount of unpaid parking charges referred to in the notice to keeper under paragraph 8(2)(f) or 9(2)(f) (as the case may be) has not been paid in full, the creditor will (if any applicable requirements are met) have the right to recover from the hirer so much of that amount as remains unpaid; Though it states "if any applicable ...." as opposed to "if all applicable......" in Section 8 or 9. Maybe the Site could explain what the difference between the two terms mean if there is a difference. Also on your claim form they keeper referring to you as the driver or the keeper.  You are the Hirer and only the Hirer is responsible for the charge EVEN IF THEY WEREN'T THE DRIVER. So they cannot pursue the driver and nowhere in the Hirer section of the Act is the hirer ever named as the keeper so NPC are pursuing the wrong person.  
    • This is simply a scam site.  It's been shown to be a scam in the national press and on national TV. Please fill in the the forum sticky and upload the invoice you've received. In fact what you have is an invoice, not a fine, a private company doesn't have the power to issue fines.  
    • Moved to the Private Parking forum.
  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

    • If you are buying a used car – you need to read this survival guide.
      • 1 reply
    • Hello,

      On 15/1/24 booked appointment with Big Motoring World (BMW) to view a mini on 17/1/24 at 8pm at their Enfield dealership.  

      Car was dirty and test drive was two circuits of roundabout on entry to the showroom.  Was p/x my car and rushed by sales exec and a manager into buying the mini and a 3yr warranty that night, sale all wrapped up by 10pm.  They strongly advised me taking warranty out on car that age (2017) and confirmed it was honoured at over 500 UK registered garages.

      The next day, 18/1/24 noticed amber engine warning light on dashboard , immediately phoned BMW aftercare team to ask for it to be investigated asap at nearest garage to me. After 15 mins on hold was told only their 5 service centres across the UK can deal with car issues with earliest date for inspection in March ! Said I’m not happy with that given what sales team advised or driving car. Told an amber warning light only advisory so to drive with caution and call back when light goes red.

      I’m not happy to do this, drive the car or with the after care experience (a sign of further stresses to come) so want a refund and to return the car asap.

      Please can you advise what I need to do today to get this done. 
       

      Many thanks 
      • 81 replies
    • Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
    • We have finally managed to obtain the transcript of this case.

      The judge's reasoning is very useful and will certainly be helpful in any other cases relating to third-party rights where the customer has contracted with the courier company by using a broker.
      This is generally speaking the problem with using PackLink who are domiciled in Spain and very conveniently out of reach of the British justice system.

      Frankly I don't think that is any accident.

      One of the points that the judge made was that the customers contract with the broker specifically refers to the courier – and it is clear that the courier knows that they are acting for a third party. There is no need to name the third party. They just have to be recognisably part of a class of person – such as a sender or a recipient of the parcel.

      Please note that a recent case against UPS failed on exactly the same issue with the judge held that the Contracts (Rights of Third Parties) Act 1999 did not apply.

      We will be getting that transcript very soon. We will look at it and we will understand how the judge made such catastrophic mistakes. It was a very poor judgement.
      We will be recommending that people do include this adverse judgement in their bundle so that when they go to county court the judge will see both sides and see the arguments against this adverse judgement.
      Also, we will be to demonstrate to the judge that we are fair-minded and that we don't mind bringing everything to the attention of the judge even if it is against our own interests.
      This is good ethical practice.

      It would be very nice if the parcel delivery companies – including EVRi – practised this kind of thing as well.

       

      OT APPROVED, 365MC637, FAROOQ, EVRi, 12.07.23 (BRENT) - J v4.pdf
        • Like

TV License to extend to iPlayer, possibly?..


porkyp1g
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3691 days.

If you need to add something to this thread then

 

Please click the "Report " link

 

at the bottom of one of the posts.

 

If you want to post a new story then

Please

Start your own new thread

That way you will attract more attention to your story and get more visitors and more help 

 

Thanks

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 58
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

The man is a muppet and a poltroon, the genie is out of the bottle, and the TV Tax should be abolished.

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 found this & thought it was one of the best written & well balanced pieces of journalism about the BBC funding debacle , although i disagree with the quote that " most people would be happy to subscribe" .

