Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • you need to ring northants bulk and ask for a copy of the judgement and the claimform by email pdf. it is quite usual for them to not have a copy of the claimform. so you need to record the call and ask them to read out the particulars of claim and the address it was sent too.     old wives tales , if you have a debt owing that shows on your credit file or you know exists from say the last 7yrs you should NEVER move without WRITTING to the debt owner with your new address. never run from debt which falls within the above .     all mortgage style SLC loans that were not deferred with erudio following the gov't sale in 2013 and that did not have a court claim raised within 6yrs are SB'd.   drydens simply did this because they wrote to your old address, got no response, and knew they'd get a default roboclaim CCJ where no human checks anything.   shot yourself in the foot.      
    • yep.   if all these are still owned/with the original creditors and you are not paying any powerless DCA's  then little point in any CCA requests at this stage unless any (non OD A/C's) are say pre 2000 opening.   our pro rata letters are the way to go you'll find those in the debt collection section of our library.   get any income payments on going or otherwise moved into a parachute A/c.   it is most probable that whatever you do most A/c's will be defaulted once this is done if not already. bearing in mine your wish to re mortgage or move in a future, it is most probable that the quicker you do default , the earlier a DN will be registered thus the earlier these will not show following their 6th birthday. this might involve you thinking about stopping all payments now ensuring this does happen, then resuming payment under a pro rata scheme self administered , once this happens.   just be aware that no DMP providers will ever question enforceability, should that be relevant.     
    • LL would have Absolutely no chance of getting the smart meter changed back.....
    • slow down ...read what i'm asking , stating and trying to clarify.. it all might seem useless or totally irrelevant but it's important information moving forward with the whole situation and useful in the SPC claim moving forward     there was not 2 loans - the litigated OD is not a loan but it appears from your comment here..     sorry but then you did get scammed on many fronts... they allowed you to settle the loan exploiting your confusion over thinking it was the litigated account. they didn't tell you either and they would also have been aware of your statement filed response form:   The respondent had a junior account with the Bank of Scotland since a young age.  The Bank of Scotland offered the Respondent a loan of around £2500. This Respondent serviced the loan until losing her source of income and ran into some financial difficulty resulting in defaulting in servicing the loan.   they settled for a discounted sum... why? we usually find this is because they hold no enforceable paperwork at all. or was full of charges , charges could have been the discount or it could have been due to 'a business decision' ...   but sure as eggs is eggs there is no way 1st credit would not have raised a court claim for both the OD and the loan unless there was a very good reason. they didn't that smells...badly.   OD 's are notoriously difficult to litigate upon if defended properly...but with a loan in the same claim, with enforceable paperwork, they would have almost been guaranteed to win.   it's also a shame you didn't come where before you did anything but we are where we are.   now the above might seem harsh..even petty but our posts are not only for you and your issue they are also for future readers that find us via search engines or read like threads here alerting debtors to frequent pitfalls and innocent wet myself actions many do that all these dca's will and have exploited time and time again over the last +40yrs .   i'll try and get around to properly redacting all your pdf's tonight and get them back up. but before i finish and get on with the above........the status of the claim as it stands now.   From what i can gather the claim now hinges upon proving her ex at the time settled by a discounted payment to HBOS well before the sale to Intrum and the SPC Claim.   In all honestly and with regard to your comments in your previous posts upon his character, i seriously doubt this ever happened. the disclosures from Intrum contain all the OD statements , should that have happened, it would be detailed in those.   there is little point in the claimant hiding that info as they would be in far more legal trouble should they have doctored them than insuring a mere +£1k claim win. Even 1st credit wouldn't pull such stunts.   Sorry but there is little point in requesting HBOS to attend any future hearing, nor hoping the SAR shows anything different to the statements the claimant has disclosed . That will cost you more money , and more money in terms of the claimant attending another hearing.   there is one exploitation i see. that being the mention of a default notice. the claim states:  The respondent fell into arrears under the Finance Agreement. A Default Notice was Issued by the Original Creditor .   now default notices are not issued for OD A/C's (which ties in to the possible loan confusion and scam settlement i mentioned) . This tallies with a common mistake that many DCA's, including why i keep mentioning 1st credit, which is the previous name for Intrum, made on numerous claims and was one of the reasons for the name change. To Hide that They lost many Statutory Demand and court claims over the non existence of a DN or proof of it's issuance by the OC (a DCA can't issue a DN) .. No copy of a default notice is fatal to to successful  litigation.   even though in this OD case one was not ever needed. (Poor particulars of claim showing copy and paste, and never expecting a claim to be defended but responded to by a wet themselves response , which you did by settling a loan which you believed was the claimed debt when it never was)    other than that you indicate you made an OOC F&F offer in 09-20  have you advanced this option since ?   dx
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • Hermes lost parcel.. Read more at https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/422615-hermes-lost-parcel/
      • 49 replies

