Jump to content


  • Tweets

  • Posts

    • So do I gather that you are out of pocket to the tune of £2500 which is part of the purchase price and a further £1800 in respect of the warranty? The £2500 was used to buy the car. Did warranties200 per year or did they pay big motoring world directly?
    • Farage has agreed to be interviewed by Nick Robinson on Panorama. 7pm this Friday, BBC1. He didn't do very well last time he was questioned on specific policies.
    • I did what I told my husband not to do…and I telephoned them. All credit where it’s due, the lady on the phone was very helpful. I’m not gonna lie I broke down on the phone as this has been incredibly stressful. Perhaps that helped, but I would like to think they just realised they sold us a faulty car.    so we only bought one extended warranty and that was with Nissan. The car salesman gave us the hard sell and we fell for 100%! Part of the sell was if there was ever a problem then we would only ever take the car to a Nissan garage. There was a problem after a few days and we were instructed to go to a third party grange! We contacted Nissan on the phone and they said they would put on a complaint for us so maybe that helped too.    we just want to try and get all of our spend back now. The deposit, money for the finance and money for the extended warranty. I reload we will probably have to pay costs but I guess we can’t argue with that. We just need a new car!!!! Aaarrgghhhh!    thanks so much for your help once again. 
    • Right I see I didn't realise it had to be laid out like that. I have had another go, sorry I'm really struggling here! 1.The Defendant contends that the particulars of claim are vague and generic in nature. The Defendant accordingly sets out its case below and relies on CPR r 16.5 (3) in relation to any particular allegation to which a specific response has not been made. 2. The claimant has thus far been unable to produce any evidence that the alleged debt has been legally assigned to them. Nor have they been able to provide evidence that notice of assignment was given to the defendant on the dates stated in the particulars of their claim. 3. The claimant has given no details as to the breakdown of their claim or what dates it relates to. As a result the defendant is unable to specifically defend the claim until the claimant can show how the amount has been reached. In the claimants particulars of claim, the claimant openly admits that they have a copy of the agreement and its terms and conditions but have failed to provide these to the defendant. Pursuant to the civil procedure rules Practice Direction 16 (7.3) Where a claim is based upon a  written agreement: (1) a copy of the contract or documents constituting the agreement should be attached to or served with the particulars of claim and the original(s)  should be available at  the hearing. With the court’s permission the Claimant is put to strict proof to:- a) show and disclose how the Defendant has entered into an agreement; b) show and disclose how the Claimant has reached the amount claimed ; c) show how the Claimant has the legal right, either under statute or equity to issue a claim; 4. As per Civil Procedure Rule 16.5 (4) it is expected that the Claimant prove the allegation that the money is owed. 5. It is therefore denied that the defendant is indebted to the claimant as alleged or at all.
  • 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 Coverage Problem


Scared09
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3648 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

So my problem is as thus.

 

I own a flat and do not watch TV but my tenant does. Since we had just moved in, I did not have a TV and certainly not a TV license. My tenant however bought a TV and said she would deal with the TV licensing issue and pay for it and I took her word for it.

 

A few days ago, I received a letter from TV licensing stating that it has not been paid and I would need to take action by the 17th of June, if not they would submit my address for investigation. So I asked my flatmate to send me the email confirming that the TV license has indeed been paid. She said she had definitely dealt with it but has not sent the email, with some cockamamie reasons. I contacted TV license and inquired if my address is covered and they said 'We cannot divulge information whether you are covered by TV licensing because of the data protection act'.

 

I was wondering what my next course of action should be?

Link to post
Share on other sites

Personally i would ignore tv licencing and if they come to your house, ignore them and not open the door.

 

Regarding the DPA, that excuse is BS. It is YOUR flat so you have a full right to know if theres a licence held at that address or not.

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

Certainly ignore them, don't give them any details whatsoever, don't call them at all, if they turn up at your address you are under absolutely no legal obligation to talk to them or divulge any personal information whatsoever, shut the door.

 

No contact, no personal details, ignore all their petty threat letters.

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

Unfortunately I already have contacted them. Whilst I did not give any personal details, I did however provide my address. Would that be a problem?