 

I believe the BBC is doomed, but it needs to get the PR department working flat out as it has the funding review in 2015 /16. The public has had enough, an ever growing number of people can see that the corporation is well past it`s sell by date .

‘The big threat to BBC funding doesn’t come from devious private-sector bosses or angry politicians , *or so called evaders *.. It comes from technological change, and the changing market that accompanies it'

 

 

This week Lord Hall, director general of the BBC, will take on critics who suggest that other channels should share the license fee. By criticising the corporation's market dominance and guaranteed multibillion-pound budget, they endanger the whole future of broadcasting in the UK, he is due to tell the Oxford Media Convention on Wednesday.

 

It's easy to see why he's squealing. The BBC's license fee funding model is under fire, questioned like never before by competitors, politicians and – increasingly – consumers. Who wouldn't lash out if they stood to lose the comfort of a £3.6bn income, received without the need to actually win business?

 

Unfortunately Hall has picked the wrong targets. The big threat to BBC funding doesn't come from devious private-sector bosses or angry politicians. It comes from technological change, and the changing market that accompanies it.

 

The story of the last 20 or 30 years has been one of ever-increasing choice. In almost every aspect of our lives we are empowered by the ability to abandon old, clunky and expensive ways of doing things and award our business to those who work out how to do them better and more affordably.

 

That process has accelerated significantly in recent years. Increasingly you don't just get to choose your supplier, you can control every detail of the service you buy (a process which will continue as 3D printing becomes more economical).

 

Accordingly, consumer expectations have changed. Deference is dead, as the power of online feedback can make or break a business. The idea of placidly waiting weeks for a service, as BT used to demand before privatisation, is unacceptable in an age where you can simply switch supplier. People want to buy things that meet their needs, not adapt their needs to what is given to them.

 

These are the forces that Hall is up against – and they're a sight more mighty than mere Channel 4 executives.

 

The BBC license fee is a relic from another age, left behind by the evolution of technology and society. Simply asserting that the corporation has produced many great programmes is not enough to protect its funding model from the march of progress.

 

When other broadcasters either provide their content for free or allow subscribers to build their own package of channels, the approach of compelling people to buy the whole shebang via a tax is becoming indefensible.

 

Just as someone who wants to watch Sky Sports doesn't have to buy children's TV, why should I have to pay for access to BBC Three's Hotter Than My Daughter when I actually want to up my blood pressure by watching Question Time?

 

These aren't hypothetical questions, and ignoring them will not make them go away. Already, the number of people who tell the TV Licensing Authority they don't need a license has topped 400,000 – the number simply watching TV online without interacting with TVLA at all is undoubtedly much higher.

 

Given those facts, we mustn't blame Hall for feeling under pressure. When any monopolistic organisation has its dominance challenged by insurgent competitors or new technologies, they tend to start sweating. That's only natural when, having grown fat as the undisputed king of the jungle, they realise their crown is slipping.

 

It's the director general's response to that pressure that is so deplorable. Instead of scrutinising the market, questioning the funding model or accepting that times have changed, he has chosen to lash out.

 

If the BBC doesn't lead the debate on how to reform its funding, then it will simply fall further behind the times. The further behind it gets, the more resentment will grow and the more people will simply refuse to pay the tax. That way lies a slow, crumbling death.

 

If he really cared for British broadcasting and the corporation that bears its name, Hall would be the first to argue for an end to the license fee and for a move to a subscription model.

 

Most people would choose to sign up, and the BBC's size and cost would be backed by consent, not compulsion – a much more appropriate model for modern times.

 

**i added this bit:wink:

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely this would be even more unforceable than the current TV licence setup, although I guess that the iPlayer site could require some sort of login with details from your licence and/or payment but Id think this would be very succesful or popular, some newspaper sites have tried a pay to view option and its been a bit of a flop.

 

Best option would surely be to scrap the licence, its an outdated and unforceable model with plenty of loopholes.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Surely this would be even more unforceable than the current TV licence setup, although I guess that the iPlayer site could require some sort of login with details from your licence and/or payment but Id think this would be very succesful or popular, some newspaper sites have tried a pay to view option and its been a bit of a flop.

