Jump to content
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times. ×


  • Tweets

  • Posts

  • Recommended Topics

  • Our picks

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

      BankFodder posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

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

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • Big Motoring World Enfield /Blackhorse - done over on car - @BigMotoringWrld

      ATJ posted a topic in Vehicle retailers and manufacturers,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,

    • A2Dominion - Housing Association property flooding - damning ombudsman report

      WanTToMoveOn posted a topic in Residential and Commercial lettings/Freehold issues,

      Housing Association property flooding. https://www.consumeractiongroup.co.uk/topic/438641-housing-association-property-flooding/&do=findComment&comment=5124299
      • 161 replies
      WanTToMoveOn

      Picked By

      WanTToMoveOn,

    • Post in Suing a parcel delivery company when you don't have a direct contract with them – third-party rights Copy of judgment available

      BankFodder posted a post in a topic,

      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
      BankFodder

      Picked By

      BankFodder,
    View All
Twitter X - Include the @company's twitter name in your post title – here's why…
The UK Stands With Ukraine - 'Slava Ukraini'
Parcel delivery insurance is prohibited under section 57 – Consumer Rights Act – Read about It Here and in The Times.

I don't own a TV and they're demanding 1.5k back-payment through their clerical error!

joan_of_arc

By joan_of_arc
in TV Licensing

 Share
style="text-align: center;">  

Thread Locked

because no one has posted on it for the last 3383 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

joan_of_arc

joan_of_arc

Posted
Posted

Hi,

 

 

TV Licencing have written to me saying that since 04/01/2005 they have been taking direct debits from a third party for my TV licence

(this is just over 7 years ago.)

 

 

They've admitted it is their error and the third party bank have only just informed them.

 

 

They've refunded the third party bank account and are now demanding nearly one and a half grand,

telling me I have 28 days to pay or they will recover the amount under the Communications Act 2003 Section 364 (5).

 

We don't own a TV.

 

 

I've always just chucked letters from TV licencing in the bin before

but opened this in a hurry with a bunch of other mail without checking who it was from.

 

What legal recourse do I have?

 

 

I don't want to risk my credit rating being compromised.

Link to post
Share on other sites
joan_of_arc

joan_of_arc

Posted
  • Author
Posted

We got rid of the TV around the time this claim goes back to. We wrote to them asking them to cancel the direct debit and the direct debits stopped so we assumed there wasn't a problem. I presume this is where the mix up started. Anyway my point is, have you got any idea what happens now? They have obviously made a clerical error of some sort, stopped our direct debits but instead taken them from someone else and are now trying to recover the money from us which seems totally wrong to me! You can't just demand nearly 1500 quid from someone because you made a mistake a decade ago. WTF?!

Link to post
Share on other sites
renegadeimp

renegadeimp

Posted
Posted
Hi,

 

 

TV Licencing have written to me saying that since 04/01/2005 they have been taking direct debits from a third party for my TV licence

(this is just over 7 years ago.)

 

 

They've admitted it is their error and the third party bank have only just informed them.

 

 

They've refunded the third party bank account and are now demanding nearly one and a half grand,

telling me I have 28 days to pay or they will recover the amount under the Communications Act 2003 Section 364 (5).

 

We don't own a TV.

 

 

I've always just chucked letters from TV licencing in the bin before

but opened this in a hurry with a bunch of other mail without checking who it was from.

 

What legal recourse do I have?

 

 

I don't want to risk my credit rating being compromised.

 

SO they will recover the amount under:

 

(5)The BBC may revoke or modify a TV licence, or the restrictions or conditions of such a licence—

 

(a)by a notice to the holder of the licence; or

 

(b)by a general notice published in such manner as may be specified in the licence.

 

Umm... i might be stupid, but yeah. I dont get 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
Bazooka Boo

Bazooka Boo

Posted
Posted

TVL or rather the BBC have nothing to do with credit files, it is simply a TV tax which will is dying a death.

 

I'm assuming you've never had any of their doorstep sellers trying to flog you a licence?

You've not allowed them entry to your premises?

And you've never signed their TVL178 form? Which is what they MUST have to proceed with any legal action against you, without it

they are just willy waving, and they will never get anywhere near a court.

 

The 178 form is nothing more than your admission that you are guilty of watching TV without a licence, unless you're in N.I. where they are misusing the RIPA act

and all those without a TVL are deemed terrorists!

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
joan_of_arc

joan_of_arc

Posted
  • Author
Posted
No, they can't just demand out of the blue you pay them. They will have to prove you have had a tv and that the person they have been robbing all these years didn't have a tv.

 

Thanks for your help Conniff, but as I said in the OP:

 

They've refunded the third party bank account. So I take that to mean that the third party don't have to prove anything, they've now been refunded.

 

SO they will recover the amount under:

 

(5)The BBC may revoke or modify a TV licence, or the restrictions or conditions of such a licence—

 

(a)by a notice to the holder of the licence; or

 

(b)by a general notice published in such manner as may be specified in the licence.

 

Umm... i might be stupid, but yeah. I dont get it.

 

Me neither. How does that mean they can recover the amount? :???:

 

I'm assuming you've never had any of their doorstep sellers trying to flog you a licence?

You've not allowed them entry to your premises?

 

Nope.

 

And you've never signed their TVL178 form? Which is what they MUST have to proceed with any legal action against you, without it

they are just willy waving, and they will never get anywhere near a court.

The 178 form is nothing more than your admission that you are guilty of watching TV without a licence

 

Naturally I ain't signed that. I was paying a TV licence for 25 years. :!:

 

unless you're in N.I. where they are misusing the RIPA act and all those without a TVL are deemed terrorists!
:smile:
Link to post
Share on other sites
Conniff

Conniff

Posted
Posted
They've refunded the third party bank account. So I take that to mean that the third party don't have to prove anything, they've now been refunded.

 

 

So what makes them tie this in with you. I can't think of a more inept company.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Bazooka Boo

Bazooka Boo

Posted
Posted
So what makes them tie this in with you. I can't think of a more inept company.

 

DWP ??

 

Are the addressing you by name?

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
 Share
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 Caggers

    • No registered users viewing this page.

  • Have we helped you ...?


Follow: @real_CAG

Navigation Links

Welcome
CAG Community Centre
CAG Library
Banks & Credit
Other financial Institutions
Retail
Non-Retail
Work & Social
PayDay and Short term Loans
Debt
Motoring
Legal

Latest

Our Picks


Help and Support

CAG Library
Questions about This Site
Change your notification sound
Change your profile picture - FREE!


Useful LInks

County Court Forms
MoneyClaim Online
CPR - Pre-Action Protocols
Civil Procedure Rules
UK Legislation
Youth Consumer Service

Reclaim the right Ltd

registered in the UK
reg.05783665
reg. office:-
262 Uxbridge Road, Hatch End
England
HA5 4HS

The Consumer Action Group

The National Consumer Service
×
×
  • Create New...