Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • Thanks for your reply. We didn't even know they issued us with a ccj until I target got a credit report and it come up, we had no paperwork warning us.    I don't know when the ccj was issued just know on my credit report says it get removed oct 2020.    Mortimore Clark are welcome finance solicitor as far as I am aware... Nothing to do with the ccj.    I know the ccj has been added to our property as end of this year we will be in position to pay of mortgage and its £18000 more then what we owe and mortgage company said its a charge for a loan so in theory we may pay it twice if I am paying solicitors (well in small amounts) 
    • and you can't click on the enter a defence option. sometimes we've found you can.   you should have come here sooner an we would have made sure you did it right...  
    • get an sar off to welcome they can't refuse.   who are mortimers client, the claimant of the CCJ and the charge upon your deeds.   welcome would have added £1000's in unlawful penalty fees for everything from letters/phonecalls/arrears fees/it's raining today, your fault. when was the CCJ attained too please?  
    • We applied for a joint loan for £9000 in 2010 which was secured against our home, in 2012 we were declared bankrupt but because we kept our house the loan stood while we were going through our financial problems we defaulted on the loan.   We had then started making payments but with all the interest etc it went past the £9000 we originally borrowed. We got the loan down to £6000 then hubby lost job and we seriously couldn't even afford to pay a penny and again it built back up.   The debt is now with a solicitor and now we owe according to them £18000. I have requested from welcome finance every payment we have made, every statement etc they have refused.   We are only making payments of £65 a month going to take forever but its also gone to a ccj which should have been removed on Oct last year.   Where can I go for help with the dispute over the amount we owe. Thanks   Solicitor is mortimore Clarke 
    • Hi Guys,   Looking for some advice - Lowell claimed against me for old mobile debt - I stupidly thought that I had 33 days after Acknowledgment, as you know this is not right - after recovering from Covid I thought I start my defence today only to read that I might be too late I've just checked on line to find the below - is there anything I can do?   Kind regards   Lushni   Your acknowledgment of service was submitted on 04/01/2021 at 10:48:10 Your acknowledgment of service was received on 04/01/2021 at 12:05:37 A judgment was issued against you on 22/01/2021 at 19:16:12
  • Our picks

    • 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
    • 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

Could backbench campaign lead to end of TV licence ?


Please note that this topic has not had any new posts for the last 2487 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...