 

Best option would surely be to scrap the licence, its an outdated and unforceable model with plenty of loopholes.

 

What loopholes Andy?, could you please enlighten me.

 

We hear this time & time again. You either watch live broadcast TV or you don`t. You either require & license or you don`t. It really is as black & white as that.

 

Catch up TV is not a loophole, it is a free, across the board service available to one & all , watching live TV without a license is illegal , not a loophole. I`m not having a go, i am just very frustrated at this perception of a " loophole" , it is utter nonsense, wrong & misleading.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well..many refer to the fact you can watch tv not live but an hour or so later a 'loophole' .

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304280/BBC-silence-licence-loophole-Corporation-refuses-say-households-need-catch-online.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2011/oct/30/bbc-loophole-on-demand-licence-fee

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article3731487.ece

 

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/iplayer-tv-license-loophole-201111031497.htm

 

You can also click the live feed online and jump back an hour or two or maybe even 10 minutes..you are not watching 'live tv', and it could be argued that as you are not watching live tv that a licence is not needed, I would call this a loophole, although this hasnt been clarified in court as far as I know.

 

Also as it stands whilst not a loophole as such, it is almost impossible to enforce against people watching live tv on mobile devices and as far as I know there have been no prosecutions for people watching live tv on phones.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never paid never will.

If you needed a licence for a TV then they would be sold at point of purchase, as they're not, because it would be an admin nightmare, the title "Licence" is misleading, it is yet another unenforceable tax.

Unless of course you convict yourself, which is the only way prosecutions are carried out.

 

It still remains a very emotive subject as some believe the 'non' payers increase the tax for those who do, this isn't so.

The BBC is extremely wealthy, not paying their tax won't see them go to the wall.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Never paid never will.

If you needed a licence for a TV then they would be sold at point of purchase, as they're not, because it would be an admin nightmare, the title "Licence" is misleading, it is yet another unenforceable tax.

Unless of course you convict yourself, which is the only way prosecutions are carried out.

 

It still remains a very emotive subject as some believe the 'non' payers increase the tax for those who do, this isn't so.

The BBC is extremely wealthy, not paying their tax won't see them go to the wall.

I'm guessing you never ever watch Live TV on any device then?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ok people. Whilst it clearly is perfectly acceptable to not have a licence and only ever watch catch up progs. Please dont claim that you dont have a licence and still watch live TV as we dont want to be seen to condone law-breaking.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm guessing you never ever watch Live TV on any device then?

Absolutely none of your business. You're fighting a losing battle if you're trying to gain the moral high ground.

Who ever heard of someone getting a job at the Jobcentre? The unemployed are sent there as penance for their sins, not to help them find work!

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well..many refer to the fact you can watch tv not live but an hour or so later a 'loophole' .

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2304280/BBC-silence-licence-loophole-Corporation-refuses-say-households-need-catch-online.html

 

http://www.theguardian.com/media/organgrinder/2011/oct/30/bbc-loophole-on-demand-licence-fee

 

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/medianews/article3731487.ece

 

http://www.hdtvtest.co.uk/news/iplayer-tv-license-loophole-201111031497.htm

 

You can also click the live feed online and jump back an hour or two or maybe even 10 minutes..you are not watching 'live tv', and it could be argued that as you are not watching live tv that a licence is not needed, I would call this a loophole, although this hasnt been clarified in court as far as I know.

 

Also as it stands whilst not a loophole as such, it is almost impossible to enforce against people watching live tv on mobile devices and as far as I know there have been no prosecutions for people watching live tv on phones.

 

Thanks for the source information. The word " loophole" has become a headline grabber, guaranteed to get peoples attention, but it is the wrong terminology. There is no loophole, catch up, is free to watch , perfectly legal & has caught the BBC with their trousers down. In every link you have provided it states this clearly, but the headline is designed to attract not quantify. My first post & my inclusion of the article in this thread clearly shows how the BBC has been left behind & the advancement of technology has resulted in the TVL for modern devices that are capable of receiving LB`s, is not controllable , nor can it be verified unless they [ BBC] get a bolt on to include the internet on the TVL. This would require all ISP`s to furnish the BBC with data regarding their customers , that is a clear breach of the DPA. As for the time delay, if you are not watching live feeds then you do not require a TVL, again, very clear. The only reason the BBC has not touched this is [ in court] they know the result would not go in their favour. Far easier to persuade the government that it is losing revenue to the internet than actually put someone in court & risk setting precedents & having the whole TVL called into question. This is a PR & propaganda war , expect the heat to be turned up over the next 12 months as the TVL review gets even closer.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...the reference to loophole is that people can quite legallly watch the majority of BBC programs without paying for a licence, yes true its not an actual loophole in the law, as the law does mention live tv.