Could backbench campaign lead to end of TV licence ?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2484 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

The answer is one that frightens the BBC to it`s very core. A voluntary subscription service. Go it alone & survive in the real world like the rest of us do.

 

I don`t care about the BBC , i care about the fact it is a tax & unfair competition. It has so many ill`s , it is not worth going over them again. This next review is going to be very interesting as to the outcome of the LF tax. My hunch is it will get a continuation of the LF tax but with caveats, the old boy network will keep her afloat............................. this time

Link to post
Share on other sites

For starters a subtle logo advertising a company would be a start. They should gradually reduce the license fee over the next four years to 75%, then 50% and then 25% and finally 0%. Whilst increasing advertising revenue each year.

Link to post
Share on other sites
For starters a subtle logo advertising a company would be a start. They should gradually reduce the license fee over the next four years to 75%, then 50% and then 25% and finally 0%. Whilst increasing advertising revenue each year.

 

 

 

I fully agree with this then anyone like me that does not like adverts can record then skip through when you do watch.

 

 

dpick

cannot find it A to Z

 

http://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/forum/consumer-forums-website-questions/53182-cant-find-what-youre.html

 

 

Halifax :D

Paid in full £2295

 

MBNA:mad: 20/03/2008 settled in full out of court

 

Capital One:D

07/07/2007 Capital one charges paid in full £1666

19/01/2008 recovered PPI £2216 + costs

 

Littlewoods :-D

12/08/2007 write off £1176.10 debt.

 

JD Williams charges refunded in full £640

Link to post
Share on other sites

A subscription model would be good, say an extra quid or two on a sky subscription per month should do it. or a couple of quid to unscramble Freeview/Freesat. The other non BBC channels could be still free to air with no criminal consequences for watching. I Playere could also have a restricted access model, with a subscription either standalone or tied to the main fee, as in pay ££2.50 for access to all £2 for TV channels, or a quid for I Player 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

A expected the BBC are not happy with this situation.Today, James Purnell the Beeb's director of Strategy and Digital says that the move would be a huge risk and lead to a rise in the number of people who fail to pay.

Apparently the rate of evasion is 5% so were it to rise to 10% as a result of removing the criminalising [if there is such a word]of the penalty,then that would equal the cost of runningall of BBC Four, the CBBC and the CBeebies.

 

He carried on to say that the decriminalisation of the fee would penalise the poor? Does he not realise that the cost of the Licence already penalises the poor and is then compounded by giving them a criminal record for something they cannot afford and often don't watch.

 

Perhaps the BeeB could put their house in order first.

They pay huge salaries to celebrities;they pay huge payouts to dismissed employees and their staff appear to get individual taxis to get them home even though there may be several staff going the same way

all around the same time.

I am sure that people who work or who have worked there will know of many other instances of waste on a large scale.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The key problem with a model based upon advertising is that the beeb would lose much of its quality programming. As much as the actual organisation annoys me, much of the output is very high quality. The last we need is yet another bastion of retardation like ITV. The out-dated, hierarchal management structure needs to go. Big time.

Link to post
Share on other sites

I can`t see why everyone assumes that the BBC needs advertising to be a part of a subscription package. If they went down the subscription route , scrambled the output , the uptake for those that want to watch the BBC should be in line with the current TVL tax system ?. No need for adverts , like all monopolies they are top heavy & prone to waste money, local councils & governments spring to mind. I think in the circumstances i have laid out it would force the BBC to address the vast amounts of money it wastes, streamline the management structure & force them to concentrate on the real business of output. Those that already enjoy & are happy to pay will continue , those that don`t will not & won`t be able to view live output . This would give people a choice, that is fair in my view, it should be a choice & not a tax. The truth is that the whole system is calling out for change, clinging on to the past is not cutting it in today's world. Surely it is better to be in on the negotiations of change than have them forced upon you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
I hope the government doesnt renew its charter and then a new BBC can be created. Bet my house it wont happen.