 

In regards to providing me with the information, is there a way I can force them to divulge information on my flat beyond taking them to court?

Link to post
Share on other sites

I seriously wouldn't worry about them, what letters are they sending to your address, how are they addressed? to you personally or 'the legal occupier'?

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

Hi Scared09

 

Aren't you chasing the wrong party for information? Write a letter to your flatmate stating that if she has not purchased a TV license, then she will pay the license fee, all fines, all court costs etc. Get her to sign it. Hold her accountable for her actions.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Hi Bazooka Boo

They are addressed to the occupier. What would that mean?

 

Hi Rebel11

The point is not flatmate. The point is I want to know if the TV licensing has in their records, that the TV license for my flat has been paid for. Regardless of whether or not my flatmate has paid for it, if they do not have an account for it, I personally do not fancy going to court to fight it out seeing as she's moving out soon. Seeing as it is my flat, I believe I have a right to know what is being covered for my flat.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Addressed to the Occupier means that they have no idea who lives there and never will unless you tell them.

 

There will be no court unless you decide to give TVL the information they need and allow them into your property whereby they get you to sign a document

where you say your guilty of the civil offence of not purchasing the TV tax.

 

Then when you go to court and the judge hands down a fine, of circa 2-300 quid, if you fail to pay that then it is a criminal offence.

The TV tax is dead in the water tbh, another couple of years and it will either be scrapped completely or it will go to subscription based for anyone wanting to watch their drivel.

 

Yes you get lots of scary looking letters claiming legal and lawful in the same sentence, and ''what to expect in court'' but these are about as much use

as indicators on a submarine, if you don't need a TVL to watch live broadcasts, then you can ignore them, no contact, if one of their commission based (£20 per victim)

knock your door, either ignore them, or tell them to go away as you don't purchase stuff on the doorstep.

 

Any notion of search warrants to search your property for a TV, are fake, the warrant does not give them the right of entry, tell the police who will be in tow (purely to prevent a breach of the peace, unless they have ideas above their pay grade) that they should leave and return with the correct documentation and shut the door.

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

Fully agree with BB. It's a threat letter thats very carefully worded to get you to contact them so they can get a name on the address and start chasing you.

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 you don't respond they will send an ever increasingly threatening set of threatOgrams, and may even knock, but you don't have to speak or deal with them, just slam the door in their face and say nowt. They need people to stitch themselves up on the doorstep.

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

There is a fb page that is also advising the same as others.

 

1 record them when they come to your door.

2 DONT TELL THEM OR COMFIRM ANYTHING.

3 Tell them to leave and dont come back. In writing tell them you dont have a tv dont need a license and remove there rights to access.

4 sit back and enjoy the peace.

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

The TV licence doesn't belong to the flat, it belongs to a person - so TVL are quite right in not being able to disclose if a licence is there or not. One licence will normally cover everyone living as a family unit within the flat, but it is feasible for some properties to require more than one licence (eg if you are not living as a family unit, in student halls for example, each bedroom will require a licence if they have a TV in there, and a tv in the lounge will be covered by any one licence in a bedroom).

 

The point is not flatmate. The point is I want to know if the TV licensing has in their records, that the TV license for my flat has been paid for.
Link to post
Share on other sites

Good point but it does depend on what they have been told

OFT debt collection guidance

 

Please remember the only stupid question is the one you dont ask so dont worry about asking the stupid questions.

 

Essex girl in pc world looking 4 curtains 4 her pc,the assistant says u dont need curtains 4 a computer!!Essex girl says,''HELLOOO!! i,ve got WINDOWS!!'.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Ignore them, they have nothing except a computer which sends out reams of deforestation on a monthly basis, there are four letters which are on a rotation,

one claiming to tell you ''what you need to know before court'' another that ''an investigation has been opened'' blah blah blah.

 

File them away under ignore, and if anyone does turn up at random, you can either laugh and shut the door, wave at them through the window, stand there with your arms folded not saying anything, just staring at them, ask them if they have mae an appointment? Any number of things really, they are as much use as indicators on a submarine.

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

Bazooka Boo is correct, but if you say nowt and hold your phone up as if to film them trough the window, they usually scarper quickly

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...