 

Watching the live tv feed up but jumping back just a few mins is very interesting as you can watch every program on all the BBC channels like this and it would appear that you are complying with the letter of the law, in that you are not watching 'live' tv, you are watching the program direct from BBC servers but as it was, for example 5 mins in the past, I'd consider this a true loophole, this differs for example from using a similar featureon your dvr/digital device where your device is recording live tv but youve chosen to watch it delayed by 5 mins or so so in theory you would still need a licence.

 

This is why i consider the current TV licence is unforceable and in fact I'n surprised by the amount of people who still pay for it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well...the reference to loophole is that people can quite legallly watch the majority of BBC programs without paying for a licence, yes true its not an actual loophole in the law, as the law does mention live tv.

 

Watching the live tv feed up but jumping back just a few mins is very interesting as you can watch every program on all the BBC channels like this and it would appear that you are complying with the letter of the law, in that you are not watching 'live' tv, you are watching the program direct from BBC servers but as it was, for example 5 mins in the past, I'd consider this a true loophole, this differs for example from using a similar featureon your dvr/digital device where your device is recording live tv but youve chosen to watch it delayed by 5 mins or so so in theory you would still need a licence.

 

This is why i consider the current TV licence is unforceable and in fact I'n surprised by the amount of people who still pay for it.

 

Yes, it is a tricky one. It would depend on what is the cut off point for assumed " live TV", the amount of people doing this must be miniscule but the BBC will not touch this in court for fear of losing , far easier to suck up to the politician you went to school with. It is blatantly clear that the TVL is not for the modern age, having said that , i would be shocked if the old boys network did away with it.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If you see a program advertised as starting at 8.00 pm & you watch the program , you are watching live TV. The fact there is a delay is not relevant IMHO, you tuned in at the advertised time & are watching a live feed. Where the cut off point is, then that is arguable , there is a caveat in the law that covers the recording of live TV & watching it later, you still need a TVL . It is a subject the BBC has not touched because it can`t afford to lose the battle of live TV verses non live TV. It is a point that could only be clarified by a test case in law. There may already be a case or law that covers this, though i am not aware of it .

Link to post
Share on other sites

As most ISPs provide a "Dynamic" IP address it changes everytime someone logs on and off, it cannot be relied on as absolute proof that Joe Bloggs was watching eastbenders live catch up or otherwise, Crapita TVL would be very silly indeeed to try to prosecute for evasion on an IP address alone.

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

If you see a program advertised as starting at 8.00 pm & you watch the program , you are watching live TV. The fact there is a delay is not relevant IMHO, you tuned in at the advertised time & are watching a live feed. Where the cut off point is, then that is arguable , there is a caveat in the law that covers the recording of live TV & watching it later, you still need a TVL . It is a subject the BBC has not touched because it can`t afford to lose the battle of live TV verses non live TV. It is a point that could only be clarified by a test case in law. There may already be a case or law that covers this, though i am not aware of it .

 

Interesting, the 'live' option has a button that jumps back to the start of the program so I guess it could be argued that you are watching 'live' if the program is still actualy being broadcast, BUT by using the manual scroll bar at the bottom you can jump back normally upto 2 hours to a previous program or even the one before that, It would be prety hard to argue that you would still be watching tv 'live, as it is broadcast'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

As most ISPs provide a "Dynamic" IP address it changes everytime someone logs on and off, it cannot be relied on as absolute proof that Joe Bloggs was watching eastbenders live catch up or otherwise, Crapita TVL would be very silly indeeed to try to prosecute for evasion on an IP address alone.