The government are very unlikley to get rid of it, all governments like to have at least one mouthpiece that they control.

All of these are on behalf of a friend.. Cabot - [There's no CCA!]

CapQuest - [There's no CCA!]

Barclays - Zinc, [There's no CCA!]

Robinson Way - Written off!

NatWest - Written off!

Link to post
Share on other sites

Could be a very dangerous thing for people if it is decriminalised. A lower level of proof is needed for a civil action and enforcement could become a big earner for the BBC and enforcement agencies. If anyone is in any doubt about what goes on in civil enforcement have a look at the debt/bailiff and HCEO sub forum on this group. People will end up having to let BBC agents round their houses to prove they don't have a TV.

Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Labour to support a vote in favour of a review into decriminalizing ...

 

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/entertainment-arts-26711459

 

http://www.govyou.co.uk/decriminalization-of-tv-licence-non-payment/

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

 

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Could be a very dangerous thing for people if it is decriminalised. A lower level of proof is needed for a civil action and enforcement could become a big earner for the BBC and enforcement agencies. If anyone is in any doubt about what goes on in civil enforcement have a look at the debt/bailiff and HCEO sub forum on this group. People will end up having to let BBC agents round their houses to prove they don't have a TV.

 

Might catch a few license dodgers out then. It annoys me that people who should pay for one and watch live tv, hide behind their rights to avoid access and get caught out.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Might catch a few license dodgers out then. It annoys me that people who should pay for one and watch live tv, hide behind their rights to avoid access and get caught out.

 

But why should someone with no proof and what is essentially a civil debt be allowed to nose around your property ? This is different from bailiffs, etc as in those cases the debt has been proven and therefore (rightly or wrongly) they have been given the right (with limitations) to enter your property.

Link to post
Share on other sites

If there was a law that said you have to hop 2 miles every day and pay your local tesco £30 for no reason, would you do 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

This really isn't the same thing as what you described. More like paying for sainsburys bananas but getting them from co op. Yes I would if it was the law but I would be actively involved in fighting to change it.

 

Bottom line it is the law currently, I guess all those people who don't have a license will have to get themselves down the pub for the World Cup in the summer as they can't watch the games live at home. Unless you avoid the scores and watch later on catch up.

Link to post
Share on other sites
guess all those people who don't have a license will have to get themselves down the pub for the World Cup in the summer as they can't watch the games live at home.

 

Thats pretty much what i do anyway for big games. Much better atmosphere than sitting at home.

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

Nothing like being at the actual game, but if not I still prefer to have mates round and watch it on my setup. With he money I spent on it and my sky sub, it's a no brainer. Beers cheaper too.

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • 2 weeks later...

Nick Ross was on The Daily Politics show today explaining that the TV Licence should be scrapped and a subscription system should be brought in place.

He debated his film with MPs David Willetts and Emily Thornberry.

 

A short film he made is included in the weblink http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-politics-26851480

 

A link to the Daily Politics Show is included within the BBC page (Nick Ross segment is after questions to the dictator).

 

Stigman

NEVER telephone a DCA

If a DCA rings you, refuse to go through the security questions & hang up!

 

If I have helped you, click on the star & say thank you

Link to post
Share on other sites

Good post Stigman

 

A sensible , mature & modern thinking look at the way forward for the BBC by a man who clearly loves, believes & cares about it`s future. You would think that given this mans passion , reputation & experience of the BBC , he would be brought in to some kind of future planning role / appointment. No, new carpets & over staffed jollies to the world cup are the order of the day.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Same old elitist greedy BBC, they want the German sysytem, pay the TV Tax even if you dont own a TV or anything that you can watch a programme on

 

from the Torygraph

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/tvandradio/bbc/10746109/BBC-wants-you-to-pay-TV-licence-fee-even-if-you-dont-own-a-set-as-shows-go-on-iPlayer-for-longer.html

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
  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    No registered users viewing this page.


  • Have we helped you ...?


×
×
  • Create New...