 

Indeed, they would be going down the road previoulsy travelled by the likes of ACS Law , accusing people of illegally downloading, they ran into all sorts of problems regarding IP addresses.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting, the 'live' option has a button that jumps back to the start of the program so I guess it could be argued that you are watching 'live' if the program is still actualy being broadcast, BUT by using the manual scroll bar at the bottom you can jump back normally upto 2 hours to a previous program or even the one before that, It would be prety hard to argue that you would still be watching tv 'live, as it is broadcast'.

 

Do you mean sky Andy?,as i don`t have any live TV or cable facilities. I am not familiar with the workings of their system.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you mean sky Andy?,as i don`t have any live TV or cable facilities. I am not familiar with the workings of their system.

 

No..this is the online iPlayer live option, Im watching Daily Politics on it now, its 1:30 now but Ive jumped back a few hours to the begining at 11:30, am I watching 'live' tv ? Incidently Im at work which opens up another whole can of worms.

 

Similar options are available on Sky and some Virgin boxes, but in theory this may be live because the box records a live signal and the user has the option to watch it live or pause (or record) and watch it delayed or much later.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No..this is the online iPlayer live option, Im watching Daily Politics on it now, its 1:30 now but Ive jumped back a few hours to the begining at 11:30, am I watching 'live' tv ? Incidently Im at work which opens up another whole can of worms.

 

Similar options are available on Sky and some Virgin boxes, but in theory this may be live because the box records a live signal and the user has the option to watch it live or pause (or record) and watch it delayed or much later.

 

OK, thanks for that. Having never used it, i was not sure of the workings. My understanding is the Sky / Virgin system still requires a TVL, as you say it is live broadcasting but you , the viewer decide to delay it. The iPlayer? , i`m off to do some research :-)

Link to post
Share on other sites

Phew...Right, here is what i have found. This is my understanding.

 

The iPlayer is totally free to view, if you watch it as a catch up service , but the BBC also provides " live output" in the iPlayer, thus muddying the waters regarding a TVL [ sneaky eh]. If you watch any live TV through the iPlayer you require a license but you then have to prove you are only watching catch up. Delaying the start time of live broadcast through the iPlayer is deemed to be the same as Sky / Virgin, again the cut of point is not clear, but it is deliberately designed like this to complicate things & in turn keep the TVL tax afloat. The iPlayer has been described as a " Trojan horse". this is the BBC`s way of bolting on the TVL to the internet. Is it " live broadcasting ?, the BBC claim it is, they are happy [ for the moment ] to leave well alone & use it as a their major bargaining tool to bolt the TVL to the internet. As i said in my earlier post, there is a propaganda war going on at the moment. The BBC is under pressure for it`s survival like never before , the new technologies are killing it. The question is, will people stand for it?, allowing them to include the internet as part of the TVL, just like it did when TV first came along. The TVL started out for radio [ Radio license], as every technological advancement has been made in home entertainment it has bolted the TVL to the new advancement but the internet has really done the damage.

 

They have also done deals with the major gaming console / TV manufacturers to include the iPlayer into their boxes / TV`s for free, again another way of subliminally incorporating the iPlayer into as many homes as possible, thus ensuring the continuation of the TVL tax.

 

As regards to this being a loophole:-), lets use this scenario , the TVL salesmen arrive to test your equipment, you show them that you have no live feed facility , but you have the iPlayer on your TV , they will then put you in court because you have the facility to watch live TV but are not licensed to do so. You can`t remove the iPlayer facility from your TV, catch 22 , done & dusted.

Sorry for the length of the post .

Link to post
Share on other sites

As regards to this being a loophole, lets use this scenario , the TVL salesmen arrive to test your equipment, you show them that you have no live feed facility , but you have the iPlayer on your TV , they will then put you in court because you have the facility to watch live TV but are not licensed to do so. You can`t remove the iPlayer facility from your TV, catch 22 , done & dusted.

Sorry for the length of the post

 

I have a better scenario. The capital goons arrive, you tell them to bog off and shut the door. Done deal. They cant force entry, they cant get a court order without evidence you are viewing live tv, so they run off after someone more gullible. Therefore, no further input is needed :)

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...